Ukraine welcomes German decision to exclude Russia from WWII event
"It underlines the consistent attitude of the German Bundestag and the German government towards representatives of the criminal regime," Makeiev told dpa in Berlin ahead of the event on May 8 to mark 80 years since the end of the war.
May 8 was about confronting the past and preventing war, and not about denial of history to justify war, he said.
The Bundestag had earlier announced that while the Diplomatic Corps had been invited to its commemorative event, the representatives of Russia and Belarus had been excluded on the advice of the Foreign Office.
The Foreign Office has justified its decision to advise against inviting representatives of the two countries to commemorative events on the grounds that Russia could exploit them and "abuse them to link them to its war of aggression against Ukraine."
Russian ambassador Sergei Nechayev nevertheless participated on Wednesday in an event on the Seelow Heights to the east of Berlin, where the largest battle of World War II on German territory took place.
The battle is believed to have claimed the lives of 33,000 Red Army soldiers, 2,000 Polish soldiers fighting with the Russians and 16,000 German soldiers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
Russian air attack on Ukraine strikes American plant
At least 16 people were killed in a Russian drone and missile strike on Ukraine that also struck an American business. Photo by Zakarpattia Region Procecutor's Office/EPA Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Ukrainian officials reported that Russia launched an overnight aerial attack that included a missile strike that hit an American business. Ukraine's Defense Intelligence agency announced that the Russian assault involved 574 drones, six ballistic missiles and 33 cruise missiles, of which 546 drones, one ballistic missile and 30 cruise missiles were shot down. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a post on X that 15 people were injured in the strike on Zakarpattia. The State Emergency Service of Ukraine posted to social media about three hours after Zelensky's message that the number of injured in the attack on Mukachevo has increased to 16. "Last night, the Russian army set one of its insane anti-records," he said."They targeted civilian infrastructure facilities, residential buildings, and our people." "And the Russians carried out this attack as if nothing has changed at all, as if there are no global efforts to stop this war. This requires a response. There is still no signal from Moscow that they truly intend to engage in substantive negotiations and end this war." "Pressure is needed," he concluded. "Strong sanctions, strong tariffs. I thank everyone who is helping." Zelensly added that "cruise missiles were lobbed against an American-owned enterprise in Zakarpattia" that was still ablaze at the time of its posting. Lviv Oblast Gov. Maksym Kozytskyi announced that an attack there killed one person and injured two. Ternopil, Rivne and Khmelnytskyi oblasts were assaulted by drones, and the city of Kyiv also reported an air attack. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also stated a missile "struck a major American electronics manufacturer in our westernmost region." The plant, which Zelensky said "was a regular civilian business, supported by American investment, producing everyday items like coffee machines" has since been identified as the Flex factory in the western Ukrainian city of Mukachevo in Zakarpattia Oblast. The Kyiv Independent reported Thursday that a plant employee said that as the facility doesn't produce anything used by the military, buildings at the site will likely burn down due to the Russian attack.
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
What Trump Actually Wants From a Ukraine Deal
Whenever Donald Trump announces an international meeting about the Russia-Ukraine war, his critics immediately begin talking about Munich 1938 or Yalta 1945. The analogies are not only misplaced, but misleading. What happened in Anchorage last week and in the follow-on visit by European leaders to Washington on Monday was something far less tragic, and far less serious, than the comparisons would imply. Too often, the commentary focused on trivialities. For the Trump-Putin summit: Was the B-2-bomber overflight when Vladimir Putin arrived in Alaska an undeserved honor or a sobering reminder of American power? How damaging was it when Trump whinged, once again, about 'Russia, Russia, Russia' and repeated his delusions about having won the 2020 election? For the Washington meeting with European leaders and Vlodymyr Zelensky: Was the Ukrainian president's black suit a sign of submission, or a display of good sense? Did it make a difference that the European delegation was met by the chief of protocol and not the president in all his glory? Fluff and flummery. The muddled outcomes (did the Russians accept the idea of Western security guarantees to Ukraine? Did the Ukrainians agree to cede territory to Russia?) began with the prelude to the meetings. The confused signals going in resulted in part from an incompetent special envoy, Steve Witkoff, being unable to get straight what the Russians had offered in preliminary talks—a rookie mistake if ever there was one, although par for the hapless real-estate lawyer turned diplomatic ingenue. But they resulted as well from the very different positions of the four parties, and those in turn emerged from their motivations, which explain a lot about what happened and what may lie ahead. Putin's motivation is simple, even if Witkoff and