Russia ready for concessions on ‘land swaps' with Ukraine
On Friday, Trump held talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, with the presidents expressing cautious optimism that progress was made towards a resolution of the Ukraine conflict.
Witkoff told CNN on Sunday that during the Alaska summit, the Russian delegation 'made some concessions at the table with regard to all five regions,' along the conflict front lines.
According to the US official, the Kremlin appears ready to conduct 'land swapping' with Kiev, with the current front line serving as the starting point in at least some areas. Witkoff said that Moscow's demands had undergone a 'significant...moderation.'
On Saturday, the New York Times and Fox News, citing anonymous European officials, claimed that Trump endorsed a peace plan that envisages Ukraine ceding the whole of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics to Russia, with Moscow agreeing to cease hostilities along the current front line in Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.
The Kremlin has yet to comment on any such conditions. Officially, Moscow continues to insist that Ukraine recognize Crimea, the DPR and LPR as well as and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions as Russian territory in their entirety.
In his CNN interview, Witkoff further touted a 'game changing' agreement by Russia to 'robust security guarantees' akin to NATO's Article 5 being provided to Ukraine by the US and unnamed European nations.
Explaining Trump's endorsement of a comprehensive peace deal as opposed to a temporary ceasefire, Witkoff said it was due to the significant headway achieved during the Alaska summit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
44 minutes ago
- Russia Today
US changes stance on 2008 Russia-Georgia war
The US has not endorsed a condemnation of Russia for its 2008 war with Georgia for the first time. Following a closed-door session of the UN Security Council on Monday, Denmark, France, Greece, the UK, and Slovenia issued a statement denouncing Russia for the 'brutal invasion' of the South Caucasus country 17 years ago. The US did not sign the statement, despite having done so in the past. On August 7, 2008, under orders from staunchly pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian army invaded the breakaway region of South Ossetia, shelled its capital Tskhinval, and attacked a base of Russian peacekeepers. Russian forces pushed the Georgian troops back, and a French-mediated ceasefire was reached on August 16. That same month, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another of Georgia's former regions. Although Saakashvili insisted that Russia had attacked first, an EU fact-finding mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini found no evidence to support his claim, confirming that 'open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation' against Tskhinval, starting 'with a massive Georgian artillery attack.' Tina Bokuchava, head of Saakashvili's United National Movement, criticized Washington's refusal to condemn Russia, calling it 'proof that Georgian diplomacy is dead.' She blamed the ruling Georgian Dream party for souring relations with the US. US President Donald Trump has broken the previous administration's diplomatic boycott of Russia and sought to mediate an end to the Ukraine conflict. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska for the first time since 2019 as part of his effort to streamline negotiations.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Western Europe is at Trump's mercy
From a theatrical point of view, Monday's Washington summit between US President Donald Trump and Western Europe's leaders was a vivid spectacle. Each official played their role, some with greater skill than others. But behind the carefully staged performance, the real story emerged: the region's inability to act as a political entity in its own right. Contrary to media spin, the meeting was not about Ukraine. Attempts to resolve the crisis continue, but its outcome will ultimately be decided not in Brussels or Berlin, but by non-European powers. The real lesson from Washington lay in the display of Western Europe's dependence. Every move by these Western European leaders was aimed at one goal: not angering the American president. In the words of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump has become 'Daddy' – a figure to be placated with smiles, tributes, and flattery. Leaders compared notes on how best to manage his moods, even down to reportedly advising Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky on what to wear, what to say, and how to thank him. This might sound absurd. But that is the political reality of the transatlantic relationship. The EU no longer acts with autonomy. Its politics revolve around managing the temper of a man in Washington. Of course, Trump's personality is unique, but it would be a mistake to reduce the issue to character. The essence is deeper: Western Europe has suddenly realized the scale of its strategic, political and economic dependence on the United States. Put bluntly, the half-continent can do very little without America – even in matters that directly touch its own interests. This dependency did not appear overnight. Ironically, it deepened under Joe Biden. With his rhetoric of 'unprecedented transatlantic solidarity,' the former president made Western Europe carry much of the political and economic burden of the conflict with Russia. The United States reaped the economic benefits, while the costs were shifted to the