Russia jubilant after Putin leaves Trump summit without making concessions
'The meeting proved that negotiations are possible without preconditions,' wrote former president Dmitry Medvedev on Telegram. He added that the summit showed that talks could continue as Russia wages war in Ukraine.
Trump entered the high-stakes summit warning, 'I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire,' and threatening 'severe consequences' if Moscow refused to cooperate.
But after a three-hour meeting with the Russian side that yielded no tangible results, Trump shelved his threats and instead insisted that the meeting was 'extremely productive,' even as Putin clung to his maximalist demands for ending the war and announced no concessions on the battlefield, where Russian forces are consolidating key gains in eastern Ukraine.
On Saturday morning, Trump also publicly dropped plans for an immediate ceasefire he had himself championed for months, instead embracing Putin's preferred path to ending the war: pushing through a far-reaching agreement before halting any fighting.
'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,' Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
All in all, the view from Moscow is that Putin appears to have gained the upper hand.
'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted. Trump finally listened to his demands,' said a member of the Russian foreign policy establishment, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In his remarks after the meeting in Alaska, Putin gave little indication of softening his stance, repeating that Moscow wanted the 'root causes' of the conflict addressed – Kremlin shorthand for demands to demilitarise Ukraine, restrict its domestic politics and block its path to Nato.
No economic incentives offered by Trump's team seemed to sway Putin – the economic delegations meeting was even scrapped – with observers stressing he would always prioritise the war in Ukraine over whatever financial gains peace might unlock.
Trump admitted there were still 'one or two pretty significant items' left to resolve with Putin, but most worryingly for Kyiv, he ramped up pressure on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity: 'Now, it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done.'
These comments were quickly seized upon in Moscow.
'Both sides directly placed responsibility for achieving future results in negotiations on ending military actions on Kyiv and Europe,' Medvedev, now the deputy chair of Russia's security council, wrote.
Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre, said: 'Trump now appears to be shifting much of the responsibility on to Kyiv and Europe. Ukraine is likely to face increased pressure from the US to begin substantive discussions of Putin's conditions.'
She added that Trump was 'once again clearly charmed and impressed by his interlocutor', referring to the warm body language and effusive compliments the US president directed at Putin.
The key question is how far Trump will press Zelenskyy, who is set to meet him in Washington on Monday, to accept a deal on Putin's terms and whether European allies can once again steer Trump on to a different course.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
'Trump clearly did not fully accept the settlement plan that Putin is promoting,' cautioned Stanovaya.
For now, though, confidence runs high in Moscow.
'The tasks of the special military operation will be accomplished either by military or diplomatic means,' wrote senior Russian lawmaker Andrei Klishas on Telegram.
Unfazed by Trump, officials close to Putin felt free to contradict him outright. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, who attended the Alaska meeting with the US leader, said no talks had taken place about a three-way summit between Putin, Zelenskyy and Trump, directly rebutting Trump's claim to reporters that a meeting was in the works.
Russian state media and the Kremlin elite were already in high spirits as Trump rolled out the red carpet and treated Putin as an equal, despite the Russian leader being wanted by The Hague for war crimes.
'Western media are on the verge of completely losing it,' wrote foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova as Putin landed in Alaska.
'For three years they told everyone Russia was isolated and today they saw a beautiful red carpet laid out for the Russian president in the US,' she added.
