Elon Musk's father, a guest of honor in Moscow, praises Vladimir Putin and blames his son for falling out with Donald Trump
The broad topic allowed the South African businessman to share a few platitudes on various subjects. Along the way, he offered a real-or-imagined scoop about the unexpected origins of SpaceX and his son's space ventures. "[Elon] was in Russia, trying to buy a rocket in Russia, where, as we all know, the best rockets were made. They did not give him a rocket, they thought he was joking," Musk said with a laugh.
This unusual conference aimed to be as grand as its title: "Future Forum 2050." It was organized and funded by conservative tycoon Konstantin Malofeev and ultranationalist ideologue Alexander Dugin. Malofeev owns Tsargrad, an Orthodox television channel promoting traditional Russian values in opposition to what it sees as Western decline. Dugin is the author of numerous essays celebrating Russian imperialism and military expansionism. Both men – known to wield influence within the Kremlin and under Western sanctions – also invited American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and British populist political figure George Galloway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
41 minutes ago
- Euronews
Trump's election paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran
Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews. Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers. On 13 June, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen. The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On 24 June, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran's missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran's nuclear program. Diplomacy open but eroding Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran. 'Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,' a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal's nuclear restrictions in 2019. Key proxy war events In the meantime, the proxy war between Israel and Iran was progressively escalating. 'I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,' the first intelligence source said. In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani's assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the 'architect' of Iran's proxy war in the Middle East. 'I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,' the source added. Trump re-election Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources. 'The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel's assassination of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,' the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November. 'I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,' said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict. 'Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,' the first source added. US-Iran negotiations In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as 'constructive'. 'Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,' all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews. Washington has never publicly stated that Israel's first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years. 'When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,' the first intelligence source said. 'Trump realised Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn't be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,' the first source added. The current situation While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran's regime has been left weakened following the attack. 'Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We're at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,' Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund's president, told Euronews. 'Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don't think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearised Iran,' the expert added. If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level. On 25 July, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel's mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a 'snapback' of UN sanctions on Tehran. The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to 'destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed'.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Europe frozen out as US and Russia prepare for Alaska talks
Europe's sidelining from the Alaska meeting of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin means the continent's been frozen out of a meeting critical to its security, according to EU law professor Alberto Alemanno. The proposed Alaska meeting will be the first in-person meeting between the US and Russian presidents since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. But there are no plans for European leaders to attend, raising questions about the heft of EU diplomacy on the world stage. For Alemanno, EU law professor at HEC in Paris, this is a clear sign that Europe is being left on the sidelines. "The Alaska meeting may offer yet another moment of truth for Europe because the European Union finds itself on the sidelines in what could be the most consequential peace effort since the war began, with Trump and Putin set to meet without any European leader officially invited to the table," Alemanno said. The professor added that Europe is now concentrating efforts on obtaining a place at the negotiation table for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But recent US threats to pull financing from Ukraine's defence efforts make Europe cautious and conciliatory, the professor said. "The EU seems to lack leverage in actually inviting the US to be invited or to be heard, simply because we heard from Vice President Vance that the US is ready to give up its support for Ukraine unless the European Union steps in. In a way, the European leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they show too much commitment towards