Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Friday that “the crisis in Ukraine” might have been prevented if Donald Trump was in power at the time, saying he was ready to talk with the new US president about the conflict.

Trump has long claimed that the war in Ukraine would not have happened under his watch, but Friday marked the first time Putin suggested the same thing – while also repeating Trump’s false claim that the 2020 US election was “stolen.”

“I can’t help but agree with (Trump) that if his victory had not been stolen in 2020, then maybe there would not have been the crisis in Ukraine that arose in 2022,” Putin told a Russian TV channel, presumably referring to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine which he himself had ordered in February 2022.

Trump has said in the past that he would end the war in Ukraine in one day, but then gave his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg 100 days to find a solution.

The new administration has so far not unveiled any concrete plan for how to achieve peace in Ukraine, but Trump said this week that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky had told him he wants to make a deal and suggested Putin should also want to find a solution.

“So, I think Russia should want to make a deal. Maybe they want to make a deal. I think from what I hear, Putin would like to see me. We’ll meet as soon as we can. I’d meet immediately. Every day we don’t meet soldiers are being killed in a battlefield,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.

Putin seemed amenable to meeting Trump, saying Russia was “always open to this.”

“As for the issue related to negotiations – we have always said, and I will emphasize this once again, that we are ready for negotiations on the Ukrainian issue,” the Russian leader told the Russian TV channel. A day earlier the Kremlin said it was waiting on “signals” from Washington.

The statement from Putin came a day after Trump made a threat of new sanctions against Moscow while addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos.

However, Putin questioned that warning on Friday, saying such a move would hurt the American economy. “He is not only a smart person, he is a pragmatic person, and I can hardly imagine that decisions will be made that will harm the American economy itself,” Putin said.

Whispers rippled through the court in the moments before Prince Harry’s lawyer sensationally revealed a settlement had been reached with Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.

But for those at London’s High Court on Wednesday, the 11th-hour drama hadn’t been entirely unexpected.

Rumblings emerged the day before, on what should have been the first day of the trial over alleged unlawful information gathering. But repeated adjournments prevented proceedings from even starting.

Harry and his fellow claimant, ex-Labour Party politician Tom Watson, later heralded the agreement as a “monumental victory,” after receiving an full apology from News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World.

“NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun,” it said in a lengthy statement.

The publisher also apologized to Harry for various invasions of privacy through illegal practices by journalists and private investigators working for the News of the World, which shut in 2011.

For those watching at home, the settlement seemed like an unexpected about-face from the 40-year-old royal who had previously been so resolute about seeing the case through.

After all, Harry recently reiterated his position, telling a New York Times summit last month that he was “the last person that can actually achieve” accountability, as legal costs had pushed so many others pursuing similar claims to settle, and the duke wanted to help them get “closure.”

Civil cases are designed to be settled out of court. The tabloid group has paid huge sums to victims of phone hacking and other illegal activities carried out by the News of the World, and settled claims brought by more than 1,300 people.

Harry had been willing to continue despite the potentially hefty costs as the case reflected his more deeply personal mission: seeking truth and accountability.

He has also relentlessly pursued a wider war against tabloid newspapers in the United Kingdom, launching civil actions against multiple publishers here, because he wants to help change the country’s media landscape.

For Harry, the invasion of privacy goes back to his childhood. He has often recalled watching his mother suffer from it, before he experienced it himself and then felt his wife had been forced to endure it, too. Getting NGN to include an apology referencing “the extensive coverage and serious intrusion” into Diana’s private life will probably have been incredibly meaningful to him.

Speaking outside the court afterward, Harry’s co-claimant in the suit, former deputy Labour Party leader Watson, described the royal as a “predator” taking on the “big beast of the tabloid jungle.” He praised the duke for “unwavering support and determination under extraordinary pressure.”

But in achieving the settlement, Harry may have felt that he got as much and gone as far as he could through civil avenues. He’s walking away with NGN’s extensive apology and hefty damages – understood to be an eight-figure total sum for both claimants.

