SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
On Saturday, December 12--the last day of the COP21 talks--thousands of Parisiens and many others from around Europe and the U.S. marched from the Arc de Triumphe to the Eiffel Tower for climate action and climate justice. (Photo: takver/flickr/cc)
The Paris climate agreement, hammered out at last December's COP21 talks and signed Friday by close to 170 nations, is alternately being hailed as "a turning point for humanity" and denounced as "a dangerous distraction."
There's no doubt that the deal "is the capstone of years and years of hard work," as Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Ken Kimmell put it on Thursday.
"The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry."
--May Boeve, 350.org
And the magnitude of the ceremonial signing in New York--attended by countries ranging from tiny Palau to major polluters like the U.S. and China--"confirms there's strong global will to act urgently to limit the dire impacts of climate change, by shifting away from fossil fuels toward clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies," said Kimmell's colleague, UCS director of strategy and policy Alden Meyer.
But Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), said the ceremony was merely the "global elite's theater," lacking "substance on implementation and ambition."
Requiring, as it does, countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in an effort to keep global warming below 2degC, "The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry," said 350.org executive director May Boeve, "if governments actually follow through on their commitments."
That's a big "if."
In the United States, for instance, the carbon-cutting Clean Power Plan is seen as a critical component to meeting reduced emissions targets. But as the Los Angeles Times explained on Friday:
The centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda -- the Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants -- is in limbo as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from states and industries that say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to carry out the plan. Even if it survives, scientists say much more needs to be done to meet emissions reductions stipulated in the Paris agreement -- reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 26% to 28% below their 2005 levels by 2025.
And even if governments fulfill their emissions-reduction pledges, many experts say that won't be enough to prevent climate disaster.
"From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
--Jagoda Munic, Friends of the Earth International
A new analysis released this week by Climate Interactive and MIT's Sloan business school called for "deeper, earlier emissions cuts," warning that "full implementation of the current pledges would result in expected warming by 2100 of 3.5degC (6.3degF)"--far beyond the consensus threshold of 2degC. This supports a similar warning put forth last year by a wide-ranging coalition of civil society groups, which said the COP21 pledges put forward by countries add up to warming of around 3degC, and possibly higher.
Indeed, said Jagoda Munic, FOEI chairperson, "From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
In a statement, the Women's Global Call for Climate Justice said on Friday that "while the agreement in Paris may represent a starting point for collective action...the terms are unclear and unjust, the ambition is too low, and the rights of people and the planet have not been secured." The group is holding an Earth Day rally outside the UN to draw attention to how women and frontline communities are impacted by climate change.
Another group, Climate Mobilization, is holding a "die-in" in New York on Friday "to underscore the true impact of the Paris agreement: runaway climate change, state failure, and the deaths of billions."
Citing the significant "unfinished business left from Paris," Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima on Friday said the provisions in the deal "are not enough to avoid a pathway towards a 3degC world and does not ensure the provision of adequate funding to ensure millions of vulnerable people can prepare for and respond to increasing climate chaos."
In fact, she noted, "If all of today's public climate adaptation finance were to be divided among the world's 1.5 billion smallholder farmers in developing counties, they would get around $3 each a year to cope with climate change."
In order to curtail dangerous climate change, according to FOEI:
To do so will require a paradigm shift, said Nnimmo Bassey, director of the HOME (Health of Mother Earth) Foundation.
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document."
--Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document," he pointed out. "It is shocking that although the burning of fossil fuels is known to be a major contributor to global warming, climate negotiations engage in platitudes rather than going to the core of the problem."
"Scientists tell us that burning of fossil fuels would have to end by 2030 if there would be a chance of keeping temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels," Bassey continued. "The signal we get from the silence on the fossils factor is that oil and coal companies can continue to extract profit while burning the planet."
Signing is the first of a two-step process for countries to formally join the agreement--the next is ratification. The deal will come into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gases, complete this process.
