Zelenskyy reaffirms Ukraine's stance on territories under Russian control
KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reaffirmed on Friday that Ukraine's position regarding its territories currently under Russian control remains "unchanged," asserting that only the Ukrainian people have the right to determine the country's borders.
'Our position is unchanged. Only the Ukrainian people have the right to decide which territories are Ukrainian,' Zelenskyy told journalists in Kyiv.
His remarks came in response to statements made by US President Donald Trump, who said in an interview with Time Magazine that Crimea — annexed by Moscow in 2014 — "will stay with Russia" under any agreement to end the ongoing Ukraine war.
Reiterating that Ukraine's constitution defines all Russian-controlled territories as 'temporarily occupied,' Zelenskyy stressed Kyiv's refusal to recognize any loss of territory.
'It seems to me that this is an absolutely fair position. It is legal not only from the point of view of the Constitution of Ukraine, but also from the point of view of international law,' he said.
Zelenskyy emphasized that many countries — including those attempting to balance relations with both Moscow and Kyiv — continue to support Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, including Crimea.
While he agreed with Trump's assessment that Ukraine currently lacks sufficient military capacity to retake Crimea, Zelenskyy strongly disagreed with Trump's claim that Ukraine lacks a functioning army.
"But we have sanctions capabilities, the world has other possibilities of economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, to discuss territorial issues — but only after a complete and unconditional ceasefire. This is our vision," Zelenskyy noted.
He also touched on Ukraine's NATO membership aspirations, saying that membership ultimately depends on the support of alliance member countries. He called for a pragmatic approach to providing Ukraine with necessary security guarantees.
'There are issues that were discussed in London regarding security guarantees from the US. We really want them to be strong ... We also expect a contingent from our European colleagues,' Zelenskyy said, referring to discussions held Thursday in London between representatives of the UK, France, Germany, the US, and a Ukrainian delegation.
He confirmed that Ukraine had presented its own vision for security guarantees, proposing a model equivalent to protections provided under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. — Agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Pakistan calls on US, UK to urge India to come for dialogue at neutral location
ISLAMABAD: The head of an official delegation visiting London to present Islamabad's position following a recent military standoff with New Delhi said on Tuesday the United States and the United Kingdom should encourage India to come for dialogue at a neutral location. Weeks after their worst military confrontation in decades, India and Pakistan dispatched top lawmakers to press their cases in the United States, where President Donald Trump has shown eagerness for diplomacy between them. The Pakistan delegation is currently in London in the next stop of its mission and will go onwards to Brussels. Gunmen on April 22 massacred 26 tourists on the Indian-administered part of Kashmir in the deadliest attack on civilians in decades in the scenic region that has seen a long-running insurgency and is disputed between India and Pakistan since 1947. India accused Pakistan of backing the assailants — which it denies — and launched strikes on Pakistani territory. More than 70 people were killed in missile, drone and artillery fire on both sides for around four days before the US and other allies brokered a ceasefire on May 10. US secretary of state Marco Rubio also said at the time the two nations had agreed 'to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.' He did not specify when the talks would take place or where. 'As part of our achieving this ceasefire, it was agreed at the time that going forward, we would have a dialogue at a neutral location, covering all friction points,' said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the head of the Pakistani delegation and the scion of the political Bhutto dynasty. Bhutto Zardari, who was speaking to BBC Radio, said it seemed from recent statements by Indian leaders and actions of the government in New Delhi that they were not in favor of pursuing talks. 'We still believe that the United States and other allies can engage with India as a friend and explain to them that these decisions are not in their interest,' he said. 'Similarly, here in the United Kingdom, you have a long history with India and Pakistan. [Disputed] Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of the partition [of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947] and forms the root cause of our conflict. 'Your [UK] government too is well-placed to speak to the Indian government as a friend and explain to them that refusing to engage with their neighbor, for two nuclear-armed countries to have no dispute resolution mechanism, is not in anybody's interest.' Separately, Bhutto Zardari led Pakistan's delegation in a discussion with the Financial Times Editorial Board in London. 'We reaffirmed Pakistan's abiding commitment to peace, emphasizing that dialogue, not domination, remains the only sustainable path forward with India,' the leader wrote on X. 'Expressed grave concern over the erosion of strategic stability: India's violations of the Indus Waters Treaty, the weaponization of water, and the dangerous descent toward conflict in a nuclearized region, a trajectory that threatens to condemn future generations to perpetual insecurity.' Led Pakistan's high-level delegation in a substantive engagement with the Financial Times Editorial Board in London. We reaffirmed Pakistan's abiding commitment to peace, emphasizing that dialogue, not domination, remains the only sustainable path forward with India. Expressed… — BilawalBhuttoZardari (@BBhuttoZardari) June 10, 2025
