High stakes and nervous allies as Trump seeks Ukraine deal with Putin
More: Zelenskyy gets warmer White House reception: Takeaways from high stakes Trump meeting
In the East Room on August 18, America's strongest allies wrapped layers of praise for Trump's leadership around warnings about the need to reach a ceasefire before negotiations begin, and before Ukraine is pressured to give up swaths of land to the nation that launched its latest invasion more than three years ago.
But Russian President Vladimir Putin ruled out a ceasefire at his own meeting with Trump, this one in Alaska three days earlier, and he apparently won him over. Facing a united front from NATO and the European Community, from the leaders of France and Germany and Great Britain, Trump on Monday found himself more closely aligned on this key question with Moscow.
On his way to Alaska, Trump had called a ceasefire crucial, threatening "serious consequences" if Russia didn't agree.
But after Putin's flat nyet, Trump in the East Room described a ceasefire as a nice idea but not an imperative.
More: Trump and Zelenskyy meet again, but Putin has faced Trump, other presidents many times
Trump said the United States was prepared to participate in security guarantees for Ukraine, a significant step and one Putin indicated a willingness to consider. That surely increases the pressure on Zelenskyy to agree to what Trump calls "land swaps," perhaps including giving away territory that Russia has not yet won on the battlefield.
Putin has demanded the Donbas, an area rich in industry and strategically located. Zelenskyy has rejected the idea of ceding any land.
Foreign policy in an age of Trump 2.0
The whirlwind of developments in the space of a few days was a telling display of foreign policy in the age of Trump 2.0.
For one thing, the tradition of slow-as-you-go diplomacy, of meticulous meetings by aides to hash out the details before the principals meet, has been replaced by sweeping declarations from the top - often streamed live to the world and updated in real time on Truth Social.
For another, any inclination by foreign leaders during Trump's first term to challenge him too directly has been replaced by a strategy of flattery.
More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up
That's true for Putin.
He is a former KGB agent who has led the Kremlin with an iron hand for a quarter century. But on this, Putin has persuaded Trump that he has Trump's own interests at heart. "I think he wants to make a deal for me," Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron as they gathered for a group photo in the White House Cross Hall, a private aside picked up by a hot mic. "Do you understand? As crazy as it sounds."
It's true for Zelenskyy, who showed up at the White House in a dark suit - a concession to Trump's complaints about his usual military-style attire at his last visit. That encounter imploded into acrimony. In the Oval Office this time, he heaped praise on the president.
"Thank you very much for your efforts," he told Trump. Vice President JD Vance, who had laced into Zelenskyy in February's meeting for ingratitude, sat on the couch next to the president, silent and smiling.
It was apparent among the European leaders, too.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte launched a round-robin of praise." "I really want to thank you, President of the United States, dear Donald," he said, crediting him with "breaking the deadlock" on the war and "starting the dialogue" for peace.
More: Ukraine's Zelenskyy avoids Trump mauling at White House. Will he get Putin meeting?
Zelenskyy and other leaders expressed particular appreciation for Trump's willingness to support security guarantees, though European forces would be expected to take the lead and the U.S. role hasn't been defined.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz raised the most direct caution of the day. "The next steps are the more complicated ones," he said, adding: "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire."
A play for peace or a play for time?
Just when and where that next meeting would take place isn't clear, but Merz later told reporters it was supposed to happen within the next two weeks.
Trump had "paused" his conversation with the European leaders to hold a 40-minute phone call with Putin. Afterwards, he said he "began the arrangements" for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between Putin and Zelenskyy. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself," he said in a social-media post.
Skeptics warn that Putin is playing for time, for the opportunity to keep hammering Ukraine on the battlefield while giving lip service to seeking peace.
Putin has another long-standing goal, too: To drive a wedge in the Western alliance that was forged in the aftermath of World War II, in large part as a check on Moscow.
An expansionist Russia and a divided alliance is also the European leaders' greatest fear - not only for Ukraine's sake but also for their own.
