Latest news with #peaceagreement
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump's Ultimatum To Russia Signals New Approach To War In Ukraine
TURNBERRY, SCOTLAND - JULY 28: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to the media as he meets with ... More British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (not pictured) at Trump Turnberry golf club on July 28, 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland. U.S. President Donald Trump is visiting his Trump Turnberry golf course, as well as Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeenshire, during a brief visit to Scotland from July 25 to 29. (Photo by) While speaking to reporters in Scotland on Monday, President Donald Trump announced that he changed the deadline for Russia to agree to a peace deal with Ukraine. The deadline for Russia has now been reduced to '10 to 12 days'. Trump initially set a 50-day deadline in June for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reach an agreement. Since then, Russia has increased its missile and drone strikes on residential areas throughout Ukraine. The intensified Russian attacks have coincided with Trump's decision to shorten the peace deadline. 'There's no reason in waiting. We just don't see any progress being made,' Trump told reporters. 'We thought we had [the peace agreement] settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home,' he added. Trump then concluded that if a peace agreement is not reached, then the U.S. will consider 'sanctions and maybe tariffs.' This shortened ultimatum follows Trump's agreement, made on July 14, to send defense aid to Ukraine. The new weapons package includes Patriot missiles. In addition, the U.S. Department of State announced a new aid package, in which the U.S. would send HAWK Phase III surface-to-air missile systems to Ukraine. These advanced air defense technologies are critical for Ukraine to counter Russia's ongoing aerial attacks. Additionally, the Trump administration announced a new defense cooperation initiative where NATO member states would purchase U.S. weapons. This would help replenish American stockpiles. The weapons purchased by NATO members would then be transferred through Europe to Ukraine, providing the necessary assistance to Ukrainian forces as they defend their country against Russia's ongoing invasion. 'We are going to send some more weapons [to Ukraine]. We have to. [The Ukrainians] have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard,' Trump said to reporters. The latest developments signal a new approach by the Trump administration in responding to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, Trump vowed to end the war in Ukraine in '24 hours' if elected president. Additionally, he stated that he would compel Russian and Ukrainian officials to negotiate a ceasefire. Following Trump's re-election, the U.S. president appointed individuals, such as retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and lawyer Steven Witkoff, to serve as his envoys to help end the war. Trump also threatened Russia with several ultimatums if a peace agreement was not reached. But the negotiation process has been challenging. For nearly six months, senior officials from the Trump administration have mediated peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The initial process began in February in Saudi Arabia, where senior U.S. officials met with their Russian counterparts. The Americans then met separately with the Ukrainians. The peace process, however, has produced few results. From February to July, senior American officials have proposed ceasefire agreements between Russia and Ukraine. International monitors and media outlets, however, have documented Russian violations of ceasefire agreements. This includes attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, as well as bombardments during the Easter and Passover holidays. Additionally, while Ukrainian officials have continuously met with their American counterparts, the Russian Federation has increased its strikes on civilian areas across Ukraine. Dozens of Ukrainians have been killed during the bombardments, and the Russian attacks have continued. This has reportedly frustrated several American officials. As a result, Trump has opted to provide additional defense aid to Ukraine. The administration has also weighed new sanctions and tariffs on the Russian Federation. The coming 10 to 12 days will be critical in determining whether Russia modifies its conduct and if meaningful progress toward peace can be achieved. Ukrainian officials, along with the international community, will closely monitor the U.S. response should Russia fail to meet the new ultimatum.
UAE Moments
2 days ago
- Politics
- UAE Moments
Thailand and Cambodia Agree to Immediate Ceasefire
Thailand and Cambodia have agreed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, effective from midnight local time on July 28, 2025, following five days of the worst border clashes in over a decade. The landmark agreement was reached during high‑level talks in Putrajaya, Malaysia, chaired by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, with participation from the United States. At least 35 people were killed and more than 260,000 civilians displaced across both countries during the violence—making it the deadliest conflict in the modern era between the two ASEAN neighbours. The clashes erupted after Thursday, when a landmine explosion killed five Thai soldiers. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet welcomed the truce, expressing hope it will allow displaced families to return home and rebuild normal bilateral relations. Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai Thailand's desire for peace, remained cautious, saying that a ceasefire could only follow after Cambodia approaches the ceasefire talks with "sincere intentions". As part of the ceasefire agreement, military commanders from both sides will meet Tuesday morning, and a border committee, to be hosted by Cambodia, will convene on August 4 to build a joint mechanism for monitoring and implementation. Defence and foreign ministers from Thailand and Cambodia will also resume the process. The role of U.S. pressure, in particular from President Donald Trump, was widely credited with helping secure the ceasefire—Trump reportedly warned that trade negotiations and tariff relief would be halted unless a truce was achieved. Despite the agreement, reports indicate that some clashes in the border areas even on the day the ceasefire was declared, underscoring the fragility of the deal and the deep-seated mistrust between the parties. Experts warn that without substantive dispute resolution and institutional trust-building, the ceasefire may prove vulnerable to escalation.
