Read the daily news to learn English

The Ukraine peace deal has stumbled yet again over an inevitable obstacle: Putin

Before the harsh white glare of the Kremlin reception room came a telling prologue: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s self-described “deal guys”, being led by Kremlin officials through the sparkling streets of a festive Moscow. Wasn’t it lovely, Vladimir Putin asked later, as both sides sat down to a five-hour negotiation that seems to have led right back to where they started. “It’s a magnificent city,” Witkoff replied. Then the cameras cut out. What followed behind closed doors was not difficult to predict. Despite all the pressure on Ukraine to make concessions that Putin would accept, the assurances from the Trump administration that this was the best chance yet for peace, and the boosterism from envoys such as Witkoff and Kushner, the Ukraine peace deal has stumbled over an intractable, inevitable obstacle: Putin himself. The road to peace has always led through the Kremlin. That’s not a surprise given that it was Putin who launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions more displaced. And yet for weeks, the Trump administration has put pressure mainly on Ukraine – a junior partner far easier to cajole and cow than the Kremlin, in order to extract maximally advantageous conditions that it could offer to Putin in exchange for peace. “What we’re trying to see is if it’s possible to end the war in a way that protects Ukraine’s future that both sides could agree to,” said the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, after the Kremlin rejected the latest plan. Apparently not. Witkoff and Kushner found a Kremlin that remained as unwilling to compromise on key issues including territorial control and Ukraine’s future political status as when Trump first took office. That isn’t how the Kremlin presented the results of course. Shortly after the meeting, the longtime Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov said that the talks were productive but that Moscow and Washington were “neither further nor closer to resolving the crisis in Ukraine”. Given that there was a specific US proposal on the table drawn up in part by another Kremlin adviser, Kirill Dmitriev, media coverage after the talks naturally saw that response as a Kremlin rejection. “No, this is incorrect,” said the Putin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov. “The thing is that the first direct exchange of views was conducted yesterday, and again, as it was said yesterday, some [proposals] were accepted, and some were called unacceptable, which is a normal working process in the search for a compromise.” A classic Kremlin “yes, but”, then. Both Russia and Ukraine have remained eager not to be seen as the obstacle to peace in the eyes of Trump, but the Kremlin has broadcast its own plans to continue fighting until it gets the result it desires: considerable territorial and political concessions on Kyiv’s future military and political trajectory. Putin’s initial rejection of any deal this week was widely predicted. Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian political analyst, had written that the meeting was “never a negotiation. It was a deliberate, unambiguous presentation of Russia’s preconditions. Putin is now waiting to see whether this direct message will shift Trump’s stance”. But a Kremlin agreement to discuss the proposal may mark progress, argued Thomas Graham, a former senior US official who has remained in contact with current and former Russian officials, in remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations. Putin was tiring, however, of the kind of wheeler-dealer process led by Witkoff, who is part of an influential set of five foreign policy advisers to Trump but nonetheless holds no formal role in government and is not trained in formal diplomacy. “Putin doesn’t want to see Witkoff coming to Moscow to have these discussions,” said Graham. “He really does want to turn this into what he would call a normal sort of diplomatic process where you get working groups together to work out the details of what are, in fact, very, very complex issues, where each side has significant differences and where there might be a possibility of bridging that.” Back to the working groups, then. For Ukraine, it could mark a crisis averted if the Trump administration views that Kyiv is not the main obstacle to peace. And the Kremlin has also signalled it is content to continue fighting until it gets the deal that Putin wants. In the meantime, Putin could avoid giving a hard yes or no on a deal with Ukraine, something that US officials say is the only way to end the war. “Ultimately the decisions have to be made, in the case of Russia, by Putin alone,” Rubio said. “Not his advisers, Putin only. Putin can end this war on the Russian side.”

