What Albanese's visit to Jakarta signifies for Australia
Australia is getting more serious about regional influence, economic security, and sovereign resilience, and cultivating this relationship matters most. Anthony Albanese recognises this, which is why he brought his two most trusted ministers with him, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
Indonesia is more than our biggest neighbour. It's a strategic anchor in the Indo-Pacific, controlling key maritime chokepoints and on track to become the world's fourth-largest economy by 2040.
Few things stir anxiety in Canberra more than the prospect of rival powers gaining a foothold there. Jakarta swiftly denied recent reports of a potential Russian naval base in eastern Indonesia, but the speculation still struck a nerve. The incident underscored growing unease about great power rivalry on Australia's doorstep. Beijing's maritime flex with a naval task group circumnavigating Australia and Washington's tariff roulette underscore that Australia won't be a spectator in the shifting regional order.
Both Australia and Indonesia are navigating an increasingly contested world. China is seeking to establish new rules, while Trump's America is unravelling old ones. Countries like Australia and Indonesia must decide what course to chart in this strategic environment. If the Prime Minister wants to leave a meaningful foreign policy legacy, it won't begin in Washington or Brussels, but Jakarta.
The Prime Minister's first term was characterised by domestic priorities and overseas crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. Now, with a renewed mandate and political capital to spend, he has a rare opportunity to shape Australia's regional future. Strengthening substantive ties with Indonesia should be central to that agenda.
The Albanese government has made welcome moves to deepen regional engagement, including elevating Southeast Asia in the national security conversation and commissioning the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. However, that intent has yet to translate into a clear or confident strategy about Indonesia, a populous G20 nation with rising global relevance and staggering investment opportunities.
Beyond the comfortable talking points of "shared values" and "close friendship", our economic engagement with Indonesia still runs too shallow. Two-way investment remains minimal. Australian businesses are conspicuously absent in a market where others, from Korea to the UAE, are active and visible. We've been slow to adjust to the changing reality of Indonesia as a peer receiving global attention.
Canberra has long struggled to craft a coherent economic narrative around Indonesia. Political visits have often centred on defence, disaster relief, or development assistance. While these are important, economic development is Indonesia's chief priority, and our strategy must reflect that new ambition.
The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) is underutilised. We need renewed energy and clarity to embed this agreement in a broader economic vision.
The core challenge remains unchanged: Australian firms still hesitate to view Indonesia as a market of first resort. At the same time, competitors like Japan, Korea and Singapore engage with greater capital, consistency, and cultural fluency.
MORE OPINION:
This visit offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to break new ground. Has the door opened? The months ahead will be telling. The $200 million pledge for climate and infrastructure, announced in the government's first term, was a useful down payment. If Australia wants to shift from donor and commodity supplier to strategic partner, this visit must signal a new phase of co-investment.
That means more Australian firms operating in Indonesia, greater representation of Indonesians in our skilled migration and education systems, and stronger bilateral mechanisms that turn goodwill into results. It requires a mindset shift - viewing Indonesia as essential to Australia's long-term prosperity and security. Our diplomats and trade officials understand this; the wider public and business community do not.
President Prabowo Subianto's relatively new administration presents a timely window. While signalling continuity with President Widodo's infrastructure agenda, Prabowo brings a more assertive tone and sharper focus on human capital. This creates both opportunity and urgency for Australia to act.
A key test will be how we engage with Indonesia's new sovereign wealth fund, Danantara. Its rollout has been uneven, unsettling some investors, but it sits at the heart of Prabowo's economic agenda. Countries like France are already engaging. Australia should, too - constructively. We can help shape governance, share expertise, and co-invest. That's how long-term influence is built.
If the Prime Minister wants to establish a lasting foreign policy legacy, it begins in Jakarta with a partnership based on investment, skills, and shared ambition.
The Prime Minister's flying visit to Indonesia was more than a diplomatic courtesy call. It was a signal of what's next in this relationship and that Australia sees Indonesia not just as a neighbour, but an emerging economic giant, central to our foreign policy future.
Australia is getting more serious about regional influence, economic security, and sovereign resilience, and cultivating this relationship matters most. Anthony Albanese recognises this, which is why he brought his two most trusted ministers with him, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
Indonesia is more than our biggest neighbour. It's a strategic anchor in the Indo-Pacific, controlling key maritime chokepoints and on track to become the world's fourth-largest economy by 2040.
