US Secretary of State: European representatives must be involved in Ukraine negotiations
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated that both Ukraine and European representatives will be involved in the negotiation process to end the war in Ukraine once it begins.
Source: Rubio in an interview with CBS News
Quote: "We have to understand, right now there is no process. What we have right now is a call between Putin and President Trump in which both sides expressed an interest in ending this conflict.
I imagine there will be follow-up conversations to figure out what a process to talk about that [negotiations] would look like, and then at that point, perhaps we can begin to share more details.
…Ultimately, it will reach a point when it's real negotiations, and we're not there yet, but if that were to happen, Ukraine will have to be involved, because they're the ones that were invaded, and the Europeans will have to be involved because they have sanctions on Putin and Russia as well and they've contributed to this effort. We're just not there yet. We really aren't, but hopefully we will be, because we'd all like to see this war end."
Background:
On 15 February, Keith Kellogg, US President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, stated at the Ukrainian Lunch during the Munich Security Conference that the US stance on "peace negotiations" includes Ukraine's participation but does not see a role for European representatives.
Kellogg described himself as a "realist", saying that while he does not fundamentally oppose the involvement of European politicians in the negotiations, he does not consider it necessary to include those who are "part of the problem".
On 13 February, the Kremlin announced that it had begun forming a negotiating team to organise a meeting between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump.
Trump said he had tasked Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff with leading the negotiations with Russia.
At the same time, the US president asserted that Ukraine would have a seat at the table in the negotiations on "ending the war".
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Afghan refugee office is a corrupt failure — Trump is right to shut it down
After three years and more than $5 billion, the State Department is finally closing down a program that ushered thousands of poorly vetted Afghans into the United States — from a nation known to harbor deadly terrorist operatives. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently informed Congress he will close the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts office, which brought to America more than 200,000 Afghan nationals who qualified for Special Immigrant Visas and the United States Refugee Program. But the American public, and especially our veterans of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, deserve to know the truth: CARE and the whole enterprise known as 'Enduring Welcome' failed in its basic mission — to ensure that only those Afghans who served honorably alongside Americans were welcomed into this country. Under former President Joe Biden, CARE became another dangerous and irresponsible open-border migration project, dramatically failing to make America safer, stronger or more prosperous. After his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Biden created the CARE office to assist Afghans who cooperated with the US mission in that country. The intent was to grant safe haven to Afghans who had put their lives in danger by working or partnering with the US military or American diplomats. Yet, as Americans well know from the disaster at the nation's southern border, senior Biden officials never cared about seriously screening any US-bound migrants, no matter their origin. Over four years, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken pursued one overriding migration priority: thwarting the law to admit millions of foreigners. Thus, the CARE office became just another pathway for Biden's open-border extremism. Multiple State Department whistleblowers have documented how CARE authorized the admission of countless Afghans who neither worked for the United States nor demonstrated a legitimate fear of the Taliban. These unqualified Afghans were allowed to bypass vetting rules and perpetrate identity fraud to gain a place in line with deserving applicants. They systematically fabricated recommendation letters, identity cards, employment records and other documents — while unscrupulous CARE contractors, many of Afghan heritage themselves, handed out special favors to extended-family members and other undeserving applicants who only wanted a free ticket from a clueless Uncle Sam. On paper, all applicants claimed fear of Taliban reprisals. Yet some who were approved later traveled back to Afghanistan — belying their claims, and in some cases hinting at active Taliban connections. Others departed Afghanistan with apparent ease, flying out of Taliban-controlled airports and crossing Taliban-guarded land borders. Like the rest of Biden's government, CARE made a mishmash of authenticating applicants' entry claims. Biden officials disregarded normal security name-checking procedures to speed up processing, whistleblowers have told Congress. For example, CARE directed case managers to push along files in which an applicant's name appeared to match a suspect in official terrorist and criminal databases. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Because the Taliban does not cooperate with US authorities, these cases are almost impossible to resolve. Normal vetting procedures require such applicants to be rejected — but under Biden they were admitted into the country. Worse, Afghan nationals who recently entered the United States have attempted acts of terrorism. Last year, two Afghans were stopped before they could execute plans to kill Americans at polling stations in Oklahoma City on Election Day. In April another Afghan, stopped by police officers in Virginia, drew a handgun — and would have killed those officers had they not fired first. Mainstream media outlets have mostly ignored the fraud, corruption and vulnerabilities that infected CARE. When they report on it at all, they do so with the naïve assumption that every Afghan is who he or she claims to be. Shawn VanDiver of the group Afghan Evac and some other US military veterans want President Donald Trump to accept half a million or more Afghan immigrants — continuing, in effect, Biden's open-border mania. Activists claim that deserving Afghans are still languishing in their home country, and accuse Trump of abandoning America's allies. Certainly, some Afghans bravely assisted our military and diplomats over years of fighting. Many of them, no doubt, were in genuine fear of the Taliban. But that small number of Afghans was admitted months, and in some cases years, ago. The original mission of the CARE office and Enduring Welcome was a noble cause that all Americans could rally behind. Three years later, that effort has been revealed to be replete with fraud, waste and pervasive corruption. Most importantly, the CARE enterprise has imported threats to the United States and imperiled American lives. Trump is protecting America by shutting down CARE and halting any further arrivals of unvetted Afghans into our country. Phillip Linderman is a board member of the Center for Immigration Studies and chairman of the Ben Franklin Fellowship.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war
