White House hasn't ruled out Zelensky being in Alaska during Trump-Putin meeting on Friday
Russia
War in Ukraine
FacebookTweetLink
A diplomatic scramble unfolded Saturday after President Donald Trump announced he would meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, next week in Alaska, as European leaders rushed to understand the terms of the meeting and ensure Ukraine was not being left out of discussions about its future.
In the English countryside Saturday, European officials presented their case to Vice President JD Vance in a hastily arranged meeting. The leaders of several European nations said afterward that while they supported Trump's diplomatic efforts, any peace talks must be preceded by a ceasefire and Ukraine itself must be actively involved.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not named as a participant in the Alaska summit, to take place Friday between Trump and Putin. However, the White House has not completely ruled out including Zelensky in some meetings, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. One White House official stressed that anything involving Zelensky would likely happen after the Trump-Putin meeting.
The summit has come together very quickly, and details are still in flux. An exact location has yet to be announced.
A White House official said Trump remained 'open to a trilateral summit with both leaders' but that 'the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin.'
Since Trump unveiled plans to meet with Putin in a post to social media Friday, there has been an intensive diplomatic effort behind the scenes to get US allies on board.
Trump's announcement notably did not say whether or when Zelensky would be included in the process. Zelensky and European leaders, meanwhile, have been emphatic that Ukraine needs to be part of any discussions about ending the war.
In the Saturday meeting hosted by Vance at the manor home of the British foreign secretary, European officials laid out their terms and sought more information from US officials about the plan Putin presented Wednesday to US envoy Steve Witkoff.
They emphasized a number of points, Western officials said: that Ukraine must be involved in the talks, that a ceasefire is in place before other steps are taken, and that if Ukraine makes territorial concessions, Russia must also concede land it currently occupies.
A statement afterward from the leaders of France, Italy, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Finland said the group welcomed 'President Trump's work to stop the killing in Ukraine, end the Russian Federation's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace and security for Ukraine.'
But it spelled out terms of a peace plan that appeared to differ from the one Putin has put forward, in which he is seeking significant territorial concessions, according to Western officials.
'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,' the joint statement read. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.'
The statement also said any diplomatic agreement to end the war must include 'robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.'
The terms amounted to an attempt by European leaders to scramble a response to the rapidly unfolding diplomacy, which was set in motion this week with Witkoff's meeting in Moscow.
Pressed by reporters for details on the contours of a deal, Trump indicated Friday that it could include 'some swapping of territories.'
The way the Europeans understand it, Putin presented a proposal that would require Ukraine to give over the entire eastern Donbas region, which Russia partially occupies. But the exact contours of the plan remained somewhat unclear, even after several follow-up phone conversations between the Europeans and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Witkoff.
The fate of the two other regions that have been in Moscow's sights — Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which Russia only partially occupies — wasn't clear. Nor was the status of US security guarantees going forward, the officials said.
That has left European leaders, who have expressed concern about the possibility of Ukraine ceding territory, rushing to get more details on what a ceasefire would entail.
To allay some of those concerns, Vance convened the hourslong meeting Saturday with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and European and Ukrainian officials to lay out the US' view of negotiations, as well as American officials' understanding of Russia's stance. Witkoff attended the meeting virtually.
A US official told CNN that 'significant progress' was made, but it is still unclear whether there is European or Ukrainian buy-in heading into Friday's critical meeting.
After Saturday's meeting, Zelensky said he believed the US was listening.
'Our arguments are being heard. The dangers are being taken into account,' he said in an address.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Capitol Crime Busters - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
CNN Inside Politics 40 mins First: President Trump says his unprecedented takeover of the Washington, DC police could extend to other cities across the country. But is the new White House push. about public protection or political posturing? Or maybe both? Plus: The Texas House just failed to meet a quorum for the fifth time in a row as the Republican governor warns redistricting is inevitable. And: The president picks a MAGA loyalist to run the nation's most important economic statistics agency, leaving Wall Street questioning whether crucial data can still be taken at face value.
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
What to know on Trump's DC takeover
Hi! Rebecca Morin here. I've been binging 'The Summer I Turned Pretty' to take a break from all the news – and it's fair to say I'm excited for the new episode this week. Is DC unsafe, like Trump claims? President Donald Trump on Monday said he wants to combat what he called 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse' in Washington, DC – deploying National Guard troops and having the federal government take over the city's police department. But crime data paints a much more nuanced picture of what's going on in the nation's capital. Washington does have relatively high rates of violent crime and murder among major cities in the United States, but it has a much lower violent crime rate than some cities Trump hasn't spotlighted, such as Memphis, Tennessee. Overall, crime in the city has been on a downward trend in recent years. The murder rate in DC is far below its historic peak, which at one point led to the city earning the moniker of "murder capital.' See a breakdown of the data. Who is running DC police? As part of Trump's new actions in DC, the president tapped his newly confirmed Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terrance "Terry" Cole to also head the Metropolitan Police Department, one of the nation's largest and most dysfunctional police departments. It was unclear how the police rank and file and the MPD's police union would respond to being run by the Trump administration. Why the pressure is on for Cole in his new position. Anger over Trump crackdown: Dozens of people in the nation's capitol took to the streets on Monday to protest Trump's actions. One protester, Donna Powell, told USA TODAY that the president is 'trying to piss people off.' See what residents said about Trump's new actions. A politics pit stop Lawmakers to push for Epstein files release Congress is on their annual one-month summer break. But when lawmakers make it back to the U.S. Capitol, one thing is already on their agenda: the controversy surrounding convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing for the release of all the Epstein files after a Justice Department report found that Epstein died by suicide and did not have a 'client list,' despite previous suggestions by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Epstein and Trump were once longtime friends. Members of Congress from both parties say they'll force more public debate on the issue when their recess ends after Labor Day. Inside lawmakers' plans to push for release of Epstein files. Why DC banned kindergarten 'redshirting' Jennifer Lilintahl, in Washington, DC wanted to delay her five-year-old from entering kindergarten. Her daughter, she said, wasn't ready to learn to read. Now her daughter is six-years-old and Lilintahl tried to enroll her in kindergarten, but DC Public Schools officials said she'd have to enter first grade because of her age. Delaying kindergarten for one year, a process known as 'redshirting,' is one of the latest issues for the growing parents' rights movement, which has been dominated by public school parents who want more control over what their children learn and where they go to school. Some parents argue their kids need the "additional year of schooling" in pre-kindergarten. But others say it creates an unfair advantage compared to families who don't have the resources to delay schooling. What to know about the debate. Got a burning question, or comment, for On Politics? You can submit them here or send me an email at rdmorin@
