European leaders urge more 'pressure' on Russia ahead of Trump-Putin summit
Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in the US state of Alaska this Friday to try to resolve the three-year conflict, despite warnings from Ukraine and Europe that Kyiv must be part of negotiations.
Announcing the summit last week, Trump said that "there'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both" sides, without elaborating.
But President Volodymyr Zelensky warned Saturday that Ukraine won't surrender land to Russia to buy peace.
"Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier," he said on social media.
"Any decisions against us, any decisions without Ukraine, are also decisions against peace," he added.
Zelensky urged Ukraine's allies to take "clear steps" towards achieving a sustainable peace during a call with Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
European leaders issued a joint statement overnight Saturday to Sunday saying that "only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed".
They welcomed Trump's efforts, saying they were ready to help diplomatically - by maintaining support to Ukraine, as well as by upholding and imposing restrictive measures against Russia.
"The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations", said the statement, signed by leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Britain, Finland and EU Commission chief Ursula Von Der Leyen, without giving more details.
They also said a resolution "must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests", including "the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity".
"The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," they said.
National security advisors from Kyiv's allies - including the United States, EU nations and the UK - gathered in Britain Saturday to align their views ahead of the Putin-Trump summit.
French President Emmanuel Macron, following phone calls with Zelensky, Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, said "the future of Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukrainians" and that Europe also had to be involved in the negotiations.
In his evening address Saturday, Zelensky stressed: "There must be an honest end to this war, and it is up to Russia to end the war it started."
A 'DIGNIFIED PEACE'
Three rounds of talks between Russia and Ukraine this year have failed to bear fruit.
Tens of thousands of people have been killed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with millions forced to flee their homes.
Putin, a former KGB officer in power in Russia for over 25 years, has ruled out holding talks with Zelensky at this stage.
Ukraine's leader has been pushing for a three-way summit and argues that meeting Putin is the only way to make progress towards peace.
The summit in Alaska, the far-north territory which Russia sold to the United States in 1867, would be the first between sitting US and Russian presidents since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021.
Nine months later, Moscow sent troops into Ukraine.
Zelensky said of the location that it was "very far away from this war, which is raging on our land, against our people".
The Kremlin said the choice was "logical" because the state close to the Arctic is on the border between the two countries, and this is where their "economic interests intersect".
Moscow has also invited Trump to pay a reciprocal visit to Russia later.
Trump and Putin last sat together in 2019 at a G20 summit meeting in Japan during Trump's first term. They have spoken by telephone several times since January, but Trump has failed to broker peace in Ukraine as he promised he could.
FIGHTING GOES ON
Russia and Ukraine continued pouring dozens of drones onto each other's positions in an exchange of attacks in the early hours of Saturday.
A bus carrying civilians was hit in Ukraine's frontline city of Kherson, killing two people and wounding 16.
The Russian army claimed to have taken Yablonovka, another village in the Donetsk region, the site of the most intense fighting in the east and one of the five regions Putin says is part of Russia.
In 2022, the Kremlin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions - Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson - despite not having full control over them.
As a prerequisite to any peace settlement, Moscow demanded Kyiv pull its forces out of the regions and commit to being a neutral state, shun Western military support and be excluded from joining NATO.
Kyiv said it would never recognise Russian control over its sovereign territory, though it acknowledged that getting land captured by Russia back would have to come through diplomacy, not on the battlefield.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
4 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
European leaders urge more 'pressure' on Russia ahead of Trump-Putin summit
KYIV - European leaders urged more "pressure" on Russia overnight Saturday, after the announcement of a Trump-Putin summit to end the war in Ukraine raised concern that an agreement would require Kyiv to cede swathes of territory. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in the US state of Alaska this Friday to try to resolve the three-year conflict, despite warnings from Ukraine and Europe that Kyiv must be part of negotiations. Announcing the summit last week, Trump said that "there'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both" sides, without elaborating. But President Volodymyr Zelensky warned Saturday that Ukraine won't surrender land to Russia to buy peace. "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier," he said on social media. "Any decisions against us, any decisions without Ukraine, are also decisions against peace," he added. Zelensky urged Ukraine's allies to take "clear steps" towards achieving a sustainable peace during a call with Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer. European leaders issued a joint statement overnight Saturday to Sunday saying that "only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed". They welcomed Trump's efforts, saying they were ready to help diplomatically - by maintaining support to Ukraine, as well as by upholding and imposing restrictive measures against Russia. "The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations", said the statement, signed by leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Britain, Finland and EU Commission chief Ursula Von Der Leyen, without giving more details. They also said a resolution "must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests", including "the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity". "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," they said. National security advisors from Kyiv's allies - including the United States, EU nations and the UK - gathered in Britain Saturday to align their views ahead of the Putin-Trump summit. French President Emmanuel Macron, following phone calls with Zelensky, Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, said "the future of Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukrainians" and that Europe also had to be involved in the negotiations. In his