Why Trump's decision not to bend the knee to Putin's demand for the entire Donbas is critical
For Donald Trump's blowhard critics, even trying to seek an end to the bloody war is a new low, but that does not do the significance of Monday's meeting justice.
4
4
4
4
The President pledged to continue to underwrite the safety of Ukraine with American might, in a huge U-turn on his campaign vows to withdraw from the world stage.
Large swathes of his MAGA base are going to hate that, but as British Ambassador Peter Mandelson said last night, Trump is a 'President with an appetite for risk that is enviable'.
On territory — Ukraine is going to lose parts of the Donbas. Let's not sugarcoat it.
For all the talk about 'not redrawing borders by force', that's exactly what is going to happen.
Russia keeps 70 per cent of a region it's already flattened.
But — and this is critical — Trump did not bend the knee to Moscow's Mad Vlad's demand for the entire Donbas.
He stated publicly negotiations must mirror current front lines. That matters.
This isn't over. Not by a long shot.
But here's the bottom line: if this ends with US planes patrolling the skies over Europe and Russia is forced to scale back its ambitions, that is not a win for Putin.
And for Ukraine — beaten, bloodied, but still standing — it could be a far better deal than the disaster many feared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Menendez brothers face parole hearings after decades in prison for parents' 1989 murders
The Menendez brothers will make their cases for parole starting Thursday, marking the closest they've been to winning freedom from prison since their convictions almost 30 years ago for murdering their parents. Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison for fatally shooting their father, Jose Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989. While defense attorneys argued the brothers acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, prosecutors said the brothers sought a multimillion-dollar inheritance. They became eligible for parole after a Los Angeles judge in May reduced their sentences from life in prison without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible under California law because they were under the ages of 26 when they committed their crimes. But even if the board grants their parole, it could be months before the brothers walk free — if at all. A panel of parole hearing officers will evaluate the brothers individually. Erik Menendez will have his hearing Thursday morning, followed by Lyle Menendez on Friday. They will appear over videoconference from prison in San Diego. The board will assess whether the brothers pose an 'unreasonable risk of danger to society' if released, considering factors such as criminal history, motivation for the crime, signs of remorse, behavior while in prison and plans for the future, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. If the board grants each brother's parole, the chief legal counsel has 120 days to review the case. Then Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to affirm or deny the parole. Newsom had previously ordered the state parole board to conduct a risk assessment of the brothers in response to a clemency request. He hasn't said if he's likely to support parole, but he has denied recommendations in high-profile cases in the past — most notably for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Erik and Lyle Menendez have the support of their relatives, who are expected to deliver statements at their hearings. 'For more than 35 years, they have shown sustained growth,' their family said in a statement. 'They've taken full accountability. They express sincere remorse to our family to this day and have built a meaningful life defined by purpose and service.' The case has captured the attention of true crime enthusiasts for decades and spawned documentaries, television specials and dramatizations. The Netflix drama ' Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story " and a documentary released in 2024 have been credited for bringing new attention to the brothers. A greater recognition of the brothers as victims of sexual abuse has also helped amass a legion of supporters who seek their release. Some have flown to Los Angeles to hold rallies and attend court hearings. The previous LA County district attorney first opened the door to possible freedom for the brothers last fall by asking a judge to reduce their sentences. The judge's decision to ultimately resentence the brothers followed months of pushback from current prosecutors. LA County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said ahead of the parole hearings that he opposes parole for the brothers because they have 'not demonstrated full insight into their crimes," comparing them to Sirhan. Newsom denied him parole in January 2022 because of his 'deficient insight." Insight means taking full responsibility for a crime and understanding the factors that led you to commit the crime, such as anger, inability to handle stress, and substance abuse, said Michael Beckman, a lawyer specialized in parole hearings. Erik and Lyle's college degrees, participation in volunteer programs and support groups, and the fact that Lyle has not been in a single fight in prison are all positive factors for their release, he said. But recent rules violations could have major consequences for the brothers. In May, Hochman revealed details from a confidential risk assessment report that said Lyle was cited for having a cellphone several times in 2024, and Erik was found with a cellphone this January. 'The board is really big on the philosophy that if you can't follow the rules in prison, you can't follow the rules in free society,' Beckman said. 'Add to that that cellphones are one of the three big bad rules violations along with violence and substance abuse.' Ultimately, Beckman noted that parole decisions come down to individual commissioners, who might weigh the brothers' cases based on factors like their celebrity status or family members' support. The state corrections department has selected one media representative to view the proceedings virtually and share notes with the rest of the press at set intervals.
