A Trump-Putin peace deal would mean nothing without Ukraine at the table
Trump obviously is frustrated with the situation in Ukraine, a war he's saddened by and wants desperately to end.
Early in his term, he took out that frustration on Zelensky, culminating in that Oval Office UFC match.
Advertisement
But then the president rightly noted that Putin was 'tapping us along' — that the dictator offered smiles and compliments then targeted civilians with missiles and drones.
Relations between Ukraine and Trump improved. Ukraine signed an agreement with the US to set up a reconstruction investment fund, and Europe agreed to pay for US weapons on behalf of the country. Trump gave Putin 50 days to come to the table, then shortened the deadline to this past Friday when the bombardment didn't stop.
Then . . . the record scratch.
Advertisement
On the day of the deadline, rather than hit Russia with new sanctions, Trump agreed to meet Putin face-to-face, this Friday in Alaska.
What changed? Some reporting suggests that Putin has dropped his requirement of regime change in Ukraine. But he's still demanding one-third of the country, including land he's been unable to take on the battlefield, such as Ukraine's 'fortress belt' that's been blocking Russian advances since 2014.
More likely is that Trump, facing more months of killing even with sanctions, jumped at the chance when his envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Putin was open to discussion.
But any agreement forged between Trump and Putin in Alaska means nothing if Ukraine isn't involved.
Advertisement
First, despite the claims of anti-Ukraine podcasters, Putin is not coming into this meeting from a position of strength. His vaunted 'summer offensive' is inching along, with little hope of winning the areas Putin's demanding as part of a deal.
By sheer population advantage, Russia can grind out some progress, but at a tremendous cost: 250,000 soldiers dead, 1 million casualties so far. The Russian economy is fraying.
Ukraine has pulled off some stunning victories — including using a drone ploy to destroy long-range bombers on the other side of Russia.
Advertisement
Putin is in no position to dictate terms. He has not vanquished his foes; they humiliated him.
Ah, the podcasters continue, but this would only be possible with US weapons.
Certainly, American arms have played a key role, but it is not Americans who are dying. Ukraine has defended itself while hobbling a geopolitical foe and making the world a safer place.
Think of how emboldened and dangerous Putin would have been had Ukraine capitulated quickly. Where would he be looking now? The Balkans? Eastern Europe?
How many more battles would the United States be facing? The Ukrainians don't owe us; we owe them a debt of gratitude.
For these reasons and more, a treaty cannot be imposed upon the people of Ukraine. They will fight on. Even if American arms dry up, the Europeans will help.
Advertisement
They understand that Putin can't be trusted: Any agreement that doesn't include hard provisions for Ukraine's future security — and automatic, severe sanctions if Moscow doesn't live up to its word — just gives time for Russia to rearm, regroup and then invade again.
All that said, the fighting is a horrifically destructive near-stalemate, and Ukraine may need to make concessions. But these are concessions Kyiv must help negotiate.
Don't let Alaska go down as one of history's notorious giveaways. Make sure Ukraine has a seat at the table, Mr. President; it's the only way to get to a fair and lasting peace.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Now Jimmy Fallon Is Using Taylor Swift To Suggest Trump Had Sinister Ties To Epstein
Jimmy Fallon is on a roll in taunting President Donald Trump with sexual jokes ― and some are making insinuations about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. (Watch the video below.) On Wednesday the 'Tonight Show' host was back at it again, using Taylor Swift songs to sum up the president's Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fallon got a big response for noting that Americans are worried that Trump isn't ready for the talks to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine 'since his mind is basically a giant 'Blank Space.' ' Then the comedian waded into very sensitive territory. 'Also, he's distracted by the Epstein scandal. He'll tell Putin it's been a 'Cruel Summer' because everyone thinks 'I Did Something Bad' but I swear everyone on the island was '22.′' 'Oooooh,' the audience reacted in he-really-went-there fashion. Fast-forward to 1:50 for the Swift-Trump bit: To be clear, Trump reportedly has never been investigated over anything involving the late Epstein. The sex offender's hobnobbing with celebrities and politicians has generated high interest in what government files potentially contain about them. And while Trump was reportedly told by Attorney General Pam Bondi that he is mentioned in the files, the context is not publicly known. Trump brought some suspicion on himself by suddenly declaring the files to be a hoax. But some Republicans are backing a bipartisan House push for the release of all the files related to Epstein. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appears to be hindering the process. Fallon has taunted Trump for a while on his about-face on the Epstein front. On Monday the host noted that the president had hoped for a 'trilateral meeting' of peace talks involving Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy. 'Last time Trump had a trilateral meeting was on Epstein Island,' Fallon cracked. On Tuesday, he again parlayed monologue chatter about the summit into another naughty dig at the commander in chief. 'Trump said that in his meeting with Putin, he will know probably in the first two minutes whether a deal is possible,' the host said. 'It's reassuring when a president talks about ending a war like a Tinder date.' 'Yep,' Fallon continued, 'Trump says that he'll know in two minutes, which makes sense because, according to Stormy Daniels, two minutes is plenty.' Related... A Funny Thing Happened To Ratings When Jimmy Fallon Had Fox News Host As Guest Jimmy Fallon Again Talks Dirty About Trump And We're Here For It Jimmy Fallon's Filthy Trump Burn Over Putin Meeting Gets A 'Whoa' From Audience
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
