Latvian PM explains her vision of sending European troops to Ukraine
Source: the Delfi news outlet with reference to a statement by Siliņa, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Siliņa emphasised the need to discuss whether it is necessary to create some kind of coalition of states that are capable of ensuring peace in Ukraine and willing to do so.
"We need to talk about whether this is being done and what the legal framework will be because so far we have all seen it as a joint NATO mission," she said.
The Latvian prime minister believes that it is necessary to prepare scenarios for an alternative European proposal.
Siliņa said that the Baltic and Scandinavian regions are closely coordinating their actions and are ready for this.
"Today we are going to talk about our proposal for joint negotiations," Siliņa said.
She also noted that if it is to be an EU-only mission, then everyone needs to come to an agreement, including about who will command the forces and what guarantees will be given to soldiers if they are sent on this mission.
"We have ready-made scenarios, but we have to agree on this big framework," she said.
Siliņa stressed that taking into account the current situation, it is necessary to be quite practical about the steps that Ukraine expects, including Ukraine's early accession to the EU, which, in her opinion, is the minimum that Europe can do.
Background:
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke in favour of sending European troops to Ukraine but stressed that this could only happen on a very limited scale and far from the conflict zones.
Meanwhile, The Times reported that the UK is considering sending Typhoon fighter jets to Ukraine to carry out an air patrol mission.
The UK thinks that such a move could help avoid the deployment of large numbers of troops on Ukrainian territory.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that it would be unacceptable for Russia to deploy troops from NATO member states on the territory of Ukraine after an agreement on the settlement of the war is reached.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Greenpeace hails Italy court ruling allowing climate lawsuit against energy company ENI to go ahead
ROME (AP) — Italy's highest court has ruled that a lawsuit brought by climate activists against Italian energy company ENI and its government shareholders can go ahead, in what Greenpeace said on Tuesday was a victory for efforts to pursue climate justice in Italy. In an ordinance released on Monday, the Court of Cassation rejected ENI's motions to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds and ordered the case to be heard on its merits by a Rome tribunal. ENI, for its part, said that it was greatly satisfied with the decision, and it expected that the Rome court would ultimately 'dismantle' the climate activists' claims of responsibility. Greenpeace, environmental group ReCommon and a dozen Italian citizens had sued ENI and its two main government shareholders, the Italian finance ministry and development bank, in 2023 seeking damages for what they said were the effects of climate change. The plaintiffs cited their fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as Italy's ratification of various international climate accords and ENI's stated commitment to reaching climate reduction targets. ENI and the government sought to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional and other grounds, but the Cassation court ruled that the case could go ahead. For more than a century, scientists have known that large quantities of greenhouse gases, released from the burning of fossil fuels, go up into the atmosphere and heat the planet, leading to higher temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events that are both more frequent and more intense. Around the world in recent years, individuals, climate activist groups and local governments have sued energy companies and governments to try to force them to take concrete action to curb greenhouse gas emissions and compensate for losses associated with climate change. Greenpeace and ReCommon called the ruling historic, saying it would impact current and future climate-related litigation in Italy. They say it brings Italian courts in line with other European countries that have recognized the rights of people to try to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for global warming through lawsuits, and called the ruling itself one of the most significant in climate change litigation internationally. 'No one, not even a colossus like ENI, can escape its responsibilities anymore,' the two groups said in a statement. 'Judges will finally be able to examine the merits of our case: those who pollute and contribute to the climate crisis must answer for their actions.' ENI said that it welcomed the ruling. 'The proceedings can finally resume before the Court of Rome, where the unfounded theories put forward by Greenpeace and ReCommon regarding the alleged responsibility of Eni for climate change-related damages will be dismantled, in a context that is rigorous and respectful of the law, rather than driven by the instrumental, unfounded, and often misleading slogans of the two associations,' ENI said in a statement. While the ruling doesn't enter into the merits of the case, Greenpeace and Recommon highlighted the judges' determination that Italian courts can have jurisdiction over claims about emissions by ENI subsidiaries in foreign countries, since in this case, harm allegedly occurred in Italy and decisions were made by the Italy-based parent company.
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Will Trump's 50-Day Deadline Shift Putin? Doubtful, Analysts Say
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. US President Donald Trump handed the Kremlin a clear warning this week, announcing plans for weapons supplies to Kyiv via Europe and saying the United States will impose 'very severe tariffs' on Russia if it doesn't reach a deal on the war in Ukraine within 50 days. Trump did not specify whether a cease-fire would suffice, or only a comprehensive peace deal. Either way, many analysts say it's unlikely to happen. Here's why. Territorial Aims Russian President Vladimir Putin's goals clearly go far beyond the conquest of part of Ukraine: He has made plain that he wants to subjugate the country and weaken NATO and the West, restoring a measure of Moscow's Soviet-era sway over swaths of Europe. But a more immediate aim is all about territory. Russia occupies about 20 percent of Ukraine. In addition to the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia has controlled since 2014, Putin formally and falsely claims that the Ukrainian mainland regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, and Kherson are now Russian — including the substantial portions that Russia does not occupy. Russia has said a full Ukrainian withdrawal from those four regions is a prerequisite of any peace deal — a demand that Kyiv says is unacceptable. And while analysts say Putin could weather any backlash at home if he agreed to a pact that would limit Russia's presence to the land it now holds, he has given zero indication that he might do that. On the contrary, Russia has stuck to this demand in its rhetoric. On the ground, it has sought to make its claim a reality, pressing forward in the Donetsk region in particular and bearing down on the ruined city of Pokrovsk. In one of the first Russian reactions to Trump's remarks, Kremlin-aligned lawmaker Konstantin Kosachyov said on Telegram that 'oh so much can change on the battlefield in 50 days.' Russia could seek to step up its offensive in the coming weeks, pushing to advance not just in the provinces it claims but also elsewhere, such as in the Kharkiv and Sumy regions north of Donetsk. In June, Putin issued a thinly veiled threat to try to capture the city of Sumy. Still, there actually is a limit to what can change in six weeks on the battlefield, where incremental Russian gains have come at a massive cost in terms of casualties, which are estimated to be close to 1 million killed or wounded since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. But while there is no way Russia can seize the remaining parts of the four regions by September — areas that include the capitals of Zaporizhzhya and Kherson — that may only sharpen Putin's desire to secure control over them on paper ahead of any deal. 'To me, it's clear that Putin does not want any cease-fire, at least not until he gains control over all the regions that are defined as Russian in his version of the constitution,' Dmitry Gudkov, a former opposition lawmaker in the Russian parliament, told Current Time on July 16. 'In essence, it would mean Ukraine's capitulation.' 'Ultimatums Are Unacceptable' Trump has sought to broker an end to the war in Ukraine since he took office six months ago, following an election campaign in which he said he could get it done in a day or two. Facing pushback from Putin, most notably in the form of his carefully worded rejection of the US call for a 30-day cease-fire, Trump has had harsh words for Putin in recent weeks. But the 50-day warning was the first time Trump has given the Kremlin an ultimatum — a form of pressure that Putin, who has made demands that other countries treat Russia as an equal a formal part of his foreign policy, does not seem to like. So while many in the West have been eager for Trump to make specific demands on Putin, it's not clear whether an ultimatum increases or decreases the chances of a deal. Putin has not spoken publicly about Trump's remarks, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said nothing specific about them. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who oversees Moscow's ties with the US, said on July 15 that 'any attempts to make demands, especially ultimatums, are unacceptable to us.' 'If we cannot achieve our goals through diplomacy, then the [war against Ukraine] will continue,' Ryabkov said, delivering the closest thing so far to an official rejection of Trump's call for a deal within 50 days — by September 1 or 2, depending on how it's counted. 