UK sending security adviser to work with Zelensky
London is reportedly sending an adviser to Istanbul to give its recommendations to Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky ahead of talks with Russia, the Guardian reported on Wednesday.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to restart direct negotiations with Kiev to find a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. While Zelensky had previously ruled out talks with Moscow, he welcomed the proposal and agreed to personally travel to Türkiye to take part.
Moscow has barred Western European leaders from participating in the negotiations, accusing them of a biased approach to the conflict and trying to prolong the fighting. Nevertheless, the UK is reportedly sending Prime Minister Keir Starmer's security adviser, Jonathan Powell, to meet with Zelensky ahead of the talks to provide 'background advice' on how he should handle the meeting.
The Guardian reported that Powell's advice is expected to focus on making sure that Zelensky does not do 'anything that alienates Trump' and equip him to persuade the US president that Putin is the 'obstacle to peace.'
The meeting is set to become the first direct talks between Russia and Ukraine since Kiev unilaterally aborted peace negotiations with Moscow in 2022 after being advised to do so by London.
At the previous talks, shortly after the pre-approval of a draft treaty, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson personally traveled to Kiev and persuaded Zelensky to abandon peace efforts and continue fighting, according to the head of the Ukrainian delegation David Arakhamia.
Ahead of Thursday's discussions, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has stated that they will have to take into account the points that were already worked out by both sides in 2022, plus the 'real situation' on the ground that has developed since then.
In his announcement of the talks, Putin stated that Russia is set on 'serious negotiations' with Ukraine and is seeking a 'long-term, sustainable peace' that would address the root causes of the conflict.
He also suggested that Thursday's meeting could yield 'a new ceasefire' that could pave the way for a comprehensive peace settlement, depending on the decisions of 'the Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Most Ukrainians will tolerate conflict ‘as long as necessary'
A majority of Ukrainians are prepared to endure the conflict with Russia for 'as long as necessary,' a survey released on Thursday by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) shows. Past KIIS surveys had indicated a steady decline in support for an open-ended conflict – from a peak of 73% in 2022 to a low of 54% in March 2025 – suggesting growing war fatigue. Recent data, however, shows a reversal of the trend. The latest poll, conducted between May 15 and June 3, indicates that 60% of respondents are ready to endure the war indefinitely. Another 6% said they are prepared to continue for one more year, while 20% are willing to tolerate it for several more months or up to half a year. The survey was carried out by telephone and included 1,011 respondents who were selected through a random sample of mobile phone numbers. KIIS stated that such surveys typically have a margin of error of up to 4.1% under normal conditions. However, it admitted that additional deviations are also likely due to certain wartime factors, such as response bias – where participants may provide answers they believe are expected or acceptable rather than their true opinions. The sudden rise in support for an open-ended conflict with Russia comes against a backdrop of wartime restrictions introduced by Vladimir Zelensky, who has banned opposition parties, centralized media under a unified information policy, and implemented increasingly draconian mobilization measures to sustain the armed forces. The KIIS survey results also contrast with ongoing efforts to find a political settlement to the conflict. Earlier this week, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held their second round of direct peace talks in Istanbul, agreeing to a record prisoner swap and exchanging draft memorandums on reaching a peace deal. Both sides indicated that direct contacts would continue. At the same time, Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that Kiev is not truly prepared to end the conflict. The Kremlin has pointed to ongoing Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory and sabotage operations as evidence that Kiev is committed to a military solution and is willing to engage in 'terrorist acts.' Russian President Vladimir Putin has also stated that the 'illegitimate regime in Kiev' is 'gradually turning into a terrorist organization.'
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine using terror tactics to disrupt peace talks
Ukraine is using terrorist tactics at a state level to derail peace negotiations with Moscow, senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik has told RT. Recent acts of railway sabotage in Russia's Bryansk and Kursk regions have damaged passenger and freight trains, killing seven people and injuring 113. Russia's Investigative Committee has called the incidents 'terrorist attacks' planned by Ukraine to inflict maximum civilian harm. The attacks were carried out the day before the second round of direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul on Monday. Miroshnik, an ambassador-at-large for the Russian Foreign Ministry, who is tasked with investigating the Ukrainian military's alleged war crimes, said in an interview on Wednesday that Kiev was orchestrating a series of violent acts aimed at undermining peace talks with Moscow, which are being facilitated by both the US and Russia. 'Ukraine is using terrorist tools that are banned by international law at the level of the state,' he said. He added that Ukraine fundamentally opposes the establishment of dialogue with Russia, and that 'the terrorist actions taken by Kiev are specifically directed at disrupting such efforts.' According to the Russian diplomat, the latest attacks were timed to precede the negotiations in Istanbul. 'A whole series of terrorist acts was carried out in order to force Russia to withdraw from the negotiation process,' he stated, adding that the efforts would not succeed. 'Kiev will not be able to sabotage the talks this way because military operations and negotiations will be kept separate,' Miroshnik said. He warned that those responsible for the attacks would be punished. 'There will be no forgiveness or silence in response to this. Ukraine has failed to push Russia away from negotiations through covert pressure,' he stated. While the US is attempting the role of arbiter and is showing a willingness to search for a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict, EU countries and the UK are openly seeking to continue the fighting, the diplomat claimed. He referred to reports suggesting that the US administration had not been informed of the Ukrainian attacks. However, Miroshnik argued the incidents were carried out in coordination with European intelligence services, and that 'Ukraine could not have organized such actions alone.' Earlier this week, the head of Russia's Investigative Committee, Aleksandr Bastrykin, stated that the explosives used to blow up two railway bridges in Russia were foreign-made. Ukraine has ramped up drone raids and other attacks on Russian territory, including a UAV strike on several Russian airbases on Sunday, in a coordinated assault across five regions, from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Moscow has repeatedly condemned Ukraine's continued acts of sabotage on Russian territory, claiming that they undermine ongoing efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
