Putin says 'understanding' with Trump on Ukraine
The leaders met for a highly anticipated summit in Alaska to discuss Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ways towards peace, but there was no apparent breakthrough deal.
"We hope that the understanding we have reached will... pave the way for peace in Ukraine," Putin said at a joint press conference with Trump after their talks.
He said Moscow expected "that Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive all this in a constructive manner and will not create any obstacles."
He also warned against "attempts to disrupt the emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigues."
The summit was held without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy who was not invited to talks, raising concerns in Europe that Moscow and Washington would try to decide Ukraine's fate behind its back.
Putin and Trump praised the meeting, with the Russian leader branding it as "constructive" and held in "mutually respectful atmosphere."
Speaking about Ukraine, Putin said Russia was "sincerely interested in putting an end" to the conflict in Ukraine but called for Russia's "legitimate concerns" to be taken into account.
"I have said more than once that for Russia, the events in Ukraine are associated with fundamental threats to our national security," Putin said.
He added that "a fair balance in the security sphere in Europe and in the world as a whole must be restored."
Russia has in the past repeatedly called on Ukraine to abandon its ambitions to join Nato and cede its eastern regions that Moscow claims to have annexed.
Ukraine has rejected the idea and called for any peace deal to include security guarantees to prevent Russia from attacking again.
Putin, landing in Alaska, stepped onto Western soil for the first time since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a war that has killed tens of thousands of people.
On Friday he offered to host Trump in Moscow, extending the apparent invitation during their press conference.
"Next time in Moscow," Putin told Trump in English after the US president said he would "probably see you again very soon."
"Oh, that's an interesting one," Trump responded. "I'll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump's data war risks creating false calm
POLITICAL pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. United States President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) boss for what he described as "rigged" jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he didn't agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Trump is hardly the first person to criticise BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it's still not a good look. What's more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the US employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. Trump last week appointed Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni — a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wishlist of policies for a second Trump term — to run the BLS. Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the US economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came last Tuesday's attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated US consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Trump complaining about a forecast he doesn't like, but it's still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. There's an obvious concern that — intentionally or not — these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter long term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53 per cent of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23 per cent of the time. Of course, if there were a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what's really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation readouts. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Factbox-What does Ukraine's constitution say about territorial changes?
A drone view shows the ruins of residential buildings in the abandoned town of Marinka (Maryinka), which was destroyed in the course of Russia-Ukraine conflict in the Donetsk region, a Russian-controlled area of Ukraine, August 7, 2025. REUTERS/Alexander Ermochenko/File Photo KYIV (Reuters) -Territorial questions are certain to be a key area of focus when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and European leaders meet U.S. President Donald Trump for talks on Monday to map out a possible peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine. Russia occupies around a fifth of Ukraine and the U.S. president has said "land-swapping" and changes to territory will be crucial for any settlement. Two sources briefed on Russian thinking said on Saturday that Putin and Trump have discussed a proposal requiring Ukraine to fully withdraw troops from the Ukrainian-controlled parts of the eastern Donetsk region. UKRAINE'S CONSTITUTION ON THE ISSUE OF TERRITORY Any changes to Ukraine's territory would have to be settled in Ukraine by a referendum, according to the country's constitution. "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum," Article 73 says. The question can be put to a referendum by popular initiative if the signatures of three million eligible Ukrainian voters are gathered from at least two thirds of the country's regions, it says. UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT STANCE Ukraine, like its European allies, strongly opposes the idea of legally recognising any Ukrainian territory as Russian. But it has tacitly acknowledged it will almost certainly have to accept