Moscow said its troops had crossed into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and were conducting offensive operations in the region, a claim Kyiv quickly denied as 'Russian disinformation.' Russian troops have been pushing toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for months, trying to solidify the southern flank to capture Pokrovsk and the remaining parts of the adjacent Donetsk Oblast. Western military experts who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said it was clear that Russian troops would eventually penetrate the southeastern region. But they didn't expect either side to throw 'a significant amount of forces' in this sector, as the capture of Donetsk Oblast remains Moscow's main objective. Emil Kastehelmi, an analyst at the Finland-based Black Bird Group, confirmed that geolocation shows Russian troops entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in recent days. Russian troops will likely advance 'at least somewhat' deeper in the coming months, though it won't change the overall dynamic of the front line, he added. Kastehelmi believes that Russian troops could try advancing northwest from the southern flank of Pokrovsk to encircle the city that is already penetrated from the southern and eastern sides. 'The Russians probably have understood that if they want to make a proper encirclement threat, they need to widen the flanks and then continue operations near Pokrovsk,' Kastehelmi told the Kyiv Independent. The Russian Defense Ministry said on June 8 that its troops were pushing forward in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — a region adjacent to Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts but have thus not seen combat actions. It added that the Russian military's 90th Guards Tank Division units had reached the western border of Donetsk Oblast and were thrusting forward into the industrial Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The Ukrainian military immediately denied the claim, saying that the fighting continued inside Donetsk Oblast, calling Russia's claims 'disinformation.' The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState has put the proximity of Russian troops to the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border at about two kilometers, yet painting that distance between the regional border and the alleged position of Russian troops as no man's land. The Kyiv Independent requested a comment to the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces but has not heard back in time of publication. Even if militarily not as significant, the Russian penetration into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast would mean yet another Ukrainian region would be now a warzone. It could also help strengthen the Russian negotiation position as the U.S. continues to push both sides to hold peace talks to end the war at all costs. "If they [russians] find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Russia had begun its long-expected offensive in April but has only made limited gains since then, besides opening a new front in the northeastern Sumy Oblast by occupying a number of border villages there. Kastehelmi from the Black Bird Group said that the Ukrainian defense of Pokrovsk would be compromised if Russian troops are able to widen their flanks, which would enable them to bring their support elements forward. 'It can mean that they may be able in the summer to threaten the remaining supply routes to the city in a way which makes it even more dangerous for Ukrainian units,' Kastehelmi said. Kastehelmi added that it would be 'an operational success' for Moscow if it is able to first expand its flank westward toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and then begin attacking northward, while also building on the eastern flank. But he stressed that Russian troops have not been the best at coordinating attacks, even if it looks 'doable' on paper. Jakub Janovsky, a Prague-based military analyst at the Oryx open-source project tracking Ukrainian and Russian equipment losses, said that it likely won't make 'any difference' if Russian troops advanced a kilometer or two into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. He added that Russia appears to be continuing to rely heavily on small infantry group assaults, either on foot or motorcycles, thus decreasing the use of Soviet-era BMP fighting vehicles or tanks. 'It seems more likely that Russia will focus on Donetsk Oblast,' Janovsky told the Kyiv Independent. 'But it's entirely possible that if they find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Read also: Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Britain should stay close to US to ward off Russian threat, says defence chief
Britain should stay close to the US to stand up to the threat from Russia, the Chief of the Defence Staff has said. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin's comments came after Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, told The Telegraph that people in Britain had 'better learn to speak Russian' if the Government did not drastically increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Sir Tony, the head of the British military, appeared before the Commons defence select committee on Tuesday, where he was asked if he agreed with Mr Rutte's comments. He said such a scenario could be avoided by sticking close to America and strengthening Nato, telling MPs: 'We all accept that we are in this era of change. 'The piece that I think is so true and consistent for the UK is this security construct which is extraordinary and we should celebrate. 'We are a nuclear power. We are the world's largest and most powerful military alliance and we have as our principal ally the world's most powerful country on the planet. That's what keeps us safe. 'That's what we need to bind to, that's what we are doing, and that's what we need to strengthen so that we don't have the concerns that we are all going to be speaking Russian.' Sir Tony's remarks came as Rachel Reeves prepared to deliver her spending review, in which the Chancellor will set out the details of departmental spending, on Wednesday. However, Sir Tony, who steps down as CDS this autumn and will be replaced by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, refused to say whether he supported an uplift in defence spending to 3 per cent and beyond. Sir Tony also acknowledged the changing relationship between America and the UK, now that Donald Trump has asked the UK to shoulder more of the burden in Europe. Asked if the US withdrew, either entirely or partly, its contribution to Nato, would Europe be strong enough to 'match' Russia, Sir Tony said it was. However, he also insisted that 'America is sticking with Nato'. 'America is going to continue to provide all of us in Europe with the nuclear security guarantee,' he said, while cautioning that the US has other priorities, from homeland security to the Indo-Pacific. 'We no longer have that guarantee in terms of conventional American help for the security of Europe,' Sir Tony said. 'That is a significant change and that's why you are seeing Europe responding.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
