Franklin Graham meets with Zelenskyy in Berlin, offers prayer as Russia-Ukraine war escalates
Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse, met Wednesday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Berlin.
During their meeting, Graham offered prayers for Zelenskyy, Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, seeking divine guidance for a path to peace in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
"Today I had the privilege to meet with President Zelenskyy and have prayer with him," Graham shared on social media. "I prayed for President Putin, I prayed for him [Zelenskyy], and I prayed for President Trump — that God would give them wisdom and that God would give them a path forward for peace."
Zelensky Sheds Details On Meeting With Vance, Rubio In Rome After Russia Peace Talks Stall
The meeting coincided with the European Congress on Evangelism, where Graham addressed over 1,000 Christian leaders from 55 countries.
He emphasized the complexities of the war, stating, "These are very difficult, and I believe only God can solve this."
Read On The Fox News App
Zelenskyy expressed gratitude for the humanitarian aid provided by Samaritan's Purse, including support for Ukrainian children, displaced individuals and medical institutions.
"We are very grateful for the strong support from the American people, the White House and President Trump," Zelenskyy said. "Thank you for your prayers and for helping people."
The meeting took place against a backdrop of intensified Russian military action in Ukraine.
On Third Anniversary Of Ukraine Invasion, European Leaders Show Support, Express Unease
Recent reports indicate escalating Russian air and ground assaults, with increased use of drones by both sides. Germany has announced plans to assist Ukraine in producing long-range missiles, marking a significant deepening of support for Ukraine's defense industry.
Zelenskyy has proposed a trilateral summit involving Trump and Putin to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
Graham's visit coincided with the European Congress on Evangelism being held for the first time in 25 years.
From Ukraine to the U.K. and Sweden to Spain, over 1,000 pastors and ministry leaders from across Europe have come to the city where Billy Graham once preached to declare that they are "unashamed of the Gospel," echoing the words of Romans 1:16.
"There hasn't been a gathering of this kind since the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's congress in Amsterdam in 2000," Graham said. "What a moment for Europe, and what a time to boldly proclaim Christ."
The congress marks a return to the roots of BGEA's global evangelistic mission.
In 1966, Billy Graham held the first World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin, declaring the city a platform to reach the world with the message of salvation.
Marc Van de Wouwer, a Belgian evangelist and retired federal investigator, reflected on his experience at the 2000 Amsterdam congress.
"At the time, there were very few evangelists in Belgium," he said. "That event reignited my passion, and now I'm coming back to help invest in the next generation."Original article source: Franklin Graham meets with Zelenskyy in Berlin, offers prayer as Russia-Ukraine war escalates
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers No Longer Understand the American Family
Imagine if our national economy, culture, and politics were rooted in the idea that the default American household is white and Christian. There would be no Spanish-language campaign ads and TV shows, no interracial families depicted in commercials, no fill-in-the-blank Heritage Day at ballparks. Workplaces would see no need to accommodate holiday schedules for Muslims or Jews. That was a good bet more than 50 years ago, when the country was 88 percent white and 90 percent Christian, and less than 5 percent of the population was foreign-born. Since then, politicians and business leaders have figured out they will lose out if they deny the existence of the new, far more diverse, face of America. They may be motivated more by votes and dollars than by principles, but they've broadened their pitches to reflect (at least in part) the modern American household. And yet, when it comes to the family structure itself, the system (public and private) is stuck in an earlier era, one which assumes a 'traditional' household made up of a married couple and their offspring. Lawmakers proudly brand themselves 'pro-family,' and vow to fight for 'working families.' There's Family Day at attractions and entertainment venues, and family discounts on everything from phone service to cars, retail and college tuition. The best value for consumables is the 'family-sized' version that will rot before a single person can finish it. Solo diners are shooed to the bar at restaurants, with tables reserved for couples or families. Single people subsidize family health insurance plans, pay higher tax rates for the same joint income of a married couple, and can't get Social Security death benefits awarded to a widowed spouse. Companies that brag about being 'family-friendly?' Ask a single person: That means they work nights and weekends. The fix has been in, for a long time, in favor of those who marry and have children. In times past, this was just a temporary irritant, since most people indeed ended up marrying (in their early 20s, back in 1970) and having a family. But that family prototype is no longer dominant—and all indications suggest we're not going back to the way things were. Why are policy-makers in denial about the country we have become? 