European leaders to support Zelenskiy in Washington as Trump pushes Ukraine deal
Trump has urged Zelenskiy to negotiate a settlement after aligning more closely with Moscow's stance during recent discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
The Ukrainian and US leaders will hold a bilateral meeting on Monday before being joined by European officials for broader talks, according to a source familiar with the plans.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of continued bloodshed if peace efforts fail, stating, 'If peace is not going to be possible here and this is just going to continue on as a war, people will continue to die by the thousands.'
Trump claimed significant progress in discussions with Russia in social media posts but did not provide specifics, while suggesting Zelenskiy could end the war quickly by abandoning ambitions to reclaim Crimea or join NATO.
Sources indicate Moscow has proposed withdrawing from small occupied areas in exchange for Ukraine ceding fortified eastern territories and freezing front lines elsewhere.
Russia's envoy to international organisations, Mikhail Ulyanov, stated that any peace deal must include security guarantees for both Ukraine and Russia.
Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that Russia had tentatively agreed to an Article 5-like defence pact for Ukraine, though Kyiv remains sceptical given past broken assurances.
German, French, and British leaders convened on Sunday to reinforce support for Zelenskiy, emphasising that territorial discussions must involve Ukraine and include strong security provisions.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other EU leaders will attend the Washington talks, seeking to prevent a repeat of Trump's public criticism of Zelenskiy in February.
A joint statement from Britain, France, and Germany pledged post-war security assistance, including potential reassurance forces and support for Ukraine's military reconstruction.
Zelenskiy welcomed the European backing, stressing that any security guarantees must be practical and developed with European involvement.
Rubio acknowledged potential concessions from both sides but warned of further consequences for Russia if negotiations fail.
Putin has briefed allies Belarus and Kazakhstan on the Alaska talks, while Trump has repeatedly asserted that Ukraine should compromise due to Russia's military superiority. – Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
15 minutes ago
- The Star
Americans worry democracy in danger amid gerrymandering fights, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Most Americans believe that efforts to redraw U.S. House of Representatives districts to maximize partisan gains, like those under way in Texas and California, are bad for democracy, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- said they feared that American democracy itself was in danger, a view held by eight in 10 Democrats and four in 10 in President Donald Trump's Republican Party. The six-day survey of 4,446 U.S. adults, which closed on Monday, showed deep unease with the growing political divisions in Washington -- where Republicans control both chambers of Congress -- and state capitals. The poll found that 55% of respondents, including 71% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans, agreed that ongoingredistricting plans - such as those hatched by governors in Texas and California in a process known as gerrymandering - were "bad for democracy." At Trump's urging, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott has called a special session of the state legislature to redraw the state's congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, aiming to help Republicans defend their 219-212 U.S. House majority. Incumbent presidents' parties typically lose House seats in midterms, which can block their legislative agendas and in Trump's first term led to two impeachment probes. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a White House hopeful in 2028, has threatened to try to redraw his state's district map in response, adding five Democratic seats to offset Republicans' expected Texas gains. The practice is not new but has gained attention because it is happening mid-decade rather than following a census. It has meant that the vast majority of House races are not competitive in general elections; in recent decades about two-thirds of them were won by more than 20 percentage points. As president, Trump has flouted democratic norms with steps including directing the U.S. Justice Department to pursue his political adversaries, pressuring the independent Federal Reserve to lower rates and seizing control of Washington, D.C.'s police force. In interviews, Texas Republicans who participated in the poll largely supported the state's potential redistricting, while Democrats described it as 'cheating' but supported the idea of Democratic states trying to respond in kind. The poll had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points when describing the views of all Americans and about 3 points for the views of Republicans and Democrats. 