Trump-Putin summit fails to end fighting - The Shillong Times
theshillongtimes.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 7:21:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Social Media & Public Statements
Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to meet Trump in Washington on Monday
New York, Aug 16: US President Donald Trump says that after his summit with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, he is dropping his demand for a ceasefire and instead wants to go directly for a peace agreement to end the Ukraine War.
Following Friday's late-night call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders, he said in a Truth Social post that it was "determined" that a peace agreement was the way to go.
"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", he posted early Saturday morning, Washington time.
European leaders and Zelensky are sceptical about any arrangement that does not include an immediate ceasefire because Russia could take more Ukrainian territory to strengthen its negotiating position.
Trump had said that he would talk to Putin about his continued attacks on Ukraine while diplomacy was underway.
He asserted in the Truth Social post that the summit on Friday in Alaska was "very successful" and his calls with Zelensky and other European leaders went "very well".
He said that Zelensky was coming to the White House on Monday afternoon, and "if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin".
Trump did not reveal the "the most significant" difference he had with Putin that blocked a deal.
At a news conference after the Friday summit in Alaska, he said there were "a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway".
"One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there", he said.
Trump appeared to have walked back on his earlier claims that he would insist on a ceasefire and end the talks if there wasn't an agreement on one.
Flying to Alaska, he told reporters on Air Force One, "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly".
"I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today", he added.
Zelensky said on X that the European leaders coordinated their positions and wanted a ceasefire "as soon as possible".
"The positions are clear. We need to achieve real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions", said, adding, "We must stop the killings as soon as possible, ceasefire both on the battlefield and in the skies, and against our port infrastructure".
He said that he asked Trump to strengthen sanctions against Russia if talks with Putin did not materialise.
"In the conversation with President Trump, I emphasised that sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia evades an honest end to the war", he said.
The European leaders, who call themselves "The Coalition of the Willing", in their joint statement after talking with Trump and meeting among themselves did not take up the ceasefire issue.
They said they "welcomed President Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace".
They "are clear that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity", said the statement issued by the heads of state or government of Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Finland, and the president of the European Council.
"As President Trump said, 'there's no deal until there's a deal'. As envisioned by President Trump, the next step must now be further talks including President Zelenskyy, whom he will meet soon", they said.
France's President Emmanuel Macron said on X that following Trump's briefing, European leaders in their meeting resolved to "maintain pressure on Russia as long as its war of aggression continues and until a solid and lasting peace, respectful of Ukraine's rights, has been established".
He added, they will continue to "work closely" with Trump and Zelensky "to safeguard our interests in a spirit of unity and responsibility". (IANS)
Sign Our PetitionThe recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported by The Shillong Times, highlights the complexities and contradictions inherent in international diplomacy, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Trump's abrupt pivot from demanding a ceasefire to advocating for a direct peace agreement raises important questions about the effectiveness of his diplomatic strategy, as well as the broader implications for Ukraine and global security. This news event serves as a critical lens through which to examine historical patterns of power dynamics, the importance of immediate humanitarian interventions, and the risks of prioritizing political expediency over lasting peace.
Historically, ceasefires have often been viewed as temporary measures, with the potential to serve as a prelude to more substantial agreements. In the context of Ukraine, the scars left by the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent armed conflict in the Donbas region are still fresh. The Minsk agreements, which sought to establish a framework for de-escalation, ultimately failed to secure a lasting peace, highlighting the limitations of ceasefire arrangements when not backed by genuine political will and accountability. European leaders, including Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, express legitimate skepticism about a peace agreement that lacks an immediate ceasefire, fearing that Russia might exploit the situation to consolidate its territorial gains. This apprehension reinforces the notion that any diplomatic endeavor must first prioritize the cessation of hostilities to create a conducive environment for meaningful negotiations.
Trump's assertion that a peace agreement could be reached without an immediate ceasefire reflects a broader trend in international relations where the urgency of political objectives sometimes overshadows humanitarian considerations. The callousness of suggesting a peace agreement while fighting continues on the ground reveals a troubling disconnection from the realities faced by Ukrainian civilians. With thousands of lives lost and countless more disrupted by the ongoing violence, the prioritization of diplomatic optics over human lives is deeply concerning. As Zelenskyy emphasized in his statements, the immediate need is to halt the killings, marking a critical point that must be echoed in any serious discussion about the conflict's resolution.
Moreover, Trump's diplomatic approach raises questions about the United States’ role in global governance and its commitment to international norms. The reliance on a "Coalition of the Willing" among European leaders underscores the necessity of multilateralism in addressing complex geopolitical issues. However, it also exposes the potential pitfalls of unilateral decision-making, particularly when it comes to engaging with authoritarian leaders. As history has shown, appeasing aggressive powers without robust checks can lead to further destabilization. Strengthening sanctions against Russia, as Zelenskyy suggests, may serve as a necessary tool to maintain pressure on Putin and prevent further territorial encroachment. This focus on sanctions reflects a recognition that diplomatic dialogue must be accompanied by concrete actions that hold aggressors accountable.
