Under Geneva Convention, Russia has no automatic claim to territory simply by virtue of occupying it
20/08/2025
'In principle, there are always justifications for limiting & curtailing threats to nat'l security'
UK
20/08/2025
Ukrainians flee front line amid Russian drone strikes
Europe
19/08/2025
Trump plans Putin-Zelensky meeting while affirming security guarantees
Europe
19/08/2025
Russia's Lavrov says peace deal must ensure its 'security' amid Ukraine talks
Europe
19/08/2025
Ukraine: How did the meeting between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders go?
Analysis
Europe
19/08/2025
Zelensky says ready for bilateral meeting with Putin to end war
Europe
19/08/2025
This Swedish church is moving 3 miles down the road
Europe
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
21 minutes ago
- France 24
‘Today it's paper, tomorrow it's nothing': the perils of security guarantees for Ukraine
Ukraine and its Western allies have said the specifics of a post-war security agreement are expected to be finalised in the next few days. Such security guarantees have long been considered key to maintaining a post-war peace in Ukraine. The UK and France gathered a mostly European 'coalition of the willing' in March as a potential peacekeeping force, but many worried it would lack effectiveness without robust US support. In an apparent breakthrough following Monday's gathering of European and NATO leaders at the White House, US President Donald Trump suggested potential security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a future peace deal with Russia. 'When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help,' he said alongside Zelensky in the Oval Office, while noting that European countries would take the lead. 'They are a first line of defence because they're there. But we'll help them out.' In a subsequent interview with Fox News, Trump said US help would probably take the form of air support. Following a much-anticipated meeting between Trump and US President Vladimir Putin last Friday in Alaska, Trump's Russia envoy Steve Witkoff said the US might consider offering Ukraine ' Article-5-like protection ', a reference to NATO's principle of collective defence, in which an attack on one is considered an attack on all. Witkoff added that Russia had agreed to the proposal, calling it 'game-changing'. Zelensky said on Tuesday that 'we are already working on the concrete content of the security guarantees', a process he said will continue at full speed in the upcoming weeks. Mykhailo Samus, a defence and politics analyst from Kyiv, spoke to FRANCE 24 about the security guarantees Ukraine might receive following a peace agreement ending the war with Russia. But with the failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum still vivid in the minds of many Ukrainians, he also advocates building a strong Ukrainian army that is fully integrated in the European defence system. FRANCE 24: What will 'security guarantees' for Ukraine most likely mean in practice? We (Ukraine) have a long history of security guarantees, which started with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 (a non-aggression pact cosigned by the US, the UK and Russia in return for Ukraine surrendering the nuclear weapons it inherited from the USSR). We don't believe in paper guarantees. We need a strong Ukrainian defence industry which is totally integrated into the European defence structure. That's why we should base Ukrainian security on deterrence, like deterrence against aggression against the Baltic states or an invasion of Moldova. A joint approach means a European security system including Ukraine. Some might think this could mean French boots on the ground. Of course we don't need it, because we have one of the strongest armies in the world. Instead, we need help integrating Ukrainian forces in the European defence system. This means providing Ukraine with long-range capacities: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. European forces should provide us with the equipment with the joint understanding that we are using the equipment to protect us and them. FRANCE 24: Why is the prospect of European boots on the ground unlikely to ensure peace in Ukraine? It shouldn't be forgotten that Russia is imperialistic; it only cares about Ukraine as an extension of its empire. It sounds impossible in the 21st century, but Putin lives in this paradigm. If they want to live in an empire, then we should be strong enough to [stand up to] the empire. Sending several thousand troops to Ukrainian territory is not the solution. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had an interesting idea during the talks at the White House to provide security guarantees modelled on NATO's Article 5 (the principle of collective defence, in which an attack on one is considered an attack on all). Yet this will be impossible to implement. The next Russian aggression towards Ukraine will get the same reaction – or non-reaction – from Western allies. We had a bad experience with the Budapest Memorandum. The United Kingdom signed it, and the United States signed it. These countries guaranteed the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine. But when Russia attacked Crimea, nothing happened. FRANCE 24: Why do you advocate for a defence-industry approach to supporting Kyiv? Joint capacities are easier to formulate and build upon. I think for now we can talk about a defence-industry approach with elements that will support Ukraine: monitoring, intelligence, the training of Ukrainian armed forces, support with ammunition and elements to keep Russia out of the front line. If the US doesn't want to sell us certain technologies, we should be able to develop them ourselves. European defence security policy is mostly Europe focusing on defence. The Ukrainian approach is the same as Europe's, yet we need to create modern, breakthrough technologies like long-range ballistic missiles. No country in Europe is building these and we need them. We also need joint capacities in missile defence – missile defence should be joint because it's impossible for one country to build them on its own. There needs to be a multi-layer European defence