For Trump, Putin summit presents the ultimate test of dealmaking
Trump will speak to his Russian counterpart about the Ukraine war on Friday, the two presidents' first standalone summit since a 2018 meeting in Helsinki where Trump's cowed appearance haunted him long afterward.
U.S. officials said that Putin himself suggested the meeting. Trump agreed to invite him despite publicly saying how frustrated he has been with Putin's refusal to accept any proposal to halt the war.
Trump's invitation to Putin, who is under indictment by the International Criminal Court, effectively ends the West's shunning of the Russian president since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, whose leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called the Alaska trip a "personal victory" for Putin.
Trump and his aides have quickly tried to play down the significance.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a radio interview that a meeting "is not a concession" and that Trump wants to "look at this guy across the table" and see if he is serious.
Trump, voicing uncharacteristic humility about his diplomacy, said it was a "feel-out meeting" that would not in itself lead to a deal on Ukraine.
He said he would speak immediately after the summit with Zelenskyy and other European leaders, who have all insisted that Ukraine not be excluded from talks on its fate.
"European leaders, in the past, had the experience that whoever talks to Donald Trump last makes the most important impressions," said Liana Fix, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
There is "a very strong urge in Donald Trump to be the one who brings peace to Ukraine — even for a fleeting moment of time, to have the picture of him agreeing with Vladimir Putin to a ceasefire," she said.
Trump had vowed to end the war, which has killed tens of thousands, within 24 hours of returning to the White House. But he has found the path difficult — and his tactics have swung drastically.
Trump berated Zelenskyy during a heated on-camera meeting at the White House where Vice President JD Vance accused Ukraine of ingratitude for U.S. support, which Trump briefly shut down.
Ukraine quickly realized it had to stomach Trump's approach and signed on to his ceasefire bid.
When Putin did not, Trump threatened sanctions on Russia, only to agree to meet Putin.
"The mere fact of holding such a summit will be a victory for Putin," Russian political analyst Konstantin Kalachev said.
"Putin has not offered Trump anything significant, and Trump is already inviting him to Alaska," he added, also calling the lack of new U.S. sanctions by Trump an "unconditional victory" for Russia.
Trump has rejected criticism that he is soft, noting that he ramped up tariffs on India, a key buyer of Russian oil.
But Trump has also pushed for concessions from Zelenskyy, who has refused to surrender any land that Russia seized by force.
George Beebe, the former director of Russia analysis at the CIA who is now director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, which supports military restraint, said that Trump could begin to work out the outlines of a deal to end the war.
Russia could begrudgingly accept eventual European Union membership for Ukraine if it in turn, stays out of NATO, the transatlantic military alliance, Beebe said.
"As long as that relationship is limited to political and economic ties rather than military commitments, I think that's something that they can live with," Beebe said of Russia.
But he said that such a short-notice summit at the presidential level raised expectations that may not be met.
"Trump is tackling an issue that is fraught with political danger, and there's absolutely no guarantee that this is going to be a success," Beebe said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
23 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump to Host Kennedy Center Honors, Which Will Go to Stallone, Gaynor, Kiss and More
President Donald Trump announced the recipients of the 48th Kennedy Center Honors on Wednesday – the first class of honorees since he took over the arts complex this year – and a major change to the ceremony: He'll be the host. Speaking from the center's Hall of Nations, Trump revealed the 2025 honorees by unveiling five portraits draped in velvet. The group: glam metal band Kiss, Broadway and West End star Michael Crawford, country music legend George Strait, actor Sylvester Stallone and singer Gloria Gaynor. Actor Tom Cruise was offered the honors but declined because of scheduling conflicts, according to several current and former Kennedy Center employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss event plans. A spokesperson for Cruise declined to comment. Before naming the honorees, Trump said he always wanted the award himself but 'was never able to get one.' 'I waited and waited and waited, and I said, 'The hell with it, I'll become chairman and I'll give myself an honor,'' he said, drawing chuckles from a crowd that included Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and members of the White House staff. '… Next year, we'll honor Trump, okay?' The choices may surprise some Trump critics. When Trump took over the Kennedy Center, an overworked joke circulated on social media. Here is political analyst Larry Sabato's version: 'Can you imagine forthcoming Kennedy Center Honors for Lee Greenwood, The Village People, and Kid Rock? Inevitable with Trump as Chair. Prepare your stomach.' It certainly seemed as if Trump had major plans in store for the honorees. At a board meeting in March, Trump said: 'We'll go slightly more conservative, if you don't mind, with some of the people. There are people out there that would not be considered that are much bigger stars than the ones that were being honored.' He even suggested offering honors to deceased icons and widening the scope of possible recipients to include athletes, business luminaries and politicians. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Trump's class of honorees is how comfortably it fits with those that came before it. A-list actor? Check. Aging rock band? Check. Broadway star? Check. (The Washington Post previously reported that the center was 'seriously' considering Strait, Crawford and Kiss.) Trump said he was 'very involved' in selecting the 2025 honorees and turned down names he didn't approve of. 'I would say I was about 98 percent involved. They all went through me,' he said. '… I had a couple of wokesters. Now, we have great people. This is very different than it used to be, very different.' Not all of the artists have supported Trump, including the face – that is, the tongue – of Kiss. Bassist Gene Simmons, whom Trump fired during the first season of 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' backed Trump during his first term – but soon changed his tune. 'Look what that gentleman did to this country and the polarization – got all the cockroaches to rise to the top,' Simmons told Spin of Trump in 2022. 'Once upon a time, you were embarrassed to be publicly racist and out there with conspiracy theories. Now it's all out in the open because he allowed it.' 'I don't think he's a Republican or a Democrat,' Simmons added of the president. 'He's out for himself, any way you can get there. And in the last election, over 70 million people bought it hook, line and sinker.' Simmons's bandmate Paul Stanley appears to have had a more favorable view of Trump. Days after the 2024 election, Stanley wrote on X: 'IT'S OVER. If your candidate lost, it's time to learn from it, accept it and try to understand why. There will be no building bridges to those you don't agree with by being condescending, insulting, talking AT them or removing yourself.' Gaynor, a Grammy Award-winning singer from New Jersey, rose to fame during the disco era of the 1970s. While she isn't known to be political, her hit song 'I Will Survive' has become an anthem for marginalized groups – particularly within the LGBTQ+ community – and was named to the Library of Congress National Recording Registry in 2015. If Trump's personal tastes align with any of the picks, it would be Crawford. Trump is famously a fan of 1980s Broadway hits, particularly 'The Phantom of the Opera,' the title role of which Crawford originated. Trump would often play songs from the musical at his rallies. Stallone, though, has emerged as a prominent Trump booster. In November, the Rocky actor gave a warmup speech for Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where Stallone described him as the 'second George Washington,' called him a 'mythical character' and compared him to Rocky Balboa. In January, as president-elect, Trump named Stallone – along with Mel Gibson and Jon Voight – as 'Special Ambassadors to a great but very troubled place, Hollywood, California,' and tasked them with 'bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK-BIGGER, BETTER, AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE!' Strait, meanwhile, is a country legend – a genre that soundtracks many red states – but he has long kept fairly mum on his political leanings. The ceremony will take place Dec. 7 and will later be broadcast on CBS. During the news conference, Trump spoke about an array of topics, including crime, his upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the landscape of D.C. 'We're going to make it so beautiful again,' he said of the city whose police he has placed under federal control. '… When you look at the parks where the grass is old, tired, exhausted. We're going to redo the grass with the finest grasses. I know a lot about grass because I own a lot of golf courses.' He also made unsubstantiated claims that, since becoming chairman of the Kennedy Center, 'we have completely reversed the decline of this cherished national institution.' 'We ended the woke political programming, and we're restoring the Kennedy Center as the premier venue for performing arts anywhere in the country,' Trump said. 'Anywhere in the world.' As of earlier this summer, subscriptions to the center's programming were down from last year, and several artists have boycotted the center. Trump said of the columns supporting the center, 'When you see them the next time, they'll be magnificent,' before praising the 'bones' of the building. Outside the center Wednesday, about a dozen demonstrators gathered with signs and bullhorns to protest Trump's involvement in the arts. Since returning to office in January, the president has targeted prominent arts and cultural institutions, including the Smithsonian, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. There will be potential changes to the honors, according to the current and former employees. The center has contacted the jeweler Tiffany & Company about redesigning the medallions, which have traditionally depicted President John F. Kennedy on one side and the building on the other, with a rainbow-colored ribbon meant to represent different artistic skills and talents. The annual dinner at the State Department may be moved to the White House. The White House and Tiffany did not respond to requests for comment. Meanwhile, Done+Dusted, the production company that produced the past several Kennedy Center Honors (as well as recent Mark Twain Prizes for American Humor, the center's other big televised event), pulled out of producing this year's honors. Matthew Winer, the center's internal executive producer of the honors, has resigned from the center, along with Emeline Carlisle, the producer and honoree manager. Even in less tumultuous years, the Kennedy Center Honors are a complex, logistical undertaking. The show usually consists of 70 or more other artists celebrating the honorees. Last year, the 2½-hour show featured Queen Latifah, David Letterman, Robert De Niro, Dave Chappelle, Sheryl Crow, Al Pacino and Martin Scorsese, many of whom are outspoken Trump critics. With so many performers avoiding the center, who will be there on the actual night? It might be where Lee Greenwood, the Village People and Kid Rock come in.
Japan Times
23 minutes ago
- Japan Times
Trump's deal with Nvidia offers path forward in global trade war
U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial plan to take a cut of revenue from chip sales to China has U.S. companies reconsidering their plans for business with the country, offering a model for circumventing years of trade tensions. Experts and people familiar with the matter said the surprise deal, in which Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices agreed to pay 15% of their revenues from Chinese artificial intelligence chip sales to the U.S., provides a path to enter the Chinese market despite severe export controls, tariffs and other trade barriers. The question that companies must now confront is whether the risk is worth taking. People familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations, said companies are struggling to figure out what the president's order means for their future, especially given the unpredictable nature of Trump's decision-making. "This is truly bizarre and unusual, and the troubling thing — beyond the individual instances of AMD and Nvidia — is the possibility that this will be expanded,' said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Everything is now 'national security,' according to the new definition, which means it's all subject to export licenses and then they give you a license based on your contribution.' There are concerns that U.S. trade agencies could begin charging fees to companies every time there's a meeting to discuss tariffs, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. Trump administration officials defend the idea as a smart way to generate revenue for the U.S. government and suggest it will extend well beyond the chips sector. "I think we could see it in other industries over time,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview on Wednesday. "I think right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta tests, why not expand it?' Bessent defended the deal and rejected any national-security concerns around the decision to sell Nvidia's H20 chip to China — something that had been earlier barred for fear of giving China a boost in the AI race. An Nvidia chip. The decision to sell Nvidia's H20 chip to China has raised concerns in the U.S., since its sale to the Chinese market had been barred previously for fear of giving Beijing a boost in the artificial intelligence race. | BLOOMBERG "There are no national security concerns here,' Bessent said. "We would not sell any of the advanced chips. So, the H20, I don't know whether you'd say they're four, five, six levels down the chips stack.' Either way, the deal highlights how Trump has pushed to open a wave of new revenue streams including by taking ownership shares of companies or extracting higher fees to live or work in the U.S. The U.S. is weighing sales of a so-called "gold card' residency permit, it won a "golden share' to have direct say over corporate actions by United States Steel, and it has secured investment pledges and potential revenue-sharing in country-level tariff talks. That's aside from the barrage of product tariffs that have at times left massive dislocations in globally traded markets. The matter further surprised China hawks in the U.S. Congress, who have been unimpressed by the administration's reassurances. Rep. John Moolenaar, the Michigan Republican who chairs the U.S. House Select Committee on China, questioned the legal basis for the move and suggested it does an end-run around controls put in place to limit the sale of sensitive technology to U.S. adversaries. "Export controls are a front-line defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' he said. It also raises questions about where the administration will steer the revenue. Trump has mused about issuing tariff rebate checks — though he has yet to seriously pursue the idea — while at other times he's said it would go toward narrowing the large budget deficit. The administration had debated launching a sovereign wealth fund before shelving those plans for now. It's too soon to say whether the administration will seek to revive the fund and steer revenue there, one official familiar with deliberations said. "Trump's aides argue that these measures will strengthen America's AI leadership by maximizing its global influence and market share,' Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former Pentagon official, wrote. "Yet it is also possible that they will simply eat into America's innovation advantage.'
