leaders

It was a chastening evening for the Challenge Cup holders, who found Leeds simply too hot to handle.

They were not helped by first-half injuries to forwards Sauaso Sue and Jai Whitbread, which took them out of the contest and, in the case of Sue in particular, looks serious enough to threaten his involvement in the run-in.

Already without the suspended Jared Waerea-Hargreaves, Hull KR were on the back foot from the start with Leeds drawing first blood in the 13th minute through Connor, who landed six out of six with the boot.

There did not look to be much on when he took the ball in the middle of the field, but a fend on Whitbread created the space and the Leeds half-back had the pace to go over.

Four minutes later, teenage front-row Cassell struck for his side’s second try, collecting Kallum Watkins’ chip kick, which cannoned off the post.

It was the outstanding young prospect’s second try in two games.

Things went from bad to worse for the Robins when Miller went over for the home side’s third try in the 26th minute. It was a beauty too, with the lightning full-back gliding through a hole as the home side spread the ball, and then stepping off his right foot for his ninth Super League try of the season.

Leeds led a stunned Hull KR 18-0 at the break.

The visitors came out strongly after the break, but winger Joe Burgess was thwarted by a terrific last-ditch tackle from Newman. Then Mikey Lewis, who endured an uncharacteristically error-ridden evening, was held up over the line.

Hull KR claimed a try on the hour as Newman, under pressure for a kick from Jack Broadbent, spilled the ball behind his own line, but referee Jack Smith adjudged he was tackled in the air.

Brodie Croft put Newman in for Leeds’s fourth try with ten minutes left, leaving Tom Davies’s 100th Super League try late as mere consolation.

While the defeat will almost certainly only delay Hull KR’s crowning as League Leaders’ Shield winners, Leeds have put themselves right into the race for second place that brings with it a home semi-final.

The only blot on the evening for Leeds was the loss of captain Ash Handley in the second half to a groin injury.

London, United Kingdom – Hundreds of business leaders in the United Kingdom – including a former adviser to the king and a sustainability consultant descended from Holocaust survivors – are calling on the government to take action against Israel as the crisis in Gaza worsens.

As of Thursday morning, 762 people had signed a statement calling on Britain to cease all arms trade with Israel, sanction those accused of violating international law – ostensibly including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he is wanted for arrest by International Criminal Court, invest in screening to stop the UK financing “complicit” companies, and enforce the United Nations’ principles on business and human rights across the UK’s economic systems.

“We see this not only as a moral imperative, but as a matter of professional responsibility – consistent with our duty to act in the best interests of long-term societal and economic resilience,” the letter reads. “The UK must ensure that no business – whether through products, services, or supply chains – is contributing to these atrocities, directly or indirectly.”

Among the signatories are the former royal adviser Jonathon Porritt CBE; sustainability consultant Adam Garfunkel; Frieda Gormley, the founder of the luxury interior design brand House of Hackney; the prominent philanthropist who once led Unilever, Paul Polman; and Geetie Singh-Watson MBE, an organic food entrepreneur – as well as other professionals who have been honoured with the Member of the British Empire (MBE) award.

They have pledged to support the UK government with an “ongoing process of reflection and action – reviewing our operations, supply chains, financial flows, and influence to help foster peace, uphold human rights, and strengthen respect for international law”.

“Business cannot succeed in societies that are falling apart,” said Polman. “It is time for business leaders to show courage, speak out, and use our influence to uphold international law.”

The number of professionals signing the letter is growing as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip face their darkest days. Israel is beginning a feared invasion into Gaza City while thousands endure hunger and famine due to the blockade of the Strip.

“We need as businesses to justify our existence and to recognise that all people everywhere deserve to be treated fairly,” Garfunkel told Al Jazeera. “My family was caught up in the Holocaust. My father was lucky enough to escape with his brother and his parents to the UK. My great grandparents were taken to the woods and shot and buried in a mass grave, and what I’ve taken from that is a strong belief that everyone matters, that everyone has human rights, that persecution on the basis of ethnic identity is always wrong, wherever it happens.”

Israel’s latest war on Gaza, termed a genocide by leading rights groups, has killed more than 60,000 people in the 22 months since October 7, 2023, when Hamas led an incursion into southern Israel, during which about 1,200 were killed and 250 taken captive – “grave crimes under international law”, according to the letter.

“However, the Israeli government’s ongoing military campaign amounts to an unrelenting and indefensible assault on civilians, breaching both moral boundaries and the core principles of the Geneva Conventions,” it added.

Porritt, who counselled King Charles on environmental issues for 30 years when the monarch held the Prince of Wales title and has chaired a sustainable development commission set up by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, said the letter reflects the role of businesses in society at a critical time.

“It’s just become so much clearer over the course of the last few months that this situation now is completely intolerable. And it constitutes very specifically a genocide against the people of Palestine, of Gaza,” he told Al Jazeera.

Businesses are obliged to be supportive in “achieving and maintaining” human rights in the countries in which they’re trading, he said. “That provides a very strong steer as to why individual business leaders need to get involved at this stage.”

Porritt has recently made headlines in the British media for his support of Palestine Action, a protest group that was proscribed by the UK government weeks ago as a terrorist organisation.

He was among the more than 500 citizens arrested during an August 9 rally in London, where he raised a banner reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

His bail hearing is set for late October.

On Aug. 16, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, announced that security services had captured two terror leaders, including Mahmud Muhammad Usman, described as a leader of the al-Qaida-linked faction Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina fi Biladis Sudan, popularly known as Ansaru. Authorities also said they had detained Mahmud al-Nigeri, who is associated with the emergent Mahmuda network in North Central Nigeria. 

The arrests, made during operations that spanned May to July this year, were described by the NSA as “the most decisive blow against Ansaru” since its inception, with officials hinting that digital material seized could unlock additional cells and enable follow-on arrests. 

“These two men have jointly spearheaded multiple attacks on civilians, security forces and critical national infrastructure. They are currently in custody and will face due legal process,” Ribadu noted.

For a government under pressure to tame overlapping threats from terrorists, this is a political and operational win. The harder question is whether it marks an actual turning point in a fragmented conflict that has repeatedly adapted to leadership losses. 

A short history of a long problem

Ansaru emerged publicly in early 2012 as a breakaway from Boko Haram after years of quiet cross-border travel, training, and ideological cross-pollination with al-Qaida affiliates. 

The split reflected disagreements over targeting and ideological tactics. While Boko Haram, under Abubakar Shekau, embraced mass-casualty violence, including suicide attacks that killed several civilians, including Muslims, Ansaru positioned itself as a more “discriminating” outfit, focused on Western and high-profile Nigerian targets and on hostage-taking for leverage. 

The group’s founders, notably Khalid al-Barnawi and Abubakar Adam Kambar, had networks developed through al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which shaped their doctrine and operational tactics. This lineage remains crucial for understanding Ansaru’s strategic choices and its enduring connections in the Sahel. 

Ansaru’s first phase was brief but consequential. Between late 2012 and early 2013, the group was credibly linked to a string of operations: the storming of a detention site in Abuja, the country’s capital city, on November 2012, the attack on a Nigerian convoy bound for Mali in January 2013, and, most notoriously, the 2013 kidnapping of seven expatriate workers from a Setraco construction camp in Jama’are, Bauchi State in the country’s North East. The hostages were later killed, and Ansaru circulated a proof-of-death video that stunned Nigeria’s security community. 

Those incidents cemented the group’s image as an al-Qaida-influenced kidnap-and-assault specialist rather than a proto-governance insurgency. 

Two leadership shocks then disrupted Ansaru’s momentum. In 2012, Abubakar Adam Kambar, the group’s first commander, was reported killed during a security operation, elevating Khalid Barnawi’s importance inside the network. 

In April 2016, security forces arrested Khalid al-Barnawi in Lokoja, Kogi State, in the North Central, an event that was widely seen as decapitating Ansaru’s remaining central structure. Ansaru then disappeared from public claim streams for several years after that arrest, an action that suggested the group’s command and control was genuinely degraded. 

However, in January 2020, Ansaru reappeared with an ambush on the convoy of the Emir of Potiskum as it transited through Kaduna State in the North West. Later that year, it issued additional claims in the same region, signalling a pivot from its northeastern birthplace toward spaces where state presence was thinner and terror violence had created both a security vacuum and a recruitment market. 

Reports, including one published by HumAngle, traced some of this revival to the group’s continued ties with al-Qaida affiliates in the Sahel and pragmatic cohabitation with terror gangs, whether through facilitation, training, or weapons flows. 