system. In Ukraine, we have attacks by [Iranian-made] Shahed drones every night. We need to build a common system. It would be a disaster if a Shahed drone hit Estonia, for example, and the same should apply to Ukraine. We have several layers [of defence] in Ukraine: drone interception, helicopters, fighter jets – all of these layers function together. Since Russia is a nuclear power, we should have a joint European nuclear doctrine. France and the United Kingdom have nuclear capacities; how to share these resources is something to be considered. When Putin talks about 'demilitarisation', it's so that he can take advantage. With a strong army in Ukraine, Putin won't be able to attack again. Without this – even with all the guarantees and all the paper in the world – Ukraine won't be safe. FRANCE 24: What would the US role be in a Ukrainian security guarantee? Europe doesn't have ballistic missiles and it depends on the US – this is a big problem. Europe depends on the F-16 fighter jets. We shouldn't depend on the moods of US President Donald Trump; he might say, 'You can have F-16s today' and tomorrow he could change his mind. The US is an important provider but not the main provider. That's why there should be a joint approach [involving] both the armed forces and the defence industry. When we are talking about security guarantees, and especially boots on the ground, Trump doesn't want to participate in this – so NATO can't participate. Trump is trying to divide us. There is an ocean between the US and Russia, while between Europe and Russia there is nothing. If we imagine that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky sign a peace agreement, the next step is how to [enforce] it. There will be complex mechanisms at work. For example, Putin will likely propose China as a peacekeeper, while rejecting any NATO forces on the ground in Ukraine. There are going to be many additional discussions. FRANCE 24: Ukraine obviously feels betrayed after the Budapest Memorandum failed to ensure its security. What other precedents are there for Russia breaking agreements? All the time. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty. There were security guarantees of Russia respecting borders and the sovereignty of Ukraine. We had a lot of agreements involving the Black Sea. Everything was destroyed by Russia. When someone says we should sign a treaty with Russia, we say, 'Guys, go home.' Today it's paper; tomorrow it's nothing.
Euronews
23 minutes ago
- Euronews
NATO defence chiefs discuss security guarantees for Ukraine
NATO defence chiefs held a "candid discussion" on Wednesday about what security guarantees they could offer Kyiv to help forge a peace agreement that ends Russia's three-year war on Ukraine, a senior alliance official said. Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of NATO's Military Committee, said that 32 defence chiefs from across the alliance held a video conference amid a US-led diplomatic push to end the fighting. He said they had had a "great, candid discussion." "I thanked everyone for their always proactive participation in these meetings: we are united, and that unity was truly tangible today, as always," he said in a post on social media platform X but gave no further details. Assurances that it won't be invaded again in the future are one of the keys for getting Ukraine to sign up for a peace deal with Russia. It wants Western help for its military, including weapons and training, to shore up its defences, and Western officials are scrambling to figure out what commitments they could offer. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chided efforts to work on security arrangements in Ukraine without Moscow's involvement. "We cannot agree with the fact that it is now proposed to resolve collective security issues without the Russian Federation. This will not work," Lavrov said on Wednesday, in comments carried by state news agency RIA Novosti. Russia will "ensure (its) legitimate interests firmly and harshly," Lavrov added at a news conference in Moscow. US General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe who advised during the Trump-Putin summit last week in Alaska, took part in the virtual talks, Dragone said. US General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also due to participate, a US defence official said. Caine also met with European military chiefs on Tuesday evening in Washington to assess the best military options for political leaders, according to the defence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The details of a Ukraine security force US President Donald Trump met last Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and on Monday hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and prominent European leaders at the White House, but neither meeting delivered concrete progress. Trump is trying to steer Putin and Zelenskyy toward a settlement more than three years after Russia invaded its neighbour, but major obstacles remain. They include Ukraine's demands for Western-backed military assurances to ensure Russia won't mount another invasion in the future. "We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace," Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post on Wednesday after Russian missile and drone strikes hit six regions of Ukraine overnight. Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could act as a backstop to any peace agreement and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, has signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work. The role that the US might play is unclear. On Tuesday, Trump ruled out sending US troops to help defend Ukraine against Russia. Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine. Attacks on civilian areas in Sumy and Odesa overnight into Wednesday injured 15 people, including a family with three small children, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian strikes also targeted ports and fuel and energy infrastructure, officials said. Zelenskyy said the strikes "only confirm the need for pressure on Moscow, the need to introduce new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy works to its full potential."
