Zelensky refuses to cede Donbas, says doing so would give Putin ‘springboard' for future offensives
Zelensky's warning comes ahead of Putin's meeting with US President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday, where the Russian president is expected to demand Ukrainian land as part of a peace deal.
While there is confusion over Putin's reported conditions for a ceasefire, most versions stress that the Russian president will demand that Ukrainian forces withdraw from all parts of Ukraine's Donbas, which includes parts of the Donetsk region it still holds.
'For the Russians, Donbas is a springboard for a future new offensive. If we leave Donbas of our own accord or under pressure, we will start a third war,' Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists. Russia illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and went on to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
'I am not going to surrender my country because I have no right to do so,' he added. 'If we leave Donbas today, our fortifications, our terrain, the heights we control, we will clearly open a bridgehead for the preparation of a Russian offensive.'
Zelensky and Ukrainian military officials have warned that Russia is building up troops for a new offensive, ready to launch by September.
'I haven't heard anything — not a single proposal that would guarantee that a new war won't start tomorrow and that Putin won't try to occupy at least Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv,' the Ukrainian president told reporters.
'The exchange of territories is a very complex issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine, for our sovereign state and our people,' Zelensky added, noting that the European Union's involvement in peace talks is also crucial because 'no one except Europe is giving us security guarantees.'
A conversation between the US, Ukraine and 'all of Europe' will take place on Wednesday, according to the Ukrainian president.
Trump has signaled Zelensky would not participate in Friday's summit, though the US president previewed his plans to phone Kyiv immediately after the meeting, along with other European leaders, to brief them.
Trump said his goal is ultimately to get Putin and Zelensky in the same room to hash out their differences, and surmised only they would be able to find a way to end the war with some 'land swapping' between them.
'I'm not going to make a deal,' Trump said. 'It's not up to me to make a deal. I think a deal should be made for both.'
Zelensky also gave further details on Tuesday about the diplomatic talks that have been taking place behind the scenes, as well as his take on the outcome of US special envoy Steve Witkoff's meeting with Putin.
'Witkoff said that there should be territorial concessions on both sides. That's how it sounded. And that Putin probably wants us to leave Donbas. So it didn't sound like America wants us to leave,' Zelensky said. 'I do not believe that Putin's proposal is Trump's proposal. I believe that Trump represents the United States of America. He acts as a mediator, he is in the middle – not on Russia's side.'
CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bessent Sees Nvidia, AMD China Agreements as a Model for Others
(Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the recent deal to allow Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. to resume lower-end AI chip sales to China, on the condition they give the US government a 15% cut of the related revenue, could serve as a model for others. 'I think we could see it in other industries over time,' Bessent said Wednesday in a television interview on . 'Right now, this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets Bessent credited President Donald Trump with the 'very unique solution' of allowing Nvidia to expand in China and become a bellwether for Chinese technology, with the US taxpayer getting 'a share of' the reward. The revenue the Treasury receives from the arrangement will go to pay down debt, he said. 'If we could make a substantial debt' repayment, that would then allow for discussions about a program of sending money to taxpayers, he also said. Asked about reporting that China is urging its companies to avoid the Nvidia H20 processors now allowed for its market, Bessent said 'sure, we can discuss that' with the Chinese. 'But it also tells me that they are worried about the Nvidia chips becoming the standard in China.' China Talks On Tuesday, Bessent said that he'd be meeting again with his Chinese counterparts 'within the next two or three months,' speaking on Fox Business. He dismissed the possibility of China emulating other US trading partners in winning tariff relief in return for boosting investments in the US. When asked if China could make pledges worth billions of dollars like Japan, South Korea and the EU have as part of their trade agreements, Bessent said 'my sense is no because a lot of the buyout or the funds from the buyout are going to go to critical industries that we need to reshore and a lot of those need to be reshored away from China.' Whether the industry was semiconductors, rare-earth magnets, pharmaceuticals or steel, 'my sense is that isn't what will happen,' Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business on Tuesday. Tech and AI have been among the most high profile of areas of competition between the world's two biggest economies. President Donald Trump has extended a pause of higher tariffs on Chinese goods for another 90 days into early November, a move that stabilized trade ties between the world's two largest economies while they try to forge an agreement. Chinese companies in sectors such as electric vehicles have opened factories abroad to access new markets, a move that could also help them skirt US tariffs. He also indicated that Washington wanted to see measures from China over an extended period to stem the flow of chemicals used to make fentanyl before lowering duties Trump put in place over the issue. 'We will need to see months, if not quarters, if not a year, of progress on that before I could imagine those tariffs coming down,' he said. --With assistance from Philip Glamann. (Updates with comments from Bessent's Bloomberg TV interview.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's economic war on India is a gift to China