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European leaders scramble to shield Ukraine in high-stakes Trump talks – but did they?
It was dubbed the 'Great European Charm Offensive'. Hours before Volodymyr Zelenskyy headed to Washington for a Monday meeting with Donald Trump, announcements came pouring in from across Europe, making it clear that the president of Ukraine would not be going alone. Instead, seven European heavyweights – a 'dream team' of leaders representing Europe's economic and military heft and who had a proven rapport with the US president – hastily cleared their schedules to join Zelenskyy in Washington. The result was a meeting set to become among the 'oddest in modern diplomacy', Simon McDonald, former permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote in the Guardian. Their scramble hinted at just how much was at stake. Days earlier, Trump had met with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, rolling out the red carpet for a man wanted by the international criminal court for war crimes. The US president had gone into the summit insisting he wanted 'some form of a ceasefire'; he came out of it backing pro-Russian positions. As Trump publicly dropped plans for an immediate ceasefire and insisted it was now up to Zelenskyy to 'get it done,' the mood in Moscow was jubilant. At its most simple, the united European front was aimed at avoiding a repeat of Trump's February ambush of Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. But the 'rare and sweeping show of diplomatic force' was also about protecting Ukraine and Europe from any widening aggression from Moscow, said Luke Harding, the Guardian's senior international correspondent, as the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Finland landed in Washington alongside their EU and Nato counterparts. The talks offered up a showcase of the lessons learned during Trump's erratic time in power. Flattery flowed fast and freely, with European leaders showering compliments on Trump and gently papering over potential sticking points as much as possible. Six months after Zelenskyy's extraordinary dressing down in the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president peppered his opening remarks with eight thank you's, most of them directed at Trump, as he sported what one European diplomat described as 'almost a suit' in a style that Reuters coined as 'combat formal'. Matthias Matthijs, a senior fellow for Europe at the Council of Foreign Relations, likened it to the meandering trajectory that EU trade relations have taken under Trump: 'There are always high expectations, and then the Europeans' expectations are dashed by the Americans – usually by Trump's social media posts or some interview he gives,' he said following Monday's meeting. 'Then when they meet again, having avoided the worst outcomes, they come to some sort of agreement. It's better than they feared, but it's always worse than the status quo. But as the saying goes, the Europeans live to fight another day.' Fabrizio Tassinari pointed to the broader picture of how Trump had inadvertently become 'the greatest unifier of Europe since the end of the cold war'. Writing in the Guardian, the executive director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, added: 'For those like myself who have followed the chimera that is European foreign and security policy for years, it was almost an epiphany to witness these seven leaders, each speaking for two minutes, repeating the exact same message.' Days after the unprecedented flurry of diplomacy, questions continue to swirl over what – if anything – might come out of it. On Monday, Trump and several European leaders, said Putin had agreed to face-to-face talks with Zelenskyy in the coming weeks. Moscow, however, has yet to confirm that any such meeting – which would be the first since Russia launched its full invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago – is being planned, with a Kremlin aide saying only that Putin and Trump discussed the idea of 'raising the level of representatives' in the Ukraine talks. Trump had also indicated a willingness to be part of security guarantees for Kyiv if there was a deal to end fighting. But the exact nature of those guarantees remains to be seen, with Trump later ruling out the possibility of the US putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and instead floating that Washington could provide air support. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Concerns also continue to linger over what exactly Trump proposed in Alaska and what, if anything, Putin agreed to during the near three-hour meeting. As Pjotr Sauer, a Guardian Russian affairs reporter, noted, some fear Trump may have overstated the outcome and misjudged Moscow's willingness to compromise. Others, such as Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of charity Hope for Ukraine, suggested Trump is deliberately setting out an exit path for Washington by entertaining Putin's demands that Ukraine withdraws from Donetsk and Luhansk, even as Zelenskyy sets a firm red line against ceding land beyond the present occupation or legitimising Moscow's control. Putin had offered a 'peace deal' that Ukraine would be forced to reject, knowing Trump would then blame Zelenskyy and end US support for Kyiv, he told the Guardian on Monday. After a week dominated by talks and punctuated by Russian bombs continuing to rain down on Ukraine, Boyechko hoped that the jarring contrast would force European leaders to realise that it would take more than just charm offensives to protect the region. 'Ukraine and its European allies must recognise the urgent need to develop their own strategy to defend Ukraine and secure peace in Europe – because it is increasingly likely that Trump will walk away from the peace negotiations.' This is an edited version of the This is Europe newsletter. If you want to read the complete version every Wednesday, please sign up here.
