The Americans were given the full VIP treatment on their visit to Moscow. 

There was a motorcade from the airport, lunch at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and even a stroll around Red Square.

It felt like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were on more of a tourist trail than the path to peace.

They finally got down to business in the Kremlin more than six hours after arriving in Russia. And by that point, it was already clear that the one thing they had come to Moscow for wasn’t on offer: Russia’s agreement to their latest peace plan.

According to Vladimir Putin, it’s all Europe’s fault. While his guests were having lunch, he was busy accusing Ukraine’s allies of blocking the peace process by imposing demands that are unacceptable to Russia.

The Europeans, of course, would say it’s the other way round.

But where there was hostility to Europe, only hospitality to the Americans – part of Russia’s strategy to distance the US from its NATO allies, and bring them back to Moscow’s side.

Putin thinks he’s winning…

Russia wants to return to the 28-point plan that caved in to its demands. And it believes it has the right to because of what’s happening on the battlefield.

It’s no coincidence that on the eve of the US delegation’s visit to Moscow, Russia announced the apparent capture of Pokrovsk, a key strategic target in the Donetsk region.

It was a message designed to assert Russian dominance, and by extension, reinforce its demands rather than dilute them.

Read more:
Michael Clarke answers your Ukraine war questions
‘Thousands’ of Westerners applying to live in Russia

…and believes US-Russian interests are aligned

The other reason I think Vladimir Putin doesn’t feel the need to compromise is because he believes Moscow and Washington want the same thing: closer US-Russia relations, which can only come after the war is over.

It’s easy to see why. Time and again in this process, the US has defaulted to a position that favours Moscow. The way these negotiations are being conducted is merely the latest example.

With Kyiv, the Americans force the Ukrainians to come to them – first in Geneva, then Florida.

As for Moscow, it’s the other way around. Witkoff is happy to make the long overnight journey, and then endure the long wait ahead of any audience with Putin.

It all gives the impression that when it comes to Russia, the US prefers to placate rather than pressure.

According to the Kremlin, both Russia and the US have agreed not to disclose the details of yesterday’s talks in Moscow.

I doubt Volodymyr Zelenskyy is filled with hope.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.

Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.

Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.

MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.

In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.

‘Time to stand up for farmers’

The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.

“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.

“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”

After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.

“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.

Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).

“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”

Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.

“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.

“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”

Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).

Former US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler renewed his warning to investors about the risks of cryptocurrencies, calling most of the market “highly speculative” in a new Bloomberg interview on Tuesday.

He carved out Bitcoin (BTC) as comparatively closer to a commodity while stressing that most tokens don’t offer “a dividend” or “usual returns.”

Gensler framed the current market backdrop as a reckoning consistent with warnings he made while in office that the global public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies doesn’t equate to fundamentals.

“All the thousands of other tokens, not the stablecoins that are backed by US dollars, but all the thousands of other tokens, you have to ask yourself, what are the fundamentals? What’s underlying it… The investing public just needs to be aware of those risks,” he said.

Gensler’s record and industry backlash

Gensler led the SEC from April 17, 2021, to Jan. 20, 2025, overseeing an aggressive enforcement agenda that included lawsuits against major crypto intermediaries and the view that many tokens are unregistered securities.

Related: House Republicans to probe Gary Gensler’s deleted texts

The industry winced at high‑profile actions against exchanges and staking programs, as well as the posture that most token issuers fell afoul of registration rules.

Under Gensler’s tenure, Coinbase was sued by the SEC for operating as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency, and for offering an unregistered staking-as-a-service program. Kraken was also forced to shut its US staking program and pay a $30 million penalty.

The politicization of crypto

Pushed on the politicization of crypto, including references to the Trump family’s crypto involvement by the Bloomberg interviewer, the former chair rejected the framing.

“No, I don’t think so,” he said, arguing it’s more about capital markets fairness and “commonsense rules of the road,” than a “Democrat versus Republican thing.”

He added: “When you buy and sell a stock or a bond, you want to get various information,” and “the same treatment as the big investors.” That’s the fairness underpinning US capital markets.

Related: Coinbase files FOIA to see how much the SEC’s ‘war on crypto’ cost

ETFs and the drift to centralization

On ETFs, Gensler said finance “ever since antiquity… goes toward centralization,” so it’s unsurprising that an ecosystem born decentralized has become “more integrated and more centralized.”

He noted that investors can already express themselves in gold and silver through exchange‑traded funds, and that during his tenure, the first US Bitcoin futures ETFs were approved, tying parts of crypto’s plumbing more closely to traditional markets.

Gensler’s latest comments draw a familiar line: Bitcoin sits in a different bucket, while most other tokens remain, in his view, speculative and light on fundamentals.

Even out of office, his framing will echo through courts, compliance desks and allocation committees weighing BTC’s status against persistent regulatory caution of altcoins.

Magazine: Solana vs Ethereum ETFs, Facebook’s influence on Bitwise — Hunter Horsley