Trump thinks he's meeting Putin to broker a peace deal. Putin likely has other ideas.
The only one openly talking about peace is Trump.
And even he conceded Monday, during a White House press conference, that 'it's not up to me to make a deal.'
Advertisement
For Putin, the meeting is less about ending the war than about resetting his relationship with Trump. Put another way: He is trying to flip the script. Just last month, Trump
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
For those keeping score: Trump entered office pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by threatening to
Advertisement
Over time, Zelensky worked his way back into Trump's good graces. There was a
Fueling that line of thinking was how Putin would hop on a call with Trump to discuss the contours of peace and then, immediately
Now, Putin sees an opening to make Zelensky the villain again. He may sweeten the conversation by dangling unrelated proposals, such as concessions to the United States over Russian- and Chinese-controlled Arctic Sea trade routes — part of the same strategic zone that drew Trump's earlier interest in acquiring Greenland.
But Putin's top priority will be persuading Trump to ease sanctions and reverse recent punitive measures against countries like India for buying Russian oil, revenue Putin desperately needs to fund his war. Ukraine and European leaders are correct:
Whether any of that lands with Trump is unclear. He will certainly be alert for side deals, but he also appears sincere — perhaps uniquely so — in his desire to broker peace agreements worldwide, or at least to
Advertisement
Seven months into office, Trump has built a record of peace deals and ceasefires.
Upon taking office, his officials helped administer
In May,
In June, he
Just last week,
But Trump didn't campaign on ending the war in the Caucasus in 24 hours. He made that promise about Ukraine. Realistically, he was never going to end it in a single day. Still, seven months in, it hasn't been for lack of trying.
Heading into Friday's meeting, Trump says he doesn't expect to walk away with a ceasefire but hopes to better understand the 'parameters' of a potential deal. He plans to call Zelensky from the plane afterward to see if a follow-up meeting is possible.
And there's always the chance he could, as he told reporters Monday, simply hear Putin out and reject everything.
'I think we'll have constructive conversations,' Trump said. 'Now, I may leave and say, 'Good luck' — and that'll be the end.'
Advertisement
James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Crypto is having a breakout summer — and bitcoin isn't the reason: Morning Brief
Riding high from a series of legislative wins and a wave of new financial initiatives, crypto investors are on the up and up. Another blast of positive catalysts has given the crypto world even more room to run this week. And most notably, the big news items don't really involve bitcoin. Circle (CRCL), the issuer of the second-largest stablecoin, posted better-than-expected quarterly revenue for the first time since going public. Bitmine (BMNR), an Ethereum treasury company, announced plans to sell up to another $20 billion worth of stock to boost its holdings of the cryptocurrency. And an array of popular altcoins are gaining ground. The moves collectively reflect the warm embrace of the Trump administration, which has championed the crypto industry and shifted the regulatory environment long seen as an obstacle to the adoption and growth of digital currency. But the success of Wall Street's crypto hedges also underscores rising institutional interest. Despite the risks, and perhaps because of them, more investors are growing comfortable with crypto exposure. And companies are chasing the returns of amassing tokens in a feedback loop that, however fleeting and precarious, seems to be paying off. Sign up for the Yahoo Finance Morning Brief By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Home to the fastest-growing major stablecoin over the past year, Circle shares are up more than 400% from its IPO price of $31 per share. As our colleague Ines Ferré reported, the company has been at the center of optimism over the stablecoin market following the passage of the GENIUS Act, legislation that creates a framework for digital tokens backed by assets such as the US dollar. Circle makes much of its money from interest income, specifically from short-term Treasury bills backing its stablecoin, USDC. After announcing a new blockchain network for stablecoin finance on Tuesday, shares rose another 3%. It's a play that could deliver some of crypto's promise for innovation to the financial services industry, and Wall Street and investors are paying attention — and making sure they're involved. Bitmine's surge highlights another pillar of crypto's ascendance in the financial world: the rise of crypto treasury companies. Riffing off the playbook of Strategy (MSTR), which sells new shares and debt to buy and hold more bitcoin, other players are finding success by accumulating other currencies, like ethereum. Bitmine, whose board is led by investor Tom Lee, announced this week that its holdings of ETH now account for roughly 1% of all tokens in circulation, sending the stock up more than 14%. The company's goal is to eventually reach 5% of the world's outstanding ETH tokens. Shares have surged over 600% this year. As this newsletter has written recently, the crypto accumulation strategy isn't working for every imitator, but it does work, as bitcoin continues to climb. But it's not just the dominant tokens that are gaining steam. Over the past week, the 10 largest digital currencies, according to data from CoinMarketCap, have gained. As our colleague Jake Conley reported, Ripple ( and Chainlink (LINK-USD) are among the altcoins rallying, fueled by an acquisition of a payment platform and the launch of a token reserve, respectively. The heady action seems far removed from the crypto winters of the past. But if this is the dawn of a new financial system, as crypto bulls like to profess, this summer is making it a lot easier to make that case. Hamza Shaban is a reporter for Yahoo Finance covering markets and the economy. Follow Hamza on X @hshaban. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Just in time? Manufacturers turn to AI to weather tariff storm