'This is an unshakable position.' The Blame Game The Kremlin may hope that Trump's turn against Putin in recent weeks is not so unshakable — and that if there's no deal come September, the pendulum will swing back and the US president will lay at least part of the blame on Kyiv. One prominent view in Russia is that Trump's current focus is 'transient' and the increased support for Ukraine is 'a maneuver designed to increase pressure on Putin and test whether this approach yields results,' Tatyana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, wrote on X. Those who hold this view believe that when 'it becomes evident that such pressure is ineffective — expected to be soon — Trump is likely to revert to a diplomatic course, including exerting pressure on Ukraine to reach a compromise,' Stanovaya wrote ahead of Trump's remarks. Trump has put much of the blame on Ukraine at times in the past. And an aspect of his July 14 remarks that flew mostly under the radar was that he stressed that he hopes the push for a deal within 50 days will 'have an impact on Ukraine also.' 'We want to make sure that Ukraine does what they have to do,' Trump said. 'All of a sudden, they may feel emboldened and maybe they don't want [a deal] — this is a very difficult situation.' 'Not Ready For Prime Time' In any case, though, there are at least two reasons why the threat of sanctions seems unlikely to push Putin much closer to a deal with Ukraine to halt or end the war at this point. One is that it is unclear how the measures Trump threatened — chiefly, tariffs or sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil — would work. Trump's July 14 announcement was 'laudable in its intention to hit Russia on the economic side' but 'not ready for prime time in its details,' Daniel Fried, a fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank and an architect of US sanctions against Russia after it seized Crimea in 2014, said on the podcast Just Security. It's also unclear how well they would work if they are put in place, so the Kremlin could be inclined to take its chances. 'China and India are the top two recipients of Russian energy exports, and the expectation that they will pressure Putin to end his war in the next 50 days seems naïve,' Michael McFaul, a political science professor at Stanford University and the US ambassador to Russia in 2012-14, wrote in Time Magazine. The other reason is that Russia has weathered Western sanctions so far and the Kremlin has made that a point of pride, slotting it into the overarching narrative that Russia — in fact the aggressor in an unprovoked war — is fighting a defensive campaign in a major showdown with West — and winning. Against that backdrop, appearing to bend in the face of the tariff threat is something Putin would be loath to do unless absolutely necessary. 'Two Big Contingencies' The same may go for the stepped-up weapons shipments that Trump has promised Ukraine, with NATO allies footing the bill by purchasing Patriot air-defense missile systems and other arms from the United States or sending Kyiv weapons they have already received. Fried, the former sanctions architect, said that if Trump's announcements on weapons for Ukraine and economic pressure on Russia are 'crystallized, sharpened, and implemented,' it could make a big difference in terms of the war and the path to peace. 'Two big contingencies: Get the weapons flowing and keep them flowing; and crystallize our policy options for hitting the Russian economy. You do both and Ukraine's in a very different position,' he said. 'If Putin's assumptions or his hopes for a US failure of leadership and abandonment of Ukraine prove to be false, then he may have to settle.' Other analysts suggest that's not about to happen anytime soon, if at all. 'I think…we're going to need to see the United States showing a lot more muscle if it really is going to be able to bring Putin to the table in any kind of meaningful way,' Russia expert Mark Galeotti said on the This Is Not A Drill podcast. The prevailing view in Russia is that 'none of these developments will alter Putin's strategy of coercing Kyiv into capitulation by any available means,' Stanovaya wrote. 'Putin will not be beaten out of his war optimism easily, and he believes [Trump] has few cards,' Alexander Gabuev, director of Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, wrote on X on July 14. As far back as winter 'it was clear that Vladimir Putin is convinced [of] one thing: time is on his side,' Gabuev wrote. 'This is why he isn't interested in a deal [that's] not on his terms.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Schumer's strategy for avoiding a shutdown strategy scramble
Chuck Schumer is quietly turning his caucus toward a critical decision on how to handle a fall funding showdown, after he and Senate Democrats faced blistering criticism from the party's base earlier this year. As the chamber is set to vote Tuesday to tee up the first tranche of government funding bills, the Senate minority leader is holding discussions with his colleagues about what their strategy should be ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. Democrats are having behind-the-scenes conversations on this topic, including during a more than hour-long meeting last week. Schumer is expected to have more member-level discussions about the September roadmap over the next two weeks, and has been in close touch with Democrats on the Appropriations Committee. He is also meeting with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Tuesday to discuss funding endgame strategy, said three people granted anonymity to speak candidly. Those private discussions come as Schumer has stopped short of threatening a shutdown publicly — even as he warns Republicans against pursuing GOP-only spending tactics. 