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

Turkey host the COP31 after reaching compromise with Australia

Published

on

By

Belem (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- Australia will not hold next year’s UN climate summit, Australia will allow Türkiye to host COP31 next year but Australia will lead negotiations there.

Climate Minister Chris Bowen revealing Australia was willing to cede hosting rights to Türkiye in exchange for it handing him the reins of the negotiations and cementing a major role for the Pacific at the summit.

There had been a growing expectation that Australia would drop its bid to host COP31 in Adelaide as it struggled to convince Türkiye to pull out of the contest.

Under UN rules, if the two countries were unable to strike a deal, then the meeting location would automatically revert to Germany, which hosts the United Nations body responsible for the Paris Agreement.

This unusual arrangement has taken observers by surprise. It is normal for a COP president to be from the host country and how this new partnership will work in practice remains to be seen.

Despite this, there will be relief among countries currently meeting at COP30 in the Brazilian city of Belém that a compromise has been reached as the lack of agreement on the venue was becoming an embarrassment for the UN.
Australia has pushed hard to have the climate summit in the city of Adelaide, arguing that they would co-host the meeting with Pacific island states who are seen as among the most vulnerable to climate change and rising sea levels.
Turkey, which has proposed hosting COP31 in the city of Antalya, felt that they had a good claim to be the host country as they had stood aside in 2021 and allowed the UK to hold the meeting in Glasgow.
If neither country was willing to compromise then the meeting would have been held in the German city of Bonn, the headquarters of the UN’s climate body.
As a result of discussions at COP30, a compromise appears to have been reached.

This includes pre-COP meeting will be held on a Pacific island, while the main event is held in Turkey. 

Australian Minister believes having a COP president not from the host country will work and that he will have the considerable authority reserved for the president of these gatherings. As COP president of negotiations, I would have all the powers of the COP presidency to manage, to handle the negotiations, to appoint co-facilitators, to prepare draft text, to issue the cover decision,” he said.
He also confirmed to Turkey will also appoint a president who will run the venue, organise the meetings and schedules.

Australia’s climbdown will be embarrassing for the government of Mr Albanese, after lobbying long and hard to win support among the other nations in the Western Europe group.
The compromise will have to be ratified by more than 190 countries gathered here for COP30 in Belem, Brazil.

Photos @ Imran Y. CHOUDHRY

Continue Reading

World News

Titanic passenger’s watch expected to fetch £1m

Published

on

By

A gold pocket watch recovered from the body of one of the richest passengers on the Titanic is expected to fetch £1m at auction.

Isidor Straus and his wife Ida were among the more than 1,500 people who died when the vessel travelling from Southampton to New York sank after hitting an iceberg on 14 April 1912.

His body was recovered from the Atlantic days after the disaster and among his possessions was an 18 carat gold Jules Jurgensen pocket watch that will go under the hammer on 22 November.

Auctioneer Andrew Aldridge, of Henry Aldridge & Son in Wiltshire, told BBC Radio Wiltshire: “With the watch, we are retelling Isidor’s story. It’s a phenomenal piece of memorabilia.”

Mr Straus was a Bavarian-born American businessman, politician, and co-owner of Macy’s department store in New York.

“They were a very famous New York couple,” said Mr Aldridge.

“Everyone would know them from the end of James Cameron’s Titanic movie, when there is an elderly couple hugging as the ship is sinking – that’s Isidor and Ida.”

On the night of the sinking, it is believed his devoted wife refused a place in a lifeboat as she did not want to leave her husband and said she would rather die by his side.

Ida’s body was never found.

BNPS A golden watch engraved on the inside with February 6th 1888.
It is believed the watch was a gift from Ida to her husband in 1888

The pocket watch stopped at 02:20, the moment the Titanic disappeared beneath the waves.

It is believed to have been a gift from Ida to her husband in 1888 and is engraved with Straus’ initials.

It was returned to his family and was passed down through generations before Kenneth Hollister Straus, Isidor’s great-grandson, had the movement repaired and restored.

It will be sold alongside a rare letter Ida wrote aboard the liner describing its luxury.

