Ukrainians see 'nothing' good from Trump-Putin meeting
The US and Russian leaders had met in Alaska to discuss Russia's more than three-year invasion of his country.
But they made no breakthrough and seen from Kharkiv -- heavily attacked by Russia throughout the war -- the red-carpet meeting looked like a clear win for Putin.
'I saw the results I expected. I think this is a great diplomatic victory for Putin,' Nebroev, a 38-year-old theatre manager, said.
'He has completely legitimised himself.'
Trump inviting Putin to the US ended the West's shunning of the Russian leader since the 2022 invasion.
Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not invited, described the trip as Putin's 'personal victory'.
Nebroev was not only outraged Ukraine was left out of the meeting, but also considered it a waste of time.
'This was a useless meeting,' he said, adding: 'Issues concerning Ukraine should be resolved with Ukraine, with the participation of Ukrainians, the president.'
Trump later briefed European leaders and Zelensky, who announced he would meet the US leader in Washington on Monday.
The Trump-Putin meeting ended without a deal and Trump took no questions from reporters -- highly unusual for the media-savvy US president.
Olya Donik, 36, said she was not surprised by the turn of events as she walked through a sunny park in Kharkiv with Nebroev.
'It ended with nothing. Alright, let's continue living our lives here in Ukraine,' she said.
Hours after the talks, Kyiv said Russia attacked with 85 drones and a ballistic missile at night.
'Whether there are talks or not, Kharkiv is being shelled almost every day. Kharkiv definitely doesn't feel any change,' said Iryna Derkach, a 50-year-old photographer.
She had stopped for the daily minute of silence held across the country to honour the victims of the Russian invasion.
She was standing just in front of Derzhprom, a modernist structure considered to be one of the first Soviet skyscrapers, which was damaged by a strike last year.
'We believe in victory, we know it will come, but God only knows who exactly will bring it about,' she said.
'We don't lose faith, we donate, we help as much as we can. We do our job and don't pay too much attention to what Trump is doing,' she added - AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
9 minutes ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy dons more formal attire for high-stakes meeting with Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy waves as he meets U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, amid negotiations to end the Russian war in Ukraine, in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 18, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The last time Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visited the White House, his olive green military-style outfit drew scorn from U.S. President Donald Trump, who wears suits every day. Zelenskiy's garb at that February meeting featured in a disastrous session with Trump in which the two leaders bickered and the Ukrainian president was escorted out of the White House early, without lunch. On Monday, with his country facing pressure to accept a peace deal to end Europe's deadliest war in 80 years, Zelenskiy showed up for his talks with Trump wearing more formal attire. The black-on-black ensemble, sans tie, wasn't exactly a suit, but it seemed to please Trump all the same. A reporter who had asked Zelenskiy in February why he was not wearing a suit complimented the Ukraine leader on the attire he chose for his latest Oval Office session with Trump. "You look fabulous in that suit," the reporter said. Trump chimed in: "I said the same thing." This time, Zelenskiy got in a good-natured dig. "You're wearing the same suit," he told the reporter, drawing laughter. "I changed." The media-savvy Ukrainian leader had worn military-type outfits to show solidarity with the troops fighting Russian invaders since Moscow's 2022 full-scale invasion. But after the February meeting with Trump, Zelenskiy switched to a more formal wardrobe. When the two leaders met at Pope Francis's funeral in Rome in April, the Ukrainian president wore a heavy black field jacket and black shirt buttoned to the collar, with no tie.
The Star
39 minutes ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy says he's open to election in Ukraine, if safe
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy gestures during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the Oval Office of the White House, amid negotiations to end the Russian war in Ukraine, in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 18, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
New Straits Times
4 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.