Arab News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Camp David meeting 25 years on: Could the Middle East plan have worked?
LONDON: Emerging from lush woodland, amid birdsong and with wide smiles, it was a scene that could not have been further from the slaughter currently unfolding in Gaza. Yet through the quarter of a century that has passed since the Palestinian and Israeli leaders joined President Bill Clinton for talks at Camp David, a direct line can be drawn to the daily massacres Palestinians are now facing. What began with cautious optimism to make major headway toward a final status peace agreement ended in failure on July 25, 2000. Clinton solemnly 'concluded with regret' that after 14 days of talks, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had not been able to 'reach an agreement at this time.' Israel and the US media perpetuated a myth that Arafat had turned down a generous offer of a Palestinian state. Palestinians and other diplomats involved say Israel was offering nothing of the sort. Within weeks of the talks ending, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited Haram Al-Sharif, the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque, in Jerusalem, igniting the Second Palestinian Intifada uprising against Israeli occupation. While the talks have gone down in history as a failure, the six months that followed culminated in what many believe was the closest the two sides have come to a final status agreement. But by the start of 2001, with Clinton out of office, Israeli elections looming, and violence escalating, the window of political timing slipped away. Many were left to wonder whether the mistakes made during the Camp David meeting resulted in a missed opportunity that could have led to an agreement, thus altering the course of Middle East history. Perhaps decades of episodes of bloodshed and occupation could have been averted. With hindsight aside, is there anything that can be learned from those two weeks of negotiations that brought together the leaders from either side? The talks at Camp David convened eight years after the first of the two Oslo Accords was famously signed in 1993 between Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House. The agreement was designed as an interim deal and the start of a process that aimed to secure a final status agreement within five years. Under Oslo, Israel recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian side recognized Israel. The agreement led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority to have limited governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel had annexed in 1967 along with East Jerusalem. A phased Israeli military withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories was also meant to take place. By the year 2000 it was clear that the Oslo process had stalled with Palestinians deeply unhappy about the lack of progress and that the Israeli occupation had become more entrenched since the agreement. The building of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land had accelerated, restrictions against Palestinians had increased, and violence continued. Clinton, who was in the final year of his presidency, was determined to push for a blockbuster agreement to secure his legacy. Arafat, on the other hand, was strongly against the talks taking place on the grounds that the 'conditions were not yet ripe,' according to The Camp David Papers, a detailed firsthand account of the talks by Akram Hanieh, editor of Al-Ayyam newspaper and close adviser to the Palestinian leader. 'The Palestinians repeatedly warned that the Palestinian problem was too complicated to be resolved in a hastily convened summit,' Hanieh wrote. Barak came to the table also looking to seal a big win that would bolster his ailing governing coalition. He was looking to do away with the incremental approach of Oslo and go for an all-or nothing final agreement. The leaders arrived on July 11 at Camp David, the 125 acre presidential retreat in the Catoctin mountains. The secluded forested location was cut off further with a ban on cell phones and just one phone line provided per delegation to avoid leaks. It was something Clinton joked about when he greeted Arafat and Barak before the press, saying he would not take any questions as part of a media blackout. There was even a lighthearted moment when Arafat and Barak broke into a gentle play fight as they insisted one another entered the lodge first — an image unthinkable in the current climate. But behind the scenes there was less joviality and deep concern grew among the Palestinian camp about how the talks would unfold. The core issues to be discussed included the extent of territory that would be included in a Palestinian state and the positioning of the borders surrounding them. There was also the status and future of Israeli settlements, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced when Israel was founded in 1948. What proved to be the most contentious issue, and the one the US proved to be least prepared for, was the status of Jerusalem, and in particular sovereignty over its holy sites. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state with full sovereignty over Haram Al-Sharif — the third holiest site in Islam. The site, known as the Temple Mount by Israelis, is also revered by Jews. Because nothing was presented in writing and there was no working draft of the negotiations, there are differing versions of exactly what the Israelis proposed. Israeli claims that Barak offered 90 percent of the West Bank along with Gaza to the Palestinians turned out to be far less when applied to maps. Israel also wanted to maintain security control over the West Bank. Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank, including its major settlements there in exchange for 1 percent of Israeli territory. Israel would keep most of East Jerusalem and only offer some form of custodianship over Haram Al-Sharif, nowhere near Palestinians demands. And there was nothing of substance on returning refugees. While US media interpretations of the talks often claimed the two sides were close to an agreement, Hanieh's account describes big gaps between their positions across the major points of contention. With a sense of foreboding of what was to come, Hanieh wrote: 'The Americans immediately adopted Israel's position on the Haram, seemingly unaware of the fact that they were toying with explosives that could ignite the Middle East and the Islamic world.' The fact the proposals were only presented verbally through US officials meant that nothing was ever formally offered to the Palestinians. Barak's approach meant 'there never was an Israeli offer' Robert Malley, a member of the US negotiating team, said in an article co-written a year later that sought to diffuse the blame placed on Arafat by Israel and the US for the talk's failure. The Israeli leader's approach and failures over implementing Oslo led Arafat to became convinced that Israel was setting a trap to trick him into agreeing major concessions. The Palestinians also increasingly felt the US bias toward Israel's position, and that all the pressure was being applied to Arafat. This undermined the US as an honest broker. 