India, Pakistan maintain war of words after ceasefire
– Even after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, following four days of high-stakes military confrontation, both sides are still rattling sabres.
Newspapers in both countries have depicted their respective prime ministers with fists raised and eyes blazing. Television anchors added even more combative language as they analysed the speeches.
Both sides are actively trying to shape perceptions of what the fighting across the Line of Control (LoC) – or the de facto border between the nuclear-armed neighbours – has achieved and, most importantly, who has 'won'.
How they frame their wins and losses will have a bearing on not only the strength of the ceasefire and future bilateral relations, but also the political performance of each leader's party at home, analysts say.
Accusing Pakistan of having a hand in an April 22 terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-held Kashmir, India's military on May 7 struck nine 'terror infrastructure' targets in Pakistan.
Pakistan, which denies involvement in the April attack, responded with artillery fire across the border into Indian-held Kashmir.
Tit-for-tat hostilities ensued, marked by claims, counterclaims and disinformation on both sides, till the conflict was paused by the ceasefire that US President Donald Trump said was brokered by Washington.
Immediately after the ceasefire, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif praised his military's 'professional and effective' response to what he described as Indian aggression.
He credited the military for reducing Indian military depots, ammunition storage places and airbases to ruins. India panned this claim as 'a tissue of lies'.
In a national address on May 12, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: 'The world saw how Pakistan's drones and missiles crumbled like straw before India's powerful air defence systems... Pakistan had planned attacks at the border, but India struck deep into Pakistan's heart.'
He added: 'Following India's aggressive action, Pakistan began seeking escape routes. It started appealing globally to de-escalate tensions.'
He warned that India would keep a close eye on any state-sponsored terrorism, and the 'new normal' would be to treat every terror attack as an act of war that will get 'a fitting response'.
Mr Modi also said trade talks and terror cannot go together, and 'water and blood can't go together' – which analysts interpret as a signal that both the trade freeze and recent suspension of the 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan on water distribution will remain in place.
Islamabad had said in April that 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan... will be considered as an act of war'.
Victory signals will win votes
Mr Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that compared with Mr Sharif's 'relatively modest' speech, Mr Modi's had 'more belligerence, conditionalities and policy assertions', which have definite implications for India-Pakistan relations.
The 'new normal' is that if there are any further transgressions by Pakistan, India will use targeted force against terror infrastructure, as it did in the recent conflict, he added.
'The tough nationalist stances are meant for the domestic audiences,' Mr Sahni said.
The rhetoric seeks to mollify domestic hardliners who are attacking the Modi government for stopping the conflict too quickly.
Mr Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party faces elections in the eastern state of Bihar around November. Analysts say the party could ride the wave of nationalist sentiment to victory – if military tensions stay in focus.
'Though it is early days to talk about this, by doing what he talked about and striking deep into Pakistan territories – among them, Bahawalpur, Muridke and Rawalpindi – and by avenging the women who lost their husbands and sons in Pahalgam, (Modi) may well have ensured the support of a large constituency of women for his future political battles,' political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote in The Indian Express.
People gathering at a border post in the frontier village of Chakothi, near the Line of Control, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on May 11.
PHOTO: AFP
Pakistan rallies against common foe
In Pakistan, the conflict has been a great unifying force.
'Before the conflict, Pakistan was very politically polarised and the masses suffering under the bad economy were critical of the military and the ruling administration it supported,' said Professor Murad Ali, chairman of the department of political science at Pakistan's University of Malakand.
'But standing up to a powerful, economically superior India has boosted the popularity and image of the Pakistan government and the military,' he said.
Citizens in cities from Islamabad to Karachi took to the streets, waving national flags, playing patriotic songs, and dancing.
'Our army has emerged as one of the finest and most professional forces,' Mr Mohsin Gilani, a 56-year-old resident of Islamabad, told The Straits Times.
In Karachi, a city often marred by political polarisation, even supporters of former prime minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – once anti-military for its alleged role in Khan's imprisonment – joined in the celebrations.
A large gathering formed on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi's main thoroughfare, where people raised portraits of army chief Asim Munir and burned an effigy of Mr Modi in defiance.