Few things stir anxiety in Canberra more than the prospect of rival powers gaining a foothold there. Jakarta swiftly denied recent reports of a potential Russian naval base in eastern Indonesia, but the speculation still struck a nerve. The incident underscored growing unease about great power rivalry on Australia's doorstep. Beijing's maritime flex with a naval task group circumnavigating Australia and Washington's tariff roulette underscore that Australia won't be a spectator in the shifting regional order.
Both Australia and Indonesia are navigating an increasingly contested world. China is seeking to establish new rules, while Trump's America is unravelling old ones. Countries like Australia and Indonesia must decide what course to chart in this strategic environment. If the Prime Minister wants to leave a meaningful foreign policy legacy, it won't begin in Washington or Brussels, but Jakarta.
The Prime Minister's first term was characterised by domestic priorities and overseas crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. Now, with a renewed mandate and political capital to spend, he has a rare opportunity to shape Australia's regional future. Strengthening substantive ties with Indonesia should be central to that agenda.
The Albanese government has made welcome moves to deepen regional engagement, including elevating Southeast Asia in the national security conversation and commissioning the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. However, that intent has yet to translate into a clear or confident strategy about Indonesia, a populous G20 nation with rising global relevance and staggering investment opportunities.
Beyond the comfortable talking points of "shared values" and "close friendship", our economic engagement with Indonesia still runs too shallow. Two-way investment remains minimal. Australian businesses are conspicuously absent in a market where others, from Korea to the UAE, are active and visible. We've been slow to adjust to the changing reality of Indonesia as a peer receiving global attention.
Canberra has long struggled to craft a coherent economic narrative around Indonesia. Political visits have often centred on defence, disaster relief, or development assistance. While these are important, economic development is Indonesia's chief priority, and our strategy must reflect that new ambition.
The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) is underutilised. We need renewed energy and clarity to embed this agreement in a broader economic vision.
The core challenge remains unchanged: Australian firms still hesitate to view Indonesia as a market of first resort. At the same time, competitors like Japan, Korea and Singapore engage with greater capital, consistency, and cultural fluency.
MORE OPINION:
This visit offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to break new ground. Has the door opened? The months ahead will be telling. The $200 million pledge for climate and infrastructure, announced in the government's first term, was a useful down payment. If Australia wants to shift from donor and commodity supplier to strategic partner, this visit must signal a new phase of co-investment.
That means more Australian firms operating in Indonesia, greater representation of Indonesians in our skilled migration and education systems, and stronger bilateral mechanisms that turn goodwill into results. It requires a mindset shift - viewing Indonesia as essential to Australia's long-term prosperity and security. Our diplomats and trade officials understand this; the wider public and business community do not.
President Prabowo Subianto's relatively new administration presents a timely window. While signalling continuity with President Widodo's infrastructure agenda, Prabowo brings a more assertive tone and sharper focus on human capital. This creates both opportunity and urgency for Australia to act.
A key test will be how we engage with Indonesia's new sovereign wealth fund, Danantara. Its rollout has been uneven, unsettling some investors, but it sits at the heart of Prabowo's economic agenda. Countries like France are already engaging. Australia should, too - constructively. We can help shape governance, share expertise, and co-invest. That's how long-term influence is built.
If the Prime Minister wants to establish a lasting foreign policy legacy, it begins in Jakarta with a partnership based on investment, skills, and shared ambition.
The Prime Minister's flying visit to Indonesia was more than a diplomatic courtesy call. It was a signal of what's next in this relationship and that Australia sees Indonesia not just as a neighbour, but an emerging economic giant, central to our foreign policy future.
Australia is getting more serious about regional influence, economic security, and sovereign resilience, and cultivating this relationship matters most. Anthony Albanese recognises this, which is why he brought his two most trusted ministers with him, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
Indonesia is more than our biggest neighbour. It's a strategic anchor in the Indo-Pacific, controlling key maritime chokepoints and on track to become the world's fourth-largest economy by 2040.
Few things stir anxiety in Canberra more than the prospect of rival powers gaining a foothold there. Jakarta swiftly denied recent reports of a potential Russian naval base in eastern Indonesia, but the speculation still struck a nerve. The incident underscored growing unease about great power rivalry on Australia's doorstep. Beijing's maritime flex with a naval task group circumnavigating Australia and Washington's tariff roulette underscore that Australia won't be a spectator in the shifting regional order.