Trump do not really understand it: He seeks to dominate Ukraine, seize what pieces of it he can, and eradicate its democratic government and national independence. For Zelensky, it is only slightly more complicated: He wishes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom of action, and to guarantee its membership in the larger European community of free countries—all while refusing to recognize de jure the loss of its territory to Moscow. For the European leaders, it is also a bit more complex: They want to help Ukraine achieve those things while ensuring continued American engagement in European security against a menacing Russia. Tom Nichols: Trump keeps defending Russia Trump's motivation is actually the simplest of all: He wants a Nobel Peace Prize. We know that because he cannot stop talking about it. This is what makes a true sellout of Ukraine unlikely. For Trump to have that glorious moment when five otherwise insignificant Norwegians bless his contributions to humanity, he needs the willing cooperation of Zelensky and the Europeans. If he merely handed Ukraine over to Russia, as some observers say he has always wished to do, no Nobel: The Norwegians, having some claim to democratic scruples, would not deliver, however dubious some of their past awards. No, at some level, Zelensky and his European supporters will have to find the deal, whatever form it may take, to be better than continuing the war, and for now, nothing on offer seems to meet that test. There is another reason that the United States has less leverage than Trump may think: He has weakened his hand by silly concessions. The meeting with Putin was a gift to the Russian dictator, for which Washington received nothing. The easing of some sanctions on Russia is a similar unilateral gift. Trump's long-threatened secondary sanctions have yet to materialize. Most important, by ruling out putting American forces on the ground in Ukraine, the American president has, so to speak, discarded a trump card. The American foreign-policy establishment has become so accustomed to denigrating Europe's leadership that it has not fully taken on board the remarkable coherence and adroitness of its leaders' performance in Washington. They spoke with one voice, and they skillfully combined flattery (which is indispensable in dealing with Trump) and a quiet firmness (also essential). Zelensky, too, hit all the right notes, and the result was an atmosphere of geniality which may not have been substantive, but was useful. America's weakened hand is the result also of the quiet, limited, but nonetheless significant mobilization of the Ukrainian and European defense industrial base. Ukraine is the largest producer of its own excellent military hardware, followed by the Europeans, and then the United States, which provides only 20 percent of the hardware (although, admittedly, the most advanced and in some cases unique 20 percent). Even that contribution, however, will no longer be paid for by the U.S. but by European states—as a result of the Trump administration throwing away yet another source of leverage over Ukraine, the provision of military aid without strings attached. In theory, the administration could try to coerce a Ukrainian deal by cutting off all intelligence sharing and refusing to sell weapons to Europe for Ukraine. But even there, as a senior intelligence official from the continent recently informed me, the Europeans have been quietly figuring out ways to minimize the loss from certain unique capabilities (particularly space-based reconnaissance). Cutting off all aid would also stir protest even from some Trump loyalists in the Republican Party, and besides, Trump always wants to sell American products. Most important, such blatant arm-twisting means no Nobel, and Trump can't have that. Vivian Salama and Jonathan Lemire: Zelensky wasn't going to repeat his Oval Office disaster The trouble with the historical parallels that are now being drawn is that they inflate the capacity of the adversary that Ukraine faces and minimize Western leverage. The Munich 1938 analogy is dumb because the British and French leaders were then dealing with a powerful and vigorous Nazi Germany and operating under the shadow of the mass slaughter of World War I, which had taken place only 20 years earlier. Czechoslovakia was bound to succumb to German demands unless the Soviet Union joined in its defense, and that was made impossible by Stalin's demands to London, Paris, and Warsaw. The Yalta 1945 analogy is also dumb: Yes, Poland was consigned to Soviet occupation, but the Red Army held the territory, and to pry it loose there and elsewhere in Eastern Europe would have required a new war, which neither the United States nor Great Britain was prepared to fight. Yalta was awful, but also unavoidable. Instead, in the current circumstance, we have a Ukraine whose heroism and persistence is extraordinary, a far larger country with a more capable military than either the Czechs in 1938 or the Polish Home Army in 1945 had at their disposal. Ukraine also shares borders with its Western supporters. We have a third party—the European states—that retains agency as well. In Russia, Ukraine and its supporters face neither a dynamic Germany nor a titanic Soviet superpower, but rather a creaky, corrupt dictatorship that has taken a million casualties; is suffering diplomatic setbacks everywhere from the Middle East to the Caucasus, to its northern flank; whose sovereign wealth fund has almost run dry; and whose economy is beset by inflation, wretched productivity, and falling oil prices. If Trump were as good a dealmaker as he claims to be, he would be focusing far more on exploiting Russia's weaknesses, which he can exacerbate if he wishes, than on basking in the chumminess of his KGB-trained counterpart, which is nothing more than deception. No one knows how this war will end. Either side could collapse, or there could be some kind of freezing of the front line, unsatisfactory to both sides but guaranteeing Ukraine's independence and, to some measure, its security. When the war reaches its conclusion, it will probably surprise all of us, and none more than those who think Trump is as shrewd as he is often malign. He is not, and that is probably the only thing on which his counterparties can agree wholeheartedly.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Putin has a Melania Trump problem, and the DC media is too slanted to see it