Had the trial got underway, the duke’s legal team was set to argue that illegal techniques were widespread at the NGN tabloids and claim that the practices were well-known by executives and senior staff who allowed them to continue.

The settlement led the judge to vacate the trial, meaning those allegations will now not be tested. NGN has previously and continues to reject any claims of a cover-up or destruction of evidence.

“This matter was also investigated fully by the police and CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) between 2012-2015, at the conclusion of which it was found that there was no case to answer,” a spokesperson for NGN said in a statement.

Whether or not a fresh police investigation follows, as Harry and Watson hope, will be the big question in the days and weeks ahead. Watson said outside court that their dossier of information would be passed to authorities.

Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley said in an interview on LBC Radio on Friday that “much of the material in the civil litigation actually came from those (previous) investigations” before adding that it would review any material sent to the force.

Israel says it has received a list of four female hostages Hamas is due to release on Saturday as part of a ceasefire deal.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said that the list was received through mediators and added that Israel’s response would be provided later.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Thirteen-year-old Zakariya Barbakh had spent most of his life shuffling between hospitals across Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Israel.

Born without a lung, he had struggled to breathe. Doctors had predicted he would need a transplant if he were to reach adulthood. But the last 15 months of war in Gaza had made that impossible.

When the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect on Sunday, Zakariya was ecstatic.

“Mom, now we can go look for my lungs!” his mother recalled him saying.

Less than 24 hours later, Zakariya was shot dead.

“He didn’t die from his disease; he ended up dying at the hands of the occupation. All he wanted was to have lungs to breathe, what did he do to deserve this? What did this child do?” his mother said, unable to hold back tears.

Zakariya is one of at least four Palestinians shot by the Israeli military since the ceasefire went into effect.

The Israeli military has withdrawn to buffer zones along Gaza’s border, but has warned Palestinians against approaching areas where its troops are still stationed. It has published a map of zones that are “very dangerous” to approach.

But where those zones begin and end is not always as clear on the ground.

“How would he know he would face occupation forces? How would he know he was in the wrong area? All he did was try to find something to eat. He got lost along the way. Can you not see the way this child looks? He looks sick and despairing,” his mother said.

The video shows a man trying to drag Zakariya’s lifeless body before he too is shot. The man survived

News that Israel and Hamas had reached a ceasefire deal triggered celebrations across the Strip last Wednesday. But in several areas those celebrations were soon drowned out by the sound of Israeli airstrikes.

In the four days between when the deal was announced and when it went into effect on Sunday morning, Israeli attacks killed at least 142 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Civil Defense, including dozens of women and children.

Among them were members of 3-year-old As’ad Khalifa’s family.

Less than 24 hours after the ceasefire deal was announced, an Israeli airstrike targeted his home.

As’ad survived, but in an instant, he became an orphan. His parents and sister were killed in the strike.

Dallou knew the family as they had been displaced by the war at the same time. He went searching for them under the rubble with other neighbors. Using basic equipment and their bare hands, they were able to uncover and retrieve the dead bodies of the mother and father but the children remained missing.

Before they gave up, they heard the cries of a child and began frantically throwing aside blocks of cement until they reached the source.

After a grueling 30 minutes, they found a small hand reaching out amid the rubble and gripping the air. They were able to pull the child – As’ad – out, roughed up and covered in dust – but alive. His little sister was found dead next to him.

Dallou and his sister Mawada have since taken him in.

“The IDF took intelligence measures to mitigate harm to uninvolved individuals,” the statement added.

Dallou has children of similar age to As’ad, which has helped to integrate him into their family. But he is concerned about how As’ad will grow up.

“I know from my experience with my little daughter that this child is going through a difficult psychological state. They are petrified from any sound now …They start crying for their mother,” he said.

Mawada said that because she knew As’ad’s mother, she would do everything she can to embrace him.

“We will try, but we will not be able to replace his mother or bring her back.”