President Trump's decision to slap secondary sanctions on India over its imports of Russian oil, while also unleashing a tariff barrage on Indian exports, is more than a trade dispute. It is a self-inflicted wound to America's most vital strategic partnership in Asia, and it comes at a time when China is flexing its military muscle throughout the region. Washington has long courted India as a bulwark against an expansionist China and as a critical pillar of its ' free and open Indo-Pacific ' strategy. Yet Trump's punitive steps against India are eroding the very trust on which strategic alignment rests — to Beijing's delight. The mutual trust painstakingly built over years underpins bilateral cooperation. Once lost, it will be hard to rebuild. Even if the administration eventually reaches a trade deal with India, it may not be able to repair the damage. Targeting India over Russian oil purchases smacks of selective enforcement. The European Union's large imports of Russian energy products, especially liquefied natural gas, have been left untouched. Such European imports not only contribute more to Russia's coffers than India's purchases, but Europe spends more on Russian energy than on assisting Ukraine. Trump has also spared the world's largest buyer of Russian oil and gas: China. But India, the very country Washington has spent years courting as an Asian counterweight, has become the first victim of his secondary sanctions. This suggests Trump's tactics are less about punishing Moscow than about pressuring New Delhi. Russian oil is a pretext to strong-arm India into accepting a Trump-dictated trade agreement, much as he foisted a largely one-sided deal on the European Union. That his tariffs on India have little to do with Russian oil is evident from one telling fact: Indian exports to the U.S. of refined fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel — increasingly made from Russian crude — remain exempt from his tariffs. Such is the Trumpian logic. He has hit Indian non-energy exports with steep tariffs, but spared booming exports of refined fuels made largely from Russian crude. Trump seems to have no problem with Russian oil — as long as it is refined in India and then pumped into American planes, trucks and cars. Furthermore, given continued U.S. imports of Russian enriched uranium, fertilizers and chemicals, Trump does not seem troubled that his own administration is helping fund Russia's war in Ukraine while still locked in a proxy war with Moscow. In truth, Trump is using New Delhi's Russian oil purchases as a crude bargaining tactic to secure a bilateral trade deal on his terms. India illustrates how the Trump administration has weaponized tariffs not merely to extract trade concessions but also to bind other countries more closely to American strategic and security interests. In seeking to bend India to its will, it has targeted that country's traditionally independent approach to global affairs, including neutrality on conflicts. Indian exports to the U.S. now face a steep 50 percent tariff, signaling the end of Trump's bromance with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His moves against strategic-partner India are harsher than against China. This marks a dramatic U-turn from his first term, when bilateral relations thrived to the extent that Trump declared at a huge February 2020 rally in Modi's home state of Gujarat, 'America loves India, America respects India, and America will always be faithful and loyal friends to the Indian people.' In Trump's second term, Modi was among the first world leaders to visit the White House, agreeing to fast-track trade negotiations. In July, the Indians believed they had reached an interim deal, awaiting only Trump's approval. But in characteristic fashion, Trump abruptly rejected the accord and embarked on punishing India. New Delhi has publicly criticized the Trump administration's double standards. But it is more concerned about a deeper question: If Washington can so easily turn its coercive tools on a supposed ally, what is to stop it from doing so again? U.S.-India relations have probably plunged to their lowest point in the 21st century, thanks to Trump's economic war and his singling out of India for secondary sanctions. The fallout will extend beyond lost trade. India could respond by doubling down on strategic autonomy — hedging between the U.S., Russia and others — and diversifying its economic and security partnerships. Trump's gamble may wring out trade concessions in the short term, but it risks undermining the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific, where unity among key democracies is the only real check on China's expansionism. America is effectively handing China an opening to court a disillusioned India. New Delhi is already signaling that it has other geopolitical options. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit India in the coming weeks. In less than three weeks, Modi is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin will also attend. Moscow is pushing for a revived Russia-India-China grouping. A stable Indo-Pacific order demands more than joint military exercises and communiqués; it requires political will to accommodate each other's core interests. Punishing India in ways that ignore its legitimate security and energy needs sends the opposite message. Ironically, Trump's sanctions-and-tariffs blitz may have done India a favor by exposing the strategic reality of America's unreliability. By presenting the U.S. as a transactional power, Trump has signaled that Washington cannot be counted on to separate short-term commercial considerations from long-term strategic imperatives. Trump's economic coercion risks alienating a vast, still-growing market that U.S. firms see as central to their future growth. India remains the world's fastest-growing major economy, and as many other economies stagnate and populations shrink, it stands out as a rising giant. Sacrificing a linchpin of Indo-Pacific stability for a fleeting win in a tariff war is not tough bargaining. It is strategic recklessness — and a gift to China.