Both Australia and Indonesia are navigating an increasingly contested world. China is seeking to establish new rules, while Trump's America is unravelling old ones. Countries like Australia and Indonesia must decide what course to chart in this strategic environment. If the Prime Minister wants to leave a meaningful foreign policy legacy, it won't begin in Washington or Brussels, but Jakarta.
The Prime Minister's first term was characterised by domestic priorities and overseas crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. Now, with a renewed mandate and political capital to spend, he has a rare opportunity to shape Australia's regional future. Strengthening substantive ties with Indonesia should be central to that agenda.
The Albanese government has made welcome moves to deepen regional engagement, including elevating Southeast Asia in the national security conversation and commissioning the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. However, that intent has yet to translate into a clear or confident strategy about Indonesia, a populous G20 nation with rising global relevance and staggering investment opportunities.
Beyond the comfortable talking points of "shared values" and "close friendship", our economic engagement with Indonesia still runs too shallow. Two-way investment remains minimal. Australian businesses are conspicuously absent in a market where others, from Korea to the UAE, are active and visible. We've been slow to adjust to the changing reality of Indonesia as a peer receiving global attention.
Canberra has long struggled to craft a coherent economic narrative around Indonesia. Political visits have often centred on defence, disaster relief, or development assistance. While these are important, economic development is Indonesia's chief priority, and our strategy must reflect that new ambition.
The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) is underutilised. We need renewed energy and clarity to embed this agreement in a broader economic vision.
The core challenge remains unchanged: Australian firms still hesitate to view Indonesia as a market of first resort. At the same time, competitors like Japan, Korea and Singapore engage with greater capital, consistency, and cultural fluency.
MORE OPINION:
This visit offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to break new ground. Has the door opened? The months ahead will be telling. The $200 million pledge for climate and infrastructure, announced in the government's first term, was a useful down payment. If Australia wants to shift from donor and commodity supplier to strategic partner, this visit must signal a new phase of co-investment.
That means more Australian firms operating in Indonesia, greater representation of Indonesians in our skilled migration and education systems, and stronger bilateral mechanisms that turn goodwill into results. It requires a mindset shift - viewing Indonesia as essential to Australia's long-term prosperity and security. Our diplomats and trade officials understand this; the wider public and business community do not.
President Prabowo Subianto's relatively new administration presents a timely window. While signalling continuity with President Widodo's infrastructure agenda, Prabowo brings a more assertive tone and sharper focus on human capital. This creates both opportunity and urgency for Australia to act.
A key test will be how we engage with Indonesia's new sovereign wealth fund, Danantara. Its rollout has been uneven, unsettling some investors, but it sits at the heart of Prabowo's economic agenda. Countries like France are already engaging. Australia should, too - constructively. We can help shape governance, share expertise, and co-invest. That's how long-term influence is built.
If the Prime Minister wants to establish a lasting foreign policy legacy, it begins in Jakarta with a partnership based on investment, skills, and shared ambition.
The Prime Minister's flying visit to Indonesia was more than a diplomatic courtesy call. It was a signal of what's next in this relationship and that Australia sees Indonesia not just as a neighbour, but an emerging economic giant, central to our foreign policy future.
Australia is getting more serious about regional influence, economic security, and sovereign resilience, and cultivating this relationship matters most. Anthony Albanese recognises this, which is why he brought his two most trusted ministers with him, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
Indonesia is more than our biggest neighbour. It's a strategic anchor in the Indo-Pacific, controlling key maritime chokepoints and on track to become the world's fourth-largest economy by 2040.
Few things stir anxiety in Canberra more than the prospect of rival powers gaining a foothold there. Jakarta swiftly denied recent reports of a potential Russian naval base in eastern Indonesia, but the speculation still struck a nerve. The incident underscored growing unease about great power rivalry on Australia's doorstep. Beijing's maritime flex with a naval task group circumnavigating Australia and Washington's tariff roulette underscore that Australia won't be a spectator in the shifting regional order.
Both Australia and Indonesia are navigating an increasingly contested world. China is seeking to establish new rules, while Trump's America is unravelling old ones. Countries like Australia and Indonesia must decide what course to chart in this strategic environment. If the Prime Minister wants to leave a meaningful foreign policy legacy, it won't begin in Washington or Brussels, but Jakarta.
The Prime Minister's first term was characterised by domestic priorities and overseas crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. Now, with a renewed mandate and political capital to spend, he has a rare opportunity to shape Australia's regional future. Strengthening substantive ties with Indonesia should be central to that agenda.