Why the recent arrests matter

The recent arrests resemble earlier moments when big names like Abubakar Adam Kambar were taken off the battlefield. Officials say Mahmud Muhammad Usman and his counterpart from the Mahmuda network were not only operational leaders but also brokers of transnational connections, including alleged roles in orchestrating the 2022 Kuje prison break and in a 2013 attack against a Nigerien uranium site.

“Malam Mamuda, was said to have trained in Libya between 2013 and 2015 under foreign jihadist instructors from Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, specialising in weapons handling and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) fabrication,” Ribadu said

Those claims serve a dual purpose. They frame the detentions as part of a campaign that reaches beyond Nigeria’s borders, and they signal to international partners that Abuja is aligning against a regional terrorist web that spans from Northern Nigeria through Niger and into Mali and Burkina Faso. 

The tactical benefits are clearer. Removing senior fixers disrupts the flow of money, weapons, and specialised expertise that enable small cadres to punch above their numerical weight.

The haul of digital media, if exploited quickly, can reveal safe-route maps, dead-drop protocols, and liaisons inside other terror syndicates that lease out men and terrain in north-west and north-central Nigeria. When combined with focused policing in towns and market hubs, that intelligence can shrink Ansaru’s margins for clandestine movement and fundraising. 

None of this ends the threat on its own, but it changes the tempo and increases the cost to operate.

What is Ansaru, and what is it not?

To understand fully what this moment means, it is useful to situate Ansaru among the three principal jihadist currents that affect Nigeria today: Boko Haram’s Jama’atu Ahlis-Sunna lid-Da‘wa wal-Jihad (often called “JAS” or “Shekau’s faction”), the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Ansaru itself.

JAS was, for years, the most visible face of the insurgency, built around an absolutist and takfiri reading of Salafi-Jihadism, and operationalised through terror attacks that did not distinguish Muslim civilians from security targets. The Shekau era normalised female suicide bombers, mass abductions, and village-level depopulation. Governance was secondary to spectacle and intimidation. Since Shekau died in 2021, JAS has splintered and receded in some arenas, although pockets remain capable of lethal violence. 

ISWAP is different. Born of a schism with Shekau, it has tended to emphasise territorial management in the Lake Chad Basin, with taxation, shadow court systems, and calibrated violence designed, at least nominally, to avoid indiscriminate Muslim casualties. Its commanders often court pragmatic relationships with traders and smugglers, and, unlike JAS in its prime, ISWAP markets itself as predictable enough for civilians to bargain with and understand. International Crisis Group and other researchers have long highlighted these governance motifs as operational advantages, even as ISWAP continues to attack military positions and abduct civilians. 

Ansaru occupies a third lane. Its al-Qaida genealogy predisposes it toward targeted kidnappings of foreigners and high-profile Nigerians, ambushes of convoys, and the cultivation of rural social capital.

During its 2020 and 2022 push in the North West, Ansaru proselytisers distributed food and farm inputs, positioned themselves as protectors against predatory terrorists, and sought to embed preachers who preached against secular politics and democratic participation. This hearts-and-minds approach was less about running a taxation state and more about building safe communities of sympathy to hide in, recruit from, and extract logistics support. 

Ideologically, Ansaru’s guides are AQIM and, by extension, JNIM in the Sahel. That lineage favours calibrated violence, prolonged detentions rather than mass executions, and strategic hostage bargaining, as seen in the Setraco case and other high-profile kidnappings from 2012 to 2013. It also means Ansaru is plugged into the Sahelian marketplace for weapons, trainers, and media distribution, which helps explain its periodic ability to rebound after leadership losses. 

A map of influence, not of control

In the North East, ISWAP and residual JAS cells dominate the insurgent landscape. Ansaru’s post-2019 story unfolded more in Kaduna’s rural west and parts of neighbouring states, where the absence of policing and the rise of kidnap-for-ransom gangs created both a protection racket and an opportunity for ideological entrepreneurs. 

Birnin Gwari Local Government Area in Kaduna State became a shorthand for that nexus. Residents and local leaders reported that Ansaru courted communities, fought some local terrorist groups, and tried to regulate flows on key feeder roads. 

Media and civil society reports described the group distributing Sallah gifts in Kuyello and influencing daily life in and around Damari and other settlements. These were snapshots of temporary influence, not evidence of continuous territorial control, but they were a warning sign that non-state governance was thickening in spaces where the state was thin. 

That is the context in which Ribadu’s announcement landed. If the commanders arrested were connective tissue between al-Qaida-adjacent logisticians, local fixers, and local terrorist entrepreneurs, then removing them will reverberate in Birnin Gwari and similar corridors. It is also why the arrests were paired rhetorically with claims about plots and partnerships far from Kaduna, including across the Maghreb and the Sahel. 

The Federal Government wants Nigerians to see Ansaru not as another rural gang, but as a node in a continental web that justifies sustained, internationally backed counterterrorism.

Lessons from 2012 and 2016

This is not Nigeria’s first experience with decapitation strikes against Ansaru. In 2012, the reported killing of Kambar set off internal adjustments. 

In 2016, the arrest of Khalid al-Barnawi appeared to shutter Ansaru’s media pipeline and disrupt its external ties, which supports the argument that leadership matters for a relatively small, networked faction. 

Yet by 2020, the group was reclaiming relevance in the northwest, an adaptation that coincided with the Sahel’s worsening jihadist crisis and the metastasis of rural banditry inside Nigeria. 

This short history suggests a dual lesson: Taking leaders off the board works, especially when accompanied by seizures of communications and couriers.  However, it works less well when ungoverned spaces expand faster than the state can fill them and when adjacent theatres, like Mali and Burkina Faso, are producing more seasoned cadres than the region can absorb.

Operations that shaped Ansaru

Ansaru’s brand was shaped by a handful of headline incidents:

Kidnapping and killing of foreign construction workers, Jama’are, Bauchi State, February–March 2013. Seven expatriates seized from Setraco’s compound were later executed after a period of captivity. The case demonstrated Ansaru’s preference for hostage taking aimed at political signalling and bargaining leverage, even if the outcome was ultimately murderous. 

Attack on Nigerian troops en route to Mali, Kogi State, January 2013. As Abuja prepared to contribute forces to the international intervention against jihadists in northern Mali, Ansaru claimed a lethal ambush that underlined its Sahel-centric framing and its willingness to hit military targets to deter Nigeria’s regional role. 

A cluster of 2012 operations, including an assault on a detention facility in Abuja and kidnappings such as the abduction of a French national. The pattern resembled AQIM’s repertoire in the Sahel more than Boko Haram’s campaign in Borno, with a focus on foreigners, convoys, and facilities that maximised international attention. 

More recently, investigators and journalists have traced Ansaru’s fingerprints to influence activities in Kaduna’s rural belt, including the deployment of preachers, gift distribution to farmers, and cooperation or competition with bandit factions. Even where attribution is contested, the persistence of these reports speaks to Ansaru’s hybrid strategy of armed proselytisation and transactional coexistence.

What the arrests change, and what they do not

The most optimistic reading is that neutralising senior Ansaru leaders will slow operational planning, complicate cross-border procurement of arms, and deter terrorist groups from entering into further tactical pacts. In the near term, that could translate into fewer complex ambushes, fewer kidnappings with political messaging, and a reduction in the movement of specialist bombmakers or media operatives between northwest Nigeria and Sahelian fronts.

If the digital evidence that Ribadu referenced is robust and rapidly exploited, the state could also roll up facilitators in markets, transport unions, and phone shops that act as the quiet arteries of clandestine groups. 

A more cautious reading is grounded in Ansaru’s history and the adaptive ecology of violence in the North West. The group is small, but it has repeatedly used alliances to magnify its reach. If surviving mid-level cadres can maintain relationships with bandit-terror leaders who control forest sanctuaries and rural taxation points, Ansaru can regenerate a functional structure even without marquee names at the top. 

In some cases, the brand itself is a currency: men can claim to be acting on behalf of Ansaru to secure access, while the real command node sits far away and communicates sparingly. Detentions alone do not break that reputational economy.

There is also the question of displacement. Pressure in one theatre can push cadres into neighbouring spaces. As long as Sahelian conflict systems continue to produce itinerant trainers and brokers with AQIM or JNIM pedigrees, there will be a supply to meet Nigeria’s demand for clandestine services. Here, the government’s signalling about cross-border links is more than public relations. It points toward the necessity of intelligence sharing with Niger, and, depending on the political climate, with authorities in Mali and Burkina Faso, where applicable. Securing those partnerships in an era of coups and shifting alliances is not a technical task. It is political.

What would “success” look like six months from now?

A realistic definition of success is not zero attacks, but measurable attrition in Ansaru’s facilitation capacity and a visible shrinking of its rural social space. There are indicators Nigerians can watch for:

• Fewer kidnap incidents with clear ideological framing in Kaduna’s rural west and adjacent corridors, and more arrests of kidnap coordinators with al-Qaida ties.
• Disruption of preacher networks that have been used to socialise communities into Ansaru’s worldview, ideally with community-led alternatives filling the vacuum.
• Intelligence-led seizures on trunk and feeder roads that connect markets in Kaduna and Niger States to forest hideouts, particularly around Birnin Gwari, Kuyello, and Damari.
• Public defections of mid-level facilitators following a perception that the brand can no longer protect them from arrest or rival bandits.

If kidnappings bridge into the harvest season with familiar signatures, or if new names suddenly surface to replace those detained, then the state will need to ask whether it has struck the right balance between kinetic pressure and political management of the rural economy of violence.

The bottom line

Ribadu’s announcement is welcome news in a war that has lacked good headlines. For a government facing simultaneous pressure in the North East and the North West, removing Ansaru leaders offers a chance to disrupt one of the more insidious cross-border pipelines feeding violence in Nigeria’s heartland. 

The history, though, counsels humility. Ansaru has absorbed leadership losses before, gone quiet, and then reconstituted itself where the state was weakest. What comes next will depend less on what was said at a podium than on what happens on back roads and in forest clearings, at checkpoints and market stalls, and in the daily bargains between frightened communities and the armed men who claim to protect or prey on them.

If the new arrests are leveraged to dismantle facilitation networks, to keep pressure on safe havens, and to fill the governance gap that Ansaru has so skillfully exploited, then Nigeria could indeed be at a turning point. If not, the country risks watching this chapter follow the pattern of 2012 and 2016, when a decapitated network lay low and then returned in a new guise. 

The choice now is whether to treat this as a headline or as the start of a sustained campaign that finally closes Ansaru’s page in Nigeria’s long insurgent story. 

King Gavin is at it again!

That’s the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s Trump-driven redistricting.

The president “doesn’t play by a different set of rules — he doesn’t believe in the rules,” the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. “And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. … We have got to meet fire with fire.”

California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu.

“An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!” whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state’s rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County.

The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a “MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION” (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said “Newscum” was giving “a giant middle finger to every Californian.”

Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census.

Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom’s so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, “F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.”

I’m not fully convinced that Newsom’s plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing.

I also don’t discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week.

If Californians reject Newsom’s plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation.

For now, though, I’m going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy?

In this image from video, Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa speaks at the U.S. Capitol in 2020.

(House Television via Associated Press)

Where were they during Trump’s fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media?

Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump’s Big Bloated Bill, even though it’s expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating?

We’re supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps?

Pot, meet black hole.

If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would “stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”

That’s an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley’s bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can’t you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place?

We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don’t believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make “Los Angeles a safer place, since we won’t have politicians that’ll do that, we do that ourselves.”

The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as “an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.”

Newsom is not everyone’s cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution’s redistricting section and assuring us it’s OK, because he’s the one doing it, is discomfiting.

But you know what’s worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love.

History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom’s attempts to counter that scourge.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and top European leaders met with United States President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss plans to bring an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Trump convened the meeting after last week’s three-hour summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, where Putin rejected the idea of a ceasefire before reaching a comprehensive peace deal and urged Ukraine to surrender territory in the east in exchange for freezing the front line elsewhere.

Trump and Zelenskyy’s interactions were notably warmer than during their tense encounter at the White House in February, with the US president even praising his counterpart’s suit.

Here are the key takeaways:

Trump says US will give Ukraine ‘very good protection’

Trump said the US would back Europe in protecting Ukraine as part of a deal to end the war with Russia.

“When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help,” Trump said, describing European countries as the “first line of defence”.

“We have people waiting in another room, right now, they’re all here from Europe,” Trump added. “Biggest people in Europe. And they want to give protection. They feel very strongly about it, and we’ll help them out with that.”

Trump also said that US support for Ukraine would continue regardless of the outcome of the talks.

“It’s never the end of the road. People are being killed, and we want to stop that. So, I would not say it was the end of the road. I think we have a good chance of doing it,” he said.

Zelenskyy hailed the pledge as “a major step forward”.

He later told reporters that Ukraine had offered to buy about $90bn worth of US weapons.

Zelenskyy says he’s open to elections in Ukraine, if safe

Zelenskyy backed elections, provided they are held under safe circumstances.

“Yes, of course. We are open, yes… We need to work in the parliament because during the war, you can’t have elections, but we can, we can do security,” Zelenskyy said.

“We need a truce… to make it possible for people to do democratic, open, legal, legal elections,” he added.

Trump says ceasefire not needed

When asked if he would carry out his promise from last week to impose “severe consequences” on Russia if it does not end the war, Trump replied that a ceasefire may not be needed.

“I don’t think you need a ceasefire,” Trump said.

“You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn’t do any ceasefires. And I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically why one country or the other wouldn’t want it,” he said.

“But we can work a deal where we’re working on a peace deal while they’re fighting,” Trump added.

“They have to fight. I wish they could stop.”

Trump has claimed credit for helping to end six wars, including conflicts between India and Pakistan and Cambodia and Thailand.

Ukraine needs ‘everything’ related to security guarantees: Zelenskyy

Asked what guarantees Zelenskyy would need from Trump to agree to a deal, the Ukrainian leader responded: “everything”.

“It includes two parts. First, a strong Ukrainian army that I began to discuss with your colleagues, and it’s a lot about weapons and people and training issues and intelligence,” Zelenskyy said.

Today, important negotiations took place in Washington. We discussed many issues with President Trump. It was a long and detailed conversation, including discussions about the situation on the battlefield and our steps to bring peace closer. There were also several meetings in a… pic.twitter.com/YqkdRlyKCI

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 19, 2025

Trump sits down with European leaders

After his initial meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump held a multilateral meeting with the Ukrainian leader and European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The US president described it as an “honour” to convene with them at the White House, saying they were united in their goal of ending Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“We’ve had a very successful day thus far, and important discussions as we work to end the killing and stop the war in Ukraine,” Trump said.

President Trump and President Zelenskyy en route to meet with the European leaders pic.twitter.com/EHvttm7nDl

— Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) August 18, 2025

Trump will seek summit between Zelenskyy and Putin

“At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social after the talks.

Trump said Russia agreed to accept security guarantees for Ukraine

“This is one of the key points that we need to consider, and we’re going to be considering that at the table,” Trump said.

He expressed optimism that, collectively, an agreement could be reached to deter further aggression against Ukraine.

Putin-Zelenskyy discussions will likely involve Ukraine ceding territory

Trump also said discussions would need to address the possible exchange of territory.

“Ultimately, this is a decision that can only be made by President Zelenskyy and by the people of Ukraine, working also in agreement with President Putin,” Trump said.

Russia controls about one-fifth of Ukraine, according to open-source estimates. Ukraine, which took control of a large swath of Russia’s Kursk region during a surprise counter-offensive last year, is not believed to hold any Russian territory at present.

Trump added that he expected Putin to release Ukrainian prisoners soon.

European leaders lay out positions

• NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the priority must be to stop the killing, as well as the destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, thanking Trump for having “broken the deadlock”.
• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the focus must be on a “just and lasting peace for Ukraine”, and added: “Every single child has to go back to its family,” referring to the forced removal of Ukrainian children to Russia and Belarus.
• German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he “can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire”, urging allies to “work on that and try to put pressure on Russia”.
• Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stressed that one of the most important issues is security guarantees and “how to be sure that it won’t happen again, which is the precondition of every kind of peace”.
• French President Emmanuel Macron said the aim must be a “robust and longstanding peace”, and called the idea of a trilateral meeting “very important because this is the only way to fix it”. He also suggested that “we will need boots on the ground” to secure peace.

Everybody around this table is in favor of peace. pic.twitter.com/F7wYi8MQ8M

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) August 18, 2025

• UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the talks were not just about Ukraine but “the security of Europe and the United Kingdom as well, which is why this is such an important issue”.
• Finnish President Alexander Stubb said the gathering itself was “symbolic, in the sense that it’s Team Europe and Team United States helping Ukraine”. Noting Finland’s long border with Russia, he added: “We found a solution in 1944, and I’m sure that we’ll be able to find a solution in 2025 to end Russia’s war of aggression, find and get a lasting, just peace.”

What’s next?

European Council leaders will hold a video call tomorrow to review Monday’s talks, President Antonio Costa said.

In a post on X, Costa said the call would take place at 1pm Brussels time (11:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet Monday in the White House.

Zelensky said he expects to discuss “key issues” at the meeting. It comes after Trump’s Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.

European leaders began arriving at noon Monday, and Trump is expected to greet Zelensky at 1 p.m. with a meeting soon after.

