|
川、普會分析 – Matthew Lee
|
瀏覽1,223 ｜回應6｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
川普雖然又痞又瘋，從這次川普、普丁兩人的高峰會看來，他至少不是一個白癡。
Takeaways from the Trump-Putin meeting: No agreement, no questions but lots of pomp
MATTHEW LEE, 08/16/25
WASHINGTON (AP) — The much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin began with a warm welcome and a flyover by screaming jets at a U.S. military base in Alaska but ended with a thud Friday after they conceded that they had failed to reach any agreements on how to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
After about 2 1/2 hours of talks at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, the two men appeared before reporters for what had been billed as a joint news conference — but they took no questions.
“We had an extremely productive meeting and many points were agreed to, there are just a very few that are left,” Trump said. “We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”
Putin, welcomed into the U.S. after being shunned by Western allies since early 2022 for ordering the invasion of Ukraine, thanked Trump for hosting the meeting and suggested with a chuckle that the next time the two sit down it could be in Moscow.
Here are key takeaways from the summit:
A warm welcome underscoring the friendly Trump-Putin relationship
Putin got a red carpet welcome and even rode in Trump’s presidential limousine from the tarmac to the summit venue. There, the pair were joined by two of their top aides: Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff for Trump and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and national security adviser Yuri Ushakov for Putin.
Putin, who spoke first after the meeting concluded, lauded the historical relationship between the United States, Russia and the former Soviet Union, recalling joint missions conducted by the two countries during World War II.
He said the U.S. and Russia share values, a standard talking point for Russian officials when trying to woo Trump and his aides. Putin also noted that Trump has frequently said the Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened had he won the 2020 election.
"I think that would have been the case," the Russian leader said, a comment sure to please Trump.
However, there is no indication and no way to prove that Moscow would have acted differently toward Ukraine had Democrat Joe Biden not been elected.
Trump touts progress but concedes there was no deal
Trump had gone into the meeting hoping to get Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine — or at least a commitment from Russia to enter into negotiations to reach one.
Instead, Trump conceded that “we haven’t quite got there” and said he would be conferring with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO leaders about next steps.
Trump said he and Putin had made some significant progress toward the goal of ending the conflict but gave no details on what that entailed and had to acknowledge that they had been unable to bridge substantial gaps.
“I believe we had a very productive meeting,” Trump said. “We haven’t quite got there, but we’ve made some headway. So, there’s no deal until there’s a deal.”
In a subsequent conversation with Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, Trump again offered no details on his discussions with Putin.
With diplomatic progress creeping along, time is on Putin’s side
Amid drawn-out diplomatic moves to end the war, time is appears to be on Putin’s side. That gives a leg up to Russian forces, who have used their larger numbers to slowly grind down defenses in eastern Ukraine 3 1/2 years into the conflict.
Putin got a pleasant reception from the leader of the free world on U.S. soil and walked away hours later without either providing details on what they discussed, whether a ceasefire was any closer to reality or what the next steps would be.
Putin praised Trump for the “friendly” tone of the talks — Trump said nothing publicly about the killing of Ukrainian civilians in Moscow's attacks — and for “understanding that Russia has its own national interests.”
Putin said Moscow and Washington should “turn the page,” with relations having sunk to the lowest point since the Cold War.
Putin appearing in the U.S. for the first time in 10 years was celebrated as a sign that Moscow was no longer a pariah on the global stage. In a social media post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told followers that the Western press would be on the verge of “losing their minds.”
“For three years, they talked about Russia’s isolation, and today they saw the red carpet being rolled out to greet the Russian president in the United States,” she said.
There were no details and no questions
Both men said the talks were “productive” but the lack of any announcement of solid achievements was revealing.
The news conference ended up being less than 15 minutes of rather standard diplomatic comments — and gave no indication that any concrete results were achieved — and offered little departure from their previous comments on the war in Ukraine.
Trump has made it a feature of his second term to parry questions from reporters in front of world leaders, but in the clearest sign of his disappointment, the president abruptly cut short his plans to take questions.