Ukraine, they might end up being alone, but if they let it go, Ukraine is going to get a very bad deal," he said. Europe's dependence on the US for defence makes it vulnerable The professor added that Europe accepts subjugation with a view to obtaining security guarantees from Trump. "This is extremely tricky and frustrating to see for millions of Europeans who would like to see their European leaders speak with a louder voice instead of accepting, yet again, more impositions, more intimidations, more subjugation to this US administration in a moment in which this negotiation could fundamentally reshape European security without meaningful European input." Jacob Kirkegaard, an expert at the Bruegel think tank, agrees that Europe is paying the price for its relative weakness on defence. "We are paying the price of our inability to defend ourselves and our inability to adequately support Ukraine. And that means that when you don't have actual power, you will not be invited to this meeting," Kirkegaard said. US-Russia deal needs Europe's approval He added that even if Trump and Putin come to terms, these cannot be implemented against the will of Ukraine and Europe. Kirkegaard also said any deal that might harm the security interests of Europe would damage NATO. Kierkegaard said that if the US - as the principal security power of NATO - signs a deal advantageous to NATO's direct military antagonist Russia, "then NATO is dead, finished... it's buried and it's over". "Our problem is that we are not capable... to deter Russia on our own," he added. Ahead of the talks, Donald Trump said that a ceasefire deal might involve the exchange of territories between Ukraine and Russia, a suggestion roundly rejected by Zelenskyy and strongly resisted by European leaders in a statement issued on Sunday. The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, convened a snap, informal virtual meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday to discuss the situation.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Trump says he'll know if Putin wants Ukraine peace deal in meeting
US President Donald Trump said Monday that he expected to determine, moments into his meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska this Friday, whether it would be possible to work out a deal to halt the war in Ukraine. Speaking at a White House press briefing that he called to announce plans for a federal takeover of Washington's police force to help combat crime, Trump said, 'At the end of that meeting, probably the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made'. He said he thought Friday's sitdown with Putin in Alaska would be 'really a feel-out meeting,' adding that 'it'll be good, but it might be bad'. He predicted he may say, 'Lots of luck, keep fighting. Or I may say, we can make a deal.' Putin wants to lock in Russia's gains since invading Ukraine in February 2022, as Trump presses for a ceasefire that has remained out of reach. Trump's eagerness to reach a deal has raised fears in Ukraine and Europe about such an agreement favouring Russia, without sufficient input from Ukraine. Trump has alternately harshly criticised both leaders after promising — and so far failing — to swiftly end the conflict. Trump-Putin meeting may not include Zelenskyy Trump on Monday ducked repeated chances to say that he would push for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to take part in his discussions with Putin, and was especially dismissive of Zelenskyy and his need to be part of an effort to seek peace. He said the Ukrainian president had been to 'a lot of meetings' without managing to halt a war that Russia started. Trump also noted that Zelenskyy had been in power for the duration of the war and said 'nothing happened' during that time. He contrasted that with Putin, who has wielded power in Russia for decades. Trump said that, after his meeting with Putin, 'The next meeting will be with Zelenskyy and Putin' but it could also be a meeting with 'Putin and Zelenskyy and me.' European allies have pushed for Ukraine's involvement, fearful that discussions could otherwise favor Moscow. To that point, Trump said he would call Zelenskyy and European leaders after his discussion with Putin to 'tell them what kind of a deal — I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal.' Trump spent the early part of his administration decrying Zelenskyy, even suggesting he was a dictator because his country has not held elections during the war. Zelenskyy was hounded out of the Oval Office in February after Trump and Vice President JD Vance suggested he hadn't been grateful enough for U.S. support. Trump's up-and-down relations with Putin More recently, Trump has expressed frustration with Putin that Russia hasn't appeared to take a push for a ceasefire more seriously, and softened his tone toward Zelenskyy. His comments on Monday suggested he might have had another change of heart. 'President Putin invited me to get involved,' Trump said. He noted that he thought it was 'very respectful' that Putin is coming to the U.S. for Friday's meeting, instead of insisting that Trump go to Russia. 'I'd like to see a ceasefire. I'd like to see the best deal that can be made for both parties,' Trump said. The president repeated that any major agreement could involve land swaps, without elaborating. He had threatened Moscow with more economic sanctions if more isn't done to work toward a ceasefire, but suggested Monday that, should Friday's meeting be successful, he could see a day when the U.S. and Russia normalize trade relations. Putin is expected to be unwavering in his demands to keep all the territory his forces now occupy and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, with the long-term aim of returning it to Moscow's sphere of influence. Zelenskyy insists he will never consent to any formal Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory or give up a bid for NATO membership.