European Council leaders are scheduled to meet via videoconference Tuesday to discuss the meeting. EC President Antonio Costa called the conference, he announced on X Monday.

“I have convened a video conference of the members of the European Council for tomorrow at 1 p.m. CEST, for a debriefing of today’s meetings in Washington, D.C., about Ukraine,” Costa wrote. “Together with the U.S., the EU will continue working towards a lasting peace that safeguards Ukraine’s and Europe’s vital security interests.”

European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are scheduled to accompany Zelensky to Washington Monday for the talk.

In a brief on Truth Social, Trump said Zelensky “can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight.”

“Remember how it started,” Trump said. “No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE.”

European leaders will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his visit to Washington, DC, seeking an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, after United States President Donald Trump dropped both his push for a ceasefire and the threat of punitive actions against Russia following his Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, more than three years after Russia’s invasion, had been one of Trump’s core demands before Friday’s Alaska summit, to which Ukraine and its European allies were not invited.

Special US envoy Steve Witkoff said on Sunday that Putin agreed at the summit with Trump to allow the US and European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO’s collective defence mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the 3 1/2-year war.

“We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO,” he said on the CNN news programme State of the Union. Witkoff said it was the first time he had heard Putin agree to that.

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy, speaking in Brussels on Sunday after meeting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, said the current front lines of the war should be the basis for peace talks.

“We need real negotiations, which means we can start where the front line is now,” Zelenskyy said, adding that European leaders support this and reiterating his long-held position that it was necessary to establish a ceasefire in order to then negotiate a final deal.

But after the summit on Friday with Putin yielded no clear breakthrough, Trump ruled out an immediate ceasefire – a move that aligns with Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal.

According to a New York Times report, after his meeting with Putin, the US president also told European leaders that he had offered to support a plan to end the war that involved Ukraine giving up parts of its territory to Russia.

Ukraine and its European allies have criticised Putin’s stance as a way to buy time and press Russia’s battlefield advances, and they have expressed unease over Trump’s land swap proposal from the outset.

In an effort to try show a firm, united front to the US president in White House talks on Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and von der Leyen will accompany Zelenskyy to Washington, DC.

“The talks will address, among other things, security guarantees, territorial issues, and continued support for Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression,” the German government said in a statement about the trip to the US capital. “This includes maintaining pressure on sanctions.”

Ahead of the visit, von der Leyen said on X that she would welcome Zelenskyy for a meeting in Brussels on Sunday, which other European leaders would join by video, before accompanying the Ukrainian leader on his US trip at his “request” and with “other European leaders”.

This afternoon, I will welcome @ZelenskyyUa in Brussels.

Together, we will participate in the Coalition of Willing VTC.

At the request of President Zelenskyy, I will join the meeting with President Trump and other European leaders in the White House tomorrow.

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) August 17, 2025

Strength and safety in numbers appear to be factors in the group visit, with memories still fresh about the hostile reception Zelenskyy received in February from Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance in a public White House dressing-down, castigating the Ukrainian leader as being ungrateful and “disrespectful”.

No land swaps

While Zelenskyy has welcomed Trump’s efforts to end the war, in a post on social media on Saturday, he warned that “it may take a lot of effort to get Russia to have the will to implement far greater – peaceful coexistence with its neighbors for decades”.

The Ukrainian president has also repeatedly reiterated that Kyiv will not swap any of its land to attain a ceasefire. Ukraine’s constitution forbids the ceding of territory.

According to Zelenskyy, Putin has asked that Russia be handed over all of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, a third of which Kyiv still holds.

In exchange, Russian forces would halt their offensive in the Black Sea port region of Kherson and Zaporizhia in southern Ukraine, where the main cities are still under Ukrainian control.

Earlier this month, the Ukrainian president said that  “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier” and pointed out that he doesn’t have the authority to sign off on land swaps. He said that changing Ukraine’s 1991 borders runs counter to the country’s constitution.

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has been gradually advancing for months.

In his statement after the Alaska summit, Putin signalled no movement in Russia’s long-held demands, which also include a veto on Kyiv’s desired membership in the NATO alliance.

He also warned Ukraine and its European allies not to “create any obstacles” and “that they will not attempt to disrupt the emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigue”.

Trilateral summit in the works?

The diplomatic focus now switches to Zelenskyy’s talks at the White House on Monday with the European leaders in tow.

In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump had suggested that the onus was now on Zelenskyy to secure a peace deal as they work towards an eventual trilateral summit with Putin.

“It’s really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done,” Trump said.

European powers, however, want to help set up a trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy to make sure Ukraine has a seat at the table to shape its future.

They also want security guarantees for Ukraine with US involvement, and the ability to crank up pressure on Moscow if needed.

“They will spell out what they consider essential in terms of security guarantees: what they can do themselves, what falls to the coalition of volunteers, and also what they expect from the United States,” a European government official told the Reuters news agency.

“Indeed, they expect a very robust commitment.”

A LIP reader has revealed Vladimir Putin’s pledge to Donald Trump as the two leaders met in Alaska.

The US President greeted his Russian counterpart on the tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Air Base on Friday.

7

7

7

The pair went on to address the world in a brief press conference and negotiate with their teams in private, but they also shared words in front of cameras that couldn’t be heard.

That hidden speech can tell us a lot about their pair’s relationship and hint at what could be happening behind closed doors.

Forensic lipreader Nicola Hickling has now revealed what the powerful men said when they greeted each other airport.

The world’s eyes were on the moment when Putin walked towards Trump to shake hands.

Putin looked relaxed as he walked down a red carpet towards Trump – giving the US leader a thumbs-up before greeting him with a warm handshake.

Trump begins clapping as Putin approaches and the American says: “Finally,” according to Hickling.

Hickling then said that as the pair shook hands Trump added: “You made it, fantastic to see you and appreciated.”

The pair then appear to begin talking about Ukraine and the bringing the fighting to an end with a ceasefire.

Putin responds in English, saying: “Thank you — and you.”

He also makes a pledge to Trump: “I am here to help you.”

Trump replies: “I’ll help you.”

Pointing towards Trump, Putin says: “All they need is to ask.”

Trump answers simply: “Okay.”

Putin continues: “I will bring it to a rest.”

7

7

Trump responds: “I hope it does.”

Turning towards the vehicle, Hickling said Trump smiles and says: “Come on, let’s get straight into the vehicle. We need to move forward, both giving it attention. I know this is serious, it’s quite long. What a journey it is.”

Trump salutes and says: “Thank you.”

On the podium, Trump says: “Thank you. Let’s shake hands — it gives a good impression.”

Putin nods in agreement, shakes his hand, and says: “Thank you.”

The pair then shared a moment alone in Trump’s presidential limo – known as The Beast – which drove them to the summit venue.

They were then next seen when they posed for photos in front of the press to record the historic moment.

7

7

But the photocall descended into chaos when the journalists started shouting at Trump and the tyrant – who doesn’t face that sort of opposition in Russia.

Hickling said that Trump noticed Putin wasn’t happy with a question or remark made.

The American leans in to his aide, according to the lipreader, and whispers: “I’m uncomfortable, we need to move them quickly.”

Putin then makes a face after being on the receiving end of the aggressive questioning.

Hickling said the Russian tells a reporter: “You is ignorant.” 

Then, as he cups his hands to his mouth to shout above the chaos, he says again: “You are ignorant.”

After nearly three hours of talks in Alaska, the US president said the pair “agreed on some big points” they said in a brief press conferece.

There was a lot of flattery between the pair as they spoke in front of the world.

Hickling’s analysis of the chumminess between the pair out of range of the microphones suggests that there could possibly be a real relationship between the pair, despite the geopolitical differences.

What was the outcome of the historic peace talks?

Following the historic talks, Donald Trump said there is still disagreement, adding: “There is no deal until there is a deal” and “we didn’t get there” despite progress.

Trump said he would “making some calls” to European leaders and Volodymyr Zelensky soon – and added “we have a very good chance of reaching a deal”.

Vladimir Putin says he is “sincerely interested” in ending the conflict, which he called a “tragedy.”

He insists Russia must eliminate the “primary causes” of the war – a Kremlin talking point he has been saying since the start of the conflict.

Putin invited Trump to hold a next meeting in Moscow.

“We’ll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon,” Trump said.

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin replied.

“That’s an interesting one,” Trump laughed.

“I’ll get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived on Wednesday in Berlin for a virtual summit with European officials and United States President Donald Trump, convened by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The call was meant to bring European leaders together with Trump before the planned August 15 Alaska meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Those on the call included Merz and the US president, as well as US Vice President JD Vance, Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof, among others.

Here are the key takeaways:

What happened on Wednesday?