Trump had gone into the summit saying here was a 25% chance that the summit would fail and that it was meant to be a “feel-out meeting,” but he had also floated the idea of bringing Zelenskyy to Alaska for a subsequent, three-way meeting if things went well. It’s unclear what comes next.
Associated Press writers Katie Marie Davies, Dasha Litvinova and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
《歐洲沒有維持俄、烏戰後和平的能力》小評
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我轉載該文的目的有兩個(請見本欄上一篇；並請參見本欄各篇貼文和此欄)：
1. 平衡報導
提供不同的觀點給網友們參考。
2. 盲點分析
提出我跟該文作者不同的觀察角度或思考邏輯。此處所謂「盲點」，當然是從我自己的角度和邏輯所做判斷。看官們可憑「心中一把尺」來自行決定是非。
1) 川普的「策略」
所謂「策略」，指的是：為了達到某個目的，在進行「成本—效應」分析後，所決定達成該「目的」的方法和步驟。
如果沒有「目的」，或缺乏「成本—效應」分析這道手續，一味的不顧後果，戴著鋼盔衝！衝！衝！這不叫「策略」，這叫「無頭蒼蠅」或「飛蛾撲火」。
觀察到目前為止，我認為：川普的所作所為都沒有「策略」。他缺乏「策略」的原因有兩個：
1a) 他或者根本沒有「目的」，但憑直覺或情緒做決定；或者他的「目的」屬於「見光死」的一類，痞、瘋如他，也知道不能拿上檯面來討論。
1b) 他本人或其幕僚即使不是低能，也有太多的「認知障礙」或「認知偏執」，無法做一個符合現實情況的「成本—效應」分析。至少，身為美國最高領導人，他本人或其幕僚算計中的「效應」，並沒有把美國利益放在第一位(見此欄、此欄各篇貼文，和此文--該欄2025/08/23)。或許，後者正是他的「目的」屬於見光死一類的原因。
2) 普丁的窘境
戰爭開始的原因有兩個：
1a) 一方誤判。
1b) 雙方誤判。
戰爭結束的原因也有兩個：
1c) 一方打不下去。
1d) 雙方都打不下去。
2022俄、烏戰爭開始的原因是普丁的「誤判」應該無庸置疑。現在看看2025俄、烏和議的背景。
我沒有足夠的資訊和功力，所以我就不談雙方的經濟和整體國力。以下只談談「人」的層面。
俄、烏開戰以來，俄國傷亡數字如下：
2a) 250,000 死亡, 810,000 受傷(02/24/22 – 08/15/25；大約3年；英國國防部估計)；約近於俄國人口的1%；
2b) 第二次世界大戰期間：蘇聯傷亡率為人口的 4.5% 到 5.5% (1939 – 1945；大約6年)。
以時間計，俄、烏戰爭俄國傷亡率大約比第二次世界大戰蘇聯傷亡率的一半略低。但是，如果我們回想：
a. 當年普丁可是揚言：「一個月內拿下基輔」；
b. 當年蘇聯面對的可是橫掃歐陸的德國第三帝國大軍。
上面這個對比就不是數字上看起來那麼不起眼了。
更關鍵的是，這兩個戰爭間有一個本質上的差異：第二次世界大戰可以看成是蘇聯的存亡之戰；而俄、烏戰爭則是普丁的個人戰爭。相對而言，就烏克蘭和歐洲國家來說，這場戰爭是她們的存亡之戰(本欄2025/08/22，此文「前言」--該欄2025/08/10)。
總而言之，烏克蘭和歐洲國家打不下去也非打不可。而普丁和俄國財閥、軍頭、與廣大老百姓則沒有這個底氣。再打下去，雖然說不上普丁「自掘墳墓」；但其政權「岌岌可危」應該也是無庸置疑。我這樣判斷的理由是，烏國領袖在面臨「割地議和」威脅下走上談判桌之前，還有兩招「魚死網破」的殺手鐧可用：
2c) 使用飛彈或無人機大規模攻擊人口密集城市如莫斯科(該欄2025/06/03貼文)；
2d) 使用無人機執行「斬首行動」。
評論俄、烏戰爭或和議者，如果眼中只看紙面上雙方實力對比，而不去評估雙方「續盤能力」因素，顯然考慮不夠周全；或對戰爭的認知不足。
3. 結論
俄、烏達成和議以及之後維持和平的機率，應該分別在75%和60%以上。雙方目前的搔首弄姿，扭捏作態不過夜市「漫天要價，就地還錢」過程的第一步。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
歐洲沒有維持俄、烏戰後和平的能力 -- Wolfgang Munchau
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
Europe isn’t prepared for peace Trump’s strategy is clear
Wolfgang Munchau, 08/19/25
There are many more ways in which a peace process can fail than succeed. But for either to happen, it first needs to start. And that is often the most difficult step. But after his big summit in the White House, Donald Trump seems to have pulled off the unthinkable: a summit has been organised between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky which would kick-start peace negotiations.
