Past US-Russia summits required detailed preparation - but will Trump surprise us all?
Think Nixon-Brezhnev in Moscow in 1972 when they signed a landmark arms treaty.
Think Reagan-Gorbachev in Geneva and Reykjavik and others, which ended in limiting short and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
All these summits required huge planning and detailed preparation.
Donald Trump's summits are different, at least this one is. Hurriedly arranged and without much idea about what will emerge.
The US president is on record as saying there is a 25% chance it won't be a success.
3:44
The circumstances are very different. This time, it is about Vladimir Putin's invasion of a sovereign country and how to bring the fighting to an end.
The fear is that Trump will once again give Putin the benefit of the doubt.
I was in Helsinki in 2018 when there were sharp intakes of breath as Trump literally sided with the Russian president over his own intelligence chiefs.
Not privately, but in the news conference that followed. It was all about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump said: "My people came to me and they all said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin here and he says it wasn't Russia and I have to say this, I don't see any reason why it would be."
It was a pretty bad look, an American president undermining the work of the country's intelligence agencies.
Former Trump foreign policy advisor Fiona Hill remembers it well. She was there and was horrified.
She said afterwards that it literally crossed her mind to fake some kind of medical emergency to bring the whole thing to an end.
Here in Alaska, the plan is, once again, for Trump and Putin to have talks alone, other than translators.
1:43
Their negotiating teams will eventually join them but Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are desperately worried that Trump will be outmanoeuvred.
The experienced, ruthless ex-KGB man is nothing if not a survivor and his aim is to buy time and continue the war.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump rows back threat of ‘secondary tariffs' against India and China after Putin summit
US president Donald Trump has played down the prospect of imposing so-called 'secondary tariffs' on buyers of Russian oil after his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump had proposed the levies as a new way of pressuring Russia's war-time economy if it failed to stop its invasion of Ukraine, and they were largely due to impact China and India, by far the two biggest buyers of Russian crude. Mr Trump earlier this month doubled duties on Indian products to 50 per cent after imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil, kicking off from 27 August. New Delhi was facing the risk of even higher tariffs if Mr Trump's summit in Alaska failed to end Russia's war in Ukraine after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that 'secondary tariffs could go up' if things don't go well at the meeting. In recent days, Mr Trump has expressed his anger with India for its refusal to stop buying oil from Russia. He has accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing discounted crude from Moscow. China remains the largest market for Russian oil exports. However, raising tariffs on Beijing threatens to break a delicate truce deal between China and the US after it was extended for another 90 days. The truce saw both countries lowering tariffs on each other's goods after the trade war between the two biggest economies threatened to upend global markets. On board Air Force One on his way to meet Mr Putin in Alaska, Mr Trump still appeared undecided on whether he would impose secondary tariffs or not, saying they would be 'very devastating' for China in particular and suggesting Russia had already 'lost an oil client' in India. ''If I have to do it, I'll do it. Maybe I won't have to do it,' he said. After the nearly three-hour-long meeting with Mr Putin, Mr Trump hailed the Alaska summit as a 'great and very successful day' although 'we didn't get there' on agreeing an immediate ceasefire. He instead endorsed Russia's longstanding position – that Kyiv and Moscow would need to agree a full peace deal while fighting continued in the background. And in a post-summit interview with Hannity, Mr Trump said he would hold off on imposing secondary tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Mr Putin. He did not mention India directly. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Mr Trump said of the tariffs. "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now." India has previously said that it needs Russian oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy. The country has been sourcing nearly a third of its oil from Russia since the Ukraine war began in early 2022 and Moscow started offering it at a discounted rate. New Delhi has decried the double standards of the US sanctioning its oil purchases while continuing to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, palladium and fertiliser. Narendra Modi's government called the US tariffs "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and vowed to "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests'.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Three Republican-led states to deploy National Guard troops to US capital
Aug 16 (Reuters) - The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portrayed the city as awash in crime. The announcements on Saturday of troops from hundreds of miles away in West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio came a day after D.C. officials and the Trump administration negotiated a deal to keep Mayor Muriel Bowser's appointed police chief, Pamela Smith, in charge of the police department after D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit to block the federal takeover of the department. Trump, a Republican, said this week he was deploying hundreds of D.C. National Guard troops to Washington and temporarily taking over the Democratic-led city's police department to curb what he depicted as a crime and homelessness emergency. Justice Department data, however, showed violent crime in 2024 hit a 30-year low in Washington, a self-governing federal district under the jurisdiction of Congress. West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey's office said in a statement he was deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to D.C. in "a show of commitment to public safety and regional cooperation." The statement said he also was providing equipment and specialized training. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster responded to a Pentagon request by announcing that 200 of his state's National Guard troops would be sent. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said he would send 150 military police members in the coming days, adding none of them were "currently serving as law enforcement officers in the state." After the announcements, Mayor Bowser posted on X: "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican." The National Guard serves as a militia that answers to the governors of the 50 states except when called into federal service. The D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president. Trump, who has suggested he could take similar actions in other Democratic-controlled cities, has sought to expand the powers of the presidency in his second term, inserting himself into the affairs of major banks, law firms and elite universities. In June, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, against the wishes of California's Democratic governor, during protests over mass immigration raids by federal officials. South Carolina's McMaster said his troops would immediately return to South Carolina if needed to respond to a possible hurricane or other natural disaster. Hurricane Erin, now northeast of Puerto Rico, has become a catastrophic Category 5 storm that could bring ocean swells to the U.S. East Coast early next week, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said on Saturday. National Guard troops often respond to natural disasters and rarely police U.S. civilians. Drew Galang, a spokesperson for West Virginia's Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment. A White House official said on Saturday that more National Guard troops would be called in to Washington to "protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime." A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a formal order was expected to go out that would authorize National Guard troops in D.C. to carry firearms. The official said this order would affect mostly military police officers with sidearms. Reuters has reported that the National Guard troops would have weapons nearby, such as in their vehicles. The White House said on Saturday that D.C. National Guard members have conducted patrols on foot and in vehicles around the National Mall and Union Station. The White House said the National Guard troops are not making arrests now and that they may be armed. It is not clear how the administration could deploy National Guard troops elsewhere. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected in the coming weeks to issue a ruling on whether Trump violated the law with the Los Angeles deployments.
