logo
Alaska conflicted over mining push, indigenous customs

Alaska conflicted over mining push, indigenous customs

The Advertiser07-08-2025
Fish camps still dot the banks of the broad Kuskokwim River in southwestern Alaska.
Wooden huts and tarped shelters stand beside drying racks draped with bright red strips of salmon.
Alaska Native families have harvested fish for generations and preserved them for the bitter winters ahead.
But the once-abundant salmon populations have declined so sharply in recent years that authorities have severely restricted subsistence fishing on Alaska's second-longest river.
They've imposed even tighter restrictions on the longer Yukon River to the north.
Various factors are blamed for the salmon collapse, from climate change to commercial fishing practices.
What's clear is the impact is not just on food but on long-standing rituals — fish camps where elders transmit skills and stories to younger generations while bonding over a sacred connection to the land.
"Our families are together for that single-minded purpose of providing for our survival," said Gloria Simeon, a Yup'ik resident of Bethel.
"It's the college of fish camp."
So when Alaska Natives debate proposals to drill, mine or otherwise develop the landscape of the nation's largest state, it involves more than an environmental or economic question.
It's also a spiritual and cultural one.
"We have a special spiritual, religious relationship to our river and our land," said Simeon, standing outside her backyard smokehouse where she uses birch-bark kindling and cottonwood logs to preserve this year's salmon catch.
"Our people have been stewards of this land for millennia, and we've taken that relationship seriously."
Put a pin just about anywhere on the map of Alaska, and you're likely to hit an area mulling a proposed mine, a new wilderness road, a logging site, an oil well, or a natural gas pipeline.
Such debates have intensified during US President Donald Trump's second term.
His administration and allies have pushed aggressively for drilling, mining and developing on Alaska's public lands.
Native leaders and activists are divided about extraction projects.
Supporters say they bring jobs and pay for infrastructure, while opponents say they imperil the environment and their traditions.
Trump singled out Alaska as a priority for extraction projects in an executive order signed on his first day in office.
"Unlocking this bounty of natural wealth will raise the prosperity of our citizens while helping to enhance our Nation's economic and national security," the order said.
Increasingly, words are turning to action.
Congress, in passing Trump's budget bill in July, authorised an unprecedented four new sales of oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and still more in other locations.
Trump cabinet officials made a high-profile visit in June to Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's far north — an aging oil field that is one of the largest in North America.
They touted goals of doubling the oil coursing through Alaska's existing pipeline system and building a massive natural gas pipeline as its "big, beautiful twin".
It takes years for proposed extraction projects to unfold, if they ever do.
The extent of oil reserves in the Arctic refuge remains uncertain.
No major oil company bid during the only two lease sales offered to date in the Arctic refuge.
But the measures pushed by the new administration and Congress amount to the latest pendulum swing between Republican and Democratic presidents, between policies prioritising extraction and environmental protections.
The budget bill calls for additional lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, west of the Arctic refuge, and opening more areas to potential leasing than authorized under recent Democratic administrations.
Alaska's political leaders generally have cheered on the push for more extraction, including its Republican congressional delegation and its governor, who has called his state "America's natural resource warehouse".
So have some Native leaders, who say their communities stand to benefit from jobs and revenues.
They say such projects are critical to their economic prospects and self-determination, providing jobs and helping their communities pay for schools, streets and snow removal.
"We need jobs. Our people need training. To stand on our own two feet. Our kids need a future," said PJ Simon, first chief of the Allakaket Tribal Council.
But Native opponents of such projects say short-term economic gains come at the risk of long-term environmental impacts that will reverberate widely.
"We're kind of viewed as the last frontier, like we have unlimited resources," said Sophie Swope, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition.
