Latest news with #peace deal
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Putin rejects request to meet Zelensky
Vladimir Putin has refused to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky unless a peace deal is on the table ready to be finalised. Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman, said that it was unlikely that such a meeting could occur by the end of August, as Ukraine has proposed. He added: 'A summit meeting can and should put an end to the settlement and formalise the modalities and agreements that are to be worked out in the course of expert work. 'It is impossible to do the opposite. Is it possible to complete such a complex process in 30 days? Obviously, it is unlikely.' The remarks came after Mr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, proposed a four-way summit with Russia, the United States and Turkey to progress Donald Trump's efforts to end the three-year war. Earlier this week, Mr Zelensky said negotiation to bring an end to the conflict 'probably begins with a meeting of leaders. It won't work any other way with them'. It is thought that Putin is holding out on any settlement while his armed forces are on the ascendency on the battlefield in Ukraine. The situation for Kyiv's troops defending the key logistics hub of Pokrovsk, in the eastern Donetsk region, was becoming increasingly perilous, analysts said. Meanwhile, Moscow continues to reject Ukrainian and US proposals of an unconditional, 30-day ceasefire, which could pave the way for more substantial peace talks. Russia has been holding out in three rounds of direct talks with Ukrainian officials with demands Kyiv says are unacceptable, such as withdrawing troops from four regions partially occupied by Moscow. Mr Trump said a meeting between Mr Zelensky and Putin was three months overdue, before boarding a flight to Scotland on Friday. 'It's going to happen. But it should have happened three months ago. It's going to happen,' he said. Mr Trump added that the 100 per cent tariffs on Russia, and its allies purchasing Moscow's fossil fuels, could come sooner than the 50-day deadline set earlier this month. Mr Zelensky is attempting to steel himself for a long war by convincing European allies to help finance increased wages for his soldiers. He is also trying to convince allies to deliver seven Patriot air-defence systems – more than the five already agreed between Germany and the US.
Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Russia rules out Putin-Zelensky meeting until end of peace talks
The Kremlin on Friday ruled out any meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the last stage in signing a peace deal, definitively rebuffing the Ukrainian leader's calls for a meeting and describing the two sides' positions as 'diametrically opposed.' The statement appears to effectively preclude any kind of top-level meeting in the near future and casts doubt on further progress in the peace talks within the 50-day deadline given by President Donald Trump for a peace deal to be reached before the United States imposes new sanctions on Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov indicated that any meeting between the two leaders could only take place after a draft settlement was reached, a direct rejection of Zelensky's call on Thursday for a meeting with Putin to move the stalled peace process forward. In comments to journalists on Thursday, released Friday, Zelensky said negotiating an end to the war 'probably begins with a meeting of leaders. It won't work any other way with them.' 'We need an agenda for such a meeting — a meeting at the level of leaders,' he said. Peskov rejected the proposal on Friday. 'A summit meeting can and should put an end to the settlement and formalize the modalities and agreements that are to be worked out in the course of expert work,' he said. 'It is impossible to do the opposite. Is it possible to complete such a complex process in 30 days? Obviously, it is unlikely.' A key difference in negotiations has been Trump's demand for an immediate ceasefire which Ukraine has accepted and Moscow has rejected. The Ukrainian side, which is under intense Russian pressure on the battlefield, has called for the ceasefire to pave the way for peace talks. Putin remains confident that his forces can advance and eventually force Ukraine's capitulation, and is determined to fight on until Kyiv accepts Moscow's conditions, insisting that talks take place without a ceasefire. Peskov, who has repeatedly ruled out a meeting of leaders before a draft settlement is agreed, said Russia's position on this was well-known. He said the two sides' positions were 'diametrically opposed, and it is unlikely that they can be reconciled overnight. This will require very complex diplomatic work.' On Thursday he showed pessimism about the peace talks, saying that Russia 'did not expect a breakthrough,' which was 'hardly possible.' In June, Putin said that he was willing to meet Zelensky, but only 'if it will be some kind of final stage, so as not to sit there and endlessly divide something, but to put an end to it.' A meeting between Russian and Ukrainian officials on Wednesday lasted just 40 minutes, a sign that the sides remain far apart and have so far failed to agree even on the basic parameters of the talks, let alone haggling in detail about Moscow's conditions to halt its attacks. The main achievement of talks so far has been prisoner exchanges, with agreement on Wednesday for the exchange of 1,200 more prisoners in the near future. So far Russia has stuck to its maximalist demands that would strip Ukraine of its ability to defend itself and keep it out of NATO, as Putin presses ahead with his project to force Kyiv's capitulation and turn Ukraine into a client state like Belarus. Russia is also seeking to add a new layer to the peace negotiations that could possibly bog down talks into multiple complex processes. The head of Russia's delegation at the talks, Vladimir Medinsky, said after Wednesday's meeting that Russia proposed three new working groups on political, military and humanitarian issues, raising the possibility that while prisoner exchanges could advance, political and military issues could remain stalemated. After rejecting the ceasefire earlier, Russia demanded that both sides draft memorandums on the parameters of the talks, which would then have to be reconciled — effectively stalling the process. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin told Izvestia newspaper that Russia expected that there would be more talks but these would not be easy. In May, Zelensky unsuccessfully pressed Putin to fly to Istanbul to meet him for talks on a ceasefire.