What did it take to get here? While a ceasefire will not be a pre-condition, the Europeans have been granted some of the assurances they wanted on security guarantees. Whether these can be enforced is, of course, an entirely different matter — but America’s agreement, in principle, to help the Europeans meet their obligations does mark an important shift in this seemingly endless war.
Since it is now unlikely that Trump will change his mind and revert to the Biden-era policy of unconditional, if hesitant, support for Ukraine, we are now left with two possible scenarios for how the war plays out.
In the first, Ukraine and Russia will agree to a peace deal, and the US and Europe will try their best to make the post-war security arrangement work. It is our baseline scenario, but it will be hard to pull off since the question of land is a particularly difficult one. The starting point of the talks would have to be the existing military situation — not Russia’s or Ukraine’s maximal demands — and would then need to be followed by detailed negotiations.
In the second scenario, the peace talks will go ahead but fail. Trump will then blame Zelensky and actively disengage from supporting Ukraine. Beware of extrapolating yesterday’s show of support: the smiles are deceptive. Trump wants to get out. Like the real estate developer he once was, who has first put a deposit down, Trump has invested political capital into a peace process and he is not going to back down. This scenario would be very bad for Ukraine and for Europe. America would withdraw — for real this time. The Europeans would be left having to support Ukraine and build a new security infrastructure without US support.
This is not really a viable financial or military option for European leaders. After all, their engagement would have to be major. The Ukraine-Russia frontline is, at the moment, about 1,200 kilometres — around the length of the Cold War-era inner German border. Nor does this include the rest of Ukraine’s de jure border to the north and east with Russia, and with Belarus. There have been some comparisons with the situation in Korea — but the demilitarised zone there is barely 250 kilometres in length.
Adequately securing such a large border on the Ukrainian side would take a huge amount of troops — one estimate suggests as many as 150,000 European soldiers. This is a far larger deployment than anyone else has envisaged; Emmanuel Macron mentioned troop numbers in the thousands earlier in the year similar to the so-called tripwire troop deployments in the Baltic States.
And even if they wanted to, European leaders don’t have the troops needed to provide genuine assurances to Kyiv. Johann Wadephul, the German foreign minister, recently admitted that Germany probably wouldn’t have the capacity to send troops to Ukraine. And while the UK might be keen to voice its political commitment to the country, it’s doubtful that it can meaningfully back this up. A RUSI piece last year indicated that Britain does not have enough equipment to sustain a proper three-brigade armoured division. Even deploying a single brigade would use up 70-80% of the British Army’s total combat engineering capabilities.
There are other challenges too. At this stage, the easiest way to blow a deal, by either side, would be to refuse concessions on land. The Russian claim for the entirety of the Donbas region, including the parts they don’t occupy, is a maximalist one, from which Russia would have to retreat if the negotiations were to succeed. There are some commercial assets in the region of interest to Moscow — mines and industrial companies based in the Russian-occupied parts — but it has military significance for Ukraine. In any case, there is a long history of European regions being split. Karelia split into Finnish and Russian parts after the Winter War of 1939-40, and parts of the old Prussia are now in Lithuania, Russia, Poland and Germany. Negotiations, though, will be fraught.