She said Alaska's most renewable resources — such as salmon, deer and other migratory wildlife — are threatened both by overly aggressive ocean fishing and by extractive industries.
"There's that lack of respect for our traditional subsistence lifestyles," she said.
Opponents of oil drilling in the Arctic refuge fear it will permanently disrupt the long-range migration of caribou, which Native people have hunted for millennia.
A massive caribou herd goes to the refuge's coastal plain to calve in the spring before fanning out across a wider area, providing a crucial food source for Native hunters in Alaska and Canada.
If the herd's migration is disrupted, opponents fear an impact similar to the salmon collapse — a loss not just of food but of a focal point of culture and spirituality.
Simeon said the disruption of communal hunting and fishing activities leads to a spiritual rootlessness that she believes contributes to alarming rates of addictions and suicide among Alaska Native people.
"What does it do to your heart and soul when you have to look at an empty smokehouse year after year after year, and you can't provide for your family?" Simeon said.
Fish camps still dot the banks of the broad Kuskokwim River in southwestern Alaska.
Wooden huts and tarped shelters stand beside drying racks draped with bright red strips of salmon.
Alaska Native families have harvested fish for generations and preserved them for the bitter winters ahead.
But the once-abundant salmon populations have declined so sharply in recent years that authorities have severely restricted subsistence fishing on Alaska's second-longest river.
They've imposed even tighter restrictions on the longer Yukon River to the north.
Various factors are blamed for the salmon collapse, from climate change to commercial fishing practices.
What's clear is the impact is not just on food but on long-standing rituals — fish camps where elders transmit skills and stories to younger generations while bonding over a sacred connection to the land.
"Our families are together for that single-minded purpose of providing for our survival," said Gloria Simeon, a Yup'ik resident of Bethel.
"It's the college of fish camp."
So when Alaska Natives debate proposals to drill, mine or otherwise develop the landscape of the nation's largest state, it involves more than an environmental or economic question.
It's also a spiritual and cultural one.
"We have a special spiritual, religious relationship to our river and our land," said Simeon, standing outside her backyard smokehouse where she uses birch-bark kindling and cottonwood logs to preserve this year's salmon catch.
"Our people have been stewards of this land for millennia, and we've taken that relationship seriously."
Put a pin just about anywhere on the map of Alaska, and you're likely to hit an area mulling a proposed mine, a new wilderness road, a logging site, an oil well, or a natural gas pipeline.
Such debates have intensified during US President Donald Trump's second term.
His administration and allies have pushed aggressively for drilling, mining and developing on Alaska's public lands.
Native leaders and activists are divided about extraction projects.
Supporters say they bring jobs and pay for infrastructure, while opponents say they imperil the environment and their traditions.
Trump singled out Alaska as a priority for extraction projects in an executive order signed on his first day in office.
"Unlocking this bounty of natural wealth will raise the prosperity of our citizens while helping to enhance our Nation's economic and national security," the order said.
Increasingly, words are turning to action.
Congress, in passing Trump's budget bill in July, authorised an unprecedented four new sales of oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and still more in other locations.
Trump cabinet officials made a high-profile visit in June to Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's far north — an aging oil field that is one of the largest in North America.
They touted goals of doubling the oil coursing through Alaska's existing pipeline system and building a massive natural gas pipeline as its "big, beautiful twin".
It takes years for proposed extraction projects to unfold, if they ever do.
The extent of oil reserves in the Arctic refuge remains uncertain.
No major oil company bid during the only two lease sales offered to date in the Arctic refuge.
But the measures pushed by the new administration and Congress amount to the latest pendulum swing between Republican and Democratic presidents, between policies prioritising extraction and environmental protections.
The budget bill calls for additional lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, west of the Arctic refuge, and opening more areas to potential leasing than authorized under recent Democratic administrations.
Alaska's political leaders generally have cheered on the push for more extraction, including its Republican congressional delegation and its governor, who has called his state "America's natural resource warehouse".
So have some Native leaders, who say their communities stand to benefit from jobs and revenues.
They say such projects are critical to their economic prospects and self-determination, providing jobs and helping their communities pay for schools, streets and snow removal.
"We need jobs. Our people need training. To stand on our own two feet. Our kids need a future," said PJ Simon, first chief of the Allakaket Tribal Council.
But Native opponents of such projects say short-term economic gains come at the risk of long-term environmental impacts that will reverberate widely.
"We're kind of viewed as the last frontier, like we have unlimited resources," said Sophie Swope, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition.
She said Alaska's most renewable resources — such as salmon, deer and other migratory wildlife — are threatened both by overly aggressive ocean fishing and by extractive industries.
"There's that lack of respect for our traditional subsistence lifestyles," she said.
Opponents of oil drilling in the Arctic refuge fear it will permanently disrupt the long-range migration of caribou, which Native people have hunted for millennia.
A massive caribou herd goes to the refuge's coastal plain to calve in the spring before fanning out across a wider area, providing a crucial food source for Native hunters in Alaska and Canada.
If the herd's migration is disrupted, opponents fear an impact similar to the salmon collapse — a loss not just of food but of a focal point of culture and spirituality.
Simeon said the disruption of communal hunting and fishing activities leads to a spiritual rootlessness that she believes contributes to alarming rates of addictions and suicide among Alaska Native people.
"What does it do to your heart and soul when you have to look at an empty smokehouse year after year after year, and you can't provide for your family?" Simeon said.
Fish camps still dot the banks of the broad Kuskokwim River in southwestern Alaska.
Wooden huts and tarped shelters stand beside drying racks draped with bright red strips of salmon.
Alaska Native families have harvested fish for generations and preserved them for the bitter winters ahead.
But the once-abundant salmon populations have declined so sharply in recent years that authorities have severely restricted subsistence fishing on Alaska's second-longest river.
They've imposed even tighter restrictions on the longer Yukon River to the north.
Various factors are blamed for the salmon collapse, from climate change to commercial fishing practices.
What's clear is the impact is not just on food but on long-standing rituals — fish camps where elders transmit skills and stories to younger generations while bonding over a sacred connection to the land.
"Our families are together for that single-minded purpose of providing for our survival," said Gloria Simeon, a Yup'ik resident of Bethel.
"It's the college of fish camp."
So when Alaska Natives debate proposals to drill, mine or otherwise develop the landscape of the nation's largest state, it involves more than an environmental or economic question.
It's also a spiritual and cultural one.
"We have a special spiritual, religious relationship to our river and our land," said Simeon, standing outside her backyard smokehouse where she uses birch-bark kindling and cottonwood logs to preserve this year's salmon catch.
"Our people have been stewards of this land for millennia, and we've taken that relationship seriously."
Put a pin just about anywhere on the map of Alaska, and you're likely to hit an area mulling a proposed mine, a new wilderness road, a logging site, an oil well, or a natural gas pipeline.
Such debates have intensified during US President Donald Trump's second term.
His administration and allies have pushed aggressively for drilling, mining and developing on Alaska's public lands.
Native leaders and activists are divided about extraction projects.
Supporters say they bring jobs and pay for infrastructure, while opponents say they imperil the environment and their traditions.
Trump singled out Alaska as a priority for extraction projects in an executive order signed on his first day in office.
"Unlocking this bounty of natural wealth will raise the prosperity of our citizens while helping to enhance our Nation's economic and national security," the order said.
