Putin, Macron divided over how to deal with war in Ukraine
The Elysee presidential palace said Macron expressed his country's unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and integrity. He called for a ceasefire as soon as possible and the launch of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for a solid and lasting settlement of the conflict.
The Kremlin quoted Putin as saying that the Ukraine conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by Western countries, which had been ignoring Russia's security interests for years and creating an anti-Russia staging ground in Ukraine.
The Russian presidential office said that as conditions for a peaceful settlement, Putin demanded the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis and it should be based on the new territorial realities.
It is believed that Putin also demanded Ukraine give up its aspiration to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He is also thought to have reiterated Russia's call for the recognition of the unilaterally annexed four Ukrainian regions as its territory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
an hour ago
- NHK
Putin-Trump call after US halts some arms shipments to Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with US President Donald Trump in a phone call on Thursday. The Kremlin said Putin told him he plans to keep fighting in Ukraine, until Russia achieves its goal of eliminating what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said Trump again pressed for an early ceasefire during the conversation, which lasted about an hour. But Putin stressed that Moscow will not back down until its conditions are met. Russia has been demanding "Ukraine's neutrality." Trump said he did not make any progress at all, and he is unhappy with the outcome. Their talk took place two days after the Trump administration confirmed it halted some weapons shipments to Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the shipments were already in Poland when they were halted. It said they include Patriot air-defense interceptors and Stinger surface-to-air missiles. Ukraine is closely watching to see if the United States will keep providing it with military aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he hoped to speak with Trump on Friday, or in the coming days. He added that Kyiv is ready to take part in a meeting with Putin to bring peace. Russian forces have been intensifying attacks across Ukraine. In June alone, they launched around 5,400 long-range drones over Ukraine, which is more than in any month since Russia's invasion.
The Diplomat
5 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Reframing the French Indo-Pacific: New Caledonia, How to Overcome the Geopolitical Impasse?
The ongoing crisis in New Caledonia threatens to unravel more than three decades of French diplomatic engagement, as well as France's broader strategy in the region. As Emmanuel Macron wrapped up his visits to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore – where he delivered the keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue at the end of May – the French president reaffirmed the Indo-Pacific's strategic importance for both France and Europe. In a context of growing geopolitical uncertainty and renewed unilateralism, Macron emphasized France's commitment to a stable, multipolar order grounded in international law, freedom of navigation, and inclusive multilateralism – an international posture shared with key partners such as India, Japan, and ASEAN. Building on this common strategic vision, and as the only remaining European Union (EU) member state with sovereign territories in the Indo-Pacific, France seeks to position its diplomacy not only as a national actor but also as a standard-bearer for European engagement in the region. The exercise of sovereignty is precisely what underpins France's specificity and credibility as a resident power. The French Indo-Pacific overseas collectivities (FIPOCs) – La Réunion, Mayotte, les TAAF (or South Antarctic Lands), New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, and Clipperton – which together have a population of 1.65 million inhabitants, play a central role in the construction and elaboration of a credible strategy. Notably, 93 percent of France's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) lies in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, making it the second largest EEZ in the world after that of the United States. There are also around 200,000 French expats residing in countries of the region, more than 7,000 French subsidiary companies operating in the region, and 8,000 military personnel stationed permanently. The assimilation of the FIPOCs into a single geostrategic Indo-Pacific framework is a logical step for a state seeking to assert itself as a legitimate actor in the region. However, despite some common geographical, economic, and political characteristics, grouping the FIPOCs into a single macro-region does not fully reflect the diversity of contexts and geopolitical challenges specific to each territory. A comprehensive and nuanced understanding of local contexts is thus essential to fully comprehend the complexity of France's Indo-Pacific engagement. This series will explore each of the FIPOCs separately to understand their characteristics, role in France's Indo-Pacific strategy, and potential friction points between national and local drivers. You can view the full series here; today, we focus on New Caledonia. New Caledonia is a French overseas archipelago located in the Melanesian subregion of the Southwest Pacific. With over 160,000 square kilometers, its main island, Grande Terre, stands as both the widest geographic FIPOC and the largest French Island. Home to the world's fifth-largest nickel reserve, the archipelago occupies a position of significant economic and geopolitical relevance. However, the archipelago's strategic economic potential contrasts sharply with a fragile and eruptive political landscape, shaped by longstanding independence movements, a renewed outbreak of civil unrest, and institutional uncertainty. The Rise of Independence Claims The islands have been inhabited by the Indigenous Kanak people – of Melanesian origin – for over 3,000 years. From a European perspective, the archipelago was first sighted by British navigator James Cook in 1774 and formally annexed by France in 1853. Initially used as a penitentiary settlement, New Caledonia later experienced successive waves of immigration from Europe and Asia. These demographic transformations, combined with the devastating effects of disease and violence contributed to the progressive marginalization of the Kanak people in their own land. Following decades of discrimination and land dispossession under colonial rule, the Kanak population began to acquire civil rights in the post-World War II era. The broader decolonization movement sweeping across the Pacific further fueled cultural and nationalist aspirations among Kanak communities. Between 1984 and 1988, escalating political tensions culminated in a near-civil war. The conflict reached a dramatic peak in 1988 with the killing of four French gendarmes and the hostage-taking of 26 others by pro-independence militants on the island of Ouvéa. A French military intervention resulted in the deaths of 19 Kanak activists and two French soldiers. In the aftermath, political negotiations led to the signing of the Matignon Agreements (1988), which established a ten-year transitional period. This process was extended by the Nouméa Accord (1998), which provided for the gradual transfer of competencies to local authorities, the creation of a restricted electoral roll for local elections, and the organization of a self-determination referendum by 2018. Up to three referendums could be held in the event of a rejection of independence. In parallel, the General Assembly of United Nations added New Caledonia to the list of non-self-governing territories, thereby acknowledging the territory's ongoing decolonization process. The Resurgence of Violence
