Zelenskiy to meet Trump after US-Russia summit
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
41 minutes ago
- 9 News
Trump's 'abrupt' ceasefire deal reversal after Putin talks
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here In talks with European allies after Friday's summit in Alaska, Trump said Putin reiterated that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up the Donbas. But Putin appeared open to the possibility of halting the stalemate in two other regions, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, with a freeze along the front lines. President Trump and Russian President Putin meet in Alaska. (Getty) That is according to European officials familiar with the calls who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the talks at a US military base between the American and Russian presidents. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has previously rejected giving up the territory in the Donbas. The aftermath of the summit offered little clarity about the next steps, other than Trump's commitment for more meetings, including with Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday. It was unclear among those briefed on the exchanges whether Trump saw Putin's desire for the Donbas as acceptable, with Trump's blunt but elliptical way of speaking only adding to a sense of confusion. The White House had yet to provide a public summary of the calls as Trump played golfed Saturday at his Virginia club. The most transparent takeaway was Trump's abrupt reversal on a ceasefire, raising questions of how peace talks can proceed if attacks continue. Trump's abandoning a ceasefire as a requirement for further negotiations aligns him with a position held by Putin. The Russian leader has long said Moscow is not interested in a temporary truce and is seeking a long-term settlement that takes the Kremlin's interests into account. Trump speaks during an event at the Kennedy Centre in Washington, DC. (Getty) After the calls with Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump said Saturday on social media that 'it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told ZDF television that Trump said 'Russia seems to be prepared to conduct the negotiations based on the so-called line of contact and not the administrative boundaries.' It was unclear from the comments how issues pertaining to the Donbas had been resolved. Zelenskyy has previously refused to withdraw from the remaining 30 per cent of the Donetsk region that Ukraine controls. He says that would be unconstitutional and the territory could be used as a staging ground for later Russian attacks. In a statement after the Trump call, major European leaders did not address whether a peace deal was preferable to a ceasefire, saying they 'welcomed President Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace.' Putin described his talks with Trump as 'very frank.' 'We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military actions,' he said at the follow-up meeting at the Kremlin, a clip of which was posted to the Kremlin's Telegram channel. 'We would like to move to resolving all issues by peaceful means.' Trump's suggestion that a peace agreement should be reached before a ceasefire appears to indicate his thinking is 'shifting towards Putin,' an approach that would allow Moscow to keep fighting while negotiating, said Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. Putin has 'broken out of international isolation' and 'wasn't in the least challenged' by Trump, who also ignored an arrest warrant issued for Putin by the International Criminal Court, said Laurie Bristow, who was British ambassador to Russia from 2016 to 2020. But the US isn't a member of the court and thus doesn't have an obligation to arrest him. 'Unless Mr. Putin is absolutely convinced that he cannot win militarily, the fighting is not going to stop,' Bristow said. 'That's the big takeaway from the Anchorage summit.' Zelenskyy has previously refused to withdraw from the remaining 30 per cent of the Donetsk region that Ukraine controls. (Getty) Zelenskyy, who was not invited to Alaska for the summit, said he had a 'long and substantive' conversation with Trump early Saturday and that they would 'discuss all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war' on Monday. It will be Zelenskyy's first visit to the United States since Trump berated him publicly for being 'disrespectful' during an extraordinary Oval Office meeting in February. Trump confirmed the White House meeting and said that 'if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin.' Zelenskyy reiterated the importance of involving European leaders, who also were not at the summit, 'to ensure reliable security guarantees together with America.' 'We also discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine's security,' he said. The Ukrainian leader did not elaborate, but he has previously said European partners put on hold a proposal to establish a foreign troop presence in Ukraine to deter Russian aggression because it lacked an American backstop. In apparent effort to bolster Zelenskyy's hand before the White House meeting, France, the United Kingdom and Germany will co-host a video call today of 'coalition of the willing' nations that could help monitor and uphold any deal to end fighting, French President Emmanuel Macron's office said. Trump greets Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as he arrives at the White House on February 28, 2025. (China News Service via Getty Ima) The French, German, Italian, British, Finnish, Polish and European Union leaders said 'Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees' and they welcomed US readiness to provide them. 'It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory,' their statement said. 'International borders must not be changed by force.' During an interview with Fox News Channel before returning to Washington, Trump insisted the onus might be on Zelenskyy 'to get it done,' but that there also would be some involvement from European nations. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said 'the harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war anytime soon,' noting that Moscow launched new attacks on Ukraine even as the delegations met. 'Putin continues to drag out negotiations and hopes he gets away with it. He left Anchorage without making any commitments to end the killing,' she said. Ukrainian and Russian forces are fighting along a 1000km front line. Since spring, Russian troops have accelerated their gains, capturing the most territory since the opening stages of the war. Zelenskyy voiced support for Trump's proposal for a meeting with the US and Russia. He said that 'key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this.' But Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian state television Saturday that a possible three-way meeting 'has not been touched upon yet' in US-Russia discussions. Zelenskyy wrote on X that he told Trump "sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war.' CONTACT US
