Trump vows not to be intimidated ahead of Putin summit
Putin flies to Alaska on Friday at the invitation of Trump in his first visit to a Western country since he ordered the 2022 invasion of Ukraine that has killed tens of thousands of people.
As Russia made gains on the battlefield, the Kremlin said the two presidents planned to meet one-on-one, heightening fears of European leaders that Putin will cajole Trump into a settlement imposed on Kyiv.
Trump insisted to reporters at the White House: "I am president, and he's not going to mess around with me."
"I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes or five minutes... whether or not we're going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting," Trump said.
"And if it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future," said Trump, who gave the summit a one in four chance of failure.
Trump has voiced admiration for Putin in the past and faced wide criticism after a 2018 summit in Helsinki where he appeared to accept the Russian's denials of US intelligence on Moscow's meddling in US elections.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not invited to the Alaska summit, which he has denounced as a reward to Putin, and has refused Trump's calls to surrender territory.
Trump promised not to finalise any deal with Putin alone and said he hoped to hold a three-way summit with Zelenskyy, possibly immediately afterwards in Alaska.
AFP | Guillermo RIVAS PACHECO, Jean-Michel CORNU
"The second meeting is going to be very, very important, because that's going to be a meeting where they make a deal. And I don't want to use the word 'divvy' things up. But you know, to a certain extent, it's not a bad term," Trump told Fox News Radio.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters any future deal needed also to ensure "security guarantees" for Ukraine.
But Trump has previously backed Russia's stance in ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine.
- Shifting Trump tone -
Trump had boasted that he could end the war within 24 hours of returning to the White House in January.
But his calls to Putin - and intense pressure on Zelenskyy to accept concessions - have failed to move the Russian leader and Trump has warned of "very severe consequences" if Putin keeps snubbing his overtures.
AFP | Drew ANGERER
The talks are set to begin at 11:30 am (1930 GMT) Friday at the Elmendorf Air Force Base, a major US military installation in Alaska that has been crucial in monitoring Russia.
Zelenskyy met in London with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who vowed solidarity, a day after receiving support in Berlin.
Russia has made major gains on the ground ahead of the summit.
Ukraine on Thursday issued a mandatory evacuation of families with children from the eastern town of Druzhkivka and four nearby villages near an area where Russia made a swift breakthrough.
- Mixed views on diplomacy -
Diplomacy since Russia's invasion has largely failed to secure agreements beyond swaps of prisoners.
AFP | Drew ANGERER
Russia said Thursday it had returned 84 prisoners to Ukraine in exchange for an equal number of Russian POWs.
The war has proved divisive in the United States, with a Pew Research Center poll finding that 59 percent of Americans lacked confidence in Trump's wisdom on the issue.
Anchorage, nestled under mountains, bore few indications it was the center of global attention except for signs denouncing Putin put up on downtown streets, where people gave mixed opinions of the summit.
AFP | James RYBACKI
But Kimberly Brown, a 63-year-old retiree from Ohio, said Alaska was a "perfect place" for the summit.
"I just think that Trump is the best person to negotiate world peace."
By Shaun Tandon
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
15 minutes ago
- IOL News
India's bold economic play: Adapt or lose!
Director of the National Gandhi Libray from New Delhi,India Professor Annamalai Alagan addresses guests at the 132nd anniversary of Mohandas Gandhi forcibly ejected at the Pietermaritburg railway station. New Delhi has chosen a different path: swift recalibration, strategic diversification, and an unflinching focus on long-term resilience. Image: Rajesh Jantilal / File IN THE grand theatre of global economics, protectionism and Trump's Economic Nationalism, which have reshaped global trade, India has once again demonstrated why it remains one of the most adaptive players in the Global South and BRICS+ nations. The recent tariff shocks unleashed by the Trump administration, which have been boisterous, sudden, and strategically disruptive, have sent weaker economies into a spiral of retaliatory rhetoric or defensive stagnation. But India, true to form, responded with the quiet pragmatism of a nation that understands the oldest rule of economic survival: adapt or perish. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus once declared: 'The only constant in life is change.' India, a cornerstone of the BRICS Plus bloc, seems to have internalised this wisdom better than most. While Washington's nationalist and protectionist trade policies have forced many nations into reactive posturing, New Delhi has chosen a different path: swift recalibration, strategic diversification, and an unflinching focus on long-term resilience. For Africa, a continent still wrestling with the ghosts of colonial era resource dependency and sluggish industrialisation, India's playbook offers not just inspiration, but an urgent blueprint. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ When the US government under Donald Trump announced aggressive tariffs on Indian exports, the immediate reaction in some quarters was one of outrage. After all, India and the US have enjoyed a steadily deepening trade relationship, with bilateral exchanges exceeding $100 billion (about R18 trillion) in recent years. Yet, rather than succumbing to knee-jerk protectionism or hollow threats, India's policymakers went to work quietly, methodically, and with the precision of a chess grandmaster anticipating the next move. Reports from *Economic Times* reveal that New Delhi is already crafting a multipronged response to counter stiff US tariffs through enhanced export incentives, tax rebates for manufacturers, and a renewed push to deepen trade ties with Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia while continuing trade negotiations with Washington. This is not the behaviour of an economy caught off guard; it is the hallmark of a leadership that sees crisis as an opportunity for growth and its national interest in guarding its every move. Compare this to the trajectory of many African economies, where trade policy often remains shackled to raw material exports and reactive rather than proactive adjustments. South Africa, once the continent's undisputed industrial powerhouse, has seen its manufacturing base erode over decades, leaving it overly reliant on mineral exports even as global demand patterns shift, while still beholden to Cold War slogans. The lesson? Economic resilience is not about the absence of shocks, but the capacity to diversification as an end and not a means to an end. India's agility in the face of US trade pressures is not happening in a vacuum. As a key member of BRICS+, New Delhi has not only diversified its trade partnerships but has also made strategic inroads into Africa's critical industries. Indian firms now dominate the continent's steel sector, control vast iron ore mining operations, and have positioned themselves as leading suppliers of lab-grown diamonds. This shift has sent shockwaves through traditional diamond producers like Botswana, which failed to anticipate the global consumer shift away from organic diamonds. While Botswana struggles to adjust to the reality that 'diamonds are not forever', India's lab-grown diamond exports are booming, proving once again that foresight and adaptability define economic survival. This is not just about circumventing tariffs; it's about rewriting the rules of engagement in a world where economic power is no longer monopolised by a handful of Western capitals. For Africa, the implications are profound. The continent remains the world's last great frontier of consumer market growth, yet too many of its economies remain trapped in the colonial era role of raw material suppliers. If India, a fellow developing economy, can reposition itself as a global manufacturing and services hub while navigating US protectionism, why can't Africa's industrial bases do the same? Africa's struggle with diversification is not for lack of opportunity. The African Continental Free Trade Area promises to be the world's largest single market, yet progress remains frustratingly slow. South Africa, despite its historical industrial advantages, has seen its manufacturing sector shrink from 20% of GDP in the 1990s to just 12% today. Instead of leveraging its early lead into sustained value-added production, the economy remains tethered to mining exports, a vulnerability starkly exposed whenever commodity prices fluctuate. India, meanwhile, has spent decades building economic shock absorbers. When the 1991 balance of payments crisis struck, it responded with sweeping reforms that unleashed its private sector. When the 2008 financial meltdown hit, it doubled down on domestic consumption. Now, faced with Trump's tariffs, it is accelerating its shift toward alternative markets and high-value exports. The difference is not just policy, but mindset. India operates with the understanding that global economic conditions are perpetually in flux, and survival belongs to the agile. Africa, by contrast, has often treated diversification as an academic ideal rather than an immediate imperative. The result? While India's GDP has multiplied fivefold since 2000, too many African economies remain hostage to the same commodity cycles that have dictated their fortunes for a century. The message for Africa is clear: The time for passive reliance on raw material exports is over. India's response to US tariffs proves that economic sovereignty is not about defiance, as we have seen with Advanced Economies such as Japan and Singapore, but about diversification, options and adaptability. If New Delhi can cultivate new trade alliances, incentivise value-added production, and navigate geopolitical headwinds without losing momentum, so too can Africa if it chooses to. As the world moves toward multipolar trade blocs and competing spheres of influence, India's example offers a masterclass in strategic adaptation. Trump's tariffs may have been designed to force concessions, but New Delhi's response has been something far more powerful: a demonstration of resilience that Africa would do well to emulate. In the end, Heraclitus was right: change is the only constant. But the real question is: In the Global South, who will change or perish? India, it seems, already has its answer. Africa must now find its own. * Phapano Phasha is the chairperson of The Centre for Alternative Political and Economic Thought. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
The Donald's long list of foreign policy failures