'It's not that [leaders] don't understand that families have changed very much from what they used to be. It's that they don't want to confront the reasons why families have changed,' said Stephanie Coontz, author of five books on gender and marriage. It's not that people don't want to couple—most do, she added—but marriage is not necessary anymore, especially for women who no longer need a man for financial support and don't need to stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship. They want intimacy, but with equality, and 'women have the ability to say, if I don't get that, I'll hold out,' said Coontz, the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families and emeritus faculty of History and Family Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. There's a misguided longing, especially among conservatives, to return to a storied American family that never really existed, Coontz argues in her book The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. In reality, drug abuse, alcohol consumption, and sexually transmitted diseases were more prevalent in the 1950s, but economic conditions (in part because of government support for families) make the mid-20th century family look idyllic in retrospect, Coontz argues in the book. 'There's this ideology, it's really more of a worldview, that if you get married, you really will live happily ever after, and be healthier and morally superior' to unmarried people, said social scientist Bella DePaolo, author of Single at Heart: The Power, Freedom and Heart-Filling Joy of Single Life. But when it comes to how people actually behave and the choices they make, 'the place of marriage in our lives has been slipping,' she said. 'Fewer people are getting married—fewer people want to marry. That is threatening to people who want things to stay the same.' The statistics back her up: in 1970, 71 percent of households were made up of married couples; by 2022, that group became a minority, comprising just 47 percent of households. 'Non-family' households were an offbeat 19 percent of homes in 1970; the most recent Census Bureau statistics show that 36 percent of households now are 'non-family.' Married couples with children made up a solid plurality (40 percent) of 1970 homes. Now, such families comprise just 18 percent of households—strikingly, barely more than the category of women living alone, who make up 16 percent of American households, according to the Census Bureau. Even the current White House doesn't reflect the household ideal pushed by social conservatives. President Donald Trump is on his third marriage (with five kids from three wives); his wife Melania Trump is reportedly a part-time resident of the White House, and Trump hangs out with First Bro Elon Musk (who himself is reputed to have more than a dozen children from different mothers). There's been a steady trend towards later marriage, and even away from marriage entirely. The Pew Research Center, using data from the American Community Survey, points out that in 1970, 69 percent of Americans 18 and older were married, and 17 percent were never married. By 2010, just half of Americans over 18 were married, and a startling 31 percent had never been married. Those trends have caused agita among conservatives worried about the changing model (or the 'breaking down' of that model, as they characterize it) of the American family. Fiscal hawks rightfully worry, too, about demographic trends that indicate we will have an increasing number of old people drawing Social Security and Medicare, and not enough young people paying into the system. This is a legitimate concern; fertility rates in the United States reached an historic low in 2023. But the response to these phenomena has not been an examination of how public policy could be reoriented to the new reality of American households, but rather to try to force Americans back to an earlier, mythic demographic era. There's a deep, anti-social vein running through the strategies of those who'd force today's square-peg Americans back into the round hole of their nostalgic fantasies. There's the tactic of insulting or shaming unmarried women ('childless cat ladies,' as Vice President J.D. Vance called them). There's blaming feminism in general. 'We have this low birth rate in America … it just hit me right now because who's going to sleep with these ugly ass broke liberal women?' singer and Trump acolyte Kid Rock said on Fox News. Conservative essayist John Mac Ghlionn lays blame at the sparkly-booted feet of Taylor Swift, who—while being very successful and wealthy, he concedes in a column in Newsweek—is a terrible role model for young girls because 'at 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless.' Worse, the author screams in print, Swift has had a lot of famous boyfriends, and 'the glamorous portrayal of her romantic life can send rather objectionable messages.' The sneering message is clear: stop being so promiscuous or career-driven, and you'll attract a man who will give you what you want—marriage and children. Except that's not what women (necessarily) want. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that just 45 percent of women 18-34 want to be parents someday. That's substantially less than the 57 percent of young men who feel that way. An earlier Pew study found that half of uncoupled men were looking for either a committed relationship or casual dating; 35 percent of single women said the same. And while women who were seeking relationships were more likely than men to say they wanted a committed union, instead of a casual arrangement, the survey results knock down the old trope of women being almost universally on the prowl for men who will offer them a ring and children. Bribing people to have children is another misguided approach, with the Trump administration mulling a laughably low 'baby bonus' of $5,000 to American women who have children. Yes, having kids is costly; the per-child cost can top $310,000, according to a Brookings Institution study. But it's not just a function of money. A growing percentage of adults under 50, in a 2024 Pew Research Center study, say they don't plan to have kids (47 percent are nixing the idea now, compared to 37 percent in 2018). The reason? 