In the the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement Friday, and then President Barack Obama will ratify it before he leaves office in December, a senior U.S. official told CBS News in a conference call this week.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that 15 countries would formally join the agreement immediately on Friday, many of them small island developing states--which the World Resources Institute notes "are poised to suffer the worst impacts of climate change even though they contributed the least to causing the problem."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Paris climate agreement, hammered out at last December's COP21 talks and signed Friday by close to 170 nations, is alternately being hailed as "a turning point for humanity" and denounced as "a dangerous distraction."
There's no doubt that the deal "is the capstone of years and years of hard work," as Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Ken Kimmell put it on Thursday.
"The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry."
--May Boeve, 350.org
And the magnitude of the ceremonial signing in New York--attended by countries ranging from tiny Palau to major polluters like the U.S. and China--"confirms there's strong global will to act urgently to limit the dire impacts of climate change, by shifting away from fossil fuels toward clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies," said Kimmell's colleague, UCS director of strategy and policy Alden Meyer.
But Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), said the ceremony was merely the "global elite's theater," lacking "substance on implementation and ambition."
Requiring, as it does, countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in an effort to keep global warming below 2degC, "The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry," said 350.org executive director May Boeve, "if governments actually follow through on their commitments."
That's a big "if."
In the United States, for instance, the carbon-cutting Clean Power Plan is seen as a critical component to meeting reduced emissions targets. But as the Los Angeles Times explained on Friday:
The centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda -- the Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants -- is in limbo as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from states and industries that say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to carry out the plan. Even if it survives, scientists say much more needs to be done to meet emissions reductions stipulated in the Paris agreement -- reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 26% to 28% below their 2005 levels by 2025.
And even if governments fulfill their emissions-reduction pledges, many experts say that won't be enough to prevent climate disaster.
"From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
--Jagoda Munic, Friends of the Earth International
A new analysis released this week by Climate Interactive and MIT's Sloan business school called for "deeper, earlier emissions cuts," warning that "full implementation of the current pledges would result in expected warming by 2100 of 3.5degC (6.3degF)"--far beyond the consensus threshold of 2degC. This supports a similar warning put forth last year by a wide-ranging coalition of civil society groups, which said the COP21 pledges put forward by countries add up to warming of around 3degC, and possibly higher.
Indeed, said Jagoda Munic, FOEI chairperson, "From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
In a statement, the Women's Global Call for Climate Justice said on Friday that "while the agreement in Paris may represent a starting point for collective action...the terms are unclear and unjust, the ambition is too low, and the rights of people and the planet have not been secured." The group is holding an Earth Day rally outside the UN to draw attention to how women and frontline communities are impacted by climate change.
Another group, Climate Mobilization, is holding a "die-in" in New York on Friday "to underscore the true impact of the Paris agreement: runaway climate change, state failure, and the deaths of billions."
Citing the significant "unfinished business left from Paris," Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima on Friday said the provisions in the deal "are not enough to avoid a pathway towards a 3degC world and does not ensure the provision of adequate funding to ensure millions of vulnerable people can prepare for and respond to increasing climate chaos."
In fact, she noted, "If all of today's public climate adaptation finance were to be divided among the world's 1.5 billion smallholder farmers in developing counties, they would get around $3 each a year to cope with climate change."
In order to curtail dangerous climate change, according to FOEI:
To do so will require a paradigm shift, said Nnimmo Bassey, director of the HOME (Health of Mother Earth) Foundation.
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document."
--Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document," he pointed out. "It is shocking that although the burning of fossil fuels is known to be a major contributor to global warming, climate negotiations engage in platitudes rather than going to the core of the problem."
"Scientists tell us that burning of fossil fuels would have to end by 2030 if there would be a chance of keeping temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels," Bassey continued. "The signal we get from the silence on the fossils factor is that oil and coal companies can continue to extract profit while burning the planet."
Signing is the first of a two-step process for countries to formally join the agreement--the next is ratification. The deal will come into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gases, complete this process.
In the the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement Friday, and then President Barack Obama will ratify it before he leaves office in December, a senior U.S. official told CBS News in a conference call this week.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that 15 countries would formally join the agreement immediately on Friday, many of them small island developing states--which the World Resources Institute notes "are poised to suffer the worst impacts of climate change even though they contributed the least to causing the problem."
