White House Says 'Peace To Begin' As Putin Agrees To Halt Attacks On Ukraine's Energy Facilities For 30 Days
According to the emerging call readouts, Putin and Trump held 'detailed and frank talks on Ukraine'. Both are describing how the call went 'very well'. But much in the readouts. The White House called for the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Putin agreed to start talks to 'work something out'. But perhaps the most substantial agreement included a Putin pledge not to hit Ukraine's energy infrastructure for a period of 30-days, in an apparent nod to the US-backed interim ceasefire proposal: WHITE HOUSE: THE LEADERS AGREED THAT THE MOVEMENT TO PEACE WILL BEGIN WITH AN ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE CEASEFIRE
KREMLIN: PUTIN SUPPORTS IDEA NOT TO HIT ENERGY FACILITIES
PUTIN BACKS IDEA NOT TO HIT ENERGY FACILITIES FOR 30 DAYS
PUTIN SAYS READY TO CONTINUE SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO PEACE: IFX
KREMLIN: PUTIN, TRUMP AGREED TO STAY IN CONTACT – TASS
KREMLIN: PUTIN AND TRUMP DISCUSSED UKRAINE, ECONOMIC TIES
WHITE HOUSE: THE LEADERS AGREED THAT THE MOVEMENT TO PEACE WILL BEGIN WITH AN ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE CEASEFIRE
KREMLIN: PUTIN ORDERS TO PAUSE STRIKES ON ENERGY FACILITIES
*WHITE HOUSE: PEACE TO BEGIN W/ ENERGY, INFRASTRUCTURE CEASEFIRE
WHITE HOUSE: WILL NEGOTIATE FULL CEASEFIRE AND PERMANENT PEACE
RUSSIA, UKRAINE TO SWAP 175 POWS EACH ON WEDNESDAY: KREMLIN
But so far the plan to refrain from energy attacks is an 'idea' – suggesting that if Ukraine keeps up its own cross-border attacks on Russia, it will all be moot.
Will this really take shape?
* * *
Update(1235ET): The highly anticipated Trump-Putin call has ended, and given the length (akin to the first one), there was no doubt a lot covered, which included the prioritization of working on 'normalization' of US-Russia ties, as earlier previewed by the White House:
PHONE CALL LASTED ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF: MSNBC
It was widely reported earlier Tuesday that the US could be ready to extend to Moscow the recognition of sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula, which should be the easiest to grant. The White House has also been floating possible territorial concessions – something which Zelensky and hawkish supporters in the EU have rejected.
Click here to read more
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
20 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Kremlin: No 'Negotiations With Terrorists' - We'll Retaliate At 'A Time Of Our Choosing'
Russia says that President Putin is preparing to retaliate at 'a time of our choosing' for all the latest drone and 'terror attacks' – including the targeting of trains and bridges with explosives. 'Russia will respond to Ukraine's latest attacks as and when its military sees fit,' the Kremlin said Thursday. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed what President Trump revealed of the Putin phone call Wednesday – that the Russian leader made clear that Moscow is obliged to retaliate. Peskov, speaking of Putin's first televised address since the devastating Sunday drone attacks deep inside Russian territory said, 'The president described the Kyiv regime as a terrorist regime, because it was the regime's leadership that consciously gave the order, the command, the order to blow up a passenger train.' 'This is nothing other than terrorism at the state level. This is an important statement by the president,' he added. Putin had accused Ukraine's leadership of orchestrating a terrorist attack on trains carrying civilians in Russia's Bryansk region, which left seven dead and dozens injured in the derailment of the train and collapse of the bridge due to planted explosives on Sunday. The operation appeared in parallel to the 'Operation Spinder's Web' drone attacks. Putin asserted that Ukrainian political leadership was directly behind the strike. 🚨 BREAKING: Putin accuses Ukraine's leadership of orchestrating a terrorist attack on trains carrying civilians in Russia's Bryansk claims the Ukrainian political leadership is directly behind the strike. — Defence Index (@Defence_Index) June 4, 2025 He also made clear in the address that Ukraine's offer of a summit with Zelensky and an immediate ceasefire has been rejected. It marked a clear rhetorical escalation when compared to prior comments when he said: 'Who has negotiations with terrorists?' Click here to read more… Source Zero Hedge
Gulf Insider
2 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Is A New Oil Price War Between The West And OPEC About To Break Out?
