Trump to seek a Ukraine ceasefire deal at Alaska summit with Putin
The meeting of the Russian and U.S. leaders at a Cold War-era air force base in Alaska will be their first face-to-face talks since Trump returned to the White House. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell Kyiv out and try to force it into territorial concessions.
Trump is pressing for a truce in the three-and-a-half-year-old war that would bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
For Putin, the summit is a big win before it even starts as he can use it to say that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow has been returned to its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy. He has also long been keen to talk to Trump face-to-face without Ukraine.
Putin praises Trump's 'energetic' efforts to end Ukraine war ahead of Friday summit
The White House said the summit will take place at 11 a.m. Alaska time.
Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday that the conflict, Europe's biggest land war since World War Two, had proven a tougher nut to crack than he had thought.
He said that if his talks with Putin went well, quickly setting up a subsequent three-way summit with Zelensky would be even more important than his encounter with Putin.
One source close to the Kremlin said there were signs that Moscow could be ready to strike a compromise on Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a veteran of Russian diplomacy and part of its Alaska delegation, said Moscow never revealed its hand beforehand.
Ukraine and its European allies were heartened by a call on Wednesday in which they said Trump had agreed Ukraine must be involved in any talks about ceding land. Zelensky said Trump had also supported the idea of security guarantees for Kyiv.
Putin, whose war economy is showing some signs of strain, needs Trump to help Russia break out of its straitjacket of ever-tightening Western sanctions, or at the very least for him not to hit Moscow with more sanctions, something the U.S. president has threatened.
The day before the summit, the Russian president held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants – a new nuclear arms control agreement to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February next year.
Campbell Clark: Trump meets like-minded Putin, while the West watches
Trump said on the eve of the summit that he thought Putin would do a deal on Ukraine, but he has blown hot and cold on the chances of a breakthrough. Putin, meanwhile, praised what he called 'sincere efforts' by the U.S. to end the war.
The source close to the Kremlin told Reuters it looked as if the two sides had been able to find some common ground.
'Apparently, some terms will be agreed upon ... because Trump cannot be refused, and we are not in a position to refuse (due to sanctions pressure),' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.
They forecast that both Russia and Ukraine would be forced to make uncomfortable compromises.
Putin has so far voiced stringent conditions for a full ceasefire, but one compromise could be a truce in the air war.
Analysts say Putin could try to look like he's giving Trump what he wants while remaining free to escalate.
'If they (the Russians) are able to put a deal on the table that creates some kind of a ceasefire but that leaves Russia in control of those escalatory dynamics, does not create any kind of genuine deterrence on the ground or in the skies over Ukraine... that would be a wonderful outcome from Putin's perspective,' said Sam Greene, director of Democratic Resilience at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
Zelensky has accused Putin of playing for time to avoid U.S. secondary sanctions and has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory.
Trump has said land transfers could be a possible way of breaking the logjam.
Putin, whose forces control nearly one fifth of Ukraine, wants to start reviving the shrunken economic, political and business ties with the U.S. and, ideally, for the U.S. to decouple that process from Ukraine.
But it is unclear whether Putin is willing to compromise on Ukraine. In power for a quarter of a century, the Kremlin chief has staked his legacy on securing something he can sell at home as a victory.
Chief among his war aims is complete control over the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, which comprises the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Despite steady advances, around 25 per cent of Donetsk remains beyond Russian control.
Putin also wants full control of Ukraine's Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions; NATO membership to be taken off the table for Kyiv; and limits on the size of Ukraine's armed forces.
