Trump: Russia's Concession To Ukraine Is Not Taking Over The Entire Country
Tyler Durden

Reporters in the White House press pool challenged President Trump over some of his latest remarks regarding Ukraine and the possibility of peace.

While in the Oval Office sitting across from Norway’s prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump was asked what concessions Russia has "offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace." He quipped somewhat sarcastically, "Stopping the war, stopping from taking the whole country" — which he called a "pretty big concession."

Zelensky has made clear over the last few days that he's not on board with Trump's strategy, which has featured offering recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea as a key concession. These latest words from the US President yet again illustrate that he believes Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, and that he's being a pragmatist and realist in seeking substantial concessions by Kiev.

When asked about whether the US might (again) cut weapons to Kiev and intelligence-sharing, Trump responded, "Let’s see what happens; I think we’re going to make a deal; ask that question in two weeks."

But Trump apparently plans to keep up the pressure on Moscow. A Thursday Bloomberg report says the US will push Russia to acknowledge Ukraine's right to maintain its military and defense sector as part of any future peace deal.

Steve Witkoff is expected to present the demand to Putin in the next upcoming round of negotiations. Among Putin's key objectives in the war remains the 'demilitarization' of Ukraine.

* * *

Amid stalled US-led peace talks, Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, including raining down ballistic missiles on the center of Kiev, unleashing large-scale death and destruction.

At least nine people have been reported killed and over 70 injured in the capital city, in what was one of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Ukraine in months. Some other cities, including Kharkiv, were also hit.

Anti-aircraft systems began engaging inbound missiles and drones at about 1am local time. But after drones and missiles were able to make it through, several buildings - including a factory - and a house, as well as cars, were set on fire.

BBC writes, "An apartment block was completely flattened during the attack and the windows of surrounding buildings were blown out and balconies ripped down."

"Russia has launched a massive combined strike on Kyiv," Ukraine’s state emergency service announced on Telegram. "According to preliminary data, nine people were killed, 63 injured."

President Trump early Thursday condemned the attack, saying he's "not happy" with the Russian move. "Vladimir, STOP!" he wrote on Truth Social. "5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let's get the Peace Deal DONE!"

A large rescue effort has been underway given a missile head a densely populated area, with Ukraine’s interior minister, Ihor Klymenko, saying of Svyatoshinsky district of Kiev, "Mobile phones can be heard ringing under the ruins. The search will continue until everybody is got out. We have information about two children who cannot be found at the scene of the incident."

Ukrainian officials have cited that some 70 missiles and up to 150 drones were used against several cities in the devastating overnight attack.

This new Thursday attack on the capital was the deadliest since last year's July 8 attack on Kiev, which left 34 people dead and 121 injured.

It comes after the Zelensky government has expressed frustration that the White House should be more concerned and standing by Ukraine's side, instead of holding bilateral talks toward diplomatic normalization with Russia.

The latest Trump and Zelensky back-and-forth has focused on Crimea. Trump on Wednesday slammed the Ukrainian leader for rejecting a US proposal that would see Kiev give up all claims on Crimea. Trump pointed out that Crimea "was lost years ago" and that Zelensky has "no cards to play".

Zelensky then cited the 2018 "Crimea declaration" by Trump's then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, which laid out that the United States "rejects Russia's attempted annexation".

"There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine," Zelensky had initially told reporters of the question of giving up Crimea permanently.

But Vice President JD Vance had also articulated while traveling in India, "We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process."

He emphasized "The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine."

Freezing the war now would certainly give Russian forces a huge advantage, given the immense territory in the East they now hold, and this is in large part why Zelensky is refusing such a deal.

 

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

 

www.zerohedge.com