Japan Times
8 hours ago
- Japan Times
NATO's Donald Trump dilemma
NATO's just-completed summit in The Hague came at a time of extraordinary tension. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Europe of free riding on U.S. defense spending, raising serious concerns about the health of the Atlantic alliance. His decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities just three days before the summit — in coordination with Israel and without informing America's NATO allies — has only intensified those fears. Trump's strikes against Iran evoked memories of the post-9/11 interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, when NATO expanded its role beyond addressing conventional military threats to include counter-terrorism operations. While the alliance supported the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq was far more divisive, owing to the lack of convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and the absence of an explicit United Nations Security Council mandate. The resulting rift prompted then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to draw a controversial distinction between 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe.' But the current situation is even more alarming. Unlike in 2003, when the United States at least made an effort to consult its allies, Trump now keeps them in the dark. He provided no credible evidence to justify the attack on Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi contradicted his claims of an imminent nuclear threat, stating just days earlier that there was no proof of a 'systematic' Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. Strikingly, many NATO leaders were informed of the attack only after it had been carried out. By sidelining NATO, Trump has effectively reduced the alliance to a passive observer, undermining its core principles and signaling a dangerous shift in global diplomacy. Imagine if Iran had retaliated by targeting U.S. bases in Turkey, potentially dragging my country into war. And if a nuclear leak had occurred, endangering Turkish civilians, who would have borne responsibility? Although Israel and Iran accepted Trump's announcement of a ceasefire, NATO members had been thrust into a dangerous situation without warning. This was particularly worrisome for Turkey, which shares a border with Iran and is highly vulnerable to the consequences of regional escalation. Trump's behavior has jeopardized NATO's collective security. After all, there is no guarantee that Israel will not violate the ceasefire, as it did in Gaza in March. NATO members must now confront a fundamental question: Can the alliance survive if member states may launch unilateral military action that puts others at risk? The U.S. may have legitimate evidence that Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty or was just about to do so. But if that were the case, the proper course would have been to present the evidence to the IAEA and pursue a coordinated response through the U.N. Security Council. Alternatively, the U.S. may have assumed that Iran would not retaliate and saw the attack as a way to force the Iranians back to the negotiating table. But talks between the two countries were already set to resume before Israel's intervention derailed them. A third explanation is more cynical but may be true: the attack was meant to divert attention from Israel's brutal war in Gaza. Whichever explanation proves true, Trump's actions could have far-reaching consequences for NATO and the alliance's future could depend on how its leaders respond. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, must clearly outline the risks that regional instability poses to NATO's collective defense posture — especially given Turkey's proximity to Iran. As leaders of countries with permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer could play a vital role in strengthening coordination between NATO and the U.N. Likewise, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will be instrumental in shaping NATO-EU relations, while Norwegian President Jonas Gahr Store and his Finnish counterpart, Alexander Stubb, could help reinvigorate diplomacy and restore the alliance's moral compass. Ultimately, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's effectiveness will largely depend on leaders' commitment to pursuing rational, law-abiding security policies. Even beyond the immediate Iran crisis, NATO finds itself at a crossroads. The Hague summit may ultimately be seen as a defining moment — one that will determine whether the alliance can remain the world's most powerful defense organization, grounded in its members' shared concerns and contributions, or is destined to become a mere instrument of U.S.-Israeli strategic interests. If I were in office today, I would use the summit to highlight Israel's growing aggression and the security risks facing Turkey as the only NATO member in the region. I would ask Trump whether, in his 'America First' hierarchy, NATO allies now rank below nonmember Israel. Any leader willing to pose that question would take a principled stand against reckless military adventurism — and might just help save the alliance itself. Before the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder were dismissed as representatives of 'Old Europe' for opposing U.S. intervention. Had their warnings been heeded, the catastrophic costs of the war might have been avoided and Iran's regional influence would likely not be as significant as it is now. History has shown that wars launched before exhausting every diplomatic avenue lead to ruin for all involved. Russia's miscalculations in Ukraine serve as a grim reminder that while starting a war is easy, ending one is far more difficult. Today, as Trump's actions threaten further erosion of hard-won international laws, European leaders must push back. If NATO fails to uphold the rule of law, it risks forfeiting its role as the cornerstone of global security. The alliance's fate — and the future of global stability — will hinge on whether its leaders insist on pursuing peace rather than confrontation. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-2016) and foreign minister (2009-2014) of Turkey. © Project Syndicate, 2025