Increasingly, words are turning to action.
Congress, in passing Trump's budget bill in July, authorised an unprecedented four new sales of oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and still more in other locations.
Trump cabinet officials made a high-profile visit in June to Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's far north — an aging oil field that is one of the largest in North America.
They touted goals of doubling the oil coursing through Alaska's existing pipeline system and building a massive natural gas pipeline as its "big, beautiful twin".
It takes years for proposed extraction projects to unfold, if they ever do.
The extent of oil reserves in the Arctic refuge remains uncertain.
No major oil company bid during the only two lease sales offered to date in the Arctic refuge.
But the measures pushed by the new administration and Congress amount to the latest pendulum swing between Republican and Democratic presidents, between policies prioritising extraction and environmental protections.
The budget bill calls for additional lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, west of the Arctic refuge, and opening more areas to potential leasing than authorized under recent Democratic administrations.
Alaska's political leaders generally have cheered on the push for more extraction, including its Republican congressional delegation and its governor, who has called his state "America's natural resource warehouse".
So have some Native leaders, who say their communities stand to benefit from jobs and revenues.
They say such projects are critical to their economic prospects and self-determination, providing jobs and helping their communities pay for schools, streets and snow removal.
"We need jobs. Our people need training. To stand on our own two feet. Our kids need a future," said PJ Simon, first chief of the Allakaket Tribal Council.
But Native opponents of such projects say short-term economic gains come at the risk of long-term environmental impacts that will reverberate widely.
"We're kind of viewed as the last frontier, like we have unlimited resources," said Sophie Swope, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition.
She said Alaska's most renewable resources — such as salmon, deer and other migratory wildlife — are threatened both by overly aggressive ocean fishing and by extractive industries.
"There's that lack of respect for our traditional subsistence lifestyles," she said.
Opponents of oil drilling in the Arctic refuge fear it will permanently disrupt the long-range migration of caribou, which Native people have hunted for millennia.
A massive caribou herd goes to the refuge's coastal plain to calve in the spring before fanning out across a wider area, providing a crucial food source for Native hunters in Alaska and Canada.
If the herd's migration is disrupted, opponents fear an impact similar to the salmon collapse — a loss not just of food but of a focal point of culture and spirituality.
Simeon said the disruption of communal hunting and fishing activities leads to a spiritual rootlessness that she believes contributes to alarming rates of addictions and suicide among Alaska Native people.
"What does it do to your heart and soul when you have to look at an empty smokehouse year after year after year, and you can't provide for your family?" Simeon said.
Fish camps still dot the banks of the broad Kuskokwim River in southwestern Alaska.
Wooden huts and tarped shelters stand beside drying racks draped with bright red strips of salmon.
Alaska Native families have harvested fish for generations and preserved them for the bitter winters ahead.
But the once-abundant salmon populations have declined so sharply in recent years that authorities have severely restricted subsistence fishing on Alaska's second-longest river.
They've imposed even tighter restrictions on the longer Yukon River to the north.
Various factors are blamed for the salmon collapse, from climate change to commercial fishing practices.
What's clear is the impact is not just on food but on long-standing rituals — fish camps where elders transmit skills and stories to younger generations while bonding over a sacred connection to the land.
"Our families are together for that single-minded purpose of providing for our survival," said Gloria Simeon, a Yup'ik resident of Bethel.
"It's the college of fish camp."
So when Alaska Natives debate proposals to drill, mine or otherwise develop the landscape of the nation's largest state, it involves more than an environmental or economic question.
It's also a spiritual and cultural one.
