English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Trump says US wants return of Ukraine aid money

The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the two allies can bridge their differences and forge a deal that addresses both their interests—or whether the growing tensions will further complicate an already fraught relationship.

Published

on

Trump

In a striking development in U.S.-Ukraine relations, President Donald Trump has revealed efforts to secure compensation for the billions of dollars in aid provided to Ukraine during its ongoing conflict with Russia. The announcement came during his address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) near Washington, where he emphasized the need for Ukraine to reciprocate the substantial financial support it has received from the United States.

“I’m trying to get the money back, or secured,” Trump told CPAC delegates. “We’re asking for rare earth minerals, oil, anything we can get. It’s just not fair that we’ve put up so much without getting something in return. I think we’re pretty close to a deal, and we better be, because this has been a horrible situation.”

The remarks underscore a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy under Trump, who has sought to recalibrate Washington’s approach to the Ukraine crisis. His administration is currently negotiating a mineral resources deal with Kyiv, which Trump views as a form of reimbursement for the aid provided by his predecessor, Joe Biden. However, the proposal has sparked resistance from Ukrainian officials, who argue that the terms are overly demanding and lack clarity.

According to reports, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is “not ready” to sign the deal in its current form. A Ukrainian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP that Kyiv is seeking revisions to the draft agreement. “In its current form, the president is not ready to accept it. We are still trying to make changes and add constructiveness,” the source said.

Ukraine is particularly insistent on including security guarantees in any agreement with the United States, as it continues to fend off Russia’s nearly three-year-long invasion. The negotiations come amid escalating tensions between Trump and Zelensky, with the U.S. president recently labelling his Ukrainian counterpart a “dictator” and urging him to “move fast” to end the war.

The Kiel Institute, a German economic research body, estimates that total U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including financial, humanitarian, and military aid, amounts to approximately 114.2 billion euros ($119.8 billion) from 2022 through 2024.

Despite the friction, talks between the two nations remain ongoing, according to a senior Ukrainian official. The negotiations are unfolding against the backdrop of Ukraine’s struggle to hold its ground against Russian forces. On Saturday, Moscow’s defence ministry claimed the capture of Novolyubivka in the eastern Lugansk region, further underscoring the challenges faced by Kyiv’s military.

As Ukraine prepares to mark the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion on Monday, international support for Kyiv remains a focal point. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated the United Kingdom’s “ironclad support” for Ukraine during a phone call with Zelensky on Saturday.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that the UK will unveil a significant package of sanctions against Russia on Monday, coinciding with the invasion anniversary. In London, thousands of people marched in solidarity with Ukraine on Saturday, reflecting strong public support for Kyiv in the UK.

As the war enters its fourth year, the outcome of the U.S.-Ukraine negotiations could have far-reaching implications for the conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape. While Trump’s push for compensation highlights his administration’s transactional approach to foreign policy, Ukraine’s insistence on security guarantees underscores the high stakes for a nation fighting for its survival.

The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the two allies can bridge their differences and forge a deal that addresses both their interests—or whether the growing tensions will further complicate an already fraught relationship.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com