Trump-Putin summit live: Starmer warns Ukraine's borders ‘must not be changed by force' ahead of Zelensky meeting
The Prime Minister will host the Ukrainian leader on Thursday in a show of support, a day before President Donald Trump holds talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska aimed at ending the three-year-old conflict.
On Wednesday, Trump joined a virtual meeting with European leaders, including Zelensky, who sought to set red lines ahead of the summit.
The US President threatened 'severe consequences' for if Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine, without specifying what these could be.
In a statement on Wednesday, Sir Keir said that the UK's support for Ukraine was 'unwavering', adding: 'International borders must not be changed by force and Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to defend its territorial integrity as part of any deal.'
Zelensky due at Number 10 imminently
Volodymyr Zelensky is due to arrive at Number 10 Downing Street imminently.
A red carpet has been rolled out for the Ukrainian president outside Number 10, our Whitehall correspondent Kate Devlin reports.
It is a last push for the leaders to display unity in Europe, one day after a 'very positive' call with Donald Trump - and one day before his crucial meeting with Vladimir Putin.
Alex Croft14 August 2025 09:27
13 injured in Ukrainian drone attack, Russian authorities say
Thirteen people were injured in a Ukrainian drone attack on a residential building in Russia's southern city of Rostov-on-Don on Thursday, acting regional governor Yuri Slyusar said.
No further details are currently available on the strike - we'll bring you the latest as it comes/
Alex Croft14 August 2025 09:24
'No deal without Ukraine': Zelensky on Putin and Trump's meet in Alaska
Alex Croft14 August 2025 09:03
Ukraine believes Putin has just 'one card left to play' in ceasefire talks – and it gives Kyiv the upper hand
Vladimir Putin has 'only one card' left to play – to prolong the killing in Ukraine, according to a senior source in Volodymyr Zelensky's presidential office as Europe held top-level talks ahead of the Alaska summit this week.
Zelensky has not been invited to Friday's meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. And there are deep concerns that the US president will emerge from the encounter taking an even harder line on Ukraine.
Europe's leaders, including Keir Starmer, have been corralling US officials and White House insiders, and met virtually with the Oval Office to try to persuade Trump to use the leverage he has over Putin to get him to agree to a ceasefire.
Our world affairs editor Sam Kiley writes:
Ukraine believes Putin has just 'one card left to play' in ceasefire talks
Exclusive: Ukraine and its allies believe European support and the threat of further sanctions give Kyiv the edge over Moscow – they just hope they have done enough to convince Donald Trump, writes world affairs editor Sam Kiley
Alex Croft14 August 2025 08:47
Zelensky and Starmer's meeting at No 10 is a signal to one man - Donald Trump
The Independent's Whitehall editor Kate Devlin reports:
The PM's meeting with the Ukrainian leader this morning will be highly symbolic.
After days of diplomatic wrangling, the two men are putting on a show – for the US president.
The message is clear – the UK, like mush of Europe, is standing strong with Zelensky.
On the eve of Trump's potentially historic summit with Putin in Alaska, there is some cautious optimism that the US is coming more onside to Europe's arguments, including that nothing is imposed on Ukraine and that the country has to be involved in its own destiny.
This follows a call with European leaders, including the PM, on Thursday.
The fear, as always, however, is how unpredictable the US President can be.
Alex Croft14 August 2025 08:30
WhatsApp says Russia is trying to block its services
WhatsApp said Russia was trying to block its services because the social media messaging app owned by Meta Platforms offered people's right to secure communication, and vowed to continue trying to make encrypted services available in Russia.
Russia has started restricting some Telegram and WhatsApp calls, accusing the foreign-owned platforms of failing to share information with law enforcement in fraud and terrorism cases.
"WhatsApp is private, end-to-end encrypted, and defies government attempts to violate people's right to secure communication, which is why Russia is trying to block it from over 100 million Russian people," WhatsApp said in a statement.
"We will keep doing all we can to make end-to-end encrypted communication available to people everywhere, including in Russia."