By Mark Bendeich LONDON (Reuters) -Manufacturers like U.S. lawnmower maker The Toro Company are not panicking at the prospect of U.S. President Donald Trump's global trade tariffs. Despite five years of dramatic supply disruptions, from the COVID pandemic to today's trade wars, Toro is resisting any temptation to stack its warehouses to the rafters. "We are at probably pre-pandemic inventory levels," says its chief supply-chain manager, Kevin Carpenter, looking relaxed in front of a whiteboard at his office in Minneapolis. "I mean 2019. I think everybody will be at a 2019 level." Among U.S. manufacturers, inventories have roller-coasted this year as they rushed to beat Trump's deadlines for tariff hikes, only to see them repeatedly delayed. But since their post-pandemic expansion, inventories have mostly contracted, according to U.S. Institute for Supply Management data. Instead, "just in time" inventory management - which aims to increase efficiency and reduce waste by ordering goods only as they are needed - is back. But how can firms run lean inventories even as tariffs fluctuate, export bans come out of the blue, and conflict rages? One of the answers, they say, is artificial intelligence. Carpenter says he uses AI to digest the daily stream of news that could impact Toro's business, from Trump's latest social media posts to steel prices, into a custom-made podcast that he listens to each morning. His team also uses generative AI to sieve an ocean of data and to suggest when and how many components to buy from whom. It is a boom industry. Spending on software that includes generative AI for supply chains, capable of learning and even performing tasks on its own, could hit $55 billion by 2029, up from $2.7 billion now, according to U.S. research firm Gartner, driven in part by global uncertainties. HYPE "The tool just puts up in front of you: 'I think you can take 100 tonnes of this product from this plant to transfer it to that plant. And you just hit accept if that makes sense (to you)," McKinsey supply chain consultant Matt Jochim said. The biggest providers of overall supply chain software by revenue are Germany's SAP, U.S. firms Oracle, Coupa and Microsoft and Blue Yonder, a unit of Panasonic, according to Gartner. Generative AI is in its infancy, with most firms still piloting it spending modest amounts, industry experts say. Those investments can climb to tens of millions of dollars when deployed at scale, including the use of tools known as AI agents, which make their own decisions and often need costly upgrades to data management and other IT systems, they said. In commenting for this article, SAP, Oracle, Coupa, Microsoft and Blue Yonder described strong growth for generative AI solutions for supply chains without giving numbers. At U.S. supply chain consultancy GEP, which sells AI tools like this, Trump's tariffs are helping to drive demand. "The tariff volatility has been big," says GEP consultant Mukund Acharya, an expert in retail industry supply chains. SAP said the uncertainty was driving technology take-up. "That's how it was during the financial crisis, Brexit and COVID. And it's what we're seeing now," Richard Howells, SAP vice president and supply chain specialist, said in a statement. An AI agent can sift real-time news feeds on changing tariff scenarios, assess contract renewal dates and a myriad of other data points and come up with a suggested plan of action. But supply chain experts warn of AI hype, saying a lot of money will be wasted on a vain hope that AI can work miracles. "AI is really a powerful enabler for supply chain resilience, but it's not a silver bullet," says Minna Aila, communications chief at Finnish crane-maker Konecranes and member of a business board that advises the OECD on issues including supply chain resilience. "I'm still looking forward to the day when AI can predict terrorist attacks that are at sea, for instance." Konecranes' logistics partners are deploying AI on more mundane data, like weather forecasts. The company makes port cranes that are up to 106 metres (348 ft) high when assembled. When shipping them, AI marries weather forecasts with data like bridge heights to optimise the route. "To ship those across oceans, you do have to take into consideration weather," Aila says. RISING COSTS By keeping inventories low, firms can bolster profit margins that are under pressure from rising costs. Every component or finished product sitting on a shelf is capital tied up, incurring finance and storage costs and at risk of obsolescence. McKinsey has been surveying supply-chain executives since the pandemic. Its most recent survey showed that respondents relying on bigger inventory to cushion disruptions fell to 34% last year from 60% in 2022. Early responses from its upcoming 2025 survey suggest a similar picture, Jochim said. Gartner supply chain analyst Noha Tohamy says that without AI, companies would be slower to react and be more likely to be drawn into building up inventories. "When supply chain organisations don't have that visibility and don't really understand the uncertainty, we go for inventory buffering," Tohamy says. But AI agents won't put supply chain managers out of work, not yet, consultants say. Humans still need to make strategic and big tactical decisions, leaving AI agents to do more routine tasks like ordering and scheduling production maintenance. Toro supply chain chief Carpenter says that without AI, supply chain managers might need to run bigger teams as well. Is he worried that AI is coming for his job one day? "I hope it doesn't take it until my kids get through college!" Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