'SHADY BUSINESS' Amanda Kelley, 51, an insurance fraud investigator in Dallas, was the rare Republican to criticize the Texas effort. "I don't like it when either side tries to do that. I think that's shady business," Kelley said. "The optics of it happening in the middle of the term when you would draw district lines, that leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth." Paul Wehrmann, 57, an attorney in Dallas who described himself as an independent voter, also opposed it. "It's unfair, and it sets a bad precedent," said Wehrmann, who worries it could spiral into states redrawing maps every election cycle instead of every decade. Partisan gerrymandering "is bad all around, but I think that it is fair for Democrats to try to counterbalance what Republicans are doing. "They need to stop bringing a knife to a gunfight.' Americans of both parties have long disliked elected leaders of the rival party, but the Reuters/Ipsos poll found that they also distrust regular people who align with the opposing party. Some 55% of Democrats agreed with a statement that "people who are Republican are NOT to be trusted," while 32% disagreed. Republicans were split, with 43% agreeing that Democrats were untrustworthy and 44% saying they disagreed. The poll also showed politics weighing more on people's everyday lives than inpast years, particularly among Democrats. Some 27% of Democrats said last year's presidential election has negatively affected their friendships. AReuters/Ipsos poll in April 2017, early in Trump's first term, showed a smaller share of Democrats - 18% - reported fraying friendships because of the election. Only 10% of Republicans said this month that politics weighed on their friendships, largely unchanged from 2017. Jeffrey Larson, a 64-year-old toxicologist and Republican voter in Seabrook, Texas, said he and his wife, a Democrat, agreed not to discuss politics. 'I might not agree with what the Democrats are doing, but I don't think that they're trying to specifically destroy my life or destroy America,' Larson said. Close to half of Democrats - or 46% - said their party had lost its way, compared to 19% of Republicans who said the same of their party. Sandy Ogden, 71, a tech executive from Sunnyvale, California and self-described Democrat, said she faulted her party's leaders. 'I think the Democratic Party members are united in what we believe, but the leaders are ineffective in mounting an opposition that works,' Ogden said. Analysts said that ordinary Democrats' greater mistrust of Republicans and friction with friends suggests a reluctance among Democrats to engage with Republicans that could harm the party's chances at regaining political standing. 'Democracy involves a willingness to allow people with differing views to express those views,' said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster. Michael Ceraso, a longtime Democratic operative, found the poll results frustrating. "The majority of Democrats believe our democracy is failing and nearly half of them don't want to talk to the opposition party," Ceraso said. "We have to be better." (Reporting by Jason Lange, Nolan D. McCaskill and James Oliphant; Editing by Scott Malone and Cynthia Osterman)
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Online behaviour under scrutiny as Russia hunts 'extremists'
Pedestrians with sunglasses use smart phones in Moscow on July 30, 2025. Russia has drastically restricted press freedom and freedom of speech online, with a new legislation that will slap fines on Internet users who search for web pages, books, artwork or music albums that the authorities deem 'extremist'; a term that has a very broad definition in Russia that can refer to terrorist groups and political opponents alike. — AFP MOSCOW: Just like his peers, Russian teenager Artyom spends "half his life" online – something that could soon become risky as a ban on searching for "extremist" content comes into force. Since launching its offensive in Ukraine in 2022, Russia has drastically restricted press freedom and freedom of speech online. But the new legislation takes digital surveillance even further. It will slap fines on Internet users who search for web pages, books, artwork or music albums that the authorities deem "extremist". The term has a very broad definition and in Russia can refer to terrorist groups and political opponents alike. Browsing information on the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny or on the "international LGBTQ movement", both classified as "extremist", could lead to fines of up to 5,000 rubles (RM262). Artyom, who spoke to AFP in one of Moscow's parks, said he was interested in "the future of our country, the policies of our leaders, those of foreign governments." He suspected his life would "change" after the new law comes into effect in September, forcing him to be careful with every click. Artyom said he would for example stay away from "sites from so-called 'unfriendly' countries," a term often used to refer to Western states. And these sites were "the ones that interest me the most," he said bitterly. Another resident of Moscow, Sergei, said the new law made him "afraid". Like most of Russians AFP spoke to, he did not want to give his full name. "Just yesterday, I did some research freely, and tomorrow I could be found guilty," the 33-year-old jewellery designer said. 