The Albanese government has made welcome moves to deepen regional engagement, including elevating Southeast Asia in the national security conversation and commissioning the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. However, that intent has yet to translate into a clear or confident strategy about Indonesia, a populous G20 nation with rising global relevance and staggering investment opportunities.
Beyond the comfortable talking points of "shared values" and "close friendship", our economic engagement with Indonesia still runs too shallow. Two-way investment remains minimal. Australian businesses are conspicuously absent in a market where others, from Korea to the UAE, are active and visible. We've been slow to adjust to the changing reality of Indonesia as a peer receiving global attention.
Canberra has long struggled to craft a coherent economic narrative around Indonesia. Political visits have often centred on defence, disaster relief, or development assistance. While these are important, economic development is Indonesia's chief priority, and our strategy must reflect that new ambition.
The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) is underutilised. We need renewed energy and clarity to embed this agreement in a broader economic vision.
The core challenge remains unchanged: Australian firms still hesitate to view Indonesia as a market of first resort. At the same time, competitors like Japan, Korea and Singapore engage with greater capital, consistency, and cultural fluency.
MORE OPINION:
This visit offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to break new ground. Has the door opened? The months ahead will be telling. The $200 million pledge for climate and infrastructure, announced in the government's first term, was a useful down payment. If Australia wants to shift from donor and commodity supplier to strategic partner, this visit must signal a new phase of co-investment.
That means more Australian firms operating in Indonesia, greater representation of Indonesians in our skilled migration and education systems, and stronger bilateral mechanisms that turn goodwill into results. It requires a mindset shift - viewing Indonesia as essential to Australia's long-term prosperity and security. Our diplomats and trade officials understand this; the wider public and business community do not.
President Prabowo Subianto's relatively new administration presents a timely window. While signalling continuity with President Widodo's infrastructure agenda, Prabowo brings a more assertive tone and sharper focus on human capital. This creates both opportunity and urgency for Australia to act.
A key test will be how we engage with Indonesia's new sovereign wealth fund, Danantara. Its rollout has been uneven, unsettling some investors, but it sits at the heart of Prabowo's economic agenda. Countries like France are already engaging. Australia should, too - constructively. We can help shape governance, share expertise, and co-invest. That's how long-term influence is built.
If the Prime Minister wants to establish a lasting foreign policy legacy, it begins in Jakarta with a partnership based on investment, skills, and shared ambition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Is this the end of the debate over salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour?
Tasmania has a long list of emotive, nation-shaping environmental debates. From the Franklin Dam dispute that ultimately set a template for where responsibility sits for matters of national environmental significance, to the Gunns pulp mill battle that mobilised mass protest. Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour is another on the list — this time, resulting in federal environmental reform that decreased the ability of the public to challenge past decisions. And, like the dam and the pulp mill, it's been coloured by protest and emotive argument. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had to speak over the sound of protest while visiting a Tassal facility in Tasmania's south. On Thursday, federal Environment Minister Murray Watt — while guaranteeing the future of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour — was met by a group of protesters in Devonport. Macquarie Harbour has a blend of remoteness, uniqueness and natural beauty. It's six times the size of Sydney Harbour, at the mouth of the Gordon River in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Macquarie Harbour is also the only place in the world where the endangered Maugean skate is found, a ray-like species that relies on dissolved oxygen reaching the bottom of the harbour. The skate needs a delicate and unique set of circumstances to survive. Salmon farming started in the harbour in the 1980s. In 2012, it received federal environmental approval to expand. By 2015, it had reached 20,000 tonnes of fish. When water quality issues became increasingly apparent, it was decided to wind back the stocking rates and set nitrogen limits. But reduced dissolved oxygen levels had been having an impact on the Maugean skate — exacerbated by extreme weather events in 2019 that caused two mass die-off events. In 2021, it was estimated that skate numbers had reduced by 47 per cent, and that the species could be one bad weather event away from potential extinction. This brought intense scrutiny and attention onto salmon farming practices in the harbour, driven by environmental groups like the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF). The federal Labor government promised no new extinctions — and environmental groups were driven to hold the government to this promise. Three groups — the BBF, Environmental Defenders Office and the Australia Institute — lodged requests with the government to reconsider the 2012 expansion approval. It resulted in the release of more information about the plight