Zelenskiy braces for perilous Trump talks in Washington
The US president invited Zelenskiy to Washington after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Kyiv's arch foe, at a summit in Alaska that shocked many in Ukraine, where tens of thousands have died since Russia's 2022 invasion.
The Alaska talks failed to produce the ceasefire that Trump had sought, and the US leader said on Saturday that he now wanted a full-fledged peace deal and that Kyiv should accept because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not".
The blunt rhetoric throws the weight of expectation squarely back onto Zelenskiy, putting him in a potentially perilous position as he returns to Washington for the first time since his talks with Trump in the Oval Office spiralled into acrimony in February.
The US president upbraided Zelenskiy in front of world media at the time, saying Ukraine's leader did not "hold the cards" in negotiations and that what he described as Kyiv's intransigence risked triggering World War Three.
Trump's pursuit of a quick deal now comes despite intense diplomacy by the European allies and Ukraine to convince the US president that a ceasefire should come first and not, as sought by the Kremlin, once a settlement is agreed.
The New York Times, citing two senior European officials, reported on Saturday that European leaders were also invited to attend Monday's meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Trump briefed Zelenskiy on his talks with Putin during a call on Saturday that lasted more than an hour and a half, the Ukrainian leader said.
They were joined after an hour by European and NATO officials, he added.
"The impression is he wants a fast deal at any price," a source familiar with the conversation told Reuters.
The source said Trump sought to convince Zelenskiy to agree to the idea of a deal in which he would withdraw troops from the partially-occupied eastern Donetsk region that Russian troops have been trying to capture for years.
Zelenskiy replied that it was not possible, the source added.
Kyiv has publicly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land they control as part of any deal.
Donetsk region, Ukrainian officials say, serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Reuters by phone that Trump's emphasis on a deal rather than a ceasefire carried great risks for Ukraine.
"In Putin's view, a peace agreement means several dangerous things – Ukraine not joining NATO, his absurd demands for denazification and demilitarisation, the Russian language and the Russian church," he said.
Any such deal could be politically explosive inside Ukraine, Merezhko said, adding he was worried that Putin's international isolation had ended.
Avoiding a repeat of the Oval Office acrimony is critical for Zelenskiy to preserve the relationship with the US, which still provides military assistance and shares intelligence.
For Ukraine, robust security guarantees to prevent any future Russian invasion lie at the foundations of any serious peace settlement.
Two sources familiar with the matter said that Trump and the European leaders discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine that would be outside NATO but similar to the alliance's Article 5 during their call on Saturday.
NATO, which Kyiv seeks to join, though Trump has made clear that it will not happen soon, regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
One of the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said European leaders were seeking clarity on what kind of US role this guarantee would involve, but that there were no details yet.
Zelenskiy has repeatedly said a trilateral meeting with the Russian and US leaders is crucial to finding a way to end the full-scale war launched by Russia in February 2022.
Trump this week voiced the idea of such a meeting, saying it could happen if his bilateral talks in Alaska with Putin were successful.
"Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this," Zelenskiy wrote on social media on Saturday.
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy is flying to Washington under heavy US pressure to agree a swift end to Russia's war in Ukraine, but is determined to defend Kyiv's interests, without sparking a second Oval Office bust-up with Donald Trump.
The US president invited Zelenskiy to Washington after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Kyiv's arch foe, at a summit in Alaska that shocked many in Ukraine, where tens of thousands have died since Russia's 2022 invasion.
The Alaska talks failed to produce the ceasefire that Trump had sought, and the US leader said on Saturday that he now wanted a full-fledged peace deal and that Kyiv should accept because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not".
The blunt rhetoric throws the weight of expectation squarely back onto Zelenskiy, putting him in a potentially perilous position as he returns to Washington for the first time since his talks with Trump in the Oval Office spiralled into acrimony in February.
The US president upbraided Zelenskiy in front of world media at the time, saying Ukraine's leader did not "hold the cards" in negotiations and that what he described as Kyiv's intransigence risked triggering World War Three.
Trump's pursuit of a quick deal now comes despite intense diplomacy by the European allies and Ukraine to convince the US president that a ceasefire should come first and not, as sought by the Kremlin, once a settlement is agreed.
The New York Times, citing two senior European officials, reported on Saturday that European leaders were also invited to attend Monday's meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Trump briefed Zelenskiy on his talks with Putin during a call on Saturday that lasted more than an hour and a half, the Ukrainian leader said.