She wrote: “What a ship! So huge and so magnificently appointed. Our rooms are furnished in the best of taste and most luxurious.”

The letter is postmarked “TransAtlantic 7” meaning it was franked on board in the Titanic’s post office before being taken off with other mail at Queenstown, Ireland.

Both items will be offered by Henry Aldridge & Son in Wiltshire, with the letter estimated to fetch £150,000.

The watch is set to become one of the most expensive Titanic artefacts ever sold.

The auction house said news of the sale had already generated “significant interest from clients all over the world”.

BNPS The letter from Ida, which is neatly written on and has an "on board RMS Titanic" stamp in the corner.
The letter by Ida is estimated to fetch £150,000

“Theirs was the ultimate love story – Isidor epitomised the American Dream, rising from humble immigrant to a titan of the New York establishment, owning Macy’s department store,” a spokesperson for the auction house said.

“As the ship was sinking, despite being offered a seat in a lifeboat, Ida refused to leave her husband and stated to him ‘Isidor we have been together all of these years, where you go, I go’.”

The spokesperson added: “This is the reason why collectors are interested in the Titanic story 113 years later – every man, woman and child had a story to tell and those stories now are retold through these objects.”

gold pocket watch presented to the captain of the Carpathia, the steamship which rescued more than 700 Titanic survivors, sold last year a record-breaking £1.56m.

Continue Reading

World News

Major corruption scandal engulfs top Zelensky allies

Published

on

By

Ukraine’s energy and justice ministers have resigned in the wake of a major investigation into corruption in the country’s energy sector.

President Volodymyr Zelensky called for Energy Minister Svitlana Grynchuk and Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko’s removal on Wednesday.

On Monday anti-corruption bodies accused several people of orchestrating a embezzlement scheme in the energy sector worth about $100m (£76m), including at the national nuclear operator Enerhoatom.

Some of those implicated in the scandal are – or have been – close associates of Zelensky’s.

The allegation is that Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko and other key ministers and officials received payments from contractors building fortifications against Russian attacks on energy infrastructure.

Among those alleged to be involved are former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov and Timur Mindich – a businessman and a co-owner of Zelensky’s former TV studio Kvartal95. He has since reportedly fled the country.

Halushchenko said he would defend himself against the accusations, while Grynchuk said on social media: “Within the scope of my professional activities there were no violations of the law.”

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) and Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sap) said the investigation – which was 15 months in the making and involved 1,000 hours of audio recordings – uncovered the participation of several members of the Ukrainian government.

According to Nabu, the people involved systematically collected kickbacks from Enerhoatom contractors worth between 10% and 15% of contract values.

The anti-corruption bodies also said the huge sums had been laundered in the scheme and published photographs of bags full of cash. The funds were then transferred outside Ukraine, including to Russia, Nabu said.

Prosecutors alleged that the scheme’s proceeds were laundered through an office in Kyiv linked to the family of former Ukrainian lawmaker and current Russian senator Andriy Derkach.

Nabu has been releasing new snippets of its investigation and wiretaps every day and on Tuesday it promised more would come.

The scandal is unfolding against the backdrop of escalating Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities, including substations that supply electricity to nuclear power plants.

It will also shine a spotlight on corruption in Ukraine, which continues to be endemic despite work by Nabu and Sap in the 10 years since they were created.

In July, nationwide protests broke out over changes curbing the independence of Nabu and Sap. Ukrainians feared the nation could lose the coveted status of EU candidate country which it was granted on condition it mounted a credible fight against corruption.

Kyiv’s European partners also expressed severe alarm at the decision, with ambassadors from the G7 group of nations expressing the desire to discuss the issue with the Ukrainian leadership.

The backlash was the most severe to hit the Ukrainian government since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and was only quelled by Zelensky’s decision to reinstate the freedom of the two anti-corruption bodies.

Yet for some that crisis brought into question Zelensky’s dedication to anti-corruption reforms. The latest scandal threatens to lead to more awkward questions for the Ukrainian president.

Continue Reading

Trending