57 percent of those who aren't planning to have kids say they simply don't want to. 'I don't think you can solve what is ostensibly a cultural problem with financial incentives. That just doesn't work,' said Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute. 'I do think that the increasing costs of daily living, and the increase in housing costs, are all playing a role in (people) feeling more financially vulnerable and less secure,' he said. But structural issues—including women's fear of losing their autonomy or having their career advancement thwarted because of childcare demands—are leading to 'some real trepidation' towards marriage, he said. So, what is to be done? Instead of trying to make people want what they demonstrably don't want, government and business could instead adapt to the modern American household and the economy it has produced. There are about a thousand separate rights Americans acquire when they get married—everything from visitation rights at hospitals, to Social Security survivor benefits, to joint health insurance plans, said Gordon Morris, board chairman for the advocacy group Unmarried Equality. And that, he says, needs to change to reflect the fact that nearly half of U.S. adults are unmarried. Paying for Social Security and Medicare doesn't need to be fixed with a forced baby boom, either. One solution is to embrace immigrants, DePaolo said, since they (working legally) will contribute income and Social Security taxes. Another simpler fix, Morris said, is to remove the income cap for Social Security/Medicare contributions. 'It's a problem that's easy to solve, economically, Politically, it's very hard,' he acknowledged. But first and fundamentally, he argued, policymakers need to accept that the country is changing demographically—and that's not just about race or religion or national origin. Some of the most profound changes afoot in society revolve around the whens and whys Americans are getting married and having children. 'The problem is, there's an assumption that you're supposed to get married and you're supposed to have children. That assumption has got to change,' he said. The new reality, after all, has already arrived.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
War's unseen isolation: A Ukrainian officer's story of survival and hope
A lot depends on the circumstances under which you try to define or feel your own loneliness. Let me begin with my biography — my recent story. I joined the army in the first days of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, as an officer in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I had never served in the military before, and I never thought I would. In fact, I considered myself an anti-militarist — and still do. Yet, I see no contradiction between that and being proudly a senior lieutenant in the Armed Forces. Within three and a half months of participating in the liberation of the Kyiv Oblast and other operations further east, half of my platoon — eight of my subordinates and I — was captured by Russian forces in Luhansk Oblast. What followed were two years and four months of Russian captivity. I was a prisoner of war, held the entire time in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory — the very region we were defending. For some reason, keeping me as a POW wasn't enough — perhaps because they learned I was a journalist and human rights activist. A few months into my captivity, they fabricated a criminal case against me. The following year, I was sentenced as a 'war criminal' to 13 years in a penal colony for supposed heinous crimes. I felt lonely because of what I had experienced. The only evidence against me was a confession — extracted under duress. I prefer that phrasing, as it avoids the word 'torture.' I was part of a prisoner exchange in October of last year. Naturally, I'm incredibly happy to be free. But it also breaks my heart — almost everyone I spent those years with in captivity, except for two, are still there. And of my own platoon, four remain incarcerated. As a former POW, when you're released and return to your native city — Kyiv, which I've never loved more — you meet hundreds, even thousands, of wonderful people, joyful to see you free. I felt an overwhelming lightness, warmth, and happiness. And yet, at the same time, I understood — and so did many of them — that something fundamental had changed between us. I felt lonely because of what I had experienced. I've been to places and seen things they never have — and I hope they never will. But I also realized that our worldviews had diverged. How we see and feel the world is no longer the same. Most of them, when they thought about it — without any prompting — said, 'No, we don't know what you went through.' And that's true for every former prisoner of war or civilian detainee. This is what distinguishes a war veteran or a civilian under occupation from everyone else. We are shaped by what we live through. It's a strange thing, to feel lonely in such a significant — perhaps even defining — part of your life. But it's a kind