But the big difficulty European leaders will face is how to deal with their war-crazed supporters back home. There has been a great deal of cheerleading and regime-change fanaticism in the European political and media space, with many recent headlines insisting that Russia must not be rewarded for its aggression. None of these authors, of course, has a military strategy for victory, because strategic thinking is not what educated Europeans do. They use the passive tense when they speak or write: something must be done, they intone. Rarely, if ever, do they say: “we will do this and are ready to make sacrifices to do so.”
But we do know the rest of the world does not look at Russia the way Europe does. This Eurocentric perspective no longer dominates global discourse — except, of course, in Europe. It is clear that we are living in one of those dangerous moments in history where fate could flip either way. Yet for all his arrogance, at least Trump has a strategy, whereas the Europeans do not.
Wolfgang Münchau is the Director of Eurointelligence and an UnHerd columnist.
More from this author
Putin knows we are spreadsheet warriors
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
《烏克蘭和議：荒謬情境中的存在危機》小評
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
0. 前言
該文作者原標題中用了兩個雙關字(請見本欄上一篇)：
(the) Existential：可指「存在性」(源自「存在哲學」)或「存在危機」；
(the) Absurd：可指「荒謬性」(源自「荒謬論」)或「荒謬情境」。
中文標題自屬「意譯」。如有不妥，敬請指正。
我認為：「俄、烏戰局」的實際情況，並不像該文作者從一個美國人角度所看到的那樣悲觀。
1. 俄、烏戰爭本質
澤倫斯基和歐洲各國領袖早就知道川痞不可信。但外交表演總是得走個過場，讓全世界媒體轉播給全球觀眾欣賞、欣賞。實際上，歐洲各國領袖早在川痞當選前，就籌畫如何接手俄、烏衝突這個爛攤子；目前也正在一步一步執行此規劃。畢竟，有點歷史常識之士都知道：
俄、烏戰爭不只是俄、烏兩國間的「領土糾紛」，而是第三次世界大戰的序幕；或者說，保衛大歐洲的前哨戰(該欄2025/08/10貼文「前言」)。
簡單說明一下我以上了解的根據：
自從俄、烏戰爭開打以來，出錢最多的是美國和英、德、法等歐洲大佬。但在旁加油助陣，聲嘶力竭高喊「狼來了！狼來了！」的國家則是：波蘭、芬蘭、北歐、和波羅地海三國。後者有什麼共同點？
她們或者緊鄰俄國，或者「歷史」上遭受過沙俄、蘇聯的蹂躪。此之謂：「一朝被蛇咬，十年怕井繩」。
在這些國家意識中(佐之以蘇聯解體後俄國的行為)：今天普丁統治下的俄國，是個具有核子武器，又奉行「帝國主義信條」的強權。
在「姑息主義」噩夢記憶猶新的陰影下，歐洲各國領袖深知：
如果讓普丁「蠶食繼之以鯨吞」的劇本在烏克蘭完美落幕，摩爾多瓦、波羅地海三國、芬蘭、波蘭等等將是同樣戲碼的下一個舞台。
因此，烏克蘭是歐洲國家，尤其「北大西洋公約」會員國的「紅線」。從而，不論川普和普丁哥倆好達成什麼「秘密協定」，俄、烏戰爭都會打下去；直到普丁政府垮台、普丁政府難以為繼、或普丁本人不得不接受一個「體面」的下台階。只是這個「下台階」將成為川普這隻普丁舔狗被天下後世笑的烙印。
2. 小評
2.1 悲劇與鬧劇
馬克思說(該欄開欄文附註3)：
「黑格爾在某個地方做了以下評論：『偉大事件和偉大人物可以說都會在歷史舞台上出現兩次』。但他忘了補充一句：『第一次是悲劇形式；第二次則成了鬧劇』」。
只要川痞繼續在台上跳樑或起乩，我們還非得「被強迫中獎式」的把這場「悲劇 + 鬧劇」看完。
2.2 「後美國」時代
大多數美國人還不知道，不知不覺中「後美國時代」已經開始(該欄2024/12/31)。她/他們仍然懵懵懂懂的認為：世界問題只有美國政府「才有能力」解決；或者，美國總統說：「跳」，其它各國領袖只能說：「多高？」
在「三極」或「多元」世局中，美國總統「說了算」的時期已經可待成追憶了；從四月拖到現在的「貿易戰」歹戲，不過造就了一位政治丑角「川老慫」；就是一個明證。何況當今美國「聖上」又是一個兼痞、瘋於一身的混混？
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
烏克蘭和議：荒謬情境中的存在危機 -- Nahal Toosi
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The Existential Meets the Absurd in Latest Ukraine Talks
Ukraine knows exactly how empty a pledge from Trump can be, and that it will have to adapt
Nahal Toosi, 08/19/25
It’s hard enough to negotiate with an enemy you do not trust. But imagine not being able to trust your most critical ally, either.
When President Donald Trump said Monday that he’d offer Ukraine “very good security” as he pushed Kyiv to come to some sort of truce with Russia, many Ukrainians watched knowing that he may not keep his word. Trump is known, after all, for constantly changing his mind, including about how much he admires Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Yet the U.S. remains a crucial source of military and economic aid to Ukraine. So there was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Monday (in a suit!), hoping to convince Trump to give Kyiv “everything” it needed for its security. He came with other European leaders who urged Trump to keep helping Ukraine, to pursue a ceasefire first and not to fall for dubious Russian long-term peace proposals.
As the visitors made their practiced pitches while sitting around a table with the U.S. president, the whole thing felt absurd.
Ukrainians obviously cannot trust Putin, a man with a long history of broken promises. But they also cannot trust Trump, another man with a long history of broken promises. Somehow, though, these are the two men pressuring Kyiv to go for a “peace agreement” that could force Ukraine to give up a huge chunk of its territory to an invading Russia.
The harsh reality is that Ukrainians have little choice but to consider any offer Trump puts before them. They still need the United States, even if the relationship stinks.
“We have to hope for the best knowing everything we know,” Yuriy Sak, a former adviser to Ukraine’s defense ministry, told me.
Daria Kaleniuk, a prominent Ukrainian civil society activist, said the best response is to be self-reliant. “The meetings are like a reality show, which will lead to nothing,” she said.
Ukrainians already are doing what they can, under intense Russian fire, to turn themselves into an increasingly independent actor in the war. That includes their manufacture and clever use of drones, which has allowed them to strike deep inside Russian territory.
Nonetheless, the prevailing sense in many circles is that Ukraine will ultimately lose to Russia. Trump seems to agree, telling Fox News, in one of several recent comments meant to pressure Zelenskyy to make a deal with Putin: “Look, Russia is a very big power, and they’re not.”
Ukrainians take care to distinguish between Trump and Putin. The latter, they point out, is a former spy and skilled manipulator responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Trump at least seems sincere in wanting to end the war, some told me.
But, despite some harsh words for Putin earlier this year, Trump seems once again intent on impressing the Kremlin chief. He rolled out the red carpet when they met in Alaska last week. He also called Putin on Monday, as well as meeting with European leaders. Afterward, he wrote on social media that his team would work with Putin’s to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, to be followed by a trilateral session that also includes Trump.
“Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine,” Trump wrote.
But Trump’s adoption of Putin’s talking points on Ukraine, including saying Moscow won’t give up the Crimean region, and his on-again, off-again support of the Ukrainian cause, means that, for Kyiv, the diplomatic field is arguably more unpredictable than the battlefield.
That said, even if Ukraine doesn’t trust Trump, the bar for diplomatic success has fallen very low these days. Ukrainians are relieved that Trump even talks to Zelenskyy, whose previous Oval Office meeting with the U.S. president in February was a disaster. Zelenskyy on Monday was more cautious in front of the cameras.