US President Donald Trump’s policy on Ukraine is a little scattered and meandering, and at times misinformed. But be in no doubt that it exists and seems an unanticipated priority.

Trump’s policy on Ukraine distinguishes itself in two ways in the first week of his administration.

The first is his persistent criticism of the economic damage the Kremlin head is doing to Russia. Trump is making a business case for a peace deal, telling Russian President Vladimir Putin he needs to make a pact for financial reasons.

This may misread Putin’s apparent pathological commitment to victory, and the broad existential nature of the conflict for Moscow in the eyes of its propagandists. They see this as a war against the entirety of NATO that they must win. The propaganda taps of Russian state media can be turned off as well as on. But Russia’s mindset is radicalized where the West’s is not. It’s not a business case of quarterly profit and loss for the Kremlin, but one of survival.

The second is how regularly Trump talks of the war after excluding it — and any mention of Ukraine and Russia — from his inauguration speech on Monday. He correctly suggested Thursday a lower oil price could impede Russia’s ability to wage war. Russia sells oil to China and India to keep its war machine going, despite sanctions aimed at reducing its revenue.

Trump said he would talk to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, whose troops are fighting for Moscow now in Kursk. He also correctly suggested Beijing has great influence over Moscow and could force a peace deal upon them.

Again, Trump is approaching the conflict from his comfort zone: one where everyone is seeking a smooth deal that makes them richer. China may seek calm, and perhaps ultimately wish the Ukraine conflict had never begun. But that is not the reality of now, and instead Xi Jinping is treading a delicate path: watching his ally Moscow degrade their military and economy to the extent they become Beijing’s junior partner, while also realising Russia cannot lose the fight without a knock-on impact to China’s global ambitions.

The calculations made now by America’s adversaries concern the world order over the coming decade, not the immediate telephone call sheet of the White House, or how fast slick interpersonal dealings might wrap up the biggest land conflict in Europe since the 1940s.

Trump’s repeated call for NATO’s European members to pay more for defense – an unlikely demand of 2% of GDP rising to 5% – has even been echoed by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

It is correct to state this is Europe’s war. If Kyiv loses, Poland, the Baltics, Romania and Moldova will feel the heat, not Florida or California. Even NATO’s head, Mark Rutte, has suggested Europe might buy arms for Ukraine from the United States. Trump was always going to challenge the cost of the war to Washington, and speedily Europe is being backed into a corner to step up.

It is also intriguing to see Trump talk of the damage the war has done. He said incorrectly Thursday millions had died on both sides. Kyiv has said 43,000 Ukrainian troops have died. The UN says about 12,000 Ukrainian civilians have died.

Western officials say regularly Russia’s losses amount to 700,000 dead and injured, and independent media have tracked nearly 100,000 public records that suggest Russian military deaths on the battlefield.

Yet Trump’s incorrect, emotional reference to millions may be aimed at evoking the urgency and horror of the war in the minds of an American audience for whom it is a side issue rarely discussed.

Trump said he could bring peace to Ukraine in 24 hours, which was always a wild rhetorical exaggeration. Even the six months now evoked is optimistic. But he has taken office seized with a wobbly yet vivid grasp of the war’s issues. That may falter, as he slowly realizes a deal is not low hanging fruit and his adversaries – because that is what Putin is, however “great” Trump says they get along – are more patient, enduring and conniving than he is.

But his opening week has done much to dispel the greater fear from Ukraine and its allies that Trump preferred coziness with Putin to NATO’s unity. Or that his wild and unrealistic promises of diplomacy from the campaign trail would evaporate – along with funding for the war – the moment he came to office. This may all still happen, and the road ahead for Trump is deeply complex and fraught with rivals who have years more experience in the job, and much more to lose or gain.

But Trump is seized of the issue, has an emotional albeit shaky grasp of the war’s horrors, and is critical of, not fawning towards, Putin. It’s yet another unforeseen turn in a conflict ruled by the unexpected.