Putin-Trump summit: what we know so far
Trump has spent his first months in office trying to broker peace -- after boasting he could end the war in 24 hours - but multiple rounds of peace talks, phone calls, and diplomatic visits have failed to yield a breakthrough.
Here is what we know about the summit so far:
- When and where -
On his Truth Social site on Friday, Trump announced that his meeting with Putin would be held in the far-north US state of Alaska on August 15, which was later confirmed by the Kremlin.
The announcement came after days of both sides indicating the two leaders would hold a summit next week.
The Kremlin confirmed the summit in Alaska on Friday, calling it "quite logical."
"They would like to meet with me, I'll do whatever I can to stop the killing," Trump said on Thursday, speaking of both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
At the White House Friday, Trump said "there'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both" Ukraine and Russia, without providing further details.
- Why Alaska? -
The meeting will be held in Alaska, which Russia sold to the United States in 1867.
The western tip of the state is not far -- just across the Bering Strait -- from the easternmost part of Russia.
"Alaska and the Arctic are also where our countries' economic interests intersect, and there are prospects for large-scale, mutually beneficial projects," Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said in a statement on Telegram.
"But, of course, the presidents themselves will undoubtedly focus on discussing options for achieving a long-term peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis," he added.
Ushakov also expressed hope that next time the two presidents would meet on Russian territory.
"A corresponding invitation has already been sent to the US president," he added.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Putin -- which obligates members to detain the Russian leader if he visits their country -- had been thought to narrow the potential number of venues.
Putin had previously mentioned the United Arab Emirates as a possible host for the talks, while the media speculated that Turkey, China, or India could be possible venues.
- Will Zelensky be involved? -
Zelensky has been pushing to make it a three-way summit and has frequently said meeting Putin is the only way to make progress towards peace.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff proposed a trilateral meeting when he held talks with Putin earlier this week, but the Russian leader has appeared to rule out meeting his Ukrainian counterpart.
At talks in Istanbul in June, Russian negotiators said a Putin-Zelensky meeting could only take place at the "final phase" of negotiations, once the two sides had agreed on terms for peace.
Asked if Putin had to meet Zelensky as a prerequisite for their summit, Trump said on Friday: "No, he doesn't."
- When did they last meet? -
Trump and Putin last sat together in 2019 at a G20 summit meeting in Japan during Trump's first term. They have spoken by telephone several times since January.
Putin previously held a summit with Trump in Helsinki in 2018. Trump raised eyebrows at the time by appearing to side with Putin over the US intelligence community's finding that Russia had interfered in the US election to support the New York tycoon.
The last time Putin met a US president in the United States was during talks with Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly in 2015.
- Negotiating positions -
Despite the flurry of diplomacy and multiple rounds of peace talks, Russia and Ukraine appear no closer to agreeing on an end to the fighting.
Putin has rejected calls by the United States, Ukraine, and Europe for an immediate ceasefire.
At talks in June, Russia demanded Ukraine pull its forces out of four regions Moscow claims to have annexed, demanded Ukraine commit to being a neutral state, shun Western military support, and be excluded from joining NATO.
Kyiv wants an immediate ceasefire and has said it will never recognize Russian control over its sovereign territory -- though it acknowledged securing the return of land captured by Russia would have to come through diplomacy, not on the battlefield.
Kyiv is also seeking security guarantees from Western backers, including the deployment of foreign troops as peacekeepers to enforce any ceasefire.
bur-mmp/dl/sla
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Is Trump winning on economic policy?
Six months into his second term, it is fair to say that US President Donald Trump has swept the board when it comes to economic policy – at least by the standards he set for himself. In fact, he has imposed his will to a degree no other post-World War II president, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, has been able to achieve. For starters, Trump got his One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed, despite a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and credible projections that his signature tax and spending package will add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the coming decade (barring a miraculous AI-driven economic boom). And the southern US border is now more tightly controlled than it has been in decades. On tariffs in particular, Trump got what he wanted. Europe and Japan effectively capitulated – agreeing to eliminate their own trade barriers while accepting a 15 per cent US tariff on their exports. Given these humiliating terms, it was more than a little absurd to see European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hail the deal as a success simply because Trump backed down from his initial threat of a 30 per cent tariff. Both the European Union and Japan also committed to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US economy, with Trump exerting significant influence over where that money would be directed. His self-styled 'Tariff Man' persona clearly rattled world leaders, many of whom failed to recognise that his threats were unsustainable in the long run. In retrospect, they would have been better off calling his bluff. Instead, last Thursday, an emboldened Trump announced new tariffs on nearly every country in the world. While European policymakers were busy mitigating the impact of American tariff threats, Trump pushed through legislation aimed at bringing cryptocurrencies into the mainstream financial system with minimal oversight. Astonishingly, despite the Trump family's multi-billion-dollar crypto holdings, Congress has shown little interest in investigating the president's glaring conflict of interest. In fact, Trump has faced more public scrutiny for withholding the Jeffrey Epstein files than for his crypto dealings. Trump has faced more public scrutiny for withholding the Jeffrey Epstein files than for his crypto dealings. To be sure, the GENIUS Act does contain some worthwhile ideas. One provision, for example, requires that stablecoins – cryptocurrencies pegged to a traditional currency or commodity, usually the dollar – be backed by safe, liquid assets. But overall, instead of laying out clear guidelines for taming the crypto Wild West, the GENIUS Act amounts to little more than a regulatory skeleton. As several critics have noted, Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank. At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability, and frequent bank runs. With thousands of stablecoins expected to flood the market, similar problems are bound