German president receives royal welcome in first state visit to UK in 27 years

German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier was welcomed with military pomp, a 41-gun royal salute and a celebratory oversized Royal Standard flag flown above Windsor Castle on the first state visit by a German leader to the UK in 27 years. King Charles and Queen Camilla accompanied the president and his wife, Elke Büdenbender, on a carriage ride through Windsor’s streets at the start of the three-day visit, which will also see the German leader pay a poignant visit to the ruins of Coventry cathedral, bombed during the second world war. The visit comes at a difficult time for Europe in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and will aim to underscore the Kensington treaty, signed in July as the first formal pact between the UK and Germany since the second world war, and which sets out plans for closer cooperation on migration, defence, trade and education. At 10 Downing Street, before holding private talks with prime minister Keir Starmer, Steinmeier said the UK-German relationship was in “far better shape” than in the “difficult” post-Brexit period, and relations had improved with the Kensington treaty. “We have a new security situation in Europe, if not in the whole world. So therefore there is a need of closer cooperation. But we were talking also about economic and closer ties between our companies, about the exchange of people. So therefore, after some years with growing difficulties after 2016 I think we are in a far better shape and we have to engage in improving the situation and coming closer in this changing world with new threats to all of us,” he said. Starmer said the two counties had “worked very, very closely on hugely important issues like Ukraine, where our two countries think alike and act alike, on issues of migration and on economic growth and trade, where we go from strength to strength.” Steinmeier will also address parliamentarians during his stay. The visiting couple were attending a lavish state banquet on Wednesday evening in Windsor Castle’s St George’s Hall, with the room decorated with a six-metre Christmas tree featuring 3,000 lights and echoing the German Christmas tradition popularised by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. In the traditional exchange of gifts Charles presented the president with a handmade walking stick from the Isle of Mull and a decorative slipware plate, and in return received an umbrella and a specially made cheese. Campaign group Republic said protesters in Windsor were threatened with arrest if they held a “Charles, what are you hiding?” banner as the state visit procession passed through, as they protested over the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor controversy. The anti-monarchy group accused Thames Valley police of an attack on free speech, to which the force said they had “facilitated a peaceful protest” and officers had “asked them to step back to our designated protest area” and had stopped them using a loudhailer when horses were nearby.

Motability cuts are a deeply cynical policy | Letter

The Motability changes announced in the budget represent one of the most damaging shifts in disability policy for years (Motability scheme to drop BMW and Mercedes as it aims to buy UK-made cars, 24 November). The government’s removal of “luxury” vehicles may sound reasonable, but these cars account for just 5% of Motability leases and disabled people already pay the extra costs themselves through advance payments. At the same time, the government is abolishing £300m in Motability tax reliefs – a move that Motability itself says is likely to be passed on to disabled customers. This means higher advance payments, more expensive leases and fewer suitable vehicles available. These cuts will reduce independence, not public spending. More troubling is the justification. The policy is being sold as supporting UK manufacturing despite the reality that our car industry is diminished and largely foreign-owned. Using disabled people’s mobility as a lever for industrial strategy is deeply cynical. I say this as someone who knows what is made possible by adapted vehicles. I don’t use Motability today, but I grew up in a family where all four of us children had muscular dystrophy. In the 1990s, my siblings and I relied on large, specially adapted Chrysler Voyagers. They were never “luxuries”; they were the only vehicles capable of safely carrying power wheelchairs, aids and medical equipment, and the only way we could travel to work, to hospital appointments and to see friends and family. Motability has long been one of the UK’s quiet social-policy successes. These changes narrow choice and undermine that purpose. For a Labour government to adopt rhetoric that echoes rightwing narratives about “luxury” cars is a disappointing and dangerous step. Colin Hughes London • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Letter: Rhoda Kalema obituary

Rhoda Kalema, whom I met at the World Women’s Congress in Kampala in 2002, was one of a cohort of heroic women who contributed to the recovery of Uganda after years of tyranny and civil war. Among their achievements was to ensure that the new government of President Yoweri Museveni prioritised universal primary education, and the direct election of women to Uganda’s parliament – achievements all too little celebrated in our media coverage of Uganda.

