Connect with us

World News

Putin’s Plan: A Chance for Peace or Escalation?

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, set the stage for a whirlwind of diplomatic maneuvering among all stakeholders in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. More than thirty European nations that have supported Ukraine against Russian aggression were forced to reassess their strategies in light of the unexpected opening that emerged from the summit. The encounter did not yield a ceasefire or an immediate breakthrough, but it opened a fragile doorway toward a potential peace settlement, one that has already triggered frantic consultations across capitals and drawn in leaders who fear being sidelined in the process.
At the heart of the Alaska talks was a dramatic pivot by Trump, who abandoned the initial idea of negotiating a temporary ceasefire and instead pressed for a comprehensive peace deal. Putin’s proposal, which Trump appeared willing to explore, was stark and uncompromising. It required Ukraine to cede Donetsk and Luhansk in their entirety, recognizing them as Russian-controlled regions, while Russia would agree to withdraw from small pockets it still occupies in the northern oblasts of Kharkiv and Sumy. The deal also demanded that Ukraine renounce NATO membership permanently, accept international recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and agree to lift certain sanctions. Further conditions included granting official status to the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. Perhaps most controversially, Putin made it clear that a ceasefire would not precede the agreement but would only take effect after its implementation, making Ukrainian concessions a precondition to ending the war.
This land-for-peace proposal was quickly labeled unacceptable in Kyiv, yet Trump described the discussions as “productive” and even suggested the two sides were “close to a deal.” He left the impression that if Zelensky accepted the plan, Trump would claim credit for ending the war, while still insisting Ukraine must make the final choice. Trump’s envoy later revealed that Putin had agreed in principle to allow the United States and Europe to extend NATO-style security protections to Ukraine. This appeared to be a potential breakthrough, though it was far from clear whether such guarantees would amount to anything as robust as Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. The ambiguity was deliberate: Trump sought to preserve flexibility, while Putin insisted that border changes be recognized internationally, a condition flatly rejected by Kyiv and its allies.
The immediate reaction from Europe was alarm. France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, the European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen, and the UK’s Keir Starmer, among others, pressed urgently to be included in the next round of talks. They feared that a one-on-one Trump–Zelensky meeting in Washington could result in Zelensky being humiliated or pressured into territorial concessions under duress. The White House initially resisted but eventually relented under mounting pressure, confirming that the meeting in Washington would now be a multilateral summit involving European leaders alongside Trump and Zelensky. Europe’s stance was clear: there could be no peace imposed without Ukraine’s consent, no recognition of territorial conquest, and no settlement without a verifiable ceasefire as a starting point.
For Europe, the stakes go beyond solidarity with Ukraine. The concern is existential. If Ukraine is forced into surrender, Russia would feel emboldened to threaten Poland, the Baltic states, and perhaps even Central Europe. This explains why European leaders have demanded not only robust NATO-style guarantees for Ukraine but also assurances that Russia will not use any peace settlement as a staging ground for further expansion. They know that if the United States withdraws its military and financial support under Trump’s threats, the burden will shift onto Europe alone. That prospect is politically and financially untenable, and so the Europeans are determined to anchor themselves firmly in the negotiations.
The human cost of the conflict adds urgency. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, thousands of lives lost, and entire cities reduced to rubble. The war has devastated supply chains for energy, grain, and minerals, driving up food and oil prices, fueling inflation, and worsening hardship across the globe. Developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have been particularly hard hit, with rising bread prices triggering political unrest and shortages of fuel crippling fragile economies. Sanctions on countries trading with Russia have further compounded the crisis, choking commerce and punishing populations far from the battlefield. A resolution, however imperfect, could lift these burdens, stabilize markets, and release billions of dollars currently being spent on weapons back into reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and development.
Trump himself framed the Alaska meeting as an opening rather than an outcome, claiming progress on “many points” but offering few specifics. His tone was optimistic yet evasive, carefully avoiding commitments that might limit his room to maneuver. Putin, meanwhile, presented his maximalist plan as if it were already the only acceptable solution. Zelensky, speaking from Kyiv, rejected the idea of trading land for peace and emphasized that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were not negotiable. His message was clear: no deal could be reached if it forced Ukraine to concede regions without the consent of its people.
In this tension lies the fragility of the moment. Trump sees an opportunity to present himself as a peacemaker and deal-maker, potentially reshaping his image at home and abroad. Putin sees a chance to lock in gains achieved by force, turning temporary occupation into permanent sovereignty. Zelensky faces the impossible task of defending his nation’s survival while resisting pressure from allies who may be tiring of war. Europe, caught between solidarity with Ukraine and fear of abandonment by Washington, must walk a fine line between supporting Kyiv and securing guarantees for its own security.
The way forward demands wisdom. Ceasefire must come first, for as long as bombs fall, peace talks are built on sand. Territorial disputes could be managed through international mechanisms such as supervised referenda or peacekeeping deployments, ensuring decisions are not taken under the shadow of guns. Robust, legally binding security guarantees must replace vague assurances, ensuring Ukraine cannot again be left exposed to invasion. Sanctions could be lifted in phases, tied directly to verified steps by Russia toward compliance, maintaining leverage while rewarding genuine progress. Above all, leaders must recognize that ego and pride cannot outweigh the suffering of millions.
History rarely offers golden opportunities, and when they appear, they must be grasped with courage. The Alaska summit has opened such a door, but it will slam shut if mistrust, humiliation, or unilateralism dominates the talks. If this moment is squandered, the war will not only continue but risk spreading across Europe, drawing in NATO and igniting catastrophe on a continental scale. Yet if leaders embrace compromise, soften hardened positions, and commit to saving lives rather than scoring victories, the world may remember Anchorage not as another failed summit but as the first step toward peace.
War is cruel, and its wounds are long-lasting, but peace—even fragile peace—is always worth the risk. The lives saved, the economies revived, and the trust restored will outshine any battlefield victory. The world now watches as Trump, Putin, Zelensky, and Europe decide whether to rise to the occasion or condemn millions to further destruction. The choice is theirs, and history will judge them accordingly.