Ukraine has said these terms are tantamount to asking it to capitulate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
42 minutes ago
- CTV News
Gay couple weighs uncertain future as debate over marriage equality resurfaces
In a cozy home nestled in the heart of Tampa, a simple ballpoint pen sits behind glass. a piece of history framed and hung on the wall. For Mark Bias-West and Carrie West, that pen represents the moment they helped make history as the first same-sex couple to sign a domestic partnership with the city of Tampa back in 2012. (WFTS via CNN Newsource) TAMPA, Florida (WFTS) -- In a cozy home nestled in the heart of Tampa, a simple ballpoint pen sits behind glass. a piece of history framed and hung on the wall. For Mark Bias-West and Carrie West, that pen represents the moment they helped make history as the first same-sex couple to sign a domestic partnership with the city of Tampa back in 2012. 'Well, we are,' Carrie said proudly when asked if they were Tampa's first same-sex domestic partners. 'We signed the domestic partnership for the City of Tampa. We helped put it together, and that was one of the first things out there. We did it, and we got pictures of that in the offices.' Their framed pen and documentation aren't just memorabilia. They're symbols of a hard-won fight. 'This just isn't like, 'Okay, you guys are together and that's it,'' Carrie said. 'This is making a major change in the way the county represents and the way the city is representing the people in the LGBTQ+ community in Hillsborough County and in Tampa. This was big. This is big news. We were very happy.' In 2012, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Florida. But the couple believed change had to start locally. 'We kind of pioneered a lot of different things out there,' Carrie said. 'We wanted to work with Hillsborough County in getting that done. That's kind of the first steps of getting equal marriage.' They didn't stop there. 'We went up to Washington, D.C., and protested for equal marriage,' Carrie continued. 'We went all across the country and throughout the state of Florida, making sure people realized that was really an effort. And we did that around 2012. Then we started saying, we need to have this in the state of Florida — but we also have to have it first in our county, in our city.' The domestic partnership registry they fought for helped pave the way for broader recognition. In 2023, Carrie and Mark were legally married. Fears Resurface Amid Supreme Court Uncertainty Today, more than a decade after signing that first registry, Carrie and Mark are watching closely as legal and political winds shift. The couple is deeply concerned about what could happen if the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that challenges Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. 'The Supreme Court is… I don't want to say unpredictable, but it is,' Carrie said. 'We don't know exactly how their way of thinking is, and remember, we don't even know what the powers be, who pays for the Supreme Court justices anymore. It's not the way it used to be.' 'It's not a fair, balanced justice system anymore in the United States,' he added. When asked if he feared his own marriage could be in jeopardy, Carrie didn't hesitate. 'That is very true,' he said. 'Once you start going through there, it's going to be just like Clarence Thomas and his wife going through biracial or any kind of situation that would be defining and saying, 'Guess what? You are not now legally married.'' He believes such moves would open a 'can of worms' across the country, creating chaos and confusion, not just for same-sex couples, but for anyone relying on what has long been considered settled law. 'I think it's just going to put the progress of the Supreme Court in going through the Constitution,' Carrie said. 'I believe it's going to be very heavy on the courts, very heavy on the legislature. And I don't believe if you read the Supreme Court rulings, what this is in the Constitution. This is meant for all people, for all beings. Everybody's being equal. And that's the way that they decided upon what the justices said it should be.' The couple's concern is tied to the legal battle involving Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. Davis is now asking the Supreme Court to take up her appeal, arguing that being required to issue licenses violated her religious freedom. 'This is a case about Kim Davis,' said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University College of Law. 'She's been litigating for around a decade, trying to argue that somehow this discriminates against her, and not the other way around,' Torres-Spelliscy added. Professor Torres-Spelliscy says the Supreme Court is highly selective about what cases it hears, and that the Davis case may not present the strongest vehicle for overturning Obergefell. 'We don't know whether they're going to take the case at all,' Torres-Spelliscy said. 'If they do, they might not take up her invitation to overrule Obergefell.' Even if the court did, there's another layer of protection. 'After the Dobbs decision, the one that overturned Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects interracial and same-sex marriages at the federal level,' she explained. 'So even if the Supreme Court got rid of Obergefell, there is still protection that is statutory from Congress.' Still, she warned that rights based on substantive due process, the same constitutional principle that underpinned Roe and Obergefell, are vulnerable, especially given Justice Clarence Thomas's written opinion urging the Court to revisit those rulings. 'If we take Justice Thomas seriously, then all of these rights are up for grabs,' she said. 'That includes interracial marriage, same-sex intimacy, and even birth control.' James Fox, also a law professor at Stetson, said the roots of today's uncertainty lie in the narrow 5-4 nature of the Obergefell decision. 'Because that was a one-vote majority, it's inherently at risk,' Fox said. 'Now, only two of the justices in the majority: Kagan and Sotomayor, are still on the court.' He said the concern about Obergefell being overturned is legitimate; just maybe not by this case. 'Ms. Davis has not done well in litigation so far,' Fox said. 'In 2020, she asked for Supreme Court review and did not get it. One of the judges in this most recent ruling was a Trump appointee. The judge who wrote it was a George W. Bush appointee. There's a pretty consistent history of courts, including the Supreme Court, saying no in this case.' Fox explained that Davis's legal defence is based partly on religious freedom arguments, including a First Amendment claim that she had the right not to issue marriage licenses. While the lower courts dismissed those arguments, he said that type of claim is likely to return in future cases. 'The court has been receptive to trying to balance free exercise of religion claims against the rights of same-sex couples,' Fox said. 'And I think that's the tension. Where you have two constitutional claims in opposition to each other. I think that's where you're likely to see the court, in the next five years or so, start to recognize some limitations on same-sex marriage.' Still, Fox emphasized that he does not believe Obergefell is in immediate danger. 'I don't think this case is a reason for people in same-sex marriages to feel that there's any risk,' he said. 'But a future case might come up where the court starts to consider some of these arguments. It's something to watch closely.' For Carrie West and Mark Bias-West, the worry is more than legal — it's personal. The fight they started years ago wasn't just about paperwork or government recognition. It was about being seen. Being equal. 'This is what we think of the community,' Carrie said. 'This is what we think of the neighbors. This is how we treat the people around us throughout the whole area.' That pen still hangs on their wall. A symbol. A first. And, they hope, not the last word. By Jada Williams.
