President Zelenskyy rejects formally ceding Ukrainian territory, says Kyiv must be part of any negotiations
Zelenskyy said Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.'
Later Saturday, European and Ukrainian officials met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance in England to discuss how to end the more than three-year war. The talks came after Trump said he would meet with Vladimir Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelenskyy.
Representatives from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and Poland attended the meeting in Kent, Zelenskyy said in a post on X, calling the talks constructive.
'I have not heard any partners express doubts about America's ability to ensure that the war ends,' Zelenskyy said. 'The President of the United States has the levers and the determination.'
Earlier in the day, Zelenskyy dismissed the planned Trump-Putin summit, scheduled for Friday in Alaska, warning that any negotiations to end Europe's biggest conflict since World War II must include Kyiv.
'Any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work,' he said.
Ukrainian officials previously told The Associated Press privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily.
The Trump-Putin meeting may prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its western neighbor and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although there's no guarantee it will stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace.
'It seems entirely logical for our delegation to fly across the Bering Strait simply, and for such an important and anticipated summit of the leaders of the two countries to be held in Alaska,' Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said Saturday in a statement posted to the Kremlin's news channel.
In his comments at the White House Friday, Trump gave no details on the 'swapping of territories.' Analysts, including some close to the Kremlin, have suggested that Russia could offer to give up territory it controls outside of the four regions it claims to have annexed.
Trump said his meeting with Putin would come before any sit-down discussion involving Zelenskyy. His announcement that he planned to host one of America's adversaries on U.S. soil broke with expectations that they'd meet in a third country.
Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the AP that the 'symbology' of holding the summit in Alaska was clear and that the location 'naturally favors Russia.'
'It's easy to imagine Putin making the point. … We once had this territory and we gave it to you, therefore Ukraine had this territory and now should give it to us,' he said, referring to the 1867 transaction known as the Alaska Purchase when Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million.
President Donald Trump says he will meet Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the Ukraine warOn the streets of Kyiv, reactions to the idea of Ukraine ceding territory to Russia ranged from skepticism to quiet resignation.
'It may not be capitulation, but it would be a loss,' said Ihor Usatenko, a 67-year-old pensioner, who said he would consider ceding territory 'on condition for compensation and, possibly, some reparations.'
Anastasia Yemelianova, 31, said she was torn: 'Honestly, I have two answers to that question. The first is as a person who loves her country. I don't want to compromise within myself,' she told the AP. 'But seeing all these deaths and knowing that my mother is now living in Nikopol under shelling and my father is fighting, I want all this to end as soon as possible.'
Svitlana Dobrynska, whose son died fighting, rejected outright concessions but supported halting combat to save lives.
'We don't have the opportunity to launch an offensive to recapture our territories,' the 57-year-old pensioner said, 'But to prevent people from dying, we can simply stop military operations, sign some kind of agreement, but not give up our territories.'
Before Trump announced the summit, his efforts to pressure Russia to stop the fighting had delivered no progress.
Trump had moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions Saturday about possible sanctions.
The Kremlin's bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops and armor while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities.
On Saturday, two people died and 16 were wounded when a Russian drone hit a minibus in the suburbs of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, regional Gov. Oleksandr Prokudin said. Two others died after a Russian drone struck their car in the Zaporizhzhia region, according to regional Gov. Ivan Fedorov.
Ukraine's air force said it intercepted 16 of the 47 Russian drones launched overnight, while 31 drones hit targets across 15 different locations. It also said it shot down one of the two missiles Russia deployed.
Russia's Defense Ministry said its air defenses shot down 97 Ukrainian drones over Russia and the Black Sea overnight and 21 more Saturday morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump once openly discussed nuclear disarmament. What happened?