World News

‘National security is non-negotiable’: Parliamentary secretary on Afghanistan strikes

Published

on

By

ISLAMABAD: Parliamentary Secretary for Information and Broadcasting Barrister Danyal Chaudhry on Monday stressed that national security was “non-negotiable” after Pakistan carried out strikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan, killing over 80 terrorists.

“Pakistan has always chosen the path of dialogue and peaceful coexistence. But when Afghan soil continues to be used for proxy attacks, we have no choice but to defend our homeland. National security is non-negotiable,” Chaudhry said in a statement.

The PML-N MNA affirmed that the people of Pakistan “stand firmly” with their armed forces in the fight against terrorism.

He urged the Afghan government to take “decisive action to prevent its land from being used for cross-border militancy”, warning that lasting peace in the region depended on the “complete dismantling of terrorist sanctuaries”.

Noting that the recent operation “successfully neutralised militants involved in attacks on Pakistani soil”, Chaudhry stressed: “This action was aimed solely at those responsible for violent attacks inside Pakistan. Every precaution was taken to protect innocent lives.”

He also pointed to Afghanistan’s emergence as a “sanctuary for multiple terrorist groups”. Referring to a United Nations report, he noted that militants from 21 terror outfits were operating from Afghan territory, posing a serious threat to regional stability.

He specifically called out India’s “continued support for terrorist networks”.

“India is actively funding and training these groups, equipping them to carry out cross-border attacks against Pakistan. Such elements deserve no concessions,” the parliamentary secretary asserted.

His remarks came after Pakistan carried out airstrikes on Afghanistan in a retaliatory operation targeting groups responsible for recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.

The strikes killed “more than 80 terrorists”, according to security sources.

The strikes were conducted in retaliation for a series of suicide attacks in IslamabadBajaur, and Bannu that had claimed the lives of Pakistani security personnel and civilians. Authorities described the operation as intelligence-based and proportionate, aimed solely at those responsible for the attacks.

‘Decisive struggle against terrorism’

Separately, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi asserted that the country will “not allow our soil to be destabilised by forces operating from across the border in Afghanistan”.

In a post on X, he said: “The citizens of Pakistan, especially the resilient people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, stand firmly with our armed forces and security institutions in the defense of our homeland.”

He further said: “The sacrifices of our martyrs bind us together as one nation. In this decisive struggle against terrorism, Pakistan stands united, resolute, and unwavering.

“Our sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the people of this country stand shoulder to shoulder with the state to protect it at all costs.”

Continue Reading

World News

More than 1,500 Venezuelan political prisoners apply for amnesty

Published

on

By

A total of 1,557 Venezuelan political prisoners have applied for amnesty under a new law introduced on Thursday, the country’s National Assembly President has said.

Jorge Rodríguez, brother of Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodríguez and an ally of former President Nicolás Maduro, also said “hundreds” of prisoners had already been released.

Among them is politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, one of several opposition voices to have criticised the law for excluding certain prisoners.