Asharq Al-Awsat
5 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump Deploys Marines, Raising Tensions in Los Angeles Protests
Hundreds of Marines were due to arrive in Los Angeles on Tuesday after US President Donald Trump ordered their deployment in response to protests against immigration arrests and despite objections by state officials. The 700 crack troops will join National Guard soldiers, amping up the militarization of the tense situation in the sprawling city, which is home to millions of foreign-born and Latino residents. The largely peaceful demonstrations -- marred by sporadic but violent clashes between police and protesters -- were entering their fifth day. The unrest was sparked by a sudden intensification of Trump's signature campaign to deport illegal migrants, with raids conducted on workplaces. In downtown LA's Little Tokyo neighborhood at night Monday, scores of protesters faced off with security officials in riot gear, some shooting fireworks at officers who fired back volleys of tear gas. Earlier, demonstrators marching with banners and handmade signs yelled "ICE out of LA" and "National Guard go away" -- a reference to immigration agents and Guard soldiers. California officials have stressed the majority of protesters have been peaceful and that they were capable of maintaining law and order themselves. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X that US Marines "shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President. This is un-American." Trump, meanwhile, has branded the LA protesters "professional agitators and insurrectionists." "If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now," he wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday. One small business owner in the city, whose property was graffitied during the protests, was supportive of Trump's strong-arm tactics. "I think it's needed to stop the vandalism," she told AFP, declining to give her name. Others were horrified. "They're meant to be protecting us, but instead, they're like, being sent to attack us," Kelly Diemer, 47, told AFP. "This is not a democracy anymore." Police have detained dozens of protesters in LA in the recent days, while authorities in San Francisco and other US cities have also made arrests. - 'Incredibly rare' - Trump's use of the military is an "incredibly rare" move for a US president, Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force, told AFP. The National Guard -- a fully equipped reserve armed forces -- is usually controlled by state governors and used typically on US soil in response to natural disasters. The Guard has not been deployed by a president over the objections of a state governor since 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement. Deployment of regular troops, such as the Marines, on US soil is even more unusual. US law largely prevents the use of the military as a policing force -- absent an insurrection. Speculation is growing that Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act giving him a free hand to use regular troops for law enforcement around the country. The Pentagon said late Monday that Trump had authorized an extra 2,000 state guardsmen to LA. The state of California has sued to block the use of the Guard troops and Newsom said he would also sue against the Marines deployment.
Al Arabiya
5 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
‘These people don't want to be part of our culture': Destiny & Lilly Gaddis on LA protests
Welcome to the land of liberty, historically a nation of immigrants, where free speech is protected by the Constitution. America's political and ideological divisions are now laid bare on the streets of Los Angeles. Is this a manufactured crisis or a genuine state of emergency? Immigration raids sparked the protests. But are demonstrators solely to blame for the violent chaos? Or have President Trump's broader anti-immigration policies fanned the flames? President Trump made the highly controversial decision to call in the National Guard, arguing that LA's protests against immigration officials had turned violent. Their arrival sparked more anger... which led to more violence... which, in turn, gave the White House more ammunition to argue that migrants are causing chaos across America. So, is the use of the National Guard in this instance justifiable? LA Mayor Karen Bass doesn't think so. It begs the question: is the White House orchestrating this crisis to justify its tough anti-immigration stance? On this episode of CounterPoints, we'll ask our panel: Are the protests justified or is this an attempt to obstruct officials from carrying out their duties? Is the use of the National Guard an abuse of presidential power? And are Trump's travel bans reasonable—or racist?