evening address Saturday, Zelensky stressed: "There must be an honest end to this war, and it is up to Russia to end the war it started." A 'DIGNIFIED PEACE' Three rounds of talks between Russia and Ukraine this year have failed to bear fruit. Tens of thousands of people have been killed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with millions forced to flee their homes. Putin, a former KGB officer in power in Russia for over 25 years, has ruled out holding talks with Zelensky at this stage. Ukraine's leader has been pushing for a three-way summit and argues that meeting Putin is the only way to make progress towards peace. The summit in Alaska, the far-north territory which Russia sold to the United States in 1867, would be the first between sitting US and Russian presidents since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021. Nine months later, Moscow sent troops into Ukraine. Zelensky said of the location that it was "very far away from this war, which is raging on our land, against our people". The Kremlin said the choice was "logical" because the state close to the Arctic is on the border between the two countries, and this is where their "economic interests intersect". Moscow has also invited Trump to pay a reciprocal visit to Russia later. Trump and Putin last sat together in 2019 at a G20 summit meeting in Japan during Trump's first term. They have spoken by telephone several times since January, but Trump has failed to broker peace in Ukraine as he promised he could. FIGHTING GOES ON Russia and Ukraine continued pouring dozens of drones onto each other's positions in an exchange of attacks in the early hours of Saturday. A bus carrying civilians was hit in Ukraine's frontline city of Kherson, killing two people and wounding 16. The Russian army claimed to have taken Yablonovka, another village in the Donetsk region, the site of the most intense fighting in the east and one of the five regions Putin says is part of Russia. In 2022, the Kremlin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions - Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson - despite not having full control over them. As a prerequisite to any peace settlement, Moscow demanded Kyiv pull its forces out of the regions and commit to being a neutral state, shun Western military support and be excluded from joining NATO. Kyiv said it would never recognise Russian control over its sovereign territory, though it acknowledged that getting land captured by Russia back would have to come through diplomacy, not on the battlefield.
The Citizen
5 hours ago
- The Citizen
Here's how to convince Trump of BEE
Wouldn't it be great if South Africa could go to the US and show the successes of BEE, rather than an arbitrary moral assertion? If you're seeking honesty, convincing Donald Trump of the ethics behind BEE is a losing battle. I have no idea what that phone call between him and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was all about, but unless it outlined the successes of BEE, how could anybody expect to turn his opinion? The Americans think BEE as a matter of redress is wrong. South Africa thinks it's right. There are no tie-breakers in this one. It's not like Sweden is going to jump in with a casting vote. So, if the US's actions towards South Africa are based on its sentiment towards our internal policies, there is little more than a dichotomous choice: appease the US or tell them to shove off. With Trump at the helm, it's unlikely that you're going to get a hybrid solution, especially since we aren't 'holding the cards'. Talks between SA and US a waste of time So why are we wasting time on bilateral talks trying to convince one another of the ethics behind the concept? A policy like BEE is polarising. I don't think anybody believes a phone call will take an extreme man from one side of the podium to the other. Perhaps we're gearing up to demonise the US and that may have been a decent political strategy if we had any political capital to play with. Given South Africa's decreasing importance in the global economy, it doesn't seem like we even have that going for us. A land where journalists do more to deal with corruption than the collective multiple tax-funded institutions of state? That's the kind of country that's going to demonise the US? Forgive my doubts, but they are present. ALSO READ: Inside Ramaphosa's call with Trump over devastating tariffs So while the argument of immorality is available to the Trump administration, the argument of morality isn't convincing. Two kids are arguing. One says yes, one says no. Who wins? Who knows, but the outcome won't be based on whether they said yes or no. It will be based on what else they come to the argument with. The US is coming into this argument with a bigger economy, more leverage and, very importantly, an equally held belief in the morality of its argument. What's South Africa got? That same equally held belief? That's not going to move the needle, not even in the slightest. Despite making the claim that we are not beggars, we sure do seem to be doing our share of begging at the moment. Why? Is it important to appease the US? If it is, then do it! Stop trying to drag this out, knowing it's a losing battle. I'd rather resources are spent developing South Africa to the point where we could tell the US to get lost… but that would take administrative competency, some work and a whole lot of things we don't expect from our government. ALSO READ: 'If they want to bring sanctions, let them': Mbalula challenges Trump administration If you ask the question of what the ideal situation would be, it would be that we can play nicely with all the countries of the world. That's not happening, but given the importance of the US as a trading partner, it would be nice to prioritise playing nicely with them. How to convince US that BEE is good How do we convince them that BEE is the way forward? It's pretty simple. Do it the way Trump loves doing things – with spectacle. Bring out the posters of the BEE success stories – show the economic growth brought on by BEE – deliver the statistics of great investor appetite for BEE. In short, make a big splash about how much the policy worked. Show the world that not only did it work, but it was secured against self-enrichment and avoided plunging more people into poverty. Show them how your great policy improved employment and show them how the people benefited en masse. Show them something about your great policy that you're clinging to with every ounce of alleged morality that it works. Wouldn't it be great if South Africa could go to the US and tell a good story about BEE? One that professes its successes, rather than an arbitrary moral assertion. Wouldn't it be great if the South African government, which so believes in its policy, would, after decades, be able to put together some convincing statistics that it's effective? Wouldn't it be great if that phone call was ballsy enough to include, 'this is what we've done for redress and this is how it's worked!'? READ NEXT: 'It's just gone' – Trump's tariffs cost SA company R750m overnight
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty A Tool To Undermine The Global South?
Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI) activists burn an effigy of US President Donald Trump during a rally to mark the 80th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, on Hiroshima at the end of WWII, in Kolkata on August 6, 2025. Trump's erratic nuclear threats set a dangerous precedent for impulsive brinkmanship, says the writer. Image: AFP Reneva Fourie The opening line of the United Nations Charter is 'We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ...'. Yet eighty years on, we once again face the terrifying prospect, not just of a global war, but of nuclear war. The authority of the UN is increasingly undermined as founding members leave it cash-strapped and disregard multilateralism and international law. As we remember the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed by the United States on 6 and 9 August 1945, we question whether the nuclear powers have learned anything. The US attack on Japan was an act of savagery that resulted in over 200,000 lives lost and a ravaged environment. It had no military justification. By then, the Soviet Union had already struck a decisive blow against Nazi Germany, effectively ending the war. The bombings served merely to assert US dominance in an emerging Cold War. As the US and its allies desperately try to strangle the emergence of a multipolar world, the same need for global dominance prevails. Military budgets are rising, and rhetoric is increasingly shifting from deterrence to aggression. US President Trump's erratic nuclear threats set a dangerous precedent for impulsive brinkmanship. Iran was even attacked despite clear evidence that its nuclear programme is humanitarian. The hypocrisy was glaring. The aggressor, Israel, known to possess nuclear weapons through its past collaboration with apartheid South Africa, launched an unprovoked strike and was not held to account. Instead of outrage, Israel received support from Western countries, particularly the US. This casts doubt on the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While nuclear-armed states enhance their arsenals freely, those without are forced to comply or face consequences. Established initially to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the NPT has been undermined by the reluctance of nuclear states to disarm, deepening discontent, especially in the Global South. The UN Charter places the responsibility for peace and global governance in the hands of the people. We must hold our governments accountable and reassert the importance of international law, multilateral cooperation and disarmament. A nuclear fallout is beyond anyone's ability to manage. Prevention is the only option. Human security must be at the centre of the global nuclear discussion. Nuclear technologies play an increasingly important role in socio-economic development. South Africa already benefits from nuclear energy. Koeberg, the country's oldest nuclear power station, has provided reliable, low-carbon electricity for decades. The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation also applies nuclear and radiation technologies to support industry, medicine and science while upholding environmental responsibility. Through the SAFARI-1 programme, South Africa is a global leader in producing medical isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancer. A recent study by the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation also highlights further peaceful applications. Across Africa, the need for clean and stable power is growing rapidly, yet millions still lack access to reliable electricity. While renewables are essential, they require support from consistent and stable sources. Small modular reactors offer a promising solution. These compact systems can serve remote or underserved areas, and South Africa is wisely reviving its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor programme. With supportive policies and partnerships, nuclear energy can drive a cleaner, inclusive future. South Africa's energy plans must set clear nuclear goals, ensure localisation and skills development, and align with just transition and climate finance efforts. Safety must remain paramount. The design, construction and operation of nuclear facilities must meet the highest safety standards. South Africa has a robust legal and regulatory framework, overseen by the independent National Nuclear Regulator, which aligns with international best practices. Environmental responsibility is also key. Although nuclear energy produces less waste than fossil fuels, some waste is long-lived and must be carefully managed. The National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute is responsible for developing safe and sustainable systems for the storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear energy can be a tool for peace and progress. But the 1945 atomic bombings of Japan and the more recent nuclear threats against Russia and attacks on Iran demonstrate the potential destructiveness of its abuse. We must prevent history from repeating itself. Apartheid South Africa once developed nuclear weapons. But the anti-apartheid movement, led by the ANC and its allies, pressured the regime into dismantling that arsenal. All governments that possess nuclear weapons should also be pressured by their citizens to disarm. Today, South Africa retains the capability but chooses not to use it. The country believes the existence of nuclear weapons is fundamentally wrong. It remains committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and plays an active role in international disarmament. Africa's safeguards are strong. The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, known as the Pelindaba Treaty, bans the development, possession or use of nuclear weapons across the continent. It requires full-scope IAEA safeguards, prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste and is upheld by the African Commission on Nuclear Energy. What is now needed is full operationalisation of this commission, along with greater regional cooperation in regulation, training and verification. As a major exporter of uranium, Africa should ensure its resources are not used to produce nuclear weapons. There must be a common African position that no uranium from the continent will be used for military purposes.