"We have a special spiritual, religious relationship to our river and our land," said Simeon, standing outside her backyard smokehouse where she uses birch-bark kindling and cottonwood logs to preserve this year's salmon catch.
"Our people have been stewards of this land for millennia, and we've taken that relationship seriously."
Put a pin just about anywhere on the map of Alaska, and you're likely to hit an area mulling a proposed mine, a new wilderness road, a logging site, an oil well, or a natural gas pipeline.
Such debates have intensified during US President Donald Trump's second term.
His administration and allies have pushed aggressively for drilling, mining and developing on Alaska's public lands.
Native leaders and activists are divided about extraction projects.
Supporters say they bring jobs and pay for infrastructure, while opponents say they imperil the environment and their traditions.
Trump singled out Alaska as a priority for extraction projects in an executive order signed on his first day in office.
"Unlocking this bounty of natural wealth will raise the prosperity of our citizens while helping to enhance our Nation's economic and national security," the order said.
Increasingly, words are turning to action.
Congress, in passing Trump's budget bill in July, authorised an unprecedented four new sales of oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and still more in other locations.
Trump cabinet officials made a high-profile visit in June to Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's far north — an aging oil field that is one of the largest in North America.
They touted goals of doubling the oil coursing through Alaska's existing pipeline system and building a massive natural gas pipeline as its "big, beautiful twin".
It takes years for proposed extraction projects to unfold, if they ever do.
The extent of oil reserves in the Arctic refuge remains uncertain.
No major oil company bid during the only two lease sales offered to date in the Arctic refuge.
But the measures pushed by the new administration and Congress amount to the latest pendulum swing between Republican and Democratic presidents, between policies prioritising extraction and environmental protections.
The budget bill calls for additional lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, west of the Arctic refuge, and opening more areas to potential leasing than authorized under recent Democratic administrations.
Alaska's political leaders generally have cheered on the push for more extraction, including its Republican congressional delegation and its governor, who has called his state "America's natural resource warehouse".
So have some Native leaders, who say their communities stand to benefit from jobs and revenues.
They say such projects are critical to their economic prospects and self-determination, providing jobs and helping their communities pay for schools, streets and snow removal.
"We need jobs. Our people need training. To stand on our own two feet. Our kids need a future," said PJ Simon, first chief of the Allakaket Tribal Council.
But Native opponents of such projects say short-term economic gains come at the risk of long-term environmental impacts that will reverberate widely.
"We're kind of viewed as the last frontier, like we have unlimited resources," said Sophie Swope, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition.
She said Alaska's most renewable resources — such as salmon, deer and other migratory wildlife — are threatened both by overly aggressive ocean fishing and by extractive industries.
"There's that lack of respect for our traditional subsistence lifestyles," she said.
Opponents of oil drilling in the Arctic refuge fear it will permanently disrupt the long-range migration of caribou, which Native people have hunted for millennia.
A massive caribou herd goes to the refuge's coastal plain to calve in the spring before fanning out across a wider area, providing a crucial food source for Native hunters in Alaska and Canada.
If the herd's migration is disrupted, opponents fear an impact similar to the salmon collapse — a loss not just of food but of a focal point of culture and spirituality.
Simeon said the disruption of communal hunting and fishing activities leads to a spiritual rootlessness that she believes contributes to alarming rates of addictions and suicide among Alaska Native people.
"What does it do to your heart and soul when you have to look at an empty smokehouse year after year after year, and you can't provide for your family?" Simeon said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting, but peace may be more than a conversation away
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting, but peace may be more than a conversation away

