Trump says he will probably meet Zelenskiy at NATO summit
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he will probably meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during a NATO summit this week, opening a door for Kyiv to press its case for buying U.S. Patriot missile systems and tougher sanctions to fight Russia.
Trump made the comments to reporters on board Air Force One on Tuesday. Earlier in the day, a White House official said Trump was scheduled to meet Zelenskiy at some point during the NATO summit, taking place on Tuesday and Wednesday in The Hague.
Trump pulled out from a hoped-for meeting with Zelenskiy last week, when the U.S. president left the G7 meeting in Canada early, saying he needed to focus on the crisis in the Middle East.
In comments released by his office on Saturday, Zelenskiy outlined his three priorities if a meeting with Trump were to take place at the NATO summit.
Firstly, he said he wanted to discuss weapons, saying that during the G7 summit, his aides had given U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent a wish-list of arms, including Patriot missile defence systems, which he described as worth "a very large amount".
Zelenskiy said Ukraine was "ready to find the money for this whole package" rather than requesting it as military aid.
Secondly, he wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia, and thirdly about other diplomatic ways of applying greater pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Russian attacks kill 26 civilians in Ukraine as Zelensky seeks more western help
The attacks came as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sought guarantees of further western help for his country's efforts to repel Russia's invasion. Russian forces have relentlessly struck civilian areas throughout the three-year war. More than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed, according to the United Nations. Ukraine has also launched long-range drones against Russia, hitting residential areas. Volodymyr Zelensky is in The Hague where a Nato summit is taking place (Claudia Greco, Pool Photo via AP) Mr Zelensky joined western leaders attending a Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on Tuesday. He is keen to lock in additional military support for Ukraine's fight against Russia's bigger army, as recent direct peace talks have delivered no progress on a possible settlement. Key US military commitments to Ukraine left over from the Biden administration are expected to run out within months, according to analysts, and there is uncertainty over whether US President Donald Trump is willing to provide more. A Russian ballistic missile attack on Dnipro hit multiple civilian sites in the central Ukrainian city around midday on Tuesday, killing 15 people and injuring more than 200 others, officials said. 'The number of casualties is constantly being updated,' Dnipro's regional administration head, Serhii Lysak, wrote on Telegram. In the nearby town of Samar, an attack killed two people and injured 14, he said. A damaged flat at a building where a Ukrainian drone fell in Krasnogorsk, just outside Moscow, Russia (Moscow News Agency via AP) Mr Zelensky, in a post on Telegram, said Russia requires foreign components to build its ballistic missiles and urged countries to deny the Kremlin access to them by cracking down on Russian 'schemes' to obtain them. 'Sanctions against Russia must also be significantly strengthened,' he said. Russia also shelled residential neighbourhoods and critical infrastructure across Ukraine's southern region of Kherson, killing four civilians and wounding at least 11 others, according to Oleksandr Prokudin, head of the regional military administration. In the Sumy region of north-eastern Ukraine, a drone attack late Monday killed three civilians, including a five-year-old boy, and injured six others, local authorities said. Among the injured were two 17-year-old girls and a 12-year-old boy, according to officials. Russian air defence forces overnight shot down 20 Ukrainian drones, the Russian Defence Ministry reported on Tuesday morning. It said 14 were downed over the Kursk region, which borders Ukraine, while two had been flying over the Moscow province. One drone slammed into a tower block on the outskirts of the Russian capital, sparking a fire on its 17th floor, local governor Andrei Vorobyov said on Tuesday. He said a 34-year-old resident suffered shrapnel wounds to his arm and leg. Two other drones were shot down on the approach to Moscow, according to mayor Sergei Sobyanin. Air traffic was briefly halted as a precaution at two major Moscow airports, a representative of Russia's aviation authority Rosaviatsiya said.
