Russia sets out punitive terms at peace talks with Ukraine
ISTANBUL: Russia told Ukraine at peace talks on Monday (Jun 2) that it would only agree to end the war if Kyiv gives up big new chunks of territory and accepts limits on the size of its army, according to a memorandum reported by Russian media.
The terms, formally presented at negotiations in Istanbul, highlighted Moscow's refusal to compromise on its longstanding war goals despite calls by US President Donald Trump to end the "bloodbath" in Ukraine.
Ukraine has repeatedly rejected the Russian conditions as tantamount to surrender.
Delegations from the warring sides met for barely an hour, for only the second such round of negotiations since March 2022. They agreed to exchange more prisoners of war, focusing on the youngest and most severely wounded, and return the bodies of 12,000 dead soldiers.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan described it as a great meeting and said he hoped to bring together Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a meeting in Türkiye with Trump.
But there was no breakthrough on a proposed ceasefire that Ukraine, its European allies and Washington have all urged Russia to accept.
Moscow says it seeks a long-term settlement, not a pause in the war; Kyiv says Putin is not interested in peace. Trump has said the United States is ready to walk away from its mediation efforts unless the two sides demonstrate progress towards a deal.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who headed Kyiv's delegation, said Kyiv, which has drawn up its own peace roadmap, would review the Russian document, on which he offered no immediate comment.
Ukraine has proposed holding more talks before the end of June, but believes only a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin can resolve the many issues of contention, Umerov said.
Zelenskyy said Ukraine presented a list of 400 children it says have been abducted to Russia, but that the Russian delegation agreed to work on returning only 10 of them. Russia says the children were moved from war zones to protect them.
RUSSIAN DEMANDS
The Russian memorandum, which was published by the Interfax news agency, said a settlement of the war would require international recognition of Crimea, a peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014, and four other regions of Ukraine that Moscow has claimed as its territory. Ukraine would have to withdraw its forces from all of them.
It restated Moscow's demands that Ukraine become a neutral country - ruling out membership of NATO - and that it protect the rights of Russian speakers, make Russian an official language and enact a legal ban on glorification of Nazism. Ukraine rejects the Nazi charge as absurd and denies discriminating against Russian speakers.
Russia also formalised its terms for any ceasefire en route to a peace settlement, presenting two options that both appeared to be non-starters for Ukraine.
Option one, according to the text, was for Ukraine to start a full military withdrawal from the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. Of those, Russia fully controls the first but holds only about 70 per cent of the rest.
Option two was a package that would require Ukraine to cease military redeployments and accept a halt to foreign provision of military aid, satellite communications and intelligence. Kyiv would also have to lift martial law and hold presidential and parliamentary elections within 100 days.
Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky said Moscow had also suggested a "specific ceasefire of two to three days in certain sections of the front" so that the bodies of dead soldiers could be collected.
According to a proposed roadmap drawn up by Ukraine, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, Kyiv wants no restrictions on its military strength after any peace deal, no international recognition of Russian sovereignty over parts of Ukraine taken by Moscow's forces, and reparations.
UKRAINE TARGETS RUSSIAN BOMBER FLEET
The conflict has been heating up, with Russia launching its biggest drone attacks of the war and advancing on the battlefield in May at its fastest rate in six months.
On Sunday, Ukraine said it launched 117 drones in an operation codenamed "Spider's Web" to attack Russian nuclear-capable long-range bomber planes at airfields in Siberia and the far north of the country.
Satellite imagery suggested the attacks had caused substantial damage, although the two sides gave conflicting accounts of the extent of it.
Western military analysts described the strikes, thousands of miles from the front lines, as one of the most audacious Ukrainian operations of the war.
Russia's strategic bomber fleet forms part of the "triad" of forces, along with missiles launched from the ground or submarines, that make up the country's nuclear arsenal, the biggest in the world. Faced with repeated warnings from Putin of Russia's nuclear might, the US and its allies have been wary throughout the Ukraine conflict of the risk that it could spiral into World War Three.
A current US administration official said Trump and the White House were not notified before the attack. A former administration official said Ukraine, for operational security reasons, regularly does not disclose to Washington its plans for such actions.