The US has urged Venezuela to speed up its release of political prisoners since US forces seized Maduro in a raid on 3 January. Venezuela’s socialist government has always denied holding political prisoners.

At a news conference on Saturday Jorge Rodríguez said 1,557 release requests were being addressed “immediately” and ultimately the legislation would extend to 11,000 prisoners.

The government first announced days after Maduro’s capture, on 8 January, that “a significant number” of prisoners would be freed as a goodwill gesture.

Opposition and human rights groups have said the government under Maduro used detentions of political prisoners to stamp out dissent and silence critics for years.

These groups have also criticised the new law. One frequently cited criticism is that it would not extend amnesty to those who called for foreign armed intervention in Venezuela, BBC Latin America specialist Luis Fajardo says.

He noted that law professor Juan Carlos Apitz, of the Central University of Venezuela, told CNN Español that that part of the amnesty law “has a name and surname”. “That paragraph is the Maria Corina Machado paragraph.”

It is not clear if the amnesty would actually cover Machado, who won last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, Fajardo said.

He added that other controversial aspects of the law include the apparent exclusion from amnesty benefits of dozens of military officers involved in rebellions against the Maduro administration over the years.

On Saturday, Rodríguez said it is “releases from Zona Seven of El Helicoide that they’re handling first”.

Those jailed at the infamous prison in Caracas would be released “over the next few hours”, he added.

Activists say some family members of those imprisoned in the facility have gone on hunger strike to demand the release of their relatives.

US President Donald Trump said that El Helicoide would be closed after Maduro’s capture.

Maduro is awaiting trial in custody in the US alongside his wife Cilia Flores and has pleaded not guilty to drugs and weapons charges, saying that he is a “prisoner of war”.

Continue Reading

World News

Iran students stage first large anti-government protests since deadly crackdown

Published

on

By

Students at several universities in Iran have staged anti-government protests – the first such rallies on this scale since last month’s deadly crackdown by the authorities.

The BBC has verified footage of demonstrators marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology in the capital Tehran on Saturday. Scuffles were later seen breaking out between them and government supporters.

A sit-in was held at another Tehran university, and a rally reported in the north-east. Students were honouring thousands of those killed in mass protests in January.

The US has been building up its military presence near Iran, and President Donald Trump has said he is considering a limited military strike.

The US and its European allies suspect that Iran is moving towards the development of a nuclear weapon, something Iran has always denied.

US and Iranian officials met in Switzerland on Tuesday and said progress had been made in talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme.

But despite the reported progress, Trump said afterwards that the world would find out “over the next, probably, 10 days” whether a deal would be reached with Iran or the US would take military action.

The US leader has supported protesters in the past – at one stage appearing to encourage them with a promise that “help is on its way”.

Footage verified by the BBC shows hundreds of protesters – many with national Iranian flags – peacefully marching on the campus of the Sharif University of Technology at the start of a new semester on Saturday.

The crowds chanted “death to the dictator” – a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – and other anti-government slogans.

Supporters of a rival pro-government rally are seen nearby in the video. Scuffles are later seen breaking out between the two camps.

Verified photos have also emerged showing a peaceful sit-in protest at the capital’s Shahid Beheshti University.

The BBC have also verified footage from another Tehran university, Amir Kabir University of Technology, showing chanting against the government.

In Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city in the north-east, local students reportedly chanted: “Freedom, freedom” and “Students, shout, shout for your rights”.

Sizeable demonstrations in other locations were also reported later in the day, with calls for further rallies on Sunday.

It is not immediately clear whether any demonstrators have been arrested.

Last month’s protests began over economic grievances and soon spread to become the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (Hrana) said it had confirmed the killing of at least 6,159 people during that wave, including 5,804 protesters, 92 children and 214 people affiliated with the government.

Hrana also said it was investigating 17,000 more reported deaths.

Iranian authorities said late last month that more than 3,100 people had been killed – but that the majority were security personnel or bystanders attacked by “rioters”.

Saturday’s protests come as the Iranian authorities are preparing for a possible war with the US.

The exiled opposition is adamantly calling on President Trump to make good on his threats and strike, hoping for a quick downfall of the current hardline government.

But other opposition groups are opposed to outside intervention.

The opposing sides have been involved in disinformation campaigns of social media, trying to maximise their conflicting narratives of what Iranian people want.

Additional reporting by BBC Persian’s Ghoncheh Habibiazad, and BBC Verify’s Richard Irvine-Brown and Shayan Sardarizadeh.

Continue Reading

Trending