US urges Putin to take deal on offer to end war in Ukraine
The US on Thursday said the deal on offer to end the Russia-Ukraine war is the best possible outcome for Moscow, and urged President Vladimir Putin to "take" it.
"The alternative, continuing to wage the war, would not be in anyone's interest, including Russia's. Doing so would continue to damage Russia's economy, military resources, national security and international reputation. Additional sanctions on Russia are still on the table," John Kelley, acting US alternate representative to the UN, told the Security Council.
Washington had initially proposed an immediate, unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire in Ukraine. Kyiv swiftly accepted the proposal, which was contingent on Moscow agreeing to the same terms.
Since the offer was put forward, Mr Kelley said, Washington has been pressing the Kremlin to accept the ceasefire. He said President Donald Trump has consistently called the conflict a "strategic mistake" that should never have happened.
"Time is not on the side of anyone who would prolong it," Mr Kelley said. "We will call on both Russia and Ukraine to make the difficult, historic decision to pursue peace. The responsibility of ending this war ultimately lies with them.
"If one side proves unable or unwilling to do so, it will own the consequences."
Mr Trump, who has been advocating for a peace agreement, has grown increasingly exasperated with Moscow's delays. On Wednesday, he warned that he would assess within "about two weeks" whether Mr Putin was genuinely committed to ending the conflict.
Rosemary DiCarlo, UN undersecretary general for political affairs, told council members that the "cautious hope" she expressed a month ago has diminished in the face of recent attacks.
"According to Ukrainian officials, with 355 drones, Monday's attack was the largest drone attack on Ukraine since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion," Ms DiCarlo said. "The hope that the parties will be able to sit down and negotiate is still alive, but just barely."
Moscow has proposed holding a second round of direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul on June 2, where it plans to present a " memorandum" detailing its conditions for a lasting peace agreement.
On Thursday, the Kremlin said it was still waiting for Kyiv's response to the offer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
Can the US use its Ukraine tactics to get Middle East minerals?
The US deal granting it future revenue and access to Ukraine's mineral sector raises a broader question: is this the beginning of a model for American foreign policy, one that links strategic resource access to long-term diplomatic and financial commitments? Shaped by the exceptional circumstances of war, the Ukraine deal may appear to be a one-off. Yet US President Donald Trump's recent Middle East visit, in which the White House claimed more than a trillion dollars in investment deals were signed, points to a broader trend: Washington's increasing willingness to align foreign policy with long-term economic interests, particularly in critical minerals. It is tempting to imagine the US might apply the Ukraine model in the Middle East, particularly with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where mining has become a growing policy focus. Riyadh especially is pursuing large-scale development of critical minerals as part of its economic diversification strategy to lessen dependence on oil. Riyadh has also overhauled its mining laws to attract foreign investment and accelerate exploration. Its state-owned mining giant, Ma'aden, has already entered partnerships with global firms like Barrick Gold and Ivanhoe Electric, signalling serious intent to build a world-class mining sector. But unlike Ukraine, neither is in a position of acute geopolitical distress. Saudi Arabia is wealthy, and critically, not short on suitors. It boasts a huge sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund, that finances domestic megaprojects. While Jordan's aid dependent economy is struggling, especially after the sudden suspension of US aid in February, it fairs better than Ukraine's dire straits of enduring a more than three-year war. Therefore, neither country is under pressure to pledge away its resources at a loss. That may not preclude Mr Trump from exploring similar proposals, however unlikely their acceptance. The American president