
Ukraine's Zelenskiy says new peace talks in Turkey on Wednesday
Ukrainian president had called for more momentum in talks
Kremlin says two sides have 'diametrically opposed' positions
Zelenskiy's statement followed his fresh appeal earlier in the day for greater momentum in negotiations.
The Kremlin said it was waiting for an understanding on the date of the talks, but acknowledged that the two sides were 'diametrically opposed' in their positions on how to end the war.
'Today I discussed with Rustem Umerov the preparation for a prisoner exchange and another meeting with the Russian side in Turkey,' Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address.
'Umerov reported that the meeting is planned for Wednesday. More details will follow tomorrow.'
Umerov, previously defence minister and appointed Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council last week, headed the first two rounds of talks with Russia.
An unidentified source had earlier told Russian state news agency TASS that negotiators may meet in Turkey on Thursday and Friday.
Zelenskiy earlier told a gathering of his diplomats in Kyiv: 'We need greater momentum in negotiations to end the war.'
He added: 'The agenda from our side is clear: the return of prisoners of war, the return of children abducted by Russia, and the preparation of a leaders' meeting.'
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is under increasing pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to show progress towards ending the conflict, turned down a previous challenge from Zelenskiy to meet him in person.
Putin has repeatedly said he does not see Zelenskiy as a legitimate leader because Ukraine, which is under martial law, did not hold new elections when his five-year mandate expired last year.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: 'There is our draft memorandum, there is a draft memorandum that has been handed over by the Ukrainian side. There is to be an exchange of views and talks on these two drafts, which are diametrically opposed so far.'
Ukraine and Russia have held two rounds of talks in Istanbul, on May 16 and June 2, that led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But the two sides have made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war.
Trump said last week he would impose new sanctions in 50 days on Russia and countries that buy its exports if there is no deal before then to end the conflict.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
Russia and Ukraine to hold first peace talks in seven weeks as clock ticks on Trump ultimatum
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators will meet in Istanbul on Wednesday evening for their first peace talks in more than seven weeks, with Moscow under pressure from US President Donald Trump to strike a deal or face tough new sanctions. The Kremlin played down expectations of any breakthrough at the meeting, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said this week should focus in part on preparing a summit between himself and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'Naturally no one expects an easy road. Naturally this will be a very difficult conversation. The projects [of the two sides] are diametrically opposed,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters. A Ukrainian diplomatic source said Kyiv saw a Putin-Zelensky meeting as the key requirement for a breakthrough. 'The Ukrainian delegation has come to Turkey prepared to take significant steps towards peace and a full ceasefire, but everything will depend on whether the Russian side is willing to take a constructive approach,' the source said. A Turkish foreign ministry source said the meeting at the Ciragan Palace was expected to start at 4pm GMT with opening remarks to the two delegations by Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan.

IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
The Rotten Core of a Manufactured Scandal
Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL / Ron AI Did President Barack Obama play a role in the fabrication of the Russia collusion narrative? According to former Representative Tulsi Gabbard—once a rising star within the Democratic Party and now a gadfly for political truth—the answer is unequivocally yes. More than that, Gabbard suggests the Obama administration orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016, one that weaponised the intelligence community and buried exculpatory findings that contradicted their desired political outcome. Let us not pretend this charge is light. A 'treasonous conspiracy' suggests not merely malfeasance but a betrayal of the public trust at the highest levels of government. If these allegations are true—and the declassified documents and testimonies increasingly suggest they are—then we are dealing with one of the most corrosive abuses of power in American history. And yet, predictably, the usual suspects in the Democratic Party and their allies in corporate media have denounced these revelations not with evidence, but with noise. Men like Adam Schiff, the architect and chief propagandist of the Russia hoax, have long enjoyed the luxury of consequence-free deception. Schiff assured the nation, repeatedly and confidently, that he had 'direct evidence' of collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's government. No such evidence ever materialised. None. Instead, what we received was a years-long investigation—one that disrupted a presidency, undermined international credibility, and cost the American taxpayers tens of millions—only to conclude there was no collusion. The Mueller Report confirmed it. The Durham investigation exposed the rot. And yet, the architects of the lie remain untouched, their reputations defended by a press that long ago abandoned its role as watchdog in favour of