Other Europeans, meanwhile, delight over any sliver of hope Trump offers. They were happy that Trump, in last week’s meeting with Putin, didn’t flat-out agree to give away Ukrainian territory, even though he seems to have aligned himself with that Kremlin position. Trump’s mere openness to a security guarantee for Ukraine is viewed as a huge win.
“The fact that you have said ‘I’m willing to participate in security guarantees’ is a big step,” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told Trump on Monday. “It’s really a breakthrough. And it makes all the difference.”
Some Ukrainians hope that the ultimate result of the gatherings is to serve as a wake-up call to other European nations, leading them to take a bigger role in helping Kyiv. That includes handing over billions in frozen Russian assets to Kyiv.
Europe as a whole also needs to put its economy on more of a war footing and be less dependent on Washington for the continent’s security, Kaleniuk argued.
“It's not about war in Ukraine, it's about war in Europe, and Russia is the largest security threat to every single European country,” she told me.
Many U.S. presidents have broken promises before, of course. But Trump is unusual in how often and sometimes how quickly he reverses course. Foreign officials say it makes it hard for their countries to prepare strategies for dealing with Washington.
Hanna Hopko, a former Ukrainian lawmaker who travels the world arguing her country’s case, warned that Trump’s inconsistency in backing Ukraine has wide fallout.
“I'm laughing, honestly laughing,” she said when I asked about how Ukrainians could trust Trump’s promises. “It's about American credibility. It's not about Trump. You guys are losing credibility worldwide.”
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川、澤會/川普、歐洲領袖會談要點 -- Alexandra Hutzler
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
Key takeaways from Trump and Zelenskyy's meeting, pivotal talks with European leaders
Trump pledged U.S. help to protect Ukraine in a cordial sit-down with Zelenskyy.
Alexandra Hutzler, ABC News, 08/19/25
Key moments from Trump-Zelenskyy meeting
President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House along with European leaders for a high-stakes meeting aiming to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sounded positive as they met at the White House on Monday as Trump pushes for an end to Russia's war on Kyiv.
Zelenskyy was joined in Washington by a remarkable delegation of European leaders who rushed to the U.S. in support of the Ukrainian leader in the wake of Friday's talks between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
The last time Zelenskyy was in the Oval Office was February, when he received a verbal lashing from President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who accused him of not being grateful enough for U.S. military assistance.
Monday's meeting was a much more cordial affair, with Trump and Zelenskyy sharing smiles and Zelenskyy thanking the president for his personal efforts to bring this conflict to a close.
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Afterward, they sat down with European leaders, who before news cameras pressed Trump publicly on the need for security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any deal -- after Trump made a new commitment on that point. Some also said a ceasefire would be necessary before further negotiations or any trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin.
Here are some key takeaways from the high-stakes meetings.
Trump says US will give Ukraine 'very good protection'
President Trump on Monday said the United States will be involved in security assistance for Ukraine but did not elaborate on what exactly that would look like or give any specifics.
"We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security," Trump said.
The president later confirmed that Putin said Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine.
Trump didn't go quite as far as special envoy Steve Witkoff, who told CNN that Russia agreed to "Article 5-like" protections. Article 5 is the agreement of collective defense among NATO nations stating an attack against one member is considered an attack against them all.
Trump said Europe would need to shoulder much of the burden when it comes to security guarantees, but that the U.S. will play a role.
"They are first line of defense because they're there," Trump said before adding, "But we're going to help them. And also we'll be involved."
Trump walks back ceasefire demand
After previously pushing for a ceasefire and threatening severe consequences for Russia if Putin did not stop the war, President Trump appeared to back off that demand.
"I don't think you need a ceasefire," he said in the Oval Office. "I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically, like, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn't want it."
He continued that he likes "the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you'd stop killing people immediately."
Trump pushes for a trilateral meeting, Zelenskyy says Ukraine 'ready'
Trump continued to push for a trilateral meeting between himself, Zelenskyy and Putin -- something he had hoped to set up immediately following his summit with Putin on Friday but was unsuccessful.
Zelenskyy said Ukraine is "ready" for a trilateral discussion.
"I think it's going to be when," Trump said, "not if."
