The Alaska summit doesn't look good for Ukraine
Yesterday's meeting was a historic event: this was the first time Trump and Putin had met in person since 2019, and the first time the Russian president had stepped foot on American soil in a decade. The American delegation did their best to treat Putin as the global statesman – rather than pariah – that he has always craved. A red carpet was rolled out for him at the airport, with Trump himself there to meet him and shake his hand on landing.
Yesterday had the potential to be pivotal for the war in Ukraine. In refusing to pull the trigger on the secondary sanctions he had threatened against countries that buy Russian oil, and instead calling this summit, Trump had created a unique opportunity to appeal directly to Putin. The American president had kept his cards close to his chest in the run up to the summit, but had variously floated ideas about 'land swaps', including retrieving for Ukraine its 'ocean real estate', and bringing in 'severe consequences' in the form of sanctions if Putin didn't comply.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his European allies had spent the week fearing the worst and appealing to Trump not to sign away the country's territory to Putin without consulting Zelensky first. Trump had appeared to agree, saying discussions about exchanging territory would come at a second, follow-up meeting between the three leaders.
And yet, despite the global attention yesterday's meeting received, surprisingly little is known about how it went or what – if anything – was agreed. The leaders met one-on-one for three hours, followed by a wider three-hour meeting that also included their political entourages.
Ahead of the summit, Trump had said a joint press conference with Putin afterwards, or simply one on his own, would depend on how things between them went. In the event, the two leaders did a short, 12-minute press conference together, taking no questions. The working lunch due to take place between both delegations was cancelled and the two leaders boarded their planes for home shortly afterwards. Trump, who typically likes to think out loud on his Truth Social media platform, remained uncharacteristically quite on there on the trip back to Washington.
Speaking to Fox News afterwards though, Trump said the two had a 'very good meeting'. And yet, with little seemingly achieved by the American President to help Ukraine fend off its invader, it's hard to see how this is the case. Things for Putin, however, look rosier. Trump has clearly failed to wield any threats or incentives capable of forcing the Russian president to consider a ceasefire in Ukraine. Indeed, the Kremlin is already boasting this morning that Trump refused to follow through on his threat to increase sanctions on Russia, and that Moscow could negotiate without having to pause its 'special military operation' in Ukraine.
In the hours since the summit ended, Trump has been on the phone to debrief Zelensky and Ukraine's European allies. No doubt their reactions to the meeting with Putin will start to filter through in the coming hours. And yet the signs for Ukraine don't look promising. Trump has already started to publicly pile the pressure on Zelensky to 'make a deal' with Putin, who 'wants to solve the problem'. The Ukrainian president will meet with Trump on Monday to discuss the situation further.
Many were hoping that yesterday would provide clarity, both on Ukraine's future and the role of Trump and the US in the conflict. Those hopes have been dashed – for a little while longer, Ukraine's fate continues to hang in the balance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Zelensky gifts Trump letter from his wife to give to Melania
Volodymyr Zelensky has given Donald Trump a letter to pass on to Melania Trump from his wife. The Ukrainian president arrived in Washington, DC for talks on ending the ongoing war with the US president on Monday (18 August) , with other world leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, also in attendance. After thanking Mr Trump for the invitation, Mr Zelensky handed him a letter from his wife Olena Zelenska, Ukraine's first lady. "It's not to you, it's to your wife," he told Mr Trump, with the pair both laughing. At a summit in Alaska on Friday (15 August), Mr Trump delivered a letter to Vladimir Putin on behalf of Melania, who wrote about the plight of children affected by the conflict.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Trump isn't ruling out sending US troops to Ukraine as part of a NATO-like security role with European partners, saying ‘we'll be involved' — but they'll talk more about it later
President Donald Trump on Monday refused to rule out sending American soldiers to enforce any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and said he would be discussing the U.S. commitment to a future settlement with European leaders during a multilateral sit-down between him, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a group of European heads of state and government who'd travelled to the White House for talks. Speaking during a brief media availability alongside Zelensky in the Oval Office,Trump told reporters that both Europe and the United States would be involved in securing a post-war peace for Ukraine, but he refused to say outright that American troops would not be put on the ground to maintain that peace. 'We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to work with everybody, and we're going to make sure that if there's peace, the peace is going to stay long term. This is very long term. We're not talking about a two year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. We're going to make sure that everything's good. We'll work with Russia. We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to make sure it works. And I think if we can get to peace, it's going to work. I have no doubt about it,' he said. Pressed further on any guarantees for Kyiv by reporters, he said there would be 'a lot of help when it comes to security' in any post-war settlement, but he stressed that Europe would 'be the first line of defense' albeit with some American assistance. At the same time, the American leader seemed to rule out a future NATO membership bid for Kyiv, echoing a social media post he'd made earlier in the day, while hedging and telling the press that there hadn't been any such discussions yet. 'We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security,' he said. Trump added that the European leaders who were waiting to meet with him and Zelensky were 'very like minded' on the matter. He also said he'd be speaking with Putin after his meetings with Zelensky and the assembled European leaders.