has long preferred diplomacy with a balance sheet. His latest Gulf tour was no exception, with discussions focused on investment deals and economic co-operation, including energy sales. Administration officials have indicated a growing interest in financing structures that expand US access to critical minerals without increasing federal spending. Minerals race Minerals are no longer just commodities. Lithium, copper, and other rare earth metals are national security assets. From electric vehicles to semiconductors, the green transition is mineral-intensive, and China controls much of the supply chain. China processes more than 80 per cent of rare earths, dominates refining of lithium and cobalt, and plays a major role in battery and solar manufacturing. For Washington, ensuring access is becoming as vital as defending shipping lanes. Still, any notion of Saudi Arabia or Jordan signing over future profits or access to the US is, at best, aspirational. Riyadh has no intention of sharing control, or upside, of its mineral development. It might accept a US partner in a technical capacity, especially to access mining expertise or green tech. But anything more is unlikely. This does not mean deals will not be struck. Rather, the model would be likely to differ from used in Ukraine's. In Jordan's case, Washington might offer technology transfer or enhanced security guarantees, particularly in light of regional tensions with Iran, in exchange for priority access to minerals or a stake in local mining projects. Jordan, while more modest in scale, has significant reserves of phosphates and is exploring its potential in rare earth elements. The country's established mining infrastructure and close ties to Washington could make it a more flexible partner for future mineral agreements. With Saudi Arabia, it's harder. Saudi Arabia doesn't need a deal; the US does. That's leverage, and Riyadh knows it. Diplomatic capital Even if formal resource-sharing deals are unlikely, Washington's economic footprint in the Gulf is not insignificant. Access can take less visible forms. One route is through US companies that attract investment from Gulf sovereign wealth funds, like Abu Dhabi's ADQ, the Qatar Investment Authority and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. Capital often travels with a diplomatic agenda. In 2021, for instance, Saudi Arabia's PIF gave $2 billion to Jared Kushner, Mr Trump's son-in-law and former senior adviser, for his newly launched private equity firm, Affinity Partners. Many in the region regard the move as a gesture aimed at maintaining ties with Mr Trump's inner circle. However, if the US is indeed pivoting to a resource-driven foreign policy, it is doing so late in the day. China has spent two decades building state-backed mineral partnerships across Africa, Latin America, and increasingly the Middle East, often under its flagship Belt and Road Initiative. The US, by contrast, is just now scrambling to catch up. In this context, resource-sharing arrangements, however opaque, may become a new diplomatic currency. But even within Washington, the path forward is uneven. The push to secure minerals is tied closely to the green transition, a central concern for US tech giants, who need stable supplies for electric vehicles, batteries and data infrastructure. Yet on Capitol Hill, the political will is fragmented. While some Republicans support domestic mining as part of a broader push for energy independence and competition with China, many in the Make America Great Again wing of the party remain sceptical of the green agenda itself. Still, lithium, cobalt, rare earths are vital to American interests. Electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced batteries all depend on them. But securing reliable access to these materials will take more than high-profile deals in Riyadh. It will require sustained investment in mining and processing capacity, long-term contracts with trusted partners, and clear policy signals that outlast election cycles. Ukraine's resource-for-support deal may remain an outlier: born of war, scarcity and political imbalance. The Middle East, by contrast, is rich and assertive. Mr Trump may hope to carve out a mineral foothold, but the region is unlikely to surrender its resources without extracting something far more valuable in return. And in the transactional world of today's geopolitics, the price of access is always going up.
