Drone strikes ahead of Russia-Ukraine peace talks leave Trump's credibility hanging by a thread
It was already hard to imagine a breakthrough emerging from the direct talks between Russia and Ukraine set to be renewed in Istanbul on Monday.
But in the aftermath of what appear to have been multiple large-scale Ukrainian drone strikes against strategic bases across Russia, it's even less likely either side will be prepared to shift their red lines.
Even before the latest strikes, which targeted Russian strategic aircraft thousands of miles from the Ukrainian border, the Kremlin had declined to formally set out, in the form of an agreed-to memorandum, what exactly it wants in return for ending what it refers to as its 'Special Military Operation'.
But Russian officials have made no secret about their hardline terms, including sovereignty over all annexed territories, the demilitarization of Ukraine, immediate sanctions relief and what the Kremlin calls 'de-Nazification', involving things like guaranteeing the rights of Russian-speakers.
Concerns about further NATO expansion toward Russian borders – especially Ukraine, but other countries too – have also been a consistent Kremlin grievance, as has the fate of hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets abroad.
There's been speculation in the Russian and Western media about areas for possible negotiation, and the outcome of the Istanbul talks are being closely watched for any hints of flexibility.
But in the aftermath of what appears to have been a spectacular Ukrainian success, talk of Kremlin compromises may, for the moment, be off the table.
Ukraine goes into this second round of direct talks bolstered by its apparent destruction of Russian strategic bombers and other crucial air assets.
On Sunday, President Volodymyr Zelensky set out some of Ukraine's positions, including an unconditional ceasefire and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia.
But Russian demands for Ukrainian forces to withdraw from territory it claims but has not even conquered remain unpalatable, even more so now Ukraine has shown it can still strike deep behind the front lines.
Even before the latest Ukrainian drone strikes, amid preparations for the peace talks in Istanbul, Russia was stepping up attacks on Ukraine in what seems to be the early stages of a new summer offensive.
Overnight Saturday, Russia launched its largest drone attack on Ukraine since the beginning of the war – involving 472 drones. On Sunday, a Russian missile strike killed at least 12 people and wounded more than 60 at a training site for the Ukrainian military.
As all this unfolds, an increasingly frustrated US President Donald Trump, who used to brag he could end the Ukraine war in short order, is now watching from the sidelines as a cornerstone of his stated foreign policy looks decidedly shaky.
Neither his pressure on the Ukrainian leader, who Trump lambasted in the Oval Office, nor his recent scolding of the Kremlin ruler appear to have pushed the two sides any closer to a peace deal.
Trump still has powerful levers to pull if he chooses, like imposing tough new sanctions, such as those overwhelmingly supported in the US Senate, or adjusting US military aid in a way that would dramatically increase the costs of fighting on. The measures may not be decisive, but they would send a message of US commitment.
What Trump says he is tempted to do, though, is simply walk away from the whole mess. This is Biden's war, he insists, or Putin's and Zelensky's.
But walking away – and it is unclear what that means in terms of US policy – may no longer be an option. At least not walking away unscathed.
His own insistence on ending the Ukraine conflict, along with his personal interventions with the Ukrainian and Russian leaders, means that Trump and the United States are now inextricably linked with the outcome.
That's why events on the battlefield and at the negotiating table in Istanbul are being watched so closely.
Despite his regular attempts to disown it, the Ukraine war has very much become Trump's war on which US credibility now hangs by a thread.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US
The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster. Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence. The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here. The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace. If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat. On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting. Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates. At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy? That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties. To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation. Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed. Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains. But that is the past. What next? Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse. Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war. Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace
Nobody in their right mind thought Putin would come to the latest round of peace talks in Istanbul with any seriousness. And so it has proven. His demands are straight out of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's negotiating playbook: demand the maximum, present ultimatums and do not give one inch. Putin's terms for a final settlement are no different from his diktats from the start, including international recognition of Moscow's occupation of the four regions he considers Russian territory, and a guarantee Ukraine never joins any international alliances. Even Putin's pathways to a temporary ceasefire require withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the four regions, demobilisation of the armed forces, cessation of international military aid and electing a new government. In other words: total capitulation, with Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, partitioned, isolated, disarmed and a Russian puppet government in Kyiv. That doesn't mean negotiations shouldn't continue in the hope of achieving less punitive terms. The Ukrainian government has already signalled it would be ready to accept the temporary occupation of territory Russia has already captured. But it is hard to see how Putin will climb down from his maximalist position without significant changes on the battlefield or to the economic situation. President Trump tried a softball approach with Putin, extending the prospect of major economic benefits through a return to normalisation in US-Russia relations. Putin hasn't bought that even though he has ham-fistedly attempted to mollify Trump and encourage him to abandon Ukraine with his disingenuous ploy of engaging in negotiations. Trump obviously sees right through that. He said he was 'p----d off' by Putin's proposal that Ukraine should be placed under external administration with elections overseen by the UN. The US now needs to try a different approach. Trump can say he did everything he could to end the bloodshed in the first months of his presidency but Putin's intransigence now demands different tactics. What would those tactics be? Continue to hold out an olive branch while doubling down on US military backing to Ukraine and pressuring European allies to do the same thing. It was Biden's faltering leadership that allowed most West European countries as well as the US to do the least they could get away with. That needs to change and we've already seen how Trumpian hectoring can compel Europeans to boost their own defence spending, both in his first term and even more in his second. Renewing US commitment to Nato would also help encourage European leaders. It would send a powerful message to Putin too, whose overriding strategic objective is dividing the West. We need to move on from providing Ukraine with just enough to defend themselves but never enough to prevail. The effort required to drive Russia back out of Ukraine is probably too much to expect, but the point would be to enable Kyiv to do even more damage to Russian forces to compel Putin to reconsider his current calculation that he can grind Ukraine down and outlast the West's support. Among the most harmful constraints Biden imposed on Ukraine was forbidding use of US-supplied weapons to attack Russian sovereign territory. That was the consequence of his fear of Russian escalation, both against Ukraine and Nato countries. It allowed Putin to continue to shield the Russian population from the conflict, keeping it limited to a 'special military operation'. Kyiv didn't play ball though, firing home-made drones into Russia and even mounting the first invasion of its territory since the Second World War. The latest breathtaking drone attack on Russia, which destroyed a large chunk of its strategic air force on the ground shows what can be done. Some say the US and European countries should distance themselves from that, dreading Moscow's retaliation. But irrespective of the diplomatic position they choose to take, they should do the opposite, by giving Ukraine what it needs to carry out further strikes to undermine Russian military capability, drive the war home to the population and humiliate Putin. Trump should start to do real economic damage to Russia. Much can be achieved by more effective military action to increase weapons and equipment loss rates, potentially forcing Putin to transition the economy to a full war footing. The half-hearted sanctions against Russia have not been good enough and European countries have paid more to Russia for hydrocarbons than they have given in aid to Ukraine. We need to turn the screws by tougher measures against the Russian energy sector, finally detaching Moscow from the international banking system and disrupting the ghost tanker fleet that has allowed oil revenues to surge. A bitter blow would also be landed by seizing the entirety of Russia's $330 billion of frozen assets in Western countries to pay for the war, or at least plan to do so subject to negotiations. Putin showed yet again in Istanbul that he doesn't eat carrots, so Trump now needs to propel him towards a proper deal by applying a very large stick. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Don't believe Starmer when he says he's angry about the small boats
In the week that the Prime Minister vowed to increase defence spending and solemnly averred, 'My first priority is the safety and security of the British people', the British people scratched their heads and gestured crossly in the direction of their southern coastline. 'Hang on, Keir,' they muttered. 'What about those 1,195 men from God-knows-where who broke into our homeland on Saturday to access the all-you-can-sponge benefits buffet that's 15,000 of the blighters this year so far, a record. How are you making us safe and secure?' You could tell the PM thought he was making a historic speech; the hair gel gets heavier and greasier along with the sententious, slippery phrases. It didn't help that he was speaking at the Govan shipyards in front of a group of workers who appeared to have been taken hostage during their break, wrestled from their Twixes and builder's tea to provide a stirring backdrop for this tinpot authoritarian dictator. All credit to the Scots, they looked either bored or openly hostile. Samuel Johnson's observation that 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' never rang truer. A hugely unpopular Labour leader, who acts against the national interest at any given opportunity, was suddenly asking the country to pull together because his party risks coming a humiliating third, behind Reform UK, in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday. Don't get me wrong. I welcome any rise in funding for our beleaguered armed forces, but the PM's promise to make the UK 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' sounded absurd. Not least because he called committing to spending 3 per cent of GDP an 'ambition' when highly-respected generals (and now Nato) say 3.5 per cent on defence is the bare minimum. The damage has already been done as a result of years of underinvestment, lack of purpose, partly through constant change of leadership in all three services, lack of political will and an increasing number of civil servants without any military experience who hold down jobsworth appointments resisting change and threats to their position. But it wasn't just the lack of a firm financial commitment that felt evasive. Starmer avoided any mention of the clear and present danger, which is by far the biggest threat to our national security. There are currently more illegal male migrants of fighting age in the UK than there are soldiers. The British Army, once among the world's best, is now 71,000-weak and can no longer put an armoured division in the field, yet the state somehow finds a stupefying £8 million a day to place 'asylum seekers' in pleasant hotels beyond the means of any squaddie. The 1,200 invaders who came ashore on just one day last weekend are roughly the equivalent of two infantry battalions. One estimate has numbers reaching 50,000 by the end of the year, although if we have a good summer, it could be much worse. It's frightening. To add to the jeopardy, in 2020, MI5 said that nine-tenths of the 43,000 suspects on its terror watchlist were jihadists. More potential terrorists from Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Africa are ferried ashore every hour by the RNLI and Border Force; they are so busy transporting unwanted arrivals that last week they asked trawlers for help. (When Keir Starmer promised to 'stop the boats', little did we realise the boats he planned to stop were British fishing boats! The PM sold our fishermen out to the French as an incentive to prevent migrant dinghies setting sail. Curiously, for our 500 million quid, the numbers being 'prevented' are going down not up. Tant pis, Monsieur Keir!) If you or I were the prime minister or home secretary, the numbers above would be giving us sleepless nights. Who knows, maybe Keir Starmer in the wee small hours frets a little that the multicultural experiment is fast approaching breaking point and no amount of jailing 'far-Right thugs' like Lucy Connolly or clamping down on free speech is going to keep a lid on civil unrest. I doubt it somehow. It is an article of faith for the Left that Western countries have no moral right to control their borders and keep out unfortunate people from supposedly exploited places. In 1988, Starmer even said that 'a racist undercurrent… permeates all immigration law'. Nowadays, living in fear of Farage's turquoise tsunami, the hypocrite tweets: 'You have every right to be angry about small boat crossings. I'm angry too.' Don't believe him. Sir Keir is a member of that human rights legal elite who have set themselves up as defenders of the international 'rules-based order', rejoicing in their principled stand against their less enlightened and bigoted countrymen. (That's us, folks.) Irreversible change to the population and culture of our country is not an accidental by-product of their love for open borders; they won't rest until every last vestige of despised Britishness and patriotic feeling is erased. No one better personifies that sanctimonious, canting breed than Sir Keir's old mucker Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer. Last week, Lord Hermer caused uproar when he said that politicians threatening to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were basically Nazis 'echoing 1930s Germany'. It is that very same wretched ECHR which all the human rights zealots love to exploit. Immigration judges regularly place some Islamist maniac's right to a family life above the right of British people not to be blown up, or raped, successfully blocking the deportation of thousands of dangerous foreign criminals. Imagine hating your country so much that you dedicate your life to representing those who hate it even more. Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, five brutes linked to al-Qaeda – all were represented by Lord Hermer. So I was disgusted, but not surprised, when The Telegraph disclosed on Sunday that Lord Hermer personally signed off on the prosecution of Lucy Connolly for a single, deeply unpleasant tweet. At the time of the fast-tracked show trials around the Southport riots, the Attorney General warned: 'You cannot hide behind your keyboards – you will face the full force of the law.' (Looks like he and the PM both approved the draconian crackdown on free speech to cover up the cracks in their multicultural project.) The Telegraph also discovered that Hermer's office had declined to review 'unduly lenient' sentences handed to a convicted rapist, a paedophile and a terrorist fundraiser – all of them received shorter terms than Lucy. What a sick, ideologically-warped society it is where a convicted rapist is sentenced to 28 months and a devoted mum and childminder who typed one bad thing (swiftly corrected) is sent down for 31 months. Thank goodness for Robert Jenrick, who perfectly summed up the grotesque two-tier justice meted out to Lucy in an excoriating question in the Commons, and for Baroness Kate Hoey, who demanded compassion for Lucy in the Lords. In Scotland, the Prime Minister asked the country to 'work together' to confront the threat from Russia. I don't know about you but, right now, I'm less worried about Vladimir Putin than Richard Hermer. Even if the Royal Navy and the Army get the funds they need and deserve, there is no way the current Attorney General will permit our forces to repel or repatriate the thousands of undocumented males who present such a danger to the UK (particularly to women and girls). Unless we leave the ECHR, the hands of our soldiers and sailors are forever tied. Imagine trying to explain that mortifying impotence to those who died protecting this island from actual Nazis. Confronting the enemy within is every bit as important as bolstering our defences to engage the enemy abroad. Make no mistake: uncontrolled migration is by far the biggest threat. Starmer, Hermer and their ilk are not to be trusted with our nation's security; they owe their loyalty to international human rights law. Not to the men, women and children of Britain. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