"The optimism of your president is to be taken seriously," Macron told NBC after he left the White House. But he expressed little of Trump's confidence in his new peace partner. "When I look at the situation and the facts, I don't see President Putin very willing to get peace now."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump battles sinking public image over DC takeover while National Guard pose with tourists
resident Donald Trump's D.C. takeover is now well into its second week. Washingtonians are in agreement: they're officially sick of it. Wednesday dawned in the nation's capital with news of more chaos in the District of Columbia, this time indisputably caused by Trump's executive order — which the administration is increasingly finding it hard to prove is not a publicity stunt. More and more National Guard troops pour into the city from around the country, though arrests aren't going up, and most of the troops appear to be standing around snapping photos with tourists. In the early morning hours, an armored, mine-resistant tactical vehicle slammed into the side of a civilian vehicle, sending one person to the hospital. The crash occurred downtown, where federal agents and National Guard troops are increasingly piling up in high-traffic tourist areas. A morning report from Fox 5 quoted residents in the higher-crime area of Anacostia, in the city's southeast, saying that law enforcement resources weren't reaching them. Meanwhile, video after video shows bored federal agents patrolling luxury shopping and dining areas, or tourist destinations like the Washington Monument. As Vice President J.D. Vance and Trump adviser Stephen Miller arrived at a Shake Shack at Union Station — one of those low-crime areas where Guard troops have milled around aimlessly — for a meet-and-greet with a few visiting troops on Wednesday, the pair were loudly heckled by locals. Then they bizarrely accused the hecklers of having come from out of town to mock them. Around the city, graffiti appeared honoring a resident arrested after angrily tossing a Subway sandwich at federal law enforcement agents, a since-fired DOJ employee who has become a folk hero around town. 'I'll tell you, a couple of years ago, when I brought my kids here, they were being screamed at by violent vagrants, and it was scaring the hell out of my kids,' Vance said. He denied the validity of a comment from a reporter referring to the area as low crime, and again cited those 'vagrants' as evidence during his Q&A. Union Station is a major arrival point for many tourists in the capital and for many years has struggled with the attraction that the spacious transit center and shopping mall's public facilities provided for homeless D.C. residents. An encampment once existed a few steps from the station's front doors, and inside the station benches and other public amenities were removed in order to dissuade loitering. The Covid pandemic, which accelerated housing insecurity, also led to closures of Union Station businesses which traded reasons for their misfortune including a rise in homeless activity around the station. But vagrancy by itself is not a crime, and Vance's comments, combined with the increase in encampment sweeps around the city the past few days, suggest that Trump's crime-fighting campaign is actually a beautification campaign meant to push an aesthetic that isn't necessarily felt by D.C. residents with roots in the city. Polling shows that Americans who call the city home agree. A resounding eight in 10 D.C. residents told Washington Post pollsters in a survey released Wednesday that they opposed the federal takeover of the city, which is now being fought in the courts as city leaders try to retain control of the Metropolitan Police Department. A similar share, 78 percent, said that they felt extremely or somewhat safe in their own neighborhoods. While arrests aren't surging and city residents don't say they feel safer, it's very clear which community is being impacted the most. U.S. Park Police officials told the New York Post on Wednesday that the agency has cleared 75 homeless encampments around the city in just the short period since Trump announced his takeover. Washington social media channels remain alight with reports of activity from ICE and other federal agencies. Checkpoints have repeatedly been swarmed by hundreds of residents, shouting angrily, until law enforcement agencies pack up and leave. Week two of the takeover also coincided with DC's annual summer Restaurant Week, though dining spots around the city report that the presence of the Guard and federal agents are hurting business as reservations plunged year-over-year. While city leaders are largely paralyzed as they await decisions in the courts, there are already clear signs that this episode could backfire for the president. News channels and social media platforms continue to spread images and video depicting an occupied American city clearly in conflict with its new guests. The unpopularity of Trump's takeover could quickly become an issue in the Virginia governor's race, where a conservative diehard is running against a centrist Democrat with strong DC ties. It's also energized the progressive left, long dormant in city politics thanks to the populations of federal workers and transplants who have elected center-left leadership for years. On Tuesday evening, several hundred people attended the campaign launch of a democratic socialist candidate running for city council, Aparna Raj. In the end, Donald Trump may accomplish little more than juicing up the American left's will to fight back.
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ukraine peace talks are in disarray as Russia and China demand a say on security guarantees
Ukraine peace talks were in disarray on Wednesday after Russia effectively demanded Moscow and Beijing get a veto on any security guarantees. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said Vladimir Putin had agreed to 'game-changing Article 5-like protections' for Kyiv when they met in Alaska last Friday. European leaders raced to build on the momentum and hammer out the details – with Britain and France considering putting boots on the ground while America would protect the skies. But yesterday serious questions arose over what exactly Mr Witkoff had secured as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow must be part of the security guarantees. Putin's man also said these 'should be provided on an equal basis with the participation of countries such as China, the United States, the UK and France'. Lavrov added: 'I'm sure in the West they understand that seriously discussing security issues without Russia is a utopia, it's a road to nowhere.' He claimed the terms are based on those Moscow tried to force Kyiv into signing in Istanbul in April 2022, two months after their invasion. Those terms effectively meant none of the guarantors would be allowed to defend Ukraine from Russia unless they all agreed, including China and Russia. Lavrov took aim at what he called Europe's 'clumsy attempts to change the position of the US President' in recent days. He said: 'We cannot agree with the fact that it is now proposed to resolve collective security issues without the Russian Federation. This will not work. 'We will firmly and strictly protect our legitimate interests.' That suggests the Kremlin has not moved at all on its maximalist position, with experts questioning what exactly Donald Trump's diplomacy had achieved. John Foreman, ex-UK defence attaché to Moscow and Kyiv, said Mr Witkoff has been left looking 'inexperienced' and 'naive'. He added: 'Trump and Witkoff misunderstood the Russians in Moscow and Alaska. They raised hopes about security guarantees and further talks, confused everyone, and the whole thing fell apart with Lavrov's intervention. 'Russia avoids sanctions for now. Putin remains immovable. Trump gave up his leverage and this is the result. What a fiasco.' Marko Mihkelson, head of the Estonian foreign affairs committee, posted: 'Russia wants to be a security guarantor for Ukraine. Seriously? Russia can only be stopped by force, not by red-carpet summits.' The development came as Mr Trump said Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky were 'in the process' of setting up a bilateral meeting but said: 'If necessary, I'll go.' He added: 'I think it would be better if they met without me'. Russia is pushing for Budapest as a location for a trilateral meeting with Mr Trump present – the venue where Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear weapons in 1994. A White House official last night said: 'President Trump and his national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials towards a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war.'
Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
Where have all the upper-class Tories gone?
A currently fashionable conservatism is militantly against Ukraine and, by more cautious implication, pro-Russia. We who disagree are, I quote Matthew Parris in these pages last week, 'prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin'. Others put it more unkindly, speaking of 'Ukraine brain' as a mental affliction among the Cold War generations. One should not project the entire second world war on to now, but some similarities with the 1930s are undeniable. Dictator exploits resentment at what he says is an unequal treaty after defeat; claims land in various places as the true property of his people; occupies some of it, changing borders by the threat of force, later by direct force; keeps demanding more; keeps threatening. The European democracies mostly dislike what is happening, but understandably wish to appease. As it all gets nastier, some incline to criticise the behaviour of the victim nations and their leaders (Benes then; Zelensky now) and downplay the sins of the aggressor. Matthew, for example, wants Zelensky to 'get off his high horse' without noticing that Putin's horse is much, much higher. The United States wants as little to do with it as possible. Dictator has a much firmer purpose than his democratic opponents, so he wins. At first, only the direct victim suffers. Later, all of us do. This argument is not exact, but it is not idiotic either. Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ursula Buchan writes about her grandfather John Buchan's time at The Spectator, the grounding for his career in political life and as a celebrated novelist. His very first article for the paper (20 January 1900) was called 'The Russian Imperial Ideal'. Buchan identified 'the two parties in the [Tsarist] government… both vigorous, one demanding internal reform, the other seeking external empire. At present she seems to have chosen for the latter, but… an Empire and commercial supremacy can only be built upon a genuine and healthy national life, and Russia, while she has the materials for such a life, has hitherto neglected to use them. Militarism and economic reform, where the former is so triumphant and the latter so urgent, are the lion and the lamb which will never lie down together.' They never did, though Gorbachev tried. The lion ate the lamb long ago. Tom Gordon, a Liberal Democrat MP, is leading a campaign to recruit more working-class people for parliament. He praises the few 'salt of the earth guys who are making it all happen' in his part of England (Harrogate and Knaresborough: not, it must be said, a super-working-class area). Mr Gordon does not confront the problem that nowadays the working class has been almost abolished, partly by the largely good trend of upward mobility and partly by the largely bad one of a welfare system which pays the poorly educated not to work. Looking at the 2024 intake of MPs, I would say that by far the greater problem is that so many, whatever their family roots, came into politics through politics/activism/politicised charity work, and know about nothing else. Looking at the question in class terms, I would say the more noticeable absence is members of the upper class. Nearly 40 years ago, I commissioned a scholarly piece (The Spectator, 3 May 1986) by the late Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd called 'The Descent of Tory Man'. It analysed the social class of all Conservative MPs at that Thatcher high tide and found 19 (including William Waldegrave, Nicholas Ridley, Lord Cranborne and Nicholas Soames) in the top social class, 33 in the second highest, 86 in the third, and the majority (there were 392 Tories at that time) in classes four to ten. Trying to apply that analysis to the present 121 Conservatives, I can think of only one – the wise and public-spirited Jesse Norman – who could be described as upper-class, and even he might have reached only class 2 according to Massingberd's exacting criteria. What applies to the Tories applies, a fortiori, to all MPs. So when parliament is more despised than at any time since the Great Reform Bill, it is also the least aristocratic it has ever been. Are these two phenomena related? I wish all the argument about pronouns had been raging when I was a teenager. That was the time when it first became commonplace to address God as 'You' in the liturgy and in translations of the Bible. I was against the change then because it sacrificed beauty, but I could never quite answer those who said it was better to speak to God less formally and more intimately. In my then ignorance, I did not know that 'Thou', as is the case with the second person singular in many other languages, was historically the more intimate and loving form, and so I did not understand that the plural 'You' was the more distant one. The use of 'You' is also theologically inaccurate, since it grammatically implies that there is more than one God. The Trinity, after all, are not some things. It is one thing. Recently, I booked a hotel room in the north of England. We could have 'de luxe' or 'superior'. It was explained to me that superior, in this context, meant inferior: de luxe had been recently 'refreshed'; superior had not. We were inclined to take 'de luxe', but then I asked whether de luxe had baths. No, it had only walk-in showers. Superior, however, had baths. So we took superior, thereby saving more than £100. This must be the first generation in human history which has paid less for a room with a bath than for one without. Why the change? I can think of four possible reasons: 1) Americans prefer showers. 2) Showers save water, and therefore the planet. 3) Showers save space, and therefore property cost. 4) Many customers are too old or fat to get out of baths. In another generation, will baths be objects only of historical interest, like mangles?