They were joined after an hour by European and NATO officials, he added.
"The impression is he wants a fast deal at any price," a source familiar with the conversation told Reuters.
The source said Trump sought to convince Zelenskiy to agree to the idea of a deal in which he would withdraw troops from the partially-occupied eastern Donetsk region that Russian troops have been trying to capture for years.
Zelenskiy replied that it was not possible, the source added.
Kyiv has publicly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land they control as part of any deal.
Donetsk region, Ukrainian officials say, serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Reuters by phone that Trump's emphasis on a deal rather than a ceasefire carried great risks for Ukraine.
"In Putin's view, a peace agreement means several dangerous things – Ukraine not joining NATO, his absurd demands for denazification and demilitarisation, the Russian language and the Russian church," he said.
Any such deal could be politically explosive inside Ukraine, Merezhko said, adding he was worried that Putin's international isolation had ended.
Avoiding a repeat of the Oval Office acrimony is critical for Zelenskiy to preserve the relationship with the US, which still provides military assistance and shares intelligence.
For Ukraine, robust security guarantees to prevent any future Russian invasion lie at the foundations of any serious peace settlement.
Two sources familiar with the matter said that Trump and the European leaders discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine that would be outside NATO but similar to the alliance's Article 5 during their call on Saturday.
NATO, which Kyiv seeks to join, though Trump has made clear that it will not happen soon, regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
One of the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said European leaders were seeking clarity on what kind of US role this guarantee would involve, but that there were no details yet.
Zelenskiy has repeatedly said a trilateral meeting with the Russian and US leaders is crucial to finding a way to end the full-scale war launched by Russia in February 2022.
Trump this week voiced the idea of such a meeting, saying it could happen if his bilateral talks in Alaska with Putin were successful.
"Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this," Zelenskiy wrote on social media on Saturday.
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy is flying to Washington under heavy US pressure to agree a swift end to Russia's war in Ukraine, but is determined to defend Kyiv's interests, without sparking a second Oval Office bust-up with Donald Trump.
The US president invited Zelenskiy to Washington after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Kyiv's arch foe, at a summit in Alaska that shocked many in Ukraine, where tens of thousands have died since Russia's 2022 invasion.
The Alaska talks failed to produce the ceasefire that Trump had sought, and the US leader said on Saturday that he now wanted a full-fledged peace deal and that Kyiv should accept because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not".
The blunt rhetoric throws the weight of expectation squarely back onto Zelenskiy, putting him in a potentially perilous position as he returns to Washington for the first time since his talks with Trump in the Oval Office spiralled into acrimony in February.
The US president upbraided Zelenskiy in front of world media at the time, saying Ukraine's leader did not "hold the cards" in negotiations and that what he described as Kyiv's intransigence risked triggering World War Three.
Trump's pursuit of a quick deal now comes despite intense diplomacy by the European allies and Ukraine to convince the US president that a ceasefire should come first and not, as sought by the Kremlin, once a settlement is agreed.
The New York Times, citing two senior European officials, reported on Saturday that European leaders were also invited to attend Monday's meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Trump briefed Zelenskiy on his talks with Putin during a call on Saturday that lasted more than an hour and a half, the Ukrainian leader said.
They were joined after an hour by European and NATO officials, he added.
"The impression is he wants a fast deal at any price," a source familiar with the conversation told Reuters.
The source said Trump sought to convince Zelenskiy to agree to the idea of a deal in which he would withdraw troops from the partially-occupied eastern Donetsk region that Russian troops have been trying to capture for years.
Zelenskiy replied that it was not possible, the source added.
Kyiv has publicly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land they control as part of any deal.
Donetsk region, Ukrainian officials say, serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Reuters by phone that Trump's emphasis on a deal rather than a ceasefire carried great risks for Ukraine.
"In Putin's view, a peace agreement means several dangerous things – Ukraine not joining NATO, his absurd demands for denazification and demilitarisation, the Russian language and the Russian church," he said.
Any such deal could be politically explosive inside Ukraine, Merezhko said, adding he was worried that Putin's international isolation had ended.
Avoiding a repeat of the Oval Office acrimony is critical for Zelenskiy to preserve the relationship with the US, which still provides military assistance and shares intelligence.
For Ukraine, robust security guarantees to prevent any future Russian invasion lie at the foundations of any serious peace settlement.
