Trump offers assurances that U.S. troops won't be sent to help defend Ukraine
Trump also said in a morning TV interview that Ukraine's hopes of joining NATO and regaining the Crimean peninsula from Russia are 'impossible.'
The Republican president, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders held hours of talks at the White House on Monday aimed at bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. While answering questions from journalists, Trump did not rule out sending U.S. troops to participate in a European-led effort to defend Ukraine as part of security guarantees sought by Zelensky.
Trump said after his meeting in Alaska last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Putin was open to the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine.
But asked Tuesday on Fox News Channel's 'Fox & Friends' what assurances he could provide going beyond his term that American troops would not be part of defending Ukraine's border, Trump said, 'Well, you have my assurance, and I'm president.'
Trump would have no control over the U.S. military after his term ends in January 2029.
The president also said in the interview that he is optimistic that a deal can be reached to end the Russian invasion, but he underscored that Ukraine will have to set aside its hope of getting back Crimea, which was seized by Russian forces in 2014, and its long-held aspirations of joining the NATO military alliance.
'Both of those things are impossible,' Trump said.
Putin, as part of any potential deal to pull his forces out of Ukraine, is looking for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
At the end of Monday's White House gathering, Trump said he is trying to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, followed by a trilateral meeting involving himself and the two warring leaders. Details and possible locations were not discussed, but an international arrest warrant for Putin could complicate any such meetings.
French President Emmanuel Macron said it could happen 'in Europe' and he's advocating for Geneva, although he said it could be another 'neutral' country. He noted in an interview with French television TF1-LCI broadcast Tuesday that Istanbul hosted the most recent bilateral discussions, in 2022.
Meanwhile, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said his country would be prepared to organize such a summit, Swiss public broadcaster SRF reported.
Asked about the complication posed by the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Putin, Cassis said 'the aim of receiving Mr. Putin in Switzerland without him being arrested is 100% achievable … of course, if he comes to Switzerland for the purposes of peace, for such a multilateral conference, not if he comes for private matters.'
Cassis said arranging for Putin to avoid arrest would require 'a certain procedure,' but it could be done 'in a few days.'
In the 'Fox & Friends' interview, Trump said Putin and Zelensky are getting along 'a little better than I thought,' noting the 'tremendous bad blood' between them.
He said his perception of their relationship is why he's arranging for them to meet one-on-one soon, instead of a three-way meeting with himself as sort of a mediator.
'I think they're doing OK. I wouldn't say they are ever going to be best friends, but they're doing OK,' the president said.'
'You know, they're the ones that have to call the shots,' Trump said. 'We're 7,000 miles away.'
The White House meeting with Zelensky included the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, the European Union and NATO.
Trump said the European leaders were not in the room when he spoke with Putin on Monday. He said he thought it would have been disrespectful to handle the phone call that way since Putin and the European leaders meeting with him at the White House haven't had the 'warmest relations.'
But despite that, he said that he has managed to maintain a 'very good relationship' with Putin.
Superville and Madhani write for the Associated Press.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
24 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.S. trans woman challenges Dutch asylum rejection
AMSTERDAM — A 28-year-old transgender woman from the U.S. began a legal challenge on Wednesday to the rejection of her asylum application in the Netherlands where she had sought political asylum saying she no longer felt safe in the United States. Veronica Clifford-Carlos, a visual artist from California, came to the Netherlands — the first country to legalize same-sex marriage and known for its strong protections of LGBTQ rights — because the Trump administration's policies towards transgender people made her feel unsafe, her lawyer's office said. The case, the first of its kind in the Netherlands, will be heard in a court in Amsterdam starting Wednesday, with a ruling expected in four to six weeks. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ people. Dutch advocacy group LGBT Asylum Support, which backs the lawsuit, is currently assisting around 20 U.S. trans individuals with pending asylum claims. According to data from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), 29 Americans applied for asylum in the Netherlands during the first half of this year. In previous years there were between nine and 18 applicants per year, an IND spokesperson said. 'The IND generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally,' LGBT Asylum Support said in a statement. 'But the IND maintains that there are no grounds for exceptional treatment of transgender and queer refugees from the U.S.'
