
Putin wins Ukraine concessions in Alaska but did not get all he wanted
Outside Russia, Putin was widely hailed as the victor of the Alaska summit while at home, Russian state media cast the US president as a prudent statesman, even as critics in the West accused him of being out of his depth.
Russian state media made much of the fact that Putin was afforded a military fly-over, that Trump waited for him on the red carpet, and then let the Russian president ride with him in the back of the "Big Beast," the US presidential limousine.
"Western media are in a state that could be described as derangement verging on complete insanity," said Maria Zakharova, Russia's foreign minister spokesperson.
"For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet rolled out to welcome the Russian president to the United States," she said.
But Putin's biggest summit wins related to the war in Ukraine, where he appears to have persuaded Trump, at least in part, to embrace Russia's vision of how a deal should be done.
Trump had gone into the meeting saying he wanted a quick ceasefire and had threatened Putin and Russia's biggest buyer of its crude oil -- China -- with sanctions.
Afterward, Trump said he had agreed with Putin that negotiators should go straight to a peace settlement and not via a ceasefire as Ukraine and its European allies had been demanding -- previously with US support.
"The US president's position has changed after talks with Putin, and now the discussion will focus not on a truce, but on the end of the war. And a new world order. Just as Moscow wanted," Olga Skabeyeva, one of Russian state TV's most prominent talkshow hosts, said on Telegram.
Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying Kyiv's embrace of the West had become a threat to its security, something Ukraine has dismissed as a false pretext for what it calls a colonial-style land grab.
The war -- the deadliest in Europe for 80 years -- has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts.
The fact that the summit even took place was a win for Putin before it even started, given how it brought him in from the diplomatic cold with such pomp.
Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court, accused of the war crime of deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.
Russia denies any wrongdoing, saying it acted to remove unaccompanied children from a conflict zone. Neither Russia nor the US are members of the court.
Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and a close Putin ally, said the summit had achieved a major breakthrough when it came to restoring US-Russia relations, which Putin had lamented were at their lowest level since the Cold War.
"The mechanism for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States has been restored in its entirety," he said.
But Putin did not get everything he wanted and it's unclear how durable his gains will be.
For one, Trump did not hand him the economic reset he wanted -- something that would boost the Russian president at a time when his economy is showing signs of strain after more than three years of war and increasingly tough Western sanctions.
Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy aide, said before the summit that the talks would touch on trade and economic issues.
Putin had brought his finance minister and the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund all the way to Alaska with a view to discussing potential deals on the Arctic, energy, space and the technology sector.
In the end, though, they didn't get a look in. Trump told reporters on Air force One before the summit started there would be no business done until the war in Ukraine was settled.
It's also unclear how long the sanctions reprieve that Putin won will last.
Trump said it would probably be two or three weeks before he would need to return to the question of thinking about imposing secondary sanctions on China, to hurt financing for Moscow's war machine.
Nor did Trump -- judging by information that has so far been made public -- do what some Ukrainian and European politicians had feared the most and sell Kyiv out by doing a deal over the head of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy.
Trump made clear that it was up to Zelenskyy as to whether he would agree -- or not --with ideas of land swaps and other elements for a peace settlement that the US president had discussed with Putin in Alaska.
Although as Trump's bruising Oval Office encounter with Zelenskyy showed earlier this year, if Trump thinks the Ukrainian leader is not engaging constructively, he can quickly turn on him.
Indeed, Trump was quick to start piling pressure on Zelenskyy, who is expected in Washington on Monday, saying after the summit that Ukraine had to a deal because, "Russia is a very big power, and they're not."
"The main point is that both sides have directly placed responsibility on Kyiv and Europe for achieving future results in the negotiations," said Medvedev, who added that the summit showed it was possible to negotiate and fight at the same time.
While deliberations continue, Russian forces are slowly but steadily advancing on the battlefield and threatening a series of Ukrainian towns and cities whose fall could speed up Moscow's quest to take complete control of the eastern region of Donetsk, one of four Ukrainian regions Russia claims as its own.
Donetsk, some 25 percent of which remains beyond Russia's control, and the Luhansk region together make up the industrial Donbas region, which Putin has made clear he wants in its entirety.
Putin told Trump he'd be ready to freeze the front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, two of the other regions he claims, if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from both Donetsk and Luhansk, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Zelenskyy rejected the demand, the source said.
According to the New York Times, Trump told European leaders that Ukrainian recognition of Donbas as Russian would help get a deal done. And the US is ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said.
Some Kremlin critics said it would be a mistake to credit Putin with too much success at this stage.
