Starmer to speak with coalition of the willing ahead of Zelensky-Trump meeting
The coalition, made up of 30-plus nations, is prepared to deter Russian aggression by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine once the war is over.
The meeting, which is expected to take place at approximately 2pm UK time, comes on the heels of US President Mr Trump's summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Donald Trump shakes hands with Vladimir Putin after their joint news conference on Friday (Gavriil Grigorov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
Mr Trump hoped to secure a peace deal from the talks at a military base in Anchorage, but both he and Mr Putin walked away without agreement on how to end the war in Ukraine.
The US leader, however, insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining.
Several news outlets have cited sources which claimed that during the negotiations Mr Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk – two occupied Ukrainian regions – as a condition for ending the war.
In exchange he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by Russian troops.
Other outlets reported that Mr Trump is inclined to support the plan, and will speak to Mr Zelensky about it on Monday when they meet in the Oval Office.
After the Alaska summit, the US president told Fox News it was now up to Mr Zelensky to 'make a deal' to end the war.
Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's 'pursuit of an end to the killing' following a phone call with the US president, Mr Zelensky and Nato allies on Saturday morning.
But he insisted Ukraine's leader must not be excluded from future talks to broker a peace in Ukraine.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
Mounting Russian deaths will not deter Putin
In June, a grim milestone passed. The Ministry of Defence said that one million Russians had been killed or wounded in Ukraine. The Guardian reported that fatalities alone are 'five times higher than the combined death toll from all Soviet and Russian wars' after 1945. Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, stated that Russia had already lost '100,000 soldiers – dead – not injured' this year. Yet the unmentionable odour of death offends the Russian night. In Moscow, the milestone passed without official remark. The soaring butcher's bill has not, as some naively still hope, been matched by large-scale public unrest. Although, like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Putin's war in Ukraine is an open wound slowly bleeding the country white, there is no comparable anti-war movement, mass protests, or anguished appeals from the mothers of soldiers. The wars in Ukraine and Afghanistan differ in their nature. Russia's modern digital dictatorship is not the Soviet Union of the 1980s 'collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions'. The Kremlin has effectively managed the impact of unprecedented losses by carrots and sticks or, as Russians put it, by gingerbread and whips. A fundamental difference with previous conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya is that Russia's war in Ukraine is being fought by volunteers, largely motivated by the prospect of life-changing amounts of money, and not by conscripts sent to fight against their will. In some regions, the gingerbread of signing on bonuses for new recruits now exceeds a year's salary. Generational wealth is promised for the families of the dead in return for their silence. This 'torrent of money' has transformed poorer regions, even if growing economic difficulties have seen bonuses being trimmed. The sugar rush of wartime spending on defence equipment has also increased real wages for many Russians, increasing living standards sharply. The Kremlin learned that its partial mobilisation of 300,000 mainly poor men in 2022 was a shocking and deeply unpopular experiment not to be repeated. With these troops now mostly dead, and the war presented as 'special' and faraway, Russians are much less interested in the fate of those who went to fight for the money. Conscripts are not sent to the front. Recruitment is spread across Russia's regions to prevent potent pockets of protest. To sweeten support for the conflict, the Kremlin relentlessly hammers a jingoistic narrative that Russia had no alternative to war, that it is fighting the collective West, and that Putin's 'special military operation' continues the Soviet struggle against Nazism. For example, volunteer recruitment went up after Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk region prompted a patriotic response. Relatives are encouraged to view the death of their relatives as a noble blood sacrifice for this national cause, and not – as they really are – casualties of Putin's elderly rubbish. To further the ideological struggle and develop the next generation of recruits, the state seeks to recapture Russia's young by deepening 'patriotic' education programmes, re-writing history, re-using military symbols from the past, and re-forming Soviet-style youth movements. As one Russian expert told me, from the start the Kremlin has been acutely aware of Bonapartism: a charismatic general converting military success into political power. Officers at the front have been sacked for questioning the wisdom of launching costly assaults in order to move Putin's drinks cabinet ten centimetres closer to Kyiv. As noted by one Russian sociologist, no senior military officer has been used as a propaganda figure nor attained any kind of personal popularity in society; 'state propaganda praises only private soldiers who have taken part in the war, preferably those who have died in the process'. This being Russia, the whip has been wielded enthusiastically. Early anti-war protests were quickly squished and opponents to the war driven into exile, imprisoned, or pressed into military service. The climate of fear is fuelled by public prosecutions severe sentences. For example, Olga Komleva, a journalist and associate of the late Alexey Navalny, himself killed by the state in prison, was recently sentenced to 12 years for her anti-war activities. Civil society, already a weakened force in Russia, has been further cowed by being declared as agents of foreign powers. The Committees of Soldiers' Mothers were beaten into submission many years ago and are not the force they were in the 1980s. In their place, the Kremlin has created loyal simulacra that slavishly support the government line. Veterans' organisations, including those originally formed to support those who fought in Afghanistan, have been co-opted for the cause. As a result of these carrots and sticks, Russians remain generally indifferent to the war but with – from the Kremlin's perspective – a sufficient minority of genuine supporters. The public are more concerned about their own financial situation, criminalisation of society, and the potential impact of returning veterans than about the number of dead. Self-interest and fear have nixed the anti-war movement. The number of new recruits being sent to Ukraine still exceed battlefield losses. Three years into the war, it is unwise to hope for a deus ex machina of large-scale public unrest, or strain to discern ironic points of light of potential anti-war opposition inside Russia. As Oleg Orlov, a veteran campaigner for civil liberties put it: 'The opposition is completely crushed, the remnants of any freedoms are liquidated, [and] the words 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are dangerous to pronounce publicly without adding a curse word'. Instead, the war should be brought home to Russians by cranking up economic pressure on the country, its foreign enablers and collaborators while assisting Ukraine to strike military targets within its borders.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Zelenskyy knows he risks another Oval Office ambush - but has to be a willing participant in peace talks
There will be no red carpet or fly past, no round of applause when Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington DC on Monday. But the bitter memory of his last visit to the White House will feature prominently in the Ukrainian president's thoughts. In February, he was mocked for not wearing a suit and told he didn't "have the cards" by US President Donald Trump, before being walked off the premises early, like an unruly patron being thrown out of the bar. 3:10 Zelenskyy knows he is risking another ambush in the Oval Office but has to present himself as a willing participant in peace talks, out of fear of being painted as the obstacle to a resolution. There was initially measured optimism in Kyiv after Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, because it appeared that no deal had been cut between Washington and the Kremlin without Ukraine in the room, as had been feared. But that restrained positivity quickly evaporated with the release of a statement by Trump the morning after the night before. In the heady heights of a meeting with strongman Putin, he seemed to have abandoned the one key thing that European leaders had impressed upon him - that there had to be an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine as an absolute starting point to a permanent resolution. Trump had apparently reached the conclusion that no ceasefire was required. "The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine... is to go directly to a peace agreement," is how he put it on his Truth Social media account. 23:24 That sent shockwaves through Kyiv. Many there and elsewhere believe Russia has no intention of stopping the war yet, and will use its military advantage on the battlefield to pressure Ukraine in drawn-out negotiations to give up more territory. In the meantime, the slaughter of Ukrainians will continue. It is the most dramatic of 180s from Trump, who before the meeting and after lobbying from European leaders had said he would not be happy if Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire, and even promised "severe consequences". Yet now reports suggest Trump is giving credence to the Russian position - in a phone call to Zelenskyy he laid out Putin's proposal that Ukraine relinquishes even more territory, in return for an end to the war. The Ukrainian president will have, no doubt, been distressed to see the pictures of Putin being greeted like a king on an American military base in Alaska. It is in direct contrast to how he was hosted on US soil. In Trump's orbit everything is a personality contest, and where he has very obvious deference to Putin, he has disdain for Zelenskyy. That makes the Ukrainian's position very difficult.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump sparks horror fears for Ukraine as Putin demands land grab to end war
The Prime Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will host the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon as Putin set the Donbas as his price for peace Sir Keir Starmer is set to meet with European allies on Sunday, amidst whispers that Donald Trump is in favour of a Russian land grab in Ukraine to bring an end to the war. The Prime Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are preparing to host a coalition of willing partners on Sunday afternoon. This video conference, involving allies committed to maintaining peace in Ukraine, is scheduled ahead of Volodymyr Zelensky's meeting with Donald Trump at the White House on Monday. Trump has suggested that this one-on-one in the Oval Office could potentially set the stage for a three-way meeting with Russian leader Mr Putin. On Friday, the Russian and American leaders convened at a military base in Anchorage, Alaska, aiming to negotiate an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Several media outlets have quoted sources claiming that during these negotiations, Mr Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk – two occupied Ukrainian regions – as a prerequisite for ending the war. In return, he would relinquish other Ukrainian territories currently under Russian control. Other reports suggest that Mr Trump is leaning towards supporting this plan, and plans to discuss it with Mr Zelensky during their Monday meeting in the Oval Office. Following a Saturday morning phone call with the US President, Mr Zelensky and Nato allies, Sir Keir praised Mr Trump's "pursuit of an end to the killing". However, he was adamant that Ukraine's leader must not be sidelined from future discussions aimed at brokering peace in Ukraine. The Prime Minister and European leaders seemed increasingly optimistic that Mr Trump will provide a "security guarantee" of aerial backing to support allied ground forces in Ukraine, should they be sent to maintain peace. However, Mr Trump also seemed to shift his position on his objectives for the discussions, suggesting he seeks a lasting peace deal rather than a temporary ceasefire, mirroring Mr Putin's stance. The Alaska meeting was "timely" and "useful", Mr Putin declared following his departure. Analysts have cautioned that the face-to-face summit risks giving credibility to the Russian leader, who has been ostracised by the global community for his invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine's President Mr Zelensky cautioned that Russia might intensify its attacks on his nation in the forthcoming days "in order to create more favourable political circumstances for talks with global actors".
