Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to meet in coming days, Kremlin aide says
Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov said on Thursday that a Trump-Putin meeting could happen as early as next week. A location has been chosen, he added, though it would be revealed at a later stage.
'At the request of the American side, both parties have effectively agreed to hold a high-level bilateral meeting in the coming days,' Ushakov told reporters.
The announcement follows Trump's remarks on Wednesday that he was hopeful of holding a joint meeting with both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy 'very soon'. Trump has warned Moscow that unless a ceasefire is reached by Friday, it will face broader sanctions.
Ushakov said the prospect of a three-way summit came up during talks in Moscow with Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, who met Putin for the fifth time earlier this week. Russia offered no official comment on the potential trilateral meeting.
Zelenskyy signalled support for such a summit, writing on X that 'Ukraine is not afraid of meetings and expects the same brave approach from the Russian side'. He added that discussions had included 'two bilateral and one trilateral' format, insisting Europe must be involved in efforts to end the war.
Despite multiple visits to Moscow by Witkoff since Trump entered office in January after promising to end the war, no breakthrough has materialised. Trump acknowledged the lack of progress, saying: 'I don't call it a breakthrough … we have been working at this for a long time. There are thousands of young people dying … I'm here to get the thing over with.'
The Kremlin described Witkoff's latest discussions as 'constructive' and said both sides had exchanged 'signals', though it provided few specifics. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy confirmed he had spoken with Trump about the meeting, alongside European leaders.
Expectations remain low that a peace deal will be reached before Trump's deadline. Russia continues to launch air strikes across Ukraine, and Moscow's conditions for ending the war, such as Kyiv's demilitarisation, neutrality and renunciation of NATO membership, remain non-starters for Ukraine and its Western allies.
Putin also demands Ukrainian withdrawal from Russian-occupied regions, the formal recognition of Crimea, and the lifting of international sanctions. Kyiv has consistently rejected those terms.
Meanwhile, the White House has approved an additional $200m military aid package for Ukraine, including support for drone manufacturing. And in a separate move, Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday imposing 25 percent tariffs on Indian imports over its ongoing purchases of Russian oil.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
30 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration subpoenas New York Attorney General Letitia James
The United States Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had successfully filed a civil lawsuit against US President Donald Trump for alleged fraud in his business dealings. Friday's subpoenas come as the department convenes a grand jury to investigate whether James, a Democrat, violated the civil rights of President Donald Trump and other Republican-affiliated entities. Anonymous sources with knowledge of the subpoenas confirmed their existence to The Associated Press and other news agencies. According to the media reports, the grand jury will not only probe whether Trump's rights were violated by the fraud lawsuit, but the subpoenas will also seek information about a second lawsuit James launched against the National Rifle Association (NRA), an influential gun lobby group. A spokesperson for James's office did not confirm the subpoenas but rejected any wrongdoing. 'Any weaponisation of the justice system should disturb every American,' the statement said. 'We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers' rights.' James's personal lawyer, Abbe Lowell, also said in a statement that her legal team was 'ready and waiting with the facts and the law'. 'Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign,' Lowell said. A history of in-court clashes The reports on Friday revealing the subpoenas have fuelled criticism that Trump is increasingly weaponising the Justice Department to settle scores. Trump faced numerous legal challenges, both civil and criminal, during his period out of the White House from January 2021 to January 2025. He is the first US president to not only face criminal charges but to be convicted. James, meanwhile, was among the officials who spearheaded civil proceedings against him. She took office in January 2019 and has since filed several lawsuits against Trump and his policies. But one of the most high-profile has been the 2022 case in which she accused Trump of inflating the value of his assets — including his real estate properties and golf clubs — to defraud banks and lenders. In February 2024, Trump and his sons were ordered to pay $454m in the case, though the president continues to appeal that ruling. Trump has argued his financial statements actually under-valued his assets. Separately, James successfully filed a lawsuit against the NRA and its founder, Wayne LaPierre, for misusing millions in funding for the group. Trump maintains close ties to the anti-gun control lobby group. Revenge on political adversaries? For years, Trump has alleged that he is the subject of a political 'witch hunt'. Those who prosecuted him, he argues, have abused their office for political gain, in an alleged effort to dampen his popularity among voters. Trump has expressed particular ire towards James, calling her a 'horrible person' and a 'total crook' in May. That month, the Justice Department, under his authority, opened an investigation into James's real estate holdings, alleging she misrepresented her property records to obtain more favourable loans. Trump has also argued that statements James made on the campaign trail indicate her political bias against him. While running for office in 2018, for instance, James called Trump 'illegitimate', 'incompetent' and 'ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land'. Friday's subpoenas come on the heels of other investigations that critics perceive as retribution from Trump against his political adversaries. Just this week, the Department of Justice also announced it would open an investigation into members of the administration of former President Barack Obama, a longtime target of Trump's criticisms. The probe centres on intelligence community reports examining whether Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won. The reports concluded that Russia sought to sway the election through disinformation, though no votes were tampered with. They also suggested that Russia favoured Trump over his Democratic rival, something Trump has since described as an effort to delegitimise his victory. Trump has since accused Obama of 'treason', although no evidence has emerged of wrongdoing. The Department of Justice has also recently sought to purge career employees who worked on two federal criminal cases filed against Trump after he left office in 2021. The first related to classified documents Trump took from the White House after his 2020 election defeat. The second was connected to Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Al Jazeera
30 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Can Brazil convict Bolsonaro and stand up to Trump?
