12 hours ago! Trump pursues peace deal after leaving Alaska without ceasefire pact 12 hours ago Share Save Jake Lapham BBC News in Anchorage George Wright BBC News 1:52 Watch: How the Trump-Putin summit unfolded in 82 seconds Donald Trump has said he would prefer a permanent peace agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine war over a temporary ceasefire. Writing on Truth Social after leaving a meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska without reaching any deal, the US president said that ceasefires "often times do not hold up". Trump had earlier said that "great progress" was made during the meeting but "we didn't get there" when it came to a deal. On his flight back to Washington, he held a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who later said he would travel to Washington DC on Monday. Follow updates on this story Trump said it had been "a great and very successful day in Alaska" after arriving back in Washington. He added that the meeting with Putin had gone "very well", as had phone calls with Zelensky, European leaders and Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte. "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up," he wrote. "If all works out" with Zelensky on Monday "we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin", Trump added. Zelensky said that a "real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions". Putin and Trump's arrival at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage was carefully choreographed. The Russian president, who is facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, stepped off his jet and onto a red carpet to be warmly received by Trump. Over the roar of a B2 bomber overhead, the two leaders posed for photos before climbing in Trump's presidential vehicle, known as The Beast. But despite the pageantry and public shows of geniality - as well as the Kremlin's earlier estimate that the meeting could last six or seven hours - Trump and Putin emerged less than three hours later with just a joint statement to the press. 1:06 Handshakes and a shared limo: Our correspondents unpack Trump and Putin's greeting Putin said that, in order to make a "settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict" in Ukraine. The phrasing indicated that Putin has not budged from his longstanding position that Ukraine should withdraw from four regions partially occupied by Russia - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - and give up its efforts to join Nato. Zelensky has ruled out ceding territory, saying it would embolden Russia to invade again in the future, as it had in 2022 eight years after illegally annexing Crimea. Putin also urged Ukrainians and Europeans to "not throw a wrench" into the peace process. Trump remained silent as his guest spent about eight minutes addressing the media. After being given the floor, the US president said he had a "fantastic relationship with President Putin. Vladimir". Even though "many points were agreed", he said, "a few" remain, adding that "one is the most significant" - without specifying. Neither took questions. The two also did not attend the planned bilateral "working lunch" that was set to follow the talks.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment