Connect with us

News

Putin’s peace theatre keeps Trump watching — and Kyiv waiting

Published

on

Putin’s peace theatre keeps Trump watching — and Kyiv waiting

In parallel to a brutal war along a 1,000km front, Russia and Ukraine are locked in a titanic diplomatic battle to persuade Donald Trump that the other is the real impediment to peace. 

So Vladimir Putin took a big risk over the last week, slow rolling US negotiators over a peace proposal, according to officials familiar with the discussions, then refusing to turn up for talks with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Turkey that he himself had publicly initiated.

So far, the Russian leader’s refusal to engage on terms set by others has been met with little resistance — and certainly not enough to compel concessions or alter the course of his war.

The clearest sign of that came when US President Donald Trump seemed to excuse the Russian leader’s no-show on Thursday and simultaneously questioned the whole point of the Russia-Ukraine talks, saying: “Nothing’s gonna happen until Putin and I get together.”

It was a gift to Putin, who has long sought a one-on-one meeting with a president determined to normalise US-Russian relations. For the Ukrainians, it revived their worst fears — that Trump will seek to cut a deal with Putin over their heads and sell Ukraine down the river. 

Advertisement

“Putin is doing just enough to convince Trump that he is engaged in this effort to find peace in Ukraine, while also doing as much as possible to make sure it goes nowhere,” said a senior European diplomat involved in the negotiations between western capitals. “And Trump is falling for it.”

That suspicion is shared by some of America’s closest allies. Putin, German defence minister Boris Pistorius said this week, was “trying to lead the American president down the garden path” by refusing to come to Istanbul. “I’m pretty sure that the American president can’t be happy about that,” he told reporters in Berlin.

(2nd left to right) US secretary of state Marco Rubio, Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan and Andriy Yermak, head of the Ukrainian president’s office, in Istanbul on Friday © Arda Kucukkaya/Turkish Foreign Ministry via Getty Images

Putin’s reluctance to take part in substantive peace negotiations has become clearer in recent days, even to those in the Trump administration who had been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

On Thursday last week, senior Russian officials told Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, that Putin did not want to discuss the 22-point peace plan that Witkoff had drawn up with Ukrainian and European input, three people briefed on the discussions told the FT.

Those 22 points were discussed at length the following day on a call between Ukrainian and US officials, according to people familiar with the matter. Ukraine was represented on the call by Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, and Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov; the US by Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also currently serving as national security adviser, and Gen Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Kyiv.

Advertisement

Russia’s response resulted in Witkoff, who has met Putin for talks four times since February, postponing provisional plans to meet the Russian leader this week, the people said. A person close to Witkoff said no trip had been planned.

Russian President Vladimir Putin greets US special envoy Steve Witkoff (left) prior to their talks in Moscow on April 25
Russian President Vladimir Putin greets US special envoy Steve Witkoff (left) prior to their talks in Moscow on April 25 © Kristina Kormilitsyna/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

In the days that followed, the pace of diplomatic activity picked up. European and Ukrainian leaders met to call for an unconditional, 30-day ceasefire in the war, warning Putin of tough new sanctions if he failed to comply — a demand supported by the US.

Putin rejected the demand but came back with his own counterproposal — direct Russia-Ukraine talks, to be held on Thursday in Istanbul. Trump welcomed the idea and urged Zelenskyy to take part. The Ukrainian leader acceded to his request and challenged Putin to come to Turkey himself for what would have been only the second in-person meeting between them. 

But the Russian leader refused and sent a low-level delegation instead, led by his former culture minister Vladimir Medinsky.

The meeting, held on Friday, wrapped up after less than two hours, without a breakthrough. The two sides agreed to swap thousands of prisoners-of-war, but made no progress on a lasting ceasefire.

European leaders expressed their frustration. “The past few hours have shown that Russia has no interest in a ceasefire and that, unless there is increased pressure from the Europeans and Americans to achieve this outcome, it will not happen spontaneously,” said French President Emmanuel Macron said, referring to new sanctions.

Advertisement

“People in Ukraine and across the world have paid the price for Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and across Europe, now he must pay the price for avoiding peace,” said UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer.

Starmer, Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk ended up issuing a joint statement saying Putin’s position was “unacceptable”.

The four leaders, together with Zelenskyy, also held a joint phone call with Trump. Starmer said there was now “a high level of co-ordination” between a core of four countries — the UK, France, Germany and Poland — “and the US administration of President Trump” on Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives to speak to the media after his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Thursday in Ankara, Turkey
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives for a press conference after meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara, Turkey on Thursday © Getty Images

“It is just drip, drip, drip,” said one European foreign minister, referring to Europe’s messaging to the Trump administration in the hope the president eventually shifts position on Russia.

But so far that European rhetoric has not been matched by anyone in the Trump administration, which has continued to express frustration with both sides in the conflict, without singling out Russia, and hint that it could walk away.

Rubio said on Thursday that Trump was “willing to stick with this as long as it takes to achieve peace”. “What we cannot do, however, is continue to fly all over the world and engage in meetings that are not going to be productive,” he said.

Advertisement

A senior Ukrainian official described the situation as Putin and Zelenskyy being locked in a geopolitical game of “blackjack” — with Trump as the dealer.

Putin held a “strong but risky” hand, the official said. Ukraine is betting that if he draws one more card, the Russian president could go “bust”.

Additional reporting by George Parker in Tirana

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending