Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gestures as he speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in Kyiv on Feb. 1, 2025. (AP Photo)
Short Url
Updated 02 February 2025
Follow

Zelensky says excluding Ukraine from US-Russia talks about war is ‘very dangerous’

  • Zelensky’s remarks followed comments Friday by Trump, who said American and Russian officials were “already talking” about ending the war
  • Without security guarantees from Ukraine’s allies, Zelensky said, any deal struck with Russia would only serve as a precursor to future aggression

KYIV, Ukraine: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Saturday that excluding his country from talks between the US and Russia about the war in Ukraine would be “very dangerous” and asked for more discussions between Kyiv and Washington to develop a plan for a ceasefire.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Zelensky said Russia does not want to engage in ceasefire talks or to discuss any kind of concessions, which the Kremlin interprets as losing at a time when its troops have the upper hand on the battlefield.
He said US President Donald Trump could bring Russian President Vladimir Putin to the table with the threat of sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and banking system, as well as continued support of the Ukrainian military.
“I think these are the closest and most important steps,” he said in the interview in the Ukrainian capital that lasted for more than an hour.
Zelensky’s remarks followed comments Friday by Trump, who said American and Russian officials were “already talking” about ending the war. Trump said his administration has had “very serious” discussions with Russia, but he did not elaborate.
“They may have their own relations, but talking about Ukraine without us — it is dangerous for everyone,” Zelensky said.
He said his team has been in contact with the Trump administration, but those discussions are at a “general level,” and he believes in-person meetings will take place soon to develop more detailed agreements.
“We need to work more on this,” he said, adding that Trump understandably appeared to be focused on domestic issues in the first weeks after his inauguration.

The nearly three-year war in Ukraine is at a crossroads. Trump promised to end the fighting within six months of taking office, but the two sides are far apart, and it is unclear how a ceasefire deal would take shape. Meanwhile, Russia continues to make slow but steady gains along the front, and Ukrainian forces are enduring severe manpower shortages.
Most Ukrainians want a pause in fighting to rebuild their lives. The country faces near-daily Russian attacks on homes, and strikes on power systems have plunged entire cities into darkness.
Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, unable to return to their homes after vast tracts of the country’s east have been reduced to rubble. Nearly a fifth of Ukraine is now occupied by Russia. In those areas, Moscow-appointed authorities are swiftly erasing any hint of Ukrainian identity.
With Trump back in the White House, Ukraine’s relationship with the US, its largest and most important ally, is also at a tipping point.
In an initial phone call with Trump during the presidential campaign, Zelensky said, the two agreed that if Trump won, they would meet to discuss the steps needed to end the war. But a planned visit by Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, was postponed “for legal reasons” Zelensky said. That was followed by a sudden foreign aid freeze that effectively caused Ukrainian organizations to halt projects.
“I believe that, first and foremost, we (must) hold a meeting with him, and that is important. And that is, by the way, something that everyone in Europe wants,” Zelensky said, referring to “a common vision of a quick end to the war.”
After the conversation with Trump, “we should move on to some kind of format of conversation with Russians. And I would like to see the United States of America, Ukraine and the Russians at the negotiating table. ... And, to be honest, a European Union voice should also be there. I think it would be fair, effective. But how will it turn out? I don’t know.”
Zelensky cautioned against allowing Putin to take “control” over the war, an apparent reference to Russia’s repeated threats of escalation during President Joe Biden’s administration.
Without security guarantees from Ukraine’s allies, Zelensky said, any deal struck with Russia would only serve as a precursor to future aggression. Membership in the NATO alliance, a longstanding wish for Kyiv that Moscow has categorically rejected, is still Zelensky’s top choice.
NATO membership is the “cheapest” option for Ukraine’s allies, and it would also strengthen Trump geopolitically, Zelensky argued.
“I really believe that these are the cheapest security guarantees that Ukraine can get, the cheapest for everyone,” he said.
“It will be a signal that it is not for Russia to decide who should be in NATO and who should not, but for the United States of America to decide. I think this is a great victory for Trump,” he said, evidently appealing to the president’s penchant for winners and business deals.
In addition, Zelensky said, Ukraine’s 800,000-strong army would be a bonus to the alliance, especially if Trump seeks to bring home US troops who are stationed overseas.
Other security guarantee proposals should be backed up by sufficient weapons from the US and Europe, and support for Kyiv to develop its own defense industry, he said.
Zelensky also said a French proposal to put European forces in Ukraine to act as a deterrent against Russian aggression is taking shape, but he expressed skepticism, saying many questions remained about the command-and-control structure and the number of troops and their positions. The issue was raised by French President Emmanuel Macron and with Trump, he said.
“I said in the presence of the two leaders that we are interested in this as a part of the security guarantee, but not as the only guarantee of safety,” he said. “That’s not enough.”
He added: “Imagine, there is a contingent. The question is who is in charge? Who is the main one? What will they do if there are Russian strikes? Missiles, disembarkation, attack from the sea, crossing of the land borderline, offensive. What will they do? What are their mandates?”
Asked if he put those questions directly to Macron, he smiled and said: “We are still in the process of this dialogue.”
Following a statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the war has set Ukraine back by 100 years, Zelensky urged Rubio to visit Ukraine.
Rubio “needs to come to Ukraine, first of all, to see what Russia has done,” the Ukrainian president said. “But also to see what the Ukrainian people did, what they were able to do for the security of Ukraine and the world, as I said, and just talk to these people.”
 


Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Macron calls for peace in first talk with new pope

PARIS: French President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday he had called Pope Leo XIV and talked about efforts to reach peace in Ukraine and Gaza in his first conversation with the new pontiff.
In their “first exchange,” the pair “addressed the efforts to let the weapons fall silent wherever conflicts rage in the world, and in particular for a solid and lasting peace in Ukraine and Gaza,” Macron said on X.
“We share the ambition to reconcile the fight against poverty and the protection of the planet,” the French leader said, adding that he had “once again congratulated” the pontiff on his election as head of the Catholic Church last week.
While Macron is not scheduled to join the ranks of the world leaders attending Pope Leo’s inaugural mass in Rome on Sunday morning, France’s Prime Minister Francois Bayrou is due to attend.


Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

Updated 10 min 24 sec ago
Follow

Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria: Nigeria’s top military officer on Thursday told troops in a region battling increased jihadist unrest that the attacks would be quickly resolved.
The Islamic State West Africa Province group and its rival Boko Haram have intensified assaults on military bases in recent weeks, notably in the northeastern state of Borno, epicenter of an insurgency dating back to 2009.
According to an AFP tally, at least 10 bases have been attacked in two months. At least 100 people, including civilians, were killed in attacks in April.
“Actions have been taken to ensure that we address the series of attacks,” chief of defense staff General Christopher Musa told troops in Borno’s capital Maiduguri, promising new material was being drafted in.
Musa said conflict in the Sahel states including Mali, Chad and Niger “has put a lot of pressure on Nigeria and that’s why you see recent attacks have occurred.”
“Whatever is going on is just for a short while,” he said.
Musa suggested fencing Nigeria’s borders, saying “there are countries that have fenced over a 1,500 kilometer (930 mile) stretch” — roughly the length of the Nigeria-Niger frontier.
While violence has fallen from its 2014-2015 peak, the governor of Borno recently warned that the military was losing ground to jihadists, and the latest attacks have put the conflict back in the spotlight.
More than 40,000 people have been killed and two million displaced in northeast Nigeria since 2009, according to the United Nations.
A Multinational Joint Task Force, a coalition created by Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, Benin and Chad to fight cross-border armed groups, has been hampered by the withdrawal of Niger and threats by Chad to do the same.
According to a recent Nigerian intelligence report seen by AFP, there are also internal problems.
Late payment of salaries “has been a recurring problem,” particularly in the northeast, it said.
The report warned of “frustration and demotivation among security personnel, which could potentially lead to mutinies or unrest, if not urgently addressed.”
President Bola Tinubu this week called for the creation of a “forest guards” unit “to flush out terrorists and criminal gangs.”
Nigeria’s vast, often inaccessible forests have become havens for jihadist and armed criminal groups.
While the Nigerian army often works with local self-defense groups, questions remain over how the proposed forest guard be financed, work with existing security forces and even how long it would take to set up.


13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

Updated 10 min 35 sec ago
Follow

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

  • Police ruled case as an accident, described all injuries as "minor"
  • Driver arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury

BARCELONA: At least 13 people were hurt when a driver lost control and plowed into a crowd gathered outside a football match between RCD Espanyol and city rivals FC Barcelona, police said on Thursday.
Police said people were hurt when the vehicle rammed into the crowd outside RCD Españyol soccer stadium in Barcelona at the start of the game.
Police added in a statement on social media site X that the incident did not present any danger to the crowd inside the stadium.
Salvador Illa, the Catalan regional president, said on Thursday all the injuries were “minor” and ruled out any deliberate attack.
The driver has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury.


New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

  • Gen. Gwyn Jenkins previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes committed by British forces
  • It is also alleged he oversaw rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from Afghans who served alongside British troops against the Taliban

LONDON: The man chosen as the new head of the UK’s Royal Navy was previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Afghanistan.

Gen. Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was appointed on Thursday, also faced allegations this week that he oversaw the rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from former Afghan special forces members who served alongside British troops against the Taliban, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Jenkins replaces Adm. Ben Key, who stepped down last week over allegations of misconduct.

The new navy chief previously led UK Special Forces in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban. That conflict is under renewed scrutiny in Britain following recent fresh allegations of war crimes involving members of Britain’s elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.

