Zelenskiy meets Starmer to shore up support ahead of Trump-Putin summit
US
-
Russian
summit on ending the war in Ukraine, its president,
Volodymyr Zelenskiy
, is in
London
to shore up European support for efforts to prevent any agreement that would carve up his country.
Friday's Alaska summit comes at one of the toughest moments for Ukraine in a war – the largest in Europe since the second World War – that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.
On the back foot on the battlefield against Russian forces, Mr Zelenskiy and his allies are keen to avoid any deal between US president Donald Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin that leaves Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian attacks.
Mr Zelenskiy met UK prime minister Keir Starmer to build on momentum from virtual talks held on Wednesday with European leaders and Mr Trump to try to set red lines for the talks between Mr Trump and Mr Putin in Anchorage. Mr Zelenskiy and Sir Keir embraced before heading in to their meeting in Downing Street.
READ MORE
On Wednesday, Mr Trump threatened 'severe consequences' if Russia's leader does not agree to peace in Ukraine, and while he did not specify what the consequences could be, he has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting on Friday proves fruitless.
[
Zelenskiy to visit Downing Street ahead of Trump meeting with Putin
Opens in new window
]
'Yesterday was a pivotal moment for reinforcing European and transatlantic unity,' Ukraine's foreign minister Andrii Sybiha said on X. 'We need peace through strength as a foundation for the future of global security and stability.'
Yesterday was a pivotal moment for reinforcing European and transatlantic unity.
President of Ukraine
We need peace…
— Andrii Sybiha 🇺🇦 (@andrii_sybiha)
Mr Zelenskiy said he warned Mr Trump that Mr Putin was 'bluffing' about his desire to end the war.
The Ukrainian leader also said Mr Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a postwar settlement. Politico cited people familiar with the situation as saying that Trump had said the US could provide guarantees with some conditions.
A source familiar with the matter told Reuters security guarantees were discussed on the call.
'We have no details of his [Mr Trump's] view on this but now he is more open for some kind of US support for the guarantees,' the source said, adding that Mr Trump understood that a US backstop was needed for guarantees to be workable.
[
Trump threatens 'very severe consequences' if Putin refuses to end Ukraine war
Opens in new window
]
Mr Zelenskiy confirmed this week that Russian forces had advanced by about 9-10 km (6 miles) near the town of Dobropillia in the Donetsk region. Ukraine, suffering manpower challenges, was forced to move in reserves to stabilise the situation.
Mr Trump's comments and the outcome of the virtual conference on Wednesday could provide encouragement for Kyiv.
Mr Trump described the aim of his talks with Mr Putin in Alaska as 'setting the table' for a quick follow-up that would include Mr Zelenskiy.
However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and other European leaders' demands strongly and previously has said its stance had not changed since it was first detailed by Mr Putin in June 2024.
Mr Trump has said a deal could include what he called a land swap. Russia controls around a fifth of Ukraine and a land swap within Ukraine could cement Moscow's gains.
Mr Zelenskiy and other European leaders worry that would reward Mr Putin for nearly 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land and embolden him to expand further west in Europe.
[
European leaders eye Trump-Putin talks on Ukraine with anxiety
Opens in new window
]
A source familiar with the matter said Russian Special Envoy Kirill Dmitriev will participate in Friday's summit.
Mr Dmitriev, who heads Russia's RDIF sovereign wealth fund, has previously held talks with Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's special envoy, and has spoken of possible business co-operation between Moscow and Washington.
Mr Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Mr Putin for resisting the US peace initiative.
A Gallup poll released last week found that 69 per cent of Ukrainians favour a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also indicate Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means significant concessions.
As conditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, Mr Putin has demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce plans to join Nato.
Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender. – Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Where does Mairead McGuinness's shock withdrawal leave the presidential race?
The surprise withdrawal from the presidential election race of Fine Gael candidate Mairead McGuinness on health grounds has introduced even more uncertainty to an already unpredictable contest. On today's Inside Politics podcast Ellen Coyne and Cormac McQuinn join Hugh Linehan to assess the state of the campaign. Who will Fine Gael choose to replace McGuinness on their ticket? When will Fianna Fáil nominate a candidate? Would Dr Tony Holohan's Covid record be an asset or a liability if he decided to run? Could McGuinness's withdrawal carry downsides for independent candidate Catherine Connolly? And who exactly is Gareth Sheridan ? The panel also pick their favourite Irish Times articles of the week, including an emotional preview of Oasis at Croke Park , a review of the pro golfers appearing in Happy Gilmore 2 and a dispatch from a small Welsh town that hit the jackpot .
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Can you have too much democracy?
The withdrawal of Mairead McGuinness from the presidential election campaign has injected a sudden jolt of uncertainty into what had been a pretty lethargic slow bicycle race. Although names, some familiar ( Tony Holohan ), others less so ( Gareth Sheridan ), flitted across the late-summer skies this week, the reality remains that the prospect of a 2011- or 2018-style gaggle of Independent nominees with no official links to an established party looks very unlikely. Fine Gael has a well-stocked bench from which to pluck a replacement, with Seán Kelly and Frances Fitzgerald the front-runners. Fianna Fáil is still widely expected to put forward its own candidate. With Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit all committed to Catherine Connolly – and Sinn Féin likely to back either Connolly or one of its own– the door is already shut to any outsider seeking the necessary 20 votes from the Oireachtas. That leaves the alternative route: securing nominations from four local authorities. Virgin Media's Gavan Reilly crunched the numbers before McGuinness's withdrawal and concluded that only 11 of the State's 31 councils could mathematically nominate an Independent. If Fianna Fáil does nominate someone, that number drops to zero. Nothing that happened this week changes this equation. That realisation has prompted an outbreak of wailing and gnashing from the political margins. Conor McGregor has threatened a court challenge to the rules – a novel legal gambit, since it would require arguing that part of the Constitution is, in some mysterious way, unconstitutional. Independent Senator Sharon Keogan took to X to warn darkly that 'this government will be pulled down if this is allowed to happen ... The people of Ireland will not stand for this'. READ MORE In her replies, councillors were branded 'traitors', with one poster declaring 'It's time for them to go, and we don't need elections to get rid of them'. But many others poured scorn on Keogan's complaint, pointing out that elected politicians are entitled to make their own decisions. That is, after all, how representative democracy works. Beneath the outrage is a recurring refrain: let the people decide. That's the logic of direct democracy – the belief that the public should bypass elected representatives and vote directly on laws, policies and leaders. The idea is superficially attractive. It is also not new, harking back to ancient Athens. But it has gained some momentum in recent years. In theory, there is no reason why it should belong to any particular ideology. But in Europe, direct democracy has become associated with the populist right, embraced by Germany's Alternative für Deutschland, France's Rassemblement National and Italy's Lega. Their calls for plebiscites tend to focus on flashpoint issues – immigration, national sovereignty, hostility to supranational bodies – rather than any wholesale reform of political systems. The framing is familiar and often effective: 'the people' versus 'the elite', with referendums as the battering ram against parliamentary compromise. At the risk of inviting accusations of elitism, it is worth asking: can you have too much democracy? Plebiscites have a bad reputation in many European countries because of their enthusiastic adoption in the 1930s by fascist regimes, which used national ballots to stamp out dissent and reinforce loyalty to a dictatorial leader. But Ireland is one of Europe's most referendum-happy nations, with all constitutional amendments requiring approval by popular vote. That safeguard is justifiably popular but is not without its pitfalls. For example, Ireland signed up years ago to the EU's Unified Patent Court Agreement – a relatively uncontentious piece of European legal housekeeping – but ratification still requires a referendum. Successive governments have kicked the can down the road, worried that a dry, technical proposal could be hijacked as a proxy battle over something else entirely: Europe, housing, Gaza, whatever happens to be in the firing line at the time. Imagine multiplying that risk a hundredfold by introducing full-scale direct democracy. Not every democratic reform produces better outcomes. The American system of party primaries was created after the turmoil of the 1960s to take power away from party bosses and give it to voters. Instead, it has spawned a money-saturated, hyper-partisan faction fight dominated by small, ideologically unrepresentative groups. The achievement of universal suffrage in the 19th and 20th centuries was a story of gradual – and occasionally dramatic – expansion of the franchise, from property-owning men to almost all adults. Today, debates about lowering the voting age to 16 still surface from time to time. But in most mature democracies, the boundaries have been set for decades. What has changed is the growing unease about whether the institutions themselves are still fit for purpose. That unease comes in many forms: frustration at the State's inability to tackle glaring problems; suspicion about the influence of special interest groups; a scepticism about the daily compromises of politics that curdles into cynicism. International surveys show rising disillusionment, especially among the young and the economically insecure, with sizeable numbers saying they would prefer a 'strong leader' unconstrained by parliaments or elections. That impulse exists here too, though Ireland is still far from any existential threat to the system. It will take more than a single Senator or a few hundred anonymous X accounts to 'pull down' Irish democracy. But complacency would be a mistake. For their part, our political leaders have shown little appetite for institutional change, even in modest doses. The main parties' refusal to consider mild reforms of the Seanad or to cede more power to local government speaks volumes about their priorities. It is true that neither issue particularly excites the public, but both matter for the health and accountability of the system. For a time, Ireland's citizens' assemblies seemed to offer a promising model, credited with helping to break political deadlocks on same-sex marriage and abortion. Yet their stock has fallen sharply since the emphatic public rejection of last year's family and care amendments. Rather than reflecting on what went wrong, there now seems to be a reluctance to revisit the format or adapt it to new challenges. All such debates are of course complicated by everyone's tendency to favour whatever system they think is most likely to deliver their preferred outcome. In many countries, the populist surge has driven political institutions into a defensive crouch, wary of self-criticism and hostile to structural reform. The paradox is that this rigidity feeds the discontent it fears. When voters believe the system cannot or will not change, they become more willing to gamble on candidates who promise to blow it up entirely. Ireland is not there yet. But as the presidential election draws closer – and the chorus of excluded hopefuls continues shouting from the sidelines – it's worth remembering that how we choose our political representatives is not a fixed law of nature. It is a human invention. Like all inventions, it can be improved. Or neglected, possibly at our peril.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Healy-Rae backs Heather Humphreys to enter presidential race after shock McGuinness withdrawal
Independent minister Michael Healy-Rae has backed former Fine Gael minister Heather Humphreys to run for President of Ireland. Mr Healy-Rae was speaking as Fine Gael prepared to find another candidate in the wake of Mairead McGuinness 's shock exit from the presidential race, on health grounds. Ms Humphreys, a former minister who did not run in last year's general election, has emerged as a favoured candidate among the Fine Gael parliamentary party. Ms Humphreys said in May that she was not interested in running for President, but there are hopes within her party that she may be open to changing her mind. Mr Healy Rae told RTÉ News on Friday that Ms Humphreys would have a 'broad appeal.' READ MORE 'Quite simply because she's a very well grounded person, what I would call a sound, solid political performer. She'd be an excellent person both nationally and internationally to fly the flag for Ireland. I would consider her a very safe, sound pair of hands,' Mr Healy-Rae said. 'I've seen her during Dáil debates, taking Leaders' Questions and I would consider her to be very professional, very respectful about the way she carries herself, and she would have very broad appeal throughout the country.' Ms Humphreys may have to contest the Fine Gael nomination should she choose to run. Mairead McGuinness was nominated unopposed, but other senior politicians had been linked with a run. [ After Mairead McGuinness dropped out, where do we stand in race for the Áras? Opens in new window ] In July, Fine Gael MEP and former GAA President Seán Kelly ruled himself out and said that deciding not to run for president was the 'most difficult decision' of his political life. Frances Fitzgerald, a former MEP and senior minister, said in April that while she had given it serious consideration she would not be seeking her party's nomination. The Fine Gael Executive Council is expected to meet this weekend to decide its next steps ahead of the presidential election, which is broadly expected to be held in late October. Independent senator Michael McDowell said that he had been contacted by a number of people in the wake of Ms McGuinness's departure from the race asking him to reconsider his decision not to contest the presidency. 'There aren't any circumstances in existence that would make me do it,' he said, adding that he thinks he is 'more useful' outside of Áras an Uachtaráin. Mr McDowell declined to name those approaching him, but said 'you'd be surprised'. 'But it's not Simon Harris or Micheál Martin.'