As the situation develops, it is crucial for activists, policymakers, and citizens alike to advocate for a diplomatic approach that prioritizes both peace and justice. Historical precedent teaches us that sustainable peace cannot merely be a product of negotiations between heads of state but must also engage the voices and needs of affected populations. In light of the ongoing social struggles for justice and accountability—both in Ukraine and globally—this moment calls for a renewed commitment to uphold the principles of international law, human rights, and the protection of civilians in conflict zones. Engaging in these conversations and holding leaders accountable to these standards is essential for creating a future where peace is not just an agreement on paper but a lived reality for those most impacted by war.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has drawn global attention, particularly as new political dialogues emerge between the United States and Russia. The recent summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised critical questions about U.S. foreign policy, the efficacy of peace negotiations, and the future of Ukraine. While Trump’s shift from advocating for an immediate ceasefire to proposing a comprehensive peace agreement may seem like a diplomatic move, it underscores a broader trend in international relations that often prioritizes expediency over justice. The skepticism voiced by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders regarding this approach is a crucial indicator of the complexity involved in achieving a lasting resolution to the conflict.
Historically, peace negotiations in war-torn regions have often been fraught with challenges. Ceasefires, while seemingly beneficial in the short term, can lead to a false sense of security and allow aggressors to regroup and strengthen their positions. In the case of Ukraine, any agreement that does not prioritize an immediate cessation of hostilities risks enabling Russia to further its territorial ambitions. The skepticism voiced by Zelensky and the Coalition of the Willing—European leaders who recognize the precariousness of the situation—highlights the need for a more robust approach to peace negotiations. It is essential to understand that the path to peace is not merely about halting violence but ensuring that the underlying issues are addressed to prevent future conflicts.
As citizens, there are several actions we can take to advocate for a more principled U.S. foreign policy. First and foremost, it is imperative for Americans to engage in informed discussions about foreign policy and the impact of international negotiations on global peace. This can involve reaching out to representatives, participating in community forums, or using social media platforms to share insights and information. By fostering a well-informed public discourse, we can create pressure for policies that prioritize human rights, international law, and the sovereignty of nations over political expediency.
Moreover, supporting organizations that focus on peacebuilding and conflict resolution is another avenue through which we can contribute to a more robust diplomatic agenda. These organizations often provide critical on-the-ground perspectives and work to create sustainable peace through dialogue, education, and community engagement. By amplifying their voices and supporting their initiatives, we can help ensure that any peace agreements are not only comprehensive but also grounded in the needs and rights of the affected populations.
Educational initiatives can also play a substantial role in shifting the narrative. Schools and universities should incorporate discussions about international relations, the implications of foreign policy, and the historical contexts of conflicts like the one in Ukraine. By cultivating a generation that understands the complexities of global interactions, we can create a more informed citizenry that advocates for justice and accountability in U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, encouraging critical thinking about media narratives surrounding conflicts can help demystify the often polarized portrayals of international leaders and their motivations.
In conclusion, the recent developments surrounding the Trump-Putin summit illuminate a critical juncture in U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine. As Americans, we have a responsibility to advocate for a foreign policy that genuinely seeks to address the complexities of conflict rather than merely seeking to end hostilities. By engaging in informed dialogue, supporting peacebuilding organizations, and fostering educational initiatives that promote understanding of international relations, we can play an active role in shaping a more just and effective diplomatic landscape. It is through these collective actions that we can challenge the narratives that prioritize political expediency over genuine peace and justice for all.
In light of the article regarding the recent developments in the Ukraine conflict and the ongoing negotiations involving U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, there are several actionable steps individuals can take to engage with this issue. Here’s a detailed list of ideas for personal action, including real-world examples of petitions, whom to contact, and suggestions on what to say.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the Ukraine conflict and international relations implications. Share insights with friends and family to raise awareness about the impacts of the war.
2. **Advocate for Peace Initiatives** - Support organizations that promote peace and humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian Red Cross or GlobalGiving.
3. **Engage in Political Activism** - Join local activism groups that focus on foreign policy, peace advocacy, or human rights.
4. **Promote Sanctions on Russia** - Advocate for stronger sanctions against Russia to deter further aggression and support Ukraine.
### Exact Actions to Take
#### 1. Sign Petitions - **Petition to Strengthen Sanctions Against Russia** - Example: Change.org often has petitions calling for stronger sanctions. - Search for petitions titled “Demand Stronger Sanctions on Russia” and sign them.
#### 2. Contact Your Representatives - **Write to Your Congressional Representatives** - Find your representatives at [House.gov](https://www.house.gov/) or [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/). - Example: - **Senator Dick Durbin** - Email: [senator_durbin@durbin.senate.gov](mailto:senator_durbin@durbin.senate.gov) - Mailing Address: 711 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** - Email: [aoc@mail.house.gov](mailto:aoc@mail.house.gov) - Mailing Address: 2308 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
- **What to Say:** - “Dear [Representative's Name], I am writing to urge you to support stronger sanctions against Russia until a genuine and lasting peace is established in Ukraine. It is crucial that the U.S. takes a firm stance to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and promote stability in the region. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.”
#### 3. Participate in Demonstrations - Join or organize local protests or rallies advocating for peace in Ukraine. Check platforms like Meetup or Facebook Events for gatherings in your area.
#### 4. Engage on Social Media - Use platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine. Share credible information, articles, and personal reflections on the need for peace and humanitarian support.
#### 5. Volunteer with or Donate to Organizations - Volunteer your time or donate to organizations that provide aid to Ukraine. For example: - **Ukrainian Red Cross** - [Website](https://redcross.org.ua/en/) - **GlobalGiving’s Ukraine Crisis Relief Fund** - [Website](https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/ukraine-crisis-relief-fund/)
### Conclusion By taking these steps, we can contribute to a larger movement advocating for peace, supporting those affected by the conflict, and ensuring that our leaders are held accountable for their actions regarding international diplomacy. The more we engage, the more likely we can influence positive outcomes in global affairs.