Politics
Zelensky braces for perilous Trump talks in Washington on Monday

- Trump wants rapid peace deal, not ceasefire.
- Putin gave no ground at talks in Alaska.
- Zelensky’s last trip to DC ended in disaster.
Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky flies to Washington on Monday under heavy US pressure to agree on a swift end to Russia’s war in Ukraine, but remains determined to defend Kyiv’s interests – without sparking a second Oval Office showdown with Donald Trump.
The US president invited Zelensky to Washington after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Kyiv’s arch foe, at a summit in Alaska that shocked many in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have died since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
The Alaska talks failed to produce the ceasefire that Trump sought, and the US leader said on Saturday that he now wanted a rapid, full-fledged peace deal and that Kyiv should accept because “Russia is a very big power, and they’re not”.
The blunt rhetoric throws the onus squarely back on Zelensky, putting him in a perilous position as he returns to Washington for the first time since his talks with Trump in the Oval Office in February descended into acrimony.
The US president upbraided him in front of world media at the time, saying Zelensky did not “hold the cards” in negotiations and that what he described as Kyiv’s intransigence risked triggering World War Three.
Trump’s pursuit of a quick deal defies the intense diplomacy by European allies and Ukraine to convince him that a ceasefire should come first, rather than, as sought by the Kremlin, once a settlement is agreed.
A source familiar with the matter told Reuters that European leaders had also been invited to Monday’s meeting between Trump and Zelensky, though it was unclear who would attend.
Trump briefed Zelensky on his talks with Putin during a call on Saturday that lasted more than an hour and a half, the Ukrainian leader said. They were joined after an hour by European and NATO officials, he added.
“The impression is he wants a fast deal at any price,” a source familiar with the conversation said.
The source said Trump told Zelensky that Putin had offered to freeze the front lines elsewhere as part of a deal, if Ukraine fully withdrew its troops from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions, something Zelensky said was not possible.
Trump and US envoy Steve Witkoff told the Ukrainian leader that Putin had said there could be no ceasefire before that happened, and that the Russian leader could pledge not to launch any new aggression against Ukraine as part of an agreement.
Kyiv has publicly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land as part of a deal, and says the industrial Donetsk region serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, told Reuters by phone that Trump’s emphasis on a deal rather than a ceasefire carried great risks for Ukraine.
“In Putin’s view, a peace agreement means several dangerous things – Ukraine not joining NATO, his absurd demands for denazification and demilitarisation, the Russian language and the Russian church,” he said.
Any such deal could be politically explosive inside Ukraine, Merezhko said, adding he was worried that Putin’s ostracism in the West had ended.
Security guarantees
Avoiding a repeat of the Oval Office row is critical for Zelensky to preserve relations with the US, which still provides military assistance and is the key source of intelligence on Russia’s military activity.
For Ukraine, robust guarantees to prevent any future Russian invasion are fundamental to any serious settlement.
Two sources familiar with the matter said Trump and the European leaders discussed potential security guarantees for Ukraine similar to the transatlantic NATO alliance’s mutual support pledge during their call. It says, in effect, that an attack on one is treated as an attack on all.
One of the two sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said European leaders were seeking details on what kind of US role was envisaged.
Zelensky has repeatedly said a trilateral meeting with the Russian and US leaders is crucial to finding a way to end the full-scale war launched by Russia in February 2022.
Trump this week voiced the idea of such a meeting, saying it could happen if his talks in Alaska with Putin were successful.
“Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this,” Zelensky wrote on social media on Saturday. Putin’s aide, Yuri Ushakov, told the Russian state news agency TASS that a three-way summit had not been discussed in Alaska.
Politics
Netanyahu says he was successfully treated for prostate cancer

- Netanyahu does not disclose when treatment occurred.
- Delayed release of medical report by two months: Israeli PM.
- Move aimed at preventing Iran from spreading “propaganda”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday said that he had received successful treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, without specifying when the treatment took place.
In a statement on social media, as his annual medical report was released, Netanyahu, 76, said an early stage malignant tumor had been discovered during a routine checkup. He said “targeted treatment” had removed “the problem” and left no trace of it.
According to the medical report, which otherwise said the prime minister was in good health, Netanyahu was treated with radiation therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.
Neither the medical report nor Netanyahu said when the treatment occurred.
Israel’s longest-serving prime minister said that he had delayed the release of the medical report by two months to prevent Iran from spreading “false propaganda against Israel”.
In March, during the fighting with Iran, rumors that circulated on social media and aired on Iranian state media claimed that Netanyahu had died.
The Israeli leader recorded a video of himself visiting a Jerusalem cafe in March to refute the claims.
Netanyahu underwent surgery on his prostate in 2024 after he was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection resulting from a benign prostate enlargement. In 2023, he was fitted with a pacemaker. Elections are due to be held in Israel by October.
Politics
Strategic Assertion or Legal Breach? Deconstructing India’s Indus Waters Doctrine

