Zelenskyy Hails 'Historic' US Offer Of Security Guarantees For Ukraine Ahead Of Meeting Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday praised the United States' decision to provide NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine, calling it a significant step toward a potential peace agreement to end the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff said the Russian side had agreed to the US offers of NATO-like protection to Ukraine, which would be in lieu of Ukraine seeking NATO membership. He said it was 'the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that."
'We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing," Witkoff told CNN's 'State of the Union', describing the security guarantee as an 'Article 5" type protection against further Russian invasion. Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty states that an attack on any member is considered an attack on all.
In a statement, Zelenskyy said, 'This is a historic decision that the United States is ready to take part in security guarantees for Ukraine. Security guarantees, as a result of our joint work, must really be very practical, delivering protection on land, in the air, and at sea, and must be developed with Europe's participation."
His remarks came after a video conference earlier on Sunday with a group of Ukraine's allies in Europe, including the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany. 'There is clear support for Ukraine's independence and sovereignty. Everyone agrees that borders must not be changed by force. Everyone supports that key issues must be resolved with Ukraine's participation in a trilateral format – Ukraine, the US, and the Russian chief," Zelenskyy said.
Several leaders have hinted that Ukraine may have to recognise territorial losses as part of a peace deal with Russia. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said both Russia and Ukraine would need to make concessions to reach a peace deal, saying security guarantees for Kyiv would be discussed on Monday.
Trump Rules Out Ukraine's NATO Entry
Ahead of a meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in Washington on Monday, the US President called on the latter to agree to a peace deal, while ruling out Ukraine's entry into NATO.
'President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!" Trump said on Truth Social.
Trump had pressed Ukraine to agree to a peace deal after his meeting with Putin in Alaska because 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not." He is pushing for a direct peace agreement instead of an immediate ceasefire.
view comments
First Published:
August 18, 2025, 07:40 IST
News world Zelenskyy Hails 'Historic' US Offer Of Security Guarantees For Ukraine Ahead Of Meeting Trump
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
From China+1 to India+1: Jolted manufacturers look for business beyond the US
A toy factory floor on the outskirts of Bengaluru is alive with motion and noise. Long rows of assembly lines hum steadily, carrying half-finished cars, dolls, and animal figurines from one station to the next. Workers in safety vests and blue, maroon, and black uniforms move quickly but with practiced rhythm. Some workers spray plastic toy parts in various colours to meet stringent client requirements, while their colleagues fix wheels to trucks. Mountains of cartons are stacked at the edge of the factory floor, ready to be shipped to American buyers ahead of the holiday season. With Thanksgiving and Christmas around the corner, the third quarter is the busiest time of the year. The sense of urgency and excitement on the factory floor contrasts with the gloom in the back office of Propelus Manufacturing, which is offering steep discounts to its American clientele after US President Donald Trump threatened a 50% tariff rate on imports from India. 'Our 2025 orders…the clients will take, but we have to cut rates. We have to support them. Only then they may come back. Clients are hunting for countries with the lowest tariff," said Anshu Arya, who set up this factory post-pandemic, spotting an opportunity in the US pivot from China's factory floor. 'But our 2026 orders of $1.5 million have been halted." 25% tariffs are already in effect. Secondary sanctions, in the form of additional 25% tariffs for India's purchase of Russian oil, are set to kick in on 27 August. Trump may eventually decide against pressing ahead with the additional tariff, but it has already spooked buyers in the US. Even if withdrawn, the new diplomatic reality may make them more cautious about sourcing from India, especially as bilateral relations have soured—close ties with Washington were a key selling point for Indian manufacturers. And even at 25%, India's tariff would remain five percentage points higher than that of its closest competitor, Vietnam. Propelus's LinkedIn page calls it 'A real alternative to China right now." 65% of its revenue is generated from the export market, with the US accounting for 90% of it. 