Of all the people in the White House not to end up on the wrong side of, outside of President Trump, I would put Melania Trump at the top of the list. Very private and not at all liking politics (although far too classy to constantly whine about it, unlike a certain former first lady), Melania Trump has taken a very low profile. But that doesn't mean she is uninvolved. Too bad for Vladimir Putin that he didn't get the memo. Now the Russian president is paying the price. In fact, Trump himself revealed the first lady is not buying Putin's soft-soap routine. USA Today reported that when the president told Melania about Putin's desire for peace, she quickly noted that Russia had just bombed another city, killing more civilians. In response, Russia's ham-handed propaganda machine went on the attack, peddling nasty gossip and calling her a 'danger to Russia.' But the first lady was not about to engage. To all appearances, she had a far more shrewd and effective response in mind. Her letter to Putin was a clear shot at the Russians. In the letter, she essentially says that Putin and the Russians abducted Ukrainian children, and she wants them released. Melania did not call Putin a war criminal, but that conclusion is just a step away. Has Putin figured out his attack dogs blundered? There is evidence to suggest just that. Putin compounded the Russian propaganda mistake with an even more serious blunder, possibly to make up for insulting the first lady. At the Anchorage summit — which was a success for Trump, since he didn't give anything away and forced Putin to confer on a U.S. Air Force Base on American soil — Putin was an obsequious as he could be. But in doing so he went a step too far, agreeing with Trump that he would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president. For over three years Putin has claimed to the Russian people and the world that he is in a civilizational fight and battling Nazis in Ukraine. And that is a lie. Putin's invasion was opportunistic. He started the war because he thought he would win easily. Of course, it's one thing for a national leader to lie (happens all the time), and another thing to admit it — and make your loyalists look like fools. Even more problematic for Putin are his inner circle and the security state that surrounds him. Tied to Putin, his sheepish sycophancy to Trump is a humiliation for them as well. Instead of a proud, patriotic Russia fighting for its survival, Putin has portrayed himself and Russia as supplicants to Trump. Pretty humiliating, if you ask me. Putin is the main power in Russia, but he is not a dictator in the style of Kim Jong Un. There are other power centers in the country, and his personal control still relies on the support of Russia's security state. Expect Putin to pivot to a more aggressive posture in order to regain some semblance of pride and control — which will undermine his position with Trump. Of course, these complexities are utterly beyond the understanding and interest of a Western media that is obsessed with loathing Trump — and by proxy anyone associated with him, including the first lady. Instead of recognizing the subtle and substantive moves of Melania Trump, the progressive left immediately sought to demean her letter. Salon's pages snarked like an overqualified freshman English teacher. Others claimed it was an AI paste-up job. But even if the letter wasn't everyone's cup of tea or not quite the Gettysburg Address, that's beside the point. The significant revelation is that Putin and his thugs may well have created an implacable foe in the White House who cannot be displaced. Too focused on their mission to throw mud at anything and everything Trump, the establishment media and leftist echo chamber are unwilling (or unable) to amplify Putin's humiliation and fuel discontent within Russia. It all makes their support for Ukraine ring hollow, to say the least. When push comes to shove, there is no principle that supersedes hatred for Trump. Time will tell on this latest burst of diplomacy. It is more likely than not that Putin is in too deep to offer any compromise that could be remotely acceptable. His own propaganda and ultra-nationalist allies may well have put him in a box he cannot get out of. Not that this circumstance should surprise anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russian history. There is a reason Russian autocrats almost never survive losing a war. This war will most likely not end until Putin is removed from power and a new Russian leadership can start over, blaming the dead man for all of the mistakes — another classic Russian trope. If and when that happens, Melania Trump will deserve some credit. Keith Naughton, a longtime Republican political consultant, is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
