Ukraine says fighting ‘difficult' after reports of Russia's rapid gains
The gains came just days before US President Donald Trump was to meet Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska for talks on the war, the first meeting between a sitting US and Russian leader since 2021.
The Ukrainian army said it was engaged in 'heavy' battles with Russian forces attempting to penetrate its defences.
'The situation is difficult and dynamic,' it said in a statement.
A map published by Ukrainian battlefield monitor DeepState, which has close ties with Ukraine's military, showed Russia had advanced around 10 kilometres (six miles) over around two days, deep into a narrow section of the eastern front line.
The corridor — now apparently under Russian control — threatens the town of Dobropillia, a mining hub that civilians are fleeing and that has come under Russian drone attacks. It also further isolates the destroyed town of Kostiantynivka, one of the last large urban areas in the Donetsk region still held by Ukraine.
The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based observatory, said Russia was sending small sabotage groups forwards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Ukraine peace at stake as Trump hosts Putin
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met face-to-face in Alaska on Friday in a high-stakes summit that could determine whether a ceasefire can be reached in the deadliest war in Europe since World War Two. Ahead of the talks, Trump greeted the Russian leader on a red carpet on the tarmac at a US Air Force base. The two shook hands warmly and touched each other on the arm before riding in Trump's limo to the summit site nearby. There, the two presidents sat with their respective delegations in their first meeting since 2019. A blue backdrop behind them had the words "Pursuing Peace" printed on it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell out Ukraine by essentially freezing the conflict with Russia and recognising — if only informally — Russian control over one-fifth of Ukraine. Earlier, Trump sought to assuage such concerns as he boarded Air Force One, saying he would let Ukraine decide on any possible territorial swaps. "I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine, I'm here to get them at a table," he said. Asked what would make the meeting a success, he told reporters: "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly ... I'm not going to be happy if it's not today ... I want the killing to stop." Trump spoke with Putin in a meeting that also included US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump's special envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. At a subsequent larger, bilateral meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles will also join Trump, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump hopes a truce in the 3-1/2-year-old war that Putin started will bring peace to the region as well as bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. For Putin, the summit is already a big win that he can portray as evidence that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow is retaking its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy. Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court, accused of the war crime of deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Russia denies allegations of war crimes and the Kremlin has dismissed the ICC warrant as null and void. Russia and the United States are not members of the court. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched on its smaller neighbour in February 2022. But thousands of civilians have died in the conflict, the vast majority of them Ukrainian. A conservative estimate of dead and injured in the war in Ukraine - from both sides combined - totals 1.2 million people, Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said in May. Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday it had proven a tougher task than he had expected. He said if Friday's talks went well, quickly arranging a second, three-way summit with Zelenskiy would be more important than his encounter with Putin. Zelenskiy said Friday's summit should open the way for a "just peace" and three-way talks that included him, but added that Russia was continuing to wage war. A Russian ballistic missile earlier struck Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region, killing one person and wounding another. "It's time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America," Zelenskiy wrote on the Telegram messaging app. Zelenskiy has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory and is also seeking a security guarantee backed by the United States. 'SMART GUY' Trump said before the summit that there is mutual respect between him and Putin. "He is a smart guy, been doing it for a long time, but so have I ... We get along," Trump said of Putin. He also welcomed Putin's decision to bring businesspeople to Alaska. "But they're not doing business until we get the war settled," he said, repeating a threat of "economically severe" consequences for Russia if the summit goes badly. The United States has had internal discussions on using Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker vessels to support the development of gas and LNG projects in Alaska as one of the possible deals to aim for, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. One source acquainted with Kremlin thinking said there were signs Moscow could be ready to strike a compromise on Ukraine, given that Putin understood Russia's economic vulnerability and costs of continuing the war. Reuters has previously reported that Putin might be willing to freeze the conflict along the front lines, provided there was a legally binding pledge not to enlarge NATO eastwards and to lift some Western sanctions. NATO has said Ukraine's future is in the alliance. Russia, whose war economy is showing strain, is vulnerable to further US sanctionsand Trump has threatened tariffs on buyers of Russian crude, primarily China and India. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to goals, but he understands our vulnerability and costs," the Russian source said. Putin this week held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants - a new nuclear arms control accord to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February.