European leaders back up Zelenskyy on security guarantees, ceasefire
Trump and Zelenskyy sat down with a host of European leaders in the East Room following their bilateral talks in the Oval Office.
At the table were NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italy Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Finland President Alexander Stubb.
Nearly all the leaders stressed the need for security guarantees for Ukraine, with several saying it should look similar to Article 5 obligations. Ukraine is not a member of NATO but the nation has pushed for membership, something Russia is strongly opposed to.
"The fact that you have said that I'm willing to participate in the security guarantees is a it's a big step. It's really a breakthrough," NATO's Rutte told Trump. "And, it makes all the difference. So also, thank you for that."
France's Macron and Germany's Merz challenged Trump on a ceasefire, insisting it's a necessity for moving forward.
"The next steps ahead are the more complicated ones now ... To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," Germany's Merz said. Merz said he cannot imagine a trilateral meeting would be able to occur without a ceasefire in place.
Trump says he will speak with Putin after meetings
Trump said he will call Putin after his meetings Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House.
"We're going to have a phone call right after these meetings today, and we may or may not have a trilat. And if we don't have a trilat, then the fighting continues. And if we do, we have a good chance -- I think if we have a trilat that there's a good chance of maybe ending it," Trump said.
"But he's expecting my call when we're finished with this meeting," Trump added of Putin.
ABC News' Meredith Deliso contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
高峰會川、普倆相好情景 ---- Susie Coen/Joe Barnes
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
此欄(2025/08/17貼文)
State department papers left behind on Alaska hotel printer reveal sensitive Trump-Putin summit details (內容包括：參加官員名單、官員座次、官員電話、午餐菜單 – 稍後取消)
A stealth bomber, a shouting match and an awkward moment for Putin: Everything you missed
How Trump’s highly-anticipated peace talks unfolded in Alaska
Susie Coen, US/Joe Barnes, Brussels, 08/16/25
Vladimir Putin winced as he realised, at least momentarily, that he was not in control.
No number of Russian agents armed with bulletproof suitcases could shield him from being pelted by the sorts of questions he had managed to avoid since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine.
Sitting next to Donald Trump in front of a blue wall emblazoned with “pursuing peace” ahead of their high-level talks in Alaska, the Russian despot was in unfamiliar territory.
As one reporter shouted: “Mr. Putin, will you break your ceasefire?” it was clear he was not in a cocoon of Kremlin mouthpiece Russian media, but surrounded by US journalists determined to hold him to account.
His wry smile evaporated into one of alarm. He looked pleadingly to the left and furrowed his brow.
“Will you commit to not killing any more civilians?” another reporter yelled. Putin put his hands to his mouth and appeared to say something, before the press were swiftly removed.
The moment was a brief but stark reminder to the Russian leader that while Mr.. Trump may have rolled the red carpet out for him, he is a man with an International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest and on the sanctions lists of most Western governments.
After the room descended into a chaotic shouting match, the gaggle of reporters were ushered out.
It was then that Putin, Mr. Trump and their advisers began highly-anticipated closed-door talks.
Less than an hour before, Putin had been met with a warm welcome as he stepped onto US soil for the first time in a decade.
At 11.08 am local time, after Mr. Trump had already descended the steps of Air Force One, Putin finally ventured out of his own aircraft and walked briskly down the stairs to join the US leader.
In a meeting such as this, every fine detail will have been negotiated – including which leader steps out of their aircraft first.
With grey skies and Alaskan mountains setting the scene behind them, the two men walked down respective red carpets and joined one another at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
In an overt display of warmth that was quickly criticised by US media, Mr. Trump grinned and applauded as he waited for Putin to join him.
When the two were finally face-to-face, they engaged in a lengthy handshake as they exchanged pleasantries.
The images were some of the most extraordinary in recent diplomatic history.
In the 42 months since Russia launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, every Western leader has refused to meet Putin. Yet here was Mr. Trump welcoming him.
Standing on the red carpet, having descended the steps of Air Force One a fraction before Putin, Mr. Trump applauded the approaching Russian leader before shaking his hand and clasping his arm.
