Sidelined from Trump-Putin talks, Ukraine warns the world not to trust Russia
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said intelligence and military officials had briefed him on Monday "on what Putin is counting on and what he is actually preparing for," saying "this includes military preparations."
"He is certainly not preparing to cease fire or end the war," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address.
"There is not a single sign that the Russians have been told to prepare for a post-war situation – not yet. On the contrary, they are moving their troops and forces in ways that indicate they plan to launch new offensive operations. No one preparing for peace acts this way," he added.
"Putin's sole aim is to present a meeting with America as his personal victory and then continue acting as before, putting pressure on Ukraine as before," the president warned. CNBC has contacted the Kremlin for a response to Zelenskyy's claims and is awaiting a response.
The problem for Ukraine is whether anyone is listening.
Neither Zelenskyy nor European officials are invited to the Trump-Putin talks in Alaska on Friday, much to their consternation.
Ukraine has vehemently stated that no deal about its future can be struck in its absence, amid fears that it could be forced to cede Russian-occupied territory to Moscow as part of a peace deal. European leaders, meanwhile, are pushing strongly for Ukraine's involvement in the talks. The U.S., for its part, has said it is considering inviting Zelenskyy, NBC News reported.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz invited Trump to join Zelenskyy and European leaders when they hold an emergency call on Tuesday afternoon in anticipation of Friday's talks. The virtual summit will reportedly focus on ways to pressure Russia, the fate of Ukrainian territories seized by Russia and possible security guarantees for Kyiv.
Trump suggested on Monday that there could "some swapping" of territory as part of a peace deal though he insisted the U.S. "would try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine."
"There'll be some swapping, there'll be some changes in land," Trump told reporters at the White House, although he downplayed any expectations of what could come of the talks, describing them as a "feel-out meeting."
"We're going to see what he has in mind and if it's a fair deal, I'll reveal it to the European Union leaders and to NATO leaders and also to President Zelensky," Trump said.
Geopolitical analysts agree that the talks are unlikely to yield a comprehensive and long-lasting solution to the more-than-three year conflict between Russia and Ukraine, given the complexity of the war, its underlying causes and the number of stakeholders involved.
Instead, the talks "should be seen as the Trump administration's attempt to assess whether there is space for a mutually acceptable compromise — at least on select issues," Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at risk consultancy Teneo, said in emailed comments Monday.
"Even in a best-case scenario, any high-level agreement would require multiple rounds of difficult follow-up talks to resolve implementation issues. This would be another option for Moscow to draw out the talks, hoping to capitalize on its gradually increasing advantage on the frontlines," he noted.
The Kremlin may seek to exploit growing exhaustion in Ukraine by proposing a temporary or partial de-escalation in the war, Tursa said.
"Such a move would offer the Trump administration a symbolic diplomatic success while placing pressure on Kyiv to make substantial concessions. Should Ukraine fail to respond in a way deemed acceptable by Moscow, the Kremlin would likely portray Kyiv as the main obstacle to peace and count on Washington to increase pressure on Zelenskyy."
Tursa said this latter scenario underscores the risks inherent in any potential Trump-Putin agreement that's reached without the direct involvement of Ukraine and its European allies.
"Despite Ukraine's reliance on U.S. support, neither Zelensky nor Ukraine's parliament could be expected to endorse an agreement perceived as unfavorable and lacking public backing. Zelensky's administration has already publicly rejected the idea of territorial concessions floated ahead of the summit, clearly signaling Kyiv's red lines."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Capitol Crime Busters - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
CNN Inside Politics 40 mins First: President Trump says his unprecedented takeover of the Washington, DC police could extend to other cities across the country. But is the new White House push. about public protection or political posturing? Or maybe both? Plus: The Texas House just failed to meet a quorum for the fifth time in a row as the Republican governor warns redistricting is inevitable. And: The president picks a MAGA loyalist to run the nation's most important economic statistics agency, leaving Wall Street questioning whether crucial data can still be taken at face value.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
What to know on Trump's DC takeover
Hi! Rebecca Morin here. I've been binging 'The Summer I Turned Pretty' to take a break from all the news – and it's fair to say I'm excited for the new episode this week. Is DC unsafe, like Trump claims? President Donald Trump on Monday said he wants to combat what he called 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse' in Washington, DC – deploying National Guard troops and having the federal government take over the city's police department. But crime data paints a much more nuanced picture of what's going on in the nation's capital. Washington does have relatively high rates of violent crime and murder among major cities in the United States, but it has a much lower violent crime rate than some cities Trump hasn't spotlighted, such as Memphis, Tennessee. Overall, crime in the city has been on a downward trend in recent years. The murder rate in DC is far below its historic peak, which at one point led to the city earning the moniker of "murder capital.' See a breakdown of the data. Who is running DC police? As part of Trump's new actions in DC, the president tapped his newly confirmed Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terrance "Terry" Cole to also head the Metropolitan Police Department, one of the nation's largest and most dysfunctional police departments. It was unclear how the police rank and file and the MPD's police union would respond to being run by the Trump administration. Why the pressure is on for Cole in his new position. Anger over Trump crackdown: Dozens of people in the nation's capitol took to the streets on Monday to protest Trump's actions. One protester, Donna Powell, told USA TODAY that the president is 'trying to piss people off.' See what residents said about Trump's new actions. A politics pit stop Lawmakers to push for Epstein files release Congress is on their annual one-month summer break. But when lawmakers make it back to the U.S. Capitol, one thing is already on their agenda: the controversy surrounding convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing for the release of all the Epstein files after a Justice Department report found that Epstein died by suicide and did not have a 'client list,' despite previous suggestions by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Epstein and Trump were once longtime friends. Members of Congress from both parties say they'll force more public debate on the issue when their recess ends after Labor Day. Inside lawmakers' plans to push for release of Epstein files. Why DC banned kindergarten 'redshirting' Jennifer Lilintahl, in Washington, DC wanted to delay her five-year-old from entering kindergarten. Her daughter, she said, wasn't ready to learn to read. Now her daughter is six-years-old and Lilintahl tried to enroll her in kindergarten, but DC Public Schools officials said she'd have to enter first grade because of her age. Delaying kindergarten for one year, a process known as 'redshirting,' is one of the latest issues for the growing parents' rights movement, which has been dominated by public school parents who want more control over what their children learn and where they go to school. Some parents argue their kids need the "additional year of schooling" in pre-kindergarten. But others say it creates an unfair advantage compared to families who don't have the resources to delay schooling. What to know about the debate. Got a burning question, or comment, for On Politics? You can submit them here or send me an email at rdmorin@
