IN FULL: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin hold historic joint press conference
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
28 minutes ago
- ABC News
Zelenskyy outlines peace terms amid reports Putin gave Trump territory demand
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has outlined his conditions for a peace in Ukraine ahead of next week's White House meeting with US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian president has also called on his American counterpart to strengthen sanctions on Russia if President Vladimir Putin does not agree to a three-way meeting. US media is meanwhile reporting that Mr Putin told Mr Trump he was prepared to freeze most of the current battlefield front lines in exchange for Ukrainian territory. Mr Zelenskyy will travel to Washington to meet Mr Trump on Monday, local time, after Friday's Trump-Putin summit in Alaska failed to yield the ceasefire sought by the US president. After the summit Mr Trump said a full peace deal was the necessary next step rather than a ceasefire deal "which often times don't hold up". He also said it was now "up to President Zelenskyy to get it done". Mr Trump also told told Fox News that "land swaps" were discussed with Mr Putin, which contradicts his earlier statements that he would leave those negotiations to the Ukrainians. Mr Putin spelled out demands for Ukrainian territory during the Alaska talks, namely the Donbas region in the country's east, Reuters and multiple US outlets reported. After a post-meeting phone call with Mr Trump, Mr Zelenskyy wrote on X that "a real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions". "Killings must stop as soon as possible, the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the sky, as well as against our port infrastructure,"' he said. Mr Zelenskyy said Russia must release Ukrainian prisoners and return abducted children, decisions about territory must not be made without Ukrainian involvement, and Ukraine must receive security guarantees with both US and European involvement. "In my conversation with President Trump I said that sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war," Mr Zelenskyy said. European leaders said their "Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role" in providing security guarantees. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr Trump told European leaders he was open to US security guarantees. He had previously pushed back on such requests. He also said Mr Putin had accepted that any peace deal would require Western troops in Ukraine, the Journal said, citing several European officials. Mr Putin meanwhile told members of his administration that the Alaska meeting was "timely and very useful", according to a translation of a statement from the Kremlin.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Kosha Gada: Labor leads Australia into oblivion with net zero's trifecta - grid insecurity, solar's hidden costs and the blight of wind farms
Few issues cut deeper into national survival or division than energy policy. In 2025, the Western world faces a stark split: the US, under President Donald Trump, has abandoned net zero to pursue fossil fuel dominance, while Canada, Europe, and Australia double down on costly climate pledges. Within minutes of taking office on January 20, Trump pulled the US from the Paris Agreement and declared a National Energy Emergency to unleash oil, gas, and coal for affordability, security and dominance. In contrast, Canada, the EU and Australia cling to net zero targets despite mounting costs. Australia's uniquely punishing burden Australia's situation is extreme. A July 2025 ACCC report warns that outdated market rules are driving grid volatility and soaring household bills. With just 27 million people and a $200 billion fossil fuel export economy, rigid net zero targets mandated by the 2022 Climate Change Act risk crushing both grid and economy. The law demands a 43 per cent emissions cut by 2030 and net zero by 2050, while the 2024 Future Made in Australia Act pledges $22.7 billion for green industries. A 2035 target of 65 to 75 per cent reduction looms. Unlike the UK, the EU, Canada and Japan, which rely on nuclear or hydro, Australia has vast coal, gas, lithium and uranium reserves yet no comparable low-carbon baseload options. Net zero requires slashing domestic fossil fuel use while still exporting them- a hypocrisy critics call 'starving while selling bread'. With a sparse population and sprawling grid, renewable intermittency hits harder than in denser nations. Failures such as Queensland's $14 billion hydrogen project collapse and soaring transmission costs expose the fragility of the plan. Ross Garnaut warns the absence of a carbon price makes the Net Zero Plan incoherent, while years-long project approvals add delays. Net zero's 'catastrophic trifecta' - grid instability, solar's hidden costs and wind's environmental damage - reveals deep flaws in the policy's economic and ecological logic. Grid on the precipice: Physics versus fantasy The National Electricity Market (NEM) is straining under the shift from coal (down 35 per cent since 2000) to 83 per cent renewables by 2030, as projected by AEMO. Intermittent solar and wind lack the synchronous inertia of coal and gas, destabilising frequency- a weakness exposed by the 2016 South Australia blackout and recent solar output cuts in North Queensland. Australia's vast, lightly populated grid cannot match the resilience of Japan's compact network or Canada's hydro-backed system. Gas 'peaking' plants and unproven long-duration storage are stopgaps, but one in four households already struggles with energy bills. A 2022 NSW price spike forced AEMO intervention, and the Productivity Commission warns of 'massive costs' to triple NEM capacity by 2030, with storage needs rising from 3 GW to 49 GW by 2050. The physics - not politics - make net zero's ambitions unattainable without destabilising supply. Solar illusion: Hidden costs and false promises Large-scale solar farms, costing over $1 billion per gigawatt, require massive public and private investment plus billions more for grid integration. Solar's daytime-only output forces reliance on backup generation. End-of-life disposal is a looming crisis: panels contain toxic materials, last only 20 to 30 years, and Australia lacks scalable recycling. Panel manufacturing depends heavily on coal-powered Chinese factories, which control 80 per cent of global supply, binding Australia to environmentally damaging and strategically risky supply chains. Land use is another issue - vast farms consume thousands of hectares, fragmenting ecosystems, and competing with agriculture. These costs undermine solar as a pillar of reliable, affordable energy. The windfarm contradiction: a renewable hellscape Wind farms scar iconic landscapes, from Tasmania's hills to Queensland's coasts, fuelling rural resentment. A 2023 CSIRO survey found widespread opposition, citing