Latest news with #EuropeanSecurity
CNA
5 hours ago
- Politics
- CNA
Commentary: The dangers of US-Russia dealmaking without Ukraine at the table
WELLINGTON: Uncertainty, and no little trepidation, surrounds the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting on Aug 15 in Alaska. While Trump has (for now) ruled out attendance at the meeting by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, it's still not clear what is on the negotiating table. There is a lot at stake – most immediately for Ukraine but also for broader European security – and the auguries aren't encouraging. Trump says his objective is to end the fighting, and evidently sees his face-to-face meeting with Putin on Friday as key to this. While talk of possible 'land-swaps' and recovering 'prime oceanfront land' for Ukraine suggests the US President is in deal-making mode, Trump has also described Friday's encounter with Putin as just a 'feel-out' meeting, suggesting more a preliminary encounter. Trump's sudden and unexpected decision late last week to meet with Putin – on the very day his self-imposed deadline to Putin to agree to a ceasefire or face more sanctions was due to expire – was at once characteristic of his mercurial operating style, but also his conviction that only the two leaders themselves could resolve the matter. KYIV AND EUROPE FACE A DILEMMA For its part, Europe, caught off balance by the announcement of the summit, has been scrambling, fearful of being presented with a done deal. European leaders have reiterated their strong support for Ukraine, insisting that Kyiv must be involved in any negotiations concerning Ukraine's security. Together with Zelenskyy, they plan to hold a 'virtual' meeting with Trump on Wednesday this week, Aug 13, seeking to shape the outcomes of the summit. Zelenskyy has declared that any agreement reached at the summit without input from Kyiv would amount to 'dead decisions'. Kyiv sees no evidence on the battlefield that Russia is ready to end the fighting – indeed warning that any concessions to Putin would only encourage Russia to continue the war. Yet Kyiv (and its European backers) face a dilemma: While wary of being presented with an unpalatable deal, they don't want to risk angering Washington by appearing to be the obstacle to a negotiated agreement. For Putin, Washington's agreement to hold the summit is itself a gift – an unrequited concession. Such meetings, echoing past US-Soviet high-level encounters, give the Russian leader the status and respect as an equal partner he craves, and accords with Putin's view of how great powers should dispose of world affairs between themselves, deciding spheres of influence. Moreover, Washington's comments to media, suggesting possible 'territorial swaps' before the summit has even occurred, and absent any credible signs of Russia's willingness to stop the fighting, fuels unfortunate speculation that the talks will be held on Moscow's terms. To be sure, Kyiv may indeed have to accept Russian de facto control of parts of eastern Ukraine as part of any eventual settlement to end the fighting. But to concede this likelihood up front is a puzzling negotiating tactic. It will alarm those who suspect that Ukraine, and Washington's European allies, will be presented with a fait accompli, and fuel speculation that the administration's main objective is to reach a quick deal, and promote normalisation of relations with Russia. THE BEST OUTCOME More details may emerge over coming days that provide greater reassurance about how the United States will be approaching Friday's summit. But perhaps the best outcome that can realistically be expected is for a ceasefire along the current line of contact to end the fighting, at least for now. Such a ceasefire would certainly offer a welcome respite for Ukraine from the constant barrage of damaging missile and drone attacks on its troops, its civilian population and infrastructure. But the hard work of converting any ceasefire into some kind of longer-term settlement would remain. And there should be no illusions about how challenging this will prove. Bear in mind that Russia too would benefit from a ceasefire, allowing it to reconstitute its forces and relieve pressure on its overheating economy – especially if it were accompanied by a relaxation of Western sanctions. And given the Kremlin's near-complete control of the information space within Russia, underpinned by its formidable internal security apparatus, Moscow can spin any outcome to the conflict in Ukraine as a victory for Russia. Moreover, there are no grounds to suppose that Putin has resiled from his core objective of bringing Ukraine to heel, installing a more pliable government in Kyiv and bringing Ukraine back firmly within Russia's sphere of influence. This was underscored in May during Russia's latest (abortive) talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, where Moscow reiterated its maximalist demands: full control of the four territories it has annexed in eastern Ukraine (plus Crimea), Ukrainian neutrality and repudiation of NATO membership aspirations, demilitarisation and 'denazification'. More broadly, Russia remains intent on revising the post-Cold War European security framework as set out in Moscow's draft treaties in December 2021 – including the drawdown of forward-deployed NATO forces in its eastern member states. At best, then, the upcoming summit in Alaska might offer an end to the fighting in Ukraine – at least for now. But this will only be the start of a long and arduous process, the outcome of which will remain crucial, not only for the future of Ukraine but also for wider European and global security. Ian Hill is Adjunct Professor in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University and Senior Fellow in the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. This commentary first appeared
