Sergey Lavrov, Marco Rubio discuss Putin-Trump summit over phone call
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Can the US still be Europe's peacemaker?
For over a century, no European peace treaty has been signed without the participation of the United States. Woodrow Wilson's vision shaped the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and Harry Truman hammered out the post-World War II order with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference. More recently, in 1995, U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke led the talks that ended the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps this tradition was on Donald Trump's mind when he agreed to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss an end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, among other subjects. After all, the U.S. is a European power, standing at the center of the NATO alliance, and as such its attitudes toward the future of Europe must be taken into account. But when it comes to achieving peace in Ukraine, the summit's chances of success are small. A twofold dilemma confronts the White House. Putin's love of obfuscation and delay makes negotiating with him fiendishly difficult; and the Trump administration's publicly stated desire to reduce America's military presence in Europe undermines its own position from the start. As a result, the summit is more likely to prolong the war than end it. It could even contribute to Ukraine's defeat. Russians are weary after more than three years of fighting, and the war's economic and military toll continues to rise. But when it comes to Ukraine, there are few limits to Putin's zeal, and Russian forces are currently finding success on the battlefield, punching through Ukrainian lines this week. A time may come when Putin will concede that Russia cannot conquer all of Ukraine, the original goal of the 2022 invasion. But there is no reason to think he has reached this point yet. Putin has used negotiations to his advantage before. Russia's war on Ukraine began in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. Putin's war aims involved more than the acquisition of territory. His goal was to exert direct control over Ukraine or, at least, to gain veto power over Kyiv's foreign-policy choices. In this sense, the invasion was a failure: Though Russia held on to the Ukrainian territory seized in 2014, it couldn't achieve its political goals. Instead, Kyiv became less politically beholden to Russia after 2014, as a self-evident consequence of invasion. Though the U.S. and Europe condemned Russia's land grab, they didn't intervene militarily, and the economic sanctions they imposed had little effect. In 2014-15, Putin made deals with Ukraine, France and Britain, agreeing to withdraw from Ukrainian territory (excluding Crimea) in exchange for autonomous status for the occupied regions. Putin's goal was to convince the world that his intentions were relatively benign. He had gone into Ukraine, but he would go no further; he was looking for the exits. Putin also has a solid understanding of vanity. He flattered the U.S. and Europe, leading them to believe that by failing to resist Russia militarily they were showing maturity and helping to avoid a world war. In the following years, Russian diplomats attended countless meetings on implementing these collective agreements, and by 2021 France, Germany and the U.S. had restored normal relations with Russia. But Russia never withdrew its soldiers from Ukraine. Putin's pantomime of diplomacy had been nothing but a holding pattern, a prelude to his massive invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This background is crucial for understanding Putin's approach to negotiation and his intentions at the Alaska summit. The Kremlin has expressed pleasure at Putin's meeting with Trump, while remaining deliberately vague about its expectations. Meanwhile, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted that he will not cede 'land to the occupier." For Kyiv, the nightmare scenario is that Trump will pressure Ukraine to end the war by ceding some or all of the territory Russia has conquered, legitimizing the invasion and leaving the country vulnerable to renewed aggression in the future. History shows that the U.S. has been successful at concluding wars in Europe when it has participated in them or at least demonstrated military pre-eminence. Wilson joined the leaders of Britain and France at Versailles because American troops had helped defeat Germany in World War I. After World War II, Truman had to share the peacemaking limelight with Stalin, whose armies occupied most of eastern Europe. In the 1990s, the U.S. was free to shape the future of Europe because its uncontested victory in the Cold War made it the world's sole superpower. To end the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Holbrooke invited representatives of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia to negotiate at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, to telegraph the scope of American air power to the participants. He got his point across. In Ukraine, by contrast, Washington has helped supply Kyiv with weapons but kept away from the fighting. Now the U.S. intends to scale back its commitment. 'We're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business," Vice President JD Vance announced on Aug. 10. For the Trump administration, the war in Ukraine is not an occasion for augmenting American power but for diminishing it, by passing the job of defending Europe back to the Europeans. This doesn't mean that the administration should eschew diplomacy with Russia. Negotiations can be open-ended, and they can benefit from unexpected contingencies. But the Trump team should remember that Putin has every incentive to buy time by engaging in insincere peace talks, as he has often done in the past. Since the U.S. is too distant from the conflict and has too little leverage to force Russia to a settlement, the countries most likely to bring the war to an end are Ukraine and its European partners. For the first time in a century, the U.S. may be more bystander than participant in the denouement of a major European war. Michael Kimmage is a professor of history at the Catholic University of America and the author of 'Collisions: The War in Ukraine and the Origins of the New Global Instability."
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska for high-stakes summit on Russia-Ukraine war
US President Donald Trump is meeting face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday for a high-stakes summit that could determine not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine but also the fate of European security. The meeting between the two leaders is scheduled for 11:30 am Alaska time (3:30 pm ET), followed by a joint press conference. They will convene at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, which is home to around 30,000 service members, their families, and civilian staff. The base lies roughly 700 miles from the Russian border. The sit-down offers Trump a chance to prove to the world that he is both a master dealmaker and a global peacemaker. He and his allies have cast him as a heavyweight negotiator who can find a way to bring the slaughter to a close — something he used to boast he could do quickly. For Putin, a summit with Trump offers a long-sought opportunity to try to negotiate a deal that would cement Russia's gains, block Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance and eventually pull Ukraine back into Moscow's orbit. There are significant risks for Trump. By bringing Putin onto US 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. 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. 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. 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 US ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations, said he sees 'no upside for the US, 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. 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 US 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. 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 US 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. Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said US 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 US 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 US 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 US airspace.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Go Home Putin, Get Lost Trump': Alaskans Wave Ukrainian Flags Protesting Historic Peace Summit
/ Aug 15, 2025, 11:01AM IST As Anchorage prepared to host a high-stakes summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the streets filled with noise, colour, and conviction. Hours before the leaders were due to meet, hundreds of Alaskans gathered at one of the city's busiest intersections, waving Ukrainian flags and holding up hand-painted signs. The protest pulsed with music from a marching band, cheers from passing cars, and the rhythmic chants of demonstrators calling for justice in Ukraine.#TrumpPutinSummit #AlaskaSummit #UkraineWar #TrumpVsBolton #PutinInUSA #USRussiaRelations #BreakingNews #Geopolitics #GlobalTensions #NATOVSRussia #AnchorageSummit #WorldPolitics