Mr Amin Ansar, 30, who joined the victory rally, said: 'We had lost trust in the army because of its political interference. But this war reminded us of its real strength, its battlefield prowess.'
Field realities don't matter
The competing political narratives have overtaken the ground realities of the conflict on both sides of the border.
In New Delhi, at a press briefing on May 11, Indian military officials said Pakistani firing across the LoC killed five Indian soldiers, and Pakistan lost 40 soldiers. They also said 100 terrorists were killed as they hit nine targets in Pakistan on May 7.
They also claimed to have 'downed a few Pakistani planes' but did not offer details.
The Pakistani military said on May 13 that at least 40 civilians, including 15 children and seven women, were killed and 121 others injured in Indian missile strikes across Pakistan last week.
According to a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistani military, 11 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were killed and 78 others sustained injuries.
Pakistani officials earlier claimed Indian fighter jets crashed or were shot down by Pakistan in an aerial clash on May 7. International media reports on telling debris seemed to add credence to these claims, but India has not confirmed anything.
When asked about the claims during the May 11 press conference, India's director-general of air operations, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, said that 'losses are part of combat', but that the forces had 'achieved the objectives' and 'all the pilots are back home'.
Foreign military and strategic analysts said that if India's French-made Rafale fighter jets were indeed shot down by Pakistan's China-made J-10C Vigorous Dragon jets, it would be the first combat loss for the Western aircraft that is considered one of the world's most capable.
Regardless of who won this round of fighting, analysts say that the use of modern weapons like armed drones for the first time across the LoC presented a new challenge for both nations.
'The truth of what really happened will unfortunately not be known to more than a handful of strategists. There lies the danger of nationalist narratives – amplified by pliant media in both countries. Going forward, attitudes, future plans and military strategies could be shaped by the mythology and not reality,' said Mr Sahni.
Additional reporting by Ashraf Khan
Rohini Mohan is The Straits Times' India Correspondent based in Bengaluru. She covers politics, business and human rights in South Asia.
Ashraf Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist who has been writing on geopolitics, economics, the environment and human rights for wire agencies for the past 25 years.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
42 minutes ago
- Straits Times
After tariff truce extended, a Trump-Xi summit in China?
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox US President Donald Trump said that Chinese President Xi Jinping asked for a meeting. - The United States and China appear to be pulling back from their trade war, with President Donald Trump extending a pause on tariffs in what could be a prelude to a summit with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Asia. The world's two largest economies have decided to set aside threats to impose triple digit tariffs on each other for another 90 days, according to an executive order signed by Mr Trump on Aug 11, hours before an existing 90 -day trade truce with China was set to expire. A likely venue for a bilateral meeting between the two presidents could be Kuala Lumpur, which is hosting the Asean's East Asia Summit from Oct 26 to 28. Both leaders have confirmed they will attend the summit. The other possibility is the sidelines of the Apec Leaders Summit in 2025, to be held from Oct 31 to Nov 1 in Gyeongju, South Korea. But there is also a third possibility, which might hold special appeal to Mr Trump and, according to some observers, would be more in keeping with his penchant for dramatic actions: a quick trip to China. The Straits Times has learnt from sources close to the administration that preparations are underway in Washington DC for a possible US presidential trip to China in between the Asean and Apec meetings. Officials in Beijing are also on standby. Things could change, however, as it is still early days, said a source asking for anonymity to discuss sensitive information. Should it take place, the meeting would be the most critical between world leaders this year. 'It is probably not a coincidence that the summit is supposed to be at the end of October, before the trade truce expires on Nov 9,' said a DC-based source, close to US officials planning the trip. 'Everything we're hearing is that they are still working towards a leaders' meeting,' he said, adding that it could come with the expectation that China helps the US broker a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war ahead of Mr Trump's Aug 15 meeting with President Vladimir Putin. 'The reading we got was that the Chinese side is pretty pragmatic and very much signalling it wants more foreign investment in China. And if the trip is very economic and business- focused, the venue could even be Shanghai,' said the source. Already, American companies are preparing a list of demands, although it is unclear if such a visit would include a large business delegation. 