Russia says it expects agreement next week on date for next peace talks with Ukraine
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) -Russia expects to agree with Ukraine next week on a date for a third round of peace talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky, who heads the Russian delegation, is in contact with his Ukrainian counterpart, Peskov said.
Resuming negotiations after a gap of more than three years, the two sides held face-to-face talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2 that led to a series of prisoner exchanges and the return of the bodies of dead soldiers.
But they have made no progress towards a ceasefire which Ukraine, with Western backing, has been pressing for. Russia says it wants a final settlement, not just a pause in the fighting, and is insisting on territorial and other demands that Ukraine says would be tantamount to capitulation.
The conflict has intensified in recent weeks, with Russia carrying out some of its heaviest air attacks of the war and Ukraine mounting surprise drone strikes on airfields on June 1 that inflicted serious damage on Russia's nuclear-capable bomber fleet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
Associated Press
40 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' Why does it matter? When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. What does the AP consider? The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. What are previous examples of conflicts where the AP issued guidance to use the word 'war'? The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. Why is it 'war' and not 'War'? AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Could the guidance change? Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why peace may not be the solution in the Israel-Iran conflict
Britain, France, Germany and the European Union are all rushing their foreign ministers to Geneva for talks with Iran in a desperate attempt to give peace a chance. But it is not clear that peace now is the best option. A week into Israel's bombardment of Iran, and its assassination of the country's top nuclear scientists and securocrats, the Islamic state has tightened its grip – and the nuclear facility half a mile underground in Fordow remains intact. If Iran is brought back to the negotiating table at Geneva, whatever it says, the past week has shown that the only hope for the survival of the current rulers of Tehran is for them to build a nuclear weapon. From the Israeli and American perspective, the feeling may be that the only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to double down on the targeting of Iran and change the regime. On top of that, Russia, a close ally of Tehran and part of a Fearsome Foursome that also includes North Korea and China, will see diplomacy now as an opportunity to stop regime change and reinforce its waning influence in the Middle East. Before the planned Geneva meeting, David Lammy said: 'We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.' Trying to slow the sense of global war being imminent, Donald Trump has said that he's pausing any decision on backing Israel for a couple of weeks because he wants to give diplomacy a chance. In terms of strikes, the US has the only weapon that could, conceivably, destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, which is located 18 miles north of the central Iranian city of Qom and half a mile underground: the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a precision-guided 'bunker-busting' bomb. It weighs 13.6 tonnes, is 6.2 metres long but only 0.8m wide, and carries about 2.5 tonnes of explosive. It can penetrate 60 metres of rock before exploding, as it hits the ground like a needle travelling at around double the speed of sound. It would take several MOPs to clear up Fordow and wipe away Iran's nuclear programme – with no guarantee of a clean slate. If the Iranian government that took power after the 1979 revolution – and maintains control through a vast network of military and security services underpinned by the Basij citizens' militia – survived such an assault, it would be surprising if it did not secretly restart building nuclear weapons to ensure that Israel would think twice when it next considered bombing Iran's capital and killing the country's commanders. 'A window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution,' said Lammy. 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one." But would it? Assuming that Trump's advisers have somehow got round the bizarre characters he has put in charge of defence (Pete Hegseth) and the intelligence services (Tulsi Gabbard), they will be helping him to wrestle with a conundrum. Should America go back into the business of regime change – which failed horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and left both nations ruined, riddled with extremism, and deeply anti-American? In theory, the US could join the Israeli effort at low physical risk to pilots; it could bomb Fordow, break the back of the regime, and stand back to watch Iranians themselves rise against their oppressors. That's what Benjamin Netanyahu would like. Or the US could stay back, give Israel every help in defending itself against Iranian counterattacks, and hope that Iran's ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who may be on an Israeli kill list, realises that the long-term survival of his regime may depend on it not returning to the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The gamble for the US is that the Iranian government will still harbour the dream of annihilating Israel and, unless it agrees to a 100 per cent intrusive inspection programme by nuclear experts 24/7, it can never be trusted not to clamber back onto a horse of the apocalypse. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, is expected to join the European talks in Geneva. They are an opportunity to shoulder the US out of talks, which the Trump administration hoped would persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear programme. But Araghchi has also signalled that while Israel continues to bombard his country, Iran won't get involved in diplomacy. This is a moment when Russia can get back in the game. Moscow and Tehran are military bedfellows, sharing intelligence and missile technology, and Russia is Iran's civilian nuclear power contractor. Vladimir Putin lost his most valuable military foothold in the West – the port at Tartus – when Bashar al-Assad, Syria's former dictator, fled to safety in Moscow. Assad was Iran's most important regional client, and the regime also controls Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraq. Putin needs to get back in the game, and if he can bring the Iranians to the table, he can stymie US and Israeli hopes for regime change by making it impossible for America to join the bombing campaign while talks about peace are going on. A third option for all is to jaw-jaw while really giving Israel's war a chance.