Alex Croft14 August 2025 08:15
Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska allows him to show American military strength, says expert
The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at an American military base allows them to avoid any protests and provides an important level of security, said Benjamin Jensen, senior fellow for defense and security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
"For President Trump, it's a great way for him to show American military strength while also isolating the ability of the public or others to intervene with what he probably hopes is a productive dialogue," Jensen said.
He said the location means Trump can cultivate ties with Putin while "signaling military power to try to gain that bargaining advantage to make a second meeting possible'.
What has Trump said about the Ukraine invasion since the start
After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Donald Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms."I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart," Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Vladimir Putin was going into Ukraine to "be a peacekeeper."
Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud.
"I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided," he said.
Arpan Rai
Putin appears ready to test new missile as he prepares for Trump talks
Russia appears to be preparing to test its new nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered cruise missile, according to two US researchers and a Western security source, even as Russian president Vladimir Putin readies for talks on Ukraine with US president DonaldTrump tomorrow.
Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies, and Decker Eveleth of the CNA research and analysis organisation, based in Virginia, reached their assessments separately by studying imagery taken in recent weeks until Tuesday by Planet Labs, a commercial satellite firm.
They agreed the photos showed extensive activity at the Pankovo test site on the Barents Sea archipelago of Novaya Zemlya, including increases in personnel and equipment and ships and aircraft associated with earlier tests of the 9M730 Burevestnik (Storm Petrel).
'We can see all of the activity at the test site, which is both huge amounts of supplies coming in to support operations and movement at the place where they actually launch the missile,' Lewis said.
Arpan Rai14 August 2025 06:55
Zelensky to meet Starmer in Downing Street ahead of Trump-Putin summit
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with prime minister Keir Starmer in Downing Street later today, part of a final push for a European perspective to be heard ahead of a summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
We'll bring you more details on exactly when the meeting will take place, but its likely to be little more than 24 hours before the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska.
Sir Keir and Trump both joined a teleconference with European leaders including Zelensky yesterday.
"The prime minister was clear that our support for Ukraine is unwavering – international borders must not be changed by force and Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to defend its territorial integrity as part of any deal," Starmer's Downing Street office said in a statement yesterday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
16 minutes ago
- Metro
Shocking enemy who'd nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize if he ends Ukraine war
One of President Donald Trump's worst enemies has admitted she would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if he can bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump's 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton made the shocking admission in an interview released on Friday hours before Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. 'I understand, from everything I read, that he would very much like to receive the Nobel Peace Prize,' Clinton told Raging Moderates podcast co-host Jessica Tarlov. 'Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, but instead could really stand up to Putin… 'I'd nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.' The former US secretary of state added that Trump has the chance to be the 'architect' of a deal that would not involve Ukraine giving up some of its land, as its President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly been against. 'If we could pull that off, if President Trump were the architect of that, I'd nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize,' said Clinton. More Trending 'Because my goal here is to not allow capitulation to Putin, aided and abetted by the United States.' Clinton's willingness to nominate Trump is surprising given the two have continued to take shots at each other years after he defeated her in the election. But meeting her stipulations is a tall order. Days before his one-on-one with Putin, Trump said there 'would be some land swapping', or territorial concessions, as part of a deal. Trump then told European leaders that he aims to secure a ceasefire and not talk about giving up land. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump and Putin come face-to-face for first time since 2019 at Ukraine summit MORE: Unruly flyer is 'picked up like a child' and restrained by fellow passenger MORE: Russia-linked DHL warehouse fire in Birmingham left Amazon container '100% destroyed'
Channel 4
16 minutes ago
- Channel 4
What will Trump's strategy be in talks with Putin?
Donald Trump spoke in support of Ukraine on Air Force One demanding a 'ceasefire rapidly' – this is how he could approach talks with Vladimir Putin.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly, lawyer says
A jury 's decision to clear a suspended Labour councillor of encouraging violent disorder after he called for far-right activists' throats to be cut cannot be compared to the case of Lucy Connolly, lawyers have claimed. Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, said: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