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Almost 6 in 10 say UN members should recognize Palestinian state: Survey
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans said that the United Nations (U.N.) countries should recognize the Palestinian state, according to a new survey that was published on Wednesday morning. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of U.S. adults think that every country in the U.N. should recognize Palestine as a nation. About a third of respondents, 33 percent, disagreed, while another 9 percent didn't answer when asked. The survey comes as the United Kingdom, France and Canada — all close U.S. allies — have recently expressed their intentions to recognize the Palestinian state. In late July, when asked about UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's intention, President Trump said he had 'no view on that.' The president said French President Emmanuel Macron's decision was not 'going to change anything.' The decisions from all three nations come as Israel is facing international pressure over the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, with starvation spreading and some aid organizations warning that Palestinians are on the brink of famine. Israel has denied the accusation of facilitating the growing hunger in the war-torn enclave, stating that the Palestinian militant group Hamas is stealing humanitarian aid. Hamas, designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S., has denied the accusation by Israel. The majority of Americans in the survey, 65 percent, said that the Trump administration should spring into action to aid Palestinians when it comes to food delivery. About 28 percent disagreed, including 41 percent of Trump-aligned GOP voters. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans, 59 percent, argued that the Israeli military's actions in Gaza, which kicked off following Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, have been excessive. About a third, 33 percent, disagreed, according to the poll. In February last year, 53 percent of Americans said Israeli military response in the enclave was excessive, while 42 percent said otherwise. The survey was conducted from Aug. 13-18 among 4,446 U.S. adults. The margin of error was around 2 percentage points.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
The news media has lost control
It has been said that journalists provide the conversation of democracy. That old adage is losing steam in this era, however, as the news agenda for the nation's rhetorical sphere is increasingly being framed by many and varied new voices. For decades, the journalism establishment exercised great power in deciding the topics and issues that Americans reflected over at the kitchen table or water cooler, and eventually at the voting booth. 'The news' was what primary gatekeepers such as The Associated Press, The New York Times and CBS said was news. Americans assumed that journalists brought particular and professional expertise to the agenda-setting function. Citizens also believed these reporters were representative of the nation's population, and therefore committed to creating a sensible, fair and wide-ranging news marketplace. News consumers respected journalists and trusted that the news industry was trying to serve a greater societal purpose. Long-time and legendary CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite was once widely considered the most trusted person in the nation. But the media establishment has largely squandered this lofty role and lost the confidence of news consumers. The news agenda has become infected with activism, hyperpartisanship and, at times, superficiality. The AllSides Media Bias Chart tracks the ideological leanings of a wide range of news outlets. Precious few achieve a centrist rating. Some receive a 'leans right' label, but most establishment news outlets receive a 'leans left.' Credibility ratings for the journalism industry have suffered as a result, and news consumers are looking elsewhere for information. Perhaps even worse, some citizens are just becoming news bystanders who no longer care about being informed. This void is being increasingly filled by all kinds of other voices, including podcasters, bloggers, social media provocateurs and even fringe, bombastic miscreants. On one level, this could actually be considered a good development. It is certainly the American way that everybody gets to have their say. The constitutional framers, indeed, intended that free press and free speech rights applied broadly to the wise and even the less than wise. The marketplace of news content need not be left any more to the machinations of a handful of elite, detached editors and producers in corporate media towers. The warping of the news agenda by supposedly professional journalists no doubt opened the door for the other players to emerge. And the old-time media have not yet figured out that squeezing the agenda won't work in the wide-open marketplace of the internet. The major broadcast networks provided minimal coverage last month of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's press briefing about a possible role of the Obama administration in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. CNN dumped out of its coverage with a correspondent questioning whether the story deserved any time at all. Gabbard's comments deserved to be scrutinized, of course, but a DNI's pointed remarks are news. However, there are risks associated with having the nation's news agenda set by the rough and tumble atmosphere of social media, podcasters, influencers and zany characters. These actors are often more interested in buzz and vibe than deliberation and rational thinking. And now, in turn, traditional media cruise the internet looking for 'news,' trying to capitalize on the buzz of alternative agenda setters. There is little other way to explain the Coldplay concert couple or Sydney Sweeney's advertisement. And who would have figured a time when a key factor in a presidential election was which candidate did or did not go on Joe Rogan's podcast? Establishment journalism being influenced by the grassroots surely indicates a surrender by the news industry of its long-established responsibility to set an agenda of substance. Perhaps G.K. Chesterton had it right a hundred years ago when he mused, 'I am a journalist and so am vastly ignorant of many things, but because I am a journalist, I write and talk about them all.' But there should still be a key role for professional agenda-setters even in today's cluttered public sphere. Democracy and rational decision-making need an agenda based on deliberate and measured judgement, rather than chasing buzz and vibe. Professional editors and producers owe the nation a national dialogue based on relevance, high impact and perspective. A nation distracted by a shrill and superficial news agenda is unable to effectively address the serious challenges the nation faces.