Amid missiles and diplomacy, Russia is exploiting western divisions over Ukraine

For days, officials across Europe scrambled to hastily planned meetings, hashing out details on frantic calls and hours-long negotiations. But after a tumultuous few weeks, capped off by the Russian president warning that his country was ready for war with Europe, peace in Ukraine appears to be no closer. Instead, what has seemingly been laid bare is the glaring clash of views underpinning the peace process. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago, leaders across Europe have become increasingly vocal about what they see as the imperialist intentions of Russia’s Vladimir Putin. In France and Germany, leaders have described Russia as a destabilising power whose sights are also set on the EU and Nato and argued that any Ukraine peace plan needs to take this into account. “Rewarding aggression will only invite more of it,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, recently told reporters. This view, however, sharply contrasts with that of leaders across the Atlantic – who have treated Putin as though he were any other world leader – rather than one with the seemingly endless appetite and ambition for expansion that he seems to have. Earlier this year, Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, brushed off the suggestion that Russia would take further territory in Europe, saying in a US interview: “I take him at his word in this sense.” Similarly friendly positions have been voiced by Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, leaving Europe in a depressing routine of trying to “push the Trump pendulum away from Russia,” only to watch it revert back to its “natural position of sympathy for Putin,” as our diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour recently put it. The result is a sequence of events that is becoming routine: Washington unleashes a “diplomatic cavalry charge” against Ukraine that Kyiv, alongside other European capitals, manages to fend off, as Dmytro Kuleba, the former foreign minister of Ukraine recently pointed out in an opinion piece. But the gains are short-lived: “They stabilise the situation but never actually win the battle. This pattern will, no doubt, persist.” The recent flurry of diplomatic activity echoed that of August, when Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska. European leaders frantically cleared their schedules to join Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Washington, coming together in a show of solidarity that was later dubbed the “Great European Charm Offensive”. Throughout all of this frenzied activity, missiles and drones have continued to rain down nightly on Ukraine, making one thing clear. “By night, Putin brutally reminds the world that, for him, war remains the primary tool for achieving ‘peace’,” wrote Kuleba. This week is shaping up to be a prime example. On Tuesday, days after leaders in Ukraine appeared to have staved off the imposition of a US plan that was heavily tilted in Russia’s favour, Witkoff, accompanied by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, arrived in Moscow. As European leaders expressed concerns that the Moscow talks would pile pressure on Ukraine to make concessions, Putin claimed Russian forces had taken control of the strategic city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine – a claim swiftly denied by Ukraine’s military and Zelenskyy. Soon after Putin made hawkish remarks accusing European governments of being on the “side of war” by seeking to sabotage the peace process. He added: “Russia does not intend to fight Europe, but if Europe starts, we are ready right now.” The remarks appeared to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Washington and Europe, said the Guardian’s Russian affairs reporter, Pjotr Sauer. Russia has seemingly been happy to capitalise on this clash of views, pushing for a peace deal as long as it is only on Russia’s terms. “The Russians see this as a win-win situation,” said Pjotr. Either the peace plan goes ahead, with Russia’s maximalist demands in effect requiring Ukraine’s capitulation, or they’ll “just keep on fighting”. To receive the complete version of This Is Europe in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here.

EU has a plan to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine – how will it work?

