Possible ‘agreement’ reached in Trump-Putin meeting; more discussion likely

It appears an “agreement” was reached in the Friday meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump, but the nature of that agreement remained unclear after a bilateral press conference Friday evening.

The two world leaders met for several hours in Alaska Friday – Putin’s first time visiting the U.S. in a decade – to discuss a path toward peace in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Putin said “an agreement” had been reached, but neither he nor Trump provided details beyond that.

“We had an extremely productive meeting,” Trump said during the press conference.

He said he would call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders to relay the details of the conversation, and his remarks seemed to confirm that at least an initial proposal had been agreed to but that there was further discussion that needed to be had.

“Many points were agreed to, and there are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” Trump said. “We didn’t get there but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

Earlier, he had said there was “no deal until there’s a deal,” and that it was “ultimately up to” Putin and Zelenskyy to commit to peace.

Putin said that Russia was “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the war with Ukraine, and he appeared open to foreign forces helping maintain and protect Ukraine’s security. But that was the only example that was provided of the Russian president agreeing to any of Ukraine’s publicly proposed conditions.

“We’re convinced that in order to make the settlement lasting and long term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict and… to consider all legitimate concerns of Russia and to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world on the whole,” Putin said.

“We agree with President Trump… that naturally, the security of Ukraine should be insured as well.”

Trump concluded by alluding to another future in-person meeting. Putin suggested Moscow.

“Oh, that’s an interesting one,” Trump smiled. “I’ll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening.”

The press conference concluded without the presidents taking any questions from reporters.

Morgan Sweeney

Staff Reporter

Related Topics:#RussiaUkraineWar #TheCenterSquare AlaskaSummit feature MorganSweeney TrumpPutinMeeting

Up Next

Putin Claims Ukraine War Wouldn’t Have Started If Trump Were President Instead Of Biden

Don't Miss

Toronto International Film Festival To Screen October 7 Doc After Backlash For Initial Ridiculous Excuse

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

RFK Jr’s argument for studying efficacy of various vaccines

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access

Addictions / 4 hours ago

The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Health

RFK Jr’s argument for studying efficacy of various vaccines

Published on November 3, 2025

Todayville

From HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy’s Facebook Page

To elevate America’s health, restore public trust, and reclaim our reputation for integrity and gold-standard science, President Donald J. Trump’s HHS will challenge even the most sacred public health dogmas through open debate and disciplined scientific scrutiny.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access

Published on November 3, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“The minister could order this dissident’s internet and phone services be cut off and require that decision remain secret”

Free speech advocates have warned that the Liberals’ cybersecurity bill would allow them to block any individual’s internet access by secret order.

During an October 30 Public Safety committee meeting in the House of Commons, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) counsel Josh Dehaas called for Liberals to rewrite Bill C-8, which would allow the government to secretly cut off Canadians access to the internet to mediate “any threat” to the telecommunications system.

“It is dangerous to civil liberties to allow the minister the power to cut off individual Canadians without proper due process and keep that secret,” Dehaas testified.

“Consider for example a protestor who the minister believes ‘may’ engage in a distributed denial of service attack, which is a common form of civil disobedience employed by political activists,” he warned.

“The minister could order this dissident’s internet and phone services be cut off and require that decision remain secret,” Dehaas continued, adding that the legislation does not require the government to obtain a warrant.

In response, Liberal MP Marianne Dandurand claimed that the legislation is aimed to protect the government form cyberattacks, not to limit freedom of speech. However, Dehaas pointed out that the vague phrasing of the legislation allows Liberals to censor Canadians to counter “any threat” to the telecommunications system.

Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and contains a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.

The federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”

The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote in a recent press release.

Similarly, Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, could potentially be unconstitutional, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.