On Saturday morning, Russia's flagship Channel One morning news bulletin highlighted the pomp of the summit, its international visibility, and the warm welcome for Putin, a striking contrast to his isolation by western leaders since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
'The red carpet and handshakes … are in all global publications and TV channels,' a presenter cheered, noting it was the first time Trump had met a visiting leader at the airport.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
ckglxlx5vldo (GIF Image, 1 × 1 pixels)
Frank Gardner BBC Security Correspondent Getty Images It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska. On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation. There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements. Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers? Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it. The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February. They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees. Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands. Watch: How the Trump-Putin summit unfolded... in under 2 minutes This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested. Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit. He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'. The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly. For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give. European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it. But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea. Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land. If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory. It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia. But the question marks are huge. Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land? If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended? And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing? Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back. Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army. But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory. Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land. If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column. Zelensky and allies head to White House for Ukraine talks
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's DC crackdown will do little to prevent crime, advocates say: ‘That's not what creates safety'
Donald Trump's hyperbolic portrayal of crime in major American cities, and his deployment of the national guard in Washington DC ostensibly in an effort to combat it, have reignited a decades-old debate about crime, violence and which policies and approaches can address it. The US president has cited cities such as Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as examples of places overwhelmed by crime and violence. He has put forward an increased militarization of law enforcement, and more money and legal protections for police, as the most effective ways to address homicides and other violent crime. But to violence prevention workers, the recent statements appeared made not out of care and concern for the lower-income Black and Latino victims who bear an outsized share of the nation's crimes, but to undermine and dismiss the progress community groups have made. And, the advocates argue, the administration's emphasis on law enforcement and prosecution as the sole ways to stop crime will do little to stop the cycles of violence and property crime that these groups have faced through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 'The police are about response. But that's not what creates safety,' said Aqeela Sherrills, a longtime community violence intervention leader in Los Angeles. 'A lot of our urban communities have been war zones because they lack investment in infrastructure and programming. It's really disheartening to hear the president of the United States put out misinformation.' Sherrills began his career in violence prevention in Watts in the early 90s. Since then he's been a leading force in several organisations that work intensely with the small portion of a city's population responsible for the most violence in an effort to prevent crime and support victims of crime. Throughout his tenure, he said, he had seen the biggest successes in violence reduction come through training local non-profits, community leaders and officials on different violence community prevention models and then allowing them to build bespoke strategies from there. Over the decades, various models have seen major successes. Some deploy violence prevention workers to middle and high schools. In other programs, they use probation officers as a conduit to connect with young adults who are carrying and using firearms illegally. Some programs send workers to hospitals after a shooting, in an effort to prevent retaliatory violence. Some models rely on a police-community partnership, others don't involve police at all. But most programs center on connecting with mostly young men and teenage boys whose conflicts spill out on to city streets, traumatizing entire neighborhoods. This method has shown promise, research shows, In 2024 the Brooklyn community of Baltimore went a year without homicides after deploying a program called Safe Streets. And cities such as Oakland, Seattle and Philadelphia, where city leaders have invested in similar gun violence reduction programs, have seen drops in homicides when the programs were thriving, according to the Major Cities Chiefs Association's violent crime survey. And while the reasons for the ebb and flow of homicides can't be reduced to one program or strategy, those working to build these programs up have been fighting for credit and acknowledgment. During the Biden administration, they got it. Their approaches finally found federal support with the creation of an office of gun violence prevention and federal dollars for community prevention groups working on the ground. In past years, programs have expanded across the US as more municipalities build their own offices of violence prevention. But these insights don't appear to inform the Trump administration's approach, Sherrills adds. 'He's not reading the data, he's not looking at the trends and reports, it's just more kneejerk reactions,' he said. 'It's shortsighted because they're only speaking about one aspect of our criminal legal system.' This most recent crime debate comes nearly four months after the Trump administration cut nearly $170m in grants from gun violence prevention organizations, including several groups founded and co-founded by Sherrills who have had to lay off several staff members, dealing a serious blow to critical summertime programming. For small, upstart organizations this loss of funds puts their work in jeopardy, said Fredrick Womack, whose organization, Operation Good, lost 20% of its budget due to the April cuts. Womack says he was dismayed to hear the list of cities that Trump singled out, because they are all cities with Black leaders who have invested in community violence intervention. The calls for increased police and potential military presences, he says, shows a disconnect between the halls of power and the needs of the people most affected by violent crime. 'How is the military going to provide support for victims when they need someone who's going to be compassionate to what they're going through?' He asked. 'I know people want justice, but they also need support. They need healing and counseling. 'They won't go into the projects and ask the people how life is going for you. But they'll look at someone who lives in the hills who heard a gunshot two miles away last week and say: 'We have a crime problem,'' he continued. Womack founded Operation Good in 2013, and since then he and his small staff and gaggle of volunteers have worked with the teenagers and young men responsible for most of the city's violence and given them odd jobs and taken them to civil rights museums so they can understand where they come from and gain a sense of community. Womack's work has made a difference: in the years since the pandemic – which saw nationwide surges of gun violence – the homicide rate started to tick down, a change city officials have attributed in part to the work of community-based groups including Operation Good, and their collaboration with the police. Community leaders also argue that not only will Trump's approach be less effective, it's not aimed at helping the people most affected by violence. During a 12 August press conference, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who was recently appointed the US attorney for DC, argued that Trump's rhetoric about crime and his administration's approach to violence in DC were done in the name of victims. Flanked by posters of mostly Black teenagers and children killed by gun violence, Pirro argued that policies including DC's Youth Rehabilitation Act have only emboldened perpetrators. 'I guarantee you that every one of these individuals was shot and killed by someone who felt they were never gonna be caught,' Pirro told reporters. And when reporters asked about addressing the root causes of crime and violence and the recent cuts to community-based programs, Pirro argued that her focus is on being punitive, not preventive. For Leia Schenk, a Sacramento-based victim and violence prevention advocate, these sorts of sentiments, while common among conservatives, miss the point. 'It's tone-deaf and an oxymoron. The root causes are why we have victims,' Schenk said. 'In my experience [crime and violence] come from systemic oppression. Meaning if a family can't feed their kids, they're gonna steal, rob or commit some sort of fraud to just live and survive.' Schenk has been working in the community advocacy space for more than three decades and in that time has seen the most successful approaches to youth crime, shootings and other forms of violence happen when schools districts, local mental and physical healthcare systems get a level of investment that matches the scale of the problem. 'We're seeing the most success when we are supported – from schools to law enforcement to churches – their support allows us to do what we're doing on a bigger scale.' Despite the comments and moves from the Trump administration, Sherrills says the field of violence prevention will continue to thrive thanks to a strong foundation that was fortified in recent years due to federal support and increased support from philanthropic groups. 'We know that we're in challenging times but it's about doubling down on success and making sure we preserve the wins,' he said. 'We're going to continue to see violence trend down because of the work practitioners are doing in the field. Folks are tired of the killing and the dying and are looking for alternative ways to create better ways of navigating a conflict so that it doesn't lead to violence.'
The Sun
36 minutes ago
- The Sun
Russia would suffer ‘two million more casualties' if it tries to take Ukraine's four eastern regions by force
RUSSIA would suffer almost two million more casualties if it tries to take Ukraine's four eastern regions by force, UK officials have claimed. Vladimir Putin has demanded Ukraine withdraws from Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson. The Russian tyrant has reportedly told US President Donald Trump that he could still capture the territories anyway if the peace deal negotiations collapse. But an intelligence briefing from the British Ministry of Defence suggested it would take Russia another 4½ years to achieve it based on its current advances. It said that 'would lead to approximately 1,930,000 further Russian casualties' — either killed or wounded. The memo continues: 'This is in addition to the approximately 1,060,000 casualties Russia has already likely sustained since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, including around 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead.' Yesterday fighting continued, with Russian missiles raining down in Bilozerske in the Donetsk region. Yet Ukraine claimed to have made major gains in the oblast, retaking the settlements of Hruzke, Rubizhne, Novovodiane, Petrivka, Vesele and Zolotyi Kolodiaz in a 12-day push. It came after Putin's forces made a sudden offensive to break six miles towards Ukraine's main defensive line in Donetsk. President Zelensky has warned the Moscow madman will try to attack in bursts in the coming days to strengthen his hand in ceasefire talks. Putin general, 57, 'has arm and leg amputated' as he fights for life after Ukrainian strike on Russian column in Kursk 1