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
IWT: PCA's ruling
The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration's (PCA's) August 2025 decision on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is more than a dry legal pronouncement — it is a diplomatic milestone in Pakistan's decades-long efforts to safeguard its lifeline rivers from upstream interference. In its ruling, the Court declared it has full jurisdiction over Pakistan's complaint regarding India's hydropower projects on the Indus system's Western Rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — and that India must design such projects strictly in accordance with the treaty's specifications. The phrase 'strictly' is indeed the heart of the matter. For years, Pakistan has criticized India for bending the rules in the name of 'best engineering practices' to exert more control over water flows. The Court has now affirmed that the treaty does not permit such unilateral reinterpretation. Signed in 1960 with World Bank's mediation, the IWT divided six rivers between the two countries: three eastern rivers to India and three western ones to Pakistan. While India was allowed limited non-consumptive uses, such as run-of-river hydropower on the Western Rivers, those rights came with clear technical limits on dam designs and water storage. The Ruling by the court is a 'Legal Win' for Pakistan and a 'Political Test' for India. But, this is not the end of it. It may well be a head start for Pakistan on the long process of the dispute resolution. What lies ahead is complex and challenging. The following challenges could unfold as the process moves on: Sanctity of the court ruling and 'India's legal room to manoeuvre': The Court's decision is binding, but enforcement is a different game. India has little legal ground to 'overrule' the PCA. The IWT's own dispute resolution mechanism — agreed to by both countries — provides for binding arbitration if bilateral talks fail. What New Delhi can do is political and procedural: delay implementation through extended technical discussions, seek 'clarifications' on design changes, or partially comply with the ruling while keeping its projects largely intact. India might also use the verdict to re-open the broader debate about modernising the treaty, a move that could dilute Pakistan's hard-won protections. India's acceptance of the PCA ruling: An unconditional 'yes' is improbable. But, legally, overturning the ruling is nearly impossible; politically, India can slow-walk or sidestep compliance. India has already expressed discomfort with the arbitration path, preferring the 'neutral expert' process that offers more room for technical compromise. Accepting the ruling without challenge could be seen domestically as conceding strategic ground to Pakistan. More likely is a pattern of selective compliance — making some design adjustments with a view to appeasing the Court while ensuring that the core of India's hydropower ambitions remains unaffected. The 'Enforcement Gap' in relation to Court's ruling: The PCA cannot send inspectors or impose sanctions. Its power lies in the moral weight of international law and the political cost of open defiance. The World Bank, as treaty guarantor, can exert diplomatic pressure and even influence the flow of international development finance. Still, without active global backing, enforcement risks could become a slow grind of procedural follow-ups rather than a decisive action. Developing Scenario: In the near term, the most likely scenario is 'managed tension.' India delays, Pakistan protests, but both avoid a direct treaty breakdown. The IWT has survived wars and political crises for over six decades; neither side wants to be blamed for killing it. Yet, climate change and domestic politics are making the ground more unstable. Melting glaciers, erratic monsoons, and growing populations are intensifying competition over water. If relations between the two countries take another sharp downturn — as they did after Pulwama in 2019 — water could move from being a managed dispute to an openly weaponised tool of statecraft. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan is an Indian withdrawal from or suspension of the treaty, something periodically floated in Indian political circles. Such a move would trigger a diplomatic firestorm and invite international intervention — but in a more multipolar, transactional world, that risk cannot be dismissed. A moment to 'build on' For now, Pakistan can justifiably claim a legal and diplomatic victory. But this win will only matter if Islamabad can convert it into enforceable compliance. That requires sustained engagement with the World Bank, alignment with other riparian states facing similar upstream challenges, and careful public diplomacy to keep the issue alive at international forums. For Pakistan, the stakes are existential: about 80 percent of its agriculture and a significant share of its hydropower rely on uninterrupted flows from these rivers. Any upstream alterations — even those framed as 'minor' — can disrupt planting cycles, power generation, and rural livelihoods. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
Proxy war and the blame game
EDITORIAL: As Ukraine's war against Russia enters a third and a half year with no resolution in sight, frustration continues to build in Kyiv. In a bid to explain the increasing setbacks on the battlefield, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently accused foreign 'mercenaries' from countries such as China, Pakistan, and several unnamed African nations of fighting alongside Russian forces in northeastern Ukraine. Zelenskyy, once hailed as a hero by Western powers for championing their effort to weaken Russia, has seen his support falter in recent months. Political fatigue, resource constraints, and shifting global priorities have led to fewer arms shipments and a decline in both financial and political backing from the West. The Ukrainian president's accusations are a clear reflection of desperation. Zelenskyy, whose utility to his foreign backers appears to be reaching its limit, has failed to achieve meaningful results from counter-offensives. Far from Ukraine recapturing significant territory, Russian forces have slowly but steadily gained ground. This outcome, though, was inevitable: Russia has both the will and the military might to dominate a war that, for all intents and purposes, has been waged as a proxy conflict by NATO powers. Faced with this grim reality, rather than reevaluating his country's role in a war that has devastated its economy, displaced millions, and cost thousands of lives, Zelenskyy has chosen to lash out at neutral nations like Pakistan with no stake in either side of the conflict. This marks a curious turn, especially given that during the early stages of the war, Pakistan was accused by some of indirectly supplying arms to Ukraine, a claim both denied by Islamabad and rebuffed by Ukraine's own foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, during a visit to Pakistan in July 2023. Zelenskyy's latest allegations have prompted the Foreign Office in Islamabad to issue a forceful statement, categorically rejecting the claims as 'baseless and unfounded.' The FO also pointed out that Ukraine had neither formally approached Pakistan for verification nor provided any verifiable evidence to back up the allegations. This diplomatic misstep highlights a broader, more troubling trend: Zelenskyy is looking for external scapegoats to deflect from his own failures. By alienating neutral nations that have remained uninvolved in the conflict, he risks further isolating Ukraine on the international stage. This strategy reflects a deeper issue: the war, contrary to the narrative pushed by Western powers, has never truly been about defending Ukraine's sovereignty or territorial integrity. Rather, it has been a means to serve the geopolitical ambitions of NATO-led Western powers, in their broader standoff with Russia. As the war drags on, even some of Zelenskyy's previous supporters are beginning to question his leadership, particularly in light of his recent domestic actions. For example, the passage of a new law granting the president's hand-picked prosecutor-general sweeping powers to interfere with or even halt corruption investigations has drawn criticism. What was once a narrative of heroism has now shifted toward a more critical examination of Zelenskyy's leadership amid a faltering military campaign. The president's attempt to shift blame onto external parties cannot obscure this reality: Ukraine is losing a war it never should have been forced into fighting. Rather than continuing as a proxy for NATO, Kyiv would be wise to pursue a diplomatic path forward — one that prioritises the well-being of its people over the agendas of foreign powers. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