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, Aug. 17: ‘If Canada was a business … it would be bankrupt'
Re 'Nuclear threats, Ukraine's fate cast long shadow as Putin, Trump prepare to meet' (Aug. 8): The Russian and Chinese navies carried out 'a joint drill in which they practised hunting and destroying an enemy submarine.' As a former surface ship sonarman in the Royal Canadian Navy, I can say with some authority that Western allies have been regularly doing this very thing for decades. If asked during the 1960s, the Navy would have admitted that antisubmarine warfare was our raison d'être. Indeed when, a few years into my career, I served in Canada's submarine service, a major part of our job was to act as a target for allied forces trying to hone their skills. It should be noted that in those war games, the submarines usually won. Gord Hunter Regina Re 'Ontario universities must be released from their financial chokehold' (Aug. 11): I believe educating our youth is of paramount importance, and entrance fees must be affordable for all. Allowing our institutions to increase fees as needed would produce a U.S. model of unaffordable postsecondary education. Ontario and Canada are prioritizing government dollars for health care for older citizens over accessible education for the young. This makes no sense to me when about nearly three-quarters of all health care dollars are spent on patients over 60, while a similar amount of all personal wealth is in the hands of the same 60-plus crowd, including myself. It is time to start asking us old folks to open our wallets and free up public funds for better university access. Those who are not affluent can be dealt with under the tax system to support their needs. If Canada was a business, with inadequate focus on rebuilding its workforce, it would be bankrupt. David Parkes Ottawa Re 'Ontario labour group urges more worker protections amid rising air quality concerns' (Online, Aug. 6): Good for the Ontario Federation of Labour for taking the threat of wildfire smoke seriously and pushing for stronger worker protections. We find ourselves in a time of rapid change, and our policies and procedures should adapt accordingly. I think it's also worth taking a moment to reflect on how summer air quality is now a mainstream concern in Southern Ontario. As recently as three years ago, many would have found the OFL's advocacy radical. 'Smoke days' have only been a regular occurrence here since the summer of 2023. We can sit and ponder the reasons why wildfire season has gotten so much worse, but the science points pretty convincingly toward climate change. Let's remember that smoky skies in Toronto aren't some freak occurrence. If we want to stop this situation from getting much, much worse, we need to fight climate change, and that means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Mary Blake Rose London, Ont. Re 'It's not a bird! It's a Super Scooper plane, Canada's most powerful waterbombing tool to fight against wildfires' (Opinion, Aug. 9) and 'You can't fly sovereignty on foreign fuel' (Aug. 14): Thanks for publishing creative proposals to shake us out of the plodding complacency that won't cut it any longer in this time of multiple crises. We could use canola oil produced by tariff-battered Prairie farmers to ramp up production of low-emission aviation fuel. At the same time, we desperately need more water bombers to fight forest fires that threaten to become a permanent feature of summer; Canada produces one of the world's best in the 'Super Scooper.' Foreseeing an increase in global demand for water bombers and low-emission fuels, let's invest in our farmers and aerospace sector, strengthening our economy while combatting both the main cause and worst effects of that other existential crisis: climate change. Norm Beach Toronto Re 'Toronto the Grind: Making your way around has never been such a slog' (Opinion, Aug. 9): I think most everybody can agree that, at base, the issue comes down to having either condo construction at a breakneck pace, or the ability to travel around Toronto more seamlessly. We can't have both. Many voices have urged solutions to the traffic problem for years while still being able to build condos, but I find that all these ideas just nibble around the edges. Ultimately, it appears that the 'leadership,' developers and majority of the city's politicians have made one choice in favour of erecting condos – and I believe the vast majority of citizens have made the opposite choice. Ross Hollingshead Toronto I'm always struck by how those who once lived in Toronto, when returning after a long period away, invariably talk traffic chaos. Why is it that those of us who live here simply put up with it and don't demand change and progress? It feels like millions of us are simply the frog in the pot on the stove. We've been in the hot water so long, we've simply accepted it. We shouldn't. Traffic chaos should be an absolute priority at city hall. Stephen Kouri Toronto Blaming Toronto traffic and transit woes on a lack of leadership feels rather a cop-out. Whose leadership? When Toronto consults with residents and produces plans to deal with transportation