Trump claims 'big progress on Russia' as US defends Putin meeting on Ukraine | The National
thenationalnews.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:57:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights, Foreign Policy & International Relations
US President Donald Trump asked his followers on the Truth Social platform to "stay tuned" for updates on the prospect of a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire.
The advice came only two days after what many considered to be Mr Trump's anticlimactic meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.
"Big progress on Russia," he posted on his social media platform.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday defended the US rolling out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the meeting in Alaska.
On ABC's Sunday political show, This Week, Mr Rubio was asked about analysts who said the Russian President got the upper hand on the world stage because he walked away without making concessions, at least publicly, regarding the Ukraine-Russian war, while being seen shaking hands with Mr Trump on a podium.
"Critics of President Trump are always going to find something to criticise him for," Mr Rubio said. He added that Mr Putin's three and a half year war with Ukraine has already given him the spotlight on the world stage, regardless of how the Alaska summit looked.
"He has the world's largest tactical nuclear arsenal and the second-largest strategic arsenal in the world ... all the media does is talk about Putin all the time, that doesn't mean he's right or justified about the war," he added.
"That's just common sense, I shouldn't have to explain it," he said. From Ukraine's perspective, security guarantees were paramount for any deal with Russia to come to fruition, he added.
"They want assurance that they won't be re-invaded in two or three years," and the White House was working to make those assurances for Kyiv possible, Mr Rubio said.
Also on Sunday, Trump administration special envoy Steve Witkoff dismissed the notion that little was achieved in Alaska during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union.
Mr Witkoff said that as the Trump administration had addressed all the issues necessary for a ceasefire to be achieved, "substantial progress" was made.
"The fundamental issue is some sort of land swap, which is ultimately in the control of the Ukrainians. That could not have been discussed at this meeting but we intend to discuss it on Monday," he said of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's trip to Washington for talks with Mr Trump.
Several media reports have suggested Mr Putin has promised to end the war and not attack any other European countries in exchange for a land swap deal, under which Ukraine would cede the Donbas region to Russia. The Russian President is reported to have privately made clear his desire for control of five key Ukrainian regions.
Mr Witkoff said he "didn't have the time to go through all the different issues about five regions", but all those in question "have always been the crux of the deal".
He also insisted Russia had made some concessions during Friday's meeting but declined to elaborate.
Mr Witkoff said Mr Zelenskyy had been briefed by Mr Trump after the Alaska summit. "The President got right on the phone with him and he deserved that," he said.
Despite his failure to come away with a ceasefire, Mr Trump said there had been "some great progress" on ending the war in Ukraine, without offering details.
In a subsequent interview with Fox News, he raised the possibility of another summit involving Mr Zelenskyy and suggested the next move towards peace must come from Kyiv.
"Now, it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done and I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit, but it's up to President Zelenskyy," he said. "And if they'd like, I'll be at that next meeting."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska has generated significant discussion about its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As the political landscape continues to shift, it is crucial to analyze how these developments reflect broader historical patterns of power and conflict, especially in light of the enduring struggles for sovereignty and justice in Ukraine. The rhetoric surrounding this meeting, coupled with the political maneuvers of the Trump administration, reveals a troubling narrative that prioritizes geopolitical interests over the rights and safety of civilian populations.
Historically, Russia's aggressive expansionism in Eastern Europe can be traced back to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which left a power vacuum that has since been filled by renewed Russian imperial ambition. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a critical turning point, highlighting not only the fragility of post-Soviet states but also the West's often tepid response to Russian aggression. This backdrop is essential for understanding the current dynamics at play. Trump's assertion of "big progress on Russia" must be viewed through the lens of past failures to adequately confront authoritarianism—a pattern that has often led to further aggression rather than restraint.
The comments made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio further illustrate the complicity of certain U.S. leadership figures in downplaying the serious implications of engaging with Putin without clear accountability measures. Rubio's defense of the meeting, which he framed as a pragmatic approach to diplomacy, neglects the reality that such engagements can embolden authoritarian regimes. This is particularly concerning given the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, where the stakes involve not just territorial integrity but the fundamental rights of millions of Ukrainians. The notion that “critics will always find something to criticize” deflects from a critical discussion about ethical diplomacy and accountability in international relations—a discussion that is often sidelined in favor of political expediency.
The proposed land swap deal, which would require Ukraine to cede parts of its territory, reflects a dangerous precedent in international law and the principles of sovereignty. Historical parallels can be drawn to the Munich Agreement of 1938, where concessions to authoritarian regimes were made in the hope of achieving peace, only to lead to greater conflict. This raises important questions about the moral implications of negotiating peace at the expense of justice and self-determination. For Ukrainians, the prospect of relinquishing land—essentially rewarding aggression—could embolden not only Russia but also set a dangerous precedent for other authoritarian regimes around the globe.
Moreover, the narrative constructed around Trump’s meeting with Putin overlooks the voices of those most affected by this conflict: the Ukrainian people. Their calls for security guarantees should be prioritized over geopolitical bargaining chips. The framing of the conversation around land swaps and concessions obscures the human cost of such decisions. As the conflict continues to displace millions and disrupt lives, it is imperative to center the voices of marginalized populations in discussions about peace and diplomacy. A more just approach would involve the U.S. actively supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and providing the necessary diplomatic and military support to ensure that their rights are upheld.