In 2023, it emerged that Jenkins had been warned in writing in 2011 that SAS troops had claimed to have executed handcuffed detainees in Afghanistan. Rather than refer this evidence to the Royal Military Police, the BBC reported at the time, Jenkins placed the documents in a safe. However, The Telegraph newspaper reported that Jenkins did pass the evidence up the chain of command at the time.

This week, an investigation by the BBC current affairs program “Panorama” revealed that Jenkins personally appointed an officer under his command to assess the Afghan resettlement applications. Thousands of former elite Afghan soldiers were rejected, despite credible evidence of their service alongside British counterparts.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence said it was “not appropriate … to comment on allegations which may be within the scope of the statutory inquiry,” referring to a public inquiry underway in the UK to investigate the war crimes allegations.

There was “no evidence” that Afghan resettlement applications were rejected to prevent the former soldiers from giving evidence to the war crimes inquiry, it added.

Defence Secretary John Healey on Thursday described Jenkins as a “proven leader with a distinguished career in both the military and at the core of government.”

He added: “I know he will deliver in this pivotal role, making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.”

Sarah Atherton, a former Tory MP who sat on the Defence Select Committee, told The Telegraph: “Military personnel, especially senior leaders, are held to high ethical and behavior standards.

“If somebody is facing an allegation … I know it’s alleged, but it’s just very strange to appoint someone who is in this position, given the circumstances. That is bizarre.”

Jenkins said after his appointment that he wanted to “accelerate” the Royal Navy’s return to a “war fighting force that is ready for conflict.”


US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

Updated 59 min 34 sec ago
Follow

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

  • Trump order targeted children of certain immigrants
  • Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the US Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. None of the justices, however, signaled an endorsement of Trump’s order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court’s own precedents.
The justices heard more than two hours of arguments in the administration’s emergency request to scale back the injunctions blocking Trump’s directive, which is a key part of his hard-line approach toward immigration. Three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes Trump’s order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents concerning citizenship. Sotomayor said the court should weigh the order’s legality “if we are worried about those thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless” and leave them ineligible for government benefits.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect, according to the plaintiffs who challenged the directive, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue universal injunctions, and has asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive even without weighing its legal merits. Sauer focused on this issue, calling the increasing use by judges of universal injunctions a “pathology.”
In potentially restricting the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions in certain instances, the conservative justices raised the idea of requiring plaintiffs to funnel claims seeking broader relief into class-action lawsuits, which are filed on behalf of a group of people who suffer similar legal injuries.
Some of the conservatives also signaled that at least for the states that sued, relief might properly extend beyond their borders, as a universal injunction does.
Complicating matters, some justices — conservatives and liberals alike — also seemed reticent to rule without further delving into the underlying legal merits of Trump’s directive. It remained uncertain whether the court would order further briefing, which would further delay resolution of the case.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, “Should we decide or make up our minds on the underlying birthright citizenship question without briefing and argument and deliberation?”
Corkran said the justices should take up the case specifically on the merits of Trump’s order, adding, “The government is asking the court to allow it to ignore this court’s precedents ... and to upend 100 years of executive branch practice.”
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directive violated the 14th Amendment, which long has been understood to confer citizenship on almost anyone born on US soil. It was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War that ended slavery in the United States.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration contends that this citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.

‘All kinds of abuses’
Without a universal injunction blocking Trump’s order, it could be years before the Supreme Court finally decides its constitutionality, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
“There are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions,” Kagan told Sauer. “But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the (executive order) is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?“
Sauer noted that after the dispute percolates in lower courts, the Supreme Court can ultimately pronounce on the legal merits of the policy, prompting conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to express skepticism.
“Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett said.
Sotomayor compared Trump’s directive to a hypothetical action by a president taking away guns from every American who owns one despite the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sauer said that since Trump returned to the presidency, federal judges have issued 40 universal injunctions against his administration’s policies.
“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer said.

Variations by state
The administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the lawyer arguing for the states, said states face high and costly hurdles in managing difficulties in distributing government benefits if the order takes effect and citizenship is applied in a patchwork fashion, adding that class-action cases are “not available for state litigation.”
Feigenbaum suggested that the justices could limit universal injunctions to a narrow set of cases, including in this case where alternatives to such broad relief “are not practically or legally workable.” Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a critic of univeral injunctions, expressed some agreement with Feigenbaum on that point.
Feigenbaum said the legal issue surrounding Trump’s executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago.
An 1898 Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The administration has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
The 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to enslaved and free Black people and helped fuel the Civil War.
“This order reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer told the justices of Trump’s directive.
The case is the first involving a Trump policy to be argued at the top US judicial body since he returned to office, though the justices have acted on an emergency basis in several other challenges to his policies. Three of the justices were appointed by Trump during his first term as president.