It's not just DC: Republicans seem happy to let Trump do whatever he wants
For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about President Trump's invasion of an American city. I'm starting to wonder when our government's checks and balances will kick in – or if they will at all. On Monday, Aug. 11, President Donald Trump announced he would be deploying the National Guard in Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police force "to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The troops began showing up on Tuesday evening. According to Trump, violent crime is up in the nation's capital, and he's the only one who can rescue the city from societal collapse. It's a convenient narrative, one that feeds into MAGA's perception of him. For the rest of us, it's a terrifying move that shows he is willing to test the limits of presidential oversight. But while Trump's hostile takeover of DC public safety is concerning on its own, it's more alarming that Republicans in Congress are letting him do this with seemingly no regard for what is ethical. Even if this deployment is legal, there are certain lines that presidents should not cross. This is one of them. And I have to ask. Would Republicans be sitting on their hands if a Democratic president were doing everything that Trump is doing? I would hope not, but here we are. Of course, Trump is lying about crime in DC Trump seems to have called in the military after an assault on a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer on Aug. 3. While it's horrible that a government employee was attacked, Trump's declaration that Washington is crime-infested and dangerous doesn't align with reality. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime is down 26% compared with last year. In fact, 2024 marked a 30-year low for violent crime in Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Per a New York Times analysis, the homicide rate in 2023 was 40.4 per 100,000 people, the highest rate in 20 years. But that rate declined in 2024, down to 26.6 per 100,000 people. And homicides in the city continue to decline in 2025. While Trump is correct in saying this rate is higher than those of Mexico City and Bogotá, Colombia, it doesn't paint the full picture. A federal takeover is an extreme reaction. It doesn't matter, of course, that violent crime in the city is down overall this year. That wouldn't fit in with the Trumpian narrative, the one where he's the hero saving tourists and locals alike from violent crime. Are you worried about crime? Do you feel safe where you live? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Who even asked for this? It wasn't DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. All of this is happening to the dismay of Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser, who noted on the Aug. 12 edition of 'The Breakfast Club' that the militarization of the city will instill fear in its residents. '(Trump) wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way,' Bowser said on the radio show. Bowser is right, this is an escalation. It's Trump's way of showing everyone in Democratic parts of the country that he has the final say and that he isn't afraid to use the military to his advantage. Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run. | Opinion Will Republicans hold Trump accountable for anything? For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about Trump's invasion of an American city. In fact, it seems that many are supportive of the move. If a Democratic president were to try to do this, the Republican Party would decry authoritarianism's arrival in the United States. But because it's Trump, there has been zero pushback. Just like his tariff plan that's costing everyday Americans, the failed Elon Musk overhaul of the federal government, the deployment of soldiers against citizens in Los Angeles and his ruthless immigration agenda that includes trying to erase due process, the GOP is letting him get away with all of it. Republicans may even be happy about it. Imagine if Joe Biden did any of that? The Republican pearl-clutching would be generational. But this is fine because it's their king. Trump is considering extending the troop deployment beyond 30 days, something he will need congressional approval for. This seems entirely plausible, even likely, because of the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. I'm hesitant to throw the F-word – fascism – around, but if the Trump administration continues down this path, I worry that the rights we have as Americans will slip away. Who's stopping the president from deploying troops to other cities in the United States? It certainly isn't going to be Congress. There's some hope for the Supreme Court, but it has a 6-3 conservative majority. All of this is happening within the first year of Trump's return to the White House. There's no telling what the next three years will bring if this is how he's starting out. There should be firm lines that presidents do not cross – there are some things that are not appropriate or reasonable for a president to do. Yet that line keeps getting moved by Republicans, who don't seem to care as long as their conservative agenda is being implemented. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's meeting with Putin is a win-win for European defense stocks, no matter the outcome
European defense stocks have further to run regardless of whether U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin achieve a breakthrough on the war in Ukraine later this week, market watchers say. Trump and Putin are slated to meet in person in Alaska on Friday, with a view to discuss what it would take to end the more-than-three-year conflict that began with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Reports that the two heads of state would meet buoyed broader European equities on Thursday, but sank regional defense stocks . Concerns about Russian aggression had contributed to decisions by European governments and the NATO military alliance to drastically hike their defense budgets, benefiting security companies operating in the region . So far this year, the Stoxx Europe Aerospace and Defense index has surged by 52%. Following three consecutive days of losses after the Trump-Putin summit was announced, the index regained some ground, and was last seen trading 1.3% higher in Thursday's session. Market watchers told CNBC that a deal to end the fighting in Ukraine — which may not be on the horizon of Friday's meeting — was unlikely to throw Europe's defense growth off course. 