'I was at home that evening. I immediately started getting calls after the US tariff announcement came in. Clients were calling to put orders on hold. Everybody has to save their business. There is nothing I can do, I just have to oblige," said Arya. Case of unfinished shoes The US is the largest consumer market in the world despite being home to only 4% of the world's population. According to Deutsche Bank, it accounts for almost 30% of global consumption. US private consumption is about $19 trillion annually, according to research platform Microtrends, making it the most lucrative and sought-after export market. Labour-intensive manufacturing exports in apparel, textiles, footwear, furniture, toys and gems and jewellery are likely to be the most impacted by US tariffs. The industry functions on thin margins and employs a huge chunk of the manufacturing workforce in the country. According to Crisil, last fiscal, the US accounted for about 20% of India's merchandise exports. About 2,000 kilometres away from Bengaluru, in Agra, Legwork, a footwear contract manufacturer, has seen new US orders dry up. Exports make 60% of sales at Legwork. 'Earlier, sales agents were giving us hope that with China+1, we will get lots of orders. Even Chinese manufacturers were enquiring. Now everything has unravelled," said owner Vijay Nainani. Last year, Legwork shipped a massive order of 300,000 shoes for Costco, a retailer in the US. Without sharing names, he said many in the industry have started shipping unfinished shoes to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Bangladesh, and are tying up with manufacturers there to finish up the final product so as to hide the country of origin and escape US tariffs on India. Raghunandan Saraf, chief executive at Rajasthan-based Saraf Furniture, calls the current uncertainty 'tougher than a bad situation." His top export markets are in Europe, with the US making up for small volumes. Exports make up 55% of total sales. Now, some buyers from the European Union (EU) have also slowed down orders because of global uncertainty and the tariff wars—a double whammy for Indian manufacturers. 'We are seeing a slowdown in orders from the EU," said Saraf. 'Our buyers are apprehensive right now about believing their own forecast. Our importers give us a sales forecast for the next six months, based on which we build our inventory. Right now, they are not confident because of tariffs and wars." Saraf has slowed down production in his factories to avoid a buildup of unsold inventory. 'Give it to Bangladesh' The anguish and anxiety felt by Arya, Saraf, and Nainani are not restricted to small and mid-scale manufacturers in the country. Raymond Ltd, one of India's top textile and apparel manufacturers and exporters, is negotiating the price hit from the tariff fallout with its US clients. 'We are right now dealing with a US customer for whom the fabric is ready in India. He said, take the fabric, give it to Bangladesh, and get it stitched to a simple garment there, and pay only 20% duty. It can be made available before Thanksgiving. For other complicated garments like suits, he has no option but to continue with us," said Amit Agarwal, Raymond's chief financial officer. Agarwal said Raymond might consider ramping up production in its Ethiopia factory for the US market. Ethiopia faces only a 10% tariff. He is not alone in considering a diversification of production outside India as a call of last resort. Godrej Interio, which exports office furniture, is also considering increasing production from its factories in Oman and Vietnam—countries with lower tariffs than India at present. The US has imposed a 10% tariff on Oman and 20% on Vietnam. 'We have manufacturing presence in countries beyond India. We are exploring producing more from these locations. It is a thought in the back of our mind," said Swapneel Nagarkar, executive vice president and business head at Godrej Interio. The 'India+1' plan Alexandra Hermann, an economist with Oxford Economics, is concerned about the impact on India's attractiveness as a manufacturing hub if 50% tariffs were to continue. 'India's appeal as a production and investment alternative to China is shrinking as compared to the already-bigger manufacturing hubs in the rest of Asia, and, in fact, we hear that Indian and global manufacturers are starting to think about 'India+1' strategies now," she said. 'India + 1' means that companies primarily serving the US market will start thinking about moving out of India. India's labour-intensive manufacturing exports have already struggled to compete on the world stage. According to the World Bank, countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, and even advanced economies such as Germany and the Netherlands, have become the primary beneficiaries of China's shrinking market share in low-skill manufacturing. The data shows India's share in global exports of apparel, leather, textiles and footwear (ALTF) initially grew from 0.9% in 2002 to a peak of 4.5% in 2013, but it subsequently declined to 3.5% in 2022. In contrast, Vietnam's share has increased to 5.9% and Bangladesh reached 5.1% of global ALTF exports in 2022. India's rigid labour laws, lack of supply chain ecosystem, and high import duties on critical raw materials have kept the cost of production higher than in other Asian economies. Adding punitive tariffs, such as those imposed by the US, makes it close to impossible for India to compete for US orders. Abhishek Ganguly, co-founder of footwear manufacturer Agilitas Sports, said the industry struggles with the lack of raw material supply chain and needs to import top-quality machinery and shoe components from China, among other countries. 