The European Commission has proposed providing Ukraine with €90bn (£80bn) in funding over two years, which it says will meet two-thirds of Kyiv’s financing needs for 2026 and 2027 and allow it to engage in peace talks “from a position of strength”. There are two options for generating the money. It could be a “reparations loan” based on Russian assets frozen in the bloc – the option favoured by the commission but strongly resisted by Belgium, which hosts most of the assets. Alternatively, in a concession to Belgium, the commission has also proposed common EU borrowing: raising the money on international capital markets, secured by the bloc’s long-term budget. Here is how Russia’s frozen assets could be used to help fund all or part of the package, which still needs to be formally signed off by the European parliament and national leaders in the European Council. What is the frozen assets plan? Ukraine would get a loan secured on Russia’s central bank assets, which were immobilised by EU sanctions soon after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. About two-thirds of the estimated €290bn of Russian assets in the west – mostly debt securities in the form of government bonds – are held at Euroclear, a central securities depository in Brussels. The EU does not plan to confiscate Russia’s sovereign assets, which Russia has said would be an act of theft. Instead, it would sign a contract with Euroclear to provide a loan for Ukraine secured on these funds. The idea is that when the war is over, Ukraine would repay the EU using theoretical compensation received from Russia for the invasion. Once Russia pays reparations – a central but not guaranteed assumption of the plan – the EU would lift sanctions and Moscow could recover its frozen assets. Euroclear would have the funds to send to Russia, completing the circle. The EU and many member states prefer this option since money raised on capital markets – Belgium’s preferred option – would have to be repaid and borrowing would require unanimity among EU countries, which is potentially a high hurdle to clear as Russia-friendly Hungary remains strongly opposed to further funding for Ukraine. Will it happen? Belgium has serious doubts: it fears being left alone with the bill if, for example, Russia demands its money because sanctions are lifted. Its foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, has reiterated that the proposals “do not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner”. Most other EU countries have said they are ready to offer guarantees to share the risk, while officials consider the risk of Euroclear being successfully sued – another Belgian concern – to be marginal. The commission says the plan complies with EU and international law and a “three-tier defence” shields Belgium from legal jeopardy. While it says it is “listening closely” to Belgium’s concerns and has taken most into account, it has also said the EU could proceed with the scheme if 15 out of 27 member states, representing at least 65% of the bloc’s population, vote in favour. Pushing the proposal through without Belgium’s consent is technically possible but politically it would be a controversial move. EU leaders have said they will continue talking to Belgian authorities about how they can reassure them further, so it is an area to watch. One crucial quandary is over ensuring Russian assets remain frozen. Currently, the EU’s Russia sanctions need to be renewed by unanimity every six months, raising the possibility of a premature and costly “defrosting”. Hungary has routinely slowed down the approval of EU sanctions against Russia, although it has never dared to block them. To address this, the commission’s complex legal proposals included a ban on any release of the frozen assets via a veto on the sanctions. The plan also hinges on Hungary and Slovakia, two Russia-friendly governments, approving the change to the legal basis of the sanctions. EU leaders have already pledged to keep Kyiv afloat next year and officials say they are determined to reach an agreement on where the money should come from at a summit on 18 December. What about Russia’s frozen assets outside Belgium? Belgium holds two-thirds of Russian state assets worldwide and 86% of such funds in the EU. EU officials estimate €25bn is held in other EU countries but scattered in different banks with different contracts with Russia. According to the European parliament, non-EU countries hold €80bn of Russian sovereign assets, notably Japan (€28bn), the UK (€27bn) and Canada (€15bn). Negotiations have been going on within the G7, and Canada and the UK are expected to play a part. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said the Trump administration has been informed of the EU plan, but officials are pessimistic about any contribution from the US, which holds a modest €4bn. What is the money for? EU countries have ideas about how Kyiv should spend it. Germany, an influential backer of the frozen assets plan, has said the funds should be used to fund Ukraine’s defence alone, not for general spending to keep the country running. France wants to ensure the money is used to buy European weapons rather than kit made elsewhere. But Sweden, the Netherlands and allies in central and eastern Europe think Ukraine is best placed to determine how to spend the money. To split the difference, the commission has suggested the largest part should be earmarked for weapons made in Europe or Ukraine and a lesser amount would go to Ukraine’s budget. That would enable Kyiv to buy non-European weapons as well. Will it be enough? EU officials estimate Ukraine needs €136bn in 2026 and 2027 to continue its defence and keep the country running. The commission’s plan could generate €45bn a year for those two years. But that does not fill the gap left by the withdrawal of US support. The US stopped new military aid to Ukraine after Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. Shipments approved under the Biden administration mostly continued, although the supply of US Patriot systems was stopped in July over concerns about low US stockpiles. The US is supplying Ukraine with weapons paid for by European governments. Researchers at the Kiel Institute have concluded that to replace the US, Europe as a whole would need to spend €82bn a year, about 0.21% of GDP. Then there is the colossal bill for rebuilding Ukraine if and when the war ends, estimated by the World Bank to be $524bn (€450bn), a calculation published in February, before the latest months of intense destruction.

European Commission plans ‘reparations loan’ to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets

The European Commission will move ahead with controversial plans to fund Ukraine with a loan based on Russia’s frozen assets, but in a concession to concerns raised by Belgium, which hosts most of the assets, the EU executive has also proposed another option: an EU loan based on common borrowing. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said on Wednesday the two proposals would ensure “Ukraine has the means to defend [itself] and take forward peace negotiations from a position of strength”. EU leaders will be asked to decide on the options later this month, as Ukraine faces a looming funding crunch, while the latest round of US-Russia peace talks appear to have made little progress. A Kremlin official said on Wednesday, a day after talks between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, that the discussions had been “positive” but there was little sign that Putin was ready for compromise on his maximalist goals. Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, urged Putin to “stop wasting the world’s time”. His Estonian counterpart, Margus Tsahkna, said it was “pretty obvious” that the Kremlin was not interested in peace. “What we see is that Putin has not changed any course. He’s pushing more aggressively on the battlefield,” he said. European leaders, having been left on the sidelines of the White House effort to push through a peace deal, have instead been focusing on the need to plug the gap in Ukraine’s finances as the war grinds into a fourth winter. Von der Leyen outlined a €90bn plan, which she estimated would cover two-thirds of Kyiv’s funding needs for the next two years. She said other “international partners” would cover the rest. The aid would be funded by common EU borrowing or a loan based on Russia’s frozen assets in Europe. EU officials said these the two options could be combined, but have always made clear the frozen assets loan was their preferred choice – despite stiff opposition from Belgium. The publication on Wednesday of a long-awaited legal text of the reparations loan will be followed by an EU summit this month at which EU leaders are being urged to agree a two-year funding plan for Ukraine to avert the looming cash crunch. Leaders failed in October to agree on a proposed “reparations loan” to Ukraine using the Russian assets, but the question is becoming increasingly urgent, with Kyiv forecast to run out of money from next spring. EU officials estimate Ukraine needs €136bn (£119bn) in 2026 and 2027 to continue its defence and keep the country running. The stakes became even higher after the Trump administration floated a plan to invest some of Russia’s frozen assets in joint US-Russia projects, as well as taking profits from $100bn (£75bn) of the funds that it had earmarked to reconstruct Ukraine. European leaders strongly pushed back against these ideas, which were part of a 28-point plan for Ukraine that has since been amended. About €290bn of Russia’s sovereign wealth in the west was frozen after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Most of those funds are held in Europe, above all in Belgium. Euroclear, a central securities depository in Brussels, holds €183bn of the Russian assets and fears that any use of the assets could be tantamount to confiscation, violating international law and prompting a slew of legal cases. EU officials have always downplayed legal risks, arguing that Russia would maintain ownership of the funds. They propose an EU loan for Ukraine secured on the Russian assets. The plan hinges on the assumption Moscow will one day pay reparations to Kyiv and that Russia’s assets will remain frozen for the foreseeable future. Von der Leyen said on Wednesday the reparations loan would have “strong safeguards for our member states”, a response to the Belgian prime minister, Bart De Wever, who has said Belgium could face a multibillion-euro bill if Euroclear was sued by Russian individuals and companies. The commission president rejected his argument that using the frozen assets would be an obstacle to any peace deal. De Wever has said the reparations loan plan was “fundamentally wrong” and would be an obstacle to any peace deal, because the frozen assets could then not be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Von der Leyen said: “We are increasing the cost of Russia’s war of aggression and this should act as a further incentive for Russia to engage at the negotiating table.” Belgium’s foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, said his government continued to see the reparations loan as “the worst of all” options. Arriving at a Nato ministerial meeting in Brussels, he said: “The text the commission will table today does not address our concerns in a satisfactory manner. It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks.” He also said Belgium had been frustrated at “not being heard” and having its concerns “downplayed”. In theory, Belgium could be outvoted on the frozen assets plan, which is strongly supported by Germany and Nordic and central and eastern European member states. In reality, EU countries would be extremely reluctant to isolate Brussels, although the Belgian government will face pressure to agree. Von der Leyen said the EU had “taken almost all” of Belgium’s concerns into account. The proposal, she insisted, contained “very strong safeguards in place to protect member states and to reduce the risks as much as possible”. These safeguards included guarantees from other member states and the EU in the event Belgium had to repay any money, as well as protection against “unlawful expropriations outside Russia”, a reference to legal challenges in countries that are friendly to Moscow. The EU will also upgrade the law underpinning the asset freezing to ensure they cannot be accidentally “defrosted” by a veto from an EU member state. Currently EU sanctions must be renewed every six months by unanimity, including Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly government. Belgium will have welcomed the commission’s proposal of Brussels’s preferred option of an EU loan for Ukraine using unallocated funds in the EU budget as collateral. Belgium has said this is the least risky way to fund Ukraine, but many EU governments are reluctant to venture into more common borrowing. The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, a strong advocate of the frozen assets plan, said this week that “raising capital together is also out of the question for some member states”. She said she was not seeking to “diminish the risks or the worries the Belgian government has”, but argued that a loan based on Russian assets was the best option and would “definitely strengthen European position vis a vis Moscow”. Additional reporting by Jakub Krupa