Outline emerges of Putin's offer to end his war in Ukraine
The account emerged the day after Trump and Putin met at an airforce base in Alaska, the first encounter between a U.S. president and the Kremlin chief since before the start of the Ukraine conflict.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is due to travel to Washington on Monday to discuss with Trump a possible settlement of the full-scale war, which Putin launched in February 2022.
Although the summit failed to secure the ceasefire he said he had wanted, Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that he and Putin had discussed land transfers and security guarantees for Ukraine, and had "largely agreed".
"I think we're pretty close to a deal," he said, adding: "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no'."
The two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said their knowledge of Putin's proposals was mostly based on discussions between leaders in Europe, the U.S. and Ukraine, and noted it was not complete.
Trump briefed Zelenskiy and European leaders on his summit discussions early on Saturday.
It was not immediately clear if the proposals by Putin were an opening gambit to serve as a starting point for negotiations or more like a final offer that was not subject to discussion.
At face value, at least some of the demands would present huge challenges for Ukraine's leadership to accept.
Putin's offer ruled out a ceasefire until a comprehensive deal is reached, blocking a key demand of Zelenskiy, whose country is hit daily by Russian drones and ballistic missiles.
Under the proposed Russian deal, Kyiv would fully withdraw from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions in return for a Russian pledge to freeze the front lines in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the sources said.
Ukraine has already rejected any retreat from Ukrainian land such as the Donetsk region, where its troops are dug in and which Kyiv says serves as a crucial defensive structure to prevent Russian attacks deeper into its territory.
Russia would be prepared to return comparatively small tracts of Ukrainian land it has occupied in the northern Sumy and northeastern Kharkiv regions, the sources said.
Russia holds pockets of the Sumy and Kharkiv regions that total around 440 square km, according to Ukraine's Deep State battlefield mapping project. Ukraine controls around 6,600 square km of Donbas, which comprises the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and is claimed by Russia.
Although the Americans have not spelled this out, the sources said they knew Russia's leader was also seeking - at the very least - formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.
It was not clear if that meant recognition by the U.S. government or, for instance, all Western powers and Ukraine. Kyiv and its European allies reject formal recognition of Moscow's rule in the peninsula.
They said Putin would also expect the lifting of at least some of the array of sanctions on Russia. However, they could not say if this applied to U.S. as well as European sanctions.
Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil - which is subject to a range of Western sanctions - but might have to "in two or three weeks."
Ukraine would also be barred from joining the NATO military alliance, though Putin seemed to be open to Ukraine receiving some kind of security guarantees, the sources said.
However, they added that it was unclear what this meant in practice. European leaders said Trump had discussed security guarantees for Ukraine during their conversation on Saturday and also broached an idea for an "Article 5"-style guarantee outside the NATO military alliance.
NATO regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
Joining the Atlantic alliance is a strategic objective for Kyiv that is enshrined in the country's constitution.
Russia would also demand official status for the Russian language inside parts of, or across, Ukraine, as well as the right of the Russian Orthodox Church to operate freely, the sources said.
Ukraine's security agency accuses the Moscow-linked church of abetting Russia's war on Ukraine by spreading pro-Russian propaganda and housing spies, something denied by the church which says it has cut canonical ties with Moscow.
Ukraine has passed a law banning Russia-linked religious organisations, of which it considers the church to be one. However, it has not yet started enforcing the ban.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
Lisa Nandy in new cronyism row after charity choice for project
A charity with close links to the Labour Party received taxpayers' money to carry out a culture department research project, only a few months after a former trustee became the culture secretary's special adviser, The Times can reveal. Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, announced a 'listening exercise' to form a new national youth strategy shortly after scrapping the National Citizen Service, a coalition-era project for 16 to 17-year-olds. A £282,395 contract was awarded to the market research company Savanta in February to conduct further research into what young people wanted from the strategy. Savanta in turn sub-contracted the small London-based charity My Life My Say to run a series of workshops asking young people what they wanted from the new strategy. Nandy's special adviser, Harjeet Sahota, served as a trustee at the My Life My Say for three years, until she resigned on August 28 after joining Nandy as a political adviser in the culture department under the new Labour government. My Life My Say was founded in 2013 by Mete Coban, the deputy mayor of London for the environment and energy. Sahota served as a trustee at the same time that she was head of external relations for Sir Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition. Before that she worked for Sir Sadiq Khan's re-election campaign in 2020. Sources said information about the appointment of My Life My Say — which would usually be shared within the department — was not disclosed