or housing issues, they most often get shot down by the province. These decisions are then almost always upheld by the courts because, after all, the city 'is a creature of the province.' The province ordering the city to rip out bike lanes? More than 14 years (and counting) for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT? Historic underfunding of public transit? Road and construction deadlock? In whose mind is that acceptable transportation planning for a big city? Unless Toronto has real power under the Constitution to make its own decisions and real authority to raise needed funds, the power and politics and blame games between the city, the province and the feds will continue. And so will Toronto's transportation and transit woes. Monica Franklin Toronto Poor planning, political meddling and financial profligacy has steadily degraded nearly all methods of mobility in and around Toronto. Rather than focusing on transit improvements by studying global best practices and optimizing modal integration, it seems our provincial government has a better answer: Make space for more cars and spend tons of taxpayer money in the process – for what? This populist, tail-chasing process ensures that mobility woes remain entrenched. Exacerbating the problem is that new public transportation infrastructure costs in Toronto are among the highest in the world on a per-kilometre basis, and involved provincial departments seem to be doing little to correct this. Who is accountable for the fact that the three-stop Scarborough subway extension cost has now doubled from $5.5-billion to $10.2-billion? Making Toronto into a world-class city would mean replacing populism with foresight and pragmatism, by investing rather than spending. We continue to suffer the consequences. Kenneth Westcar Woodstock, Ont. Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Trump's D.C. makeover: How the president is reshaping Washington in his image
U.S. President Donald Trump is presiding over one of the most dramatic transformations of Washington, D.C., in a generation, as he makes monumental changes to the historic White House complex, federalizes local police as part of a "beautification" campaign, takes over the district's performing arts centre and dictates what should be on display in the national museums. Trump is taking a more hands-on approach to district issues than any of his recent predecessors as he tries to remake the capital in his image, all while rooting out what he calls "wokesters," homeless people, hardened criminals, illegal migrants and others. In Trump's D.C., there will be no more "savagery, filth and scum," he said. As he tightens his grip on the federal district he says has been badly managed for decades, Trump has flatly ruled out granting D.C. statehood. It's something residents have long demanded, and it would stymie his efforts to exert more control over what happens in this city of 700,000 people. "What we want to do is make Washington, D.C., the greatest, most beautiful, safest capital anywhere in the world, and that's going to happen," Trump told reporters at an event on Wednesday. "Already they're saying, 'He's a dictator,'" he said of his Democrat critics. But Trump insisted D.C. "is going to hell. We've got to stop it." This week, federal agents have been out on patrol in parts of the district, arresting dozens of suspected criminals in the first few days of the Trump operation. The city's Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, initially called the deployment "unsettling." But she has been largely deferential to Trump, saying she's powerless to stop his efforts and that more officers on the streets "may be a positive." Barbara Perry, co-chair of the presidential oral history program at the University of Virginia and a board member of the White House Historical Association, told CBC News that Trump's D.C. intervention is truly unprecedented. "No other president has taken such an interest in all the different facets of Washington, D.C.," Perry said. "Most presidents usually have a lot more on their plate than worrying about redesigning the White House. And crime and law enforcement — those have long been thought of as local issues," she said, especially after the district was given home rule in the 1970s. New ballroom At the centre of Trump's ambitious plan to spruce up the capital is a massive new ballroom on the White House grounds. While there are strict guidelines for what can be built on that revered site on Pennsylvania Avenue — smaller changes in the past have taken months or even years to study and approve — Trump officials have already said construction on the hulking space will get underway in September. Trump is pitching a $200-million US, 90,000-square-foot structure expected to subsume the existing East Wing and some of the property's green space — a legacy piece for the former real estate mogul. The proposed building is nearly double the size of the existing structure. PHOTOS | Trump's proposed ballroom at the White House: "Part of his real estate developer persona is plastering the name of Trump over anything that he ever owned or wanted to own," Perry said. "He sees himself as a businessman