Ukraine and Russia meet in Turkey for peace talks after trading major attacks
The meeting in Istanbul comes after a string of major attacks over the weekend.
Ukraine said on Sunday that it had launched a spectacular surprise attack on five Russian air bases, ranging from targets close to Moscow to Russia's Arctic, Siberia and Far East.
The talks are being held at the Ciragan Palace in Istanbul (Emrah Gurel/AP)
The targets were more than 4,300 miles from Ukraine.
More than 40 Russian warplanes were destroyed, Ukraine claimed, in what President Volodymyr Zelensky called a 'brilliant operation' that involved more than a year of planning.
Also on Sunday, Russia launched its biggest number of drones — 472 — on Ukraine since the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine's air force said, in an apparent effort to overwhelm air defences.
US-led efforts to push the two sides into accepting a ceasefire have failed. Ukraine accepted that step, but the Kremlin effectively rejected it.
The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, assessed late on Sunday that 'Russia is attempting to delay negotiations and prolong the war in order to make additional battlefield gains'.
Members of the Russian delegation arrive at the Ciragan Palace (Emrah Gurel/AP)
Recent comments by senior officials in both countries indicate they remain far apart on key conditions for stopping the war.
The first round of talks on May 16, also in Istanbul, ended after less than two hours. While both sides agreed on a large prisoner swap, there was no breakthrough.
The Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul for Monday's meeting is led by defence minister Rustem Umerov, according to Heorhii Tykhyi, spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.
Moscow's delegation, headed by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, arrived on Sunday evening, Russian state media reported.
Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan is chairing the talks at the city's Ciragan Palace and gave an opening speech to mark their start.
Fierce fighting has continued along the roughly 620-mile front line, and both sides have hit each other's territory with deep strikes.
Ukrainian drones struck near Rylsk in the western Kursk region of Russia (Alexander Khinshtein/AP)
Russian air defences downed 162 Ukrainian drones over eight Russian regions overnight, as well as over the annexed Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, Russia's Defence Ministry said on Monday.
Ukrainian air defenscs damaged 52 out of 80 drones launched by Russia overnight, the Ukrainian air force said.
Two ballistic missiles struck a residential neighbourhood in the north-eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on Monday morning, including one that hit near a school, the city's mayor said.
One missile landed near an apartment building, while the second struck a road near the school, Ihor Terekhov said in a statement with a photo of a wide crater.
'Standing next to the crater, you realise how different it all could have been,' he wrote. 'A few more metres — and it would have hit the building. A few more minutes — and cars, buses would have been on the road.'
No casualties were reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Money can't buy him love: Republicans give Elon Musk the cold shoulder
Elon Musk may believe his money bought the presidential election and the House of the Representatives for the Republicans. But he is discovering painfully and quickly that it has not bought him love, loyalty or even fear among many GOP members of Congress on Capitol Hill. Faced with the choice of siding with Musk, the world's richest man, or Donald Trump, after the two staged a public relationship breakdown for the ages on Thursday, most Republicans went with the man in the Oval Office, who has shown an unerring grasp of the tactics of political intimidation and who remains the world's most powerful figure even without the boss of Tesla and SpaceX by his side. The billionaire tech entrepreneur, who poured about $275m into Trump's campaign last year, tried to remind Washington's political classes of his financial muscle on Thursday during an outpouring of slights against a man for whom he had once professed platonic love and was still showering with praise up until a week before. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk posted to his 220 million followers on X, the social media platform he owns – and which he has used ruthlessly to reshape the political agenda. It was a variation on a theme from a man who has repeatedly threatened to deploy his untold millions in funding primary challengers to elected politicians who displease him or who publicly considered blocking Trump's cabinet nominations. But a gambit that had been effective in the past failed to work this time – and might not be enough to sink the 'big, beautiful bill' that Musk this week condemned as a deficit-inflating 'abomination'. One after another, Republican House members came out to condemn him and defend Trump, despite having earlier been told by Musk that 'you know you did wrong' in voting for what has become Trump's signature legislation that seeks to extend vast tax cuts for the rich. Troy Nehls, a GOP representative from Texas, captured the tone, addressing Musk before television cameras: 'You've lost your damn mind. Enough is enough. Stop this.' It chimed with the sentiments of many others. 'Nobody elected Elon Musk, and a whole lot of people don't even like him, to be honest with you, even on both sides,' Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey congressman, told Axios. 'We're getting people calling our offices 100% in support of President Trump,' Kevin Hern, a representative from Oklahoma, told the site. 'Every tweet that goes out, people are more lockstep behind President Trump and [Musk is] losing favour.' Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican, called Musk's outburst of social media posts – that included a call for Trump's impeachment, a forecast of a tariff-driven recession and accusation that the president is on the Jeffrey Epstein files – 'absolutely childish and ridiculous'. Musk had 'lost some of his gravitas'. There were numerous other comments in similar vein. They seemed to carry the weight of political calculation, rather than principled sentiment. Republicans were balancing the strength of Trump's voice among GOP voters versus the power of the increasingly unpopular Musk's money – and most had little doubt which matters most. 'On the value of Elon playing against us in primaries compared to Trump endorsing us in primaries, the latter is 100 times more relevant,' Axios quoted one unnamed representative as saying. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Another said: 'Elon can burn $5m in a primary, but if Trump says 'that's the person Republicans should re-elect,' it's a wasted $5m.' Trump himself said on Thursday that he would have won the battleground state of Pennsylvania even without his former benefactor's significant financial input. But it is also evidence-based. In April, Musk discovered how finite his influence was when a Republican judge he had backed with $25m of his own money lost by 10 percentage points in an election for a vacant supreme court seat in Wisconsin. It was a chastening experience that bodes ill for any hopes he has of persuading Republicans to change their minds on Trump's spending bill. Yet Musk still has his sympathisers on Capitol Hill, even if they are a minority. With the 'big, beautiful bill' still likely to pass through the Senate, Thomas Massie, a senator for Kentucky – who has been labelled 'a grandstander' by Trump for his consistent criticism of the legislation – was unambiguous when CNN asked which side he choose between Trump and Musk. 'I choose math. The math always wins over the words,' he replied. 'I trust the math from the guy that lands rockets backwards over the politicians' math.' It was a rare case of economics trumping politics on a day when political self-interest seemed paramount.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
From banning X to funding Dems: All the ways Musk and Trump could hurt each other as they go nuclear
An alliance between the two most powerful men in the world seemed destined to blow up into a volatile feud yet somehow held ... until it didn't. Within a few hours on Thursday, the public spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into debates over the president's impeachment, calls to launch primary challengers against Republican allies in Congress, and Musk's accusation that the president is implicated in a sexual abuse scandal. But how they choose to escalate from here could have far-reaching impacts — and not just for the fate of a massive bill that sparked their breakup. Trump and Musk command the world's attention, own competing social media platforms, and are each in a position to wield the power of the presidency and spend, and lose, billions of dollars against one another. How Trump could go after Musk Kill government contracts Trump has already suggested yanking government contracts for Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX, which are due to receive at least $3 billion in contracts from 17 agencies. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his War Room podcast, Trump ally Steve Bannon urged Trump to retaliate against the world's wealthiest man by, among other things, using the Defense Production Act to take control of SpaceX. 'The U.S. government should seize it,' Bannon said Thursday. Cut off Elon's access to the White House Musk ended his 130-day 'special government employee' term in the Trump administration last week after serving as an 'adviser' to the president for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk unleashed across the federal government to make drastic cuts to spending and the workforce. But Trump left the door open for Musk to return. That 130-day term can be renewed next year. Trump could sever that arrangement at any time. Bannon also called on Trump to strip Musk's top-secret clearances, which he is granted in conjunction with his work on SpaceX and NASA. Make X illegal With more than 220 million followers on a social media platform under his control, Musk can use that audience and ability to shift media narratives against the president to advance his agenda. Trump, whose entire campaign was built on retribution, possesses executive authority to shut X down, according to experts. Trump could declare X a national security risk, 'which would permit him to ban the platform outright,' claims Devan Leos with AI platform Undetectable AI. The president could invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on national security grounds to prevent X from operating, which would likely trigger a high-profile legal battle. 'Musk now faces a difficult choice. He can ban Trump from X in retaliation, but that would almost certainly trigger an executive response from the White House,' according to Leos. The president, meanwhile, owns more than 100 million shares, or roughly 53 per cent, of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of social media platform Truth Social. His stake in the company is worth billions of dollars. Investigate Musk's immigration status and drug use Musk was born in South Africa before he emigrated to Canada and later the United States. Last year, The Washington Post reported that the billionaire worked in the country illegally before gaining citizenship. Bannon called on the president to deport him. 'Elon Musk is illegal. He's got to go too,' Bannon said on his War Room podcast. Trump also could wield the power of his office to initiate other investigations under a Department of Justice controlled by his fierce ally Attorney General Pam Bondi, including into allegations of his drug use at the campaign trail and within the administration. How Musk could go after Trump Flood opponents with cash The world's wealthiest person spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Trump's 2024 campaign. On Thursday, he took credit for his victory. But this year, his multimillion-dollar effort to support a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate blew up in his face, with his DOGE efforts tanking his — and Tesla's — appeal. Still, Republican candidates fear being his target. Musk and his allies have threatened to fund primary challenges against any GOP member of Congress who supports legislation he doesn't. 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?' Musk asked on Thursday. Democrats agree with Musk that Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a disaster but aren't necessarily welcoming him to the party after the right-wing billionaire torched government agencies and helped but Trump back in office. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, whose district represents Silicon Valley, told Politico. 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist WelcomeFest meeting underway in Washington during the Trump-Musk feud, told the outlet that 'of course' Democrats should be open to Musk. 'You don't want anyone wildly distorting your politics, which he has a unique capability to do. But it's a zero-sum game,' Kerr told Politico. 'Anything that he does that moves more toward Democrats hurts Republicans.' Wield social media against the president It took just four hours for a feud playing out on two different social media platforms for Musk to drop what he called a 'bomb' against the president. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' he wrote on X. '[Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' That loaded accusation — Musk's suggestion that Trump was involving the sex offender's trafficking scheme — appeared to be the tipping point in their feud. Musk, who just days ago seemed to have no problem associating with a man he is now alleging is implicated in Epstein's crimes, could launch a humiliation campaign against the president for an audience that has been largely disappointed with the Trump administration's approach to the Epstein case. Far-right influencers have turned on top federal law enforcement officials over the case, accusing Trump of continuing what they believe is a 'deep state' conspiracy theory covering up powerful people. Musk could leverage that hostility. Use DOGE against Trump Musk hired a small army of young loyalists and old allies for his government-wide operation to not only eliminate jobs and spending but extract reams of data from millions of Americans. DOGE's unprecedented access to Americans' data 'is alarming, made worse by the complete absence of meaningful oversight,' according to Ben Zipperer, a senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute. 'That unrestrained access to data will likely worsen the problem of identity theft in the United States, which could cost working families tens of billions of dollars annually.' A report from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's office also uncovered more than 100 instances that Musk allegedly abused his role as a 'special government employee' overseeing DOGE to benefit his private interests. Musk violated 'norms at an astonishing pace,' amounting to 'scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution.' The report accuses Musk of using the government to promote his businesses, including turning the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom, and allegedly discovered roughly two dozen instances where the government 'entered or explored new lucrative contracts' with the billionaire while halting enforcement actions against his companies.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Global aid cuts are a massive wake-up call. It's time to give Africa a bigger voice
In less than a month, Seville will host the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in a climate of uncertainty following the abrupt decision by the US to dismantle its aid programmes. But Washington is not alone in this posture. The European Union agreed to reallocate €2 billion (£1.7bn) reallocation from development budgets in February 2024 —and many individual European countries have made cuts to their aid budget. It is a clear signal that the landscape of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is shifting. For Africa, this isn't just a reshuffle, it is a wake-up call for deep reflection and action: will we adapt, or will aid simply become a relic of the past? The timing is bad, the rationale questionable, and the ripple effects threaten to impact the lives and health of millions depending on aid programmes. Let's be honest: aid has had a mixed impact. The spectrum of aid's legacy in Africa, including my country, Guinea, runs from positive to disastrous. On the positive side, aid has contributed to infrastructure development – I'm thinking for instance about a project in northwest Guinea to replace an old ferry with a new road and bridge. During a visit, a cunning minister of public works convinced a skeptical partner to go on a very 'special' field trip via the old route, one that left a senior official so sore and tired that all doubters saw the project's true necessity. Once it was completed, traffic soared, proof that aid can work when it's aligned with real needs. But aid can fall flat. When I was serving as minister of finance, I led efforts to curb directly awarded contracts and boost transparency following an audit of public procurement procedures. The goal was to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public spending. But some donors were not willing to support this effort. I deplored one particular partner's failure to listen and, above all, a stubborn insistence on taking us backwards by ignoring our analysis. I said no to the help on offer. It was hard but necessary. Aid must serve the real priorities, not satisfy bureaucratic checkboxes. In a recent discussion with the director of an incubator to help small and medium-sized businesses grow – funded by a government donor – I was struck by the emergence of shortcomings I thought belonged to the past. These included a laziness to question one's own model for delivering results, despite warnings about the risks of inefficiency. We also see a narrow focus on so-called "easily accessible" geographic areas, such as capitals, and on disbursements. Aid, in many cases, has helped sustain corrupt elites or fostered unhealthy alliances with public administrations – perpetuating dependency rather than solving problems. When I look back on my own experience in development – a journey close to an out-of-body experience for an African – I realise we are at a critical juncture. It's the moment to question the very foundations of aid institutions inherited from the post-colonial era. Despite some positive reforms, such as untying aid, the core premise remains unequal. It is predominantly driven by the donors, with African countries still being passive recipients rather than active partners. How can this be changed? Change starts with listening. The 'receiving hand' is not dumb and has ideas. It knows its needs. Recipient countries, especially in Africa, must be at the centre of the discussions. Conversations largely driven by donors are a recipe for failure. Furthermore, African organisations and think-tanks must be active players. Decolonising aid must be more than just a buzzword. We are making progress, but it must be accelerated. We continue to see consultancies denied opportunities due to insufficient financial strength – despite their thorough knowledge of the field. It also means better coordination between donors. You would think this is obvious, and yet despite witnessing many innovative and pragmatic approaches, I still see some partners continue to burden governments' limited capacities by each imposing their own distinct systems and reporting requirements. This ends up being a distraction. Recipient governments are key and are the only ones who should replace any donor. I believe the cuts could be an opportunity to make fiscal compromises that (finally) prioritise the necessary and the productive over the superfluous and the personal gain of some actors. Aid must be used strategically and selectively. It should foster technical cooperation for Africa's economic transformation, its integration higher in global value chains. Aid should be a catalyst to reform the global financial architecture by leveraging innovation and the capital needed to finance our massive infrastructure programmes. It must be an instrument for the Africa Union's theme of the year: "Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations'. It's time to make sure those people are at the table, and their voices are listened to.