'In this industry, seasonality is a big factor, so speed to manufacture and to market is an important success metric. Global brands say India will never be timeline-wise as fast as Vietnam and China," said Ganguly. He is focusing on making in India for the domestic market. In the past decade itself, countries like Vietnam effectively utilized their cost-competitive labour and created a business-friendly environment conducive to manufacturing. The small country has raced ahead due to its first-mover advantage, proximity to China, a strong network of 16 free trade agreements across the globe, enabling investment laws, and simpler labour laws that make scaling factories quicker. In comparison, India's labour-intensive manufacturing is highly fragmented, consisting of small and unscalable factories. They find it difficult to compete in the global market and rely mainly on domestic demand to survive. Battle in a sabzi market The US' pivot from China was a golden opportunity for India to claw some share back. The gap left by the potential retreat of the US, according to manufacturers, won't be an easy one to fill with alternative foreign markets or domestic demand. 'If you don't have the biggest consumer market in the world, how will you become a global leader in manufacturing? Price efficiency only happens with scale, and that can only happen if we make for the US," said Arya. According to Arya's professional experience, American consumers spend up to ₹2,300 on a single toy purchase versus ₹1,800 in the EU and only ₹500 in India. On a per capita basis, India's domestic market is relatively small compared to global markets. According to the Federation of Economic Development, India's domestic clothing market was valued at $55 billion in 2019, whereas the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries collectively imported clothing worth $380 billion—nearly seven times the size of the Indian market. 'Export orders come in bulk and make our lives easier. For Costco, we had to make 300,000 pairs in one design, and it was very easy to make. We bought raw material in bulk at cheap prices. For Indian brands, the order sizes are like 600 pairs, and they fight with us on price like it is a sabzi (vegetable) market," said Legwork's Nainani. Labour-intensive exports are the launchpad for any country aspiring to become a global manufacturing hub. All Asian countries, including China and South Korea, used labour-intensive manufacturing exports to start their factory revolution before moving up the value chain. It helps employ large swaths of the young population and requires relatively less vocational training and capital investment, making it critical for India to scale this sector. 'Domestic demand is still not deep or premium enough to absorb large-scale production profitably," said Ajay Sahai, director general and CEO at the Federation of Indian Export Organisation, the apex body of trade promotion organizations, set up by India's ministry of commerce. 'The domestic market focus should not come at the cost of export ambition. The long-term growth and employment potential of India's labour-intensive manufacturing sector lies in becoming globally competitive," he added. The UK template The challenge is not just the domestic market. For Indian manufacturers to compete for business in other developed economies in Europe is not an easy segue. Multiple small orders are more expensive to produce than one mass order for the US. 'There are so many countries and brands in Europe. And the population in each country is much smaller than the 300 million in the US," said Raymond's Agarwal. 'For a thin margin business like ours, with more complexities, cost is going to inevitably become higher. That is why we love to supply to the US market," he added. According to Sahai, the gestation period for meaningful results from market diversification can range from 18 months to three years, depending on sectoral readiness and policy support. In addition, experts said, India will be competing with many countries that are also looking to diversify away from the US due to high tariffs. So, potential clients have a lot more choice, and may further squeeze margins 'The problem is that, unlike China, India is less integrated into different economies. In the short term, it is going to be hard to figure out what the alternative markets are that we can target. Market development, forming business relationships, and being chosen as a preferred supplier is hard," said Rohit Kumar, founding partner, Quantum Hub, a New Delhi-based public policy consulting firm. Experts believe that India's Free Trade Agreement with the UK provides an excellent template for India to start opening up its economy to the developed world in a graded manner and start competing on the global stage more aggressively. In July, India and the UK sealed a trade deal eliminating tariffs on products ranging from cars to alcohol. Due to the agreement, Indian goods, including textiles, jewellery, agricultural products, and engineering goods, would get better access in the UK market. 'Opening the economy is a need of the hour. You are the 4th largest economy in the world, and if you don't integrate with the global economy, you will suffer," said Vivek Mishra, deputy director of Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation. 'You have a disruptor in President Trump, and he wants some sectors to be opened immediately. That is what is causing a problem."
