German Chancellor to travel to Washington for talks on Ukraine
According to a statement, the visit is for an "exchange of information" with Trump following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the US state of Alaska on Friday, Xinhua News Agency reported.
After the Alaska summit, Zelensky announced that he would meet Trump in Washington on Monday.
Merz is expected to discuss the current state of peace efforts, the statement said, adding that security guarantees, territorial issues, and continued support for Ukraine will be addressed.
Earlier on Saturday, Trump held a telephonic meeting with the European leaders and Ukraine's Zelensky to brief them on his discussions with the Russian President in Alaska.
Following the meeting, Presidents Trump and Putin said that they made progress in three hours of talks on Friday, moving closer to finding an end to the Ukraine War, but did not announce an immediate ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the US President took to his social media platform Truth Social on Saturday, calling the meeting with Putin in Alaska a successful one.
'A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late-night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted.
"President Zelensky will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" the post added.
European leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Portuguese President Antonio Costa, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen welcomed President Trump's efforts to 'stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression', and achieve just and lasting peace.
'As President Trump said, 'there's no deal until there's a deal'. As envisioned by President Trump, the next step must now be further talks, including President Zelensky, whom he will meet soon. We are also ready to work with President Trump and President Zelensky towards a trilateral summit with European support," read a joint statement issued by the European leaders after Saturday's phone call.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
‘Trump-Putin Alaska talks a performance for domestic audiences, not peace': Ukraine expert
In an exclusive conversation with Firstpost, Dr Hanna Shelest, Security Studies Programme Director at Prism UA and Editor-in-Chief of Ukraine Analytica, shares how Ukrainians are perceiving the Alaska Summit and what they are expecting from a Trump-Zelenskyy meeting The world watched closely as the US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin came face-to-face in Alaska to discuss possibilities and ways to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging on for three-and-a-half years. However, the three hours of talks ended with no major breakthrough announcements. While addressing the American press after their meeting, neither Trump nor Putin mentioned the word ' ceasefire', and the presser ended with no questions. Soon after the summit came to an end, it was announced that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be visiting Washington, DC, to discuss the takeaways from the Alaska summit with Trump. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Multiple reports from different media outlets suggested that Putin wants Ukraine to cede two of the four regions Russia has staked claim on (Donetsk and Luhansk), and freeze the front lines in the other two (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia). Russia controls nearly all of Luhansk, and about three-quarters of Donetsk. However, Zelenskyy has opposed all suggestions that compromise Ukraine's pre-war territorial integrity. In an exclusive conversation with Firstpost's Bhagyasree Sengupta, Dr Hanna Shelest, the Security Studies programme director at Prism UA and the editor-in-chief of Ukraine Analytica, said Putin apparently aimed for delaying sanctions in his meeting with Trump, and might not have seriously considered the ceasefire option at this point of time. Edited excerpts: Q. The US laid out a red carpet to welcome Putin, and even Trump was applauding the Russian president's arrival. What kind of message does this send to Ukraine? The red carpet arrival was not necessary. However, with the military jets in the background, that was the play of the protocol. They wanted to display respect for Putin to put him in a good mood for negotiations, but at the same time to demonstrate the strength of the United States. In Ukraine, such a warm welcome was not accepted, considering that Putin is considered a war criminal. Even in the United States, he is under sanctions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Putin at the 2025 Alaska summit with Donald Trump. Reuters/File Photo Despite all this, there is a minor understanding that it could potentially lead to nice negotiations that could be accepted. However, as we saw in the final press conference, it looks like the red carpet was positively accepted only by the Russian media and is now actively being used in the Russian state propaganda. Q. What do you make of Russian President Putin's claim that Russia and the US should 'turn the page and go back to cooperation'? Do you see genuine scope for such a reset, or is it primarily rhetorical? There are no preconditions for 'turning the page' as of now. However, we understand that from the very beginning, since 2021, the rhetoric of the Russian president was that Ukraine doesn't matter, that all issues should be resolved just between Washington and Moscow. So in this case, Putin wanted to demonstrate that the page can be turned when it comes to global politics, trade, issues about China, Iran, Syria, etc. But Ukraine is just one of the small issues. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That's how he usually tries to present it at the international forum where he is meeting the US representative or someone from Brics. He would like to present that it is not a major geopolitical and security concern of the whole world, as for now, because it has ruined all the international norms. But it is one of the issues that they can easily overcome. He is marginalising the issue, and in this case, he hoped that Trump could jump onto other issues like Iran or China instead of discussing the war in Ukraine. Q. The word ceasefire was not mentioned by either leader after the talks. What does this signify? The word ceasefire was not mentioned because that is not what Putin wants. His idea was to postpone sanctions, not to call a ceasefire. Also consider that the same night, the Russian armed forces sent more than 100 drones and ballistic missiles against Ukraine. So it doesn't demonstrate the goodwill of the ceasefire. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska on August 15. File image/Reuters As we know from the morning news, Putin proposed a full and quick settlement. The reason is that in this case, he is not being seen as the bad guy who is disagreeing with the ceasefire, but he perfectly understands that, considering the complexities of this war and the issues that are currently in play, it is impossible to have a quick solution in one meeting. Q. Putin repeatedly said that Russia's 'legitimate concerns' must be addressed as part of any peace deal. In your view, what are the likely demands underlying this phrasing, and how might they clash with Ukrainian and European interests? 'Legitimate concerns,' he even said, the 'prerequisites of this war'. In Ukraine, the answer is that the main reason for this war is Putin himself. It was his unilateral decision after which he made the whole country, the Russian Federation, believe that the war was necessary. That is the rhetoric he had been using even earlier than 2022. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His legitimate concern was whether Ukraine should join Nato even when it was officially a neutral state. We were perfectly sure that inclusion in Nato was not the main reason for Putin's concern when Finland and Sweden joined two years ago, because this organisation is purely for defence. But this became a very successful propaganda narrative because, in this case, he can blame this war on the European countries instead of blaming his aggressive intervention in Ukraine. So this phrase of legitimate concerns is quite classical for Russian diplomacy. It is what we have heard in 2022; that's what we are hearing now. But when you start asking, all his answers are de facto about the invasion of Ukraine and the dismantling of statehood. We saw in some of the media that one of the demands he had was that Ukraine would reconsider learning the Ukrainian language in Ukrainian schools. That's something inappropriate; that's not a question of sovereignty, but that's just a demonstration of the imperial policy of Russia. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Q. Ukraine was not given a seat at the Alaska table, excluding Kyiv's agency over its own future. What risks does it pose? Yes, Ukraine was not given a seat. However, it was not expected this time. I think it is not a big problem considering that we already have an announcement that on Monday, President Zelenskyy will be in Washington and they will have bilateral negotiations. Trump immediately informed the Ukrainian president as well as European and Nato leaders. Yellow Ribbon activists in Crimea and the occupied Luhansk region resist Russian occupation. X / @yellowribbonENG So we understand that the dialogue is happening, and considering the press conference, we understand that there were no agreements without agreement from Ukraine and European partners for this deal. Q. Putin warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress'. Do you think this is a veiled criticism of France and Germany in particular, and how do you think they will react to being essentially cautioned in this way? Putin's criticism of France and Germany is not legitimate, and it is understandable because he always thought that he could make some shadow deal with Washington, and he understands that Europeans would be working according to the values and national interests of Ukraine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD They are those who became the mediators between Ukraine and Washington when the relations spoiled, and they really became the translators of the Ukrainian position and of the Ukrainian national interest and security. Because they understand that it is not only about Ukraine but also about European security in total. That's why he needs to spoil the reputation. He needs to blame somebody else, and why not Europeans, because he knows that he can always disrupt the perception between European countries and the United States. For Putin, it is extremely important to single out Washington because he never knows how to work against the Union, against the organisation. They are too strong; they are united. That's why he always wants to single out individual nations of Europe or Nato. In this case, it is the United States because he assumes that it is much easier to persuade Nato. Q. Putin endorsed Trump's claim that there would not have been a war in Ukraine if the latter had been the US president in 2022. How do you interpret this narrative? I don't believe that there would have been no war if Trump were the president back in 2022 because former US President Joe Biden was really soft on Putin as well. He was ready for the concessions and the fact that Putin could have these concessions regarding, for example, future nato membership of Ukraine without direct aggression or intervention of the independent state. Putin and Biden talked for three hours in 2021. Reuters So now it is more playing with the ego and more playing with this concerned statement of Mr Trump against his predecessor. That was more of a diplomatic trick, the attempt to manipulate the emotions of the US President, and was he successful? Yeah, maybe. Q. In your final assessment, did the Alaska summit move the needle even marginally on bringing genuine peace closer, or did it mainly serve as a stage for performative diplomacy? I would say the Alaska summit was more of a performance for the domestic audience in Russia and the US rather than bringing actual peace because the statements in the end demonstrated that the positions didn't become closer and the requests of conditions made by Putin are absolutely the same that were made three and a half years ago. Here, the main question is, have we become closer to peace? Definitely not, but has it served the interests of the Russian Federation? Yes, absolutely, because we know that the sanctions are not being imposed, and he would not impose a ceasefire right now. So in this case, it was quite a win for the Russian side; however, let's see how the situation changes on Monday.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