the visual blight of 200-metre turbines. Wildlife suffers: thousands of birds and bats die annually, including protected species, while offshore projects threaten marine life through underwater noise. Turbine blades, made of non-recyclable composites, are piling up in landfills. Decommissioning costs often fall to taxpayers, and vast transmission projects fragment habitats while inflating costs. For a sparsely populated country with unique wilderness, wind power's environmental toll contradicts net zero's 'green' image. Government's true duty The government's first responsibility is reliable, affordable energy, not pursuing an abstract 'luxury belief' of net zero. Cheap, stable power underpins households, farms, and industries, sustaining the $200 billion fossil fuel export economy and Australia's living standards. With one in four households in energy hardship, intermittent renewables risk further strain. Reliable energy safeguards jobs, competitiveness, and national security. Net zero, by contrast, is a distant goal disconnected from Australia's immediate needs and advantages. The debate is fundamentally about the role of government - keeping lights on and costs down versus chasing utopian ideals. The righteous fight In Canberra, opposition is hardening. Senior Liberal Andrew Hastie vows to keep fighting net zero despite electoral headwinds, citing public anger over prices. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has introduced a bill to repeal the target, backed by Senator Matt Canavan, who calls net zero 'crazy and insane'. Regional MPs like Garth Hamilton and Alex Antic argue it betrays Australia's resource wealth. Nationals leader David Littleproud has labelled the target 'impossible'. Moderates like Andrew Bragg and Zoe McKenzie warn that abandoning net zero risks losing urban seats to the Greens and independents. The Coalition's May 2025 election loss - Labor won a historic majority - has deepened divisions. Pro-climate independents and the Greens gained ground, while the Coalition's pro-nuclear, pro-gas platform failed to win undecided and female voters. For the Coalition, the stakes are existential: Net zero threatens regional economies and energy security, yet dropping it risks alienating urban voters. The challenge is to reframe the issue - not just about reliability and affordability, but about national pride and energy supremacy. Australia, as the 'lucky country,' could deliver abundant, cheap power, thriving industries and jobs while fuelling the world's energy needs. Selling that vision could unite rural and urban voters, dismantle net zero's hold and restore Australia's economic leadership. Kosha Gada is a tech entrepreneur and broadcast commentator on US and international current affairs, appearing live three nights a week on Sky News Australia. She is a board member of sports betting platform PointsBet
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Europe on edge as Trump risks his biggest TACO moment
There is no public shift in the core demands from Putin. First, Ukraine must withdraw from the eastern regions now under Russian control. Second, it must accept strict limits on the size and power of its military. Third, it must give up its dream of joining the NATO defence pact with the United States and much of Europe. There may, of course, be a signal from Putin in private that he may be willing to be flexible on some of these demands, and this might in theory allow Zelensky some scope to make concessions. There is no sign of this, at least so far. The emptiness in Anchorage was apparent in what was not said at the end. Trump did not mention 'severe consequences' for Russia, something he threatened just before the summit. Trump did not mention secondary tariffs on China, either. This move would place pressure on Russia and its key economic partner. Only later, when asked on Fox News, did Trump acknowledge the China question. And then he suggested this was a matter for a later date. Putin, in other words, gained more time. At no cost. He played the White House team and made them look like amateurs. Trump will be judged by his actions, not his words. He has reduced American support for Ukraine. US military supplies have slowed and US aid funding has also been scaled back. The claims about putting pressure on Russia are all in the headlines, not in the hard power on the ground. Europe was cut out of this negotiation. Leaders such as Sir Keir Starmer of Britain, Emmanuel Macron of France and Friedrich Merz of Germany tried to back Zelensky but were left watching from a distance as an American and a Russian held a summit to decide the biggest war in Europe in eight decades. This is humbling for European leaders and reminds them that they cannot rely on America – or, at least, America under Trump – to enforce any peace agreement with Putin. They will have to do that themselves. Western Europe is scrambling to rearm so it can face Putin in a world without American safeguards. It is late, of course. Starmer and Macron will hold a meeting on Sunday, their time, to discuss their willingness to enforce a peace deal in Ukraine. While Starmer is willing to put 'boots on the ground' to do this, few others send this message. The benign view of Anchorage is that Trump was 'feeling out' his Russian counterpart before getting a peace deal, and that he will hear from Zelensky on Monday before deciding the next steps. Nobody can be sure about the full story of the Anchorage summit until this happens. Loading Even so, there are good grounds to think that Trump's decision to shift focus from a ceasefire to a long-term peace agreement means he is open to Putin's demands. After all, the dynamic was clear in Trump's attempt to humiliate Zelensky in the White House in February, and then in his generous treatment of Putin in August. The US president would prefer Ukraine to give ground, not Russia. And he seems intent on pursuing this approach in his quest to secure the Nobel Peace Prize. Loading Trump hates the four-letter barb that is often used to mock his tough talk: TACO, for Trump Always Chickens Out. He countered the critics by bombing Iran in June, but there is no sign he wants to take genuinely firm measures with Russia. Trump said he could end the war. Now he discovers it is harder than he thought, and he tries to put the onus on others to make it easier for him. 'Now, it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done,' Trump told Fox News. 'And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit.' The easy option for Trump is for Zelensky and the European leaders to nod in support as he trades away large parts of southern and eastern Ukraine. All the risks are on them if this simply emboldens Putin to start another war in a year or two. The Alaska summit may be remembered as Trump's biggest TACO moment. And he will not win the Nobel for that. Everything depends on whether he has the stomach to stand up to Putin and force a lasting peace in Europe.
