'Indeed, high stakes': Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacts to Trump-Putin Alaska meet - here's what he expects
Taking to social media platform X, Zelenskyy said he had convened a Staff meeting in Kyiv to discuss three major issues, starting with the battlefield situation.
'The front, particularly the Pokrovsk sector,' he said, remains a priority, adding, 'We are countering the attempts of Russian forces to gain a foothold and increasing the pressure of our units on the occupier. We are succeeding.'
According to Zelenskyy, the Russian military 'continues to suffer significant losses in its attempts to secure more favorable political positions for the Russian leadership at the meeting in Alaska.'
He said Kyiv 'understands this plan' and was keeping partners informed about the reality on the ground.
Looking to the Alaska summit, Zelenskyy said he expected 'a report from our intelligence on the current intentions of the Russian side and its preparations for the meeting.'
Referring to the meeting, he wrote, 'Indeed, high stakes. The key thing is that this meeting should open up a real path toward a just peace and a substantive discussion between leaders in a trilateral format – Ukraine, the United States, and the Russian side.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Play this game for 3 minutes, if you own a mouse
planetcapture.io
Undo
The Ukrainian President further highlighted the need to bring an end to the war.
'It is time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia,' he said.
'We are counting on America. We are ready, as always, to work as productively as possible.'
The Trump–Putin meeting is seen as a potential turning point, but Zelenskyy's exclusion is seen as a blow to the West's 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' approach.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said there was 'a possibility' the US could offer Ukraine security guarantees alongside European powers, 'but not in the form of NATO.'
He said it would be up to Ukrainians to decide whether to concede land to Russia as part of a peace deal. 'I think they'll make the proper decision,' Trump remarked, adding, 'I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them at a table.'
Calling the summit 'high stakes', Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if talks failed. He estimated a 25% chance of failure but suggested a successful outcome could pave the way for a three-way meeting with Zelenskyy.
'The second meeting is going to be very, very important, because that's going to be a meeting where they make a deal,' he told Fox News Radio.
The Alaska talks, due to start at 11.30am local time (1930 GMT) and followed by a joint press conference, will be the first in-person meeting between Trump and Putin since June 2021, when the Russian leader met Joe Biden.
Earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron and Zelenskyy spoke twice. on Thursday and Friday, agreeing to meet after the US–Russia summit, when ' it will be most useful and effective,' Macron's office said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump rates meeting with Putin a ‘10 out of 10'
US President Donald Trump rated his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on an interview with Fox News on Saturday a '10' out of 10, calling it 'a very warm meeting' that showed 'very good progress' toward peace in Ukraine. The two leaders met in Alaska in a bid to advance efforts toward ending the war in Ukraine. Speaking aboard Air Force One ahead of the summit, Trump said his goal was to 'save a lot of lives.' Following the talks, Trump described the discussions as 'extremely productive,' while acknowledging that 'we're not there yet' on reaching a final deal. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on… A couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So, there's no deal until there's a deal,' Trump said, as reported by Fox News. Putin echoed this sentiment, saying the meeting took place in a 'constructive atmosphere of mutual respect.' Both the leaders have made progress on unspecified issues after holding nearly three-hour talks. However, none of them detailed the specifics. Standing alongside US President Donald Trump after their first meeting since the latter returned to power, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he believed the war in Ukraine would never have begun had Trump remained in the White House after the 2020 election. 'Today, when President Trump says that if he was president back [in 2022], there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be. I can confirm that,' Putin said, according to the BBC. Looking ahead, Trump said the next steps involve further discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other NATO leaders. During the interview he said that he would advise Zelenskyy to 'make a deal.' 'They're fighting a big war machine, and we, I think, are close to a deal, but I don't like saying it… I always say 50-50 because so many things can happen,' Trump said. 'But I think President Putin would like to solve the problem.' Trump also mentioned being presented with a book containing the names of 'thousands of people, prisoners, that will get released' as part of potential agreements. (With inputs from Fox News, BBC)
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
Russia ‘lost oil client' India: Trump claim on whether tariffs brought Putin to table in Alaska
US President Donald Trump claimed on Friday that Russia lost an "oil client", India, when asked if "there is an economic side" to Russian President Vladimir Putin agreeing to hold a meeting in Alaska. In an interview with Fox News, Trump was asked, "Would you sense that Putin comes to this table maybe in an economic pinch? Maybe the things you've already done have put him in an economic pitch. Is there an economic side to this as Russia hoping to open up?" Trump responded by saying, "Well, he [Putin] lost an oil client, so to speak, which is India, which was doing about 40% of the oil." 'China, as you know, is doing a lot [ of oil trade with Russia]...,' he said. Trump had earlier threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries that buy its oil if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. Donald Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to 'in two or three weeks.' "…if I did what's called the secondary sanction or a secondary tariff, it would be, you know, very devastating from their standpoint. If I have to do it, I'll do it. Maybe I won't have to do it," Trump said. Trump's comments came ahead of his meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday. The two leaders held three-on-three meeting on Friday to discuss Ukraine war. After the summit, Trump was asked if he was now considering such action against Beijing after he and Putin failed to produce an agreement to resolve or pause Moscow's war in Ukraine. He said, "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," Trump said after his summit with Putin in Alaska. 'Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well.' Earlier this month, Trump threatened buyers of Russian energy with additional tariffs as a means of pressuring Putin into peace talks with Ukraine. The US president already doubled duties on Indian products to 50 percent starting August 27 over its purchases of oil from Moscow. But raising tariffs on China would risk breaking a trade truce that Trump on Monday agreed to extend for another 90 days. That agreement saw Washington and Beijing lower duties on each others' goods that reached astronomical levels in the spring, which spooked global markets. China has defended its imports of Russian oil as lawful and necessary for its energy security.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 minutes ago