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Are defence and aerospace stocks set to soar? Matt Orton's view on global market tailwinds
Matt Orton, Raymond James Investment, says despite ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, markets are showing cautious optimism, supported by positive earnings and India's GST reforms. Aerospace and defence sectors remain strong performers, with long-term investment potential driven by increased global security spending. Investors can benefit from tailwinds across select sectors despite unresolved tensions. ADVERTISEMENT Matt Orton: Yes, there is quite a lot going on for investors. From the economic data over the past week, the Trump-Putin summit, and the ongoing discussions, it seems we are moving closer to more clarity in the market, which markets always favor. A narrowing of potential outcomes helps investors factor in what the future might look like. I am optimistic that this clarity should be marginally positive for markets, which continue to move higher. India has also seen positive developments, such as the double Diwali and GST changes. US macroeconomic data did not send any negative signals, and the earnings season has been wrapping up on a strong note. These factors provide good tailwinds, which could strengthen further if geopolitical risks are resolved positively. Matt Orton: Any clarity on these discussions will be very helpful. The inclusion of European leaders and Zelenskyy at the White House indicates a willingness to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, even if not everyone is completely of the outcome, aerospace and defence have been strong outperformers, particularly in Europe and the US, and these tailwinds are likely to continue. Even without a full peace agreement, nations will need to invest more in security, which supports long-term spending in defence and sends a signal globally about the need for robust security measures. (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel)
NDTV
16 minutes ago
- NDTV
Explained: Why Peace Deal Before Ceasefire Won't End Russia-Ukraine Conflict
If you're confused about the aims, conduct and outcome of the summit meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin held in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025, you're probably not alone. As summits go, the meeting broke with many conventions of diplomacy: It was last-minute, it appeared to ignore longstanding protocol and accounts of what happened were conflicting in the days after the early termination of the event. The Conversation U.S.'s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Donald Heflin, a veteran diplomat now teaching at Tufts University's Fletcher School, to help untangle what happened and what could happen next. It was a hastily planned summit. Trump said they'd accomplish things that they didn't seem to accomplish. Where do things stand now? It didn't surprise me or any experienced diplomat that there wasn't a concrete result from the summit. First, the two parties, Russia and Ukraine, weren't asking to come to the peace table. Neither one of them is ready yet, apparently. Second, the process was flawed. It wasn't prepared well enough in advance, at the secretary of state and foreign minister level. It wasn't prepared at the staff level. What was a bit of a surprise was the last couple days before the summit, the White House started sending out what I thought were kind of realistic signals. They said, "Hopefully we'll get a ceasefire and then a second set of talks a few weeks in the future, and that'll be the real set of talks." Now, that's kind of reasonable. That could have happened. That was not a terrible plan. The problem was it didn't happen. And we don't know exactly why it didn't happen. Reading between the lines, there were a couple problems. The first is the Russians, again, just weren't ready to do this, and they said, " No ceasefire. We want to go straight to permanent peace talks." Ukraine doesn't want that, and neither do its European allies. Why? When you do a ceasefire, what normally happens is you leave the warring parties in possession of whatever land their military holds right now. That's just part of the deal. You don't go into a 60- or 90-day ceasefire and say everybody's got to pull back to where they were four years ago. But if you go to a permanent peace plan, which Putin wants, you've got to decide that people are going to pull back, right? So that's problem number one. Problem number two is it's clear that Putin is insisting on keeping some of the territory that his troops seized in 2014 and 2022. That's just a