Will Zelenskyy wear a suit? White House asked Ukraine. He's going in a black jacket
Clothes became a flashpoint at Zelenskyy's previous Oval Office encounter in March, when Trump bristled at his military-style look and the meeting unravelled The White House has asked Ukrainian officials whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy will wear a suit to his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump on Monday (August 18), according to a report by Axios citing two people with direct knowledge of the preparations. The Ukrainian president plans to arrive in a black jacket similar to the business-style one he wore at the NATO summit in the Netherlands in June, rather than a full suit and tie. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Clothes became a flashpoint at Zelenskyy's previous Oval Office encounter in March, when Trump bristled at his military-style look and the meeting unravelled. Advisers on both sides now say the optics are being handled more carefully, even as Zelenskyy prepares to stick with his signature pared-back aesthetic. Why the outfit matter Trump places stock in leaders 'looking the part', which in his view means a suit. His irritation last time went beyond clothes, advisers say, but the attire set an early tone that proved unhelpful. A Trump adviser quipped that a suit would be a positive sign for peace, while acknowledging they do not expect Zelenskyy to wear one. There is internal theatre here too. US officials suggest vice-president JD Vance took particular issue with Zelenskyy's appearance and approach during the last visit. The 'tie thing', one source said, started with Vance. Zelenskyy is not expected to wear a tie on Monday. Zelenskyy to wear jacket Kyiv officials say the president will opt for a black jacket that reads as 'suit-style' without being a conventional suit. The Nato summit in June marked his first outing in business attire since Russia's 2022 invasion, and US officials noted Trump responded more favourably to that look. The aim this time is to balance wartime authenticity with the formality of the Oval Office. Will the meeting be different? Both camps insist it will. Trump advisers say Zelenskyy has become more adept at framing his arguments for the former president. One adviser said Trump has learned to set aside irritations and move the conversation forward. European leaders are also expected to be part of the Washington programme around the visit, which officials believe will give the talks a different complexion to March.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
Germany faces a China wall as it aims major upgrade of its military
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wants his country to have the strongest military in Europe by 2031. But China's near monopoly on rare earth minerals could derail such plans for rearmament and military modernisation. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wants his country to have the strongest military in Europe, but China's near monopoly on rare earths could derail the plan. Merz has built a war chest of €500 billion (584.35 bn) for the military modernisation, rearmament, and infrastructure development. But there are some things that even money and political will cannot buy, such as the 17 'rare earth' minerals. These minerals are not actually scarce but are called 'rare' because they are found with other minerals and are very difficult to mine and refine. China controls around 70 per cent of rare earths' mining and around 90 per cent of rare earths' production. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rare earths are needed in nearly every modern product from household devices like cell phones to cars and fighter planes and missiles. In recent years, China has used the near monopoly on rare earth supplies for leverage in international politics. It leveraged to bring Trump to his knees in the trade war. Now, Merz's ambitions for Germany, and Europe's broader rearmament programme, is at the risk of being derailed. Rare earths are a must for military Rare earths are not just a must for automobiles and communication devices but are required in almost every modern weapon and military system. For example, F-35 fighter planes need anywhere between 418–920 kilograms of multiple rare earths, such as neodymium, praseodymium, yttrium, gadolinium, and cerium, which are used in radar, stealth coatings, and various sensors, and glasses. Similarly, Eurofighter Typhoon uses hundreds of kgs of rare earths in total, such as neodymium and samarium for actuators; yttrium and gadolinium for avionics and radars, and praseodymium and lanthanum for engine or turbine alloys and sensors. Here is a not-so-exhaustive list of rare earths and their applications in military systems: Rare earths' applications in military systems. Germany has already placed orders for thousands of military vehicles, missiles, and ammunitions, and defence firms have revved up their production lines. But all of it come to a grinding halt if China would tomorrow decide to stop rare earth supplies. But the limitation is not limited to just rare earths. The European Union (EU) imports as much as 95 per cent of its strategic raw materials, and relies on non-EU countries for 90 per cent of such imports, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) told Politico. See the chart below to understand China's domination in global rare earth supplies. China's place among world's rare earths' suppliers. Beyond rare earths, China controls around half of the world's supply of 'critical minerals'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Among such minerals, the BDI told Politico that tungsten, graphite, titanium, and high-purity magnesium, are the backbone of high-end military systems, which are used in radars, electric motors, missile guidance fins, thermal sights, and drone propulsion, and most of these minerals come from China. If China-sourced materials suddenly fall away, that could stop Germany's defense industrial plans in their tracks, Jakob Kullik, a researcher at Chemnitz University of Technology and an expert on rare earth policy, told Politico.
