Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska for high-stakes summit on Russia-Ukraine war
There are significant risks for Trump. By bringing Putin onto U.S. soil, the president is giving Russia's leader the validation he desires after his ostracization following his invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. The exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the summit also deals a heavy blow to the West's policy of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' and invites the possibility that Trump could agree to a deal that Ukraine does not want.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Any success is far from assured, especially as Russia and Ukraine remain far apart in their demands for peace. Putin has long resisted any temporary ceasefire, linking it to a halt in Western arms supplies and a freeze on Ukraine's mobilization efforts — conditions rejected by Kyiv and its Western allies.
Advertisement
Trump said that even more important than his summit with Putin would be a subsequent meeting that also includes Zelenskyy, something he suggested could even happen before he departs Alaska — a possibility that Russia hasn't agreed to.
Trump said in a Fox News radio interview Thursday that he didn't know if they would get 'an immediate ceasefire' but he wanted a broad peace deal done quickly. That seemingly echoes Putin's longtime argument that Russia favors a comprehensive deal to end the fighting, reflecting its demands, not a temporary halt to hostilities.
The Kremlin said Trump and Putin will first sit down for a one-on-one discussion, followed by the two delegations meeting and talks continuing over 'a working breakfast.' They are then expected to hold a joint press conference.
Trump has offered shifting explanations for his meeting goals
In the days leading up to the summit, set for a military base near Anchorage, Trump described it as " really a feel-out meeting." But he's also warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin doesn't agree to end the war and said that though Putin might bully other leaders, 'He's not going to mess around with me.'
Trump's repeated suggestions that a deal would likely involve 'some swapping of territories' — which disappointed Ukraine and European allies — along with his controversial history with Putin have some skeptical about what kind of agreement can be reached.
Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations, said he sees 'no upside for the U.S., only an upside for Putin.'
'The best that can happen is nothing, and the worst that can happen is that Putin entices Trump into putting more pressure on Zelenskyy,' Kelly said.
Advertisement
George Beebe, the former director of the CIA's Russia analysis team who is now affiliated with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there's a serious risk of blown expectations or misunderstandings for a high-level summit pulled together so quickly.
'That said, I doubt President Trump would be going into a meeting like this unless there had been enough work done behind the scenes for him to feel that there is a decent chance that something concrete will come out of it,' Beebe said.
Zelenskyy has time and again cast doubts on Putin's willingness to negotiate in good faith. His European allies, who've held increasingly urgent meetings with U.S. leaders over the past week, have stressed the need for Ukraine to be involved in any peace talks.
Political commentators in Moscow, meanwhile, have relished that the summit leaves Ukraine and its European allies on the sidelines.
Dmitry Suslov, a pro-Kremlin voice, expressed hope that the summit will 'deepen a trans-Atlantic rift and weaken Europe's position as the toughest enemy of Russia.'
European leaders who consulted with Trump this week said the president assured them he would prioritize trying to achieve a ceasefire.
The summit could have far-reaching implications
Foreign governments will be watching closely to see how Trump reacts to Putin, likely gauging what the interaction might mean for their own dealings with the U.S. president, who has eschewed traditional diplomacy for his own transactional approach to relationships.
The meeting comes as the war has caused heavy losses on both sides and drained resources.
Ukraine has held on far longer than some initially expected since the February 2022 invasion, but it is straining to hold off Russia's much larger army, grappling with bombardments of its cities and fighting for every inch on the over 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line.
Advertisement
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said U.S. antagonists like China, Iran and North Korea will be paying attention to Trump's posture to see 'whether or not the threats that he continues to make against Putin are indeed credible.'
'Or, if has been the past track record, he continues to back down and look for ways to wiggle out of the kind of threats and pressure he has promised to apply,' said Kendall-Taylor, who is also a former senior intelligence officer.
While some have objected to the location of the summit, Trump has said he thought it was 'very respectful' of Putin to come to the U.S. instead of a meeting in Russia.
Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based analyst, observed that the choice of Alaska as the summit's venue 'underlined the distancing from Europe and Ukraine.'
Being on a military base allows the leaders to avoid protests and meet more securely, but the location carries its own significance because of its history and location.
Alaska, which the U.S. purchased from Russia in 1867, is separated from Russia at its closest point by just 3 miles (less than 5 kilometers) and the international date line.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It continues to play a role today, as planes from the base still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace.
Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
(NewsNation) — President Trump alleged Friday that Democrats are paying protesters to fight his Washington, D.C., crime policies. But how do paid protests actually work? NewsNation spoke with Adam Swart, the CEO of Crowds on Demand, about his company that provides services 'for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,' according to its website. 'All of our protesters are sincere advocates for the cause at hand. We've been in business 13 years, so we have a large roster of people we know and have networks of others we can call upon to be compensated for expressing their sincere points of view,' Swart said. Swart said compensation for protests is typically in the low hundreds of dollars, depending on the assignment. He said organizing a protest 'is like buying an ad.' He said his company receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes. 'We have been clear that we work with both liberals and conservatives on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company, and so are Republicans,' he said. He did not disclose what protests his company has been asked to be a part of. Swart previously told NewsNation that he turned down $20 million to provide protesters for ' Good Trouble Lives On ' protests in July. 'I'm rejecting it not because I don't want to take the business, but because frankly, this is going to be ineffective; it's going to make us all look bad,' Swart said of the anti-Trump protests at the time.
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