Two sources familiar with the matter said that Trump and the European leaders discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine that would be outside NATO but similar to the alliance's Article 5 during their call on Saturday.
NATO, which Kyiv seeks to join, though Trump has made clear that it will not happen soon, regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
One of the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said European leaders were seeking clarity on what kind of US role this guarantee would involve, but that there were no details yet.
Zelenskiy has repeatedly said a trilateral meeting with the Russian and US leaders is crucial to finding a way to end the full-scale war launched by Russia in February 2022.
Trump this week voiced the idea of such a meeting, saying it could happen if his bilateral talks in Alaska with Putin were successful.
"Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this," Zelenskiy wrote on social media on Saturday.
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy is flying to Washington under heavy US pressure to agree a swift end to Russia's war in Ukraine, but is determined to defend Kyiv's interests, without sparking a second Oval Office bust-up with Donald Trump.
The US president invited Zelenskiy to Washington after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Kyiv's arch foe, at a summit in Alaska that shocked many in Ukraine, where tens of thousands have died since Russia's 2022 invasion.
The Alaska talks failed to produce the ceasefire that Trump had sought, and the US leader said on Saturday that he now wanted a full-fledged peace deal and that Kyiv should accept because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not".
The blunt rhetoric throws the weight of expectation squarely back onto Zelenskiy, putting him in a potentially perilous position as he returns to Washington for the first time since his talks with Trump in the Oval Office spiralled into acrimony in February.
The US president upbraided Zelenskiy in front of world media at the time, saying Ukraine's leader did not "hold the cards" in negotiations and that what he described as Kyiv's intransigence risked triggering World War Three.
Trump's pursuit of a quick deal now comes despite intense diplomacy by the European allies and Ukraine to convince the US president that a ceasefire should come first and not, as sought by the Kremlin, once a settlement is agreed.
The New York Times, citing two senior European officials, reported on Saturday that European leaders were also invited to attend Monday's meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Trump briefed Zelenskiy on his talks with Putin during a call on Saturday that lasted more than an hour and a half, the Ukrainian leader said.
They were joined after an hour by European and NATO officials, he added.
"The impression is he wants a fast deal at any price," a source familiar with the conversation told Reuters.
The source said Trump sought to convince Zelenskiy to agree to the idea of a deal in which he would withdraw troops from the partially-occupied eastern Donetsk region that Russian troops have been trying to capture for years.
Zelenskiy replied that it was not possible, the source added.
Kyiv has publicly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land they control as part of any deal.
Donetsk region, Ukrainian officials say, serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Reuters by phone that Trump's emphasis on a deal rather than a ceasefire carried great risks for Ukraine.
"In Putin's view, a peace agreement means several dangerous things – Ukraine not joining NATO, his absurd demands for denazification and demilitarisation, the Russian language and the Russian church," he said.
Any such deal could be politically explosive inside Ukraine, Merezhko said, adding he was worried that Putin's international isolation had ended.
Avoiding a repeat of the Oval Office acrimony is critical for Zelenskiy to preserve the relationship with the US, which still provides military assistance and shares intelligence.
For Ukraine, robust security guarantees to prevent any future Russian invasion lie at the foundations of any serious peace settlement.
Two sources familiar with the matter said that Trump and the European leaders discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine that would be outside NATO but similar to the alliance's Article 5 during their call on Saturday.
NATO, which Kyiv seeks to join, though Trump has made clear that it will not happen soon, regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
One of the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said European leaders were seeking clarity on what kind of US role this guarantee would involve, but that there were no details yet.
Zelenskiy has repeatedly said a trilateral meeting with the Russian and US leaders is crucial to finding a way to end the full-scale war launched by Russia in February 2022.
Trump this week voiced the idea of such a meeting, saying it could happen if his bilateral talks in Alaska with Putin were successful.
"Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this," Zelenskiy wrote on social media on Saturday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canberra Times
12 minutes ago
- Canberra Times
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia.