The prospect of Trump meeting alone with Putin has left European leaders uneasy. Since the Alaska summit was announced, they have worked to secure Trump’s ear one last time, and on Wednesday, that effort resulted in a series of high-level calls.

About 12:00 GMT, European leaders and NATO members held a video conference with Zelenskyy. Roughly an hour later, Trump and Vice President JD Vance joined the discussion.

Chancellor Merz and President Zelenskyy then delivered joint statements, followed by a separate address from Trump at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC.

Later in the day, the “Coalition of the Willing”, a group of 31 countries committed to strengthening support for Ukraine against Russian aggression, met in a separate virtual session, issuing a statement.

What were the key takeaways from all these talks?

Here is a breakdown.

EU leaders:

Following the talks with other European leaders and Trump:

• Merz said that European and Ukrainian security interests must be respected at Friday’s Alaska summit. He underlined the importance of Ukraine having a seat at the table in any peace discussions, with a ceasefire as the essential first step.
• “We have made it clear that Ukraine will be at the table as soon as there is a follow-up meeting,” Merz told reporters in Berlin alongside Zelenskyy. “President Trump wants to make a ceasefire a priority,” he added.
• Any territorial exchange in Ukraine “must only be discussed with Ukraine”, French President Macron told reporters in Bregancon, France, following the call.
• “Trump was very clear on the fact that the US wants to obtain a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska,” Macron said.  “We must continue to support Ukraine, and when I say ‘we’, I mean Europeans and Americans,” he added.

• Ukraine needs credible security guarantees as part of any peace deal, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Starmer said following the virtual summit. The United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine is “unwavering”, he added.

Zelenskyy statements:

• Zelenskyy, during the news conference with Merz, said Putin is “bluffing” about being interested in peace. “Russia is attempting to portray itself as capable of occupying all of Ukraine. That is undoubtedly what they want,” Zelenskyy said.
• The Ukrainian leader also warned that “talks about us, without us, will not work”.
• “Everything concerning Ukraine must be discussed exclusively with Ukraine. We must prepare a trilateral format for talks. There must be a ceasefire,” Zelenskyy added.
• He also said “there must be security guarantees – truly reliable ones”.
• Among the agreed principles, Zelenskyy said, is that Russia must not be allowed to block Ukraine’s path to joining the European Union or NATO, and that peace talks should go hand in hand with maintaining pressure on Russia.

• The Ukrainian leader also emphasised that sanctions should be strengthened if Russia fails to agree to a ceasefire during the Alaska summit. “These are effective principles. It is important that they work,” Zelenskyy added.

Thank you for your support! https://t.co/8GyunlWhwf

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 13, 2025

Trump’s news conference:

Following the call, Trump spoke at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC:

• “We had a very good call. I would rate it a 10, very friendly,” Trump explained. The US leader then went on to discuss potential next steps ahead of Friday’s meeting.
• “There’s a very good chance that we’re going to have a second meeting, which will be more productive than the first. Because the first is: I’m going to find out where we are and what we’re doing,” he said.
• Trump also mentioned the possibility of a later meeting “between President Putin and President Zelenskyy and myself, if they’d like to have me there”, after the first meeting between him and Putin.
• Trump also said he plans to call Zelenskyy and other European leaders after Friday’s discussions with Putin.
• The US president also said there will be “very severe consequences” for Russia if Putin doesn’t agree to end the war after Friday’s meeting.

• “Do you believe you can convince him to stop targeting civilians in Ukraine?” one journalist asked Trump. “I’ve had that conversation with him,” Trump said.
• “Then I go home and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home or a rocket hit an apartment building and people are laying dead in the street. So I guess the answer to that is no, because I’ve had this conversation,” he added.
• However, he reaffirmed his intention to find a solution: “I want to end the war. It’s Biden’s war, but I want to end it. I’ll be very proud to end this war, along with the five other wars I ended,” he said, without explaining which other conflicts he was referring to. He has claimed credit for ceasefires between India and Pakistan in May and Israel and Iran in June, and helped mediate truce pacts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Trump has also repeatedly made it clear that he covets a Nobel Peace Prize and believes he is deserving of one.

The Coalition of the Willing:

The coalition issued a statement outlining four key requirements they believe should form the basis of Friday’s talks.

• They said “meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or a lasting and significant cessation of hostilities”.
• Second, if Russia refuses a ceasefire in Alaska, sanctions and other economic measures should be intensified to further strain its war economy.
• Third, “international borders must not be changed by force”.
• Fourth, Ukraine should receive strong security guarantees, with the Coalition of the Willing ready to help, including a reassurance force after hostilities end. “No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries,” the statement said. And Russia cannot veto Ukraine’s path to EU or NATO membership.

Will the European intervention influence the Alaska summit?

It’s unclear, but analysts say that Wednesday’s calls show how Europe has managed to make sure that Trump can’t ignore the continent.

“Even if certain commitments are given, we don’t know what will happen once Putin and Trump find themselves in a room,” Lucian Kim, a senior analyst for Ukraine with the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

“The Europeans have quite a lot of power and even more than they realise themselves,” he said, adding that it was an “achievement” for European leaders to get Trump’s attention, and there is now a difference in tone.

“It was not a given when Trump first got into office that he would listen to the Europeans,” he said. Kim also noted that Europe has used its power and influence to pressure Russia over the war.

“Russia was heavily dependent on Europe, not the United States, and this lack of trade is hurting Russia,” he said. “Also, you have European banks that are holding hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian government assets.”

“Trump has realised that without the Europeans, it will be very hard to reach any solution in Ukraine.”

What has Russia said so far about any peace agreement?

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexey Fadeev told a news conference that Moscow’s position remained unchanged since President Putin outlined it in June 2024.

At the time, Putin had said that a ceasefire would take effect immediately if the Ukrainian government withdrew from four Ukrainian regions partially occupied by Russia – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia. He also insisted that Ukraine must formally abandon its bid to join the NATO military alliance.

Russia currently controls about 19 percent of Ukraine, including the entirety of Crimea and Luhansk, more than 70 percent of Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson, as well as small portions of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

Kim Yo Jong denies claims that Pyongyang has removed propaganda-blaring loudspeakers at the inter-Korean border.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister has accused South Korea of misleading the public about ties between the Koreas, denying claims that Pyongyang removed some propaganda-blaring loudspeakers from their shared border.

In a statement carried by the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency on Thursday, Kim Yo Jong blasted the claim by South Korea’s military as an “unfounded unilateral supposition and a red herring.”

“We have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them,” Kim said.

Kim accused Seoul of “building up the public opinion while embellishing their new policy” towards Pyongyang.

“It is their foolish calculation that if they manage to make us respond to their actions, it would be good, and if not, their actions will at least reflect their ‘efforts for detente’ and they will be able to shift the responsibility for the escalation of tensions onto the DPRK and win the support of the world,” Kim said, using the acronym of North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Such a “trick” is nothing but a “pipedream” and “does not arouse our interest at all,” Kim added.

“Whether the ROK withdraws its loudspeakers or not, stops broadcasting or not, postpones its military exercises or not and downscales them or not, we do not care about them and are not interested in them,” she said, using the acronym of South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea.

“The shabby deceptive farce is no longer attractive.”

In a statement quoted by local media, South Korea’s Ministry of Unification did not directly address Kim’s claims, but said it would continue its efforts toward the “normalisation” and “stabilisation” of inter-Korean ties.

Kim’s broadside comes after South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Saturday that Pyongyang had removed some of the loudspeakers, days after the South Korean side took down similar speakers on its side of the border.

North Korea is highly sensitive to criticism of the ruling Kim family, which has ruled the isolated state with iron first for nearly eight decades and is treated with God-like reverence in official commentary.

Since the inauguration of left-leaning South Korean President Lee Jae-myung in June, Seoul has been seeking rapprochement with its reclusive neighbour, after years of elevated tensions between the Koreas under the conservative ex-president Yoon Suk-yeol.

But Kim Yo Jong, who oversees the propaganda operations of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, has repeatedly shot down the possibility of reconciliation between the sides.

In a scathing dismissal of Lee’s rapprochement efforts last month, Kim said there was no “more serious miscalculation” than believing that relations could be repaired “with a few sentimental words.”

In her remarks on Thursday, Kim also poured scorn on South Korean media reports suggesting that Pyongyang could use Friday’s summit between United States President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to communicate with Washington.

“This is a typical proof that the ROK is having a false dream,” she said.

“If a dream is dreamed very often, it will be an empty one, and so many suppositions will lead to so many contradictions that will not be solved. Why should we send a message to the US side.”

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Ahead of President Donald Trump‘s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, the European Union will have a call with him Wednesday to remind him that he shouldn’t negotiate without Ukraine.