ABC News

time28 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting, but peace may be more than a conversation away

When Vladimir Putin arrives in Anchorage today for peace talks with Donald Trump to try to end the war in Ukraine, he's likely to walk in believing he has the upper hand. Russian forces have advanced at least 10 kilometres on a front in Ukraine's east this week — a breakthrough, of sorts, after months of incremental territorial gains. Moscow's drones and missiles have been pounding its neighbour's cities, killing scores of people and chipping away at the morale of those who remain. Despite all that aggression, Putin — considered a pariah by much of the international community since his full-scale invasion in 2022 — has been rewarded. An in-person meeting with the leader of the free world awaits on Friday, local time. Trump, for his part, has said he's searching for a pathway to peace. That idea could be unrealistic. A chasm remains between the Kremlin and Kyiv's ceasefire wish lists. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week outlined several demands he said Trump had "agreed" to raise with Putin. Among them was that Russia cannot veto his country's ambitions to join the European Union and NATO. Putin, however, has consistently framed that prospect as a dealbreaker. Zelenskyy also said Ukraine had to be involved in any ceasefire discussions. As the country that was invaded, that might seem obvious. But it hasn't been invited to Friday's meeting. "So whatever might come out of that summit between the US and the Russian presidents, those will not be terms that can be simply imposed on Ukraine," said Jaroslava Barbieri, a research fellow at London think tank Chatham House. She added Trump would need to be wary of Putin's spin. "One of the key objectives of the Kremlin … is putting forward proposals that are unacceptable for Ukraine in order to present Ukraine as an uncooperative and ungrateful actor to Trump's peace brokering efforts," she said. Since the Alaska summit was announced last week, Trump has made several references to the possibility of "land-swapping" between Russia and Ukraine. Judging by the rhetoric coming from both Moscow and Kyiv, the idea either side would be prepared to do that in exchange for peace appears far-fetched. The Kremlin's stance on ending its invasion has not budged since Putin set out conditions last year. He wants Ukraine to abandon its NATO aspirations, reduce its military, become a neutral state, and cede territory occupied by Russian forces during the war. Two territories in Ukraine's east — Donetsk and Luhansk — are particularly prized by Putin, and analysts say it will likely be a key demand discussed in Alaska. Russia has partially occupied both since 2014, and last month claimed it had captured all of Luhansk, more than three years after its full-scale invasion was launched. Zelenskyy has said his troops will not leave either. Ukraine's leader has also said he would not cede his country's territory, arguing tens of thousands of soldiers had died defending it and Russia could use it to launch future attacks. Such a move would not only be unpopular among Ukrainians. It's illegal under the country's constitution to redraw borders set in 1991. Putin, too, has constitutional headaches. Back in 2022, seven months after his full-scale invasion began, he signed amendments to Russia's constitution that four Ukrainian territories — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — had been integrated into his country. After years of fighting and massive casualties, his troops control only one of those completely. Zelenskyy says he's already warned Trump: "Putin is bluffing" when it comes to peace. "He is trying to put pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine," he said. Zelenskyy isn't the only key player not going to Alaska. European allies, who like the US have tipped billions of dollars in financial and military aid into Ukraine, have also been barred from taking part. This week they, and Ukraine's leader, had a video call with Trump. It was a last-ditch attempt to shape his approach. "We as Europeans are doing everything we can to help set the agenda for that meeting," German Chancellor Frederich Merz said on Wednesday, after the hook-up. Among the European Union's main concerns is that after Ukraine, an emboldened Putin will launch further invasions on the continent. At most risk, they say, are the Baltic states, and Poland. Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat to the United Nations, who resigned in 2022 because he was "ashamed" of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, said he did "not have very high expectations" for Friday's meeting. "What Vladimir Putin wants goes strictly against the national interest of the United States and the Western countries," he said. "To accept Putin's demands and his conditions would mean surrender, not only of Ukraine, but of the West itself — surrender to open aggression, to rewriting of national borders, and it would be a green light for the continuation of such policy by Russia or any other would-be aggressor." So when is peace possible? Anna Mateeva, a visiting fellow at Kings College London who specialises in Russian politics and security, said Friday's summit should be viewed as the first step in a long process. "The most important thing which can be achieved is the two-leaders assessment of each other, and to what extent they are serious about what they are saying they can do," Dr Mateeva said. Many analysts argue the in-person meeting between Trump and Putin has the potential to be something constructive en route to a ceasefire. But actually getting there appears a distant goal. On the battlefield, fighting remains ferocious, and off it, the gulf between Kyiv and Moscow's lists of demands has not been closed. It could take more than a conversation to change that reality.

