Russia Delivers Loaded Independence Day Greeting to US
The close ally of President Vladimir Putin urged the American people "to follow the path of peace and prosperity, as they continue to uphold the enduring principles enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence ensuring every individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Lavrov said he wanted to further improve relations between Russia and the U.S. in the message reported by the TASS Russian state news agency.
"I look forward to our collaborative efforts further enhancing bilateral relations in a constructive direction, fostering stability and predictability rooted in mutual respect and consideration for each other's national interests shaped by history, geography, and realities on the ground," he said.
He added: "Please convey our sincere congratulations to the American people on the occasion of the US national holiday—Independence Day. The Russian Federation extends its support for America's pursuit of unity and the realization of the American dream."
This is a breaking news story—more to follow.
Related Articles
Donald Trump Reveals Details of Vladimir Putin CallPutin Faces Coal Crisis in Russia'Dangerous' US Halt to Ukraine Aid Could See Russian Battlefield GainsRussia Is Struggling To Build Warplanes
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
a few seconds ago
- UPI
Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre wins parliament seat
Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre won a seat in Canada's House of Commons on Monday. Photo by Kamara Morozuk/EPA Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre has returned to the country's House of Commons after winning a special election. "Back in the saddle," Poilievre posted to X Tuesday. The election is known in Canada as a by-election, which are held to fill a vacancy in the House of Commons. The federal by-election was held in the Alberta riding, or electoral district, of Battle River-Crowfoot after Conservative Damien Kurek, elected in April, stepped down in June to give Poilievre an opportunity to regain a seat. Poilievre lost the seat in the Ottawa-area riding of Carleton he held since 2004 in April to Liberal Party member Bruce Fanjoy. Poilievre overwhelmingly won the deeply Conservative Battle River-Crowfoot by 80.4 %, defeating 213 other candidates, most of whom ran as Independents. The Liberal Party won its fourth consecutive government in April, led by Mark Carney who was elected Canadian Prime Minister. The Liberal Party's victory was driven in part by anti-American sentiment inspired by President Donald Trump's tariffs and threats of annexation. Regaining a seat gives Poilievre the opportunity to debate Carney in the House of Commons. He used his victory speech Monday to attack Carney on issues such as the national deficit, gun rights, crime and the Liberal Party's intended electric vehicle mandate. "Congratulations to Pierre Poilievre on returning to the House of Commons, and gaining the [honor] of representing the people of Battle River-Crowfoot in Parliament," Carney posted to social media Tuesday.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Not so easy: The perils and pitfalls in providing Ukraine with security guarantees
Russia War in Ukraine Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow Security guarantees have become a central focus in discussions about a peace deal for Ukraine, with the country's President Volodymyr Zelensky saying at the White House Monday that they are the 'key issue, a starting point for ending the war.' Zelensky knows that in the long run, Russia's superior numbers and weaponry will grind down Ukrainian resistance. So he has long insisted that any agreement must provide Ukraine with promises that the US and Europe will prevent the Russians from resuming their assault in a year or two. Here's what to know about this crucial part of any deal to end the war in Ukraine. First, this is uncharted territory: the 'Coalition of the Willing,' a group of key Ukrainian allies, is still working out what it can realistically offer. The purpose is clear enough: to deter the Russians from fresh attacks on Ukraine in years to come. The shape is less clear, but there will likely be a plan to put forces on the ground and support Ukraine from the sea and in the air. There would also be help in rebuilding the Ukrainian military, now exhausted by more than three years of war. Indeed, Zelensky has argued that a strong Ukrainian military is itself one security guarantee. French President Emmanuel Macron stressed the allies' support for 'a robust Ukrainian army, one that can resist any attempted attack and deter it, and therefore no limitations in numbers, capabilities, weapons.' Earlier this year, the UK and France came up with the concept of a multinational force that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said would 'deploy following a ceasefire to deter Russian aggression for years to come.' Initially, there was talk of the two countries leading a contingent of some 30,000 troops that would be deployed in Ukraine. That has given way to discussions about a smaller deterrent force on the ground and more of a 'security umbrella' provided by its allies, that would include sea, air and training elements. Some 30 countries have signed up to the coalition. But what they would each be prepared to contribute is as yet unclear. Countries like Germany and Italy are reluctant to commit ground troops; Australia and Canada may be more willing. The coalition would provide 'reassurance forces at sea, in the air, and on land that the allies are ready to provide to Ukraine,' Macron said on Monday. He added: 'We're going to need to help Ukraine with boots on the ground, to make sure that there is no intrusion from Russia in the future.' However, there is no chance of this prospective force being deployed in and around Ukraine before hostilities cease, and that gives the Kremlin what some analysts call a powerful veto. Zelensky said Tuesday: 'We are already working on the concrete content of the security guarantees,' a process that will continue at a high temp in the coming weeks. But here's the problem. A fully-fledged assurance force fanning out across a 1,000- kilometer (600-mile) front line would require far more than 100,000 troops, a huge stretch for European armies which have shrunk since the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s, for example, a 60,000-strong NATO corps was deployed on a much smaller front line in the Bosnian war. Now add logistics, rotations and a command structure to what must be figured out. And rules of engagement in the event of ceasefire violations, which would have to be agreed by all governments with troops on the ground. 