Sky News AU
40 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Kosha Gada: Labor leads Australia into oblivion with net zero's trifecta - grid insecurity, solar's hidden costs and the blight of wind farms
Few issues cut deeper into national survival or division than energy policy. In 2025, the Western world faces a stark split: the US, under President Donald Trump, has abandoned net zero to pursue fossil fuel dominance, while Canada, Europe, and Australia double down on costly climate pledges. Within minutes of taking office on January 20, Trump pulled the US from the Paris Agreement and declared a National Energy Emergency to unleash oil, gas, and coal for affordability, security and dominance. In contrast, Canada, the EU and Australia cling to net zero targets despite mounting costs. Australia's uniquely punishing burden Australia's situation is extreme. A July 2025 ACCC report warns that outdated market rules are driving grid volatility and soaring household bills. With just 27 million people and a $200 billion fossil fuel export economy, rigid net zero targets mandated by the 2022 Climate Change Act risk crushing both grid and economy. The law demands a 43 per cent emissions cut by 2030 and net zero by 2050, while the 2024 Future Made in Australia Act pledges $22.7 billion for green industries. A 2035 target of 65 to 75 per cent reduction looms. Unlike the UK, the EU, Canada and Japan, which rely on nuclear or hydro, Australia has vast coal, gas, lithium and uranium reserves yet no comparable low-carbon baseload options. Net zero requires slashing domestic fossil fuel use while still exporting them- a hypocrisy critics call 'starving while selling bread'. With a sparse population and sprawling grid, renewable intermittency hits harder than in denser nations. Failures such as Queensland's $14 billion hydrogen project collapse and soaring transmission costs expose the fragility of the plan. Ross Garnaut warns the absence of a carbon price makes the Net Zero Plan incoherent, while years-long project approvals add delays. Net zero's 'catastrophic trifecta' - grid instability, solar's hidden costs and wind's environmental damage - reveals deep flaws in the policy's economic and ecological logic. Grid on the precipice: Physics versus fantasy The National Electricity Market (NEM) is straining under the shift from coal (down 35 per cent since 2000) to 83 per cent renewables by 2030, as projected by AEMO. Intermittent solar and wind lack the synchronous inertia of coal and gas, destabilising frequency- a weakness exposed by the 2016 South Australia blackout and recent solar output cuts in North Queensland. Australia's vast, lightly populated grid cannot match the resilience of Japan's compact network or Canada's hydro-backed system. Gas 'peaking' plants and unproven long-duration storage are stopgaps, but one in four households already struggles with energy bills. A 2022 NSW price spike forced AEMO intervention, and the Productivity Commission warns of 'massive costs' to triple NEM capacity by 2030, with storage needs rising from 3 GW to 49 GW by 2050. The physics - not politics - make net zero's ambitions unattainable without destabilising supply. Solar illusion: Hidden costs and false promises Large-scale solar farms, costing over $1 billion per gigawatt, require massive public and private investment plus billions more for grid integration. Solar's daytime-only output forces reliance on backup generation. End-of-life disposal is a looming crisis: panels contain toxic materials, last only 20 to 30 years, and Australia lacks scalable recycling. Panel manufacturing depends heavily on coal-powered Chinese factories, which control 80 per cent of global supply, binding Australia to environmentally damaging and strategically risky supply chains. Land use is another issue - vast farms consume thousands of hectares, fragmenting ecosystems, and competing with agriculture. These costs undermine solar as a pillar of reliable, affordable energy. The windfarm contradiction: a renewable hellscape Wind farms scar iconic landscapes, from Tasmania's hills to Queensland's coasts, fuelling rural resentment. A 2023 CSIRO survey found widespread opposition, citing the visual blight of 200-metre turbines. Wildlife suffers: thousands of birds and bats die annually, including protected species, while offshore projects threaten marine life through underwater noise. Turbine blades, made of non-recyclable composites, are piling up in landfills. Decommissioning costs often fall to taxpayers, and vast transmission projects fragment habitats while inflating costs. For a sparsely populated country with unique wilderness, wind power's environmental toll contradicts net zero's 'green' image. Government's true duty The government's first responsibility is reliable, affordable energy, not pursuing an abstract 'luxury belief' of net zero. Cheap, stable power underpins households, farms, and industries, sustaining the $200 billion fossil fuel export economy and Australia's living standards. With one in four households in energy hardship, intermittent renewables risk further strain. Reliable energy safeguards jobs, competitiveness, and national security. Net zero, by contrast, is a distant goal disconnected from Australia's immediate needs and advantages. The debate is fundamentally about the role of government - keeping lights on and costs down versus chasing utopian ideals. The righteous fight In Canberra, opposition is hardening. Senior Liberal Andrew Hastie vows to keep fighting net zero despite electoral headwinds, citing public anger over prices. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has introduced a bill to repeal the target, backed by Senator Matt Canavan, who calls net zero 'crazy and insane'. Regional MPs like Garth Hamilton and Alex Antic argue it betrays Australia's resource wealth. Nationals leader David Littleproud has labelled the target 'impossible'. Moderates like Andrew Bragg and Zoe McKenzie warn that abandoning net zero risks losing urban seats to the Greens and independents. The Coalition's May 2025 election loss - Labor won a historic majority - has deepened divisions. Pro-climate independents and the Greens gained ground, while the Coalition's pro-nuclear, pro-gas platform failed to win undecided and female voters. For the Coalition, the stakes are existential: Net zero threatens regional economies and energy security, yet dropping it risks alienating urban voters. The challenge is to reframe the issue - not just about reliability and affordability, but about national pride and energy supremacy. Australia, as the 'lucky country,' could deliver abundant, cheap power, thriving industries and jobs while fuelling the world's energy needs. Selling that vision could unite rural and urban voters, dismantle net zero's hold and restore Australia's economic leadership. Kosha Gada is a tech entrepreneur and broadcast commentator on US and international current affairs, appearing live three nights a week on Sky News Australia. She is a board member of sports betting platform PointsBet
Sydney Morning Herald
41 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Europe on edge as Trump risks his biggest TACO moment
There is no public shift in the core demands from Putin. First, Ukraine must withdraw from the eastern regions now under Russian control. Second, it must accept strict limits on the size and power of its military. Third, it must give up its dream of joining the NATO defence pact with the United States and much of Europe. There may, of course, be a signal from Putin in private that he may be willing to be flexible on some of these demands, and this might in theory allow Zelensky some scope to make concessions. There is no sign of this, at least so far. The emptiness in Anchorage was apparent in what was not said at the end. Trump did not mention 'severe consequences' for Russia, something he threatened just before the summit. Trump did not mention secondary tariffs on China, either. This move would place pressure on Russia and its key economic partner. Only later, when asked on Fox News, did Trump acknowledge the China question. And then he suggested this was a matter for a later date. Putin, in other words, gained more time. At no cost. He played the White House team and made them look like amateurs. Trump will be judged by his actions, not his words. He has reduced American support for Ukraine. US military supplies have slowed and US aid funding has also been scaled back. The claims about putting pressure on Russia are all in the headlines, not in the hard power on the ground. Europe was cut out of this negotiation. Leaders such as Sir Keir Starmer of Britain, Emmanuel Macron of France and Friedrich Merz of Germany tried to back Zelensky but were left watching from a distance as an American and a Russian held a summit to decide the biggest war in Europe in eight decades. This is humbling for European leaders and reminds them that they cannot rely on America – or, at least, America under Trump – to enforce any peace agreement with Putin. They will have to do that themselves. Western Europe is scrambling to rearm so it can face Putin in a world without American safeguards. It is late, of course. Starmer and Macron will hold a meeting on Sunday, their time, to discuss their willingness to enforce a peace deal in Ukraine. While Starmer is willing to put 'boots on the ground' to do this, few others send this message. The benign view of Anchorage is that Trump was 'feeling out' his Russian counterpart before getting a peace deal, and that he will hear from Zelensky on Monday before deciding the next steps. Nobody can be sure about the full story of the Anchorage summit until this happens. Loading Even so, there are good grounds to think that Trump's decision to shift focus from a ceasefire to a long-term peace agreement means he is open to Putin's demands. After all, the dynamic was clear in Trump's attempt to humiliate Zelensky in the White House in February, and then in his generous treatment of Putin in August. The US president would prefer Ukraine to give ground, not Russia. And he seems intent on pursuing this approach in his quest to secure the Nobel Peace Prize. Loading Trump hates the four-letter barb that is often used to mock his tough talk: TACO, for Trump Always Chickens Out. He countered the critics by bombing Iran in June, but there is no sign he wants to take genuinely firm measures with Russia. Trump said he could end the war. Now he discovers it is harder than he thought, and he tries to put the onus on others to make it easier for him. 'Now, it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done,' Trump told Fox News. 'And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit.' The easy option for Trump is for Zelensky and the European leaders to nod in support as he trades away large parts of southern and eastern Ukraine. All the risks are on them if this simply emboldens Putin to start another war in a year or two. The Alaska summit may be remembered as Trump's biggest TACO moment. And he will not win the Nobel for that. Everything depends on whether he has the stomach to stand up to Putin and force a lasting peace in Europe.