The Diplomat
an hour ago
- The Diplomat
How South Korea's ‘MASGA' Proposal Could Reshape US Shipbuilding
South Korea offered in trade negotiations to 'Make American Shipbuilding Great Again.' It could mark a new phase for the alliance. When the United States threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on South Korean exports in mid-2025, the dispute appeared set to become another flashpoint in the alliance, highlighting the current U.S. administration's transactional approach to both trade and security. The stakes were high: tariffs at that level would have disrupted billions of dollars in goods, strained political trust, and reinforced the perception that even close allies were not exempt from the United States' protectionist turn. The eventual compromise, reached just before the August 1 deadline, cut tariffs to 15 percent in exchange for a sweeping economic and industrial package from Seoul. At the center of that package was an initiative that quickly captured media attention and political imagination – 'Make American Shipbuilding Great Again' (MASGA). MASGA proposes $150 billion in investments from South Korea's world-class shipbuilders into the U.S. maritime sector. This would include upgrading U.S. shipyards, training U.S. workers, supporting U.S. Navy maintenance backlogs, and co-producing vessels on U.S. soil. The branding was deliberate: borrowing from U.S. President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' slogan, MASGA appealed directly to the White House's political messaging while offering substantive industrial cooperation. The sight of red MASGA hats at the negotiation table underscored Seoul's deft use of symbolic diplomacy. A Structural Problem Meets a Willing Partner The United States has been grappling with a long-term erosion of its shipbuilding base. Since the end of the Cold War, consolidation in the sector has left only a handful of major shipyards. These yards face aging infrastructure, shortages of skilled labor, and program delays that have pushed naval construction timelines into the realm of decades rather than years. Even as the Pentagon and Congress debate fleet expansion – most recently aiming for a 355-ship navy – U.S. shipyards are already at capacity, struggling to meet existing orders. Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facilities face their own crisis, with warships idled for months awaiting work. By contrast, South Korea remains a global shipbuilding powerhouse. Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean, and Samsung Heavy Industries lead in commercial tonnage, advanced modular construction, and digitalized production systems. Korean shipyards routinely deliver complex vessels – both military and civilian – on time and within budget. For Washington, tapping this capacity could help bridge a dangerous gap between naval ambition and industrial reality. MASGA is not about importing foreign-built ships into U.S. service – something prohibited for domestic routes under the Jones Act and restricted for defense programs under Buy American rules. Instead, it proposes onshore investment by Korean firms in partnership with U.S. yards, combining the strengths of both countries through joint ventures, licensed production, technology transfer, and workforce development. Korean shipbuilders would partner with U.S. companies to share design, project management, and production methods, while U.S. yards could build Korean-designed vessels domestically, in full compliance with U.S. content laws. The Korean investments would introduce advanced modular construction techniques, automation systems, and integrated supply chain management to improve efficiency; U.S. workers would receive training in proven Korean shipbuilding methods through exchange programs and on-site instruction. The investment would be distributed across multiple U.S. shipyards – both naval and commercial – targeting bottlenecks in the construction of auxiliary vessels, logistics ships, smaller combatants, and unmanned surface platforms, with the aim of increasing output, reducing delays, and modernizing facilities without compromising U.S. control over sensitive capabilities. Looking at the U.S. shipbuilding sector, the U.S. Navy's MRO backlog is a persistent and costly problem. Delays in scheduled maintenance mean fewer ships are available for deployment, undermining fleet readiness. South Korean shipyards, with their proven ability to service advanced warships and large commercial vessels, could provide relief in several ways. One model would see Korean firms upgrade and operate MRO facilities on