Brazil's former president is under house arrest after the country's Supreme Court found Jair Bolsonaro had violated social media and political messaging rules. Now on trial for an alleged coup attempt, United States President Donald Trump has called Bolsonaro's prosecution a 'witch hunt' and hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs, an interference President Lula calls a breach of national sovereignty.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump signs order authorising military action against cartels: Reports
President Donald Trump has secretly signed an order directing the military to take action against drug-smuggling cartels and other criminal groups from Latin America, according to a report in The New York Times. The newspaper's report on Friday appeared to confirm statements earlier in the week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who signalled the US military had approval to take aggressive action against cartels. 'It allows us to now target what they're operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever … to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it,' Rubio said on Thursday. 'We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organisations, not simply drug-dealing organisations.' The news, however, has spurred concern that the military could be deployed within the US and abroad to combat sanctioned criminal groups like the Sinaloa Cartel, Tren de Aragua and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The Trump administration has designated such entities as 'foreign terrorist organisations', putting them in the same category as groups like al-Qaeda, ISIL (ISIS) and Boko Haram. But a US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the news agency Reuters that no military action appeared imminent. Mexico responds to intervention fears Still, during a Friday morning news conference, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum faced questions about the risk of US intervention on her country's soil. She acknowledged that her government had received information about the coming order from the Trump administration. But Sheinbaum denied that the result would be the US military operating on Mexican territory. She emphasised that her country is not at risk of US intervention. 'There will be no invasion of Mexico,' Sheinbaum said. 'We were informed that this executive order was coming and that it had nothing to do with the participation of any military personnel or any institution in our territory.' The Mexican leader has previously warned that any US military activity on Mexican territory would be a serious violation of the country's sovereignty. The possibility, however, has been raised in the past, particularly by politicians on the US right. In 2023, for instance, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — then a candidate for president — repeatedly pledged to authorise use of force against drug cartels on Mexican soil. Other Republican politicians, like Representative Dan Crenshaw, also proposed legislation to greenlight military action against the cartels. Such claims have been met with anger in Mexico, where a long history of US intervention has contributed to a strong belief in the need to uphold national sovereignty. Still, in May, Trump confirmed that, earlier this year, he offered to send US troops to help combat drug trafficking in Mexico. For her part, Sheinbaum said she firmly rebuffed the idea. 'I told him, 'No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable, our sovereignty is not for sale,'' she said at the time. Wide consequences for the region Trump's heavy-handed approach has also caused frustration in other parts of Latin America, as well as thorny legal and ethical issues. Since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has repeatedly stretched the bounds of executive power by claiming that the US faces an 'invasion' of criminal immigrants, thereby authorising him to take extreme action. But legal experts say it is unclear what the US military might be able to do within the constraints of domestic and international law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from being used as a domestic policing force. Local and federal law enforcement are, therefore, the entities that helm operations on domestic soil to disrupt and arrest gangs. International laws, meanwhile, restrict military actions abroad except in instances of self-defence. The United Nations charter, for instance, includes language that calls on its members to refrain from 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'. Attacking people outside of combat situations might also infringe upon international humanitarian law. Critics have also questioned the efficacy of taking such a strong-armed approach to gangs, drug cartels and other groups. After Trump designated many such groups as 'terrorist organisations', human rights groups pointed out that civilians who live in gang-controlled territory could inadvertently be sanctioned, as they are often forced to pay the gangs through coercion. Reports that Trump signed the authorisation for military action also come at a tense time for US-Latin American relations. The US president recently placed high tariffs on Brazil, in an effort to end a trial against his right-wing ally Jair Bolsonaro over his alleged involvement in a coup plot. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called Trump's actions 'unacceptable' and described them as an effort to interfere in the sovereignty of another country.