The Paris climate agreement, hammered out at last December's COP21 talks and signed Friday by close to 170 nations, is alternately being hailed as "a turning point for humanity" and denounced as "a dangerous distraction."
There's no doubt that the deal "is the capstone of years and years of hard work," as Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Ken Kimmell put it on Thursday.
"The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry."
--May Boeve, 350.org
And the magnitude of the ceremonial signing in New York--attended by countries ranging from tiny Palau to major polluters like the U.S. and China--"confirms there's strong global will to act urgently to limit the dire impacts of climate change, by shifting away from fossil fuels toward clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies," said Kimmell's colleague, UCS director of strategy and policy Alden Meyer.
But Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), said the ceremony was merely the "global elite's theater," lacking "substance on implementation and ambition."
Requiring, as it does, countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in an effort to keep global warming below 2degC, "The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry," said 350.org executive director May Boeve, "if governments actually follow through on their commitments."
That's a big "if."
In the United States, for instance, the carbon-cutting Clean Power Plan is seen as a critical component to meeting reduced emissions targets. But as the Los Angeles Times explained on Friday:
The centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda -- the Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants -- is in limbo as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from states and industries that say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to carry out the plan. Even if it survives, scientists say much more needs to be done to meet emissions reductions stipulated in the Paris agreement -- reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 26% to 28% below their 2005 levels by 2025.
And even if governments fulfill their emissions-reduction pledges, many experts say that won't be enough to prevent climate disaster.
"From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
--Jagoda Munic, Friends of the Earth International
A new analysis released this week by Climate Interactive and MIT's Sloan business school called for "deeper, earlier emissions cuts," warning that "full implementation of the current pledges would result in expected warming by 2100 of 3.5degC (6.3degF)"--far beyond the consensus threshold of 2degC. This supports a similar warning put forth last year by a wide-ranging coalition of civil society groups, which said the COP21 pledges put forward by countries add up to warming of around 3degC, and possibly higher.
Indeed, said Jagoda Munic, FOEI chairperson, "From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up. The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
In a statement, the Women's Global Call for Climate Justice said on Friday that "while the agreement in Paris may represent a starting point for collective action...the terms are unclear and unjust, the ambition is too low, and the rights of people and the planet have not been secured." The group is holding an Earth Day rally outside the UN to draw attention to how women and frontline communities are impacted by climate change.
Another group, Climate Mobilization, is holding a "die-in" in New York on Friday "to underscore the true impact of the Paris agreement: runaway climate change, state failure, and the deaths of billions."
Citing the significant "unfinished business left from Paris," Oxfam International executive director Winnie Byanyima on Friday said the provisions in the deal "are not enough to avoid a pathway towards a 3degC world and does not ensure the provision of adequate funding to ensure millions of vulnerable people can prepare for and respond to increasing climate chaos."
In fact, she noted, "If all of today's public climate adaptation finance were to be divided among the world's 1.5 billion smallholder farmers in developing counties, they would get around $3 each a year to cope with climate change."
In order to curtail dangerous climate change, according to FOEI:
To do so will require a paradigm shift, said Nnimmo Bassey, director of the HOME (Health of Mother Earth) Foundation.
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document."
--Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation
"The Paris Agreement locks in fossil fuels and, to underscore corporate capture of the negotiations, the word 'fossil' is not as much as mentioned in the document," he pointed out. "It is shocking that although the burning of fossil fuels is known to be a major contributor to global warming, climate negotiations engage in platitudes rather than going to the core of the problem."
"Scientists tell us that burning of fossil fuels would have to end by 2030 if there would be a chance of keeping temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels," Bassey continued. "The signal we get from the silence on the fossils factor is that oil and coal companies can continue to extract profit while burning the planet."
Signing is the first of a two-step process for countries to formally join the agreement--the next is ratification. The deal will come into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gases, complete this process.
In the the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement Friday, and then President Barack Obama will ratify it before he leaves office in December, a senior U.S. official told CBS News in a conference call this week.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that 15 countries would formally join the agreement immediately on Friday, many of them small island developing states--which the World Resources Institute notes "are poised to suffer the worst impacts of climate change even though they contributed the least to causing the problem."
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"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 Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."