to emerge. That said, some criticisms may be overstated, as today's leading issuers are generally more transparent and better capitalised than their nineteenth-century counterparts. A more urgent and underappreciated problem is that the new legislation will make it far easier to use dollar-based stablecoins for tax evasion. While large-denomination paper currency presents similar challenges, the scale of the threat posed by stablecoins is much greater. And yet, despite these risks, Trump once again got exactly the legislation he wanted. Fortunately, the US economy has remained resilient amid the uncertainty and chaos unleashed by Trump's tariff war. Although growth appears to be slowing, and the July jobs report was soft – a hard reality that Trump's firing of the technocrat in charge of producing the data will not change – second-quarter data show that the country is not yet in a recession. Likewise, higher tariffs have not yet triggered a surge in domestic inflation, and the US is on track to collect $300 billion in tariff revenue in 2025. So far, importers have been reluctant to pass those costs on to consumers, but that could change if the current tariff war ever winds down. Some analysts have even argued that the apparent success of Trump's heterodox policies proves that conventional economic models are wrong. I doubt that, though the jury is still out. This short-term optimism, however, overlooks long-term consequences. While some of former President Joe Biden's policies were damaging, numerous economists have warned that Trump's actions could prove devastating to American institutions and the global economic order. Most critically, the rule of law would be severely weakened if the expanded presidential powers Trump has claimed are allowed to become permanent. A big test is coming if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that he lacks the authority to impose tariffs without Congress's approval. If they stand, Trump's sweeping tariffs may have long-term effects on US growth. The rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate Trump's protectionist policies indefinitely. If he starts to look weak for any reason, expect foreign governments to retaliate with sweeping tariffs of their own. The Big Beautiful Bill could compound the damage, triggering a cycle of higher interest rates, rising inflation, and financial repression. Still, we should give Trump his due and acknowledge that his second presidency is off to a far stronger start than almost anyone – aside from Trump himself and his most fervent acolytes – could imagine six months ago. We should not be surprised by whatever comes next – and that might be the scariest part. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Ukrainian drone attacks kill three, target Moscow
MOSCOW: Three people were killed in overnight Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia's Tula and Nizhny Novgorod regions, a senior Russian regional official and the defence ministry said on Monday. Two people died and two were hospitalised following an attack before midnight on Sunday on the Tula region that borders the Moscow region to its north, Tula Governor Dmitry Milyaev said on the Telegram messaging app. One person was killed and two others were hospitalised following a Ukrainian attack targeting an industrial zone in the Nizhny Novgorod region in western Russia, Gleb Nikitin, the governor of the region, said on the Telegram. A Ukrainian security official said that Ukraine had targeted a Russian plant producing missile components in the Nizhny Novgorod region in the drone attack. At least four drones struck the Arzamas Instrument-Making Plant, which produces control systems and other components for Russia's Kh-32 and Kh-101 missiles, the official said. Russian air defence units destroyed a total of 59 Ukrainian drones overnight, including 12 over the Tula region, the Russian Defence Ministry said. The ministry only reports how many drones its units shoot down, not how many Ukraine launches. Seven drones were downed en route to Russia's capital overnight and on Monday morning, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said. Both sides deny targeting civilians in their strikes on each other's territory. Nevertheless, thousands of civilians have died in the full-scale war that Russia launched in Ukraine in February 2022. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer supports US President Donald Trump's efforts to end the war with Ukraine, but Kyiv must be involved in any settlement about ending the fighting, his spokesperson said on Monday. US President Donald Trump will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15 and Ukraine fears that the two leaders may try to dictate terms for ending the three-and-a-half-year-old war. "We will never trust President Putin as far as you can throw him, but we will support Ukraine and President Trump and European nations as we enter these negotiations", Starmer's spokesperson told reporters. "Any peace must be built with Ukraine, not imposed upon it and we will not reward aggression or compromise sovereignty. Ukraine will decide its own future and we will support it every step of the way". Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that the US had pledged to consult with Europe ahead of a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin, as European ministers prepare for discussions amidst fears Washington may dictate unfavourable peace terms to Ukraine. European Union foreign ministers were due to hold a video conference on Monday afternoon to discuss their support for Kyiv and the upcoming meeting. "The American side has promised that it will consult with European partners on its position before the meeting in Alaska", Poland's Tusk told a press conference. "I will wait... for the effects of the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin — I have many fears and a lot of hope", he said. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday that concessions to Moscow would not persuade it to stop fighting in Ukraine and that there was a need to ramp up pressure on the Kremlin. European officials have sought to influence the White House's positioning ahead of the Alaska talks, emphasising the need to safeguard Ukraine's sovereignty, provide security guarantees and allow Kyiv to choose its own path. US Vice President JD Vance met European and Ukrainian officials over the weekend and European leaders are expected to conduct more outreach to Washington in the coming days. "Any deal between the US and Russia must have Ukraine and the EU included, for it is a matter of Ukraine's and the whole of Europe's security", EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. European leaders have also underscored their commitment to the idea that international borders cannot be changed by force, as EU capitals fear a deal forced on Kyiv could create a dangerous precedent. "Regarding territorial issues, the Russian position is framed as a territorial swap, but it appears as a rather one-sided swap", a European Commission official said. "In the context of these talks, the US administration has been very involved and has shown interest in aligning positioning with Europe", the official said. "The most robust security guarantee would be that there are no limitations on Ukraine armed forces and third countries' support to Ukraine". — Reuters
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Where is the global resistance to Trump?
America's critics have always depicted it as a selfish country that throws its weight around with little regard for others' well-being. But President Donald Trump's trade policies have been so misguided, erratic and self-defeating as to make even the most cartoonish of such descriptions seem flattering. Still, in a twisted way, his trade follies have laid bare other countries' failures as well, by forcing them to consider what their responses say about their own intentions and capabilities. It is said that one's true character is revealed in the face of adversity, and the same goes for countries and their political systems. Trump's frontal assault on the world economy was a shock to everyone, but it also gave Europe, China and various middle powers an opportunity to make a statement about who they are and what they stand for. It was an invitation to articulate a vision of a new world order that could overcome the imbalances, inequities and unsustainability of the old one, and that would not depend on the leadership – for better or worse – of a single powerful country. But few rose to the challenge. In this respect, the European Union has perhaps been the greatest disappointment. In terms of purchasing power, it is almost as large as the United States – accounting for 14.1 per cent of the world economy, compared to 14.8 per cent for the US and 19.7 per cent for China. Moreover, despite the recent rise of the far right, most European countries have avoided backsliding into authoritarianism. As a collection of democratic nation-states whose geopolitical ambitions do not threaten others, Europe has both the power and the moral authority to provide global leadership. Instead, it dithered and then submitted to Trump's demands. Europe's ambitions were always narrowly parochial; but in folding to Trump, it is not even clear that it served its own immediate interests. The July handshake deal between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen leaves 50 per cent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminium, places 15 per cent tariffs on most other exports, and commits Europe to ridiculously high levels of energy imports from the US. Rarely has the EU's structural weakness as a confederation of countries without a collective sense of identity been on starker display. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. China has played a tougher game, retaliating forcefully with its own tariffs and restricting exports of critical minerals to the US. Trump's vindictive, self-defeating foreign policies have helped China extend its influence and enhance its credibility as a reliable partner for the developing world. But the Chinese leadership has also failed to articulate a practical model for a post-neoliberal global economic order. Notably, China has shown little interest in addressing the two global imbalances that it has caused with its own large external surplus and excess of domestic savings over investment. Meanwhile, smaller countries and middle powers have mostly played the quiet game, pursuing independent bargains with Trump and hoping to limit the damage to their own economies. The exception is Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. Despite facing punitive 50 per cent tariffs and pointed personal attacks, he has proudly defended his country's sovereignty, democracy and independent judiciary. As the New York Times puts it, 'There is perhaps no world leader defying President Trump as strongly as Mr Lula.' Such leadership has been sorely lacking around the world. In India, the political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that many business and political elites are searching for ways to accommodate Trump. But in doing so, Mehta argues, they are misreading him and the world he is creating. At any other time in recent history, the Trump administration's behaviour would immediately be called out for what it is: imperialism – plain and simple. Imperialism must always be challenged – not accommodated – and that requires both power and purpose. Of course, America has held the reins of the world economy for a very long time. The dollar is firmly entrenched, and the US market remains singularly important. But these advantages are not as strong as they used to be. It would defy political logic and the laws of economic gravity if a country controlling only 15 per cent of the world economy (in terms of purchasing power parity) could dictate the rules of the game to everyone else. Though the rest of the world remains divided, surely everyone has a common interest in repelling Trumpian imperialism – and thus in uniting to resist his demands. Finding common purpose is perhaps the bigger challenge. If Trump 'wins", it will be because other large economies were unable (or unwilling) to articulate an alternative framework for the global economy. Pining after traditional multilateralism and global cooperation – as many targets of Trump's ire have done – is of little use and merely signals weakness. The world needs new ideas and principles for avoiding both the instabilities and inequities of hyper-globalisation and the destructive effects of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. It is not realistic to expect a new Bretton Woods agreement. Nevertheless, middle powers and large economies can still model such principles by putting them to work in their own policies. Trump's actions have held up a mirror to others, and most should recognise that their reflection is not a pretty sight. Fortunately, their apparent helplessness has been self-imposed. It is not too late to choose self-confidence over humiliation. @Project Syndicate, 2025
