Ukraine prepared to give up territory ahead of Trump-Putin peace talks
Ukraine could agree to stop fighting and give up territory already held by Russia as part of a European-backed plan for peace, it has tonight emerged.
European leaders have been told by Volodymyr Zelensky they must reject any settlement proposed by Donald Trump in which Ukraine cedes further land - but that Russia could be allowed to retain some of the territory it has taken.
But this would mean freezing the frontline where it is and handing Russia de facto control of the territory it occupies in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea. It comes after Vladimir Putin warned of nuclear war when he unleashed another night of hell on Ukraine.
Mr Trump and Mr Putin are set to hold talks in Alaska on Friday. Ukraine and Europe have become increasingly concerned Mr Trump and Mr Putin could negotiate an end to the long-running war over Mr Zelensky's head.
But the latest development - the European-backed plan for peace - softens the negotiating position. Characterising a frantic weekend of diplomacy between Kyiv and its allies, a Western official said: "The plan can only be related to the current positions held by the militaries."
It is believed US officials have pledged to consult European leaders ahead of the face-to-face talks between Mr Trump and Mr Putin. Speaking today, Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, said: "I have many fears and a lot of hope."
Chief among European concerns was a purported peace plan endorsed by Moscow, which included freezing the frontlines in south-eastern Ukraine if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from areas of Donetsk and Luhansk that it controls. European diplomats say there has been no notable change in Mr Putin's overall war aims, which seek to topple Ukraine's Western-facing government and replace it with a Moscow-friendly proxy.
Russia is still aiming for the "full capitulation" of Kyiv, including blocking any prospect of Nato membership and demilitarisation, according to a report by the Institute for the Study of War, the Washington-based think tank. On Monday evening, Mr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, said there were no signs Russia was preparing to bring an end to the war despite the looming peace talks.
Citing a report from Ukraine's intelligence, Mr Zelensky said: "On the contrary, they are moving their troops and forces in such a way as to launch new offensive operations."
While seemingly content with ceding some territory, it is thought Ukraine will only agree to a peace settlement that offers robust security guarantees in the form of weapons deliveries and a path to Nato membership.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump defense official led thinktank that spread lies about Tren de Aragua
A senior official appointed to the defense department led a thinktank that promoted fake news about the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang, according to InSight Crime, a non-profit analyzing organized crime. Joseph Humire was appointed this summer to be the head of policy focusing on the western hemisphere within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He was previously the executive director of a conservative thinktank focused on global security. Humire's appointment comes as the Trump administration is ramping up its aggressive strategy against organized crime in Latin America and the Venezuelan government, which it accuses of working with TdA. Under Humire's leadership, the Center for a Secure Free Society thinktank published the 'TdA Activity Monitor', tracking alleged crimes by accused members of the gang throughout the US. According to InSight Crime, at least five event entries in the tracker appeared to have been 'completely fabricated'. InSight Crime found zero basis for the false entries, with local police departments telling researchers the purported crimes were nonexistent. InSight Crime analyzed more than 90 of the entries, finding many relied on unverified sources. 'Some incidents are included multiple times, inflating the gang's perceived presence and activities,' researchers found. The monitor is no longer available online following InSight Crime's reporting. 'The TdA Monitor is an aggregator, not a primary source of information about Tren de Aragua's activities,' a statement from the Center for a Secure Free Society said, adding that it 'reflects the media reporting'. The Department of Defense declined to comment. Humire has spoken publicly about alleged Tren de Aragua crimes on Fox News and other conservative outlets. He has also promoted the idea that the Venezuelan government is directing the gang's crimes around the world, despite doubts from the intelligence community. Humire authored a report in December 2024 for the conservative Heritage Foundation, writing that Tren de Aragua 'is a perfect proxy and tool of asymmetric warfare' by the Venezuelan government to 'destabilize democratic countries'. In March, Humire made similar claims before Congress. But US intelligence agencies have cast doubt on the theory that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro directs the gang, according to an intelligence memo whose release angered top officials, who then reportedly ordered a rewrite. TdA has been a major focus of the Trump administration, which designated the group as a terrorist organization earlier this year. Members of the gang have been implicated in violent crimes across the hemisphere but organized crime experts say descriptions of the group have exaggerated its scale, reach and structure. Despite skepticism from US intelligence agencies, Trump officials have repeatedly said the Venezuelan government, under Maduro, is working with Tren de Aragua to 'infiltrate' the US. The accusation was used to justify the Alien Enemies Act invocation in March, leading to the expulsion of hundreds of Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a Salvadorian prison. Humire's appointment to the defense department comes as the administration turns up the pressure on Venezuela. Last week, Trump directed the Pentagon to use military force on some drug cartels – a significant escalation in the 'war on drugs' – and the justice department doubled a bounty on Maduro to $50m. The justice department has accused top Venezuelan officials of running the 'Cartel of the Suns' to traffic drugs to the US. The state department recently declared the Cartel of the Suns to be a terrorist organization, but experts also say this claim may be overstated. Rather than a hierarchical organization trafficking drugs under Maduro's orders, InSight Crime explains it is more-so a 'network of networks' within the military. The Trump administration has increased the US's involvement in Latin America through threats of tariffs and military intervention, alleged backroom deals and prisoner swaps. Rightwing leaders have cozied up to Trump, including El Salvador's authoritarian Nayib Bukele. An analysis by the Guardian and the Quincy Institute shows Latin American leaders have spent millions of dollars hiring lobbyists to influence the White House.
Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has Zelensky become a liability?
Is Volodymyr Zelensky becoming a liability for the West and for his own country? We are entitled at least to pose this question as we (I mean America and Europe) are funding this war. I ask because it is clear, and for years has been clear, that the conflict with Russia must end in a compromise, and the shape of that compromise should not be in doubt. Russia must be given a ladder to climb down and this must involve land. Ukraine must gain what from the start has been the great prize that Moscow has tried to deny it: an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. It was Boris Johnson who first framed the idiotic boast that now threatens to block progress towards such a settlement. 'Not an inch!' he cried, to Ukrainian cheers, when he was prime minister. Perhaps he thought this was just the kind of thing you say for an easy headline and the whoops of the groundlings; but even he must have doubted that Russia could realistically be driven from everything it had gained, and Vladimir Putin be forced to grovel. Too many British minds, I think, have been prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin. Most wars, however, end in messy compromises, and that is how this one must end too. Let me start with the issue of land. It would be stupid for a generalist columnist like me to feign the knowledge that will be needed once negotiations over new borders begin, but I will volunteer this: Crimea (it can at least be argued) is not historically part of Ukraine and only got tacked onto Ukraine when the Soviet Union had both of them among its many countries and regions. I spent time in Ukraine last year, choosing to talk not to soldiers, generals or politicians, but to the under-25s. If you seek the point on the dial when many younger Ukrainians' refusal to contemplate ceding territory begins to waver, that place is Crimea. Despite official assurances from Ukraine that most citizens are against a land-for-peace deal, other polls (and my own conversations) suggest that people don't have principled objections to any ceding of land so much as serious doubts about whether Putin could ever be trusted to keep his word once a land-for-peace deal had been signed. That then – the security side of the agreement which I suggested at the beginning of this column – is absolutely the nub of the entire settlement. I'm in no doubt that if the Ukrainian people could be convinced the settlement would be permanent, and backed to the hilt by the West, they would vote tomorrow for a treaty that gave Russia permanent possession of some of what it has already taken. Let me anticipate at this point some readers' objections. Firstly this: 'Nothing agreed with Putin can he be relied upon to honour.' The trouble with this objection is that it is too strong. It means that even if he could be driven back to the old frontiers, and surrendered, he would try again later. I reply that he well might: that is why the security guarantees for Ukraine remain key. Secondly this: 'We must never reward Putin's aggression.' I'm afraid that, ever since wars began, aggression has often been rewarded. This one, in which incalculable numbers of lives on both sides have already been lost, and if it continues many more will be, must not be accorded the status of a moral lesson for the ages. The fact is that neither side seems capable of winning, so let's park the sermonising and look for the compromise in which so many wars – just wars as well as unjust ones – have always ended. And finally this: 'We owe it to the Ukrainian military dead, brave men and women whose lives were sacrificed for their country, not to settle for less than victory.' Well, if so, does Russia not owe it to the greater numbers of Russian military dead whose lives were sacrificed for their country too? What do we owe the British dead whose sacrifice in Afghanistan was also for a noble cause? This logic, applying as it must to both sides of any conflict, leads only to madness. None of us should be at all confident that Putin is ready to deal. I suspect otherwise. The greater likelihood is that in any negotiations he will fall back on Moscow's insistence that 'the root causes' of this conflict must be tackled. By this he means Ukraine's departure from the orbit of the Russian Federation. That is why security, not land, is what may prove the sticking point this time, because Ukraine's departure from Moscow's orbit must indeed be made secure. But if not this summer or this year, then next summer and next year, when the West's military support for Ukraine does not waver, and Moscow grows weary, this – security – must be at the heart of any negotiations. And those guarantees are up to us. Which brings me back to Zelensky. Who can blame him? Perhaps years of war, years of acute personal tension, years of sticking doggedly to your guns, years in the eye of the storm when your whole country's future rests on your shoulders, jam the flexibility of mind needed, not to fight but to deal. But there's a real danger now that Zelensky's apparent stubbornness over this 'not an inch' business may so infuriate a temperamental US President that American (and with it European) resolve begins to fray. Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can't save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won't save Ukraine unless there's movement on conceding land. The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It's as simple as that.
Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump's Alaska meeting is a gift for Putin
From the Kremlin's point of view, holding a US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska is an idea of fiendish brilliance. The venue itself determines the agenda. Literally half a world away from the petty concerns of the European continent, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can flex the vastness of their respective countries. Anchorage is an eight-hour flight from Washington D.C. and roughly the same distance from Moscow, flying over no other country but Russia for most of the way. By travelling to the point where their countries almost touch in the North Pacific, both leaders can feel justified in prioritising issues that concern just the two of them, from arms control treaties to space cooperation to Arctic mineral rights. Seen from Anchorage, Ukraine seems a very distant and very local problem. The summit is the brainchild of Yuri Ushakov, a veteran diplomat who joined the USSR's foreign ministry in 1970. Ushakov is a wily old attack dog who learned the ways of Washington during a decade-long stint as Russian ambassador from 1998 to 2008. And in suggesting Alaska as a meeting point, Ushakov clearly knows how to flatter not only Trump's ego but also his own President's obsession with history. For Putin, Russia's conquest of north-east Asia and much of the coast of America's Pacific north-west is the founding myth of his country's modern greatness. In the 16th century Muscovy and Spain had both defeated Muslim occupiers and began expanding into rich new worlds east and west – in Spain's case, gold-rich America; in Muscovy's, fur-rich Siberia. Spanish conquistadors and Russian Cossacks reached the Pacific from different sides and started settling colonies along the coasts. In 1776, the Spanish Crown ordered the foundation of San Francisco – in the form of a Franciscan Mission and garrisoned Presidio – in direct response to news that Catherine the Great had started assembling a major Russian fleet to grab the unclaimed territory of northern California. In the event, Catherine's fleet was redeployed to fight a war with the Swedes, leaving most of California to the Spanish. Who was to say who was the more logical ruler of America's north-west coast, distant Madrid or distant St Petersburg? From 1816 until 1842 the southernmost frontier of the Russian empire was 70 miles north of San Francisco at Fort Ross on the Russian River (hence the name). For a brief period in the early 19th century Russia had a colony on Kaua'i island in Hawaii. And until 1867 the modern state of Alaska with its 6,500-mile coastline was known as Russian America and was a possession of the Tsar's. In the wake of the Crimean War, during which a Royal Navy force bombarded and briefly occupied the port of Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, Tsar Alexander II realised he lacked the naval power to maintain control of his American colonies. He first offered Russian America to the British prime minister Lord Palmerston for the eminently logical reason that the territory was contiguous with British Columbia. Palmerston, however, was uninterested in acquiring half a million square miles of mostly unexplored North American wilderness. The only other plausible buyer was the US. But it took two years, and the distribution of tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to congressmen, for the Russians to persuade a reluctant secretary of state, William Seward, to write a cheque for $7.2 million for the Alaska Purchase – mocked at the time as 'Seward's Folly'. Even today, Alaska still bears the stamp of its century and a half as part of the Russian empire. A third of Alaska's population is Native American (by far the largest proportion of any US state) and most of the Aleut and Tlingit peoples still adhere to the Russian Orthodox faith. The major feature of every coastal town from Sitka to Kodiak is a distinctively Russian church, and there are communities of black-robed monks on out-lying islands – though most are Americans and their services are in English. Colonial echoes of Britain, France and Spain are commonplace in other countries, whether Anglican worshippers in Simla, French baguettes in Saigon or Spanish missions in California. Living echoes of a vanished Russian empire are much rarer and exist mostly in Alaska. It is clearly flattering and heartwarming for Putin to meet his American counterpart on what was once Russian territory. Some more excitable western commentators have claimed that hosting a summit in Anchorage encourages Putin's neo-imperial ambitions – including, supposedly, reclaiming the American lands sold by Alexander II. But the idea that 'Alaska Nash' (Alaska is Ours) is anything other than a Russian pub joke is absurd. A roadside billboard bearing that slogan and featuring a map of Russia including all of Alaska has been doing the rounds of Twitter as supposed evidence of Putin's revanchism. In fact it's just a jokey advertisement for a real estate company called Alaska. Rather than dog-whistling Russian imperialism, the location allows Putin to appeal to a bygone age of Russian-American cooperation where the two nations divided up large swaths of the world. The most recent example is, to Putin's mind, the Yalta conference of February 1945 where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill pored over maps and divided spheres of influence in the crumbling Nazi empire. A similar carve-up of Ukrainian territory is exactly what Volodymyr Zelensky fears and he has spent the week since the summit was announced gathering European support to insist that no deal can be done over the heads of the Ukrainians. Unfortunately for Kyiv, and for the Europeans, they're not invited. It's also highly likely that even if Putin and Trump reach some kind of a deal on a ceasefire, it will be largely on Russia's terms. But it's also possible that Moscow and Washington could agree on other, non-Ukraine related issues, such as getting Putin back on board with the New START treaty limiting the number of deployed nuclear weapons – the kind of deal that nuclear superpowers make between each other. And there is nothing that both Putin and Trump enjoy more than playing the role of imperial presidents.