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What hypocritical AOC is shamelessly ignoring when she calls Trump's Iran strikes 'unconstitutional'
Even as a tenuous cease-fire between Iran and Israel appears to hold, Democrats in the US Congress are falling over themselves to condemn President Donald Trump for the strikes that made this chance at peace possible. Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark. 'Donald Trump's decision to launch direct military action against Iran without congressional approval is a clear violation of the Constitution,' added Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, claiming Trump's action 'is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' That's absurd. The framers of the Constitution understood the difference between Congress officially declaring war, on the one hand, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces taking military action in defense of our nation, in the other hand. The original draft of Article 1 allocated to Congress the power to 'make war.' But James Madison, the father of our Constitution, demanded that it be amended so that the president would have broader authority to take actions in defense of our country. During the subsequent two and a quarter centuries, various presidents and members of Congress have interpreted this division of authority differently, and many presidents have taken military action without declarations of war or even congressional authorization. In recent years, Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama authorized significant military actions without any complaints by Democratic members of Congress, including several who have now whined about Trump having acted unconstitutionally. This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies. What President Trump did is not different in kind or degree from what previous presidents – both Democrats and Republicans – have done without congressional authorization. The last time Congress declared war was shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. There were no declarations of war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada or Panama. In fact, it is unlikely we will ever again see another declaration of war. Perhaps Congress will now do what it has done since the end of World War II: pass resolutions authorizing limited military action by the president. Though, these hybrid resolutions are not authorized by the Constitution either and it is unlikely that they carry any legal weight. Indeed, all this handwringing on the left will come to nothing. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, are reluctant to interfere with executive decisions involving military actions, even those that involve boots on the ground for considerable periods of time. So, by all means, let's continue to debate the wisdom of Trump's decision as a matter of policy, but let's not improperly weaponize a constitutional provision that was never intended to prevent presidents from taking actions deemed necessary to defend our nation, such as the surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. As a matter of policy, a president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind. The consequences, both short and long term, of President Trump's bold decision remain to be seen, but he surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country. Congress can now hold hearings, both open and closed, to assess the president's actions, but only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Another big success': Nato leader flatters Trump before The Hague summit
In The Hague, the Nato summit waits for Donald Trump – and no one more so than the alliance's secretary general, Mark Rutte. 'You are flying into another big success,' Rutte wrote in a text on Tuesday, one of several released shortly afterwards by a hyperactive Trump as he travelled across the Atlantic in Air Force One. The sycophantic messages from the Dutchman had compared Nato's plan to dramatically increase defence spending to the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend: 'Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do.' That tone underlined how keen the head of the alliance and most other western allies are to ensure the summit passes off well, knowing full well that Trump's commitment to Nato has been unpredictable in the past – and that every step has to be taken to keep the freewheeling US president on message. Meanwhile, as Air Force One headed over the Atlantic to the Dutch capital, it did not take Trump long to drift off message. Would, the president was asked, the US abide by Nato's article 5 guarantee that says that if one member of the alliance is attacked, it is considered as an attack on all, and other allies should take the actions deemed necessary to assist the country attacked? 'Depends on your definition,' Trump said. 'There's numerous definitions of article 5, you know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends.' The president was asked to explain this watery response, prompting him to say he was 'committed to saving lives' and 'committed to life and safety', before adding that he did not want to elaborate while flying. At the 2018 summit during his first term, Trump hinted that the US might be leaving Nato, but at this year's specially shortened get-together, every step has been taken to ensure that he is in an upbeat mood and supportive of the military alliance that the US contributes so much to and Europe has benefited so much from. The US president flew in the early evening, for a leaders' dinner held at Paleis Huis ten Bosch, the royal palace and a home of King Willem-Alexander. But in a change announced at the last minute, it emerged that Trump would be staying there overnight, not at the Grand Hotel Huis ter Duin in Noordwijk as planned, and would be breakfasting with the Dutch monarch. Over the past few months, Rutte has been negotiating directly with Trump and other Nato leaders to persuade the alliance's 32 members to agree what amounts in most cases to a substantial hike in defence spending, lifting core military budgets to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, and wards when an extra 1.5% of related spending on cyber, intelligence and infrastructure is factored in. One Nato military leader praised Rutte's diplomatic skills. 'The way he has handled Trump has been brilliant, from the moment he went to visit him in Mar-a-Lago,' he said, referring to a trip made in November last year, when Trump was still president-elect. It was a deal, he said, that had been hammered out between the two, before country by country, almost every Nato member was brought around. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion On Monday, Rutte was circumspect when asked about how he managed to work with Trump and bring him on board with the plan, or his role in trying to make the summit a success. 'I'm holding the gavel. I opened the meeting, I closed the meeting, and in the meantime, I travel a lot between allies and talk and discuss,' he told the Guardian. The tone of the texts, however, reveal the reality of the Rutte approach – perhaps the only one calculated to bring success. 'It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5%!' he wrote to Trump. 'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win. Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner.' After Tuesday's dinner, Wednesday will see a cut-down summit, with a single two-and-a-half-hour meeting where Trump and other leaders will sign off a short communique of a handful of paragraphs that will confirm the 5% deal. The hope is that Trump – flushed also with a feeling of success after the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites – will be pro-Nato in private and again at the mid-afternoon press conference. But some unhappy diplomats in The Hague worried that there could yet be a row with Spain. Though its prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has said he would not block the 5% commitment, he has insisted that Spain can meet its Nato responsibilities by spending less: 2.1% of GDP. Of the dozen or so social media postings Trump made from the flight was a media graphic headlined: 'Spain threatens to derail summit.'
