&w=3840&q=100)
What Trump-Putin summit could mean for US-EU trans-atlantic alliance
The European countries have stood with Kyiv since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war in early 2022. For more than two years since the war, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), led by the US and the European Union, were united in supporting Ukraine in its war efforts against its more powerful neighbour. Billions of dollars of military assistance, including weapons and ammunition, flowed into Ukraine.
However, divisions within Nato as well as between the US and the European Union have become more discernible with the return of Donald Trump to the American White House. President Trump, from the days of presidential election campaigns for the second term, has repeatedly opposed his predecessor Joe Biden's Ukraine policy. He also drastically differed with Biden's approach to Nato. During his first presidency, Trump was distrustful of Nato, but his successor, Joe Biden, had restored the trans-Atlantic trust amidst the Ukraine War.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
While President Trump in his second administration successfully bulldozed Nato members to agree to his proposal for enhancement of their defence expenditure to make it five per cent of their respective GDP, he has not been able to bully the EU member countries to endorse his policy towards Russia and its war against Ukraine.
As President Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are scheduled to meet in Alaska on Friday for their first summit this year and negotiate a deal to end the Ukraine War, European countries appear nervous. President Trump is not willing to carry the leaders of America's trans-Atlantic allies along with him while negotiating with President Putin.
During decades of the Cold War, the US always consulted, partnered and collaborated with the European allies on numerous conflict spots. The US and Nato were together in the longest war of the Cold War era in Vietnam. They were together too in the longest war of the post-Cold War era against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The US and the Nato members also fought against Russia by fully backing Ukraine militarily and seeking to cripple the Russian economy through sanctions during the Biden administration.
But now, under the Trump 2.0 administration, the trans-Atlantic relations have developed cracks, perhaps beyond complete restoration in the near future. Twenty-three out of 27 members of the European Union are also members of the Nato alliance. President Trump considers the EU a fierce competitor, perhaps an economic rival, and recently launched a tariff war against them, as against numerous countries around the world.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
After several rounds of negotiations, the EU managed to conclude a trade deal by agreeing to a 15 per cent tariff on their exports to the US, which is actually several times more than the tariff rate earlier. The EU as an association signed the deal; the details of the deal, however, are not known. And all individual member countries are not contented over it. While many European leaders stay away from making critical remarks on President Trump's policies, the French prime minister called it 'a dark day' when the deal was announced. Others described it as a 'suboptimal deal'.
While the EU energy imports from Russia were difficult amidst the Ukraine war and implementation of anti-Russian sanctions by the combined West, Trump's demands for more defence expenditure added to the economic agonies of the EU. But the European allies of the US felt more firmly sandwiched when Trump dilly-dallied on backing Ukraine militarily, pushed for direct negotiations with Russian President Putin and refused to consult them on an issue that has perceptibly posed the most serious security challenge to the continent since the end of the Second World War.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The decision of President Trump to hold a bilateral summit with President Putin in Alaska has rung an alarm bell in Europe. More outrageous to Ukraine and its European backers is the idea of a 'land swap' as part of the deal that would allow Russia to gain territory and make Ukraine cede part of its sovereign territory. Seven EU members, including France and Germany, issued a joint statement and proclaimed that 'the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine'. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy, on his part, outrightly rejected any 'land swap' that would be decided by the American and Russian leaders on Ukrainian territory.
It appears as if in the current situation Ukraine and some European powers are united against the United States and Russia! Its ramifications can be radical transformations in contemporary geopolitics. The trans-Atlantic alliance can develop holes that will be difficult to fill up in the foreseeable future. The divergences on political and security affairs between the United States and Europe appear stark when one considers the French and British position on Palestine, the Spanish and Swiss decision against buying F-35 fighter aircraft from the US and the European resolve to bolster their military capabilities to address security challenges in the absence of American support. France and Britain have proposed the idea of collaboration in developing a European deterrence capability.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It is understandable that there will be limits to US-Russia détente. Whether it will survive the Trump 2.0 administration is also a question mark. But the challenges of this détente between erstwhile cold warriors under the Trump administration may further erode the strategic trust between the United States and its European allies.
The EU and Britain seem to have embarked upon a journey for achieving strategic independence from the United States, and this journey is unlikely to end even after a change of administration in the US.