of the skate, including federal conservation advice that recommended further destocking of the salmon farms — which did not occur. The reconsideration had been ongoing since November 2023, but created uncertainty for the aquaculture industry on Tasmania's west coast — and, thereby, political pressure on Labor. In one of its last acts in parliament before the most recent federal election, Labor passed an amendment to environmental laws to effectively stop these kinds of reconsideration requests. The law states that if industries have been operating for five years since receiving federal environmental approval, and are regulated by the state, then they cannot be reconsidered. It applies to any industry — not just salmon farming. The laws appear to have solved Labor's political problem, in a big way. The party received a 15 per cent swing in Braddon — the largest of any seat at the federal election — under its staunchly pro-salmon candidate, Anne Urquhart. It was easily enough to win the seat back from the Liberals. In his letter to stakeholders, Mr Watt confirmed that the March law change was the basis for being able to reaffirm the 2012 salmon farming decision. He said he had, therefore, followed the law. "Every decision we make when it comes to environmental approvals is in compliance with the law," Mr Watt said. "It's no secret that the government amended the legislation prior to the last election to outline a path to deal with reconsiderations, and we've now applied the law. Industry body Salmon Tasmania said the decision provided "economic stability" for the west coast region, and pointed to research that suggested Maugean skate numbers had stabilised after a decade of decline. An oxygenation trial — partly funded by the federal government — is continuing. It involves pumping dissolved oxygen into the harbour's depths, which the industry and government both believe can be a sustainable option. The federal government is also helping to fund an insurance population of Maugean skate. The decision came one week before a BBF legal challenge to the law change was due to be heard in the Federal Court. The BBF is now considering its legal options, but believes the timing of the decision is intended to prevent departmental information from entering the public domain. BBF campaigner Alistair Allan said the process had resulted in weakened environmental laws for all endangered species. "We will be challenging this law, because we have to make sure that corporations are not the ones that get to decide what happens to Australia's environment," he said. "Australia's laws are already atrociously weak. "We have an animal here that was on the list, it was a priority species to be protected, and straight away it was condemned by the Albanese government." There are 11 salmon licences in Macquarie Harbour that have been able to continue throughout the reconsideration process. Fish biomass in the harbour is currently well below the peak from 2015, while the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has introduced new regulatory functions, such as nitrogen limits. The law change effectively leaves regulation to the state-based EPA for the foreseeable future. But it's unlikely to be the last Australians hear of the endangered Maugean skate, with studies continuing to point to a need for even further studies and data. These would fully examine whether salmon farming can truly coexist with the skate, if oxygenation is a genuine long-term solution and if there is a stocking level or management options for fish farms that can ensure the skate avoids extinction — should severe weather events hit again.
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting, but peace may be more than a conversation away
When Vladimir Putin arrives in Anchorage today for peace talks with Donald Trump to try to end the war in Ukraine, he's likely to walk in believing he has the upper hand. Russian forces have advanced at least 10 kilometres on a front in Ukraine's east this week — a breakthrough, of sorts, after months of incremental territorial gains. Moscow's drones and missiles have been pounding its neighbour's cities, killing scores of people and chipping away at the morale of those who remain. Despite all that aggression, Putin — considered a pariah by much of the international community since his full-scale invasion in 2022 — has been rewarded. An in-person meeting with the leader of the free world awaits on Friday, local time. Trump, for his part, has said he's searching for a pathway to peace. That idea could be unrealistic. A chasm remains between the Kremlin and Kyiv's ceasefire wish lists. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week outlined several demands he said Trump had "agreed" to raise with Putin. Among them was that Russia cannot veto his country's ambitions to join the European Union and NATO. Putin, however, has consistently framed that prospect as a dealbreaker. Zelenskyy also said Ukraine had to be involved in any ceasefire discussions. As the country that was invaded, that might seem obvious. But it hasn't been invited to Friday's meeting. "So whatever might come out of that summit between the US and the Russian presidents, those will not be terms that can be simply imposed on Ukraine," said Jaroslava Barbieri, a research fellow at London think tank Chatham House. She added Trump would need to be wary of Putin's spin. "One of the key objectives of the Kremlin … is putting forward proposals that are unacceptable for Ukraine in order to present Ukraine as an uncooperative and ungrateful actor to Trump's peace brokering efforts," she said. Since the Alaska summit was announced last week, Trump has made several references to the possibility of "land-swapping" between Russia and Ukraine. Judging by the rhetoric coming from both Moscow and Kyiv, the idea either side would be prepared to