In conclusion, the Alaska meeting serves as a microcosm of larger geopolitical dynamics that often prioritize power over justice. As advocates for social and political equity, it is crucial to remain vigilant against narratives that seek to normalize the infringement of national sovereignty in favor of short-term political gains. Engaging in substantive conversations about the implications of such diplomatic maneuvers, and advocating for the protection of human rights and accountability in international relations, is essential for advancing a more just global order. The ongoing struggle for peace in Ukraine is not just a regional issue; it is emblematic of a broader fight against authoritarianism that resonates across the world.
The recent meeting between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has reignited a long-standing debate regarding U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to Russia and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Trump's assertion of "big progress on Russia" signals a potential pivot in U.S.-Russia relations that elicits concern not only among foreign policy experts but also among everyday Americans who understand the stakes involved. Historically, the U.S. has maintained a firm stance against Russian aggression, particularly after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. This latest encounter appears to dilute that stance, raising questions about the implications for both Ukraine's sovereignty and the broader international order.
The context of this meeting is critical. For years, the United States has supported Ukraine through military aid and diplomatic channels, emphasizing the importance of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. The potential for a land swap, as suggested by Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, threatens to legitimize Russia's occupation of Ukrainian territories and could set a dangerous precedent where aggression is rewarded. This approach undermines not only Ukraine's sovereignty but also the principles of international law, which have been the backbone of global relations since World War II. By framing negotiations in terms of concessions, the U.S. runs the risk of normalizing Putin's expansionist ambitions, which could embolden similar actions elsewhere.
Moreover, the statements from key figures such as Marco Rubio highlight a troubling trend in American politics: the downplaying of legitimate criticisms of autocratic leaders in the name of political expediency. Rubio's claim that critics will "always find something to criticize" suggests a dismissive attitude towards the legitimate concerns regarding Putin's actions and the implications they hold for global stability. This mindset is dangerous, as it undermines the need for accountability in international relations. As Americans, we must advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomatic integrity over political gain, ensuring that the voices of those affected by such decisions—namely Ukrainians—are heard and respected.
As concerned citizens, there are actionable steps we can take to address this troubling trajectory. First and foremost, we can engage in advocacy efforts aimed at urging our representatives to oppose any agreements that compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity. Writing letters, making phone calls, and participating in town halls can amplify our collective voice, making it clear that the American populace values sovereignty and the rule of law over political maneuvering. Furthermore, we can support organizations that work towards promoting democracy and human rights in Eastern Europe, ensuring that the fight for freedom is not relegated to the background of U.S. foreign policy discussions.
Educational efforts are also crucial in this context. Understanding the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations and the historical backdrop of the Ukraine conflict equips us to have informed discussions with those who may hold differing views. It allows us to articulate why a strong stance against Russia's military actions is not just a moral position but a necessary one for the security of Europe and the credibility of the United States on the world stage. By fostering dialogue grounded in historical facts, we can challenge narratives that seek to minimize or excuse aggressive behavior by authoritarian regimes.
In conclusion, the implications of Trump's meeting with Putin extend far beyond a mere photo op; they signal a potential shift in how the U.S. engages with global autocracies. As citizens, we must remain vigilant and informed, advocating for policies that uphold democratic values and international law. By holding our leaders accountable, engaging in meaningful discourse, and supporting efforts that promote freedom and self-determination, we can contribute to a foreign policy that reflects the principles we hold dear. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now.
The recent news regarding the meeting between former President Trump and Russian President Putin has sparked significant concern over the implications for Ukraine and broader geopolitical stability. Here are several actionable steps individuals can take to express their opinions and advocate for a just resolution to the situation.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Stay informed about the complexities of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its geopolitical ramifications. Share this knowledge within your community.
2. **Engage in Advocacy**: Join or support organizations that promote peace, diplomacy, and human rights in Ukraine and globally.
3. **Participate in Petitions**: Sign and circulate petitions that demand accountability and a just resolution to the conflict.
4. **Contact Your Representatives**: Make your voice heard by directly contacting your elected officials regarding their stance on the Ukraine-Russia situation.
5. **Support Local and National Protests**: Participate in peaceful demonstrations that advocate for a resolution to the conflict based on human rights and international law.
### Exact Actions You Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for U.S. Support of Ukraine**: Visit websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org and search for petitions advocating for robust U.S. support for Ukraine. Share these petitions with your network. - **Example Petition**: “Support Ukraine's Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity” on Change.org.
2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - **Write to Your Senators**: - **Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)**: Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck; Mailing: 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)**: Email: durbin.senate.gov/contact; Mailing: 711 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **What to Say**: Express your concerns about the U.S.'s approach to Russia and the importance of supporting Ukraine's sovereignty. You could say, “As your constituent, I urge you to prioritize diplomatic efforts that uphold international law and support Ukraine in maintaining its territorial integrity.”
3. **Engage with Local Organizations**: - **Join Groups**: Look for local peace organizations or humanitarian groups focused on Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian National Women's League of America or the International Rescue Committee. - **Volunteer**: Offer your time and skills to help organizations that are providing support to Ukrainian refugees or advocating for peace.
4. **Utilize Social Media**: - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to raise awareness about the situation. Share articles, petitions, and calls to action to engage your friends and followers. - Tag influencers and organizations that focus on international relations and peacebuilding.
5. **Attend Town Halls or Community Meetings**: - Look for local town hall meetings where foreign policy is discussed. Prepare questions for your representatives regarding their positions on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
6. **Support Journalism and Media**: - Subscribe to and support independent news outlets that provide in-depth coverage of the Russia-Ukraine situation, ensuring that accurate and diverse perspectives are amplified.
By taking these steps, individuals can contribute to a larger collective effort advocating for peace, accountability, and the protection of human rights. Each action, no matter how small, contributes to the broader movement towards resolving the conflict and promoting stability in the region.