Ukraine

The summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin ended predictably, without a ceasefire deal or, it seems, assent on much else. Trump said “Many points were agreed to, and there are just a very few that are left,” but failed to offer any details. Even if true, the leftovers are critical, and the gulf between the two governments on the war remains huge. Critically, Putin cares more about security than image or economics, and understandably believes that he would lose leverage by agreeing to halt military operations before winning the concessions he demands from Ukraine. Nevertheless, the summit improved, however slightly, the prospects for negotiating an end to the war.

"Alaska," said the mountaineer Jon Krakauer, "is a place that constantly reminds you of just how small you are in the grand scheme of things." I doubt somehow that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will echo that sentiment when they meet tomorrow in the Last Frontier to carve up the future between themselves – Plumb-Pudding-in-Danger-style. The two leaders will have each traveled some eight hours over their own mighty lands to see each other. It will be a case of today, Ukraine; tomorrow, ze world.  Yesterday, the Trump administration went to great lengths to assure nervous European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Trump would not, in their absence, simply roll over for Putin.

Already the Kremlin is setting the terms of the forthcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Steve Witkoff, Trump's emissary, set the meeting in motion with his mission to Moscow on Wednesday, which Trump called “highly productive.” But productive of what? Putin’s foreign-policy adviser Yuri Ushakov stated today that it was the White House, not the Kremlin, that wanted the meeting. He went on to dismiss Trump's proposal that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could take part in a tripartite negotiation, noting that “for this to happen, certain conditions must be created. Unfortunately, such conditions are far away yet.” Those conditions remain the complete surrender of Ukraine.  The Kremlin, in other words, has a strategic plan.

Before I’d established my tiny crew of fellow local moms, I aggressively befriended – or tried to befriend – any woman with a baby who looked vaguely friendly. I’d try my luck in cafes, playgrounds, baby classes, yet with only minimal success (one find, a Cambridge-educated Irish lawyer, "forgot" her wallet on our date, leaving me to pay for her expensive glass of wine).So I clung gratefully to one of my café pickups, Marta, with whom two or three pleasant playdates (or rather: mommy walking dates) had taken place. I had rosy hopes for more as her kid was cute and reminded me of my own. But one day, strolling along the dark and wintry main drag that connected our two adjacent neighborhoods, things took a turn for the ominous.

The activities of First Lady Melania Trump have been the subject of much discussion in Cockburn’s circles during her husband’s second term. Where is she? What is she up to? For the most powerful spouse in the world, she keeps an extraordinarily low profile. But now a new theory has emerged: she’s been spying for Ukraine. Over the weekend, an X user named “Kate from Kharkiv” posted a photo of Melania wearing a blue blazer bearing the Ukrainian trident insignia. Melania is also wearing one of her signature wide-brimmed hats, which shield her eyes from enemy view. “Agent Melania Trumpenko,” the caption read. https://twitter.

No, President Trump wasn’t referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin when he talked at a White House luncheon today about a “stupid guy” and a “knucklehead.” But he did make it clear that his long-standing bromance with the Kremlin’s big cheese has turned out to be unrequited, much to his distress.   Trump lamented that Putin’s talk about peace was so much rodomontade, amounting to more than a “nice phone call” followed by a bunch of missiles lobbed at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. It was Melania, he said, who had noted to him the inconsistency between Putin’s words and deeds. Perhaps Melania, more than anyone else, injected some iron into Trump’s previously anemic posture towards Moscow.

Home Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, in the face of a rebellion by 120 backbenchers over the welfare bill, undertook to limit to new claimants restrictions on personal independence payments (Pip). Modelling by the Department for Work and Pensions predicted that 150,000 people might be pushed into ‘relative poverty’ by the revised welfare cuts, compared with 250,000 before. Still fearing defeat, the government made more last-minute concessions, postponing changes to Pip rules until after a review by Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister. The government then won the second reading by 335 to 260, with 49 Labour MPs voting against. It was not clear that the eviscerated bill would reduce spending.