8 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security turns 90 this week. Republicans are trying to keep it from reaching 100
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a clear mind about the value of Social Security on Aug. 14, 1935, the day he signed it into law. 'The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure,' he said in the Oval Office. 'We can never insure 100 per cent of the population against 100 per cent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against ... poverty-ridden old age.' He called it a 'cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.' FDR envisioned further programs to bring relief to the needy and healthcare for all Americans. Some of that happened during the following nine decades, but the structure is still incomplete. And now, as Social Security observes the 90th anniversary of that day, the program faces a crisis. If there are doubts about whether Social Security will survive long enough to observe its centennial, those have less to do with its fiscal challenges, the solutions of which are certainly within the economic reach of the richest nation on Earth. They have more to do with partisan politics, specifically the culmination of a decades-long GOP project to dismantle the most successful, and the most popular, government assistance program in American history. From a distance, the raids on the program's customer service infrastructure and the security of its data mounted by Elon Musk's DOGE earlier this year looked somewhat random. Fueled by abject ignorance about how the program worked and what its data meant, DOGE set in place plans to cut the program's staff by 7,000, or 12 percent, and to close dozens of field offices serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries. This at a time when the Social Security case load is higher than ever and staffing had already approached a 50-year low. This might have been billed as an effort to impose 'efficiency' on the system. But 'a more accurate description,' writes Monique Morrissey of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, 'is sabotage.' That has been conservatives' long-term plan — make interactions with Social Security more involved, more difficult and more time-consuming in order to make it seem ever less relevant to average Americans' lives. Once that happened, the public would be softened up to accept a privatized retirement system. Get the inefficient government off the backs of the people, the idea goes, so Wall Street can saddle up. George W. Bush's privatization plan, indeed, was conceived and promoted by Wall Street bankers, who thirsted for access to the trillions of dollars passing through the system's hands. This was never much of a secret, but it simmered beneath the surface. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at a July 30 event sponsored by Breitbart News, said the quiet part out loud. Referring to a private savings account program enacted as part of the GOP budget reconciliation bill Trump signed July 4, Bessent said, 'In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security.' The private accounts are to be jump-started with $1,000 deposits for children born this year through 2028, to be invested in stock index mutual funds; families can add up to $5,000 annually in after-tax income, with withdrawals beginning when the child reaches 18, though in some cases incurring a stiff penalty. I asked the Treasury Department for a clarification of Bessent's remark, but didn't receive a reply. Bessent, however, did try to walk the statement back via a post on X in which he stated that the Trump accounts are 'an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security's guaranteed payments.' Sorry, Mr. Secretary, no sale. You're the one who talked about 'privatizing Social Security' at the Breitbart event. You're stuck with it. Plainly, an 'additive' benefit would have nothing to do with Social Security. How it would 'supplement the sanctity' of Social Security benefits isn't apparent from Bessent's statement, or the law. Still, we can parse out the implications based on the long history of conservative attacks on the program. In 1983, the libertarian Cato Journal published a paper by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, two policy analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, titled 'Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy—i.e., for privatizing Social Security. From Lenin they drew the idea of mobilizing the working class to undermine existing capitalist structures. Cato's 'Leninist' strategy paper explicitly advocated encouraging workers to opt out of Social Security by promising them a payroll tax reduction if they put the money in a private account. IRAs, the authors asserted, would acclimate Americans to entrusting their retirements to a privatized system. They advocated an increase in the maximum annual contribution and its tax deductibility. 