President Donald J Trump is an unusual artist. The author of Art of the Deal has become notorious for a string of failures in his foreign policy deals. He sold himself as transactional, and everything was up for negotiation. Image: Supplied UNITED States President Donald J Trump is an unusual artist. The author of Art of the Deal has become notorious for a string of failures in his foreign policy deals. He sold himself as transactional, and everything was up for negotiation. Yet, the clumsiness of his bashfulness has pushed the world onto a precipice of dangerous peril. From the margins of a heated electioneering campaign, panting from running and bothered, no doubt by a profusion of criminal and civil cases, the Donald enlivened the imagination of a fatigued world about the possibility of ending the US/Nato proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. The embattled Republican Presidential candidate was kind enough to remind even the unconverted, that Ukraine is a proxy. And he was determined to end it once and for all on day one in office, if he was elected. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ When pressed on how he intended to do so, he became more philosophical than discreet. He was not the one in office, he remonstrated. And he did not want to supplant or pretend to awaken a President Joe Biden who only worked a measly four hours a day and slept the rest of the other twenty. This probably triggered DJT, Elon Musk's endearment for Trump to coin the nickname 'Sleepy Joe'. So many observers were enamoured to champion his stance as anti-war, or DJT's most favourite, the peace candidate. For this attribution, the preponderance of analysts were prepared to forget history just so he could get a pass. Or to be fair, to temporarily ignore it. History, for its intransigence, however, insists that it can neither be ignored nor forgotten. And its memory cannot be erased either, especially not by the silliness of political importunity, or by the passage of time. For, history, is true manifestation of time's infinite trademark itself. In surreptitious ways therefore, it reminded those who cared to listen that Trump is a war candidate or an Israeli agent — whichever moniker fits. Almost seven months later, the Donald continues to approbate and reprobate, oscillating between a buffoon messing around with a nuclear button and a war monger that would destroy Russia. And the right-wing podcasters are endlessly worried. Where is the Section 25 impeachment procedure when you need one! On January 20, 2025 on the Donald's swearing-in ceremony, the 56 000 people of Greenland and their Danish colonisers, awoke to the shocking announcement that the United States of America has overweening designs over their sovereignty. From being a colony of the Danish, they would segue seamlessly into the colony of the Yankees. Besides, the Putuffik Space Base is a Danish-American project, the former, the current coloniser and the latter, a lustful aspirant. Poor Greenlanders or the Kalaallit as they prefer to be known! So soon thereafter, they had to play indignant hosts to Vice President JD Vance's visit, at great cost. USSF Colonel Susannah Meyers, the commander of the Base, was fired at the end of that visit. Mette Frederiksen, the Prime Minister of Denmark demurred at both the visit and Trump's vague insinuations of colonisation. As for the Greenlanders, they said nothing, looking funny at the hypocritical Danish first and disbelieving at the belligerent Americans second. Exactly in that order. All they are committed to do, as incredulous at it may sound, is to first liberate themselves from a leeching Denmark and with conviction, sit out the impatience of a peripatetic Trump. To date, Trump has failed on this policy adventure abysmally. Predictably! It must be said that Trump has achieved the improbable. This is that he has failed on foreign policy, a government's charitable vision that nominally unfurls over an interminably long period of time. And more often than not, history is the judge over such matters. Trump's normative foreign policy prescripts have already failed even before history has roused from its slumber awaiting him to vacate office. History is a soft spoken and impartial observer long after the fact. The signs that Trump was bound to fail, or that he would sabotage his own architecture of being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, became apparent when the Donald was confronted with questions on how he intended to resolve Israel's genocide in Gaza. He had fanciful plans, which were blood-curling ominous in their absurdity. Trump supported an unseemly strategy. Starve the Palestinians and then pretend to provide them with food. Massacre them when they gather in desperation. And when Israel Defence Forces incur a lot of casualties, declare a temporary ceasefire. After so much ethnic cleansing and a proposal for World War II-like Warsaw Ghettoes fit for a holocaust, Trump will build a French Riveria in the splendid beaches of the Gaza shoreline drenched in innocent Palestinian blood. The incredulity of these designs is not even in the fact that that they are real, but that their authors and their followership, believe in them zealously. But Trump is in a bind. It is as if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has dutifully assigned the task of awarding the coveted laurel to the languishing Palestinians. The more the slaughtering of the Palestinians endures, to the chagrin of civilised mankind, the further the prize eludes the expectant Trump. But if the US policy machinery does not curtail the genocidal instincts of the irascible Netanyahu, they would have failed to ride the rising tide of human goodness. Somebody help the devastated POTUS 47 caught between a war-rampaging Bibi and a morally repugnant Jeffery Epstein. A policy bought and paid for, is an embarrassing failure of vision occurring in slow motion. The ebullience and optimism that characterised Trump's first 100 days in office, attended by the novelty of return to the White House and other history making factoids, have waned into a lacklustre twilight, typified by a rancorous disquiet of a MAGA base cannibalising itself from the inside. Trump's first instinct was not to care, for he is no more up for re-election. But then again, he can't afford to lose the midterms in 2026 to the Democrats and be rendered