Zelenskyy says he discussed security guarantees with Starmer
"We also discussed in considerable detail the security guarantees that can make peace truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killings and engage in genuine, substantive diplomacy," he said on X.
Zelenskyy added that the leaders also touched on investment in Ukrainian drone production.
Zelenskyy, who was in Germany on Wednesday, has been working with European leaders to press Trump not to allow Putin to carve up Ukraine's territory at the Alaska summit.
On Wednesday, Trump joined a Germany-hosted virtual meeting with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, who sought to set red lines ahead of the summit on ending the war in Ukraine.
Zelenskyy said he warned Trump that the Russian leader was "bluffing" about his desire to end the war.
Trump later threatened "severe consequences" if Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine and while he did not specify what the consequences could be, he has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting on Friday proves fruitless.
The comments and the outcome of the virtual conference on Wednesday could provide encouragement for Kyiv ahead of the summit.
Trump described the aim of his talks with Putin in Alaska as "setting the table" for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskyy.
"If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one," Trump said. "I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy and myself, if they'd like to have me there."
Britain, France and Germany, the co-chairs of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing", set out their position on the pathway to a ceasefire in Ukraine in a statement released after Wednesday's virtual meeting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Are Russia and Ukraine ready to accept 'frozen conflict' after years of fighting?
After heavy casualties, a huge loss of equipment and major damage to infrastructure, are Russia and Ukraine prepared to move towards an end to the war? The National has learnt that senior military officials from Ukraine would accept a 'frozen-in-place' conflict in return for a halt to the fighting. Russian analysts have argued that Moscow would be content to bring an end to the advances it has made at great cost, to allow its battered forces to rebuild. Concessions could need to be made by both sides, with an opening round of peace talks to follow Friday's Alaska summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, if the meeting takes place without a hiccup. Former British military intelligence officer Lynette Nusbacher told The National that Russia could be grateful for "rest and recuperation", before fighting flares again in years to come. Meanwhile, intelligence expert Frank Ledwidge has detected indications from Ukraine that it realises the game is up and it needs to protect what is left of the country, before support from countries such as the US ebbs away. Land grabbed In Ukraine, it is against the constitution to give up sovereign territory, but the reality is that Russia has seized 115,000 square kilometres, about one fifth of the country, since 2014. Kyiv has tried to reclaim territory. It was highly successful in retaking land in the summer following Russia's invasion in February 2022. Armed with advanced western hardware, Ukraine hoped to break through the front line the following year, but that push failed. Since then, Russia has undertaken an immense attritional offensive, at times losing up to 1,570 people a day, according to UK Defence Ministry estimates, while moving the front lines forward incrementally. Drone army Its war machine has also kicked in, with industry able to develop a major drone army that could generate 40,000 of the Geran-2 attack models this year. Waves of drones are causing civilian deaths and infrastructure damage, with a record 6,200 Geran-2 drones, which are based on the Iranian Shahed 136, fired into Ukraine in July. Analysts say Russia has learnt 'the hard way' that drones are the primary weapon of modern warfare and in recent months that has seen success. Although the casualty rate by modern standards is horrific – the UK Ministry of Defence said the average daily toll was 1,070 last month – it is declining gradually, despite Russia taking more territory. Its military has also adapted by using fewer armoured vehicles, which are easy prey for drones, and instead moving troops to the front lines using motorbikes. Moscow's own drone use has expanded to the point that Ukraine's ground lines of communication, which are used to move troops, ammunition, food and fuel forward, are under intense pressure up to 20km from the front line. Changing conditions Russian generals are also aware they have Ukraine's military under enough pressure to continue its creeping summer offensive until the end of September, when the heavy rain of the so-called autumn rasputitsa makes roads impassable. Russia is likely to recommend a ceasefire, with the front lines to be frozen in place, after it seizes as much territory as possible Ms Nusbacher said. 'Russia would consider it a good three years' effort if at this point they could step back from the fight for a few years, holding the relevant five chunks of Ukraine,' she added. 'Freezing the conflict for a period of time is optimally a moment when the Russians hold as much of Ukraine as possible, then they can rearm and reconstitute their forces.' Russia will use the rest well, she said. It would take months or a few years – as it did after the 2014 annexation of Crimea and Donbas – to prepare for its next invasion. Content to cede To prevent that, much depends on what security guarantees Nato, and especially the US, can give Ukraine and whether a 'coalition of the willing' defensive western force is viable to deter another attack. That will also have a major bearing on whether Ukraine concedes to accept the de facto position – which Mr Trump supports – that Ukraine needs to give up one fifth of its country in return for peace. But Mr Ledwidge said that senior military officials in Ukraine told him during his visit to the country this week that accepting a frozen conflict was realistic. 