'The force deployed would need to be credible to Moscow and the coalition resolved to act decisively in the event of a breach of the ceasefire,' according to a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). More feasible, according to military analysts, might be a deterrent force of some 10,000 troops, a sort of warning to Russia that any resumption of attacks would come with a price tag. This force would be in Ukraine but not necessarily close to the front lines. 'Its deterrence effect on Russian forces would mostly be achieved by its very presence since its capability for high-intensity combat operations would be limited,' IISS says of this option. Not really. There's been a weapons pipeline – from both Europe and the US – throughout the war, as well as considerable intelligence sharing. And during the Biden administration there was plenty of talk about Ukraine's pathway to either full NATO membership or some affiliated status. But that prospect vanished when Trump returned to office. Over the weekend Trump reiterated that Ukraine would not be allowed to join the US-led security alliance – in line with a key Russian demand. Before Russia's full invasion, there was a civilian monitoring mission run by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that tracked violations along the frontline in eastern Ukraine. But it was in no way equipped to offer security assurances and was often ignored by both sides. That's the elephant in the room. It's only in the last few days that US President Donald Trump has come round to the idea of the US being involved in offering Ukraine security guarantees. Previously he and other members of the administration had said bluntly that it was the Europeans' responsibility. Trump was vague about the nature of the commitment in the White House talks Monday. He suggested in a post on Truth Social that guarantees 'would be provided by the various European Countries, with a co-ordination with the United States of America.' But Trump on Tuesday rejected the prospect of US troops being deployed to Ukrainian soil. 'What it will exactly mean – US involvement – that will be discussed in the coming days,' said NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in an interview with Fox News. But Rutte described any U.S. involvement as a 'breakthrough,' which it is – because the Russians were never going to take seriously the idea of a European assurance force without the US underwriting it. The US has important capabilities the Europeans don't – its intelligence gathering and the ability to suppress enemy air defenses at scale are just two examples. But the Trump administration is going to be wary of any US role that might lead to an escalation. In a word, no. On Monday, it repeated its insistence there could be no troops from any NATO country on Ukrainian soil. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova rejected 'any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries.' Moscow has also insisted that any peace settlement include limits on the numbers and capabilities of Ukraine's military. It says it too deserves security guarantees and has always claimed that NATO's eastward expansion is one of the the root causes of the conflict. That's at odds with Trump's insistence that at the Alaska summit that 'Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine. And this is one of the key points that we need to consider.' The question is whether Putin can be persuaded to allow Ukraine to have any sort of security guarantees in exchange for locking in Russian battlefield gains and – for example – recognition of Russian sovereignty of Crimea. There's another risk. Russia might be tempted to test the resolve of any assurance force by devising some pretext for renewed military action. In turn this could play into Putin's greatest ambition: splitting the transatlantic alliance, with the US unwilling to follow through on security guarantees to which the Europeans have committed themselves. There is more discussion now about part of the security guarantee coming in the form of air cover for Ukraine, a little like the no-fly zones over Iraq back in the 1990s that were designed to prevent attacks by Saddam Hussein's forces on minorities. 'The greatest deterrent effect would be achieved by placing not only ground but also combat air elements within Ukraine,' says IISS. More airpower could be stationed in Poland and Romania. Such a presence would provide surveillance and reconnaissance but would struggle to maintain air superiority if challenged by the Russians. And there would be a risk of rapid escalation if, for example, fighter jets engaged in aerial combat. What's more, says one observer, airpower and ground troops are like eggs and bacon – the chicken is involved, the pig is committed. And the Ukrainians want commitment, not involvement.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
Trump offers assurances that US troops won't be sent to help defend Ukraine
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. troops would not be sent to help defend Ukraine against Russia after seeming to leave open the possibility the day before. Trump also said in a morning TV interview that Ukraine's hopes of joining NATO and regaining the Crimean Peninsula from Russia are 'impossible.' The Republican president, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders held hours of talks at the White House on Monday aimed at bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. While answering questions from journalists, Trump did not rule out sending U.S. troops to participate in a European-led effort to defend Ukraine as part of security guarantees sought by Zelenskyy. Trump said after his meeting in Alaska last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Putin was open to the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine. But asked Tuesday on Fox News Channel's 'Fox & Friends' what assurances he could provide going forward and beyond his term that American troops would not be part of defending Ukraine's border, Trump said, 'Well, you have my assurance, and I'm president.' Trump would have no control over the U.S. military after his terms ends in January 2029. The president also said in the interview that he is optimistic that a deal can be reached to end the Russian invasion, but he underscored that Ukraine will have to set aside its hope of getting back Crimea, which was seized by Russian forces in 2014, and its long-held aspirations of joining the NATO military alliance. 'Both of those things are impossible,' Trump said. Putin, as part of any potential deal to pull his forces out of Ukraine, is looking for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