partisan priesthood. What Gabbard alleges, however, takes this abuse of power a step further. According to her review of intelligence findings—now echoed by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—the original assessments from our intelligence community clearly stated that Russia's efforts had no material effect on the outcome of the 2016 election. In other words, while Russia may have engaged in cyber-meddling and online influence operations (as every major power does), it had no decisive impact on voting outcomes. That should have been the headline. Instead, it was buried. Why? Because truth was inconvenient to power. Because the narrative of Russian interference served a political end: to delegitimise Trump's presidency before it even began. What followed was not a sober investigation into foreign threats, but a coordinated disinformation campaign by our own intelligence apparatus at the urging of political elites. It was, as Former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might argue, an affront not merely to the legal process but to the very idea of republican government. In Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia famously dissented alone, warning against the creation of a fourth branch of government—unaccountable bureaucracies with the power to influence political outcomes. 'A government of laws, and not of men,' he wrote, 'means that our rulers are bound by the law, just as the governed are.' Yet here we are, in 2024, looking back at a moment when our rulers were the law—when intelligence agencies were pressured into revising their own conclusions to align with political imperatives. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the documented history of the modern American state. It is what happens when ideology becomes the lens through which evidence is interpreted, and when political expediency outweighs constitutional restraint. And now, with Trump poised for a potential return to the White House, the fear among Democrats is palpable. Not because of what Trump might do in the future, but because of what he might uncover from the past. This is the nightmare scenario for the left—not a second Trump term, but a reckoning with the truth. The emails, the memos, the redacted reports—they may not remain buried for much longer. Gabbard is right to call it treasonous. Whether that charge meets the legal standard or not is almost beside the point. What matters is that Americans were lied to by their own government—systematically, persistently, and with great sophistication. As Thomas Sowell has often warned: 'It is hard to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.' The question now is whether anyone will be held accountable. Or whether, once again, we will look the other way while the powerful write a different version of history—one where the truth is not merely inconvenient, but disposable. Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL * Armstrong Williams ( @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun. ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.


Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Russia and Ukraine to hold first peace talks in seven weeks
By Dmitry Antonov and Mark Trevelyan Russia played down expectations of any breakthrough at the meeting, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said this week should focus in part on preparing a summit between himself and President Vladimir Putin. 'Naturally, no one expects an easy road. Naturally, this will be a very difficult conversation. The projects (of the two sides) are diametrically opposed,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. Previous talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2 led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But those meetings lasted less than three hours in total and made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. But three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep on fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance. On Wednesday, Russia said its forces had captured the settlement of Varachyne in Ukraine's Sumy region, where Putin has ordered his troops to create a buffer zone after Ukraine mounted a shock incursion into Russia last year and held onto a chunk of its territory for months. Reuters could not independently confirm the battlefield report. In recent weeks, Russian forces have launched some of their heaviest air attacks of the war, focusing especially on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. Ukraine has hit back with attacks of its own, and last month inflicted serious damage on Russia's nuclear-capable strategic bomber fleet by smuggling drones close to air bases deep inside the country. CONFLICTING DEMANDS Zelenskiy said earlier this week that the agenda for talks was clear: the return of prisoners of war and of children abducted by Russia, and the preparation of a meeting between himself and Putin. Putin turned down a previous challenge from Zelenskiy to meet him in person and has said he does not see him as a legitimate leader because Ukraine, which is under martial law, did not hold new elections when Zelenskiy's five-year mandate expired last year. Russia also denies abducting children. The Kremlin said this week it was unrealistic to expect 'miracles' from the talks. At the last meeting on June 2, Russia handed Ukraine a memorandum setting out its key demands, including: full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from four regions of the country that Russia has claimed as its own; limits on the size of Ukraine's military; enhanced rights for Russian-speakers in Ukraine; and acceptance by Kyiv of neutral status, outside NATO or any other alliance. Ukraine sees those terms as tantamount to surrender, and Zelenskiy described the Russian stance as an ultimatum.