Is the Trump-Putin meeting a 'listening exercise' or an attempt to secure an immediate ceasefire?
President Trump floated the idea of a second meeting, this one between Putin, Zelensky and possibly himself, "if" the Alaska summit goes well.
Speaking to European leaders earlier, in a virtual call he rated at "10" and "very friendly", he'd shared his intention to try to broker a ceasefire on Friday.
So, the strategy is crystallising - he will press for a trilateral meeting to discuss territory "if" he manages to secure a truce during the bilateral meeting.
But that begs the obvious question: what if he can't?
The US President is keeping his options open - rating the chance of a second meeting as "very good" but preparing the ground for failure too.
"There may be no second meeting because if I feel that it is not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting," he said.
Unusually, given how often he talks about his abilities, he conceded that he may not persuade Vladimir Putin to stop targeting civilians.
4:25
But without elaborating on what any sanctions might be, he warned that Russia would face "very severe consequences" if it doesn't end the war.
Even if he achieves the seemingly impossible - a halt to the fighting - there seems little chance of agreement on any swapping of territory.
President Zelensky has told President Trump that Putin "is bluffing" and wants to "push forward along the whole front" not return land.
In the space of a week, Donald Trump has gone from talking about a land-swapping deal, to a "listening exercise", to the potential for a ceasefire.
His expectations appear changeable, an indication of how fluid back-room negotiations are in the run-up to his first face-to-face with Vladimir Putin in six years.
He described Friday's summit as "setting the table for a second meeting", but that's presumptuous when the meal - or deal - isn't cooked yet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Britain's sluggish economy the fault of the Labour government?
The latest economic growth numbers may have been fairly unimpressive by most historical standards, but they were rather better than recent readings and surpassed market expectations. The first estimate of the size of the UK economy showed it had expanded by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of this year, against a rise of 0.7 per cent in the first three months. Investors had 'priced in' a minimal 0.1 per cent rise. The annual increase, ie on the same period last year, is 1.2 per cent. Is this good news or bad news? What's happening? The pattern of sluggish economic growth that has prevailed in Britain, and most of the West, since the global financial crisis of 2008, is proving to be the new normal. It's not what we had come to expect. For most of the postwar period, punctuated by stop-go cycles, average economic growth was running at 2 to 2.5 per cent a year, with some endemic inflation and structural unemployment. By the 1990s this had accelerated to something like 2.7 per cent, combined with lower inflation and unemployment. In recent years, excepting the pandemic, growth has been more like 1 to 2 per cent. This is driven by low investment and a poor productivity record, exacerbated by market loss post-Brexit. Is this what Labour promised? No. It gave the impression that the very act of electing a Labour government to replace the incompetent Conservatives would lift confidence and 'kickstart' the economy, but no firm evidence of that has emerged. Expectations have not been fulfilled. For example, the Labour manifesto stated: 'Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. That is why it is Labour's first mission for government. It means being pro-business and pro-worker. We are the party of wealth creation.' Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow chancellor, promised 'securonomics', but little has since been heard about that either; tax rises and welfare cuts have been the main talking points. Will Labour's policies work? They may well do, but not necessarily fast enough to produce tangible results by the time of the next general election, and to rescue Labour's second term. There are many measures that should edge up growth, even if each is comparatively modest: the Brexit reset; trade deals with the US and India; making the public finances stable; reforming planning rules; expanding airports; building 1.5 million homes; green energy including nuclear power; loosening financial regulation; making room for cuts in interest rates; and some strategic investments in new sectors. Headwinds for the UK include the continuing world trade war, cuts in migration, a trend to higher debt-financing costs globally, and the prospect of more wars. The problem is that any major investment drive takes years, which means that much of the benefit in lifting the trend rate of economic growth won't be felt until the early to mid-2030s – by which time some other political party may be in power and claiming the credit. What can Labour do? Up its presentation. As with the NHS, voters need hard evidence that things are indeed improving, even if slowly, and that they are on the path to better times. That means explaining why present sacrifices have to be made, but also some vision of the rewards that will follow as a result. The party needs to boast and showcase its successes. Does it matter? The economy will always be central, which in a way is a strength for Labour given that it can't win on the 'culture war' issues. A display of determination and competence in running the public finances and the wider economy can win the confidence of the voters. Unfortunately, Reeves has made too many errors of political judgement to be confident that the public will be receptive to anything she says. But give it time, and some evidence of higher living standards and improved public services, and that can be turned around. Is the opposition capitalising on Labour's misfortunes? Not that much. The words 'Liz Truss' and 'mini-Budget' still make people – including the current shadow chancellor – wince. The memories of the Tory years in power aren't that rosy: a long spell of austerity, followed by Brexit, Partygate, splits, crises, and general 'chaos and confusion'. Labour can still rightly pin some of the blame for 'broken Britain' on 14 years of Tory rule. The electorate simply isn't yet ready to give the Tories a hearing; they've apologised for Truss, but it's not enough. Meanwhile, perhaps from frustration with the two main parties, voters are curiously susceptible to the lavish and unrealistic promises made by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Again, this could actually turn to Labour's advantage if it concentrates on the not-too-difficult task of proving that Farage's fantastical figures don't add up. Not much sign of that yet, though. Labour's biggest problem isn't so much the economy as complacency.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Robert A. Caro named first-ever Founders Historian Laureate by The New York Historical
Robert A. Caro's latest literary honor is very close to home. The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian has been named the first-ever Founders Historian Laureate by The New York Historical, the venerable museum and cultural center where Caro's archives are stored and a research room is named for him. Caro, a lifelong New Yorker, visits on occasion to sign copies of his books, including his classic work on municipal builder Robert Moses, 'The Power Broker,' the subject of a recent exhibit at the museum. Caro, 89, is also known for his series of Lyndon Johnson biographies and is currently writing the fifth and final volume. No release date has been announced. He will be formally honored at a Sept. 17 gala, where The New York Historical also will present a History Makers Award to Grammy-winning conductor Gustavo Dudamel, who next year is to become the musical and artistic director of the New York Philharmonic. He had led the Los Angeles Philharmonic since 2009. 'We feel deeply privileged to name Robert A. Caro our Founders' Historian Laureate — a singular distinction in our 221 years of institutional history — for his luminous writing,' the museum's board chair, Dr. Agnes Hsu-Tang, said in a statement released Wednesday. 'We honor Robert A. Caro and Gustavo Dudamel for their virtuosity in presenting the truth of human voice — Robert A. Caro for his commanding biographies of Robert Moses and President Lyndon B. Johnson, and his profound analysis of their roles in 20th-century America; and Gustavo Dudamel for his awe-inspiring artistry and for activating the power of music to make social change.'