The call on Wednesday, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will include Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders who are friendly with Trump, like Italy Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Zelensky will be in Berlin for the meeting, his office said on Wednesday, and is expected to later brief reporters with Merz.

At the Friday meeting in Alaska, Trump will meet with Putin to try to end the war with Ukraine. But Zelensky hasn’t been invited.

“We cannot accept that territorial issues between Russia and America are discussed or even decided over the heads of Europeans, over the heads of Ukrainians,” Merz said in a TV interview Sunday. “I assume that the American government sees it the same way. That is why there is this close coordination.”

Merz, a center-right politician, has heavily courted Trump since taking office in May. He has tried to impress upon Trump that if the United States were to boldly intervene on behalf of Ukraine, it could drive Putin into a cease-fire and peace talks.

Trump’s recent frustration with Russia’s repeated bombing of Ukraine has made him more receptive to Merz’s pleas. But this week, he told reporters he wanted to see what Putin had on his mind, and if he could broker “a deal,” which could include swaps of land held by Ukraine and Russia.

But peace on bad terms for Putin might encourage him to send troops to another neighbor and threaten Europe.

“It’s really a concern that Putin might feel emboldened,” Anna Sauerbrey, foreign editor for Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper, told The New York Times. “Not to go for Berlin, of course, but to cause some unrest in other Baltic countries, other European countries.”

Europe’s leaders seemed optimistic that Trump will hear their pleas and take Europe’s needs into consideration.

The EU on Tuesday demanded that the Ukrainian people should determine their own future and that no peace deal with Russia could be decided without Ukraine at the table. Hungary disavowed itself from the calls.

Leaders of 26 of 27 European Union nations said in a statement that viable negotiations must be within the framework of a cease-fire or easing of hostilities and warned of the threat the war posed to European and international security.

There appears to be “more of an understanding from the Americans that you can’t just go for land swaps which would somehow give a prize to Russia,” said one European Union official, who was granted anonymity by the Washington Post. But, the official said, “it’s clear that there are sort of discrepancies, and as we’ve seen it in the U.S. system by now, you have one man who will decide.”

Trump told reporters Monday that “It’s not up to me to make a deal,” echoing what Europe is saying, that Ukraine must be part of the negotiations.

“I guess everyone’s afraid Putin will play Trump’s ego again like he has in the past,” said a second European official to the Washington Post. “Who knows, maybe he comes there with another noble-sounding offer or maybe they give [Trump] some state award.”

German chancellor has arranged a series of meetings, beginning with European leaders and followed by a call with the US president.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will travel to Berlin for talks with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, European leaders and top United States officials ahead of a planned summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week.

Both the German and Ukrainian governments confirmed the visit on Wednesday, which comes as Kyiv and its European allies push to ensure their voices are heard in discussions about ending the war.

Merz has arranged a series of virtual meetings, beginning with European leaders and followed by a call with Trump and US Vice President JD Vance about an hour later.

The day will conclude with a separate discussion among leaders of the so-called “coalition of the willing” – an assemblage of Western countries allied with Ukraine.

At a news briefing on Wednesday, Merz also pledged to help Ukraine develop long-range missile systems without Western-imposed restrictions on their use or targets.

Trump to meet Putin

Trump has described Friday’s summit with the Russian leader in Alaska as “a feel-out meeting” to gauge whether Putin is serious about ending the conflict.

But he has unsettled European allies by suggesting Ukraine will have to give up some Russian-held territory and by floating the idea of land swaps, without specifying what Moscow might surrender.

European governments have insisted Ukraine must be part of any peace negotiations, warning that excluding Kyiv could benefit Moscow.

On Monday, Trump declined to commit to pushing for Zelenskyy’s participation in his talks with Putin, saying a meeting between himself, Putin and Zelenskyy could be arranged afterwards.

Zelenskyy claimed he rejected an offer on Tuesday that Putin had proposed, where Ukraine would withdraw from the 30 percent of the Donetsk region it still controls as part of a ceasefire deal.

Kyiv and European officials fear that any US–Russia agreement reached without them could legitimise Moscow’s seizure of Ukrainian territory – including Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson – four regions which are partly occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday said Trump and Putin would discuss “all the accumulated issues” at the meeting.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexei Fadeev also said that consultations requested by European countries were “insignificant”.

Russia’s position on ending its war on Ukraine was set out by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024 and has not changed, he added. Putin at that time demanded a full Ukrainian withdrawal from the four regions of the country that Russia has claimed as its own territory but does not fully control.

Fighting continues in eastern Ukraine

Meanwhile, fighting continues along the front line, with the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces reporting 165 clashes with Russian forces over the past day, with the heaviest fighting in the Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka and Lyman sectors.

In the Kherson region, Russian forces used a drone to strike a civilian car on the Novoraisk–Kostyrka highway, killing a man and a woman, according to regional governor Oleksandr Prokudin on Telegram.

The Russian Defence Ministry said its air defences destroyed 46 Ukrainian drones overnight across Russian territory and the Sea of Azov.

Debris from intercepted drones fell on the roof of an apartment block in the southern city of Volgograd and in the yards of four residential buildings in Slavyansk-on-Kuban.

The AFP news agency has also reported that Ukraine is continuing to lose more ground, with evacuations in Bilozerske, while Ukrainian battlefield monitoring group DeepState reported that Russian forces had advanced in Nikanorivka, Shcherbynivka and near Petrivka in the Donetsk region.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian General Staff said its forces were engaged in “difficult” fighting near Pokrovsk in Donetsk, a key logistical hub for Kyiv’s forces, whose capture would deal a significant blow to its front-line defences and prospects at securing a favourable peace deal with Russia.

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s leaders met in the UAE last month, but no breakthrough in their decades-long conflict was reached.

United States President Donald Trump will host the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan for peace talks at the White House, a US official said.

The official told the Reuters news agency on Tuesday that there is a possibility a framework for a peace agreement could be announced at Friday’s meeting in Washington, DC.

The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, for peace talks last month, but no breakthrough in the decades-old conflict was announced.

The two South Caucasus countries have been in conflict with each other since the late 1980s, when Nagorno-Karabakh broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia.

The region, which was claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time.

Azerbaijan recaptured Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, prompting almost all of the territory’s 100,000 Armenians to flee to Armenia.

Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of “erasing all traces” of the presence of ethnic Armenians in the contested territory, in a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The case stems from the 2020 war over Nagorno-Karabakh, which left more than 6,600 people dead, one of three full-scale wars that the two countries have fought over the region.

The United Nations’s top court has ordered Azerbaijan to allow ethnic Armenians who fled Nagorno-Karabakh to return. Azerbaijan says it is committed to ensuring all residents’ safety and security, regardless of national or ethnic origin, and that it has not forced ethnic Armenians, who are mostly Christian, to leave the Karabakh region.

Azerbaijan, whose inhabitants are mostly Muslim, links its historical identity to the territory, too, and has accused the Armenians of driving out Azeris who lived near the region in the 1990s.

The meeting in Abu Dhabi last month between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev came after the two countries finalised a draft peace deal in March.

The two leaders “agreed to continue bilateral negotiations and confidence-building measures between the two countries”, but no more concrete steps were outlined in the final statement from the talks.

Ceasefire violations along the heavily militarised 1,000km (620-mile) shared Armenia-Azerbaijan border surged soon after the draft deal was announced in March, but later diminished.

Los Angeles city leaders are at a critical juncture ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics, with potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake.

They are in negotiations with LA28, the private committee overseeing the Games, for the use of the city’s police, traffic officers and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics.

Millions of visitors are expected to pour into downtown L.A., the Sepulveda Basin and the Westside when the Olympics kick off in July 2028. Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day event and the two-week Paralympics the following month.

Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on “enhanced services” — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes.

LA28 has billed the Games as a “no cost” event for the city. Depending on how “enhanced services” are defined, the city, which is in a precarious financial state, could end up bearing significant costs. One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working together to keep athletes and spectators safe.

Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring. The city continues to face rising labor costs and diminished revenues from tourism.

At the same time, President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, recently passed by Congress, includes $1 billion for security and planning of the Games. But what those funds will cover — and what will be covered by LA28 — are not yet known.

Against that backdrop, civil rights attorney Connie Rice sent a six-page letter dated July 17 to Mayor Karen Bass and other city leaders, asking questions about the enhanced services agreement and urging the city to take a tough stance. Rice said city staffers reached out to her because they were worried that the agreement wouldn’t adequately protect the city.

“Los Angeles faces multiple fiscal hazards that many current leaders negotiating this and other Olympics agreements, will not be around to face,” Rice wrote. “The City cannot afford an additional $1.5 billion hit in 2028 because city officials inadequately protected taxpayers in 2025.”