in the case of the 'listening exercise'. They also flagged concerns about the involvement of the charity UK Youth in the delivery of the new strategy. In January 2025 a director of the charity was seconded into Nandy's department to lead development of the new youth strategy. In March, UK Youth was announced as a partner alongside My Life My Say in the consultation exercise. It is not known how much was received by either My Life My Say or UK Youth through Savanta for the delivery of the contract. UK Youth is a much larger charity and received about £16 million in income during the last financial year, compared with less than £400,000 for My Life My Say. A government official said Sahota logged her past involvement with My Life My Say and recused herself from the procurement process. New procurement legislation, which came into effect in February, forces ministers and their advisers to declare potential conflicts of interest when their department awards contracts. Procurement experts have also called for more transparency so that the government publishes the details of companies and organisations that have been subcontracted to work on government projects. Ben Paxton, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government think tank, said: 'The lack of visibility of the supply chain can limit accountability, particularly where conflicts of interest may be a concern. 'It's crucial for all public procurement that the proper process is followed, to ensure government is meeting the ultimate aim of delivering the best services for the best price possible.' A DCMS spokesman said: 'In order to undertake one of the largest government listening exercises with young people in a generation, DCMS appointed Savanta as the project's lead delivery partner through an open, fair and competitive tender process in line with government procurement guidance. The details of this procurement are publicly available on Contracts Finder. 'My Life My Say is a sub-contractor to Savanta, with all payments managed through Savanta rather than directly by DCMS. Robust conflict of interest procedures were followed throughout. No individuals with declared conflicts of interest were involved in the procurement process, which was delivered through the department's commercial team following standard procedures.' A spokesman for the charity said: 'My Life My Say is an award-winning youth-led charity, recognised by successive governments for our work championing young people's voices. As a leading youth engagement charity in the UK, we are proud to have partnered with Savanta on one of the largest national listening exercises with young people ever conducted in the UK to help shape the national youth strategy. 'While we are aware of our former trustee Harjeet Sahota's role at DCMS, we can confirm that Harjeet voluntarily stepped down as a trustee in August 2024 and has had no discussions in regards to this contract with staff at My Life My Say.' • Labour vowed to end cronyism. Unless they're Labour cronies Labour has faced allegations of 'cronyism' in recent weeks, after one of the party's pre-election donors won contracts worth millions of pounds. Tech consultancy Public Digital seconded one of its partners to work for Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, in the months leading up the election to help write Labour's tech policies. The donation was registered as being worth £100,000 and the partner, Emily Middleton, was given a senior civil service role in Kyle's department just weeks after the election. The company has gone on to win £10.2 million of contracts since Labour entered office to transform a series of different IT systems, which the government says followed all procurement rules.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
In maps: Why the entire peace deal hangs on this small strip of Ukraine
Although the Kazenyi Torets river runs through four major towns and is flanked by a railway and a road, you could drive the length of its valley without setting eyes on it. Hidden for most of its length by a thick band of marshy woodland on either bank, its waters are mostly left to kingfishers and frogs. Crucially, though, this placid river runs through the centre of the last quarter of Donetsk region held by Ukraine, and the string of towns on its banks have been forged into a fortress – a near-impregnable stronghold that has resisted Russian attacks for more than a decade. Eleven years ago, I watched the war in Ukraine begin on its banks. Three years ago, I sat again by the river and wondered as Russian shelling grew closer if it was the last time I would see it. Now, it is at the very heart of contentious negotiations to end the war. Vladimir Putin has written all of Donetsk region into the Russian constitution and has made clear he wants the entire region – especially this last, defiant valley – as a price for peace. Donald Trump appears to be ready to push Volodymyr Zelensky to make such a trade. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's special envoy to Russia, said on Sunday there would be an 'important' and 'particularly detailed' discussion about the fate of Donetsk region when Mr Zelensky arrives in Washington on Monday. Mr Zelensky is reluctant: 'Russia is still unsuccessful in Donetsk region and Putin has been unable to take it for 12 years,' he said on Sunday, saying discussions about land swaps there are so important they should only be discussed bilaterally between Ukraine and Russia. To understand why Russia covets it so much, and Ukraine refuses to give it up, it is worth looking at a map. Here's why the 'Donetsk fortress' matters: Terrain Upstream, at the southern mouth of the valley, lies the city of Kostiantynivka. It is followed by Druzhkivka; Kramatorsk; and lastly Sloviansk, where it arcs to the east before meandering through a flood plain of reedbeds and reservoirs until meeting the Siversky Donets – the principal river of the Donbas. In fact, the very word, Donbas – used to describe the coal rich east of Ukraine now largely occupied by Russia – is a