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump cannot be allowed to betray Ukraine in his desperation for a deal
SIR – The naivety of President Trump's approach to Ukraine is both incomprehensible and a threat to European security. He is surely bound by the terms of the Budapest Memorandum of 1995, signed by Bill Clinton, to respect the sovereignty and 'existing borders' of Ukraine as they were then. His apparent determination to do a grubby deal, under which Ukraine would cede land brutally seized by the Russian aggressor, would be an abject betrayal of Ukraine and an incentive to President Putin to pursue his declared goal of rebuilding the former Soviet Union, threatening the hard-won independence of the Baltic and other Soviet vassal states. Russia's thugs must be removed from every inch of stolen land. Sir Gerald Howarth Former minister for international security strategy Chelsworth, Suffolk SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, August 9) is so right about Ukraine. The talks in Alaska should not be about appeasing an invader, divvying up the mineral rights of a country not in the room, or driven by Donald Trump's desperation to get a deal. Nor should it be about who holds the best cards. It is about the future of a free, independent and sovereign Ukraine. The only individual who can negotiate and sign off an acceptable peace deal is Volodymyr Zelensky. He needs to have Europe's full support. David Kenny Tredunnock, Monmouthshire SIR – Charles Moore is correct – Ukraine does have the strength and resolve to stand up to Russia, but the fact is that if a superpower decides to invade an independent neighbouring country, it will always have the strength to prolong the fighting – no matter how difficult it becomes. The only way Russia can be made to withdraw is for likeminded nations of the West to combine and impose crippling sanctions on Russia that will seriously undermine its economy. Mr Trump must not be allowed to award Vladimir Putin land that is not his. Brian Cole Robertsbridge, East Sussex SIR – Does the real-estate entrepreneur Donald Trump really expect Ukraine to hand its land over to Russia just to please him and advance his interests? I wonder whether he is also considering trading Alaska, so it can be reunited with Russia and help Vladimir Putin to re-establish a Greater Russia – something he aspires to. Graham Lilley Edge, Gloucestershire SIR – Is America (a third party) really going to offer parts of Ukraine to Russia, without even seeking the views of the Ukrainian president or its people? This is like France offering Texas to Mexico. Huw Wynne-Griffith London W8
CBS News
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Transcript: Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Aug. 10, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 10, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning, and welcome to "Face The Nation." President Trump has decided to bring Vladimir Putin in from the cold, ending isolation of the Russian leader and accused war criminal. His hope is to persuade Putin to finally do the thing he's refused: end Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The two leaders will meet in Alaska, another part of the former Russian Empire. With the future of European security on the line, Western leaders rushed to get their word in, sending top advisers to meet with Vice President Vance in the United Kingdom, and they are planning to convene top diplomats tomorrow. In the meantime, President Trump is sending his envoy, Keith Kellogg, to Ukraine, as President Zelenskyy says his country will not simply "gift" territory to Russia. We begin this morning with Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova. Good to have you back here, Ambassador. AMB. MARKAROVA: Good morning America, and thank you for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, President Zelenskyy has made clear he's not just going to give away land to Russia. Kyiv has to be part of the negotiations, and he has said a ceasefire needs to happen first. Do you expect a ceasefire this week? AMB. MARKAROVA: Well, that's something that all Ukraine prays for President Trump to be effective and to have great results. And as you know, since the discussions here with President Trump, Ukraine agreed to full ceasefire, to partial ceasefires, to any type of ceasefires. Because again, let's remind everyone, Ukraine did not start this war. Putin started this war in 2014, he continued with full fledged invasion in 2022, and it's Ukrainian citizens, Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian defenders on the front lines, Ukrainian children who suffer every day. So yes, we want Putin to stop, and we really are hopeful that this push from President Trump, and the sanction packages which are on the table, and secondary sanctions which are already implemented against those who help Russia, will convince President Putin that this is time for him to finally stop his aggression. MARGARET BRENNAN: But President Trump did blow past that deadline to put more sanctions on Russia and instead offered this meeting. We know that the White House says it's a one-on-one with Vladimir Putin at Putin's request, but that the president's open to some sort of trilateral meeting with President Zelenskyy. Is there anything being planned to bring Ukraine to the table? AMB. MARKAROVA: Well, Margaret, I can say sometimes diplomacy requires different formats, different meetings, and again, we appreciate President Trump, not only pushing for the end of this war, but as you saw, Vice President Vance has been in Europe, negotiating, discussing, having this very constructive meetings with our delegation, but also European