Europe tells Trump to stand firm against Putin on Ukraine ceasefire
Europe tells Trump to stand firm against Putin on Ukraine ceasefire

Sydney Morning Herald

time2 hours ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Europe tells Trump to stand firm against Putin on Ukraine ceasefire

London: European leaders have aired a potential deal to halt the war in Ukraine under plans to be put to Russian leader Vladimir Putin in talks with US President Donald Trump on Friday, signalling a negotiation over territory as long as a ceasefire comes first. The proposal emerged from an online meeting to set the terms for the talks on Friday, amid European concerns that Trump will trade away territory at his summit with Putin without pushing hard enough for an end to the hostilities and guarantees over future security. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the meeting, which included Trump as well as every major European leader, that Putin was 'bluffing' about his desire for peace and should be subjected to escalating economic sanctions. Trump described the call as 'very friendly' and later appeared to harden his message to Putin by threatening 'very severe consequences' for Russia if it did not agree to a peace deal, but he offered no detail about what this would mean. With Russian forces piercing some of the Ukrainian defences on the front line at the same time as Russian missiles bring destruction to Ukrainian cities, the Alaska summit represents the first significant opportunity for a ceasefire after months of intensifying attacks. Loading Zelensky told Trump on Wednesday, Berlin time, to heighten pressure on Putin with economic sanctions and secondary tariffs because the Russian leader was only pretending to consider a ceasefire. 'I told the US president and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing,' he said at a press conference after the online meeting. 'He is trying to apply pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine.'

Trump says he thinks Putin ready to make a Ukraine deal
Trump says he thinks Putin ready to make a Ukraine deal

Perth Now

time4 hours ago

  • Perth Now

Trump says he thinks Putin ready to make a Ukraine deal

US President Donald Trump says he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin will make a deal, and that the threat of sanctions against Russia likely played a role in the Kremlin seeking a meeting. Trump is scheduled to meet with Putin in Alaska on Friday. The US president said he is unsure whether an immediate ceasefire can be achieved but expressed interest in brokering a peace agreement. "He really, I believe now, he's convinced that he's going to make a deal, he's going to make a deal. I think he's going to, and we're going to find out," Trump said in an interview on Fox News Radio. Earlier in the day, Putin said that the United States was making "sincere efforts" to end the war in Ukraine and suggested that Russia and the US could agree on a nuclear arms deal as part of a broader push to strengthen peace. Trump also mentioned during the Fox interview that he has three locations in mind for a follow-up meeting with Putin and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, although he noted that a second meeting is not guaranteed. He said staying in Alaska for a three-way summit would be the easiest scenario. "Depending on what happens with my meeting, I'm going to be calling up President Zelensky, and let's get him over to wherever we're going to meet," Trump said. He said a second meeting, featuring Trump, Putin and Zelenskiy, would likely dig deeper into boundary issues. Zelenskiy has been adamant about not ceding territory that Russian forces occupy. Trump said it would be up to Putin and Zelenskiy to strike an agreement. "I'm not going to negotiate their deal. I'm going to let them negotiate their deal," he said. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump will go into the talks hoping to achieve a halt to the fighting in Ukraine but that a comprehensive solution to the war will take longer. "To achieve a peace, I think we all recognise that there'll have to be some conversation about security guarantees. There'll have to be some conversation about ... territorial disputes and claims, and what they're fighting over," Rubio told reporters at the State Department on Thursday. "All these things will be part of a comprehensive thing. But I think the president's hope is to achieve some stoppage of fighting so that those conversations can happen." Rubio said that the longer wars go on, the harder they are to end. "And even as I speak ... there are changes happening in the battlefield which have an impact on what one side views as leverage or the other. So that's the reality of ongoing fighting, which is why a ceasefire is so critical," he said. "But we'll see what's possible tomorrow. Let's see how the talks go. And we're hopeful. We want there to be a peace. We're going to do everything we can to achieve one but ultimately it'll be up to Ukraine and Russia to agree to one." Rubio said preparations for the meeting were going "very fast" as it had been put together very quickly. He said he believed Trump had spoken by phone to Putin four times and "felt it was important to now speak to him in person and look him in the eye and figure out what was possible and what isn't". "He sees an opportunity to talk about achieving peace. He's going to pursue it, and we'll know tomorrow at some point, as the president said, probably very early in that meeting, whether something is possible or not. We hope it is."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store