do that in exchange for peace appears far-fetched. The Kremlin's stance on ending its invasion has not budged since Putin set out conditions last year. He wants Ukraine to abandon its NATO aspirations, reduce its military, become a neutral state, and cede territory occupied by Russian forces during the war. Two territories in Ukraine's east — Donetsk and Luhansk — are particularly prized by Putin, and analysts say it will likely be a key demand discussed in Alaska. Russia has partially occupied both since 2014, and last month claimed it had captured all of Luhansk, more than three years after its full-scale invasion was launched. Zelenskyy has said his troops will not leave either. Ukraine's leader has also said he would not cede his country's territory, arguing tens of thousands of soldiers had died defending it and Russia could use it to launch future attacks. Such a move would not only be unpopular among Ukrainians. It's illegal under the country's constitution to redraw borders set in 1991. Putin, too, has constitutional headaches. Back in 2022, seven months after his full-scale invasion began, he signed amendments to Russia's constitution that four Ukrainian territories — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — had been integrated into his country. After years of fighting and massive casualties, his troops control only one of those completely. Zelenskyy says he's already warned Trump: "Putin is bluffing" when it comes to peace. "He is trying to put pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine," he said. Zelenskyy isn't the only key player not going to Alaska. European allies, who like the US have tipped billions of dollars in financial and military aid into Ukraine, have also been barred from taking part. This week they, and Ukraine's leader, had a video call with Trump. It was a last-ditch attempt to shape his approach. "We as Europeans are doing everything we can to help set the agenda for that meeting," German Chancellor Frederich Merz said on Wednesday, after the hook-up. Among the European Union's main concerns is that after Ukraine, an emboldened Putin will launch further invasions on the continent. At most risk, they say, are the Baltic states, and Poland. Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat to the United Nations, who resigned in 2022 because he was "ashamed" of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, said he did "not have very high expectations" for Friday's meeting. "What Vladimir Putin wants goes strictly against the national interest of the United States and the Western countries," he said. "To accept Putin's demands and his conditions would mean surrender, not only of Ukraine, but of the West itself — surrender to open aggression, to rewriting of national borders, and it would be a green light for the continuation of such policy by Russia or any other would-be aggressor." So when is peace possible? Anna Mateeva, a visiting fellow at Kings College London who specialises in Russian politics and security, said Friday's summit should be viewed as the first step in a long process. "The most important thing which can be achieved is the two-leaders assessment of each other, and to what extent they are serious about what they are saying they can do," Dr Mateeva said. Many analysts argue the in-person meeting between Trump and Putin has the potential to be something constructive en route to a ceasefire. But actually getting there appears a distant goal. On the battlefield, fighting remains ferocious, and off it, the gulf between Kyiv and Moscow's lists of demands has not been closed. It could take more than a conversation to change that reality.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
ASX set to dip, Wall Street slides after inflation update
Most stocks are falling on Wall Street after a disappointing report said inflation was worse last month at the US wholesale level than economists expected. But gains for Amazon and some other influential Big Tech companies are helping to mask the losses. Three out of every four stocks within the S&P 500 fell, though the index edged down by just 0.1 per cent after setting an all-time high the day before. The Dow Jones was down 97 points, or 0.2 per cent, in mid-afternoon trade, while the Nasdaq composite fell 0.1 per cent from its record the day before. The Australian sharemarket is set to slip, with futures at 4.56am AEST pointing to a decline of 9 points, or 0.1 per cent, at the open. The ASX hit a new high as it added 0.5 per cent on Thursday. The inflation report said that prices at the US wholesale level jumped 3.3 per cent last month from a year earlier. That was well above the 2.5 per cent rate that economists had forecast, and it could hint at higher inflation ahead for US shoppers as it makes its way through the system. The data forced traders to second guess their widespread consensus that the Federal Reserve will deliver some help next month by cutting interest rates. Lower rates can boost investment prices and the economy by making it cheaper for US households and businesses to borrow to buy houses, cars or equipment, but they also risk worsening inflation. Loading 'This doesn't slam the door on a September rate cut,' but it may raise some doubt, according to Chris Larkin, managing director, trading and investing, at E-Trade from Morgan Stanley. Traders now see a 7.2 per cent chance that the Fed may hold rates steady at its next meeting in September, according to data from CME Group. A day earlier, they were betting on a 100 per cent certainty that the Fed would cut its main rate for the first time this year. Higher interest rates can hurt all kinds of companies by keeping the cost to borrow high. They can particularly hurt smaller companies, which often need to borrow to grow. The Russell 2000 index of smaller US stocks tumbled a market-leading 1.5 per cent.