contraction of 'Donets Basin'. The irony is that the area's geological past means that this part of the basin is in fact a highland. And as a highland in a vast area of plain, it has huge strategic, military significance. True, these are not the Himalayas; the highest point is a little over 300m above sea level, and the incline is so gradual that if you were not paying attention you might not notice it. But nonetheless, it is a highland – a network of ridges and valleys that stands above the great Pontic Steppe that dominates the southern half of Ukraine and Russia. The Torets cuts a valley through the northern western extremity of this upland. On its right bank in particular, the land rises steeply to a ridge on which sits the town of Chasiv Yar and the current frontline. Today, those slopes and ridges are riddled with Ukrainian defensive lines built up over more than a decade. Inclines have been measured, deadground paced out, the rise and fall of the land integrated into kill zones and artillery ranges. This, in other words, is a valley that guards the entrance to the central heart of Ukraine, protecting it. Not just that, but it is a bastion protecting the whole of the current front line. Should it fall – or be handed over – not only will the Ukrainian steppe behind it be open, but Russian troops would have a platform to encircle Ukrainian forces both to Kharkiv in the north and Zaporizhzhia in the south. If Ukraine is forced to give it away, then, holding the frontline, or even defending the rest of the country at all, would be immeasurably harder should Russia decide to attack again and seize the territory which Putin still calls 'Novorossiya' – New Russia. Infrastructure Armies are, at the end of the day, very large groups of people. And like any large group of people, they need places to sleep. And places to eat. They need to get around, they need fuel, they need hospitals and coffee shops, and all the other things that most of us take for granted. In other words, they need a city. When Ukraine lost control of Donetsk, the regional capital, in 2014, it was left at a major disadvantage: the enemy possessed the most comfortable and advanced cluster of infrastructure between the Russian border and the central Ukraine city of Dnipro. The Ukrainians were left with the villages outside that had relied on the big city for much of their economic well being. The country towns of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka were the next best thing. It was a landscape of post-Soviet neglect: a derelict glass factory that had once made the stars to adorn the top of the Kremlin; the distant slag heaps of the mining towns; towns mostly made up of small houses where many people scraped a living from their allotments; a road linking them that even before the war was badly in need of resurfacing. But served by a major railway and a highway that connect all four towns to both Kharkiv and Kyiv, the valley was convenient for logistics, for resupply and medical treatment. And there was just enough of a domestic economy to serve the rest of the army's needs: from supermarkets to pizza joints and petrol stations. Over time the conurbation – the towns sometimes seem to run into each other as you tumble down the H20 highway – was turned into both a fortress and an economic and logistical centre. Kramatorsk's military airbase, which lies on the ridge on the eastern side of town, became the command centre for the eight-year, low-level war fought between 2014 and 2022. It was not without friction. The influx of soldiers caused tensions. A portion of the local population was always sympathetic to Russia. Even after the full-scale invasion it was possible to meet locals who would admit – nudge nudge, wink wink – that their views had not changed. Since the invasion began, the towns have taken on even greater significance. Kostiantynivka was the logistics hub to support both Bakhmut, Chasiv Yar, and Toretsk during the Russian assaults on them. Further north, Sloviansk and Kramatorsk have acted as the rear areas for battles around Lyman, Izyum and the ongoing struggle in the Siversk Salient. If the valley falls, the Ukrainians lose not only fortifications and favourable topography: they lose the urban logistics and infrastructure that make it possible to sustain an army and a defence. And don't forget the several hundred-thousand civilians who call the valley home. Many have even moved back after fleeing at the start of the full-scale invasion, reasoning that Kramatorsk is at least as safe – or safer – than other parts of the country. The next possible defensive towns – Izyum and Bavinkove in the Kharkiv Region, Petropavlivka in Dnipropetrovsk Region – either lie dozens of miles away or will be left vulnerable, their flanks open, if the Torets valley fortress falls. History Putin's interest in this corner of Donbas is partly political: he has told the Russian public that his goal is to liberate the whole of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, so he needs to capture it to be able to claim a victory true to his word. Not since French general Robert Nivelle declared the Germans 'shall not pass' at Verdun has a fortress town taken on such political and emotional, as well as strategic, significance. This, in fact, is where the Russo-Ukrainian war began – in April 2014 when a handful of heavily armed desperadoes led by a Russian intelligence officer called Igor Girkin stormed into the town hall, police station and security service office in Sloviansk. They quickly moved on to other towns down the valley and over the hills, storming police stations and abducting, torturing and murdering opponents as they went. Two of their victims – the local councillor Volodymyr Rybak and a teenage activist called Yuri Poporavka – were tortured to death and dumped in the Torets. The Ukrainian recapture of Sloviansk and the rest of the Torets valley in June that year was their first big success of the war – in fact, the first time the Ukrainian military proved it could take on and defeat Russian-led forces. Ever