'Win-win' for defense stocks In emailed comments to CNBC on Wednesday, Dmitrii Ponomarev, product manager at VanEck EU, pointed to a recent Financial Times report that Europe is "building for war," with arms sites expanding at roughly thrice the pace struck during peace time. He labeled this as "evidence that the current ramp is broader than Ukraine resupply alone." "No firm would add that much capacity if it depended only on Ukraine shipments; the bigger driver is NATO Europe's pivot to modernization and restocking under the new 5% of GDP long-term goal, of which about 3.5% is the truly comparable "core" defense spend, anchoring multi-year demand," he said. "Even with a peace deal, stockpiles don't magically refill: governments still face years of munitions and air-defense replenishment, so revenues likely shift from short-term surge programs toward steadier replenishment, sustainment, and long-horizon modernization." VanEck runs a $6.9 billion Defense ETF, which includes stakes in some of Europe's biggest defense stocks. Among the fund's top holdings are Italy's Leonardo , France's Thales and Sweden's Saab . Ponomarev said that companies that rely more heavily on deliveries to Ukraine or supplying short-cycle munitions "may feel a sharper de-rating if urgency fades" from any potential breakthrough emerging from this week's Alaska summit between the Russian and U.S. leadership. "[But] more diversified primes with long-cycle programs, services, and sustainment should be better placed to absorb near-term volatility," he said. Asked on Monday whether the European defense boom remained a long-term story regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, Christopher Granville, managing director of TS Lombard, said he "strongly agrees" that the momentum has further to run. "My call on European defense stocks since about 2023 — when it became clear that the Russian military was extremely powerful and was not going to be rolled out of those territories in eastern and southern Ukraine — has been buy on any weakness, on any temporary pullback, because this is a win-win for European defense stocks," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe." Granville pointed out that either the negotiations would go off the rails on Friday — an outcome that he labeled "more than perfectly possible, if not likely" — or peace would be struck. The former would result in the need for America and Europe to replenish their arms inventories, he said, while the latter would lead to "a very powerful Russian military." "Although the words victory and defeat [would] be bandied around, [this would be] a Russian military which has to an extent, prevailed," he said. "That reality will force a continued increase in defense procurement by European governments, and it's also good for European defense stocks. Either way, it's a winner." Granville noted that markets had been discounting the second scenario's ability to benefit defense companies. "From time to time, those names pull back a bit — you should buy on that weakness in my opinion," he advised. 'At least a decade' of rearmament Defense company leaders have been telling CNBC in recent weeks that an end to the Ukraine war would be unlikely to derail the boost to European defense spending. In conversation with CNBC's "Worldwide Exchange" on Monday, Dimitrios Kottas, co-founder and CEO of Greek autonomous defense tech developer Delian Alliance Industries, said the timing of Europe's consensus to modernize defense capabilities was correlated with the invasion of Ukraine, but argued that this rearmament would last "at least a decade." "It's something that is driven by historical macroeconomic forces, [that are] much stronger than the current ongoing invasion in Ukraine," he said. Micael Johansson, CEO of Swedish defense giant Saab , meanwhile insisted the growth in European defense was "absolutely" a long-term trend. "I have a hard time seeing, after all that happened with the invasion in Ukraine and the aggressive neighbor that we have to the east … even if we get a ceasefire or peace deal that is reasonable with Ukraine, that [governments] would step back and say it's over," he said in an interview with CNBC toward the end of July. Earnings misses and downgrades The bull run this year hasn't been a continuously upward trajectory, even without questions surrounding the future of Ukraine. Shares of German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall shed 8% on Thursday, after the firm's earnings came in below expectations . The company said contracts had not been awarded during the reporting period given the election of a new government in Germany, but noted that an anticipated influx of orders in the second half of 2025 meant Rheinmetall was able to confirm its full-year guidance. Rheinmetall is one of the best performers in European defense this year, with its shares gaining roughly 160% over the course of 2025. In a Friday note, Deutsche Bank's Christoph Laskawi argued that Rheinmetall's second-quarter result "does not change the investment case by any means." "The order intake potential ahead remains significant and the win rate should be high which is the basis for sizeable revenue growth in the coming years," he said. Back in June , Citi's European Aerospace and Defence analyst Charles Armitage downgraded Hensoldt, Renk and Saab — whose shares have all more than doubled in value this year — to give them a "sell" rating. He argued at the time that the companies were "pricing in more growth than seems likely." A lot of optimism nevertheless still remains in the sector. "It's no surprise [defense] share prices have jumped sharply this year, maybe to unsustainable levels in the short term and a welcome resolution or ceasefire in Ukraine may see their prices soften," Neil Birrell, chief investment officer at U.K. investment management firm Premier Miton, told CNBC by email. "However, the spend on defence and related infrastructure is here to stay and will be taking place over the coming years and decades. The move to greater … regional self-reliance for defence, energy, food and raw materials is a very long-term one. Defence stocks will be big beneficiaries of that."