Rice’s letter asks if LA28 and the city have resolved differences about the definition of venue “footprints,” or perimeters around sporting events, with the footprint changing depending on whether it’s defined by a blast radius, a security perimeter or other factors.

The letter questioned why LA28 isn’t paying the city up front for costs, using money in escrow, and asked if LA28 has provided the city with a budget for security, transit and sanitation.

Rice, in an interview, said she wants to ensure the Games are indeed “no cost.”

Both Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass’ major events office, and an LA28 representative declined to directly address Rice’s letter.

“The City and LA28 have been collaborating for years to ensure that all Angelenos benefit from the Games for decades to come,” said Krekorian. “While the [agreement] is currently under negotiation, we fully expect that LA28 will be successful in its fundraising efforts to deliver the Games.”

The city routinely provides police officers and traffic officers for major events, such as Dodgers games and the Grammy Awards. In 2022, the Rams reimbursed the city $1.5 million for resources it provided for the team’s Super Bowl parade, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

Last month, Szabo’s office released a document on the city’s investor website outlining potential liabilities facing the city, including some related to the 2028 Games. The document noted that roughly $1 billion in security costs will have to be paid by the city if they are not covered by LA28 or the federal government.

Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28’s vice president of communications, told The Times that security and other planning costs haven’t been finalized.

Rice’s letter questioned whether LA28 would cover the cost of security. Prieto Lopez didn’t directly answer when asked by The Times if LA28 will cover the LAPD’s expenses.

“We are grateful that the Administration and Congress recently appropriated $1 billion in security funding and we will continue to work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels, including the City of LA, to ensure a safe, secure and successful Games,” Prieto Lopez said in an email.

How the $1 billion from the Big Beautiful Bill is distributed will be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is focused on preventing terrorism and other threats.

Anita Gore, a spokesperson for the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, told The Times that she expects those funds to be managed by the state through the Homeland Security Grant process.

The Office of Emergency Services is the “coordination hub” for the Games and is overseeing a statewide task force focused on security, traffic management and more, Gore said.

At a recent hearing in Sacramento, LA28 Chief Executive Reynold Hoover said the nonprofit continues to push for federal support for the Games. He said the $1 billion recently approved by Congress will “help us with that initial funding requirements for security.”

Hoover told a Senate subcommittee in June that LA28 is asking the federal government to fully reimburse the public agencies that will provide critical security at the Games.

A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about how the $1 billion will be used.

Trump’s mercurial nature and past attacks on California make it difficult for some city leaders to gauge how his administration will handle funding for the Games.

Rep. Nellie Pou of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Congressional Task Force for Enhancing Security for Special Events, held a public hearing last month on preparing for the World Cup and Olympics. She told The Times that she has not received any specifics about the $1 billion.

“This administration has withheld and frozen other federal funding appropriated by Congress, so we cannot simply assume that World Cup or Olympic security funding will make it to our communities,” she said.

Krekorian, when asked about Pou’s concerns, said the city “is in direct communication with state and federal partners, as well as LA28, about the allocation of these funds.”

Milorad Dodik rejects appeals court’s decision, saying he will seek help of Russia and the Trump administration.

An appeals court in Bosnia has upheld an earlier ruling sentencing Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik to one year in prison and banning him from politics for six years over his separatist actions, which set off tensions in the Balkan country.

Dodik rejected the court ruling on Friday, telling reporters that he will continue to act as the Bosnian Serb president as long as he has the support of the Bosnian Serb parliament.

“I do not accept the verdict,” he said. “I will seek help from Russia and I will write a letter to the US administration.”

A Sarajevo court in February sentenced the president of Republika Srpska – the ethnic Serb part of Bosnia – to a year in prison for failing to comply with rulings by the international envoy overseeing Bosnia’s 1995 peace accords.

It also banned him from holding office for six years.

The conviction led to uproar in Bosnia’s autonomous Serb Republic, triggering Bosnia’s worst political crisis since the conflict in the early 1990s, which killed about 100,000 people between 1992 and 1995.

Dodik has rejected the trial and his conviction as “political”.

In response, the parliament in Republika Srpska passed a law prohibiting the central police and judicial authorities from operating in the Serb entity. Bosnia’s constitutional court annulled those laws in May.

On Friday, the European Union said in a brief statement that the appeals court’s “verdict is binding and must be respected”.

“The EU calls on all parties to acknowledge the independence and impartiality of the court, and to respect and uphold its verdict,” the bloc said.

Dodik’s lawyer Goran Bubic said his team would appeal Friday’s ruling to the constitutional court and seek a temporary delay of the implementation of the verdict pending its decision.

Dodik has repeatedly called for the separation of the Serb-run half of Bosnia to join Serbia, which prompted the administration of former United States President Joe Biden to impose sanctions against him and his allies in 2022.

The Bosnian Serb leader was also accused of corruption and pro-Russia policies.

Most European nations welcome the deal, but some slam it as a capitulation before the EU’s largest trading partner.

The United States and the European Union have struck a wide-ranging trade deal, imposing a 15 percent import tariff on most EU goods, evading an all-out transatlantic trade war.

The deal was hashed out on Sunday between US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, before an August 1 deadline for the introduction of steep tariffs.

Both Trump and von der Leyen lauded the deal as an important step, with the US leader hailing it as the “biggest deal” ever made, and the EU chief stating it will bring much-needed “stability” and “predictability”.

But what are European leaders saying about the deal with the EU’s largest trading partner? Here are some reactions:

Denmark

“The trade conditions will not be as good as before, and it is not our choice, but a balance must be found that stabilises the situation and that both sides can live with,” said Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

Finland

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said the agreement brings “much-needed predictability to the global economy and Finnish companies”. “Work must continue to dismantle trade barriers. Only free transatlantic trade benefits both sides the most,” he said.

France

“It is a sombre day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission,” said French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou.

Germany

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the agreement has “succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard”. “This applies in particular to the automotive industry, where the current tariffs of 27.5 percent will be almost halved to 15 percent.”

A government spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that Berlin sees the need for further negotiations. “It is certainly no secret that in the steel and aluminium sector … We see a need for further negotiations,” the spokesperson said during a news conference in Berlin. He added that details of the deal remained to be worked out, and that “the EU Commission and the German government are now fully committed to this.”

Hungary

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban slammed the deal. “This is not an agreement … Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast, this is what happened, and we suspected this would happen as the US president is a heavyweight when it comes to negotiations, while Madame President is featherweight,” he said.

Ireland

Irish Trade Minister Simon Harris said the deal provides a “measure of much-needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world”.

“While Ireland regrets that the baseline tariff of 15 percent is included in the agreement, it is important that we now have more certainty on the foundations for the EU-US trade relationship, which is essential for jobs, growth and investment,” he said.

Italy

“I consider it positive that there is an agreement, but if I don’t see the details, I am not able to judge it in the best way,” said Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Speaking at a summit in Ethiopia, she said a “trade escalation between Europe and the United States would have had unpredictable and potentially devastating consequences”.

Meloni – a Trump ally on many issues – had warned earlier this month against a “trade war within the West”.

Romania

In a statement, the Romanian government’s press office said Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan “salutes that a trade agreement was reached and … feels it is a good omen”. “It eliminates present unclearness which caused disruptions and uncertainties in transatlantic trade relations,” it said.

Spain

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he backed the deal but “without any enthusiasm”.

“I value the constructive and negotiating attitude of the president of the European Commission. In any case, I support this trade agreement, but I do so without any enthusiasm,” he told a news conference.

Sweden

“This agreement does not make anyone richer, but it may be the least bad alternative. What appears to be positive for Sweden, based on an initial assessment, is that the agreement creates some predictability,” said Swedish Trade Minister Benjamin Dousa.

Africa’s leaders have no one to blame but themselves if they cannot reach equitable trade deals with the United States, argues the former representative of the African Union to the US, Arikana Chihombori-Quao.

Chihombori-Quao tells host Steve Clemons that US President Donald Trump’s “trade, not aid” policy opens up “an opportunity that African leaders were not awarded by the colonisers, the European nations, when they set out to exploit the continent of Africa”.

She adds that African leaders should not allow themselves to be bullied by Trump, “because he has what you need, you also have what he wants”.

July 18 (UPI) — U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau discussed security and commerce when he met with Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Funakoshi Takehiro and South Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Park Yoonjoo in Osaka, Japan, on Friday.

The goal of the meeting was to advance the countries’ trilateral partnership, which is “critical for the safety, security, and prosperity of our three countries,” State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a press release.

The three “emphasized their commitment to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific and discussed efforts to ensure peace and stability in the region,” Bruce said.

The security of the region is always tense, thanks to North Korea and its alliances with China and Russia.