U.S. soil, applying their efficiency-focused processes to U.S. platforms. Another would allow Korean yards to handle non-sensitive maintenance overseas, freeing up U.S. facilities for high-priority or classified work. Both approaches would reduce downtime and extend the operational life of the fleet. This component of MASGA is particularly attractive to the Pentagon, as it addresses a short-term readiness issue without requiring entirely new construction – something Congress may find easier to approve. From Trade Concession to Strategic Integration What makes MASGA significant is its potential to turn a contentious trade negotiation into a blueprint for long-term alliance integration. Shipbuilding is not just another industrial sector – it is a strategic asset. Control over production timelines, maintenance schedules, and technology flows directly affects a nation's ability to project power and respond to crises. By embedding South Korean firms in the U.S. shipbuilding ecosystem, MASGA would create a form of industrial interdependence that strengthens the alliance. It would also lock in long-term cooperation, making the economic and security costs of alliance friction higher for both sides. For Washington, MASGA represents a politically palatable solution: it expands domestic capacity while creating U.S. jobs, deflecting charges of outsourcing. For Seoul, it offers access to a market that has historically been closed to foreign shipbuilders, along with a seat at the table in shaping future maritime strategies. The geopolitical implications are also significant. The Indo-Pacific maritime balance is shifting rapidly. China's shipyards are producing warships at a pace unmatched in peacetime history, while also expanding their commercial dominance. For the United States and its allies, matching this surge is as much about industrial mobilization as it is about naval doctrine. MASGA aligns with the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy by ensuring that allied capacity – not just U.S. capacity – underpins forward presence in the region. In a crisis, an integrated South Korean-U.S. shipbuilding base could surge production, repair battle-damaged vessels more quickly, and sustain logistics flows. This fits into a broader trend of allies contributing niche industrial strengths to collective deterrence. Just as Japan's advanced electronics feed into missile defense and Australia's shipyards support regional patrol fleets, South Korea's shipbuilding prowess could become a core enabler of allied maritime power. Navigating Domestic Politics Despite its strategic logic, MASGA faces significant political headwinds in the United States. Shipyard operators and labor unions have historically resisted foreign participation, fearing competition and job losses. Congressional protectionists could seek to tighten Buy American provisions, limiting the scope of cooperation. To overcome this, MASGA must be framed not as an outsourcing arrangement but as capacity-building within the United States. Korean firms would need to invest visibly in U.S. facilities, hire U.S. workers, and ensure that intellectual property and sensitive technologies remain under U.S. control. The aerospace sector of the defense industry offers a precedent. Co-production programs such as the F-35 have shown that carefully structured international partnerships can be politically acceptable while meeting industrial goals. MASGA's success may hinge on adopting a similar model. The genius of MASGA lies in its dual identity. On one level, it is a tactical concession, designed to ease tariff pressure and satisfy U.S. political optics. On another, it is a strategic vision for integrating two advanced shipbuilding nations in ways that bolster both economic and military strength. If fully realized, MASGA could help reverse decades of U.S. shipbuilding decline, accelerate naval modernization, and reinforce the industrial foundation of the South Korea-U.S. alliance. For the United States, that would mean a stronger maritime posture in the Indo-Pacific and globally. For South Korea, it would mean deeper integration into the supply chains and decision-making processes that shape allied naval power. In an era where industrial capacity is a decisive element of strategic competition, MASGA offers something rare: a solution that addresses domestic political imperatives while delivering genuine alliance capability. Turning the slogan into reality will not be easy, but if Seoul and Washington can navigate the political shoals, MASGA could yet become a defining success story of 21st-century alliance management.