Saudi Arabia's past oil price wars in 2014–2016 and 2020 backfired, as U.S. shale producers became leaner and more efficient. Riyadh drained hundreds of billions in reserves and faced rising fiscal deficits without achieving its goal of crippling U.S. shale. The low breakeven cost resilience of the U.S. shale sector is not quite the same as it was before. It is highly unlikely that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence has lost money in the past ten years or so by trading against the predictable thinking of those in charge of Saudi Arabia's oil policy. Quite the reverse, in fact, with enormous profits available from the failures of the enormously well-flagged and exceptionally predictable strategy of the 2014-2016 and 2020 Oil Price Wars — launched by the Kingdom with the intention of destroying or disabling the U.S. shale oil sector, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. As OPEC members and their toxic companion in the OPEC+ formation, Russia, mull keeping oil production on the high side of recent historical averages, the key question for the oil markets is — surely they are not going to launch another oil price war using the same strategy as failed twice before? It is apposite here to recall the reasons for the failure of the two previous oil price wars since 2014. The first (2014-2016) was based on Saudi Arabia's belief – shared by many in the oil market at the time, it must be said — that U.S. shale oil producers had a breakeven price point of US$70 per barrel (pb) of for the West Texas Intermediate benchmark. Therefore, the Saudis reasoned, if the price of oil was pushed below that level for long enough — by it and its fellow OPEC members dramatically increasing production while demand in the global market was predicted to remain around the same level for some time — then many of the new U.S. shale oil producers would go bankrupt. Any others would have to cease production at such uneconomic price levels and shelve future investment plans aimed at boosting their production even more. So confident was Saudi Arabia of the success of its strategy that shortly after the onset of the 2014-2016 Oil Price War, senior figures in its government and oil ministry it held a series of private meetings in New York to tell them in detail about the strategy it was to use and how well it would go, as also detailed in full in my latest book. At these meetings, the Saudis revealed that, far from looking to keep prices high – as had also been the usual inclination of OPEC for many years to boost the prosperity of member states – it was willing to tolerate 'much lower' Brent prices 'of between USD80-90 pb for a period of one to two years or even lower prices if necessary'. According to several sources at the New York meeting exclusively spoken to by at the time, the Saudis made it clear that it aside from destroying the then-nascent U.S. shale sector, the Oil Price War also aimed to re-impose a degree of supply discipline on other OPEC members. In terms of the first objective, the initial signs augured well for a Saudi victory. The U.S. oil rig count in January/February 2015 saw its biggest period-on-period fall since 1991, and the gas rig count fell substantially at that time as well. According to industry figures as at the end of the first quarter of 2015, around one third of the 800 oil and gas projects (worth US$500 billion and totalling nearly 60 billion barrels of oil equivalent) scheduled for final investment decisions in that year were unconventional and were subject to possible postponement or cancellation. Over the year as a whole, output from the U.S. shale producers typically fell by by around 50%, forcing them to cut investment to approximately US$60 billion over the year, compared to the US$100 billion or so spent in 2014. Crucially, though, from around that point the U.S. shale sector reorganised into a meaner, leaner, lower-cost production machine that could – at that time – broadly survive and profit at WTI prices above around US$35 pb from above US$70 pb previously. They managed to achieve this mainly through the advancement of technology that enabled them to drill longer laterals, manage the fracking stages closer and maintain the fracks with higher, finer sand to allow for increased recovery for the wells drilled, in conjunction with faster drill times, as industry experts old back then. These operations gained further cost benefits from multi-pad drilling and well spacing theory and practice. During this period, Saudi Arabia had moved from a budget surplus to a then-record high deficit in 2015 of US$98 billion and it had spent at least US$250 billion of its precious foreign exchange reserves over that period that even senior Saudis said was lost forever. Moreover, according to International Energy Agency estimates, OPEC member states collectively at least US$450 billion in revenues during the 2014-2016 Oil Price War. The 2020 Oil Price War – using exactly the same overproduction strategy as before — failed less through the long-term effects of misjudging the effectiveness of the U.S. shale producers and more through the direct political intervention of its then first-term President Domald