'If there were obstacles that were too destabilising, there would not have been a truce,' said the source. Anticipating a turning point ahead, Prof Graham Allison, the bestselling author of several books including Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap, has predicted that it would be a fast track from the extension of the truce to a Trump-Xi Summit that announces a 'new partnership'. The White House has not yet released the contents of an executive order signed by Mr Trump on Aug 12 to extend the truce. But Mr Trump confirmed the extension via a social media post. 'I have just signed an Executive Order that will extend the tariff suspension on China for another 90 days. All other elements of the Agreement will remain the same,' he said. Had the truce expired, Chinese goods entering the US would be subjected to at least a 54 per cent duty. In a late night Truth Social post on Aug 11, Mr Trump had hinted that China might step up its purchases of soyabean from American farmers, one of his key political constituencies. 'China is worried about its shortage of soyabeans,' he wrote. 'I hope China will quickly quadruple its soyabean orders. This is also a way of substantially reducing China's trade deficit with the US.' China, the top customer of American soyabean farmers, bought over US$12 billion worth in 2024. Mr Trump also mysteriously thanked Mr Xi in his post, without saying why. The president, who lays great store by personal diplomacy, has himself also spoken about a possible visit to China this year. 'He (President Xi) asked for a meeting, and I'll end up having a meeting before the end of the year,' he said in a TV interview on Aug 5. A reaction from China is expected in the coming hours. Prof Allison said a thaw lay ahead. 'My hazy crystal ball suggests that Trump will announce a new 'great partnership' aimed at shifting the tone and character of the US-China relationship in a more positive direction,' he said in a post on X on Aug 12, hours after the White House announced the truce. Mr Trump treats China differently from other trading partners due to its strength, said Dr Allison, Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught for five decades. The world's second-largest economy is closing the gap with the American economy, reporting over 5 per cent growth in the first half of 2025, exceeding expectations amid continuing uncertainties in global trade. The White House had calibrated its strategy, suggested Dr Allison, after seeing China hit back with 125 per cent tariffs in response to Mr Trump's threat of 145 per cent tariffs, effectively creating a trade embargo. It was the only such response in the world, he noted. More strikingly, when the US tightened some supply chain controls, China directly choked off a half-dozen critical items, including rare earth magnets, that the US companies cannot function without. 'In this situation, China has as strong a hand as the US, maybe stronger - and President Trump treats those he sees as equals differently from those he sees as weaker,' said Dr Allison. Mr Trump appears eager for a high profile visit to China, probably with the signing of a 'big, beautiful trade deal,' said Professor Dennis Wilder, a former National Security Council director who teaches courses on Chinese governance at The Bush School of Government & Public Service. Mr Trump's actions recently appear designed to make this possible, he said, noting the reversal of the ban on the export of Nvidia's H20 chips despite opposition within the Administration. There was also, he told The Straits Times, the curtailment of 'high profile engagement with Taiwan and his refusal to say anything negative about China when asked by anti-China Fox News anchors'. 'Given that his initial overtures to Putin were disappointing, Trump will want to show the world his ability to win with China.' Ms Wendy Cutler, a senior official at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former deputy US trade negotiator, said the extension was no surprise and the path ahead would be no walk in the park. 'What remains unclear is whether the US was able to get anything in exchange for this move from Beijing, such as increased soyabean purchases or more predictable access to critical minerals and magnets,' she said in a media statement. 'Having learned important lessons from the Phase One negotiations during Trump 1.0, Beijing will be a more demanding counterpart this time around,' she noted. American businesses welcomed the news of the truce extension. 'The extension is critical to give the two governments time to negotiate an agreement that improves US market access in China, addresses the bilateral trade imbalance and provides the certainty needed for companies to make medium- and long-term plans,' said a statement from the US China Business Council, a non-profit association of more than 270 American companies that do business in China. 'Securing an agreement on fentanyl that leads to a reduction in US tariffs and a rollback of China's retaliatory measures is acutely needed to restart US agriculture and energy exports,' it added, listing American companies' longstanding demands. Mr Zichen Wang, research fellow at the Center for China and Globalisation, a Beijing-based thinktank considered close to the government, said Mr Trump would get a tremendous welcome if he visited China. 'That's in line with Chinese hospitality, traditional, and diplomatic playbook, as well as a show of respect for the US and President Trump himself personally,' he told ST.