However, the EU's desire to achieve strategic autonomy is not going to be an easy way. The EU will also face tremendous difficulties from within the association. There are member countries that admire the Trumpian policies, and then there are also members, such as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, which are Euro-sceptics. The recently elected president of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, for instance, is a right-wing leader who appears to be pro-Trump on certain policy matters. He is dead against Russia but opposes Nato membership for Ukraine. Yet, the efforts towards consolidating the abilities of the EU to confront the challenges emanating from the other side of the Atlantic will remain a work in progress.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The author is founding chairperson, Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies, and editor, India Quarterly. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Jaishankar, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to meet in Moscow on Aug 21
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar on August 21 in Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a post on X. Moscow and New Delhi have talked up their "strategic partnership" since the tariff announcement by US.(X/@RusEmbIndia) The post stated, 'On August 21, FM Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with FM of India S. Jaishankar in Moscow. The Ministers will discuss key issues on our bilateral agenda, as well as key aspects of cooperation within international frameworks.' The upcoming meeting follows a session between External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)'s Foreign Ministers' Meeting on July 15. In a post on X, Russia's Foreign Ministry shared, "Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of External Affairs of India @DrSJaishankar hold a meeting on the sidelines of the #SCO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting." The high-level interaction came shortly after the meeting between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his Russian counterpart Andrey Belousov on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Defence Ministers' Meeting in Qingdao, China, in late June this year. The leaders discussed the supply of S-400 systems, Su-30 MKI upgrades, and procurement of critical military hardware in expeditious timeframes, as noted by an official statement from the Ministry of Defence. Earlier, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Sergey Lavrov had also held a meeting on the sidelines of the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 6. In a statement shared on X, Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, "Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Minister of External Affairs of India @DrSJaishankar hold a meeting on the sidelines of the XVII #BRICS Summit. Rio de Janeiro, July 6." The two leaders had previously met in Johannesburg in February this year, where they discussed the ongoing progress of bilateral cooperation between India and Russia. The BRICS Summit, hosted by Brazil, brought together leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, as well as new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE, and Indonesia. Building on these diplomatic engagements, an all-party delegation led by DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi visited Russia in May as part of India's global outreach programme, Operation Sindoor, where she reiterated India's zero-tolerance policy against terrorism. These meetings underscore the continued focus on strengthening India-Russia ties across diplomatic, defence, and multilateral platforms.


Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How One Big Private-Equity Fund Makes Its Numbers Incomprehensible
Many fund managers strive to be transparent with their financial disclosures. Others are so obstructive that they might as well be kicking sand in investors' faces. While private equity is synonymous with opacity, the tricks of the trade are taking on greater importance as the industry seeks to broaden its reach among ordinary investors. President Trump last week signed an order seeking to open up Americans' class="backlink" data-vars-page-type="story" data-vars-link-type="Manual" data-vars-anchor-text="401(k) retirement accounts">401(k) retirement accounts to private equity and other alternative investments. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) made headlines when she asked the Securities and Exchange Commission in June to investigate the way Harvard is valuing its private-equity holdings. To date, private equity has generally been the domain of institutions and high-net-worth individuals with long-term investment horizons and a high tolerance for risk and illiquidity. Less wealthy, ordinary investors have traditionally had only limited access. Their ability to participate has been growing, however, as more funds register with securities regulators and publicly disclose their financial reports. The funds may invest directly in other private-equity funds, or purchase stakes in them on the secondary market from existing investors. Such funds should, at a minimum, allow investors to see how much each private-equity holding originally cost and compare that with its latest carrying value. Some funds are making this exercise difficult. This is particularly problematic in light of recent controversies over some of the industry's valuation methods. Among the hottest flashpoints: Some funds have exploited an accounting loophole by buying stakes in other private-equity funds at big discounts on the secondary market and then marking them up immediately to their official net asset values. Sometimes the technique has resulted in gains of 1,000% or more in a single day. At many funds, such markups are at least easy to spot. The funds include clear, user-friendly tables in their financial reports that show each investment's cost, the latest fair value and the acquisition date. These data points are required disclosures under federal securities rules. Showing them alongside one another makes comparisons simple. In its latest annual report, Partners Group Private Equity (Master Fund) listed the cost figures for its private-equity investments in a footnote that spanned three pages. This is the second page of the footnote. But other funds make comparisons complicated, if not impossible, by listing the cost figures in lengthy footnotes, rather than in the main tables. The only way to determine the size of the markups is to manually match the costs for each investment (in the footnote) with the latest fair values listed on the disclosure table. Even that doesn't always for instance Partners Group Private Equity (Master Fund), which last reported almost $16 billion of net assets. It is the largest SEC-registered private-equity