A UK government official said the British government also was not told ahead of time.
Zelenskyy said the operation, which involved drones concealed inside wooden sheds, had helped to restore partners' confidence that Ukraine is able to continue waging the war.
"Ukraine says that we are not going to surrender and are not going to give in to any ultimatums," he told an online news briefing.
"But we do not want to fight, we do not want to demonstrate our strength - we demonstrate it because the enemy does not want to stop."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Commentary: India and Pakistan are on a global charm offensive to tell their version of the conflict
LONDON: In the past fortnight, multi-party parliamentary delegations from India and Pakistan have stopped in London as part of a world tour. Having had the opportunity to interact with both delegations, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Dialogue is a dead end (for now). They were essentially two sides of the same coin, each seeking to make the case for their nation's narrative following the brief, 87-hour conflict in May. Both sought to claim the moral high ground while painting the other side as the aggressor. Each resented any parallels or equivalency drawn between their positions. According to India, its actions were a response to the terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of 26 civilians. According to Pakistan, its military action was triggered by India's military operation, while arguing that New Delhi has failed to offer the smoking gun of Pakistani complicity in the terror attack. Both trumpeted their battlefield successes while downplaying their losses. The Pakistani side touted the loss of Indian aircraft in the initial military exchange, while the Indian side downplayed this, noting that such losses should be expected as part of any military campaign (and refusing to admit to any specific losses). India also played up the strength of its air defences in repelling Pakistan's counterattacks and the concomitant weakness of Pakistan's air defences. Both emphasised red lines. For India, another terror attack would trigger a war. For Pakistan, any violation of the Indus Water Treaty would do the same. The Indian delegation noted that India had dropped its previous 'hesitation' of deploying hard power, while the Pakistani delegation accused India of 'dragging water onto the battlefield'. Each side offered differing conditionalities on returning to the negotiating table: New Delhi will only discuss the issue of terrorism and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Islamabad wants to focus on the water treaty and Indian-administered Kashmir. Both countries are seeking to internationalise the conflict, but in different ways. For India, the emphasis is on framing Pakistan as the epicentre of global terrorism (with reminders of Osama bin Laden being killed in Pakistan in 2011 and Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl being beheaded in Pakistan in 2002). For Pakistan, the emphasis is on getting third party 'facilitators' rather than 'mediators' (given New Delhi's rejection of third-party mediation). AMERICA'S DEFAULT RESPONSE Ultimately, both countries face similar dilemmas in getting their message across to the international community. For India, the global war on terrorism has lost the resonance it once had, making it difficult for New Delhi to make the case to the world of the severity of Pakistan's threat to global stability. For Pakistan, the effort to get United States or Western involvement in India-Pakistan hostilities and the issue of Kashmir is an uphill battle given the plethora of international (and domestic) crises presently confronting Western capitals. This will not stop Islamabad from trying to do so as demonstrated by Army Chief Asim Munir's visit to Washington this week, which demonstrates Pakistan's ability to leverage global issues – from the Sino-US rapprochement in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and into the 1980s and the US-led 'War on Terror' in the 2000s – to advance its primary foreign policy objective of strengthening its position vis-a-vis India. Now Islamabad is seeking to do so again by leveraging the Trump administration's efforts to obtain Islamabad's support in the conflict between Iran and Israel (given that Pakistan shares a border with the former). Trump's 'sphere of influence' worldview makes it unlikely that the United States will play any substantive or lasting role in South Asia. While Trump claims to have applied pressure on both countries to initiate a ceasefire on May 10 – which has been denied by India – his initial nonchalant response (noting that both countries would sort it out 'one way or the other', which was supplemented by Vice President JD Vance's comment that the conflict was 'fundamentally none of our business') reveals what is likely to be the default response to future hostilities, as long as they stay below the threshold of a nuclear conflict. South Asia has lost the strategic significance it once had following the US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. TALKING PAST EACH OTHER In this context, the world tours by parliamentarians from India and Pakistan appear more focused on appeasing domestic political constituencies than any genuine effort aimed at shifting global public opinion. There was more emphasis on dictating each country's position rather than engaging in a genuine dialogue. All this limits the prospects for any peace process. The Pakistani delegation pushed for the resumption of a 'comprehensive dialogue', but what would both sides discuss when they are essentially talking past each other? They cannot even agree on the facts of what happened, accusing the other of misinformation, hyper-nationalistic rhetoric and religious extremism. The Indian side accused Pakistan of employing 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy' while the Pakistani side claimed that the Modi government wants to 'eradicate' India's Muslims. This makes it impossible for both countries to sit down together. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS WORKING If there is any silver lining it is that among the world's flashpoints, India-Pakistan hostilities still seem relatively contained despite the bad blood in the bilateral relationship. The short four-day conflict and emphasis on precision-strike operations contrasts with conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East where there has been significant collateral damage and prolonged and expansive military operations across multiple theatres. This shows that nuclear deterrence is working in limiting the threshold of violence, although this threshold is being tested and eroded as both countries find new ways of targeting each other, from sponsoring irregular separatist/terrorist outfits to developing drone and cyber warfare capabilities. As a result, South Asia is in an interesting position, a region that is the most vulnerable to a nuclear exchange, and hence, ironically the most restrained of the world's major flashpoints.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
While You Were Sleeping: 5 stories you might have missed, June 22, 2025
US President Donald Trump (centre) Vice-President J. D. Vance (left) and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly took part in a tense June 19 call with Israel's leaders over Mr Trump's two-week deadline on whether to strike Iran. PHOTO: REUTERS While You Were Sleeping: 5 stories you might have missed, June 22, 2025 US split as Israel seeks swift action on Iran, sources say Israeli officials have told the Trump administration they do not want to wait two weeks for Iran to reach a deal to dismantle key parts of its nuclear programme and Israel could act alone before the deadline is up, two sources said, amid a continuing debate on Mr Trump's team about whether the US should get involved. The two sources familiar with the matter said Israel had communicated their concerns to Trump administration officials on June 19 in what they described as a tense phone call. The Israeli officials said they do not want to wait the two weeks that US President Donald Trump presented on June 19 as a deadline for deciding whether the US will get involved in the Israel-Iran war, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Israeli participants on the call included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Israel Katz and military chief Eyal Zamir, according to a security source. READ MORE HERE B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two US officials told Reuters on June 21, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the US should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran. It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear programme, including Fordow. READ MORE HERE Mahmoud Khalil vows to resume pro-Palestinian activism Mahmoud Khalil vowed to resume his pro-Palestinian activism as he returned to New York a day after he was released on bail from a jail for immigrants, even as US President Donald Trump's administration said it will continue its efforts to deport the recent Columbia University graduate. He arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on the afternoon of June 21 to cheers and ululations from friends and supporters. Mr Khalil, 30, was reunited with his wife, a US citizen, and greeted at the airport by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York. READ MORE HERE Eight dead in Brazil hot-air balloon accident At least eight people were killed on June 21 when a hot-air balloon with 21 passengers caught fire in southern Brazil, a state governor said. It was the second fatal balloon accident in the vast South American country in less than a week. Videos taken by bystanders and carried on Brazilian television showed the moment when the balloon erupted in flames above a rural area outside the Atlantic coast town of Praia Grande, a tourist hotspot popular for hot-air ballooning. READ MORE HERE Belarus opposition leader freed after US mediation Belarus' top jailed opposition leader Sergei Tikhanovsky was freed alongside over a dozen other political prisoners on June 21 in a surprise release the European Union hailed as a 'symbol of hope'. His wife, Mrs Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who took the mantle of the opposition after his jailing, said the United States helped broker the deal and thanked US President Donald Trump. Mr Tikhanovsky, 46, had been imprisoned for more than five years. READ MORE HERE Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Israel seeks swift action on Iran, sources say, with a split US administration