leaders. Now, with regard to President Zelenskyy, he has been, since day one of this horrible aggression, committed to peace, and we have shown that he is ready to be anywhere to- to advance the agenda of peace. So if needed, President Zelenskyy, of course, will be present at the meetings. We have been very open about it, but let's see how this will go. MARGARET BRENNAN: But he's not planning to be in Alaska on Friday? AMB. MARKAROVA: If he will be planning to do that, we'll be there, but-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. But you're waiting for that. We do know that Envoy Keith Kellogg is being sent to Kyiv to speak with the Ukrainian government. So is- is- what is his role here? Is he going to be sort of conveying messages back and forth? What is it that needs to be negotiated in Kyiv right now? AMB. MARKAROVA: Well, Special Envoy Kellogg has been a very important part of U.S. team that works with us on a regular basis. Because, again, I mean, we're all focused on the upcoming summit, but there is so much more that we do together. The investment deal that, not only we signed, but we are actually developing that strategic opportunity to cooperate between our countries on economic front, the weapons provision from the United States, but also buying American weapons and producing together, you know, big drone deal and other deals that our presidents discussed together. So there is a lot on our bilateral U.S.-Ukraine agenda, which, of course, all is at this moment, related to horrible war. But not only. So, we are always glad to see Keith Kellogg in- in Kyiv. MARGARET BRENNAN: But what we know from our reporting is that Envoy Witkoff, Steve Wirkoff, went to Moscow. He was described- described to him was a Russian idea for some kind of settlement of the war, and it included carving up parts of Ukraine. Then on Friday, President Trump spoke publicly about what had happened, and he said, President Zelenskyy has to get everything he needs ready because, quote, "he's going to have to get ready to sign something, and I think he's working hard to get that done." What is he going to sign? What has been proposed? AMB. MARKAROVA: Special Envoy Witkoff is a special envoy on Russia, and he works with- with that counterpart, and we work with the Vice President, with Secretary Rubio, with Special Envoy Kellogg, and with all teams, Secretary Bessent and others on everything on our bilateral agenda. Now, President Zelenskyy has been very clear: Ukraine is committed to peace. We will be very constructive in all of our discussions. At the same time, we have to, again, acknowledge the facts. You know, it's Russia that attacked us. It's Russia that illegally occupied Crimea and other territories since 2022. We do have the main Bible of the country, the constitution of Ukraine, which clearly lists in Article 133 that Ukraine comprises of and- and says what is it comprised of. Now we all understand the reality on the ground, and we are ready to discuss, you know, how to end this war. And that's why ceasefire, as- as- as- as a- as a step, has always been so important to stop the killing, something that President Trump has put on the table as early as February. So let's stop the- the killings, and let's get to diplomacy. That's something Ukraine always was ready to do. MARGARET BRENNAN: You're pointing to your constitution because your point is, the president can't just give away land. It has to actually go and be considered because of how your constitution-- AMB. MARKAROVA: President of any country is a guarantor of the constitution. MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin's constitution, though, now has these areas he's annexed from your country in his constitution. AMB. MARKAROVA: Yes. Everyone knows. And 142 countries at the UN clearly voted that that was illegal, unprovoked move on his part, and the court, as early as March 2022, international court, has actually told Russia to stop the so-called special military operation and get out from Ukrainian territory. MARGARET BRENNAN: Russia holds about 22% of Ukrainian territory, I believe, at this point. Is your concern that at this negotiating table in Alaska, Vladimir Putin is going to try to talk his way into further land seizures? AMB. MARKAROVA: Well, President Putin lied in 2022 that he was not going to attack Ukraine. Then he lied a number of times since 2022 that it wasn't him who bombed Mariupol maternity hospital, or it wasn't him who abducts and kills, kidnaps, Ukrainian children and everything else. Now I'm positive that President Trump and everyone here in the United States, and we're so grateful to American people for all the support. They understand that the implications of how this war will end is so much bigger than just about Ukraine. It is existential for us. But the concept of buffer zones, or whatever, you know, the- this outdated, old concepts from the previous century, they do not work anymore. The front line in east and south of Ukraine is the front line between evil and good. And the question is, when that front line is going to be. Is it going to be on our territory? Is it going to be on our borders? Or is it going to be in Europe and everywhere, where it will affect Europe, U.S., and other. So, you know, we just have to- it's not just about land. It's about the principles and values. And judging by the recent decisions, including the sanctions on India for supporting Russia war machine, including on those sanctions that have been prepared, I am confident that U.S. will be coming from the position of strength, you know, peace through strength, and that will allow us, together, to find a solution to stop Russia's aggression. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Markarova, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back.