'Backed by the US, Israel negotiated in bad faith, making it impossible for Palestinians to consider these talks a foundation for a just peace,' Ramzy Baroud, the Palestinian-American editor of the Palestine Chronicle, told Arab News. 'The talks were fundamentally designed to skew outcomes in Israel's favor.' Another reason for the failure was the lack of ground work carried out before they started. 'It was not well prepared,' Yossi Mekelberg, associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, told Arab News. 'They went there with not enough already agreed beforehand, which is very important for a summit.' The US hosting has also been heavily criticized, even by members of its own negotiating teams. 'The Camp David summit — ill-conceived and ill-advised — should probably never have taken place,' Aaron David Miller, another senior negotiator, wrote 20 years later. He highlighted 'numerous mistakes' and a poor performance by the US team that would have made blocked reaching an agreement, even if the two sides had been in a place to reach one. When Arafat held firm and refused to cave to pressure to accept Israel's proposals, the summit drew to a close with little to show toward a final status agreement. 'While they were not able to bridge the gaps and reach an agreement, their negotiations were unprecedented in both scope and detail,' the final statement said. There are various opinions on whether the talks were doomed to failure from the start or whether they can be viewed as a missed opportunity that could have brought peace to the region and averted the decades of bloodshed that followed. The latter viewpoint stems as much from the diplomatic efforts in the months that followed Camp David. Against a backdrop of escalating violence and during Clinton's final months in office, focus shifted to a set of parameters for further final status negotiations. Both sides agreed to the landmark plan in late December but with reservations. The momentum carried over to the Taba summit in Egypt three weeks later but the impending Israeli election meant they ran out of time. In the closing statement, the sides declared they had never been closer to reaching an agreement. With the arrival of President George W Bush in office and Sharon defeating Barak in Israel's election, political support for the process evaporated and the intifada raged on for another four years. 'It was a missed opportunity,' Mekelberg said of Camp David. 'There was a great opportunity there, and had it succeeded, we would not be having all these terrible tragedies that we've seen.' The way that Arafat was blamed for the failure left a particularly bitter aftertaste for Palestinians. 'The most egregious demonstration of Israel's and the US's bad faith was their decision to blame the talks' collapse not on Israel's refusal to adhere to international law, but on Yasser Arafat's alleged stubbornness and disinterest in peace,' Baroud said. The talks were 'unequivocally doomed to failure,' he said because they rested on the false premise that the Oslo Accords were ever a genuine path to peace. 'The exponential growth of illegal settlements, the persistent failure to address core issues, escalating Israeli violence, and the continuous disregard for international principles concerning Palestinian rights all contributed to Camp David's collapse.' He said if any lessons are to be taken by those attempting to negotiate an end to Israel's war on Gaza and implement a wider peace agreement, it would be that 'neither Israel nor the US can be trusted to chart a path to peace without a firm framework rooted in international and humanitarian law.' In the coming days, Saudi Arabia and France will co-chair a conference at the UN on the two-state solution to the conflict, that seeks to plot a course toward a Palestinian state. Perhaps this could help build the sustainable international framework that was lacking in July 2000.
Russia Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Trump says Putin-Zelensky meeting ‘is going to happen'
US President Donald Trump has said a face-to-face meeting between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky 'is going to happen.' The Kremlin insists such a summit should only be held to seal a final peace agreement. Trump made the comments on Friday when asked by reporters what it would take for Putin and Zelensky to sit down together – possibly with him in the room. 'It's going to happen, but it should have happened three months ago. It's going to happen,' he said, without offering a timeframe. Trump has pushed for a settlement to the conflict since taking office in January. Earlier this month, he threatened to impose 'severe' secondary tariffs of up to 100% on Russia's trading partners unless a deal is reached within 50 days – by early September. Moscow maintains it is open to a diplomatic settlement, but in a way that would address the conflict's 'root causes' and its security concerns. It insists on Ukraine's neutrality and recognition of the 'territorial reality on the ground,' as well as demilitarization and denazification. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a direct meeting with Putin. Ukrainian negotiators also raised the idea at this week's bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the fighting. The Kremlin has not ruled out a meeting but insists the groundwork must be in place first. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said the two men should meet only after meaningful progress has been achieved at the working level. 'It is impossible to do the opposite,' he stressed. Moscow has also raised concerns about Zelensky's legal authority. His five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russian officials have suggested that any documents signed under his name could later be challenged. Putin said last month he was open to a meeting with Zelensky – if it came at the final stage of talks. In addition, Russia has demanded that Ukraine lift martial law and hold elections within 100 days as part of any lasting ceasefire.
