Russia hopes for improving ties with US
Ryabkov said that the Alaska summit could also help advance the resolution of specific issues, including the resumption of direct passenger flights between the two countries.
"We hope that the forthcoming high-level meeting will give an impulse to the normalization of bilateral relations, which will allow us to move forward on such issues as restoring air links," Ryabkov said, the Russian daily Izvestia reported on Tuesday.
Trump said on Monday that his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday would be a "feel-out meeting."
Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov called the choice of venue "logical," noting that the region is where the economic interests of both countries intersect.
UNI XC GNK
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
After Muslim World, Netanyahu Gets Snubbed By Tiny Nation On Bid To KICK OUT Palestinians From Gaza
BIG! Putin To Meet Zelensky? Trump Vows 3-Way Meeting Without Asking After Warning On 'Russia Bluff' U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that he will arrange a rare three-way meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky. The announcement follows a private virtual call between Trump, Zelensky, and European leaders, during which Zelensky reportedly said Putin is 'bluffing." The proposed meeting could mark a dramatic turning point in the ongoing conflict, with Trump positioning himself as a direct mediator between Moscow and Kyiv. This high-stakes diplomatic gamble comes at a critical moment, with the world watching to see if the confrontation will de-escalate—or explode. Watch. 83 views | 55 minutes ago
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ukraine's Alaska agenda: Kiev wants a lasting ceasefire, NATO-backed security, reparations, and sustained sanctions on Russia
As US President Donald Trump prepares to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, August 15, Ukraine hopes for an agreement that will meet its demands of stopping the war and preventing future aggression. But since Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will not attend this meeting, Kyiv fears being left out of negotiations that could decide its fate. Ukraine and its European allies also fear that Friday's Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could yield a settlement that sacrifices Kyiv's interests for the appearance of peace. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program President Zelensky will hold a pre-summit call with Trump alongside European leaders on Wednesday, August 13, to lay out non-negotiable red lines, including a durable ceasefire, full participation in talks, and compensation for war damage estimated at up to $1 trillion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Safest Cities Where People can Live in Peace Undo Ukraine's core demands ahead of the Alaska talks Zelensky has warned that any decisions made without Ukraine 'are at the same time decisions against peace,' as quoted by Politico. Ukrainian officials say Putin's ultimate goal is not just holding territory but ending Ukraine's independence. These are Kyiv's longstanding demands, which they are eagerly hoping to meet. Live Events A sustainable ceasefire Kyiv insists on a durable ceasefire before discussing any territorial issues, rejecting US suggestions of 'land swaps' involving the Donbas. Zelenskyy says ceding the region would invite future offensives and undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. NATO 's Mark Rutte has floated a possible compromise in which some areas remain under Russian control but are legally recognized as Ukrainian. 'When it comes to this whole issue of territory, when it comes to acknowledging, for example, maybe in a future deal that Russia is controlling de facto, factually some of the territory of Ukraine, it has to be effectual recognition, and not a political de jure recognition,' he told ABC. Russia must pay for the damage Ukraine insists that Moscow must bear the financial burden for the destruction it has inflicted (by starting a war), a toll estimated between $500 billion and $1 trillion in damages to infrastructure, homes, and livelihoods. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking at the Ukraine Recovery Conference last month, underlined this demand: 'Russia must pay for the approximately €500 billion in damages caused. Until this happens, Moscow must not be granted access to its frozen assets.' Ukraine points to the fact that close European allies hold significant Russian state assets, with almost €200 billion frozen in Belgium alone, as a major source of leverage. Kyiv believes these funds must remain inaccessible to Moscow until full reparations are made. Binding security guarantees via NATO and the EU President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made clear that only full membership in NATO and the European Union can guarantee Ukraine's long-term security: A Politico article quotes Zewleanskey, 'Will we be in NATO? In the EU? I haven't heard anything — simply not a single proposal that would guarantee that a new war won't start tomorrow. We need security guarantees that will preserve, first