On Feb. 13, President Donald Trump did something truly rare — he made sense. In an Oval Office press meeting, for the first time in decades, a sitting president openly discussed nuclear disarmament: 'There's no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many... You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they're building nuclear weapons,' he said. He's right. China and India have unconditional no-first-use pledges in place. So did Russia until we continued to expand our already insane nuclear arsenal and exit such arms control agreements as the ABM Treaty and INF Treaty. The United States refused to come to the table. That's why Trump's expressed desire to return to negotiations was so promising. Returning to negotiations refers to multilateral nuclear reduction agreements on the premise of minimum effective deterrence. The commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and its deadly toll this past week gives us an opportunity to understand just what is at stake. That devastating first use of the atomic bomb killed at least 70,000 people instantly, a legacy of tragedy the world will not forget. Alas, Trump's initial promise of nuclear disarmament was short-lived. And what has actually happened since this unexpected moment of clarity from a leader who thrives on chaos? More chaos. Trump violated the war powers clause in launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear bases, and now, he refuses to rule out more strikes. Even if he deterred Iran's nuclear program, it put the U.S. directly at odds with other nuclear powers. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has even come out to say that other countries would simply provide Iran with nuclear his actions, Trump pushed us closer to the brink of nuclear war once more. The U.S. war machine and its many benefactors will stoke this, spurring on a new arms race to line their pockets. The fact is, more bombs will not solve nuclear proliferation — not by building them, not by hoarding them, and certainly not by using them on other countries. The president must make a choice: Protect our nation and the world, or instigate nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. could take the lead on denuclearization, cut back our bloated military budget, finally sign a no-first-use pledge, and actually make the world safer. Or we could keep feeding the weapons manufacturers, spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon while ignoring the fact that our biggest threats — climate change, poverty, and access to health care — can't be solved with bombs. But right now, we're on the wrong path — the path of excessive militarization and the risk of total annihilation. The path that mortgages our environment, livelihoods, and our souls to feed the insatiable war profiteers. Eighty years ago, one nuclear bomb incinerated over 100,000 people in Hiroshima. Right now, the U.S. has the equivalent of 50,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. And the Pentagon is spending $2 trillion on a whole new generation of nuclear weapons. The time of mutually assured destruction between two nuclear superpowers is over. The last thing we need is a new nuclear arms race. But that's what our corrupt Congress and war profiteers are betting on. Should Trump decide to take the denuclearization path, it could change the very fabric of America. Imagine the impact of just 15% of the Pentagon's budget going toward lead-free pipes and safe drinking water, affordable housing, and universal health care. It could single-handedly revitalize the American dream. Would we really be less secure if we spent only $850 billion a year preparing for war instead of our current $1 trillion? This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker: 'It's possible' Zelensky attends Trump-Putin talks in Alaska
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said 'it's possible' that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attends the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. CNN's Dana Bash asked Whitaker on 'State of the Union' if Zelensky would be invited to the Alaska summit to discuss a ceasefire deal. 'I certainly think it's possible,' Whitaker said. 'You know certainly, there can't be a deal that everybody that's involved in it doesn't agree to.' Trump is set to meet Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss an end to the 3-year-long Ukraine-Russia war. The White House said there would be talk of land concessions. 'You're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years. A lot of Russians have died, a lot of Ukrainians. So we're looking at that, but we're actually to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated. It's actually — nothing easy. It's very complicated. But we're going to get some back. And we're going to get some switched,' Trump said on Friday. There has also been some speculation that the White House could invite Zelensky to Alaska. 'The President remains open to a trilateral summit with both leaders. Right now, the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin,' a senior White House official told NewsNation's Libbey Dean on Saturday. Putin on Saturday also shared a ceasefire proposal with special envoy Steve Witkoff. The deal would be a complete halt in fighting, in exchange for Easter Ukraine, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not achieve anything,' Zelensky wrote on X in response. 'These are stillborn decisions. They are unworkable decisions. And we all need real and genuine peace. Peace that people will respect.' The summit has received mixed reactions, but Whitaker said he believes 'his direct engagement by President Trump is obviously leading us closer to a peace.'
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump promised lower grocery prices ‘on Day One.' Here's what happened
(NEXSTAR) – Campaigning for office a year ago, standing in front of a table loaded up with bags of flour, cartons of eggs and gallons of milk, President Donald Trump told voters, 'When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.' Unfortunately for him – and money-strapped Americans – it hasn't worked out that way. Nexstar employees around the country tracked a selection of grocery items over the past six months to see if prices would rise, fall or stay the same after Trump took office in January. Our observations, as well as federal data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), show grocery prices overall have remained stubbornly high and even increased slightly. The overall cost of food at home has ticked up between 0.2% and 0.4% almost every month since January, according to BLS tracking. One exception was in April 2025, when prices went down 0.1% from the month before. All those tiny increases have added up to a 3% increase in food prices year-over-year. The situation at any given grocery store is more nuanced and varied than the top-line national average would indicate. Goods that are shelf-stable also turned out to be pretty price-stable at the grocery stores we checked in San Jose, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Bismarck, North Dakota between January and July of 2025. The price of a box of cookies didn't change at all over the six-month period. 'Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work? But with fresh fruit, the time of year made a difference. Strawberries, for example, were much cheaper in the summer than they were in February. Why eggs are down, beef is up Some of the price changes also come amid industry impacts. Egg prices, for example, were inflated last year due to an avian flu epidemic. Those prices were expected to remain high into 2025, with some restaurants even imposing surcharges on egg orders. Since spiking in March, egg prices have been on the decline, but remain historically high. The latest Consumer Price Index shows the cost of eggs is up more than 27% between June 2024 and June 2025. They are, however, down nearly 11% from May to June this year. Beef prices are not bouncing back as well. Experts were warning in early 2024 that beef prices could reach record highs due to the lowest inventory since 1951, brought on by drought conditions and the rising costs of maintaining herds. Other factors that popped up this year, like tariffs and a flesh-eating screwworm, have pushed beef prices northward. New tariffs could raise prices of Ozempic, Wegovy Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that beef prices had jumped more than 8% since the start of the year. Beef and veal prices, combined on the CPI, are up more than 10% year-over-year. Between May and June, prices jumped almost 2.5%. Americans worried grocery prices will stay high The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of Trump's tariffs remain widespread. About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a 'major' source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a 'minor' source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials. Citing a report from the Tax Foundation, Nexstar's The Hill reported late last month that about 75% of the nation's food imports are expected to be impacted by Trump's latest round of tariffs, which took effect at the start of August. Days prior, an analysis by the Yale Budget Lab estimated food prices would rise more than 3% over the short term. Some foods that could see price hikes, according to The Hill, include seafood, coffee, rice, alcohol, and chocolate.