- Business Standard
New US Air Force policy denies transgender troops discharge hearings
The Air Force says in a new memo that transgender airmen ousted under a recent Trump administration directive will no longer have the chance to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving their country. The memo dated Tuesday says military separation boards cannot independently decide whether to keep or discharge transgender airmen and instead must recommend separation of the member if the airman has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria when a person's biological sex does not match up with their gender identity. Military legal experts who have been advising transgender troops told The Associated Press that the new policy is unlawful, and while they were not aware of the other services releasing similar memos, they fear it could serve as a blueprint across the military. Advocacy groups say the change threatens to weaken trust in the military's leadership. It is the second policy change the Air Force has taken in recent weeks to crack down on transgender service members. The Associated Press reported last week that the Air Force would deny transgender troops early retirement benefits and was moving to revoke requests already approved. The Air Force declined to answer questions about the policy and its legal implications. The service provided a statement saying the new guidance is consistent with and responsive to Department of Defense policy regarding Service members with a diagnosis of, or history of, or exhibiting symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria. How the boards usually work The boards traditionally offer a quasi-legal hearing to determine if a service member set to depart is still of value to the military and should stay on. Fellow service members hear evidence of whatever wrongdoing occurred and about the person's character, fitness and performance. The hearings are not a formal court, but they have much the same structure. Service members are often represented by lawyers, they can present evidence in their defense and they can appeal the board's findings to federal court. The Pentagon's policy on separating officers notes that they are entitled to fair and impartial hearings that should be a forum for the officer concerned to present reasons the contemplated action should not be taken. This impartial nature means that the boards can sometimes reach surprising conclusions. For example, the three active-duty Marines who were part of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were retained. The commanding officer of the USS McCain, a destroyer that collided with an oil tanker in the Pacific in 2017, killing 10, was not recommended for separation in 2019. Military lawyers decry the Air Force change Priya Rashid, a military lawyer who has represented service members before hundreds of separation boards, said she has never seen an order like this. I've seen people with three DUIs retained, I've seen people that beat their wives retained, I've seen all kinds of people retained because the board is empowered to retain anyone for any reason if they feel it's in the best interest of the service, she said. Rashid said she and other lawyers working with transgender troops view the guidance as telling the boards to automatically order separation based solely on a diagnosis or symptoms of gender dysphoria. She said that constitutes an unlawful command by the Air Force and upends impartiality. This instruction is essentially saying you will not make a determination of whether somebody has future potential in the service, Rashid said. The new Air Force guidance also prohibits recording the proceedings. Rashid said the lack of an independent transcript would not only prevent Air Force leaders from reviewing the hearings to ensure they were conducted appropriately but would undercut any meaningful chance to appeal. Stepped-up efforts to oust transgender troops Pentagon officials say 4,240 troops have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which the military is using as an identifier of being transgender. The Pentagon got the green light from Supreme Court in May to move forward with a ban on all transgender troops. It offered two options: volunteer to leave and take a one-time separation payout or be discharged at a later date without pay. Some transgender troops decided to fight to stay by turning to the boards. Senior Master Sgt. Jamie Hash, who has served in the Air Force since 2011, said she wanted to face an objective board to be evaluated on my years of proven capability. I wanted the board to see the assignments overseas and at the Pentagon, the deployments to different Combatant Commands, the service medals and the sustained operational and mission effectiveness, she said in an interview. But now, she said, that the path ahead feels more uncertain than it ever has. Logan Ireland, a master sergeant in the Air Force with 15 years of service that includes a deployment to Afghanistan, was planning to retire early until his request was denied last week. After that, he decided he would take a stand at the separation board. I chose the involuntary route because I believed in the promise of a fair hearing judged on my service, my record and the facts, he said. Now that promise is being ripped away, replaced with a process designed to decide my fate before I even walk in the room, he said, adding that all I'm asking for is the same fairness and justice every service member deserves. Both Ireland and Hash said they have yet to hear from their immediate superiors on what the new policy will mean for them. Lawyers are worried it will set a precedent that will spread throughout the military. Rashid said both the Army and Navy are going to look at what the Air Force is doing as a standard of law is this the minimum standard of law that we will afford our service members. Transgender troops warn the policy could have wider implications Col. Bree Fram, a transgender officer in the Space Force who has long been seen as a leader among transgender troops, argued that the policy is a threat to other service members. In an online post, Fram said it swaps judgment for automation. Today it's gender dysphoria; tomorrow it can be any condition or class the politics of the moment calls for, she argued. If the new policy is allowed to sideline evidence of fitness, deployment history, awards, and commander input the very material boards were built to evaluate, Fram said, it sends a message that performance is no longer relevant to staying in the military. Cathy Marcello, interim director for Modern Military Association of America, said the change adds to a growing loss of trust because outcomes are determined by politics, not performance. The organization advocates for LGBTQ+ service members, military spouses, veterans, their families and allies. It's a signal that identity, not ability or achievement, determines who stays in uniform and who gets a fair shot, she said. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