"Russia has re-established its status and got dialogue with the US," said Michel Duclos, a French diplomat who formerly served in Moscow and who is an analyst at the Institut Montaigne think-tank. "But when you have a war on your hands and your economy is collapsing, these are limited gains." Russian officials deny the economy, which has been put on a war footing and has proved more resilient than the West forecast despite heavy sanctions, is collapsing. But they have acknowledged signs of overheating and have said the economy could enter recession next year unless policies are adjusted.
"For Putin, economic problems are secondary to his goals, but he understands our vulnerability and the costs involved," said one source familiar with Kremlin thinking.
"Both sides will have to make concessions. The question is to what extent. The alternative, if we want to defeat them militarily, is to mobilise resources more deeply and use them more skilfully, but we are not going down that road for various reasons," the person said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![[Aziz Huq] America's national security for sale](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F08%2F17%2Fnews-p.v1.20250817.2636434f5f064e308aced35413380862_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Aziz Huq] America's national security for sale](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75)
Korea Herald
6 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Aziz Huq] America's national security for sale
Perhaps the least interesting thing about the reported decision by US President Donald Trump's administration to allow Nvidia and AMD to export high-end semiconductors to China in exchange for 15 percent of revenues is that it is probably unlawful. More important is the window it opens onto how the presidency is using its national security powers not to advance the country's interests, but for its own, narrower ambitions. To understand what's at stake, consider Nvidia's H20 chips, which Trump, when justifying his decision, described as an 'old chip' that is 'obsolete.' In 2024, Nvidia sold about a million of these 'obsolete' H20s in China. This is about five times the number of similar chips sold by Huawei. The scale of Nvidia's advantage suggests that H20 chips, while no longer cutting edge, remain very valuable to Chinese firms. Nvidia's CUDA programming interface makes them easier to connect to other hardware than Huawei's products. Overwhelming evidence of H20 chips' continuing relevance came in January, when the Chinese firm DeepSeek used them to develop a breakthrough large language model delivering top-of-the-line performance without the price tag of OpenAI, Anthropic or Google models. Such semiconductors thus still play a pivotal role in the ongoing competition between China and the United States over AI, such that permitting their export undermines rather than advances US interests. China has growing access to all the other inputs to create new AI. Its universities can still recruit and educate top-flight scientific talent. It has ample data, energy and even a near-monopoly on rare-earth minerals used to build the AI 'stack.' But the gap between Nvidia's and Huawei's market share suggests that access to advanced chips (including H20s) remains a significant vulnerability. This explains the Trump administration's decision in April, three months after DeepSeek's release, to impose a new licensing requirement on H20 chips, with a presumption of denial. But now the White House has relinquished that lever without extracting any concessions from Chinese firms or Chinese authorities. And the US needs concessions from China. Consider that China controls 70 percent of the world's rare-earth minerals, which are needed for many digital tools. Items like the heat-resistant magnets needed for missiles, fighter jets, and smart bombs will remain in dangerously short supply. At a time of growing investment in military deployments in the Indo-Pacific that require these very tools, US trade policy seems to be cannibalizing US security policy. The Nvidia and AMD export deal, in short, is an unforced error. So, what motivated the decision? The president's authority to control exports of so-called dual-use goods (which can serve both civilian and military purposes), such as advanced semiconductors, stems from the 2018 Export Control Reform Act. The government is allowed to require 'licenses' for certain exports, while also 'imposing conditions or restrictions' on those licenses. One way to understand the Nvidia/AMD deal is by comparing it to this administration's other policies and finding patterns. Perhaps the closest parallel is the administration's treatment of the social media platform TikTok. Having tried to ban the platform during his first term on national-security grounds, Trump came into office under a statutory mandate to prohibit it unless its Chinese owners divested. In January 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, which Trump postponed. The statute allowed a single 90-day delay, but only with a buyer on the horizon. Having blown past this deadline, Trump has simply refused to enforce a valid law that aligns with his own erstwhile position on national security. In both the TikTok case and the Nvidia/AMD deal, Trump violated a federal statute by allowing transactions with Chinese entities -- transactions the same administration once described as a source of serious security concerns. In both cases, this was done without a deal or negotiation to achieve a public-policy goal. But in the TikTok case, Trump was clear about his motives: TikTok, he thinks, helped him win the 'youth' in the 2024 election. National security considerations, that is, gave way to electoral advantage. The Nvidia/AMD deal offers similar advantages: A recent Congressional Budget Office estimate suggests that Trump's budget will increase the national deficit by $4.1 trillion. Squeezing money from tech firms can be framed as a political win and as a deficit offset, even though the revenue will be a mere drop in the bucket. Even better for Trump, because there is no statute that envisages revenue from export controls, there is no legal constraint on how the government uses them. Trump could, say, use the money for the White House's new ballroom, or it could construct more 'Alligator Alcatraz' prisons for undocumented immigrants. The message to US adversaries is clear: America's national security has been subordinated to the Trump administration's narrow financial or partisan interests. The sale has begun. Come bearing money, political favors or both.
