Trump ally accuses Zelensky of ‘sabotage' before key Putin meeting
Greene claimed Zelensky was attempting to sabotage peace efforts between Trump and Putin, stating he 'doesn't want peace'.
Her comments followed reports that Ukrainian drones had struck two Russian cities, injuring at least 16 people.
Greene has consistently opposed the provision of US weapons and aid to Ukraine, advocating an 'America First' foreign policy.
The Republican lawmaker also previously spread false information regarding protests against Zelensky in Kyiv.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
What Putin said and what he meant, with a flash of sharp teeth
Unlike his American counterpart, President Putin chooses his words carefully. His closing remarks after his meeting with President Trump on Friday speak volumes both for what he did and did not say. • Trump-Putin meeting: follow the latest updates Putin pitched this meeting as an opportunity to bring US-Russian relations back on track — and in effect, to relegate the Ukraine issue to the sidelines. His well-known obsession with history, even if a deeply slanted version that suits his political needs, was soon in evidence. After praising the way the talks had been 'held in a constructive atmosphere of mutual respect', he quickly moved on to stressing not just that the meeting in Alaska highlighted the degree to which Russia and the United States, 'though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours' — just 2.4 miles apart at the closest point — but also that there was much shared history. (Of course, Alaska had been Russian until it was sold to America in 1867.) In the closed-door talks, Trump was apparently spared the kind of 30-minute lecture with which Putin began his interview with the US journalist Tucker Carlson. Instead, in both those talks and his public statement, Putin tried to mobilise history to develop his fundamental point: that Russia and America ought to be allies rather than adversaries. On his way to Anchorage, Putin had stopped over in Magadan in the Russian far east, where he made a point of laying flowers at the 'Heroes of Alsib' memorial commemorating pilots killed on the Alaska-Siberia route in the Second World War, when the US was helping to supply the Soviets. Noting that Soviet pilots had also been buried at a cemetery close to the airbase where the meeting with Trump was held, Putin offered a little light flattery to 'the citizens and the government of the US for carefully taking care of their memory. I think that's very worthy and noble'. He continued to make the point: 'We'll always remember other historical examples when our countries defeated common enemies together in the spirit of battle camaraderie and allyship that supported each other and facilitated each other.' In other words, when Moscow and Washington co-operate, no one can stand in their way. Putin here presented the war as something of a distraction which has unnecessarily interrupted co-operation between two great nations. 'This time has been very hard for bilateral relations, and let's be frank, they've fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War,' he said. 'I think that's not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. It is apparent that sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from the confrontation to dialogue.' This was Putin sounding conciliatory, yet wanting to have his cake and eat it: to restate his fundamental position, while posing as a peacemaker. The tell comes a few moments later. • Four key moments from Trump-Putin press conference This is Putin's usual code for demands that Kyiv must surrender territory, be barred from Nato membership and shrink its military to a level that leaves it perpetually vulnerable. He emphasised that from his perspective 'to make the settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict.' He is of course not talking about the unprovoked Russian invasion that started the war (which he ordered) but rather the supposedly 'legitimate concerns of Russia' and the need 'to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world' which would be more advantageous to Moscow. Meanwhile, he invoked what sounded like kinship with the Ukrainians, adding even that 'naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well'. This might have surprised those Ukrainian civilians hiding in their air raid shelters at the time. However, his claim that Russians have 'always considered the Ukrainian nation … a brotherly nation' as 'we have the same roots' was really just a sugar-coated rendition of his usual claim that Ukraine is not really a genuine country, more an annexe of a greater Russia. It is not yet clear what Putin meant by this arch suggestion. The official translation of his word ponimanie is 'agreements' but really the looser 'understandings' is more accurate. We therefore don't know if there is any framework for an agreement — although there are recurring suggestions of a halt to mutual air attacks on Russia and Ukraine's cities and infrastructure — or just a sense of progress being made. In any case, Putin was astute enough not to dwell on this too much and instead to refocus on the Russian and American relationship. First he dangled the benefit to the United States of improved dialogue with Russia. 'It is clear that the US and Russian investment and business co-operation has tremendous potential,' he said. 'Russia and the US can offer each other so much in trade, digital, high tech and in space exploration. We see that Arctic co-operation is also very possible.' Then he spoke warmly of his own bond with his American counterpart. Trump may be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, but he still manifests an insecurity that Putin is happy to exploit. Speaking of the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 the Russian said: 'President Trump is saying that if he was the president back then, there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so' (as if the invasion had been some natural disaster, rather than something he initiated). As for Trump's peacemaking efforts, it was the Europeans and Ukrainians who were frustrating him, Putin suggested. He expressed the pious hope that they 'will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.' It was, of course, naked flattery, but it was also different from the kind of fawning obeisances some European leaders have adopted. Rather it was calibrated to convey a sense that the two men were equals and it came with the hint of an invitation to the club of strongman leaders: 'The president of the US has a very clear idea of what he would like to achieve. He sincerely cares about the prosperity of his nation. Still, he understands that Russia has its own national interests.' This sounded like a compliment, not condescension. Putin is not a rigid strategist but an opportunist. He likes to keep his options open. Having averted any ultimatum on a ceasefire, he made it clear that he will pursue both military and diplomatic tracks simultaneously, the very thing Kyiv has been trying to prevent. He can see if some deal that suits him emerges — or just use continuing negotiations to keep Trump paralysed and try to paint the Ukrainians and the Europeans as the obstacle. At this stage, he doesn't have to decide, and that's the way he likes it. One might think that this would be enough for him, but Putin wouldn't be Putin without a snarky parting shot. Just as Trump was wrapping up the brief press conference with a vague suggestion that the two men would 'probably' see each other again soon, Putin pounced. By inviting him, in English, to the Russian capital for their next meeting, he knew he was putting Trump very much on the spot. Obviously, this would be an even greater fillip for Putin, and pretty much guarantee that President Zelensky wasn't going to be present. It was a closing flash of the sharp teeth behind the bland smile: I am not, Putin could have been saying, just another second-tier national leader who can be pushed around. Professor Mark Galeotti's book, Forged in War: A Military History of Russia from its Beginnings to Today, is published by Osprey/Bloomsbury
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukraine drone attack injures train station employee in Russia's Voronezh, governor says
Aug 17 (Reuters) - A railway employee was injured and a power line damaged by a Ukrainian drone attack at a station in Russia's Voronezh region, the regional governor said on Sunday. "According to preliminary information, a railway station track technician was injured in one of the municipalities," Alexander Gusev said of the overnight attack on the Telegram messaging app. "He has been hospitalised." Gusev said the attack caused train delays, but by Sunday morning trains were running back on schedule. The Russian defence ministry, which reports only how many drones its units destroy not how many Ukraine launches, said on the Telegram messaging app that nine drones were downed over the Voronezh region in Russia's southwest. In total, the ministry said, its defence systems destroyed 46 Ukrainian drones overnight, all of them in regions west of Moscow. Reuters could not independently verify the Russian reports. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine. Kyiv says that its strikes inside Russia are in answer to Moscow's continued attacks on Ukraine and are aimed at destroying infrastructure key to Russia's war efforts. The reports of the attacks came after a summit between the U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin yielded no agreement on ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Trump said on Saturday that Kyiv should make a deal with Moscow to end the war because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not."
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