'Censorship' The new legislation has raised concerns even among Kremlin supporters, drawing rare opposition from around 60 lower house State Duma lawmakers. "Even young pro-government figures oppose this censorship," a history professor at a Moscow university told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. A computer security expert who also wanted to remain anonymous said that the law "violates the principle enshrined in the constitution, according to which reading cannot be punishable." "Searching on the Internet is now simply dangerous," he said, adding: "The government wants to make everyone afraid." According to the expert, Russia is inching closer to Chinese levels of surveillance and control. A prominent Russian rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, who has been classified by Moscow as a "foreign agent", said the Kremlin's goal was to "sow fear and stifle any will of resistance." She said the conflict in Ukraine "causes natural annoyance" for the authorities which, "are afraid and begin to take these hysterical measures," the 83-year-old told AFP. The law also bans advertising for virtual private networks (VPNs), widely used in Russia to get around state blocks on Western sites and circumvent censorship. YouTube is already only accessible in Russia via VPN, as are the social media platforms of the Meta group: Facebook and Instagram, declared "extremist". Extremist gardening? Separate legislation, also taking effect in September, will allow an entire online community to be branded "extremist" if one of its members has been classified as such. Several communities, particularly those for writing to political prisoners, have already had to close or reorganise in response to the changes. For Natalia, a 50-year-old school administrator, "this law is just stupid." She said an entire group "cannot be held responsible" for the activities of a single member. "So I have to check every time I open my gardening group page to see if one of the grannies has been declared an 'extremist' by any chance?" she said. But the digital security expert pointed out that internet censorship on a national scale "will be difficult to implement." According to him, the law would primarily target individuals who had already been targeted by the authorities for their political views. "We know well that the severity of Russian laws is often mitigated by the possibility of their non-enforcement," the expert said. – AFP
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Trump admin better-placed than courts to release Epstein files, judge says
NEW YORK: A US judge said on Wednesday that the Trump administration is in a better position than federal courts to release materials that would satisfy public curiosity about the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. In rejecting the Justice Department's bid to unseal records from the grand jury that indicted Epstein in 2019, Manhattan-based US District Judge Richard Berman wrote that the 70-odd pages of materials the grand jury saw paled in comparison to the 100,000 pages the government has from its Epstein investigation but is not releasing. The judge said the bid to persuade him to unseal the records was an apparent distraction from the Justice Department's decision in July not to release its files and directly cited another judge's decision earlier this month not to release similar materials from the grand jury that indicted Epstein's longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. "The instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession," Berman wrote. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Berman's decision came as President Donald Trump has faced criticism from his conservative base of supporters and congressional Democrats over the Justice Department's decision not to release the files from its Epstein investigation. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. His death in jail and his friendships with the wealthy and powerful sparked conspiracy theories that other prominent people were involved in his alleged crimes and that he was murdered. Trump, a Republican, had campaigned for a second term in 2024 with promises to make public Epstein-related files, and accused Democrats of covering up the truth. But in July, the Justice Department declined to release any more material from its investigation of the case and said a previously touted Epstein client list did not exist, angering Trump's supporters. To try to quell the discontent, Trump in July instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek court approval for the release of grand jury material from Epstein's case. Evidence seen and heard by grand juries, which operate behind closed doors to prevent interference in criminal investigations, cannot be released without a judge's approval. Justice Department investigations typically collect more material than prosecutors ultimately present to grand juries. Some of that evidence is sometimes eventually disclosed to the public during criminal trials. The Justice Department does not routinely disclose its evidence in cases where a defendant pleads guilty or, like Epstein, never faces trial, but it would not require judicial approval to release such materials. The grand jury that indicted Epstein heard from just one witness, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and saw a PowerPoint presentation and call logs, Berman wrote. On Aug. 11, a different Manhattan-based judge, Paul Engelmayer, denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and exhibits from Maxwell's case, writing that the material was duplicative of public testimony at her 2021 trial. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her conviction for recruiting underage girls for Epstein. "A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion - aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such," Engelmayer wrote. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty. After losing an appeal, she asked the US Supreme Court to review her case.