Business Times
42 minutes ago
- Business Times
Trump's trade war with China threatens these key green technologies
[NEW YORK] As the US-China tariff truce fast approaches its current deadline of Aug 12, businesses on both sides of the Pacific Ocean are holding their breath. US President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs, if imposed, would bleed Chinese exporters. They would also deal a fresh blow to an already troubled US climate tech industry, experts said. America's battery installers and developers stand to lose the most, said Antoine Vagneur-Jones, head of trade and supply chains at BloombergNEF (BNEF). China dominates the export of lithium-ion batteries and battery materials to the US, and supply chains cannot be quickly altered to change that. Here's how tariffs would affect batteries and other clean technologies: Utility batteries For every five lithium-ion batteries the US imported over the first five months of this year, three of them came from China, according to BNEF's analysis. That share is even higher for lithium iron phosphate batteries, which are widely used by utilities. 'This will definitely impact the battery storage market' in the US, said Tom Moerenhout, a professor at Columbia University who studies policy, economics and climate technologies. As battery deployment plays a vital role in helping smooth the intermittent nature of renewable energy, 'this will inevitably slow down the energy transition', Moerenhout said. Tariffs on utility-scale batteries made in China already stand at nearly 41 per cent. Countries such as South Korea can offer an alternative, but batteries made there are pricier than their Chinese counterparts. Trump has also slapped a 15 per cent levy across the board on imports from South Korea, further raising the price for any would-be importers. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up While the US has started to develop its domestic battery supply chain, building it out will take time, Vagneur-Jones said. The battery makers that are operating in the US will also be hit by Trump's trade war, which could weaken their ability to increase production. Companies such as LG Energy Solution and Fluence Energy have invested heavily in expanding their manufacturing capacity, but American-made batteries rely on imported components, including battery cathodes and anodes, many of which are traditionally sourced from China. Rare earth minerals China also has a stranglehold on another part of the US clean tech supply chain: rare earths. The Asian nation mines more rare earth minerals than any other country and controls roughly 90 per cent of the global refining capacity. While the Trump administration has largely exempted rare earth imports from tariffs, Beijing introduced export controls in early April on several strategic materials and related products as part of its retaliation to Trump's reciprocal tariffs. The supply chain disruption wreaked havoc on various US industries. Automaker Ford, for example, was forced to temporarily shut down one of its factories in May due to the difficulty of obtaining rare-earth magnets, which power everything from seats to audio systems and windshield wipers. It was not until Jun 11, when the two countries agreed on a new trade framework, that China resumed regular exports of rare earths to US companies. It's unclear whether the export curb would return if the trade negotiation falls apart. 'Rare earths are a bargaining chip between China and the United States,' said Grant Hauber, a supply chain specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank. 'Because policy decisions have been so erratic, you can't take anything off the table.' Many US climate tech manufacturers would take a hit if Beijing once again weaponises rare earths. Neodymium magnets, one of the components that are included on China's export restriction list, for example, are critical for electric vehicle motors. The material is also commonly used in wind turbines. Long-term effects This comes against the backdrop of Trump killing government support for a wide swath of emissions-cutting technologies, with a particular focus on electric vehicles and wind farms. The renewables industry has been taken aback by how widespread the attacks have been, and that's been reflected in the growing number of project cancellations. In the first half of 2025, companies cancelled, closed or scaled back US-based green projects worth more than US$22 billion, according to research group E2. That was before Trump signed a tax law wiping out clean tech incentives, and the latest round of tariffs took effect. American and Chinese negotiators wrapped up their third round of high-level trade talks late last month in Stockholm, without inking any agreement. That has raised doubts over whether the world's two largest economies will be able to strike a deal before Aug 12. While Trump said last week that the two countries will likely agree to extend their tariff truce, experts worry that a prolonged trade negotiation could hurt the US climate tech advancement. 'The golden rule in business is stability,' Hauber said. 'When you aggregate this volatility and change of decisions and guidance, most people just said: 'I'm going to wait.'' BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The territory at the heart of Russia's war in Ukraine