of chosen loneliness, because you don't want others to feel what you felt. You don't want them to go through what you endured. In captivity, our guards deliberately tried to inflict another kind of loneliness. They worked to break us — morally, psychologically, and yes, physically. Especially in the first several months, we were held incommunicado, with no contact with the outside world. They repeatedly told us: 'You've been abandoned. Everyone has forgotten you. You are on your own. You're at our mercy. No one can reach you. We can do whatever we want. No one cares.' Read also: 'It's okay, Mom, I'm home' —Ukraine, Russia hold largest prisoner swap of the war I was lucky. I never believed it. Not for a single second — not even in the darkest moments. I placed all my trust in my loved ones — my family, my friends, my colleagues, and just kind people out there — believing they remembered me, remembered us. Other Ukrainian POWs came to hear me say it out loud: 'We are not forgotten.' That kind of destructive loneliness didn't work. Physically, we were isolated — but morally, we were not. 'You don't know what's happening. You don't understand. Wake up.' The loneliness I felt after my release was of a different kind. It wasn't about isolation. It was more complex. At the same time, I knew I was free because of other people. They had written letters, led campaigns, given interviews, and posted on social media. In the final months of my captivity, I learned there was a campaign of solidarity for me — but I couldn't have imagined the scale of it. After my release, I kept meeting strangers who had participated in it. And I know I am free, to the extent possible, because of them. I had plenty of time in captivity to reflect. My first degree is in philosophy — it never fades. I realized I had never treasured people as deeply as I do now. I began to grasp how much I am human — at my best — because of others. I recently returned from an advocacy trip across Europe, specifically within the EU. And I felt something many Ukrainians abroad have shared with me — being in a peaceful country untouched by what we've endured for more than three years now. I felt joy simply observing people. Watching groups of young people rushing through their day-to-day lives. I was so happy to see people living in normalcy. They should not endure what we're living through. That's a good thing. That's human. War is a state of profound dehumanization. People aren't meant to live through it. I was glad to see them. But at the same time, I felt like I knew something they didn't. I had this urge to walk up to someone, shake them, and say, 'You don't know what's happening. You don't understand. Wake up.' It's a kind of loneliness rooted in experience — that of a former prisoner of war. We've lived through something I sincerely hope no other community or country will ever have to experience. And as terrible as it sounds, I want us to be alone in that experience. Because if we're not, it means we failed to defend ourselves, and others had to share this tragedy with us. I would hope we rather remain lonely in that regard. Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. Submit an Opinion We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine ready for 2nd round of Istanbul talks but seeks Russian draft memo in advance, Yermak says
Ukraine is ready to attend the second round of peace talks with the Russian delegation in Istanbul on June 2, but seeks to receive a draft of Russia's proposed ceasefire memorandum before the meeting, said Presidential Office Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak on May 29. Ukraine and Russia held peace talks in Istanbul on May 16, where both sides agreed to a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange. The peace negotiations were largely inconclusive, with Moscow reiterating maximalist demands and sending a delegation of lower-level officials. Moscow has proposed June 2 as the date for the next round of talks with Ukraine, despite escalating its attacks on the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on May 29 that the Russian delegation, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, is prepared to present the memorandum to the Ukrainian side and provide necessary clarifications during the next Istanbul meeting. Kyiv insists on receiving the memorandum ahead of the new round of talks in order to understand Russia's proposed steps toward a ceasefire. Ukraine has already submitted its own document to the Russian side. "Ukraine is ready to attend the next meeting, but we want to engage in a constructive discussion. This means it is important to receive Russia's draft. There is enough time – four days are sufficient for preparing and sending the documents," Yermak said during a conversation with advisors to the leaders of the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy. Security advisors from the four countries are expected to attend the second round of peace talks in Istanbul, U.S. President Donald Trump's Special Envoy Keith Kellogg said. Russia vowed to present its peace memorandum but has yet to deliver, drawing rebuke from Ukrainian, European, and U.S. officials. Trump has also repeatedly signaled he would exit the peace efforts unless progress is achieved soon. Reuters reported that Putin's conditions for ending Russia's war against Ukraine include a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members, lifting of some sanctions, and Ukraine's neutral status, among other demands. Read also: Infighting around EU rearmament undermines grand ambitions for European defense We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