lame duck. He may face the unedifying prospect of being possibly impeached. But every time he says something inelegant about how quickly they must forget about a dead paedophile, the more he feeds into the red embers of an implacable MAGA lot, avowed to torpedo his tenure over a many-layered three-decade-long scandal. What to do? Start a war, or make peace with Russia. Better still, turn Canada into the 51st State of America. It is not because if the US invaded Canada militarily, the polite Northern neighbours would put up some resistance. Hardly. But it is more of the fact that the justification to so invade would be hard to contrive in a quick turnaround and without a plausible false flag operation. Was this a humourless quip whipped to mortify the Canadians? Sometimes it is hard to tell. In the stead of pulling out of Nato, Trump lobbied for the increase of Nato members' defence spending to 5%. Instead of negotiating with Iran, he authorised Israel to decapitate their nuclear scientists, their negotiators and obliterate all their nuclear sites. Instead of peace between Rwanda and the DRC, Nato is still arming Rwanda and the M-23 rebels continue to capture more territory. India is upset and therefore insistent that the sudden military flare-up between them and Pakistan was attenuated by a consideration other than Trump's claim, short of saying he is a liar. It is a mixed masala of foreign policy ersatz, seasoned in threats, deception and a stand-up comedy gone horribly awry. What would be easier to do is to vilify President Jimmy Carter for returning the Panama Canal to Panama in 1981. To reclaim it, the Donald issued threats of its military re-annexation. In fact, the talking heads in the Oval Office and their loquacious Commander-in-Chief simply backed the purchase of the canal by Blackrock from Li Ka-shing and claim it as a foreign policy victory. Completely without precedent, President Xi Jinping held tight, resisting the purchase with tactic and stealth, resulting in the inability of the counterparties to fulfil the conditions precedent for the purchase. As a consequence, the deadline effluxed. Just one pitiful domino after another. But fall they must. The most prominent attribute of Trump's second term is the imposition of tariffs, especially to China. And as fate would have it, it is the only tariff imposition he cannot get right for reasons that have been fairly broadcast. Unlike the failure of foreign policy in other instances, none projects incompetence as the one in China. Trump may still win some, including the Azerbaijan and Armenian corridor for 99 years. Severally or cumulatively, however, they will not erase the fact that Trump is a phenomenal policy disaster for the United States of America and the world at large. * Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
SA caught in East-West tug-of-war after military chief's Iran visit
Pretoria's foreign policy under scrutiny amid Iran relations Image: GCIS The South African government's distancing from recent Iran–RSA military cooperation has intensified diplomatic and economic headwinds, just as Western capitals press Pretoria to realign away from Eastern partners. The controversy hinges on remarks by South African National Defence Force (SANDF) chief General Rudzani Maphwanya during a visit to Iran, and the government's current posture on the broader foreign policy balance between East and West. The episode began to unfold after General Maphwanya's trip to Iran, a move that has since been disavowed by both the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. The government maintained that President Cyril Ramaphosa, with DIRCO's guidance, remains the architect of South Africa's foreign policy. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed he would meet the general to discuss his 'ill-advised' trip,' a government source said, signalling that the visit has become a political flashpoint rather than a simple military exchange. DIRCO spokesperson Chrispin Phiri declined to comment on potential disciplinary steps against those who disregarded international protocol, noting the department's role in policy implementation rather than battlefield diplomacy. The political weather has grown even cloudier as Western powers press Pretoria to clarify its stance amid fears of mixed messages on the country's alignment. The US Congress has repeatedly questioned South Africa's closeness to BRICS partners and - by extension - its relationships with China, Russia, and Iran. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Political analyst Joe Mhlanga offered a stark assessment: Maphwanya's public remarks about potential military cooperation indicated a broader 'evidence that the country's foreign policy is not solid.' He warned that a pattern of swinging toward the East or West - 'going to the East to do something when they want to go to the West they just do' - could undermine confidence in South Africa's policy coherence. 'What we're saying is that countries seem to be taking positions when it comes to certain issues, so we cannot state that we are a country that is neutral,' Mhlanga said in paraphrase of his analysis. 'We need to have a clear foreign policy stance… You cannot be standing on both legs and stating that you support both Iran and the US.' The domestic response has been swift and pointed. The Democratic Alliance (DA) criticised Maphwanya's remarks as stepping beyond military-to-military dialogue into foreign policy. DA Defence spokesperson Chris Hattingh said: 'This is not the role of a military chief. Foreign policy is the domain of the elected Government of National Unity and must be conducted through DIRCO, not by an unelected general freelancing on the world stage.' The broader concern is that the public dispute over the Iran/RSA relationship comes at a sensitive juncture.
