Trump says 'Crimea will stay with Russia' as he seeks end to war in Ukraine
Kyiv, Apr 25 (AP): US President Donald Trump said in an interview published on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia,” the latest example of the US leader pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to end the war while it remains under siege.
“Zelenskyy understands that,” Trump said, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “and everybody understands that it's been with them for a long time.”
The US president made the comments in a Time magazine interview conducted on Tuesday. Trump has been accusing Zelenskyy of prolonging the war by resisting negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Crimea is a strategic peninsula along the Black Sea in southern Ukraine. It was seized by Russia in 2014, while US President Barack Obama was in office, years before the full-scale invasion that began in 2022.
“They've had their submarines there for long before any period that we're talking about, for many years. The people speak largely Russian in Crimea,” Trump said. “But this was given by Obama. This wasn't given by Trump.”
Meanwhile, Russia has continued its bombardment. A drone struck an apartment building in a southeastern Ukraine city, killing three people and injuring 10 others, officials said Friday, a day after Trump rebuked Russia's leader for a deadly missile and drone attack on Kyiv.
A child and a 76-year-old woman were among the civilians killed in the nighttime drone strike in Pavlohrad, in Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region, the head of the regional administration, Serhii Lysak, wrote on Telegram.
Russian forces fired 103 Shahed and decoy drones at five Ukrainian regions overnight, Ukraine's air force reported. Authorities in the northeastern Sumy and Kharkiv regions reported damage to civilian infrastructure but no casualties.
The war could be approaching a pivotal moment as the Trump administration weighs its options. Senior US officials have warned that the administration could soon give up attempts to stop the war if the two sides do not come to an agreement. That could potentially mean a halt of crucial US military aid for Ukraine.
Amid the peace efforts, Russia pounded Kyiv in an hourslong barrage Thursday, killing at least 12 people and injuring 87 in its deadliest assault on the Ukrainian capital since July.
The attack drew a rare rebuke of Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump, who has said that a push to end the war is coming to a head.
“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying.” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”
Trump's frustration is growing as his effort to forge a deal between Ukraine and Russia has failed to achieve a breakthrough.
Trump envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on Friday, their second meeting this month and the fourth since February.
The Kremlin released a short video of Putin and Witkoff greeting each other. “How are you, Mr President?” Witkoff could be heard saying. “Fine, just fine, thank you,” Putin responded in rare remarks in English, as the two shook hands.
Putin's foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov and envoy for international cooperation Kirill Dmitriev joined the two at the table for the talks.
Trump accused Zelenskyy on Wednesday of prolonging the “killing field” by refusing to surrender the Russia-occupied Crimea Peninsula as part of a possible deal. Russia illegally annexed that area in 2014.
Zelenskyy has repeated many times during the war that recognising occupied territory as Russian is a red line for his country.
Trump and Zelenskyy plan to arrive in Rome on Friday for the funeral of Pope Francis in the Vatican's St Peter's Square on Saturday. It wasn't immediately clear if they would meet separately.
An explosion in Moscow targets a senior officer
Meanwhile, a senior Russian military officer was killed by a car bomb near Moscow on Friday, Russia's top criminal investigation agency said.
The attack follows the killing of Lt Gen Igor Kirillov on December 17, 2024 when a bomb hidden on an electric scooter parked outside his apartment building exploded as he left for his office.
Russian authorities blamed Ukraine for the killing of Kirillov.
Since Russia invaded, several prominent figures have been killed in targetted attacks believed to have been carried out by Ukraine.
Russian forces used Thursday's attack on Kyiv as cover to launch almost 150 assaults on Ukrainian positions along the roughly 1,000-kilometre front line, Zelenskyy said late Thursday.
“When the maximum of our forces was focused on defence against missiles and drones, the Russians went on to significantly intensify their ground attacks,” he wrote on Telegram.
Western European leaders have accused Putin of dragging his feet in the negotiations and seeking to grab more Ukrainian land while his army has battlefield momentum.
Zelenskyy noted Thursday that Ukraine agreed to a US ceasefire proposal 44 days ago, as a first step to a negotiated peace, but that Russian attacks continued.
During recent talks, Russia hit the city of Sumy, killing more than 30 civilians gathered to celebrate Palm Sunday, battered Odesa with drones and blasted Zaporizhzhia with powerful glide bombs.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC order on assent to bills: Prez Murmu seeks top court's opinion, poses 14 questions
New Delhi (PTI): President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
Exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), President Murmu said in the present circumstances, it appears that the following questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon.
Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.
The provision says, "If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon".
The questions posed by the President are:
* What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
* Is the governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
* Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
* Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
* In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the governor?
* Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
* In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
* In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the governor reserves a bill for the President's assent or otherwise?
* Are the decisions of the governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
* Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/ governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
* Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
* In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?
* ... (Are) the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
* Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
The Supreme Court's April 8 verdict set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that a governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.
It said the state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent to a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.