some de facto territorial losses. Zelenskiy has said talks to end the war should take the current front line as their starting point and cannot begin by Kyiv having to withdraw its troops from parts of its own sovereign territory that Russia does not control. He has said he does not have a mandate to give away any of the country's territory, and that tracts of state land cannot be traded around as if they were his private property. Zelenskiy has also said that if Kyiv withdrew troops from the heavily fortified eastern Donetsk region, it would open up Ukraine to the threat of Russian advances deeper into less well-defended Ukrainian territory. TRUMP'S STANCE The U.S. president has publicly criticized Zelenskiy for saying he could not violate the constitution by agreeing to give away territory. "I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenskiy was saying: 'Well, I have to get constitutional approval'. I mean, he has got approval to go into war, kill everybody but he needs approval to do a land swap. Because there will be some land swapping going on", he told the press on August 11. UKRAINIANS' VIEW A clear majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated settlement, according to opinion polls, but they also oppose recognising Ukrainian land as Russian. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology says that an opinion poll it conducted in June showed that 68% of those questioned oppose the idea of officially recognising "some parts" of occupied land as Russian, while 24% are open to this. The same survey showed that 78% are against the idea of giving up on land that Kyiv's troops still control. The pollster did not survey opinions in areas occupied by Russia. (Reporting by Yuliia DysaWriting by Tom BalmforthEditing by Frances Kerry)
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
New alliance emerging to challenge Western accounts of Gaza
AMID the rubble of journalists' tents and the unceasing wail of ambulances, the world is witnessing not merely death but also the murder of meaning. Israel's assault on Gaza can no longer be concealed behind euphemisms like "conflict" or "retaliation". However, Western mainstream media continues to deploy language that obscures the crime. In a world flooded with information, the denial of meaning is the most insidious and dangerous form of violence. Mainstream alternative media such as Middle East Monitor, Al Jazeera and TRT World have consistently rejected this narrative. Journalists like Anas al-Sharif were killed not because they bore arms, but because they bore witness — reviving Gaza's sufferings for the world to see. The world is no longer reliant on the Western media's selective framing as a new narrative alliance is emerging. From the Islamic world, BRICS, Africa, Latin America and digital activists, a coordinated media movement is reshaping the global map of meaning. Outlets such as RT (Russia), PressTV (Iran), TRT World (Turkiye) and networks across Africa and Latin America portray Palestinian suffering as a symbol of resistance against Western hegemony and moral hypocrisy. Beyond the established alternative media platforms such as Democracy Now, The Intercept, and Grayzone, more contrarian outlets like Unz Review have also entered the fray, amplifying voices that frame Israel's actions in Gaza as genocidal and morally indefensible. This reflects the widening spectrum of dissent in Western discourse. On digital platforms, influencers like Motaz Azaiza and thousands of activists have become "field journalists" who build global empathy. They stream live footage, testimonies and humanitarian appeals that transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries. Hashtags like #GazaGenocide, #EndIsraeliApartheid and #FreePalestine have become narrative battlegrounds that rival official propaganda. In Australia, a historic wave of mobilisation has swept across Sydney and Melbourne. Up to 300,000 people recently joined the "March for Humanity" across Sydney Harbour Bridge to demand a ceasefire, sanctions on Israel and recognition of Palestinian statehood. Writers like Omar El Akkad and activists like Nidzara Ahmetasevic have criticised the moral duplicity of the West, which failed to learn from the genocide in Bosnia. Malaysian media has the potential to bridge the voices of the Global South with Western consciousness. On the issue of Palestine, we must no longer rely on Western news agencies whose coverage often favours Israel and marginalises the Global South. Renowned academic and thinker Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Murad Merican has urged Malaysian media to lead efforts in declaring Asean a "Genocide-Free Zone", with deep reporting and regional advocacy. Our media can elevate historical witnesses like Gaza's journalists as icons of humanity; embed narratives of compassion, inclusivity and sustainability in its coverage; and build regional networks that unite voices from Asean, BRICS+, D-8 and the Global South. Thus, Malaysia joining The Hague Group and supporting South Africa's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice is not merely a diplomatic gesture, it is also a narrative declaration that Malaysia stands with truth. The genocide in Gaza is not just a humanitarian tragedy — it is also a test of global honesty, media courage and the resilience of meaning. The multipolar media alliance — rising from the Islamic world, BRICS, Africa and Latin America — has forged a battleground not of weapons, but of witness, empathy and interpretation. They do not merely report — they resurrect the meaning that was meant to be erased.
