High stakes meeting between Putin and Trump today in Alaska; unprecedented security in place, if talks fail...
Notably, the two leaders are meeting after seven years. Where is the Trump-Putin meeting being held?
The much-awaited and important meeting will be held at the Elmendorf-Richardson Military Base in Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, with only one translator between them. The details of the discussions between the two leaders will not be shared, as both leaders will hold a press conference after the meeting. What are the security and protocol preparations for the meeting?
Before Putin's arrival in Alaska, his armoured limousine Aurus Senate had already reached the base by a Russian cargo plane. The water bottles and cups used in the meeting will also be sealed by Putin's team, while Russian fighter jets have been deployed in Anadyr, 88 km from Alaska.
The Russian President will be accompanied by his FSO (Federal Protective Service) unit. Moreover, 32 thousand American soldiers are already deployed at this military base, also called the Ice Fortress. According to Trump's security protocol, Keyhole (KH-11) recon satellites will also be active. At the same time, the entire network of the base will be air-gapped (cut off from the internet) for cybersecurity.
A no-fly zone will be enforced in the entire area up to a radius of 300 km. There will be double-layer security inside and outside the base. The first will be military police and National Guard, the second will be Special Forces and Secret Service's counter-assault team. Trump's Air Force One plane will be under full-time military guard as soon as it lands. Why have the two presidents chosen Alaska only for their meeting?
According to the BBC, the biggest reason for Trump and Putin meeting in Alaska is security. The nearest part of Alaska's mainland is just 90 km away from Russia's Chukotka. Putin can reach there without flying over any 'enemy' country.
There are some Russian air force bases and military monitoring stations in this area, where there may also be nuclear weapons. Putin's meeting here will be more secure.
The second reason is distance. Alaska is very far from Ukraine and Europe.
Alaska is the only US state with territory in the Arctic. Its proximity to Russia, with only about 88 km (55 miles) across the Bering Strait separating the two, gives Alaska significant strategic importance in US defence and Arctic policy.
Alaska's closeness to Russia makes it a practical location for high-level discussions on global security, commerce, and environmental concerns. What are the risk factors for Putin in Alaska?
This meeting is taking place at the initiative of US President Trump, and hence America will take any risk regarding Putin's security in Alaska, USA. This can be dangerous not only for the future of US-Russia relations, but also for the Russia-Ukraine war. On its part, Russia will be on highest alert to keep the president safe. What will happen if the talks fail?
In the event of the failure of the talks between the US and Russian presidents, the United States will impose extra tariffs on India. This was announced by US Finance Minister Scott Besant. Talking to Bloomberg, he said, 'This tariff will depend on the outcome of the meeting between US President Trump and Russian President Putin in Alaska on Friday.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Alaskan encounter: Only Russian President Putin gained from the meeting
At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts Business Standard Editorial Comment Listen to This Article Hopes for an early end to the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine were comprehensively dashed following United States (US) President Donald Trump's much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Even given the low expectations from this meeting, the result could not have been worse for embattled Ukraine, for the signals it sends to countries with irredentist ambitions, notably China (Taiwan) and the US (Greenland). At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts. After affording Mr Putin a lavish welcome, including a red
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
India's torment over tariff continues as Zelenskyy heads to White House
TOI correspondent from Washington : European leaders, including the heads of France, Germany, Britain, and Italy, will join Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday for talks with President Trump that could determine the future course and fate of many nations, including that of India on the economic front. The Trump-engineered peace agreement envisages Kiev giving up Russian captured territory in return for non-Nato security guarantees, proposals the Europeans and Ukraine are chary of given the US President's convivial ties with Putin. But challenging Trump also risks continuing a war that Trump thinks Ukraine is certain to lose and fracturing the 75-year old Atlantic alliance that has depended on the US for security. Zelenskyy will return to the Oval Office on Monday morning with the world's eyes trained on the meeting and memories of the shellacking he got from Trump and vice-president Vance for what they saw as ingratitude in the face of adversity. He will also be accompanied by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, as they try to forestall what is essentially a surrender before the emerging Trump-Putin alliance. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo The US President exuded confidence ahead of the meeting, posting "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" and excoriating the liberal media for describing the Alaska summit as a win for Putin. "If I got Russia to give up Moscow as part of the Deal, the Fake News, and their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats, would say I made a terrible mistake and a very bad deal. That's why they are the FAKE NEWS! Also, they should talk about the 6 WARS, etc. , I JUST STOPPED!!!" Trump posted. But analysts say permitting Russia to keep captured Ukrainian territory sets a dangerous precedent for smaller countries facing bigger neighbors with historical grievances eyeing their territory. Trump though sees Ukraine being in an unwinnable position -- certainly without US support -- and would rather have Kiev sue for peace by conceding lost territory and keeping what remains. India, which has little to do with the Russia-Ukraine war but has high stakes in a peace deal, looks likely to face several more weeks of agony and uncertainty, as the Ukraine-EU combine puts up resistance against Trump-Putin initiative to end the war while seeking a trilateral meeting to hash out details. There is growing disapproval among regional experts over Trump's handling of ties with New Delhi, in particular his victimisation of India with punitive tariffs to achieve peace on the Russia-Ukraine front, with visions of a Nobel Prize tagged to it. "Because US-Russia negotiations are incomplete, the Trump admin can't make any concrete decisions on India. Washington has put India, a friendly strategic partner, in an indefinite holding pattern—terrible diplomacy on display," Derek Grossman, an Indo-Pacific national security expert said on X, after Washington postponed a visit to New Delhi by a trade team to discuss tariff issues. Putin himself inadvertently exposed White House hypocrisy towards India as he spoke of a 20 percent increase in Russia-US trade since Trump took office, even as the US President is bearing down on New Delhi for buying Russian oil. "Tariffing India won't stop Putin. If Trump really wanted to address Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, maybe punish Putin and give Ukraine the military aid it needs. Everything else is smoke and mirrors," Democrats on the House Foreign Relations committee said over the weekend even as the Republic flock stayed quiet. Former administration officials and even some current insiders are appalled at the Trump White House's "insensitivity" in managing the India relationship, with criticism about lack of expertise about the sub-continent in the President's inner circle. One former official said the White House appears to have jettisoned inter-agency meetings and national security issues are being piloted by individuals close to the President with little domain knowledge or expertise. "It's amateur hour at the White House," the former official said as reports emerged of an administration staffer leaving behind sensitive documents on a hotel printer in Alaska after the Trump-Putin meeting. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays , public holidays , current gold rate and silver price .