fund, according to Interval Fund Tracker. Individuals investing in the fund must meet certain minimum financial criteria. To exit from the fund, investors submit redemption requests during designated tender periods. The schedule of investments in the fund's latest annual report listed 1,089 individual private-equity investments in a table that included the fair value and acquisition date for each. In a footnote to that table, however, it listed 1,095 different cost figures. That is six more cost figures than there were investments. The footnote spanned three pages, single-spaced. In other words, there is no way someone reading the annual report could determine which cost figure applied to which investment—and no way to gauge which investments might have fishy markups. A review of previous reports showed the Partners Group fund sometimes had done this before. Regarding the cost-figure mismatch in the latest annual report, Partners Group spokeswoman Jenny Blinch said that 'there were a handful of investments to which the fund made follow-on investments in the same security,' and the cost figures listed for these in the footnote 'were disaggregated into the individual transactions.' After receiving questions about the practice, Blinch also said the fund plans 'to start including investment costs in the main table of the schedule of investments, alongside entry dates and current valuations.' The fund accounted for about 10% of Switzerland-based Partners Group's assets under management at year-end. A Wall Street Journal review of disclosures by other similar funds showed they use the same footnote technique. At those funds, however, it was at least possible to match costs to the corresponding investments. That is because the number of cost figures in the footnotes aligns with the number of disclosed investments. These include private-markets funds run by well-known managers such as Hamilton Lane, Franklin Resources, Coller Capital, Pantheon, Pomona and FlowStone. Ares Private Markets Fund's annual report shows cost figures in the main disclosure table, not a footnote. It bought stakes in 51 different private-equity funds on the secondary market on March 31, 2025, the last day of its fiscal year. The total cost was $330 million, and the Ares fund marked them up the same day to $377 million. The biggest percentage markup for a single investment was 57%, and the cumulative $47 million of paper gains that day amounted to 12% of the fund's total unrealized gains for the entire year. Ares ensured outsiders could at least look up those numbers. Anyone trying the same exercise with the Partners Group fund's last annual report would be stymied. Investors would be fair in suspecting that something here doesn't add up. Write to Jonathan Weil at


Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump's takeover of DC police: Can he, why now, and is it necessary?
United States President Donald Trump has announced that he is temporarily taking control of the Washington, DC, police department, while deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city, saying the measures are needed to 'rescue' the US capital from a surge in crime. During a 78-minute news conference, Trump declared that the US government would take control of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to address what he called 'surging crime.' 'I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' Trump said, joined by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will oversee the force. 'This is Liberation Day in DC, and we're going to take our capital back. We're taking it back.' 'Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I'm officially invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act… and placing the DC Metropolitan and Police Department under direct federal control,' he said. He also announced the deployment of the National Guard: 'I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly.' Trump added he intends to remove the capital's homeless population, without giving details. The 1973 law granted DC a degree of self-government, allowing residents to elect a mayor and council, while keeping certain powers with Congress and the president. The Act allows the president to take control of the police if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Trump previously threatened to do this in 2020. The president can take control for 48 hours, or up to 30 days if Congress is notified. Trump said he plans to extend the takeover beyond 48 hours. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back: 'Let me be clear. Chief Pamela Smith is the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, and its 3,100 members work under her direction. Nothing about our organisational chart has changed. And nothing in the executive order would indicate otherwise.' The US Army said 'between 100-200 soldiers will be supporting law enforcement at any given time,' handling administrative, logistics, and public safety tasks. The Guard will operate under Title 32 status — federally funded but locally controlled — and not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Guard units will begin arriving this week, likely without openly carrying rifles, though weapons will be accessible. Hegseth said the Pentagon was 'prepared to bring in other National Guard units – other specialised units.' When asked about removing homeless people, Hegseth said: 'Our job is to stand alongside law enforcement.' Trump's order states that 'rising violence in the capital now urgently endangers public servants, citizens, and tourists' and disrupts government functions. It calls DC 'among the most violent jurisdictions in the United States.' The move appears linked to the August 3 assault on Edward Coristine, a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer and protege of Elon Musk. Police say 10 teenagers attacked Coristine and his partner; two 15-year-olds were arrested. Days later, Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'If DC doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run.' He added that the takeover 'should have been done a long time ago.' Mayor Bowser questioned the need for the National Guard, suggesting more funding for prosecutors would be more effective. 'It is true that those were more challenging times related to some issues. It is also true that we experienced a crime spike post-COVID, but we worked quickly to put laws in place and tactics that got violent offenders off our streets, and gave our police officers more tools,' she said. According to Bowser, violent crime is now at a 30-year low. DC crime statistics show violent offences fell from 2023 to 2024, with 2025 continuing the trend: homicides down 12 per cent, assaults with dangerous weapons down 20 per cent. The FBI also reported a nationwide drop in violent crime of 4.5 per cent in 2024 compared with 2023. (With inputs from The Guardian, BBC)