The Herald Scotland
a few seconds ago
- The Herald Scotland
It's time to explode the Establishment myths against a wealth tax
This rebuttal largely goes unchallenged by the national media, yet it has at its heart a number of misleading premises. The first is that wealth creation ceases when the wealthy leave. This stems from the myth that the ruling class create wealth through their ingenuity and risk-taking, as opposed to all financial wealth originating from human labour. It would therefore take a mass exodus or nationwide risk to life for wealth creation in a country to cease – we need only look at the hit private profit would have taken during the pandemic had the state not stepped in to shore it up to see the primacy of human labour evidenced. Read more The second is that existing wealth itself is mobile and can "leave" with the wealthy. Some wealth is, of course, mobile, in the form of fine art, precious gems, other luxury items and the king of capital; cash, which is exactly why currency controls and export restrictions and limits exist. However, a significant proportion of wealth is in immobile assets like land, property and British-based businesses whose wealth is generated by, you guessed it, human labour. This wealth cannot up sticks and leave with an individual. The resources remain in the country and are subject to taxation. The third is the Laffer Curve itself which purports to visualise the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, the idea being that there is an optimum rate of tax which raises the maximum revenue, above which revenue starts to decrease as taxpayers are deterred from remaining in the tax system. This theory, though influential, is unfounded. The concept of trickle-down economics, that tax cuts raise more revenue by encouraging investment and thus benefit society, has not been borne out in data. Tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality. UK taxes are considerably lower than in most other western European countries, yet we face significant and persistent income and wealth inequalities. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that in the UK the top 10% own a staggering 57% of the wealth, while 2 in every 10 adults and 3 in every 10 children, are in poverty. So, if wealth creation doesn't stop when the already wealthy leave, if the super-rich can't take their British resource-dependent wealth with them, and if tax cuts have not been found to reduce inequality, why is the Establishment so opposed to taxing wealth? The other half of their argument is on what may happen in future. Their fear, they say, is that if we make the country less profitable for wealthy individuals, even slightly so through a modest wealth tax, they will leave, and private interest as a whole will be less likely to invest in our economy. How likely this is has been contested by organisations like Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, so it seems likely that at least some of the millionaires will stay, but regardless the important question is: what do the rest of us stand to gain from any potential risk of flight? We know that waiting for wealth to trickle down has not worked, that inequality has remained high while the rich get richer. We know we won't lose wealth creation as long as we have a fit and able population to do the work. We know we won't lose all existing wealth as long as we have natural resources, built heritage and, yes, a fit and able population to do the work. In fact, the greatest risk to wealth is workforce shortages caused by a public health service on its knees, an undervalued public education system and a cost-of-living crisis deterring new parents. In short, the greatest risk to wealth is continuing to let it go untaxed. Inequality has remained high while the rich get richer (Image: Getty) Yes, we may lose some wealthy individuals who don't want to pay their fair share, we may see fewer corporate lobbyists on their payroll and fewer freebies for the politicians in their pockets – I'll shed no tears for them – but what we stand to gain is a fairer system. A system that addresses inequality and says clearly and proudly, if your private interest has benefitted from our public services: our health, our education, our labour (in every sense!), you will contribute a proportion of that benefit back into the system. There would be no wealth without us, all we are asking is that we all receive our fair share. A wealth tax is a modest policy whose time has well since come. So let there be no shame in calling for one and in doing so declaring that we will not reward greed and excess, we will build a society in which we all have enough. This Labour Government has an opportunity like no other: a mandate, a majority, and a moral imperative. It must embrace it. Mercedes Villalba is a Scottish Labour MSP for the North East Scotland Region.