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
US stops visitor visas for people from Gaza
The US State Department says it is halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts "a full and thorough" review. The department said a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days, but did not provide a figure. The US issued more than 3800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May. The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the move, saying it was the latest sign of the "intentional cruelty" of the Trump administration. The Palestine Children's Relief Fund said the decision to halt visas would deny access to medical care to wounded and sick children in Gaza. "This policy will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for lifesaving medical treatment—a mission that has defined our work for more than 30 years," it said in a statement The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian "refugees" had entered the US this month. Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with Randy Fine describing it as a "national security risk". Gaza has been devastated by a war that was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. The US has not indicated that it would accept Palestinians displaced by the war. However, sources told Reuters that South Sudan and Israel are discussing a plan to resettle Palestinians. The US State Department says it is halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts "a full and thorough" review. The department said a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days, but did not provide a figure. The US issued more than 3800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May. The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the move, saying it was the latest sign of the "intentional cruelty" of the Trump administration. The Palestine Children's Relief Fund said the decision to halt visas would deny access to medical care to wounded and sick children in Gaza. "This policy will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for lifesaving medical treatment—a mission that has defined our work for more than 30 years," it said in a statement The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian "refugees" had entered the US this month. Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with Randy Fine describing it as a "national security risk". Gaza has been devastated by a war that was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. The US has not indicated that it would accept Palestinians displaced by the war. However, sources told Reuters that South Sudan and Israel are discussing a plan to resettle Palestinians. The US State Department says it is halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts "a full and thorough" review. The department said a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days, but did not provide a figure. The US issued more than 3800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May. The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the move, saying it was the latest sign of the "intentional cruelty" of the Trump administration. The Palestine Children's Relief Fund said the decision to halt visas would deny access to medical care to wounded and sick children in Gaza. "This policy will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for lifesaving medical treatment—a mission that has defined our work for more than 30 years," it said in a statement The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian "refugees" had entered the US this month. Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with Randy Fine describing it as a "national security risk". Gaza has been devastated by a war that was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. The US has not indicated that it would accept Palestinians displaced by the war. However, sources told Reuters that South Sudan and Israel are discussing a plan to resettle Palestinians. The US State Department says it is halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts "a full and thorough" review. The department said a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days, but did not provide a figure. The US issued more than 3800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May. The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the move, saying it was the latest sign of the "intentional cruelty" of the Trump administration. The Palestine Children's Relief Fund said the decision to halt visas would deny access to medical care to wounded and sick children in Gaza. "This policy will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for lifesaving medical treatment—a mission that has defined our work for more than 30 years," it said in a statement The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian "refugees" had entered the US this month. Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with Randy Fine describing it as a "national security risk". Gaza has been devastated by a war that was triggered on October 7, 2023, when Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. The US has not indicated that it would accept Palestinians displaced by the war. However, sources told Reuters that South Sudan and Israel are discussing a plan to resettle Palestinians.