and a developer and the desire to build something like this giant ballroom — it's right in his strike zone." The plan has drawn fierce criticism from architectural purists but praise from others who say the current building is too small for large state functions. His defenders say Trump is right that unsightly tents have to be rolled out onto the lawn when more than 250 people are invited to a formal event. Stephen Ayers, the interim CEO of the American Institute for Architects, which was entrusted by president Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago to be the "perpetual guardian" of the White House's architectural integrity, urges caution. "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the people's house, a national treasure and an enduring symbol of our democracy. Any modifications to it — especially modifications of this magnitude — should reflect the importance, scale and symbolic weight of the White House itself," Ayers said. Trump's proposed structure "raises concerns regarding scale and balance," he said, and any additions should be adjusted so that they align with "the White House's historic character." Others have been more blunt, calling the planned addition " hideous," " ugly," " dumb" and gaudy given the liberal use of gold. "I can see where this ballroom would be helpful and needed. We struggled with guests lists when I was there," said Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to ex-first lady Laura Bush, who helped plan social events. "With tented events, you really can't say you're having dinner at the White House, because you're not. You're on the lawn. It's not as attractive, in my mind." There hasn't been much structural change to the place since the post-Second World War period — and even then it was a comparatively minor addition, as then-president Harry Truman added a balcony to the second floor of the executive residence. Truman also gutted the interior after decades of neglect. Roosevelt knocked down pre-Civil War greenhouses to build the West Wing in 1902. His distant cousin, former president Franklin Roosevelt, added the Oval Office as it's known today in 1934. McBride, who also worked in the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, said it's the president's prerogative to do what he wants with the place — with some limits, of course. "The building has evolved over 233 years. It's been through changes before and with many of them there were strong feelings on both sides, but we ultimately adapted," she said. "It will take some getting used to." The ballroom project follows Trump's recent decision to pave over part of Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden to install new tiles for an outdoor patio and put two towering flag poles on either side of the White House to boldly fly the Stars and Stripes. In a nod to his Trump Tower apartment, the president has placed gold detailing all over the Oval Office and other interior spaces in a building that was much more modest when it first opened in 1800. "The White House was built by our founding fathers, particularly George Washington, to not be like the palaces of Europe. But I'm not sure they could have envisioned the kind of world we live in today," McBride said. "It's the personal preference of this president. Maybe it's not to everybody's taste, but it is Trump's. While he's there, this is how he wants it." Crime crackdown, Kennedy Center takeover Beyond the White House gates, Trump is promising an ambitious campaign to fix the district's parks, roads and medians, because he said the current setup is "embarrassing" when world leaders come to see him. Bowser, the D.C. mayor, has pushed back on Trump's narrative, saying the city is already more beautiful and safe than it was — tourism numbers are up and business activity has improved after a post-COVID slump. But Trump described the city in dystopian terms as he moved to deploy the D.C. National Guard to the streets of the capital. His D.C. takeover doesn't stop there. Trump commandeered the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts's board of trustees, who then installed him as its chair. He dropped some purportedly progressive programming and promoted a summer schedule of the play Les Misérables, which just finished a five-week sold-out run on his watch. Now, Trump will personally host the centre's annual awards ceremony and give prizes to hand-picked celebrity recipients in a bid to drive up TV ratings. He is leading renovation efforts to that space, too, recently convincing Republicans in Congress to allocate $257 million for an overhaul. Some of his congressional allies are pushing for the building's opera house to be renamed after First Lady Melania Trump. And then there's the Smithsonian, which earlier this year removed a reference to Trump's first-term impeachments from a display in the Museum of American History — it later returned with a modified text. This week, White House officials urged the museum's top administrator to reevaluate what's put on display as the country approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026. The White House wants visitors to see displays that "celebrate American exceptionalism."