'For the first time in three years I've been coming here, they said they understand that realistically Nato membership may not be practicable and they would be prepared to lose land, in a de facto sense rather than legal one, as they understand the reality of situation,' he told The National from Kyiv. 'That's what they're prepared to countenance.' Mr Ledwidge was surprised by the change in position, but said the officials accepted 'we'll probably end up with frozen conflict for a long time to come'. Holding on With diminished military aid, Russian advances and the menace of a massive drone barrage, Ukraine is holding on, but only just. If Mr Trump decides Kyiv must be forced to accept territorial concessions, he could cut off US intelligence assistance. When that happened earlier this year, Ukraine lost a large chunk of territory and had little warning of incoming air raids. The problem for Moscow is that, over three years of war, Russia has been 'unable to convert its territorial gains into a Ukrainian capitulation' and that was unlikely to change in the Alaska talks, Ms Nusbacher said. There is a suggestion that a deal could be reached in which Russia holds security and economic control over seized territory, in a similar way to how Israel occupies the West Bank. Mr Putin could be lured towards such a prospect with offers of mineral exploitation in seized territory. There is also a danger that rejection of an agreement by Mr Zelenskyy 'might remove any further vestiges of US support", Ms Nusbacher said. That would greatly weaken Ukraine's position and 'would be decisive in causing it a rapid defeat by Russia', said Brig Ben Barry, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. He added that he did not see 'a sense of urgency that we really need to ramp up our support' from the West. Diplomatic moves But Mr Zelenskyy will be hopeful a round of diplomacy this week will help shore up his position, stating that the US was 'ready to support us', after a remote video conference with the American and European leaders. A ceasefire is still possible, with Mr Trump announcing there would be 'very severe consequences' if Mr Putin did not accept a truce. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who welcomed Mr Zelenskyy to Downing Street in a show of support on Thursday, also stated there was a 'viable chance as long as Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. The Ukraine military wants to be able to hold out until the rasputitsa then 'see what happens', with the potential that US sanctions could severely damage Russia's economy and Moscow loses its extraordinary ability to still recruit 30,000 troops a month. 'The Ukrainians are very concerned about the tactical side, but they're just holding out on their own, just waiting for what comes next,' Mr Ledwidge said. Ultimately, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty and it was 'not going to stop fighting if their current leader has stepped out of the picture", senior Kyiv officers have told Ms Nusbacher. But if Mr Putin was to leave office, that would be "a significant change in Russia's ability to continue to prosecute this war', she added. That meant that any deal from Alaska 'has ultimately got a fairly short sell-by date'.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Former Israeli captives tell Trump a military expansion in Gaza will endanger people still held by Hamas
US President Trump was sent a video message by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum on Thursday, telling him that Israel's expansion plans in the enclave threaten the remaining captives in Gaza. Both freed Israeli captives and the widow of a deceased captive recorded messages in the video. Former captive Iair Horn said Trump could change the course of the conflict for the better. 'You have the power to make history, to be the president of peace, the one who ended the war, ended the suffering, and brought every hostage home, including my little brother.' Meanwhile, former captive Sasha Troufanov warned Trump that the expanded military operation would put them all in danger. 'President Trump, the decision to expand the military operation puts each and every one of them in very great danger. Every bullet, every strike could be the one that ends their life.'
Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Narendra Modi Faces His Patriotism Test On August 15 When He Addresses From Red Fort
By R. Suryamurthy When Prime Minister Narendra Modi ascends the Red Fort on August 15 to deliver his Independence Day address, the nation will be listening for the usual rhetoric of progress, resilience, and pride. This year, the subtext must be different. With a possible face-off with U.S. President Donald Trump looming at next month's United Nations General Assembly, Modi cannot afford to leave his stance on the ongoing trade standoff to diplomatic guesswork. This is not just another bilateral. It's a moment that could decide whether India's agricultural and dairy sectors — the backbone of rural livelihoods — remain intact or get bartered away in a high-pressure negotiation for tariff relief. The country deserves clarity before the Prime Minister shakes Trump's hand in New York. Trump's decision to double duties on Indian goods to 50% is not an abstract policy tweak; it's an act of economic coercion. Ostensibly punishment for India's purchases of Russian oil, the measure has placed India in the same punitive bracket as Brazil and well above China's 30% rate — despite Beijing importing far more Russian crude. The tariff hikes, effective August 27, hit India's strongest export sectors where competitive margins are already slim: Knitted apparel ($2.7B, 63.9% total tariff) and woven apparel ($2.7B, 60.3% duty) are effectively priced out against Bangladesh and Vietnam. Home textiles ($3B, 59% duty) could see Pakistan capture