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
How Europe tried to speak Trump
France's Emmanuel Macron and Britain's Keir Starmer were among seven European leaders who accompanied Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House on Monday for high-stakes talks with the US President. "There's truly never been anything like it," Trump enthused in an interview Tuesday. "There's never been such a group," he told Fox News. The summit came on the heels of a meeting between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which raised concerns in Europe that Kyiv would be pressured into making painful political and territorial concessions to Moscow. With nine leaders sitting around a long wooden table at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, the dynamics changed. Trump began the discussions by greeting his guests with a few words before the cameras. "You look great with your tan," he told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, while Starmer was introduced as "my friend, doing really well". EU chief Ursula von der Leyen was told she was "probably more powerful than anyone else around this table". 'Well prepared, well coordinated' Often criticised for their difficulties in communicating with Trump, the Europeans were hoping to steer the famously volatile US president closer to their position on the conflict, ahead of possible peace talks with Putin. "We were well prepared and well coordinated," Merz said after the meeting. "I think that really appealed to the American president, in the sense that he noticed that we Europeans were speaking with one voice here." Preparations for the meeting began Saturday when Trump debriefed Zelensky on his Alaska talks. The US president invited his Ukrainian counterpart to the White House and opened the door for a few European leaders to tag along, according to a European official. The proposal was discussed in a series of calls between European capitals. Some were wary of exposing themselves to an ambush in the Oval Office, the kind Zelensky suffered in February during his prior, explosive visit to the White House, according to the source. A team bringing together the leaders of major European powers France, Germany, Italy and Britain was nevertheless put together and announced on Sunday morning. Finland's Alexander Stubb, who has befriended Trump playing golf and leading a country that shares a long border with Russia, was also included. A few hours later, Zelensky made a detour to Brussels and appeared alongside von der Leyen, who completed the line-up with NATO's head Mark Rutte. 'Clumsy attempts' Each had a pre-scripted role, according to one participant at the summit. Rutte, who has long cultivated his relationship with Donald Trump, was responsible for starting discussions with Trump, the source said. Each leader then addressed a different aspect of the conflict. Von der Leyen, a mother and grandmother, for example emphasised the plight of Ukrainian children abducted by Russian forces. Whenever Trump seemed to get stuck on an issue, someone would chime in trying to present the matter from a different perspective and refocus the discussion, the source said. In a semantic shift, some avoided using the word "ceasefire" -- disliked by Trump who after meeting Putin has pivoted to seeking a full peace deal -- calling for Russia to "stop the killing" instead. Talk of security guarantees for Ukraine similarly deliberately saw the use of the vague term "presence", the source said. Whether such adjustments will help successfully resolve what promises to be an extremely difficult negotiation process on the future of Ukraine remains to be seen. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticised Europe's "clumsy attempts to change the position of the US president" -- a possible sign that Moscow is concerned about their impact.
