Despite a flurry of meetings on Russia's war in Ukraine, major obstacles to peace remain
European leaders joined the discussions in a show of transatlantic unity and both they and Zelenskyy repeatedly thanked Trump for his efforts to end Russia's three-year war on Ukraine.
'I don't want to hide the fact that I wasn't sure it would go this way,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in Washington. 'But my expectations were not just met, they were exceeded.'
But despite the guarded optimism and friendly banter among the leaders, there was little concrete progress on the main obstacles to ending the war — and that deadlock likely favors Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces continue to make steady, if slow progress on the ground in Ukraine.
'Putin cannot get enough champagne or whatever he's drinking,' Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former foreign minister of Lithuania, said of Monday's meeting.
To agree to a peace deal with Russia, Ukraine wants assurances that it can deter any future attacks by the Kremlin's forces.
That means, Zelenskyy says, a strong Ukrainian army that is provided with weapons and training by Western partners.
It could potentially also mean offering Ukraine a guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate, which sees an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on all. How that would work is not clear.
Additionally, Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement in Ukraine.
A coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, have signed up to support the initiative, although the role that the U.S. might play in such a force is unclear.
European leaders, fearing Moscow's territorial ambitions won't stop in Ukraine, are keen to lock America's military might into the plan.
Trump said he'll help provide protection but stopped short of committing American troops to the effort, instead promising U.S. 'coordination.'
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired an online meeting Tuesday of the coalition countries.
Once officials have discussed proposals in more detail, Rutte said, a virtual meeting will take place with Trump and European leaders.
Agreeing on a ceasefire
Ukraine and its European supporters have repeatedly called for a ceasefire while peace talks are held.
Putin has balked at that prospect. With his forces inching forward in Ukraine, he has little incentive to freeze their movement.
Ahead of his meeting with the Russian leader last week, Trump threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if it didn't accept a ceasefire. Afterward, he dropped that demand and said it was best to focus on a comprehensive peace deal — as Putin has pushed for.
Trump said in Monday's Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine was 'unnecessary.' But after his closed-door meeting with European leaders and Zelenskyy, Trump told reporters that 'all of us would obviously prefer the immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace.'
Where Trump ultimately falls on that issue is important because it could affect how much Ukrainian land Russia has seized by the time the two sides get around to hammering out how much it could keep.
Occupied Ukrainian territory
Zelenskyy and European leaders said that Putin has demanded that Ukraine give up the Donbas, an industrial region in eastern Ukraine that has seen some of the most intense fighting but that Russian forces have failed to capture completely.
Moscow's forces also hold Crimea as well as parts of six other regions — all adding up to about one-fifth of Ukraine.
Zelenskyy has long noted the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits breaking up his country. He has also suggested the demand for territory would serve as a springboard for future invasion.
Rutte said the possibility of Ukraine ceding occupied territory to Russia in return for peace wasn't discussed in Monday's talks. That is an issue for Zelenskyy and Putin to consider together, he said to Fox News.
A Putin-Zelenskyy meeting
Zelenskyy has repeatedly suggested sitting down with Putin, even challenging the Russian leader to meet him as part of direct peace talks between the two sides in Turkey in May. Putin snubbed that offer, saying that significant progress on an agreement would have to be made before the pair met in person.
On Monday, Trump appeared to back Zelenskyy's plan. 'I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy,' Trump said in a social media post.
He said he would join the two leaders afterward.
But when discussing a phone call held after the meeting between Trump and the Russian leader, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov gave no indication that either a bilateral or a trilateral meeting with Ukraine had been agreed.
European leaders know that Putin doesn't want to meet Zelenskyy and that he won't allow Western troops in Ukraine — but they're expressing optimism that these things could happen in the hopes of forcing Putin to be the one to say no to Trump, according to Janis Kluge of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pentagon must heed Ukraine — cheap drones are the future of warfare
The battlefield in Ukraine must teach the Pentagon a valuable lesson: Small drones are the future of warfare. Yet the US military has been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into systems, from improved radar to laser weapons and missiles, that would be little use against the latest generation of attack drones appearing in Ukraine's skies. There may be a better way. Advertisement Critics complain the US Army is far behind the drone-warfare curve. Just last month a new manual of tactics for tank platoon commanders suggested using the tank's main gun to bring down incoming drones — and that in the event of a drone attack, a tank commander should sit out of the turret hatch and warn other tanks via hand signals. These are laughable instructions in the face of the Ukraine war's signature weapon, the first-person-view drone. Advertisement FPV drones are racing quadcopters converted into miniature guided missiles. These drones are agile and fly at high speeds. Even if it's spotted in time, hitting one with a tank gun would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. FPVs can destroy a tank in multiple hits, often giving the crew time to escape — but sitting outside the armor would be suicidal. FPVs, costing just a few hundred dollars each, have flooded Ukraine's battlefield, and their ability to hit targets 12 or more miles away from their operators has been a major contributor to the current stalemate. Advertisement Scout drones flown by both Ukraine and the invading Russians spot any moving vehicle, and FPVs attack it before it can advance. Supply vehicles are a favorite target; according to a recent estimate, two-thirds of FPV strikes are now on the roads rather than the front lines. Both sides now lie low and dig deep, hiding in trench systems protected by anti-drone netting. Kyiv aims to build 4 million drones this year — enough to target individual foot soldiers. Advertisement And now they can do it from ambush. Battery-powered FPVs can only fly for about 20 minutes. Operators 'perch and stare' to save juice, landing their drone on a building or on the ground where they can watch a road or track used by the enemy. When a target appears, the FPV lifts off and attacks. A compilation video from one Ukrainian drone unit shows a series of ambushes, all in the same location: Each time a Russian patrol comes past, an FPV takes off from behind them from no more than 10 yards away. The soldiers react, turning and raising their Kalashnikovs . . . too late. Other videos show the target's point of view. In one, Ukrainians are driving down a track at high speed in a buggy when a Russian FPV lifts off ahead of them. A desperate chase follows, with the Ukrainians shooting the drone out of the air before it can hit them. Many troops now carry shotguns to counter FPVs. Advertisement Small drones keep evolving. Some are now fitted with the sort of miniature solar panels backpackers use to keep their phones charged. These power the drone's camera and communications without draining the battery. The solar-powered drone can lurk in ambush for as long as the sun is up, and start again the next day. In a sense these drones are just the latest version of mine warfare — but these are mines that can find their way anywhere, relocate themselves and attack from a distance. The current generation must be controlled by a human operator, but we're already seeing AI-powered autonomous FPVs in Ukraine. Advertisement In another year the battlefield may be infested with smart, solar-powered killer drones. Where is the US military in this futuristic world of drone warfare? On July 10, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed an order to 'unleash US military drone dominance' and make procurement quicker and easier. Yet the US Army is only buying around 6,000 FPV-type drones in the current budget year. Ukraine uses that many every day, and Russia is catching up to that mark. Advertisement American plans to bring down attacking drones with missiles or lasers look impractical when ambushers can appear at such close range. The Ukrainians are already developing their solution: They're sending small bombers ahead of vehicles or troops to find waiting ambush drones and drop grenades on them. Soon to come is an AI-powered drone that can automatically detect ambushers on the ground. Sweeps by automated drones could keep the roads clear. Advertisement More important, though, Ukraine is leading by example, keeping up with drone warfare's rapid evolution as each development demands a countermeasure. The Pentagon has traditionally relied on big-money, high-tech solutions developed by American companies. But a willingness to embrace cheap technologies developed rapidly by friends and allies might save a lot of lives when US troops are featured in some future round of drone videos. David Hambling is the author of 'Swarm Troopers: How Small Drones Will Conquer the World.'
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
