Russia does not see Vatican as a serious arena for peace talks, sources say
The Vatican has so far been silent in public on the idea raised by US President Donald Trump that Pope Leo XIV could host the peace talks. PHOTO: EPA-EFE
Russia does not see Vatican as a serious arena for peace talks, sources say
MOSCOW - Russia does not see the Vatican as a serious venue for peace talks with Ukraine because the Holy See is the seat of Catholicism and is surrounded by Italy, a Nato and EU member, three senior Russian sources told Reuters.
They also point out that many Russian officials cannot even fly there due to Western restrictions.
The Vatican has so far been silent in public on the idea raised by US President Donald Trump after a call with President Vladimir Putin that Pope Leo XIV could host talks aimed at ending Europe's deadliest conflict since World War Two.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said last week that Pope Leo XIV, the first US-born pontiff, had confirmed his willingness to host talks during a phone call with her.
'The Vatican definitely is not seen in Russia as a serious force capable of resolving such a complex conflict,' one senior Russian source acquainted with top-level Kremlin thinking said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Among the reasons cited by the three sources is the fact that both Russia and Ukraine are predominantly Eastern Orthodox countries, while the Vatican is surrounded by Nato member Italy, which has supported Ukraine and repeatedly sanctioned Russia.
The Kremlin and the Vatican did not respond to requests for comment. When asked last week about the Vatican idea, the Kremlin said only that no decision had yet been made.
The Russian sources underscored that for most senior Russian officials, it would be very difficult to even get to the Vatican from Moscow as direct flights were cancelled after the start of the war on Feb 24, 2022, and there are a myriad of European Union sanctions on Russian officials.
'Bit inelegant'
One of the Russian officials quipped with sarcasm that the only venue better than the Vatican would be the Hague – the seat of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has issued a warrant for Mr Putin's arrest on war crimes charges.
The Kremlin says the ICC arrest warrant is an outrageously partisan decision, but meaningless with respect to Russia, which is not a signatory to the court. Russian officials deny war crimes in Ukraine.
Mr Putin's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on May 23 said the idea of the Vatican as a potential arena for peace talks was 'a bit inelegant' given that Russia and Ukraine were Eastern Orthodox countries.
The Russian Orthodox Church is by far the biggest of the churches in the Eastern Orthodox communion, which split with Western Christianity in the Great Schism of 1054.
According to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians identify themselves as followers of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy, though support for a non-Russian aligned Orthodox Church of Ukraine has soared since the war began in 2022.
Russian sources said they viewed Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman as potentially suitable venues for talks. Mr Putin has repeatedly praised Gulf Arab states and Turkey for their attempts to mediate an end to the war. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far
US President Donald Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pack with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. PHOTO: REUTERS The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Mr Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly two and a half years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Mr Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Ms Wendy Cutler, the vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former US trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment', she said. During his first term, Mr Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification – modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Mr Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Mr Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Ms Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days. With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Mr Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a US trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realised that they bit off more than they could chew,' Ms Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Ms Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the US promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Satellite images show damaged North Korean warship moved to a port for repair, report says
The new North Korean warship undergoing repairs at a dry dock facility in Rajin. PHOTO: AFP SEOUL - A North Korean stricken destroyer that partially capsized during a botched launching ceremony has arrived at a ship repair factory, a Washington think tank said. The destroyer that suffered a failed launch was moved to the graving dock at Rajin Dockyard, also known as Rajin Ship Repair Factory, by June 8, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said based on satellite imagery. State media reported on June 6 that experts would examine the hull for the next stage of restorations, to be carried out at Rajin Dockyard for 7-10 days. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who witnessed the failed launch of the destroyer, called the accident a "criminal act". Since the accident in May, North Korea has said it detained several officials, and Mr Kim ordered the ship restored before a ruling party meeting in June. The Rajin shipyard, located near the Russian border, has produced many of North Korea's larger warships for decades, CSIS said. "Once any critical repairs or restoration work are completed, the vessel will likely be transferred to the shipyard's fitting out dock, where its weapons and other systems will be installed and subsequently commissioned," the think tank said in a report. The ship lay on its side in the water after the botched launch, but it was pulled upright, according to US researchers and the South Korean military. The 5,000-ton destroyers launched by North Korea in 2025 are the country's largest warships yet, part of leader Mr Kim's push to upgrade its naval power with vessels capable of carrying and launching dozens of missiles. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