US President Donald Trump (centre) Vice-President J. D. Vance (left) and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly took part in a tense June 19 call with Israel's leaders over Mr Trump's two-week deadline on possibly striking Iran. PHOTO: REUTERS Israel seeks swift action on Iran, sources say, with a split US administration WASHINGTON/DUBAI/JERUSALEM - Israeli officials have told the Trump administration they do not want to wait two weeks for Iran to reach a deal to dismantle key parts of its nuclear programme and Israel could act alone before the deadline is up, two sources said, amid a continuing debate on Mr Trump's team about whether the US should get involved. The two sources familiar with the matter said Israel had communicated their concerns to Trump administration officials on June 19 in what they described as a tense phone call. The Israeli officials said they do not want to wait the two weeks that US President Donald Trump presented on June 19 as a deadline for deciding whether the US will get involved in the Israel-Iran war, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Israeli participants on the call included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Israel Katz and military chief Eyal Zamir, according to a security source. The Israelis believe they have a limited window of opportunity to move against the deeply buried site at Fordow, the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear programme, said the sources. The US is the only country with the bunker-busting bombs powerful enough to reach the facility, which is dug into the side of a mountain. Reuters reported on June 21 that the US is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, reinforcing the possibility that the US could participate directly in an attack. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground, such as the one at Fordow. A person in Washington familiar with the matter said Israel has communicated to the US administration that it believes Mr Trump's window of up to two weeks is too long and that more urgent action is needed. The person did not say whether the Israelis made that point during the high-level call. During the call, Vice-President J.D. Vance pushed back, saying the US shouldn't be directly involved and suggesting that the Israelis were going to drag the country into war, said the sources. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also participated in the call, said a security source. Reuters could not determine who else took part in the call. The Jerusalem Post reported earlier that a phone call had taken place on June 19. During the phone call, US Vice-President J.D. Vance reportedly pushed back against Israeli efforts to get the US involved in striking Iran. PHOTO: AFP The prospect of a US strike against Iran has exposed divisions in the coalition of supporters that brought Mr Trump to power, with some prominent members of his base urging him not to get the country involved in a new Middle East war. Mr Vance has frequently criticised past US involvement in conflicts, including Iraq and Afghanistan, but has lately defended Mr Trump against Republican critics who urge the administration to stay out of the Iran conflict. Other Republicans, including Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have said they hope Mr Trump will help Israel finish destroying Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Trump, who campaigned on a promise to keep the US out of what he called 'stupid' foreign wars, has himself seemed conflicted at times about whether to join the Israeli attack on Iran or focus on diplomatic efforts to end Tehran's nuclear programme. But his rhetoric in recent days has become increasingly aggressive towards Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. The White House declined to comment for this story. The Israeli Prime Minister's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Iran's mission to the United Nations also did not immediately respond. Fordow strike likely Publicly, Mr Netanyahu has not ruled out Israel attacking Fordow alone, though officials have not provided any details on how that would be achieved. Four sources said it is now increasingly likely that the country will launch a solo military operation. Israeli air superiority over much of Iran makes an operation more feasible, though still risky, said two of the sources. The Israelis feel they have the momentum and have limited time given the costs of the war, one source added. 'I don't see them waiting much longer,' said the source. A June 14 Maxar satellite image showing the site of Iran's deeply buried Fordow nuclear facility. PHOTO: EPA-EFE It is not clear whether such an operation would involve bombing, ground forces, or both. Two of the sources said that rather than attempting to destroy the entire site Israel could instead do significant damage to it. That could mean focusing on destroying what is inside the site rather than the site itself, said one of the sources, declining to elaborate. Some analysts have speculated that Israel could use special forces to enter Fordow and blow it up from inside. Another scenario being considered, according to a source familiar with the matter, would be to drop a series of munitions in rapid succession in an attempt to breach the fortified site, similar to how the Israeli military killed Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in 2024. Such a strike could be followed by an incursion by special forces, the source said. It is not clear that Israel has munitions powerful enough to penetrate the fortified facility. It is widely believed that to have a high chance of success, US intervention would be needed. But even with the massive firepower of a joint US-Israeli military action, military and nuclear experts believe that a military operation would probably only temporarily set back a programme the West fears is already aimed at producing atomic bombs one day, although Iran denies it. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