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge rules Alex Jones' Infowars to be sold once again, paving way for The Onion to renew its bid
Months after conspiracy theorist Alex Jones mocked The Onion after the satirical news outlet's proposed purchase Jones' Infowars was rejected by a federal bankruptcy court, a state judge ruled this week that the far-right platform can once again be sold – clearing the way for The Onion to resurrect its bid. In a Wednesday hearing in Texas district court, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ordered the assets of Infowars' parent company Free Speech systems to be handed over to a court-appointed receiver, who will then start the process of selling them off in order to pay the roughly $1.3 billion that Jones owes the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. The families, who have spent nearly three years attempting to collect on the judgment in federal bankruptcy court, were awarded the damages over Jones' repeated false and baseless claims that the Sandy Hook shooting was a 'hoax' and that the children killed were crisis actors. Last year, The Onion – backed by the Sandy Hook families – had won a court-ordered auction to purchase Infowars, with plans to turn the far-right conspiracy outlet into a parody site that would mock the conservative media ecosphere. Additionally, The Onion said that it planned on entering into an advertising agreement with gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. That sale was blocked in December, however, after a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that the acquisition was flawed and that he would not approve the sale, citing issues regarding the transparency of the process. That allowed Jones to keep Infowars for the time being – and he celebrated on-air by using music from Star Wars to mock The 'We are deeply disappointed in today's decision, but The Onion will continue to seek a resolution that helps the Sandy Hook families receive a positive outcome for the horror they endured,' Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company Global Tetrahedron, said after the December ruling. A giddy Jones, meanwhile, read Collins' statement on his show at the time alongside the 'Imperial March' from The Empire Strikes Back. 'I told you guys. We weren't going down,' Jones boasted. While halting the sale to The Onion, the federal bankruptcy judge suggested to the Sandy Hook families that they should go take their case to state court to get what they're owed from Jones, of which he has yet to pay a dime. And now, according to Gamble's ruling, it appears that Jones could soon be locked out of the Infowars studios. According to Wednesday's order, the receiver has the power 'to collect all accounts receivable… change the locks to all premises at which any property is situated… access all storage facilities, safe-deposit boxes, [and] real property… and exercise control over any website [of Jones].' Additionally, the receiver can turn to local law enforcement for help 'carrying out his duties and exercising his powers.' Unsurprisingly, Jones was not happy about the ruling. 'I'm pretty p*ssed off and wound up,' he grumbled on Wednesday's broadcast, telling his viewers: 'This fight is your fight.' Attorneys for the families, meanwhile, said that the judge's order was a 'critically important step closer to achieving the goal' of 'holding Alex Jones accountable for years of harm,' specifically noting that it could finally lead to Infowars shuttering for good. 'The receiver is now authorized to liquidate his business assets, and we look forward to the corrupt media empire that Jones built finally being dismantled,' attorney Chris Mattei, who represents the Connecticut-based families, told NPR. 'The families are pleased that the court has placed InfoWars parent company into receivership, which will finally lead to accountability for Alex Jones' monstrously cruel harassment," Mark Bankston, another lawyer for the families, stated. As for the likelihood that The Onion can finally complete its purchase of Infowars now that it's in a receivership, legal experts said that it may not be a 'panacea' but the conditions are now more 'favorable' for a sale. 'From a creditor's point of view, you're most often better off under state law … because the state court may be able to operate with greater speed and flexibility…[and fewer] constraints than the bankruptcy judge has to deal with,' Larry Ponoroff, dean and professor emeritus at Tulane Law School, told NPR. Reached for comment, Collins told The Independent that while he wasn't at liberty to fully discuss the situation right now, he could say that 'we're working on it.' Throughout this entire process, Jones has also insisted that even if the Infowars brand and property are taken from him, he will continue to stay on the air by stating another company. Still, because a bankruptcy judge ruled his behavior 'willful and malicious,' the families could continue to make claims on any money Jones makes in the future through other business ventures. In June, Jones was accused by the trustee overseeing his personal bankruptcy of trying to shield assets of more than $5 million to avoid paying on the Sandy Hook judgment. This included allegations that Jones fraudulently transferred $1.5 million to his wife, $800,000 to his father and attempted to hide his ownership of two condominiums with a combined value of $1.5 million.