As the two men turned and walked towards a podium that read “Alaska 2025”, a five-ship formation flypast of a B-2 bomber flanked by F-22 Raptor fighters flew above their heads.
The spectacle appeared to take the Russian president by surprise, as he stopped momentarily to get a proper view of the planes overhead.
Standing on the raised platform quickly erected for this photo-op, the two men stood with their arms by their sides, both looking awkwardly rigid.
It was then that US journalists began firing the first of many questions at the Russian leader.
“Did you underestimate Ukraine?”, one reporter shouted. Another asked if he would stop killing Ukrainian civilians. Putin pointed at his ear, suggesting that he could not hear.
It was at this moment that an apparent last-minute offer was made for the Russian president to ride to the summit venue alongside Mr. Trump in the Beast, the US presidential limousine.
The two leaders had been due to be picked up separately on the tarmac after arriving on their respective flights.
Putin’s “Aurus” limousine, complete with Russian number plates and a flag on its bonnet, had been waiting to ferry him to the talks.
But they both slipped into the eight-ton armoured car with only two security officials accompanying them in the front, raising suspicions in US media about the conversations that were had on the short drive across the military base.
As the car drove away, cameras captured Putin sporting a beaming smile and waving his hand to the crowds.
The ensuing chaotic press conference was held in the moments before the official talks, marking the first time that the leaders had come together for a face-to-face for a bilateral meeting in six years.
Mr. Trump was flanked by Steve Witkoff, the Middle East envoy who has previously negotiated with Putin, and Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state.
Mr. Rubio greeted Putin with a stern handshake, but appeared far more jovial with Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, with whom he has been holding regular phone calls.
While Mr. Trump had initially planned to carry out discussions one-on-one, the president’s team announced that the meeting had been changed to a three-on-three just hours before the meeting was set to take place.
The meeting lasted around three hours, half of the time that had been touted by Russian media outlets ahead of the gathering.
It was reported that a lunch between Putin and Mr. Trump had also been cancelled, suggesting that their talks had gone badly.
The world’s media was summoned to a press conference, with one question looming: would the US president appear alone?
If the meeting had gone poorly, Mr. Trump had declared, he would not stand side-by-side with Putin and brief the press.
But as the seats in the auditorium filled up, two podiums remained on stage, and a Russian speaker sound checked the lectern reserved for Putin.
If the Russian leader had appeared slightly untethered at the beginning of the day, he was now back in control.
It was Putin, not Mr. Trump, who began the press conference, a detail that even the Trump-loyal network, Fox News labelled as “really stunning”.
Putin said he wanted the war to end but that he was worried about Kyiv and European capitals “throwing a spanner in the works”.
No details of a ceasefire were provided, but Putin did offer Mr. Trump something that he wanted: recognition that the war would not have started if he were president in 2022.
“Today when President Trump said that if he was the president back then there would be no war and I’m quite sure that it would indeed be so,” the Russian president said, translated to English for reporters in Alaska.
Mr. Trump, stood at his presidential lectern, stared straight back, offering the slightest nods of approval in response.
For months, the US president has been telling anyone who would listen that he believes that the Russian army would not have invaded Ukraine if he had beaten Joe Biden and retained his place in the White House for a second consecutive term.
His Russian counterpart’s willingness to acknowledge the dubious claim served as the vindication that the US president had been seeking.
It was an olive branch from Moscow reminiscent of their last meeting in Helsinki in 2018, when Putin, standing beside Mr. Trump at a joint press conference, insisted that Russia had not interfered in his election victory.
Mr. Trump described his counterpart’s missive as “profound”, before heralding the talks as “productive”. However, he admitted that sticking points remained, “one the most significant”. He did not elaborate on what that was.
The press conference ended with no questions but a mischievous aside from Putin that appeared to blindside Mr. Trump.
“Next time in Moscow,” Putin said, breaking into English for full effect.
“Ooh, that’s an interesting one,” Mr. Trump replied.
“I don’t know. I’ll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening.”
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