Zawya
2 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Hegseth Attends Meeting on Ukraine After Skipping Last Session
Days after President Trump shifted his tone on Ukraine, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth participated in a meeting on Monday of the roughly 50 nations supporting the embattled country. The meeting was held virtually and led by the defense ministers of Britain and Germany. The collection of countries, which is known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, was founded during the Biden administration by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III. But Mr. Hegseth has largely taken a hands-off approach, ceding leadership of it to Britain shortly after Mr. Trump took office in January. When the contact group met in person at NATO headquarters in April, Mr. Hegseth opted to call in. He did not participate in the next meeting, which was in June. Mr. Trump initially expressed deep skepticism of giving U.S. military support to Ukraine, which Russian forces invaded in 2022. But last week, he said the United States would help Europe send more weapons to Ukraine and warned Russia that if it did not reach a peace deal within 50 days, he would impose a new round of punishing sanctions. A spokesman for the Pentagon declined to comment on Monday regarding Mr. Hegseth's role in Monday's meeting. The Defense Department said in a statement that it would not comment on internal discussions between the administration and partner nations. A senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before the meeting to discuss internal planning, said the United States expected 'several countries' to commit to purchasing additional 'capabilities' — weapons, munitions and equipment — to donate to Ukraine. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
4 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
UK backs Trump's Putin ultimatum with urgent '50-day drive' to strengthen Ukraine's position
In a direct response to President Donald Trump's 50-day deadline that he issued to Russian President Vladimir Putin in his latest peace deal push, the U.K. on Monday announced a "50-day drive" to better arm Ukraine. The call to action was issued by U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey during a virtual meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) on Monday, the British Ministry of Defense announced. The Defense Ministry did not immediately answer Fox News' Digital's questions about what type of commitments Healey wants to see from allied nations in support of Kyiv. At the top of the meeting, the British defense secretary said "[Trump] started the clock on a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace or to face crippling economic sanctions. "And as members of this UDCG, we need to step up in turn with a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table," he added. Healey urged nations to utilize the NATO sales agreement announced by Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte last week to more quickly and efficiently arm Ukraine on the battlefield. While the U.S.-NATO sales agreement is not an unusual deal as Washington, D.C., for decades has sold its arms to NATO allies, the announcement was significant because it signaled a turning point in the U.S.'s continued support for Ukraine, which has remained a question since Trump was re-elected in November. "We sell arms to allies all the time and if they want to give them to Ukraine then we authorize an export license, and they then transfer the arms to Ukraine," Mike Ryan, who formally served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, told Fox News Digital. "So, the significance is that one, the Europeans are stepping up their support for Ukraine. Two, the American taxpayer is getting a break. Three, Europe is buying more American arms [which is] good for the trade deficit, and four, Ukraine is getting the help it needs." The Monday meeting will be the fourth time Healey has chaired the defensive group in support of Kyiv, and the third such event that he has done so alongside German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. A major point of discussion is expected to be the quick transfer of Patriot Battery Missiles for Ukraine – five of which Berlin is set to confirm shipment of on Monday following his meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week. "Boris and I have agreed to partner in providing critical air defense missiles to Ukraine," Healey said before announcing a near $54 million defensive pledge to Ukraine, and by extension, Europe's security. The announcement is on top of the more than $6 billion in military aid the U.K. has sent Ukraine this year alone. "This is a critical moment we meet at a critical time, a time for all allies and partners to share the burden, to support Ukraine, both in the fight now and to secure the peace future," Healey added.