Reuters
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Rwandan rebels' fate clouds Trump's vision for mineral-rich Congo
July 23 (Reuters) - Moves to end fighting in eastern Congo that are essential to U.S. President Donald Trump's plans for a mining bonanza in the region are meant to get underway by Sunday, but the future of a small rebel group has emerged as one of the major obstacles. A U.S.-brokered peace agreement signed last month by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers was designed to halt violence that escalated this year with a lightning advance in the Democratic Republic of Congo by M23 rebels. Rwanda denies allegations from the U.N. and Western governments that it is fighting alongside the M23 rebels to gain access to Congo's minerals. Rwanda says its troops are there to tackle what it describes as an existential threat from thousands of Rwandan Hutu rebels known as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). Security experts and diplomats say the FDLR, which includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 Rwandan genocide, boasts only a few hundred combatants and is not a significant battlefield force. But the peace agreement explicitly requires Congo to "neutralise" the FDLR as Rwanda withdraws from Congolese territory, underscoring the group's importance to the fate of Trump's diplomacy. Both the Congolese operations against the FDLR and the Rwandan withdrawal are supposed to start by Sunday and conclude by the end of September. U.N. experts said in a report this month that Rwanda, along with M23, is trying to seize control of mineral-rich territory. Kigali responded that the presence of the "genocidal" FDLR "necessitates the defence posture in our border areas". The U.N. experts also accused the Congolese military of relying on the FDLR in its fight against M23. A spokesperson for Congo's government did not respond to a request for comment on that question, but Kinshasa has said it is on board with ensuring any threat posed by the FDLR is "definitively eradicated", including by voluntary disarmament. It has also accused Rwanda of using the FDLR as a pretext for deploying on Congolese territory. Congolese researcher Josaphat Musamba said it was not possible for Congo to rid the region of FDLR fighters given that M23 holds much of the territory where the FDLR now operates. "It would be feasible if the Rwandan-backed rebellion were not active and threatening to conquer other territories," said Musamba, a Ph.D. candidate at Ghent University who is from eastern Congo and studies the conflict there. Jason Stearns, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University in Canada who specialises in Africa's Great Lakes region, said lack of progress against the FDLR could be cited by Rwanda as a reason to keep its troops deployed in eastern Congo past September, throwing off Washington's timeline. "It would be fairly easy for Rwanda to claim that Congo is not abiding by its side of the deal - that its operations against the FDLR are not serious enough, have not been successful enough - and therefore to drag its feet," Stearns said. A spokesperson for Rwanda's government did not respond to a request for comment on its approach to the FDLR. Rwandan President Paul Kagame said on July 4 that Rwanda was committed to implementing the deal, but that it could fail if Congo did not live up to its promises to neutralise the FDLR. Trump said on July 9 the Congolese and Rwandan presidents would travel to the United States in the "next couple of weeks" to sign the peace agreement. They are also expected to sign bilateral economic packages that would bring billions of dollars of investment into countries rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. There has been no further word on a date. While Washington has hosted negotiations between Congo and Rwanda, Qatar has hosted separate direct talks between Congo and M23. On Saturday the two sides agreed to sign a separate peace deal by August 18. M23 currently has no concrete plans to withdraw from the territory it controls. The FDLR has urged Trump not to green-light a Congolese offensive against it. A July 2 letter to Trump from Victor Byiringiro, the FDLR's acting president, said attacking the FDLR would jeopardise the safety of Congolese civilians as well as more than 200,000 Rwandan refugees. In written responses to questions from Reuters, FDLR spokesperson Cure Ngoma said only "a frank, sincere, and inclusive dialogue among Rwandans" could bring peace, though Rwanda has repeatedly ruled out such talks with the group. Trump expects Congo and Rwanda to abide by the peace deal "which will foster lasting stability and prosperity in the region," Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in response to Reuters questions about the FDLR's future. "All armed groups must lay down their arms and work within the framework of the peace process." The fighting has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year, while escalating the risk of a return to the kind of full-scale regional war which led to the deaths of millions of Congolese in 1998-2003.