![[Editorial] Pricing power](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75)
Korea Herald
6 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Pricing power
Korea faces hard truth that cleaner energy means higher bills; only clear road map can sustain trust President Lee Jae Myung has said what most of his predecessors avoided: If South Korea is serious about cutting greenhouse gases, electricity must cost more. On Aug. 14, Lee told aides that the public must be prepared for higher costs to meet climate targets. For a politician once critical of price hikes, the candor is striking — and politically perilous. Few policies are as explosive as a power bill. The backdrop is the Paris Agreement, which requires nations to submit progressively tougher emissions pledges every five years. By September, South Korea must file its 2035 target, which is expected to aim for a 60-66 percent cut from 2018 levels. That trajectory is intended to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius and to set the stage for carbon neutrality by 2050. For South Korea, that means phasing out coal and gas, expanding renewables, and investing heavily in transmission and storage. None of it comes cheap. Solar and offshore wind remain multiple times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than nuclear. The necessary infrastructure must be built before any savings materialize. Holding down prices has been costly in its own right. Over the past two years, Korean households have enjoyed some of the lowest electricity rates in the OECD. At times, homes have even paid less per unit than factories — an inversion that distorts incentives. State-run utility giant Korea Electric Power Corp. has absorbed the gap, amassing cumulative deficits exceeding 30 trillion won ($21.5 billion) and more than 200 trillion in debt. Artificially cheap power has also bred excess: South Korea is now the eighth-largest consumer of electricity globally and near the top in per capita use. Correcting these distortions would encourage efficiency, but it will also test public patience. The case for restraint is no less serious. Industrial users have already seen electricity rates rise by roughly 70 percent over the past three years. Push further without relief, and the country's exporters could lose ground just as global competition intensifies. Shift the burden too heavily to households, and the backlash could derail consensus on climate goals altogether. The international context complicates the picture. Data centers built to serve artificial intelligence are straining power grids across the globe. Europe's turn away from Russian gas has left it juggling high costs and fragile supply. Even nuclear, South Korea's long-standing strength, faces risks as rising sea temperatures threaten cooling systems. Meanwhile, climate change itself is swelling demand: Successive summers of record heat are locking in more hours of air conditioning. Energy security now means securing reliable capacity as well as cleaner fuel. What would a credible policy path look like? First, the government should set out a phased and predictable pricing road map, tied explicitly to the 2035 target. Predictability matters more than one-off shocks. Second, support should be targeted: protect low-income households and small businesses directly, while channeling resources to help industry invest in efficiency and low-carbon processes rather than bluntly discounting power. Third, accelerate the 'plumbing' of the transition — new transmission corridors, modern storage and demand-response systems that reward consumers for shifting load. These steps are less visible than solar panels or offshore turbines, but just as decisive in lowering long-term costs. Finally, transparency will be essential. People need to know how the budget is spent, what investments it enables and how progress is measured. Lee is right that higher electricity prices are unavoidable. But appeals to 'climate' alone will not justify steeper bills for households already strained by inflation. Koreans may accept paying more if they can see the bargain: cleaner air, a sturdier grid and a competitive industrial base. What they will not accept are hidden costs and broken promises.


Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
Putin wins Ukraine concessions in Alaska but did not get all he wanted
MOSCOW (Reuters) -- In a few short hours in Alaska, Vladimir Putin managed to convince Donald Trump that a Ukraine ceasefire was not the way to go, stave off US sanctions, and spectacularly shatter years of Western attempts to isolate the Russian president. Outside Russia, Putin was widely hailed as the victor of the Alaska summit while at home, Russian state media cast the US president as a prudent statesman, even as critics in the West accused him of being out of his depth. Russian state media made much of the fact that Putin was afforded a military fly-over, that Trump waited for him on the red carpet, and then let the Russian president ride with him in the back of the "Big Beast," the US presidential limousine. "Western media are in a state that could be described as derangement verging on complete insanity," said Maria Zakharova, Russia's foreign minister spokesperson. "For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet rolled out to welcome the Russian president to the United States," she said. But Putin's biggest summit wins related to the war in Ukraine, where he appears to have persuaded Trump, at least in part, to embrace Russia's vision of how a deal should be done. Trump had gone into the meeting saying he wanted a quick ceasefire and had threatened Putin and Russia's biggest buyer of its crude oil -- China -- with sanctions. Afterward, Trump said he had agreed with Putin that negotiators should go straight to a peace settlement and not via a ceasefire as Ukraine and its European allies had been demanding -- previously with US support. "The US president's position has changed after talks with Putin, and now the discussion will focus not on a truce, but on the end of the war. And a new world order. Just as Moscow wanted," Olga Skabeyeva, one of Russian state TV's most prominent talkshow hosts, said on Telegram. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying Kyiv's embrace of the West had become a threat to its security, something Ukraine has dismissed as a false pretext for what it calls a colonial-style land grab. The war -- the deadliest in Europe for 80 years -- has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. The fact that the summit even took place was a win for Putin before it even started, given how it brought him in from the diplomatic cold with such pomp. Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court, accused of the war crime of deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Russia denies any wrongdoing, saying it acted to remove unaccompanied children from a conflict zone. Neither Russia nor the US are members of the court. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and a close Putin ally, said the summit had achieved a major breakthrough when it came to restoring US-Russia relations, which Putin had lamented were at their lowest level since the Cold War. "The mechanism for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States has been restored in its entirety," he said. But Putin did not get everything he wanted and it's unclear how durable his gains will be. For one, Trump did not hand him the economic reset he wanted -- something that would boost the Russian president at a time when his economy is showing signs of strain after more than three years of war and increasingly tough Western sanctions. Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy aide, said before the summit that the talks would touch on trade and economic issues. Putin had brought his finance minister and the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund all the way to Alaska with a view to discussing potential deals on the Arctic, energy, space and the technology sector. In the end, though, they didn't get a look in. Trump told reporters on Air force One before the summit started there would be no business done until the war in Ukraine was settled. It's also unclear how long the sanctions reprieve that Putin won will last. Trump said it would probably be two or three weeks before he would need to return to the question of thinking about imposing secondary sanctions on China, to hurt financing for Moscow's war machine. Nor did Trump -- judging by information that has so far been made public -- do what some Ukrainian and European politicians had feared the most and sell Kyiv out by doing a deal over the head of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy. Trump made clear that it was up to Zelenskyy as to whether he would agree -- or not --with ideas of land swaps and other elements for a peace settlement that the US president had discussed with Putin in Alaska. Although as Trump's bruising Oval Office encounter with Zelenskyy showed earlier this year, if Trump thinks the Ukrainian leader is not engaging constructively, he can quickly turn on him. Indeed, Trump was quick to start piling pressure on Zelenskyy, who is expected in Washington on Monday, saying after the summit that Ukraine had to a deal because, "Russia is a very big power, and they're not." "The main point is that both sides have directly placed responsibility on Kyiv and Europe for achieving future results in the negotiations," said Medvedev, who added that the summit showed it was possible to negotiate and fight at the same time. While deliberations continue, Russian forces are slowly but steadily advancing on the battlefield and threatening a series of Ukrainian towns and cities whose fall could speed up Moscow's quest to take complete control of the eastern region of Donetsk, one of four Ukrainian regions Russia claims as its own. Donetsk, some 25 percent of which remains beyond Russia's control, and the Luhansk region together make up the industrial Donbas region, which Putin has made clear he wants in its entirety. Putin told Trump he'd be ready to freeze the front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, two of the other regions he claims, if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from both Donetsk and Luhansk, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. Zelenskyy rejected the demand, the source said. According to the New York Times, Trump told European leaders that Ukrainian recognition of Donbas as Russian would help get a deal done. And the US is ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Some Kremlin critics said it would be a mistake to credit Putin with too much success at this stage. "Russia has re-established its status and got dialogue with the US," said Michel Duclos, a French diplomat who formerly served in Moscow and who is an analyst at the Institut Montaigne think-tank. "But when you have a war on your hands and your economy is collapsing, these are limited gains." Russian officials deny the economy, which has been put on a war footing and has proved more resilient than the West forecast despite heavy sanctions, is collapsing. But they have acknowledged signs of overheating and have said the economy could enter recession next year unless policies are adjusted. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to his goals, but he understands our vulnerability and the costs involved," said one source familiar with Kremlin thinking. "Both sides will have to make concessions. The question is to what extent. The alternative, if we want to defeat them militarily, is to mobilise resources more deeply and use them more skilfully, but we are not going down that road for various reasons," the person said.