Putin praises Trump’s peace efforts even after failing to win the Nobel prize

Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a news conference after the summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, Friday, Oct. 10, 2025. (Vladimir Smirnov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday praised U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace efforts, despite not winning a Nobel, and voiced hope for securing an agreement to extend a pivotal nuclear arms pact with Washington for another year.

Asked by reporters whether he thinks Trump was unjustly passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize in favor of Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, Putin replied that he wasn’t the one to decide but extolled Trump’s efforts toward a ceasefire in Gaza and in Ukraine.

“He’s really doing a lot to resolve such complex crises that have lasted for years and even decades,” Putin said of Trump while in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, for a summit of former Soviet nations. He added that if the Gaza ceasefire deal is carried out, it would mark a “historic” achievement.

Trump quickly thanked Putin on his Truth Social network, posting a video showing the Russian president’s comments and citing his praise on trying to settle global crises.

The Russian leader didn’t comment on Machado’s win, but he said without mentioning any names that the Nobel Committee in the past has awarded the prize to those who have accomplished little to help global peace.

“There have been cases where the committee has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to people who have done nothing for peace,” Putin said. “A person comes, good or bad, and (gets it) in a month, in two months, boom. For what? He didn’t do anything at all. In my view, these decisions have done enormous damage to the prestige of this prize.”

Belarus’ authoritarian leader called the Nobel committee’s failure to award the prize to Trump “sheer stupidity.”

The committee’s members “have done a disservice to the peace process in all spots,” said Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko in televised remarks from Tajikistan. Lukashenko, whose country has faced isolation from the West for his brutal crackdown on dissent, spoke with Trump in August, leading to a U.S.-brokered deal that saw dozens of Belarusian political prisoners freed and an easing of sanctions on the national airline.

Turning to the conflict in Ukraine that has dragged on for more than three and a half years, Putin said he and Trump discussed ways to settle it at their summit in Alaska in August, adding that “on the whole, we have an understanding, both on the part of the United States and on the part of the Russian Federation, about where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict.”

Putin said he told Trump in Alaska that he needed more time to think about it and discuss it with Russia’s allies.

“These are complex issues that require further analysis, but we remain committed to the discussion that took place in Anchorage,” he said, adding that “perhaps we can still accomplish a lot based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage.”

He voiced hope that Moscow and Washington would agree to extend the 2010 New START arms reduction treaty for another year after it expires in February. The pact limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

When asked about Putin’s proposal in September to extend the New START agreement, Trump said Sunday it “sounds like a good idea to me.”

Putin said Friday that Russia and the U.S. still have enough time to agree on its extension “if there is a good will.”

He noted that “if the American side decides that it doesn’t need it, it’s not critical for us at all,” as Russia has upgraded its strategic nuclear arsenals and is preparing to field new weapons.

At the same time, he warned that the pact’s demise would mean that there will be no arms control agreement left between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

“We’re ready to negotiate if the Americans, the American side sees it as acceptable and useful,” he said. “If not, then no. It would be a pity, because there would be nothing left at all in terms of deterrence in the area of ΓÇïΓÇïstrategic offensive weapons.”

Vladimir Isachenkov, The Associated Press