of all, our state, a sovereign state, our independence.' However, Ukraine faces pushback: US President Donald Trump has ruled out NATO membership, a stance quietly backed by some European capitals, and Moscow demands a permanent NATO veto for Ukraine. Zelenskyy also criticizes EU member states that are hesitant to admit a large, poor country with a vast agricultural sector. For now, European partners, not the US, are Ukraine's primary source of military assistance. Since the war began, Europe has provided at least €73.9 billion in military aid, compared to €64 billion from the US, according to the Kiel Institute. Return of abducted children and prisoners of war Ukraine demands the immediate return of nearly 20,000 children, who it says were abducted by Russia. Only 1,453 have been returned so far, often through mediation by Qatar and other states. Moscow claims these transfers are evacuations to safety, but refuses to return the children to their families, instead placing them in adoption systems and subjecting them to Russian propaganda. In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin over the unlawful deportation of children from occupied Ukraine to Russia. On prisoners of war, there has been more progress: more than 2,000 POWs have been exchanged under Trump's mediation, but thousands remain in Russian custody without access for international human rights monitors. No lifting of sanctions on Russia Kyiv, backed by European allies, demands that existing primary and secondary sanctions remain in place and even be strengthened. They argue that easing sanctions or resuming trade with Russia would allow Moscow to rebuild its war machine. Economist Timothy Ash estimates the war has already cost Russia about $2 trillion, nearly equivalent to its annual GDP. The risks for Ukraine are clear. As he told Politico, 'Ukraine could survive the war, but not survive the peace,' if a bad deal undermines its security and sovereignty.
United News of India
29 minutes ago
- United News of India
India can construct on tributaries of Indus, Jhelum, Chenab under IWT : Court of Arbitration
New Delhi, Aug 13 (UNI) The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague has, in an Award on Issues of General Interpretation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), said India is permitted by the Treaty to construct on the tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab ('Western Rivers') even though the general rule is that India shall ''let flow'' the waters of the Western Rivers for Pakistan's use. The Court in an Award on August 8, said that even though the ''general rule'' is that India shall 'let flow' the waters of the Western Rivers for Pakistan's use, there are certain specified exceptions to this rule, including in relation to the generation of hydroelectric power. In the Award the Court did not address the application of its findings to the specific circumstances of the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant ('KHEP') or Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant ('RHEP'), two Indian projects presented in Pakistan's Request for Arbitration. ''This arbitration concerns the interpretation and application of the Indus Waters Treaty to certain design elements of the run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India is permitted by the Treaty to construct on the tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab Rivers (the 'Western Rivers'). About the overall Approach to the Interpretation of Article III and Part 3 of Annexure D the general rule is that India shall 'let flow' the waters of the Western Rivers. However, there are certain specified exceptions to this rule, including in relation to the generation of hydroelectric power, the Court said. India's primary objection to the IWT arises out of from concerns about Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism and its implications for India's national security and water resource management. India has linked the issue of water sharing with the broader context of bilateral relations, asserting that "blood and water cannot flow together". India stresses the need to re-negotiate the treaty because of climate change and its impact on water availability. The Treaty, signed in 1960, does not adequately address the challenges posed by climate change, necessitating a renegotiation of its provisions. India argues that the Treaty's restrictions on hydropower projects, particularly on the Western Rivers (Chenab, Jhelum, and Indus), need to be revisited in light of modern dam engineering and the need for increased water storage and management. India has formally notified Pakistan to seek modifications to the IWT, citing the need to address the issues of climate change, security concerns, and disputes over hydropower projects. India's request for modifications in and renegotiation of the Treaty based on Article XII (3) of the IWT, is being resisted by Pakistan, fearing reduction in its water share. India does not accept the court's jurisdiction and insists on using a neutral expert has welcomed the Court's Award and threatened India with serious consequences if the IWT was ''touched''. UNI RB 1542