'The public would gradually become more familiar with the private option,' they wrote. 'If that did happen, it would be far easier than it is now to adopt the private plan as their principal source of old-age insurance and retirement income.' In other words, it would provide a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. (Germanis has since emerged as a cogent critic of conservative economics. Butler served at Heritage until 2014 and is currently a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution; he told me in March that he still believes in parallel systems of private retirement savings as we have today, but as 'add on' savings rather than a substitute for Social Security.) Cato, a think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, has never relinquished its quest to privatize Social Security; the notion still occupies pride of place on the institution's web page devoted to the program. In 2005, when I attended a two-day conference on the topic at Cato's Washington headquarters, Michael D. Tanner, then the chair of Cato's Social Security task force, explained that Cato wasn't concerned so much with the system's fiscal and economic issues as with its politics. Its goal, he stated frankly, was to unmake FDR's New Deal. 'This is about whether we redefine a relationship between individuals and government that we've had since 1935,' he told me. 'We say that what was done was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Our position is that people need to be responsible for their own lives.' Yet forcing dramatic change on a program so widely trusted and appreciated is a heavy lift. That's why Republicans have tried to downplay their intentions. Back in 2019, for instance, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) talked about the need to hold discussions about Social Security's future 'behind closed doors.' Secrecy was essential, Ernst said, 'so we're not being scrutinized by this group or the other, and just have an open and honest conversation about what are some of the ideas that we have for maintaining Social Security in the future.' As I observed at the time, that was a giveaway: The only time politicians take actions behind closed doors is when they know the results will be massively unpopular. Raising taxes on the rich to pay for Social Security benefits? That discussion can be held in the open, because the option is decisively favored in opinion polls. Cut benefits? That needs to be done in secret, because Americans overwhelmingly oppose it. Curiously, Trump and his fellow Republicans seem to think that attacking Social Security is an electoral winner. Possibly they've lost sight of the program's importance to the average American. Among Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older, 39% of men and 44% of women receive half their income or more from Social Security. In the same cohort, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Notwithstanding that reality, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently asserted that delays in sending out Social Security checks or bank deposits would be no big deal. 'Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month,' Lutnick said. 'My mother-in-law, who's 94 — she wouldn't call and complain.... She'd think something got messed up, and she'll get it next month.' He claimed that only 'fraudsters' would complain. I had a different take. Mine was that even a 24-hour delay in benefit payments would have a cataclysmic fallout for the Republican Party. It would be front-page news coast to coast. There would be nowhere for them to hide. While bringing misery to millions of Americans, a delay — which would be unprecedented since the first checks went out in 1940 — would be a gift for Democrats, if they knew how to use it. Where will we go from here? The current administration has already done damage to this critically-important program. An acting commissioner Trump installed briefly interfered with the enrollment process for infants born in Maine—an important procedure to ensure that government benefits continue to flow to their families—because the state's governor had pushed back against Trump in public. In July, the newly-appointed Social Security commissioner, Frank Bisignano, allowed a false and flagrantly political email to go out to beneficiaries and to be posted on the program's website implying that the budget reconciliation bill relieved most seniors of federal income taxes on their benefits. It did nothing of the kind. To the extent that Social Security may face a fiscal reckoning in the next decade, the most effective fix is well-understood by those familiar with the program's structure. It's removing the income cap on the payroll tax, which tops out this year at $176,100 in wage income. Up to that point, wages are taxed at 12.4%, split evenly between workers and their employers. Above the ceiling, the tax is zero. Remove the cap, and make capital gains, dividends and interest income subject to the tax, and Social Security will remain fully solvent into the foreseeable future. Trump and his fellow Republicans don't seem to understand how most Americans view Social Security: as an 'entitlement,' not because they think they're getting something for nothing, but because they know they've paid for it all their working lives. As much as the system's foes would like it to go away, as long as the rest of us remain vigilant against efforts to 'redefine a relationship between individuals and government' established in 1935, we will be able to celebrate its 100th anniversary 10 years from now, in 2035.