Dubai Eye
3 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
US proposes 60-day ceasefire for Gaza; hostage-prisoner swap, plan shows
A US plan for Gaza on Friday proposes a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 28 Israeli hostages in the first week, in exchange for the release of 1,236 Palestinian prisoners and the remains of 180 Palestinians. The document, which says the plan is guaranteed by US President Donald Trump and mediators Egypt and Qatar, includes sending humanitarian aid to Gaza as soon as Hamas signs off on the ceasefire agreement. The aid will be delivered by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and other agreed channels. On Thursday, the White House said Israel had agreed to the US ceasefire proposal. Israeli media said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the families of hostages held in Gaza that Israel had accepted the deal presented by Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. Hamas told Reuters it was reviewing the plan and would respond on Friday or Saturday. The US plan provides for Hamas to release the last 30 of the 58 remaining Israeli hostages once a permanent ceasefire is in place. Israel will also cease all military operations in Gaza as soon as the truce takes effect, it shows. The Israeli army will also redeploy its troops in stages. Deep differences between Hamas and Israel have stymied previous attempts to restore a ceasefire that broke down in March. Israel has insisted that Hamas disarm completely, be dismantled as a military and governing force and return all 58 hostages still held in Gaza before it will agree to end the war. Hamas has rejected the demand to give up its weapons and says Israel must pull its troops out of Gaza and commit to ending the war. Israel launched its campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas attack in its south on October 7, 2023, that killed some 1,200 people and saw 251 Israelis taken hostage into Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. The subsequent Israeli military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, Gaza health officials say, and left the enclave in ruins. MOUNTING PRESSURE Israel has come under increasing international pressure, with many European countries openly demanding an end to the war and a major relief effort. Witkoff told reporters on Wednesday that Washington was close to "sending out a new term sheet" about a ceasefire by the two sides in the conflict. "I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution, temporary ceasefire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution, of that conflict," Witkoff said at the time. The 60-day ceasefire, according to the plan, may be extended if negotiations for a permanent ceasefire are not concluded within the set period. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said on Thursday the terms of the proposal echoed Israel's position and did not contain commitments to end the war, withdraw Israeli troops or admit aid as Hamas has demanded. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private group backed by the US and endorsed by Israel, expanded its aid distribution to a third site in Gaza on Thursday. Heavily criticised by the UN and other aid groups as inadequate and flawed, the group began its operation this week in Gaza, where the UN has said 2 million people are at risk of famine after Israel's 11-week blockade on aid entering the enclave. The launch was marred by tumultuous scenes on Tuesday as thousands of Palestinians rushed to distribution points and forced private security contractors to retreat. The chaotic start to the operation has raised international pressure on Israel to get more food in and halt the fighting in Gaza. GHF has so far supplied about 1.8 million meals and plans to open more sites in coming weeks.
Dubai Eye
3 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay
A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday, a day after a US trade court ruled that he had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9. Wednesday's surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs on imports from most US trading partners and additional tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China. The latter was related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US. The trade court's three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address threats during national emergencies. Senior Trump administration officials had said they were undeterred by the trade court's ruling, saying they expected either to prevail on appeal or employ other presidential powers to ensure the tariffs go into effect. Trump has used the threat of charging US importers costly tariffs for goods from almost every other country in the world as leverage in international trade talks, a strategy the trade court's ruling would upend. The trade court ruling had not interfered with any negotiations with top trading partners that are scheduled in the days ahead, Trump's administration said. Trump himself wrote in a statement shared on social media that he hoped the US Supreme Court would "reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision" of the trade court, while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti-American. Many US trading partners offered careful responses. The British government said the trade court's ruling was a domestic matter for the US administration and noted it was "only the first stage of legal proceedings". Both Germany and the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said they could not comment on the decision. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the trade court's finding was "consistent with Canada's longstanding position" that Trump's tariffs were unlawful. Financial markets, which have whipsawed in response to the twists and turns in Trump's chaotic trade war, reacted with cautious optimism to the trade court ruling, though gains in stocks on Thursday were largely limited by expectations that the court's ruling faced a potentially lengthy appeals process. Indeed, analysts said broad uncertainty remained regarding the future of Trump's tariffs, which have cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis. Some sector-specific tariffs, such as on imports of steel, aluminum and automobiles, were imposed by Trump under separate authorities on national security grounds and were unaffected by the ruling. The Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit group representing five small businesses that sued over the tariffs, said the appeals court's temporary stay was a procedural step. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the center, said the appeals court would ultimately agree with the small businesses that faced irreparable harm of "the loss of critical suppliers and customers, forced and costly changes to established supply chains, and, most seriously, a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses". A separate federal court earlier on Thursday also found that Trump overstepped his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for what he called reciprocal tariffs of at least 10 per cent on goods from most US trading partners and for the separate 25 per cent levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to fentanyl. That ruling was much narrower, however, and the relief order stopping the tariffs applied only to the toy company that brought the case. The administration has appealed that ruling as well.