non-starter for the Ukrainians. Is Putin doing that because that really is his bottom line demand, or did he want to blow up these peace talks, and that was a good way to blow them up? It could be either or both. Russia has made it clear that it wants to keep parts of Ukraine, based on history and ethnic makeup. The problem is, the world community has made it clear for decades and decades and decades, you don't get what you want by invading the country next door. Remember in Gulf War I, when Saddam Hussein invaded and swallowed Kuwait and made it the 19th province of Iraq? The U.S. and Europe went in there and kicked him out. Then there are also examples where the U.S. and Europe have told countries, "Don't do this. You do this, it's going to be bad for you." So if Russia learns that it can invade Ukraine and seize territory and be allowed to keep it, what's to keep them from doing it to some other country? What's to keep some other country from doing it? You mean the whole world is watching. Yes. And the other thing the world is watching is the U.S. gave security guarantees to Ukraine in 1994 when they gave up the nuclear weapons they held, as did Europe. The U.S. has, both diplomatically and in terms of arms, supported Ukraine during this war. If the U.S. lets them down, what kind of message does that send about how reliable a partner the U.S. is? The U.S. has this whole other thing going on the other side of the world where the country is confronting China on various levels. What if the U.S. sends a signal to the Taiwanese, "Hey, you better make the best deal you can with China, because we're not going to back your play." At least six European leaders are coming to Washington along with Zelenskyy. What does that tell you? They're presenting a united front to Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to say, "Look, we can't have this. Europe's composed of a bunch of countries. If we get in the situation where one country invades the other and gets to keep the land they took, we can't have it." President Trump had talked to all of them before the summit, and they probably came away with a strong impression that the U.S. was going for a ceasefire. And then, that didn't happen. Instead, Trump took Putin's position of going straight to peace talks, no ceasefire. I don't think they liked it. I think they're coming in to say to him, "No, we have to go to ceasefire first. Then talks and, PS, taking territory and keeping it is terrible precedent. What's to keep Russia from just storming into the three Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - next? The maps of Europe that were drawn 100 years ago have held. If we're going to let Russia erase a bunch of the borders on the map and incorporate parts, it could really be chaotic." Where do you see things going? Until and unless you hear there's a ceasefire, nothing's really happened and the parties are continuing to fight and kill. What I would look for after the Monday meetings is, does Trump stick to his guns post-Alaska and say, "No, we're gonna have a big, comprehensive peace agreement, and land for peace is on the table." Or does he kind of swing back towards the European point of view and say, "I really think the first thing we got to have is a ceasefire"? Even critics of Trump need to acknowledge that he's never been a warmonger. He doesn't like war. He thinks it's too chaotic. He can't control it. No telling what will happen at the other end of war. I think he sincerely wants for the shooting and the killing to stop above all else. The way you do that is a ceasefire. You have two parties say, "Look, we still hate each other. We still have this really important issue of who controls these territories, but we both agree it's in our best interest to stop the fighting for 60, 90 days while we work on this." If you don't hear that coming out of the White House into the Monday meetings, this isn't going anywhere. There are thousands of Ukrainian children who have been taken by Russia - essentially kidnapped. Does that enter into any of these negotiations? It should. It was a terror tactic. This could be a place where you can make progress. If Putin said, well, "We still don't want to give you any land, but, yeah, these kids here, you can have them back," it's the kind of thing you throw on the table to show that you're not a bad guy and you are kind of serious about these talks. Whether they'll do that or not, I don't know. It's really a tragic story. (Author: Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University) (Disclaimer Statement: Donald Heflin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.)
