Zelenskyy meets Starmer before Trump-Putin summit
After meeting Starmer in London on Thursday, Zelenskyy described their talks as "good" and "productive" in a social media post.
He wrote that they "discussed in considerable detail the security guarantees that can make peace truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killings and engage in genuine, substantive diplomacy."
A spokesperson for the British prime minister's office said that "they agreed there had been a powerful sense of unity and a strong resolve to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine."
The official also said the US-Russia summit talks "present a viable chance to make progress as long as Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace."
Zelenskyy visited the German capital of Berlin on Wednesday and attended a video conference with Trump and European leaders.
He spoke at a news conference after the virtual meeting and underlined that negotiations over issues, such as peace and the territorial integrity of Ukraine, must not take place without its involvement.
Analysts say Zelenskyy's meeting with Starmer is another bid to boost unity between Ukraine and European nations. They add that the Ukrainian leader hopes the bolstered ties will help his country quickly respond to what could come out of the Trump-Putin summit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
43 minutes ago
- NHK
Analysis: What the Trump, Putin summit did (and didn't) accomplish
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin both left Alaska without a formal announcement, or even a commitment to another meeting. So what did these talks actually accomplish? NHK World Senior Correspondent Ishii Yusaku explains.
Nikkei Asia
an hour ago
- Nikkei Asia
Trump says no imminent plans to penalize China for buying Russian oil
A vessel owned by Russia's leading tanker group, Sovcomflot, transits through Turkey in April 2024. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. © Reuters August 16, 2025 13:37 JST WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to "in two or three weeks." Trump has threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries that buy its oil if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. The president last week imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing its continued imports of Russian oil. However, Trump has not taken similar action against China. He was asked by Fox News' Sean Hannity if he was now considering such action against Beijing after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to produce an agreement to resolve or pause Moscow's war in Ukraine. "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," Trump said after his summit with Putin in Alaska. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Chinese President Xi Jinping's slowing economy will suffer if Trump follows through on a promise to ramp up Russia-related sanctions and tariffs. Xi and Trump are working on a trade deal that could lower tensions -- and import taxes -- between the world's two biggest economies. But China could be the biggest remaining target, outside of Russia, if Trump ramps up punitive measures.
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Washington, D.C., police chief remains in command under White House deal
District of Columbia officials and the U.S. Justice Department negotiated a deal under the urging of a federal judge on Friday that scales back U.S. President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of the capital city's police force. Under the accord presented by the two sides to U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, Trump administration lawyers conceded that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's appointed police chief, Pamela Smith, would remain in command of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department. The precise role of Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole, who had been named by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as the city's "emergency police commissioner" under Trump's takeover bid, was still to be hashed out in negotiations. The two sides opened talks on Friday afternoon at Reyes' insistence during a hearing before the judge on a lawsuit brought by the city challenging Trump's unprecedented move to assume full control of city law enforcement, invoking an emergency clause of the district's 50-year-old-plus home rule charter. The lawsuit sought a federal court ruling to block the takeover as illegal, according to D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. Terry Cole | BLOOMBERG During oral arguments on Friday, Reyes expressed skepticism that the Trump administration has legal authority to run the city's police force or that Cole can effectively take charge of the department as its chief. "I still do not understand on what basis the president, through the attorney general, through Mr. Cole, can say: 'You, police department, can't do anything unless I say you can,'" Reyes told a Justice Department lawyer. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement before the hearing: "The Trump administration has the lawful authority to assert control over the D.C. police, which is necessary due to the emergency that has arisen in our nation's capital as a result of failed leadership." Trump said on Monday he was deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington and temporarily taking over the city's police department to curb what he has depicted as a crime emergency in the U.S. capital. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the DEA, have deployed agents to patrol the streets and carry out arrests. On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued an order transferring control of the police department from the city to the DEA's Cole. Trump, who has suggested he could take similar actions in other Democratic-controlled cities, has sought to expand the presidency in his second term, inserting himself into the affairs of major banks, law firms and elite universities. Chief of Police Pamela Smith speaks during a news conference with Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser at the U.S. capital on Monday. | REUTERS Friday's lawsuit, which names Trump, Bondi, Cole, and others as defendants, intensified a growing battle over the city between Bondi and Bowser, who have emerged as the public faces of the power struggle. Bondi's order had stipulated that the city must receive approval from Cole before it can issue any directives to the roughly 3,500-member police force. It also sought to rescind several of the police department's prior directives, including one that addressed its level of involvement with federal immigration enforcement. Schwalb wrote in a social media post on Friday, "This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it." The 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act is a federal law that established local self-governance for the District of Columbia. It includes a provision that gives the U.S. president the power to control the D.C. police in response to "special conditions of an emergency nature" for up to 30 days. The 30-day period can be extended by a joint resolution of both chambers of the U.S. Congress, something Trump has suggested he might seek. Some legal experts said Trump has exceeded his authority under the Home Rule Act, arguing the text of the statute does not authorize a complete presidential takeover of the police force. Williams Banks, a professor of national security law at Syracuse University, said D.C.'s attorney general has "very solid arguments" that Trump has exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress, but the unprecedented nature of Trump's actions makes it difficult to assess what a judge will do. "There's no playbook for this," Banks said. "There's no precedent either way."