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
How ‘the triangle' is plotting the future of European defence
The blueprint for the future of European defence is buried in Britain's new 'friendship treaty' with Germany. It's hidden by the warm talk of school exchanges, shared values, trade and direct rail links, but look closely enough and you can see that steel foundations are being laid. It's a future that will be dominated by the 'triangle' of London, Paris, and Berlin – a partnership of Europe's two nuclear powers with its richest nation, which has plans to build its strongest army. The clues are in the treaty, signed on Thursday in London by Sir Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor. It declares that 'the parties shall seek to intensify the trilateral cooperation with the French Republic' to 'jointly address international challenges'. The US, the guarantor of European security since the Second World War, will be increasingly distant and turn more and more to Asia and the Pacific. Ukraine, meanwhile, will be armed by a combination of European weapons and US arms, paid for by Europe, to keep the Russians at bay. Sir Keir signed defence pacts with the EU in May, and with France last week. Mr Merz said it was 'no coincidence' that he came to Britain a week later. Russia aggression in Ukraine is an undeniable catalyst for the security agreements. The new pact speaks of 'the Russian Federation's brutal war of aggression on the European continent as the most significant and direct threat to their security'. But the election of Donald Trump was every bit as influential. Diplomats now play down talk of the US ditching Nato or Mr Trump's undermining of article five of the alliance, which states that an attack on one ally is one on all. Mr Trump himself is far more conciliatory since securing promises from Europe to hit a 5 per cent of GDP defence spending target. Mr Merz and Sir Keir were at pains to say that Europe and the US were pulling in the same direction, but there is a reason why the deals with France and Britain contain pledges that an attack on one ally is an attack on both. If there is no need for a Nato safety net, why replicate article five? The German treaty has several references to nuclear threats. Mr Merz called for the protection of Trident and the French deterrent after his election victory in February, saying Nato could be dead by June because of the US president. There is symbolic value in such language in showing a united front against Putin. But it's clear that Berlin, London and Paris don't want to be caught short by Washington again. Officials have called the group 'the triangle'. This historic defence pact is less about the present than the future. The pacts with Germany, France and the EU unlock cooperation in the sensitive areas of defence manufacturing and research. There are also measures to harmonise export laws to make it easier to trade arms. 'The parties shall seek to enhance industrial and capability cooperation through a long-term joint approach endeavouring to deliver effective military capabilities efficiently, minimising national constraints, and strengthening industrial competitiveness,' the treaty reads. Such cooperation takes time to get up and running, but Europe is beginning to show it is serious about overhauling its defence industry. Perhaps that's why Mr Trump has agreed to send US arms, paid for by Europe, to Ukraine. With competition for US arms sales on the horizon, perhaps the president wanted to get some deals over the line now.
Russia Today
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
EU must rethink Russia policy
The EU should engage in talks with Russia on European security and restoring business ties once the Ukraine conflict ends, Czech President Petr Pavel has said. The comments mark a notable shift from his previously hardline stance toward Moscow. Pavel has been a harsh critic of Russia during the Ukraine conflict and a strong advocate of more Western military aid to Kiev. He also spearheaded a plan to supply Ukraine with 1.8 million artillery shells, although the scheme has faced funding issues. Moscow has repeatedly condemned Western arms deliveries, warning they only prolong the conflict. Speaking to BBC News Ukraine on Tuesday, Pavel said the EU should rethink its approach to Russia and try to find a 'compromise' with Moscow. 'It is very difficult to agree to that. But we also live in reality. What alternatives do we have, both us and Ukraine? To fight Russia endlessly? Such an approach will probably lead to great human losses for all of us and serious damage to our economies,' he argued. If a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev is reached, Western Europe 'will be able to start rebuilding Ukraine and, perhaps, depending on how Russia reacts to this, to bring Russia back to the negotiating table on security in Europe, to discuss cooperation and business that we had before,' Pavel said. 'A significant part of our population would prefer good relations with Russia. These people do not want to submit to its interests, but believe that negotiations are always better than conflict,' he added. The Czech president, who previously served as chairman of NATO's Military Committee, said Kiev must seek peace with Moscow because even 'with all the support of the West' it would be unable to recapture territory lost to Russia 'in a short time without significant human casualties.' However, he insisted that the EU would never legally recognize regions which have voted to join Russia from Ukraine. In an interview with Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that Moscow's key demand in settling the Ukraine conflict is international recognition of Crimea, as well as the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions as part of Russia. Crimea joined Russia after a 2014 referendum, with similar votes held in the other four regions in 2022. Lavrov also criticized what he described as the EU's transformation into a 'military-political bloc' and 'an appendix to NATO,' warning that this 'dangerous trend… could have far-reaching consequences for all Europeans.'