Trump. Given the potentially disastrous economic and political consequences for the U.S. and its sitting president of sharp and sustained rises in oil – and crucially, gasoline – prices, as also analysed in full in my latest book, Trump began by warning Saudi Arabia repeatedly that the U.S. would not tolerate any sustained threat to its shale oil sector (and, by extension, to its economy and its domestic political landscape) – in speeches and tweets and in the increasingly close-run legislative passage of the 'NOPEC Bill'. He also directly warned Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud that the U.S. might withdraw U.S. military support for the Al Sauds, and by extension to Saudi Arabia, with the additional observation that: 'He [King Salman] would not last in power for two weeks without the backing of the U.S. military.' With no sign by the end of March 2020 that the Saudis were going to cease the war, Trump clearly and specifically told de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the telephone on 2 April that unless OPEC started cutting oil production – so allowing oil prices to rise above the danger zone for U.S. shale oil producers – that he would be powerless to stop lawmakers from passing legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the Kingdom, according to a very senior source in the White House exclusively spoken to by a the time. Oil production consequently came back down again, and the 2020 war had ended. As of now, the low breakeven cost resilience of the U.S. shale sector is not quite the same as it was before. The recent Dallas Fed Energy Survey suggests that it is around US$65 pb for new wells drilled, although for existing wells it is significantly lower. It is also true that the lifting cost of oil in Saudi Arabia has also risen since 2014 from around US$1-2 pb, but it is still only about US$3-5 pb now. However, the Kingdom's 2025 fiscal breakeven price per barrel of the Brent crude benchmark is a minimum of US$90.9, according to IMF figures. Consequently, it can no better afford a major, sustained fall in oil prices now than it could in either 2014-2016 or in 2020. With Trump back in the White House, it is also no better off politically either. Indeed, with Republicans majorities in both houses, it is worse positioned to deal with the likely threats and actions that Trump would use against it if it went head-to-head with the U.S. again. Instead, according to a senior energy source who works closely with the U.S. Presidential Administration, Washington believes the Saudis will take a modulated approach to further oil production increases, in tandem with the U.S. 'Oil prices at the lower end of recent historical averages suit the U.S. from an inflationary perspective, as long as they don't go too low, and Washington has made this clear to the Saudis,' he said. In fact, these conversations were part of the dialogue that U.S. officials had with their Saudi counterparts during Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia on 13 May to sign a broad-based economic agreement between the two countries. 'There are longer-term financial and security benefits for the Saudis in taking this softer approach, even if oil is below the number they want for their budget in the shorter-term, and to bridge the gap they will have no problem in borrowing more in the capital markets,' he concluded.
Daily Tribune
2 days ago
- Daily Tribune
UN says ‘deadly attacks' around Gaza aid sites ‘a war crime'
UN human rights chief Volker Turk said yesterday that 'deadly attacks' on civilians around aid distribution sites in the Gaza Strip constituted 'a war crime'. Rescuers in the Palestinian territory said Israeli fire targeting civilians near an aid distribution centre in the southern city of Rafah killed 27 people yesterday, raising an earlier toll. It came after a similar incident on Sunday when rescuers said 31 people were killed at the same location, witnesses saying they had been on their way to collect aid. 'Deadly attacks on distraught civilians trying to access the paltry amounts of food aid in Gaza are unconscionable,' Turk said in a statement. 'For a third day running, people were killed around an aid distribution site run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. This morning, we have received information that dozens more people were killed and injured.' The US-backed GHF is a recently formed group that Israel has cooperated with to implement a new aid distribution mechanism in Gaza. The United Nations does not work with the foundation because of concerns that it does not meet core humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Turk called for a prompt and impartial investigation into each attack, and for those responsible to be held to account. 'Attacks directed against civilians constitute a grave breach of international law, and a war crime,' he said. 'Palestinians have been presented the grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available through Israel's militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism. 'This militarised system endangers lives and violates international standards on aid distribution, as the United Nations has repeatedly warned.'
