US backing Ukraine settlement based on current front line
Speaking to Fox News, Vance credited President Donald Trump with securing a breakthrough that could bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky to the table.
'If you take where the current line of contact between Russia and Ukraine is, we're going to try to find some negotiated settlement that the Ukrainians and the Russians can live with… where the killing stops,' Vance said, admitting that 'it's not going to make anybody super happy.'
Vance claimed Trump had convinced Putin to walk back his refusal to meet with Zelensky, and that scheduling talks between the three leaders was now under discussion. Asked if Putin and Zelensky should meet before involving Trump, Vance replied, 'I actually don't think it would be that productive,' arguing that the US president must be the one to 'bring these two together' for meaningful progress.
Russia has long said it is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, but has insisted on one that brings about a permanent and stable peace.
Trump and Putin are set to meet next Friday in Alaska, with a possible deal on the conflict between Kiev and Moscow at the top of the agenda. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has already rejected any truce that would involve territorial concessions, despite Trump saying they would be part of the proposed agreement.
Moscow has called Zelensky's continued claim to the presidency unconstitutional since his term expired last year. Putin has said he is willing to meet the Ukrainian leader to finalize – but not negotiate – a truce. He also suggested that the question of Zelensky's disputed status needs to be addressed to ensure the legality of any future treaty.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Tara Reade: Without Zelensky, peace has a chance
In 1867, the Russian empire sold Alaska to the US for $7.2 million. Perhaps the location of the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is a nod and a wink to such a great deal? Maybe Putin will like Alaska so much he will have seller's remorse? Trump promised America a golden age coming that included ending the US involvement in Ukraine. No more US taxpayer money, no more weapons to Ukraine. No more escalation towards a nuclear war. Finally, that campaign promise looks to be coming to fruition with the upcoming summit to be held between the two superpower presidents, Trump and Putin, in Alaska. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky publicly dismissed Trump's peace plans. The last time Zelensky protested a movement towards peace he had European leaders rallying behind him. This time proves more tricky for the illegitimate president of Ukraine with his people protesting forced conscriptions and the bloody losses of men and women for a war feeding the EU and Washington. Zelensky's firing of an anti-corruption team triggered the latest uprising as he still will not hold elections. In short, Zelensky's time is done and he will need to flee, along with his corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs, to the nearest European villa haven or face the possible fate of many unpopular dictators – death. Trump has many reasons for wanting this peace summit with Putin to be a success. First, he is by all accounts, ducking hits by his base about not releasing the Epstein files. The MAGA base is loyal but practical, and if the economy does not improve and foreign wars continue, they will turn their back on the Republican Party, not just Trump. Also, the Ukraine conflict represents Biden and the old guard. Trump has repeatedly said, 'This is NOT my war.' Trump has a certain respect for Putin. However, as time passes and old hawks like senator Lindsay Graham salivate for more blood and death, Trump's goal of being the 'peace president' moves farther out of reach. The American people are over Ukraine, they are sick of American foreign adventures on taxpayer money that have left America's infrastructure and morale in tatters. Trump is trying to undo decades of lies about wars and domestic policy now revealed to the public. The American distrust in media is at an all-time high due to the years of lies about wars, Covid, and domestic issues. This culminates in collective cynicism while social media allows for examinations of truths. The cultural divide and frustrations in America are deeply felt but the main concern for Americans is the ability to get access to affordable food, housing, and medical care. All of this has been in crisis especially since the Biden regime drove the US economy into the ground raising the debt ceiling and focusing on endless wars. The economic allure of Russia and America having positive productive trade is not lost on Trump and his leadership. Russia has risen above sanctions with a strong economy, and BRICS has been growing stronger. The attempts to isolate Russia have failed, while the collective West has remained under the thumb of past US hawks. This has brought the near collapse of some of the Western European economies. Trump at his heart is a businessman interested in economic competition rather than war. His current administration is a mix of old guard neocon hawks and anti-war doves. This curious mixture with strong influences from Israel means Trump's foreign policy still somewhat aligns with Biden's and Obama's – and that is a comparison he wishes to distance himself from. Both the US and Russia know that Ukraine employs terrorist tactics, killing civilians and targeting journalists, which is problematic to any signed legal agreements. There is also the fact that Moscow does not consider Zelensky a legitimate president since his term ran out and he canceled elections. How legal would any peace agreements signed with him be? Perhaps the answer will come from the US president in the form of guarantees of no more weapons or funding to Ukraine, but these would have to involve binding commitments – unlike earlier empty promises of no eastward NATO expansion. Ultimately, Zelensky is less than inconsequential to the future of global politics – he is a liability to the West. The real end to this proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia will be decided between Trump and Putin. It will likely start with broad brush strokes of a peace agreement, with details, boundaries and consequences laid out later in bureaucratic form. There will be posturing, but also economic and trade deals made. Perhaps a joint mission in space could be one positive outcome? The lifting of sanctions and putting an end to the Russophobia campaign fueled by Obama and Biden? A more positive approach to disarmament of nuclear weapons? While Putin might not buy back Alaska for Russia, there may be some movement to final peace in regards to Ukraine. If the EU falls into line with the US to drop this proxy war, stop supplying weapons, and not allow Ukraine into NATO, then real peace does have some hope. The world may even have a chance of having a new golden age, rather than a future of nuclear ash.
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
Putin outlines prospects for nuclear deal with US
Russia and the US could reach a deal on strategic nuclear arms if the two sides make progress on resolving the Ukraine conflict, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, ahead of his highly anticipated meeting with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, in Anchorage, Alaska. The New START treaty, the only remaining nuclear arms control accord between the two countries, was suspended by Moscow in 2023 over obstacles to inspections and Western military participation in the Ukraine conflict. 'If we move to the next stages and reach agreements in the field of strategic offensive arms control, this will create long-term conditions for peace between our countries, in Europe, and in the world as a whole,' Putin said. In force since 2011, the treaty limits the US and Russia to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and provides for mutual inspections to verify compliance. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty, which expires next February, in 2023. Putin said Moscow's requests to visit certain sites were either ignored or rejected on 'formal grounds.' He also pointed to the West being 'directly involved' in Kiev's attempts to strike Russian strategic bomber bases. Moscow has stressed, however, that it intends to abide by the New START provisions. Trump said in July that he would like to maintain the limits on US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. 'That's not an agreement you want expiring. We're starting to work on that,' the US president said. Last month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia and the US are not holding any talks on a New START treaty extension, citing the deplorable state of relations between the two countries caused by the policies of the administration of former US President Joe Biden.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why Kiev always escalates before talks – and why it won't work this time
On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia's border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process. The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow's interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms. The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia's gains and ends the war on Moscow's terms – not by fighting 'to the last Ukrainian,' but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine's population. Key European backers share Zelensky's preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a 'bulwark' against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect. By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the 'threat' narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat. Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow's reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism. That realism includes acknowledging Russia's current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks. Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington's decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow's calculus, this is where Trump's role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has. From the Kremlin's point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow's eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored.