Old World. Trump has simply made this arrangement overt. He openly treats the Europeans not as partners, but as tools. In his eyes, the EU exists to finance American priorities and later to handle the technical details of a post-settlement Ukraine. Western Europe's 'position' counts for little if it differs from Washington's. The recent trade talks proved the point: negotiations went America's way, and his guests accepted it. Faced with this reality, Western Europe has chosen a strategy of unrestrained flattery. Leaders believe that by praising Trump, they can slip their own disagreements into the conversation. But the approach is self-defeating. Trump regards praise not as persuasion but as recognition of self-evident truth: if you admire me, I must be right. Join me, and keep applauding. Brussels reassures itself that this humiliation is temporary, the product of one unusual leader. When Trump leaves, normality will return. But the illusion will not last. For over two decades – since the presidency of George W. Bush – Washington has been steadily shifting its strategic focus away from Europe. This course has been consistent across parties and presidents. It will not change after Trump. And given the current willingness of EU leaders to grovel, future US presidents will expect no less. Some argue that Western Europe's position is no different from that of nation states dealing with America. That is misleading. Canada, for example, has taken a firm stance under its new prime minister, and Trump has eased his attacks. Outside the Atlantic bloc, the contrast is sharper still. China, India, Brazil and South Africa have all resisted US pressure. They may compromise, but they refuse to submit. None wants a direct confrontation with America, but none accepts blackmail. Only the EU consistently folds. It has become the undisputed champion of compliance, treating subservience as prudence. History shows Western Europe has not always been so timid. In the early 1980s, when Soviet-American dialogue collapsed, its leaders persuaded Ronald Reagan not to interfere with their energy projects with the USSR. Why? Because it suited the EU's own interests. That clarity of purpose is absent today. The problem is not that Brussels simply follows America, but that Western Europe no longer knows what its own interests are. Having lost the ability – or perhaps the courage – to define them, it automatically falls in line with Washington. For the United States, this is convenient. The EU is treated as a competitor in some spheres and a resource in others, but never as a genuine partner. What does this mean for Russia? For now, little. The relationship is at a low ebb, and rebuilding it is a question for the distant future. Still, the lesson of history is clear: the most productive periods in Russian-EU relations came when Western Europe acted in its own interests, not as America's appendage. Today, that capacity has vanished. Instead, the bloc risks descending into what can only be described as a collective political neurosis. Leaders reassure themselves with illusions, while the gap between Western Europe's ambitions and its actual autonomy grows wider. The consequences could be dangerous – for the EU itself, for its neighbors, and for the stability of the wider international article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Gabbard contradicts key Russiagate claim
Russia did not favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 US presidential election and the administration of then-President Barack Obama was well aware of that, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has said. Since mid-July, Gabbard has released multiple documents which allegedly expose a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia and delegitimize his first election win. During an appearance on the Hannity program on Fox News on Tuesday, Gabbard insisted that 'the intelligence community assessed in the months leading up to that 2016 election that, yes, Russia was trying to interfere in our election by sowing discord and chaos, but stating over and over again that Russia did not appear to have any preference for one candidate over the other.' At the time, Moscow viewed both Trump and Clinton 'as equally bad for Russia's interest,' she said. 'The big shift – that happened around what is now commonly known as 'Russiagate' – was after the election,' Gabbard claimed. In early December 2016, Obama called a meeting of his national security council leadership, telling then-DNI James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan to come up with a new 'politicized and weaponized fake intelligence' assessment, claiming that 'Russia, [President Vladimir] Putin did try to interfere in the election because he wanted Trump to win,' she alleged. Russiagate was the 'real crime' by Obama officials against the American people because it undermined their votes, Gabbard stressed. Earlier on Tuesday, Gabbard announced that her office had stripped security clearances from 37 current and former US intelligence officials, including Clapper, for allegedly politicizing and manipulating intelligence. Trump said earlier that all those behind the Russiagate hoax should pay a 'big price' for what he labeled a deliberate attempt to sabotage his presidency. Moscow has consistently denied any interference in the 2016 election, with Russian officials calling the US accusations a product of partisan infighting. The Russiagate scandal severely strained US-Russia relations, resulting in sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in diplomatic engagement.