Sky News
18 minutes ago
- Sky News
How Trump's Republicans are literally redrawing maps to help stay in power
Legislators in Texas have approved new congressional maps designed to boost Donald Trump's Republicans at next year's midterm elections. Known as redistricting, the state's re-drawn map would shift conservative voters into districts currently held by Democrats, and combine other districts with a Democratic majority into one. The process is not new, and is completely legal - unless it is ruled to be racially motivated - but typically occurs every 10 years after the US Census to account for population changes. The push to redistrict early came from Mr Trump himself, who wants to bolster his chances of preserving the slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives at next year's crucial midterms. But by trying to re-draw the maps in the red state of Texas, Democrats have lined up their own counter redistricting effort in the blue state of California. If more states decide to re-consider their maps, it has the potential to largely determine the outcome of the 2026 midterms, before a single vote is cast. What's happening in Texas? Mr Trump first said he wanted politicians in Texas to redraw the state's congressional district in July. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, followed up on the president's demands, calling for a special session to vote on new maps. "Please pass this map ASAP," Mr Trump urged on his Truth Social platform on Monday. "Thank you, Texas!" In an effort to try to make passing the vote as difficult as possible, Democrats fled the state for two weeks. Per parliamentary rules, if enough Democrats refuse to take part in the special session, the Texas House can't meet. On their return, each Democratic politician was assigned a police escort to ensure they attended the session. Nicole Collier, who refused the police escort, stayed in the House for two nights, and was pictured with an eye mask and blanket trying to sleep at her desk. Once the debate started, the doors to the chamber were locked and all members wanting to leave had to get a permission slip to do so. After nearly eight hours, the legislation to formally change the map was passed 88-52 on Wednesday. It now needs to be approved by the Texas Senate, where Republicans hold a majority, and then signed off by Mr Abbott, who has already committed to doing just that. Why re-draw maps? Republicans in Texas have openly said the rally to re-draw congressional maps is in the party's interest. Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, told the House: "The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance." He said the dispute is nothing more than a partisan fight, and made reference to the US Supreme Court having previously allowed politicians to redraw districts for partisan purposes. Democrats hit back, arguing the disagreement was about more than partisanship. "In a democracy, people choose their representatives," representative Chris Turner said. "This bill flips that on its head and lets politicians in Washington, DC, choose their voters." Another Democrat, John H Bucy, blamed the president, saying: "This is Donald Trump's map. "It clearly and deliberately manufactures five more Republican seats in Congress because Trump himself knows that the voters are rejecting his agenda." How have Democrats responded? The move by Republicans has triggered a tit-for-tat move by the Democrats, who are due to meet in California on Thursday to revise the state's maps in order to gain five more seats. To enact the same powers in California will prove harder, as state laws require an independent commission to take responsibility for redistricting - meaning it would need to be approved by voters in a special election. In other blue states, rules are even tighter. For example, in New York, they cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. Despite the obstacles, California governor Gavin Newsom confirmed a redistricting election will take place in the state on 4 November, in order to "fight fire with fire". His plan has gained support from former president Barack Obama, who said it was necessary to "stave off" the Republicans' move in Texas. Could this affect the midterms? The midterms in November next year will likely be on a knife edge. Whatever the outcome, it could shape the remainder of Mr Trump's second term in office. A Democrat majority would make it tougher for him to pass laws. Currently, Republicans control the House of Representatives in Washington, 219-212 (excluding four open vacancies). A party needs 218 seats for a majority. In the Senate, the Republicans hold a similarly slim majority of 53 to 45. However, the incumbent president's party typically loses seats in the midterms. In the 2018 midterms, during Mr Trump's first tenure as president, the Democrats took control of the House. Likewise, in 2022, when Joe Biden was president, the House swung back to the Republicans. It's important to note that 27 House seats will remain in states that are unlikely to redraw their maps, according to The New York Times. In a bid to avoid a repeat of history, Mr Trump is pushing for redistricting in states beyond Texas. Top Republicans in states like Indiana, Missouri, and Florida continue to talk about tweaking their maps to create more Republican-controlled congressional seats. While Ohio has to legally redraw, the timing of which could benefit the Republicans, and, by extension, Mr Trump.