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox As of early August, Russia occupied nearly a fifth of Ukraine. MOSCOW - Russia's war in Ukraine is well into its fourth year, despite US President Donald Trump's promise to end the conflict within 24 hours of his return to office. As his efforts to secure a peace deal continue, Mr Trump will have to bridge the stark differences between Mr Vladimir Putin and Mr Volodymyr Zelensky arising from the Russian president's claims on Ukrainian territory. While Mr Putin is demanding Ukraine cede land, Mr Zelensky and his European allies remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. What Ukrainian territory does Russia control? As of early August, Russia occupied nearly a fifth of Ukraine, and its offensive stretched across a frontline of more than 1,000km. Mr Putin's attrition of Ukraine's borders has been years in the making. He illegally annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014. Parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in the east of Ukraine – which together form the Donbas region – were under the control of pro-Russian proxies from that year, as the Kremlin incited a separatist insurgency shortly after the operation to seize Crimea. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian troops have occupied much of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and captured parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia provinces in the south of Ukraine as well. That gave them control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe. Why does Putin want to retain control of Crimea? Crimea has historical significance for Russia. It was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The peninsula remained part of Russia until 1954, when Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the territory to Ukraine, which was then still part of the USSR. At that time, Crimea was lying in ruins in the wake of World War II. Earlier Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had deported Crimea's indigenous Tatar population after accusing them of collaborating with the Nazis in the Second World War, and encouraged Russians to move to the peninsula. That resulted in the majority of people in Crimea being ethnic Russians. When Mr Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, he justified the decision as coming to the aid of the Russian-speaking people living there. The location of the diamond-shaped peninsula makes it strategically important for trade and projecting military power. Crimea is key to controlling shipping activity in the Black Sea, a critical corridor for transporting grain and other goods. Meanwhile, the harbour of Sevastopol has historically been home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet. It is a deep, warm-water port and is situated close to two members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Romania and Turkey. Ukraine leased the naval base to Russia after becoming independent in 1991. Mr Putin's seizure of Crimea enabled him to use it as a launchpad for the large-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Kerch Bridge, which opened in 2018 to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland, has served as a vital logistics route for Russia to supply its frontlines. Ukrainian forces have mounted several attacks to try to sever this link. What is Putin's interest in the Donbas region? Named after the Donets Coal Basin, the Donbas has historically been Ukraine's coal mining and steelmaking heartland, and before then, an industrial bastion in the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda used to refer to the region as 'the Heart of Russia'. Industrial activity in the region has been disrupted by persistent, bloody fighting since 2014, and many facilities were destroyed by the subsequent full-blown war. Still, the area has significant reserves of coal that Russia could exploit. Ukraine had the world's eighth-largest coal reserves in 2023, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and most of its coal is in the Donbas region. Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine including the Donbas have other natural resources, such as lithium, titanium and graphite – although it is unclear how much of these materials can be commercially extracted. There is also a shale gas deposit in the Donetsk region, which Shell signed a deal to jointly tap with a state-owned Ukrainian company in 2013 before later pulling out of the agreement. From a strategic perspective, if Ukraine were to hand over all of the Donetsk region as part of a peace deal, it would lose its 'fortress belt', according to the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank. This is the main fortified defensive line that has for years staved off Russian advances deeper into the country. The Donetsk region is also home to the city of Mariupol, and Russian control has enabled Mr Putin to establish a land corridor from the Russian border along the coast of the Sea of Azov to Crimea, reducing reliance on the Kerch Bridge. Beyond the Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia contain fertile farmland and have been an integral part of Ukraine's agricultural output and its historical role as the 'breadbasket of Europe'. The two regions accounted for at least 10 per cent of average wheat, barley, rapeseed and sunflower seed production in Ukraine between 