since, Sloviansk in particular has become totemic to both sides. To the Russians, it is the birthplace of their astro-turfed, FSB-led 'rebellion' that provided the excuse for invasion. To the Ukrainians, it is the ground zero of their battle for national survival. The legend has been magnified 1,000-fold since the full scale invasion. In the summer of 2022, the Ukrainians stubbornly defied a Russian attempt to storm the fortress valley from two sides. The enemy came within earshot of Sloviansk from the north, the rumble of Russian artillery creeping closer by the day. But they were never able to get into the valley before they were thrown back in a Ukrainian counter offensive. Ever since, Russia's operations – from the nine-month battle for Bakhmut to the current assault on Pokrovsk and Toretsk – have been directed ultimately at Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. So many Ukrainians have now died trying to defend and hold the fortress belt towns; so many men and women from all over Ukraine know the valley and its potholed highway; so many have stopped for their last coffee before the front at its petrol stations that surrender is almost unthinkable.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war live: ‘Russia must end this war,' Zelenskyy says as he arrives in Washington for Trump talks
Update: Date: 2025-08-18T05:13:29.000Z Title: Opening summary Content: Welcome to our live coverage of the war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared 'Russia must end this war' as he arrived in Washington DC ahead of a crucial talks with Donald Trump over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. A host of European leaders will join Zelenskyy on Monday for the summit as they seek to provide a counterpoint to Vladimir Putin's arguments following his talks with the US president on Friday. The leaders – British prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb – cleared their diaries to fly to the US at short notice, which is seen as a measure of how alarmed they were by Friday's Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage. After the Alaska talks Trump reportedly endorsed the Kremlin's plan to end the war in Ukraine, including Kyiv giving up territory that Russia has been unable to seize and no ceasefire until a final deal has been agreed. Zelenskyy said in a post on X as he arrived in Washington late on Sunday that he was grateful to Trump for the invitation and 'we all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably'. He also said that 'peace must be lasting'. 'Russia must end this war, which it itself started,' Zelenskyy said. 'And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace.' Here are some of the latest developments: Zelenskyy met European leaders in Brussels earlier on Sunday and reiterated Ukraine's stance on land swaps, saying on X: 'Ukraine's constitution makes it impossible to give up or trade land. Since the territorial issue is so important, it should be discussed only by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at the trilateral – Ukraine, the US, Russia. So far, Russia gives no sign this will happen, and if Russia refuses, new sanctions must follow.' Ahead of Monday's peace talks in the US, Emmanuel Macron said that in order to have a 'lasting peace deal for Ukraine, Ukraine needs a strong army'. He added that European allies want 'Ukraine's territorial integrity to be respected' and that 'Ukraine must be represented in any talks on Ukraine's future'. The French president also said that 'our goal for tomorrow's talks is to present a united front between Ukraine and its European allies'. The Washington talks will also be attended by the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte. Zelenskyy has hailed the decision to offer security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace deal as he prepared to meet Trump. '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,' the Ukrainian president said. In announcing his visit to Washington, Keir Starmer praised Trump for his 'efforts to end Russia's illegal war in Ukraine'. At the same time, the British PM reasserted Europe's red lines, saying the 'path to peace' could not be decided without Zelenskyy and that Russia should be 'squeezed' with further sanctions. Starmer has deliberately sought to position himself as a leader who can get along with Trump while consistently stressing the red lines over any peace plan. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said Russia and Ukraine were both 'going to have to make concessions' for there to be a peaceful resolution to the war. In interviews on Sunday Rubio said the talks in Alaska had 'made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement – but there remains some big areas of disagreement'. 'We're still a long ways off,' Rubio added. 'We're not at the precipice of a peace agreement. We're not at the edge of one. But I do think progress was made and towards one.' He declined to go into specific areas of agreement or disagreement. Trump's Ukraine envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Putin had agreed that the US and European allies could offer Ukraine a Nato-style, 'Article 5-like' security guarantee as part of an eventual deal to end the war. Witkoff added that Russia had agreed to unspecified concessions on five Ukrainian regions central to the war, particularly the eastern Donetsk province. 'We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as gamechanging,' he said. Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's envoy to international organisations in Vienna, said early on Monday that Russia agreed that any future peace agreement must provide security guarantees to Kyiv, but added that Russia 'has equal right to expect that Moscow will also get efficient security guarantees'. European Union council president Antonio Costa said he 'welcomed the United States' willingness to participate in providing security guarantees to Ukraine'. He said: 'Transatlantic unity is paramount at this moment to achieve a sustainable peace in Ukraine.'