long-term contracts. Jewellery and diamonds ($10B, 52.1% duty) face survival challenges. Shrimps ($2B) will be decimated by the combined blow of 50% duty and anti-dumping measures. Organic chemicals, carpets, and machinery — over $10B combined — will lose ground to lower-tariff suppliers like Ireland, Turkey, and Mexico. This isn't a tariff adjustment. It's a calculated attempt to choke India's trade advantage in sectors the U.S. can afford to squeeze, while sparing imports it needs, such as pharmaceuticals and petroleum products. The hidden edge of Washington's strategy is its push to dismantle India's farm import barriers and open the $100-billion dairy market to large-scale U.S. exports. For Trump, these concessions are the trophy; for Modi, they are political landmines. Agriculture still sustains nearly half of India's workforce. Dairy, dominated by smallholder farmers, is deeply intertwined with rural incomes and the BJP's political base in states like Gujarat, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. Allowing U.S. dairy imports — often produced using feed practices banned in India — would ignite farmer protests and hand opposition parties a potent weapon. Past trade talks with both Washington and Brussels have collapsed over exactly these issues, citing public health, cultural, and livelihood concerns. 'Any compromise on dairy is political suicide,' warns a senior agriculture policy analyst in New Delhi. For U.S. farm lobbies, however, agriculture access is the benchmark for 'open trade.' Without it, tariff relief will remain hostage to American demands. Just weeks ago, Modi declared: 'The interest of our farmers will never be compromised. No international agreement can override the livelihood of our rural brothers and sisters.' Fine words — but now they must be tested against real pressure. The Prime Minister's August 15 speech is his chance to send a clear message, not just to the U.S. but to India's own exporters and farmers: India's agriculture and dairy sectors are not on the table. Without such a public marker, he risks walking into New York with a negotiating position that is open to reinterpretation — and exploitation. The symbolism of the Red Fort matters. It is the one platform where the Prime Minister speaks not as a dealmaker, but as the voice of the nation. By drawing an unambiguous red line there, Modi would strip Trump of the ability to claim — falsely or otherwise — that India has signalled flexibility behind closed doors. Trump's recent 'trade victories' with Indonesia and Vietnam show the danger. Both deals were announced personally by Trump, bypassing formal texts. Both were later disputed by the partner governments. If the U.S. President declares from the UNGA podium that Modi has agreed to open dairy and farm markets, the global narrative will harden instantly — unless India can point back to a prior public commitment that says otherwise. As Ajay Srivastava of the Global Trade Research Initiative puts it: 'If India doesn't immediately deny a false claim, the optics can lock it into a one-sided arrangement. A clear, written, and jointly signed text is the only safeguard.' The U.S. double standard vis-à-vis China is glaring. Despite China being the largest buyer of Russian oil, Washington extended a three-month tariff truce with Beijing and continues to license semiconductor exports from U.S. firms. Chinese goods face a 30% tariff — half India's rate — because China can retaliate by cutting off critical minerals essential to U.S. industry. India cannot. In trade power politics, leverage beats loyalty. If Modi addresses the UNGA on September 26 — three days after Trump — and the bilateral goes ahead, it could shape India's trade posture for years. This is not about who smiles wider in the photo op. It's about whether India defends its agricultural core or trades it away for short-term relief on tariffs that could be reapplied at any time. The danger is dual: Concede, and Modi alienates his rural base ahead of crucial state elections and the 2026 general election. Refuse, and he risks being painted as obstructing a 'historic' deal — a narrative Trump will sell aggressively to his electorate and the media. That is why August 15 must be more than a patriotic ritual. The Red Fort address should contain a line that is as much for Washington's ears as for India's heartland: India will not barter away its farmers for any trade deal. Such a declaration would do three things: Set the baseline for any negotiation at UNGA. Reassure domestic constituencies that their livelihoods are non-negotiable. Neutralise the misrepresentation risk, making it politically costly for Trump to spin a false narrative. Without this, India's position will be whatever the U.S. claims it to be — until New Delhi scrambles to correct the record. By then, the political and market damage may already be done. The tariff hikes are not just about trade balances; they are leverage tools designed to crack open markets the U.S. has long coveted. In that sense, the UNGA bilateral is not a diplomatic courtesy — it is a test of whether India can resist economic coercion when the cost of resistance is immediate and painful. Modi's August 15 speech offers him a unique tactical advantage: the chance to declare his negotiating red lines in full public view, on a platform that carries moral and political weight. If he wastes it on platitudes and avoids the specifics, he will walk into New York on the defensive, with the U.S. defining the terms. The stakes are clear. Trump's 50% tariff is not a policy dispute; it's a bargaining chip to prise open India's most politically sensitive sectors. The only question now is whether Modi will call it out — and lock his position in stone — before stepping into the UNGA arena. If he fails to do so, the fate of India's farmers may well be decided not in the fields of Gujarat or Punjab, but in a backroom at the United Nations. And the Red Fort will have been a missed chance to defend them before the fight even began. (IPA Service)