'He is making recommendations and listening to our recommendations,' Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said about Schumer in an interview, adding that Democrats are 'starting to have significant discussions within the caucus about Sept. 30 and the appropriations and [continuing resolution] process.' Schumer's decision to have conversations months in advance underscores what many in the caucus will acknowledge: Democrats are trying to be proactive by not waiting until they return from the weeks-long August recess to start feeling out their strategy, when they'll have few legislative days left to figure out how to fund the government. Ultimately, Schumer will make the final play call. But while Democrats want to see him find a strategy that unifies the party after facing intense criticism from the progressive base for helping advance a GOP-only bill earlier this year to avoid a shutdown, Democrats haven't settled on a strategy. Schumer's role, so far, is largely to facilitate the caucus' private conversations and act as a soundboard as needed. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), asked about what guidance Democrats are now hearing from Schumer, said the New Yorker was currently in 'listening mode.' 'You know, generally, Chuck listens to people and then he typically tries to pull together the best thoughts of everyone for the policy, but he never ignores anyone,' Reed said. Democrats are mulling a range of proposals internally with Schumer about what conditions they can place on Republicans in exchange for voting to move ahead with shutdown-averting legislation, according to two people granted anonymity to share private deliberations. So far, Democrats have floated the idea of making Republicans agree to a deal on the budget process and specific policy concessions, or locking in a commitment from Senate Republicans that they will not support additional rescissions packages — potentially publicly or in writing. There has been no agreement among Democrats, however, about what formal demands they will make of Senate Republicans, who need Democratic votes to reach a 60-vote threshold to advance a government funding bill. And, said the two people with knowledge of the conversations, it's too soon to say which idea will end up as the lead contender. Senate Democrats will face their first government funding decision Tuesday, with Republicans teeing up the first procedural vote on a package of government funding bills that have passed the Senate Appropriations Committee largely on a bipartisan basis. Democrats appear to be leaning toward at least helping start debate on the package. But Schumer told his No. 2, Dick Durbin, that he wants to have a full caucus discussion Tuesday about how to handle that first tranche of funding measures before announcing a strategy, the Illinois Democrat said in an interview Monday. Publicly, Schumer is trying to keep the pressure on Republicans, accusing Senate Majority Leader John Thune of 'talking a bit out of both sides of his mouth' on government funding by talking up the importance of the normal appropriations process while also greenlighting efforts by the administration to clawback funding previously blessed by Congress. 'If Leader Thune wants to talk about bipartisanship, he should focus on keeping his side of the street clean first,' Schumer said. He warned in a letter to his caucus earlier this month that Republicans shouldn't bank on having help from Democrats on government funding if they pursue go-it-alone funding strategies like the rescissions package. But Schumer has also declined multiple times to discuss what the outcome would be for such actions, telling reporters late last week to ask Republicans if they were willing to stand up to White House budget director Russ Vought. Across the Capitol, Jeffries is drawing his own line on government funding, saying Monday at a press conference, 'it's my expectation that if Republicans try to jam a highly partisan spending bill down the throats of the American people here in the house, we will reject it.' But while the two New Yorkers face a similar dilemma, Schumer also faces a tougher task: House Republicans don't need Democratic votes to pass legislation if they can achieve near-unity — a rare occurrence for the fractious conference but, as they have proven, not impossible. Schumer's caucus, in contrast, plays a more decisive role given the need for 60 votes for the Senate to advance a funding bill to avoid a shutdown. "Here's the reality: we have to have a budget. We've got 47 votes, they've got 53,' said Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), in an interview. 'How we deal with that, when we've got 47-53, remains to be seen.' Katherine Tully-McManus, Jennifer Scholtes and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.