On Thursday, a United Nations report showed evidence that North Korea many times shipped arms and material to Russia, which trained North Korean troops for combat against Ukrainian forces, Seth Bailey, the U.S. State Department’s director for Korean and Mongolian Affairs, told U.N. members.

At the Osaka meeting, the three reaffirmed their resolute commitment to the complete denuclearization of North Korea and expressed serious concerns about its increasing military cooperation with Russia. They discussed the importance of strengthening deterrence and resilience against regional security threats, Bruce said.

One of those threats came last weekend, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited North Korea and expressed support for the hermit country.

“No one is considering using force against North Korea despite the military buildup around the country by the United States, South Korea and Japan,” Lavrov said of the joint military exercise that took place in South Korea the day before.

“We respect North Korea’s aspirations and understand the reasons why it is pursuing a nuclear development,” he said.

Landau, Funakoshi and Park reiterated their commitment to strengthening supply chains and collaborating on emerging technologies to boost their economic cooperation, Bruce added.

They agreed Japanese and Korean participation in the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in June sent a strong signal about the importance of energy security underpinned by unleashing American liquified natural gas.

The U.S.-Japan bond was shaken last week, though, when President Donald Trump said he planned to impose a 25% tariff on Japan starting in August. Though hurt by the statement, Japan said it will continue to negotiate with the president.

“The real climax and critical moment are the three weeks until Aug. 1,” Japan’s Minister of Economic Revitalization Ryosei Akazawa said. “We would like to support the government’s negotiations more firmly than ever before.”

The United States has a $57 billion trade deficit with Japan with $84.95 billion exports from the United States and $141.52 billion imports in 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database.

Negotiations aimed at reuniting the divided island have been stalled since 2017.

The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said he would have liked more results from his meetings with the rival leaders of the divided island of Cyprus, while the Turkish Cypriot leader said he was “very, very upset” that there was no agreement on opening four new border crossings.

Guterres on Thursday called the meetings at the UN in New York “constructive” and pointed to progress on four of the six initiatives that the leaders had agreed to in March. He cautioned, however, that “there’s a long road ahead.”

The Mediterranean island was divided in 1974 when Turkiye invaded, following a coup by Athens’ military government-backed supporters to unite the island with Greece.

Mass deaths and displacement of the Greek Cypriot population followed as the island’s northern third was occupied – only Turkiye recognises a Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence, and it maintains more than 35,000 troops in the north.

Negotiations between the rivals have been stalled since 2017. When asked whether he would start a new round, Guterres responded that there is more to be done before any negotiations.

“I think we are building, step by step, confidence and creating the conditions to do concrete things to the benefit of the Cypriot people,” the secretary-general said.

The agreed-upon, UN-endorsed framework for a peace deal has been a reunified Cyprus as a federation composed of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot zones.

Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar has been demanding a two-state deal ever since his 2020 election. He faces re-election in October and says he’s running on the same two-state platform with Ankara’s full backing.

Greek Cypriots reject any agreement that would formalise partition, fearing Turkiye would seek to control the entire island in light of its demand to maintain a permanent troop presence and military intervention rights in Cyprus.

Turkiye also insists that the minority Turkish Cypriots should have veto rights over all federal government decisions.

The meeting included the foreign ministers of guarantor countries Turkiye and Greece, and a United Kingdom deputy minister.

Despite differences on the future of Cyprus, the rivals have made some progress on trust-building measures.

Achievements

Guterres told reporters that four initiatives had been achieved: Creating a technical committee on youth; initiatives on the environment and climate change, including the effect on mining areas; the restoration of cemeteries; and an agreement on demining, where technical details still need to be finalised.

He said discussions will continue on opening four new crossings between the Greek and Turkish sides of the island, and on solar energy in the buffer zone between them, which is patrolled by a UN peacekeeping force.

Tatar accused Nikos Christodoulides, the president of Cyprus, of preventing the announcement of the four border crossings on Thursday by insisting that one of them go through the buffer zone, which he called unacceptable to Turkish Cypriots.

He also sharply criticised Greek Cypriots for pursuing legal action over the sale of properties in the Turkish Cypriot north, saying the moves “are certainly damaging to the relations of the two peoples and are aimed at damaging our economy and our tourism”.

Property rights are a deeply contentious issue in Cyprus. A recent boom in the construction of luxury villas and apartments in the north has prompted Cypriot legal authorities to take a more assertive stance towards realtors and developers, to discourage what they say is the large-scale “illegal usurpation” of Greek Cypriot land.

The secretary-general said Tatar and Christodoulides agreed to meet with him in late September, during the annual gathering of world leaders at the General Assembly, and to hold another informal meeting later in the year.

California is having a bummer of a political summer.

With the state under daily siege by the Trump administration, Los Angeles occupied by federal troops and our gallivanting governor busy running for president, is it really any surprise?

A recent UC Irvine poll found that residents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe California is headed on the wrong track, a mood consistent with other gauges of Golden State grumpiness.

Why the sad faces?

“We are so divided as a country that people feel like there’s no common purpose and the other guys are out there about to do mayhem to the things that they believe in,” said Jon Gould, dean of UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology. “Number two, there is a substantial portion of people who feel that their economic situation is worse than it was four years ago, two years ago, one year ago.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom also gets some credit, er, blame for the state’s darkened disposition.

A poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found California voters have little faith in their chief executive as he rounds the turn toward his final year in office. (Which may be one reason Newsom would rather spend time laying the groundwork for a 2028 White House bid.)

Only 14% of voters surveyed had “a lot” of trust in Newsom to act in the best interests of the California public, while another 28% trusted him “somewhat.” Fifty-three percent had no trust in the governor, or only “a little.”

Not a strong foundation for a presidential campaign, but Potomac fever is a powerful thing.

The Democratic-run Legislature fared about the same in the Berkeley survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents had either a lot or some degree of trust in Sacramento lawmakers — not a great look, but a number that positively shines compared to attitudes toward California’s tech companies and their leaders as they increasingly try to spread their overweening influence to politics. Only 4% had a lot of trust in the companies acting in the best interest of the California public; nearly six in 10 did not trust them at all. (There was similarly little faith in business groups.)

But it’s not just the state’s leaders and institutions that fail to engender much trust or goodwill.

A survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found residents have also soured on the three branches of the federal government.

Fewer than a third of Californians expressed approval for President Trump and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Just 2 in 10 Californians approved of the job Congress is doing.

Some of that is colored by partisan attitudes. Registered Democrats make up the largest portion of the electorate and, obviously, most aren’t happy with the GOP stranglehold on Washington. But that distrust transcended red and blue loyalties.

Overall, 8 in 10 adults said they do not fully trust the federal government to do what is right. A nearly identical percentage said they trust the government to do what is right only some of the time.

That, too, is part of a long-standing pattern.

“It’s a concern, but it’s not a new concern,” said Mark Baldassare, who directs research for the Public Policy Institute. “It’s been around in some form for decades.”

Back in 1958, when the National Election Study first asked, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time — a level of faith that, today, sounds like it comes from people in another galaxy.

Starting in the 1960s, with the escalation of the Vietnam War, and continuing through the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, that trust has steadily eroded. The last time the Pew Research Center asked the question, in the spring of 2024, just 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide said they trusted the federal government just about always or most of the time. That compared to just 11% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

What’s new — and perhaps most troubling — in the recent batch of opinion surveys are growing fears for the state of our democracy.

Nearly two-thirds of those sampled in the Berkeley poll felt that “American democracy is under attack” and another 26% described it as “being tested.” Only 1 in 10 said our democracy is in “no danger.”

America has had some knock-down political fights in recent decades. But it’s only in the Trump era, with his incessant lying about the 2020 election and assault on the rule of law, that the durability of our democracy has become a widespread concern.

Pollsters didn’t even ask that question “10 years ago, 20 years ago, because it was just inconceivable,” said Eric Schickler, who co-directs Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

“Even in moments when people were mad, say after [Hurricane] Katrina, Iraq with Bush, or amid the Lewinsky scandal or various other moments of trouble and conflict you would never have seen… 64% say American democracy is under attack and only 10% saying democracy is not in danger,” Schickler said. “That’s just a pretty stunning number … and I think it suggests something really different is going on now.”

Perhaps this is just a temporary cloud, like the coastal fog that dissipates as summer rolls on?

“In the short to medium term, I’m not optimistic,” Schickler said. “I think that the problems that we have, the challenges, have just been growing over a period of time. Starting before the Trump era, for sure, but then accelerating in recent years. I think we’re heading more toward a politics where there just aren’t limits on what a party in power is going to do or try to accomplish, and the other party is an enemy and that’s a really bad dynamic.”

Oh, well.

There’s always the mountains, beach and desert offering Californians an escape.