2016 and 2020, according to the US Department of Agriculture. How likely is Putin to give up the Ukrainian territory Russia has seized? Mr Putin has asserted that Russia has sovereignty over all of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, even as his forces have never managed to fully control these areas after a yearslong offensive. He declared these four regions to be 'forever' part of Russia after announcing that he was annexing them in September 2022. Under an amendment Mr Putin introduced in 2020, the Russian constitution bans the relinquishing of territory once it has been proclaimed as belonging to Russia. A peace deal that recognizes Russian sovereignty over these four provinces might not be enough to satisfy Mr Putin, who set out at the start of the invasion to take control of Kyiv, demilitarise Ukraine and force the country to abandon its ambition to join Nato . His maximalist position is rooted in his belief that Russia should extend beyond its current borders. Just two months before launching the full-scale assault on Ukraine in 2022, Mr Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as a 'disintegration of historical Russia'. He has also said that the Russian people were separated by the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and claimed that 25 million of them were split across the independent states, the bulk of them in Ukraine. Mr Putin has repeatedly called Ukrainians and Russians 'one people'. What is Ukraine's stance on its Russian-occupied territory? Mr Zelensky has said repeatedly that Ukraine's goal is to restore its borders to what they were when the country gained independence, including Crimea. He has also reiterated that Ukraine will never recognise its occupied territories as Russian and will not agree to cede this land to seal a peace deal. The president has pointed to Ukraine's constitution, which was adopted in 1996 and says that the country's territory is 'indivisible and inviolable'. It also specifically defines Crimea as an autonomous republic that is an 'inseparable constituent part of Ukraine'. Mr Zelensky's refusal to relinquish any territory is a position shared by the majority of Ukrainians. But the level of support has softened as the fighting drags on, counter-offensives have stalled and casualties mount. In May 2022, some 82 per cent of Ukrainians said they should not give up any of their territory, even if this makes the war last longer and threatens the country's independence, according to a poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. By early June 2025 , that share had fallen to 52 per cent. In a KIIS survey across late July to early August, 54 per cent of Ukrainians supported a plan in which the frontline would be frozen but Ukraine would not formally recognize Russian sovereignty over the occupied territories, Ukraine would receive security guarantees from the US and Europe, and sanctions on Russia would be gradually lifted. How is Trump approaching the demarcation of Ukrainian territory? While Mr Trump has grown frustrated with Mr Putin in recent months over his refusal to cease hostilities in Ukraine, there is little indication this could result in a favourable outcome for Mr Zelensky, whose own relationship with the US leader has been volatile. Bilateral talks between Mr Trump and Mr Putin risk Mr Zelensky being presented with a take-it-or-leave-it deal that entails the loss of Ukrainian territory. In early August, ahead of a planned meeting with the Russian leader, Mr Trump said that there would be 'some swapping of territories to the betterment of both' – an idea swiftly rejected by Mr Zelensky. The Trump administration previously floated the idea of the US recognising Russian control of Crimea as part of a peace agreement. Mr Putin's illegal annexation of the peninsula has so far only been formally recognised by a few countries, including North Korea and Venezuela. Mr Zelensky may yet be able to appeal to Mr Trump's more transactional style to foreign policy to minimize any concessions. The minerals deal signed in April gives the US a stake in the profits from Ukraine's natural resources. This could potentially give Mr Trump an economic incentive to negotiate a settlement that brings more of the Russian-occupied areas back under Ukrainian control. What is the position of Ukraine's European allies? European leaders have expressed a commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity, saying in a joint statement that 'international borders must not be changed by force'. However, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte told ABC News in early August that the issue of territory would 'have to be on the table' during negotiations, alongside security guarantees. He suggested that the peace process could involve Ukraine acknowledging that it has lost control of some of its land without formally giving up sovereignty over those regions. Mr Zelensky has said that any peace agreement must include security guarantees from Ukraine's allies to prevent further Russian aggression. As the US under Mr Trump pivots away from its historical role as a security guarantor, the concern for European leaders is that their peacekeepers could be left monitoring a truce that Mr Putin uses as an opportunity to rebuild his forces, mount another offensive and potentially project power further into the continent. BLOOMBERG
