Trump, European leaders discussed 'Article 5' style guarantee for Ukraine outside NATO, sources say
Donald Trump
and
European leaders
discussed possible security guarantees for Ukraine outside
NATO
but similar to the Alliance's "Article 5" during their call on Saturday, two people familiar with the matter said.
Independence Day 2025
Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips
Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile
Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency
One of the people, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said that European leaders were seeking clarity on what kind of U.S. role this would involve, but that there were no details yet.
NATO regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all under its Article 5 clause.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Play War Thunder now for free
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
26 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Chhagan Bhujbal stakes claim on Nashik guardian minister post
The ongoing debate over the guardian minister post in Nashik and Raigad districts is likely to intensify after senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) minister Chhagan Bhujbal on Sunday staked his party's claim on Nashik, claiming the party has the highest number of MLAs from the district in 7. 'In Raigad, we have only one MLA and still we have staked claim on the guardian ministership of the district. In Nashik, we have seven MLAs. I think we must stake a claim on Nashik as well,' said Bhujbal, who is an MLA from Yeola in Nashik district. He said that it does not matter who becomes the guardian minister. 'But, since we have seven MLAs from Nashik, I think that we must get the guardian ministership. I will speak with Ajit dada (deputy CM Ajit Pawar and NCP chief) and Tatkare (NCP state chief and Raigad LS MP Sunil Tatkare) regarding this,' he added. He was reacting after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Girish Mahajan speaking at a program in Dhule district said, 'I am becoming guardian minister of Nashik.' Eknath Shinde led Shiv Sena and NCP have staked claim on Raigad while all three parties within the ruling Mahayuti are eyeing the Nashik district which is set to host Kumbhmela in the next two years. Tatkare's daughter and minister Aditi Tatkare is a sole NCP MLA from Sena wants the post for its minister Bharat Gogawale, citing a higher number of MLAs. Last week, Bhujbal expressed his inability to travel to Gondiya in Vidarbha for the flag hoisting ceremony on Independence day citing health reasons. Sources claimed that he was unhappy after Mahajan was asked to attend the flag hoisting ceremony in Nashik, instead of him.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
New GST regime will be consumer-centric, says Centre
The new GST regime previewed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day address would be consumer-centric, with particular emphasis on the poor, the MSMEs, the middle class and the farmers, senior government sources said on Sunday (August 17, 2025). The new two-tier Goods and Services Tax (GST) structure of 18% and 5% rates will have the twin objective of making rates and processes simpler and more rational, as it was originally intended to be, the sources said. 'More equitable taxation' 'This has been in the making for a while. Our learning from the last eight years is going into this, and this will be a fundamental change in the template of taxation,' one senior functionary said. 'The new GST regime will make our taxation more equitable, and will see reduced taxes on what these four categories consume. The template will be more from the consumers point of view, and it will be put to and explained to the States from the consumers point of view.' The Centre expects any reduction in revenues that this may cause to be soon offset by a new buoyancy in the economy expected from rate rationalisation and process simplification. 'Reduced rates will not lead to reduced revenues, and we expect compliance and collection going higher,' an official said, adding that the forthcoming tax regime will be 'fiscally sustainable'. Most of the items in the 28% rate of GST will move to 18% and 'a few' will go to 40%, which will apply to exceptional items, termed 'sin goods', sources said. 'Revenues may fall in the very short run but we expect change in consumption and ease of compliance to make up for it. Thus, it will be a fairly fiscally sustainable exercise,' said a source. Deepavali deadline The Centre expects the States to be on board with the proposals in time for the Deepavali — October 20 — deadline it has set for itself to set them in motion. In a press release following the PM's speech, the Ministry of Finance said the Centre would be engaging with the State governments in the subsequent weeks, in the run-up to the next GST Council meeting. Two Groups of Ministers (comprising representatives of the State governments) — one on rate rationalisation and another on compensation cess — will have to approve the details before they go to the GST Council for approval. GST has been an ongoing topic of conflict between Opposition-ruled States and the Centre, but the latter does not expect resistance to its revamp proposals. 'The concerns regarding any potential revenue losses are not theirs (Opposition-ruled States) alone to tackle. The Centre and the States should all work together to expand the revenues, using this opportunity. I do not think anyone will or can oppose the proposed reduction in rates,' the functionary said. They also added that, since the Centre does not have any representative in the GoM on rate rationalisation, if the GoMs decide against the Centre's proposal, it would look like the States are deciding against lowering taxes for the common man. Both GoMs, followed by the GST Council, are expected to meet in the coming weeks. One source said the compensation cess will soon cease, before its legal end-date of March 31, 2026. While it was originally set to cease in 2022, its duration was extended thereafter to repay the loan taken to compensate States as the cess collections themselves had been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. That loan will be repaid before time. However, this also creates a problem for the Centre as the cess also applies on sin goods like tobacco. 'If the cess ends, then this would substantially lower the effective rate of tax on tobacco, gutka, and other sin goods,' the source explained. 'And this is something the Centre cannot be doing. So, this was yet another reason why the GST revamp needed to be done soon.' That the GST reforms are happening amid global uncertainties and tariff threats by the United States is mere coincidence, according to the sources.
