'The world is behaving irrationally' - Putin's warm welcome in Alaska gets cold reaction in Ukraine
Live updatesFive takeaways from the Trump-Putin summitTrump touts peace deal after leaving Alaska
For the Russian president, who has been shunned internationally since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the greeting marked the beginning of a remarkable return to the global diplomatic stage and set a tone that would continue throughout the day.In Ukraine, it was not a welcome sight."Red carpets and this level of ceremony are normal at international events, but in this case – for an aggressor responsible for the deaths of millions – it should not have happened," said Maria Drachova, 40, a lawyer in the capital Kyiv.Drachova, who woke up and watched the footage over breakfast, said it appeared as though "the entire event was staged to please Putin"."The rational world is behaving irrationally by giving him this welcome," she said.
Putin's plane had been escorted into the airbase in Alaska by four American fighter jets and as he strolled down the red carpet, talking jovially with Trump, an American B-2 bomber flew overhead flanked by four more jets.Ukrainians who had stayed up late to watch the spectacle were seeing the "legitimisation of a war criminal at the highest level", said Oleksandr Kovalenko, a Ukrainian writer and political analyst."There was no need for this pomp at all," Kovalenko said. "This is a meeting that should have been conducted in a much more restrained way – minimalistic, without this level of respect."After the greetings, Trump and Putin sat down in front of a gaggle of reporters at Elmendorf Air Force Base, under a banner that read "Pursuing Peace". A question was shouted at Putin: "Will you you stop killing civilians?"The Russian leader appeared to smirk, and gestured to his ear to suggest he couldn't hear.Along with the smiles, laughter, and general good will on show, the gesture struck a very sour note in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have been killed and wounded in Russia's war of aggression."When I saw what happened I felt crushed," said Serhii Orlyk, 50, from the eastern province of Donetsk, which has been largely seized by Russian forces and seen some of the most intense fighting of the war."I lost my home twice, in Sloviansk and in Donetsk. I lost relatives," Orlyk said. "I understand that to agree on something, there must be protocol, you cannot just slap Putin in the face when he arrives. But it was a very unpleasant spectacle – especially his smirks."
The deference to Putin continued after the negotiations. In a joint statement to the press, Trump gave way to the Russian leader to speak first. He spoke for about eight minutes, carefully avoiding any mention of how the war began – with a striking and unprovoked act by Russia.Putin appeared energetic, satisfied by how the summit had gone. Trump, by contrast, appeared uncharacteristically deflated, and spoke for barely two minutes. He could not boast of anything approaching a deal – the currency by which he tends to operate.Instead, he had handed the initiative to Putin, said Kier Giles, a senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House."It was a massive victory for Putin even before he got off the plane, to be rehabilitated in this manner," Giles said. "Trump has facilitated him arriving to be greeted as a head of state, when he ought to be finding it difficult to travel because he is an internationally wanted war criminal."
Trump's approach would be unlikely to inspire European leaders to follow suit, Giles said. "If anything, it will reinforce how important it is not to endorse Putin's demands on Ukraine, and not to subject themselves to the same kinds of spectacle that is earning Trump scorn."In a statement on Saturday, President Zelensky stressed the importance of European leaders being present at every stage of the negotiations. They are often seen as a bulwark against the possibility of Trump being unduly influenced by Putin.But before that happens, Zelensky will head on Monday back to Washington, the scene of his disastrous Oval Office clash with Trump back in February. He will be hoping for a better outcome this time, and a path to peace that doesn't involve surrendering to Russia's aggressive demands.The US had a "wide range of tools" at its disposal to assist Ukraine in that mission, said Oleksandr Kovalenko, the political analyst. But pomp and ceremony for President Putin should not be among them, he said."Perhaps this was all intended to deceive and flatter Putin, and push him into following the White House's strategy," Kovalenko said."But I doubt it. More likely it is Trump's whim, without any strategy at all."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukraine drone attack injures train station employee in Russia's Voronezh, governor says
Aug 17 (Reuters) - A railway employee was injured and a power line damaged by a Ukrainian drone attack at a station in Russia's Voronezh region, the regional governor said on Sunday. "According to preliminary information, a railway station track technician was injured in one of the municipalities," Alexander Gusev said of the overnight attack on the Telegram messaging app. "He has been hospitalised." Gusev said the attack caused train delays, but by Sunday morning trains were running back on schedule. The Russian defence ministry, which reports only how many drones its units destroy not how many Ukraine launches, said on the Telegram messaging app that nine drones were downed over the Voronezh region in Russia's southwest. In total, the ministry said, its defence systems destroyed 46 Ukrainian drones overnight, all of them in regions west of Moscow. Reuters could not independently verify the Russian reports. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine. Kyiv says that its strikes inside Russia are in answer to Moscow's continued attacks on Ukraine and are aimed at destroying infrastructure key to Russia's war efforts. The reports of the attacks came after a summit between the U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin yielded no agreement on ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Trump said on Saturday that Kyiv should make a deal with Moscow to end the war because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not."
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Zelenskyy knows he risks another Oval Office ambush - but has to be a willing participant in peace talks
There will be no red carpet or fly past, no round of applause when Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington DC on Monday. But the bitter memory of his last visit to the White House will feature prominently in the Ukrainian president's thoughts. In February, he was mocked for not wearing a suit and told he didn't "have the cards" by US President Donald Trump, before being walked off the premises early, like an unruly patron being thrown out of the bar. 3:10 Zelenskyy knows he is risking another ambush in the Oval Office but has to present himself as a willing participant in peace talks, out of fear of being painted as the obstacle to a resolution. There was initially measured optimism in Kyiv after Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, because it appeared that no deal had been cut between Washington and the Kremlin without Ukraine in the room, as had been feared. But that restrained positivity quickly evaporated with the release of a statement by Trump the morning after the night before. In the heady heights of a meeting with strongman Putin, he seemed to have abandoned the one key thing that European leaders had impressed upon him - that there had to be an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine as an absolute starting point to a permanent resolution. Trump had apparently reached the conclusion that no ceasefire was required. "The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine... is to go directly to a peace agreement," is how he put it on his Truth Social media account. 23:24 That sent shockwaves through Kyiv. Many there and elsewhere believe Russia has no intention of stopping the war yet, and will use its military advantage on the battlefield to pressure Ukraine in drawn-out negotiations to give up more territory. In the meantime, the slaughter of Ukrainians will continue. It is the most dramatic of 180s from Trump, who before the meeting and after lobbying from European leaders had said he would not be happy if Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire, and even promised "severe consequences". Yet now reports suggest Trump is giving credence to the Russian position - in a phone call to Zelenskyy he laid out Putin's proposal that Ukraine relinquishes even more territory, in return for an end to the war. The Ukrainian president will have, no doubt, been distressed to see the pictures of Putin being greeted like a king on an American military base in Alaska. It is in direct contrast to how he was hosted on US soil. In Trump's orbit everything is a personality contest, and where he has very obvious deference to Putin, he has disdain for Zelenskyy. That makes the Ukrainian's position very difficult.