India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty under the pretext of security concerns constitutes a flagrant violation of international law , devoid of any legal basis within the Treaty framework. By invoking unsubstantiated claims surrounding the Pahalgam incident , India advances a dangerous doctrine that legitimizes treaty erosion and the coercive weaponisation of shared resources.
The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding bilateral instrument that contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension , reinterpretation, or conditional compliance, thereby rendering India’s decision to hold it in abeyance legally untenable and inconsistent with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The attempt to justify this breach through allegations linked to the Pahalgam incident remains entirely unsubstantiated in international fora, exposing the claim as a politically motivated pretext rather than a lawful justification. By conflating disputed security narratives with treaty obligations, India not only undermines the integrity of a long-standing water-sharing regime but also sets a pernicious precedent that threatens the stability of transboundary agreements and the broader rules-based international order.
India’s unilateral move to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is not a policy shift, it is a shameless act of legal defiance , openly violating the most basic rule of international law; pacta sunt servanda.
The weaponization of a water-sharing treaty exposes the dangerous ideological imprint of the RSS mindset , where majoritarian extremism overrides legal commitments India’s attempt to justify its conduct through the Pahalgam incident collapses under scrutiny even after a year; no evidence, no accountability, no credibility, only a politically convenient narrative weaponized to rationalize treaty violations.
Dragging terrorism allegations into a binding water treaty is not strategy, it is blatant and reckless escalation , dismantling decades of carefully insulated cooperation and replacing it with instability and mistrust.
By sidestepping proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, India has revealed a pattern of selective legality , embracing international law when convenient and abandoning it when constrained. Moreover, India yet remains silent to the UN Special Rapporteurs queries even after 130 days.
The weaponisation of water by an upper riparian state is nothing short of hydro-political terrorism , targeting the economic and agricultural lifeline of millions and crossing the line from governance into coercion.
This conduct represents a shameful erosion of treaty sanctity , sending a chilling message to the world that binding agreements can be hollowed out by power politics and ideological rigidity.
Pakistan’s position remains unequivocal; treaties are not conditional favors but binding obligations, and no state has the authority to unilaterally rewrite or suspend them under the guise of security narratives.
The growing international concern surrounding India’s actions underscores a simple reality: Unilateralism is isolating, destabilizing, and fundamentally incompatible with a rules-based order.
At its core, this doctrine of “blood and water cannot flow together” is not a principle of justice, it is a dangerous precedent, legitimizing collective punishment and transforming a historic instrument of peace into a tool of strategic pressure.
Politics
India rebukes Trump for sharing ‘hellhole’ remarks on birthright citizenship

- Trump shares commentary on birthright citizenship on his social media.
- Conservative talk show host called China, India ‘hellhole’ places.
- India says inappropriate comments do not reflect reality of India-US ties.
India has dismissed as “uninformed” comments shared by US President Donald Trump that described the country as a “hellhole”, saying they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the strong relationship between the two countries.
The comments were made by conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation talk radio show. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.
“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.
“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”
Reuters could not immediately contact Savage.
Trump has issued a directive seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a move that has been challenged in the US Supreme Court. Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a historic visit to the court.
India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments.
“The remarks are obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, said in a statement.
“They certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests.”
The US embassy in New Delhi said: “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”
China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.
“Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.
Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the United States. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the two biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.
Trump and Modi enjoyed warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year. India and the US are now working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed increase in tariffs and boosting sales to each other.
-
Fashion1 week agoFrance’s LVMH Q1 revenue falls 6%, shows resilience amid Iran war
-
Tech1 week agoCYBERUK ’26: UK lagging on legal protections for cyber pros | Computer Weekly
-
Sports5 days agoWWE WrestleMania 42 Night 2: Live match results and analysis
-
Business1 week agoPepsiCo earnings beat estimates as North American food business improves
-
Sports5 days agoNCAA men’s gymnastics championship: All-time winners list
-
Sports1 week agoFaheem Ashraf backs Islamabad United’s push, calls league a ‘career-changing platform’
-
Tech1 week agoAnthropic Plots Major London Expansion
-
Tech1 week agoCyber Essentials closes the MFA loophole but leaves some organisations adrift | Computer Weekly
