New Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated on Sunday that US comments regarding the mineral-rich Arctic island had been disrespectful, emphasising that Greenland “will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.”

His comments came after a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at her official residence on Sunday, on the second day of a three-day official visit.

Nielsen’s remarks were in response to US President Donald Trump’s repeated state interest in taking control of the strategically important territory.

During the press conference, Nielsen said “the talk from the United States have not been respectful.”

He continued, “the words used have not been respectful. That’s why we need in this situation, we need to stand together.”

Greenlandic political parties, which have been advocating for eventual independence from Denmark for years, recently formed a broad-based coalition government in response to Trump’s ambitions regarding the territory.

The Greenlandic government stated that Nielsen’s three-day visit, which began on Saturday, was aimed at fostering future cooperation between the two nations.

“Denmark has the will to invest in Greenlandic society, and we don’t just have that for historical reasons. We also have that because we are part of (the Danish) commonwealth with each other,” said Frederiksen.

“We of course have a will to also continue investing in Greenlandic society,” she continued.

Nielsen is scheduled to meet King Frederik X on Monday, before returning to Greenland with Frederiksen for a royal visit to the island.

When asked whether a meeting between them and Trump was in the works, Frederiksen responded, “We always want to meet with the American president. Of course we want to. But I think we have been very, very clear in what is the (Danish commonwealth’s) approach to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark.

Video editor • Lucy Davalou

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A peace proposal by the Trump administration that includes recognizing Russian authority over Crimea shocked Ukrainian officials, who say they will not accept any formal surrender of the peninsula, even though they expect to concede the territory to the Kremlin, at least temporarily.

Giving up the land that was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014 is also politically and legally impossible, according to experts. It would require a change to the Ukrainian constitution and a nationwide vote, and it could be considered treason. Lawmakers and the public are firmly opposed to the idea.

“It doesn’t mean anything,” said Oleksandr Merezkho, a lawmaker with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s party. “We will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia.”

Unlike a territorial concession, a formal surrender would permanently relinquish Crimea and abandon the hope that Ukraine could regain it in the future.

The Ukrainian public largely understands that land must be ceded as part of any armistice because there is no way to retake it militarily. Polls indicate a rising percentage of the population accepts such a trade-off.

But much of the public messaging about land concessions has suggested that they are not necessarily permanent, as when Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko told the BBC recently that Ukraine may need to temporarily give up land as part of a peace deal.

Saying otherwise would effectively admit defeat — a deeply unpopular move, especially for Ukrainians living under Russian occupation who hope to be liberated and reunited with their families one day. It also would call into question the sacrifices made by tens of thousands of Ukrainian service members who have been killed or wounded.

U.S. President Donald Trump underscored the Crimea proposal in an interview published Friday in Time magazine: “Crimea will stay with Russia. Zelenskyy understands that, and everybody understands that it’s been with them for a long time.”

His comments offered the latest example of the U.S. leader pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to end the war while it remains under siege. Trump has also accused Zelenskyy of prolonging the war by resisting negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Crimea, a strategic peninsula along the Black Sea in southern Ukraine, was seized by Russia years before the full-scale invasion that began in 2022. The Russian takeover followed large protests that ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union.

In the lead-up to peace talks, Ukrainian officials told The Associated Press for months that they expect Crimea and other Ukrainian territory controlled by Russia to be among Kyiv’s concessions in the event of any deal. But Zelenskyy has said on multiple occasions that formally surrendering the land has always been a red line.

Elements of Trump’s peace proposal would see the U.S. formally recognizing Crimea as Russian and de facto accepting Moscow’s rule over occupied Ukrainian territories, according to a senior European official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions.

Whether the U.S. formally recognizes Crimea as Russian is out of Zelenskyy’s hands. But many obstacles prevent the Ukrainian president from doing so, even under immense pressure. He cannot unilaterally sign any such proposal, and he could be reprimanded by future governments for even attempting it, experts said.

Ukraine began to accept that it would not regain its lost territories after the failure of the country’s 2023 summer counteroffensive. From then on, the Ukrainian military concentrated on defending the territory it still held.

In return for territorial concessions, Ukraine wants robust security guarantees that ideally would include NATO membership or concrete plans to arm and train its forces against any future Russian invasion with the pledged support of allies. One scenario envisions European boots on the ground, which Russia rejects.

Zelenskyy has said negotiations over occupied Ukrainian territory will be drawn out and will not likely occur until a ceasefire is in place. In late March, he told reporters after a call with Trump that the U.S. president “clearly understands that legally we will not recognize any territories.”

He said giving up territory would be “the most difficult question” and “a big challenge for us.”

Formal recognition of Crimea would also amount to political suicide for Zelenskyy. It could expose him to legal action in the future, said Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former economics minister.

Signing a potentially unconstitutional document could be interpreted as high treason, Mylovanov said.

The Ukrainian government cannot act either. It has no constitutional means to accept a violation of its territorial integrity, and altering the territorial makeup of the country requires a nationwide referendum.

If Ukrainian lawmakers were even to entertain the idea of surrendering Crimea, it would trigger a long, drawn-out legal debate.

“That’s why Russia is pushing it, because they know it’s impossible to achieve,” Mylovanov said.

“Anything related to constitutional change gives so much policy and public communication space to Russia,” he added. “This is all they want.”

Soldiers on the front line say they will never stop fighting, no matter what the political leadership decides.

“We lost our best guys in this war,” said Oleksandr, a soldier in the Donetsk region, who spoke on the condition that only his first name be used in line with military protocols. “We won’t stop until all Ukrainian lands are free.”

___

Associated Press Writer Hanna Arhirova contributed to this report.

India and Pakistan have intensified their hostilities over the hotly contested Kashmir region following a massacre of 26 mostly Indian tourists, which New Delhi linked to Pakistan.

Pakistan denies it was behind Tuesday’s attack by gunmen on a group of tourists in Kashmir. Both sides have since escalated the tensions by exchanging diplomatic and trade sanctions against each other and raising fears of a military conflict.

INDIA VOWS TO HUNT TERRORISTS ‘TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH’ AS TENSIONS WITH PAKISTAN RISE AFTER KASHMIR ATTACK

Here are five reasons why a flare-up between India and Pakistan matters:

The Kashmir attack could lead to an armed conflict between 2 neighbors

Under intense domestic pressure, India has hinted at the possibility of a limited military strike on Pakistan in response to what it called the “terror attack” with “cross-border links.” Pakistan has made it clear that it will respond militarily to an attack.

This raises fears that an escalation by any one side could lead to a wider war. The last time the two nations came to blows was in 2019, when a suicide car bombing killed 40 Indian soldiers in Kashmir.

In 2021, the sides renewed a ceasefire agreement along their border, which has largely held. That relative calm was broken on Thursday after a brief exchange of fire between their armies.

Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint between the archrivals

Both India and Pakistan are armed with nuclear weapons. There are fears that any conventional war or skirmish between them could potentially turn into a nuclear exchange.

India and Pakistan fought two major wars, in 1965 and 1971, but in 1974, India conducted its first nuclear tests, raising the stakes in any military conflict. It triggered a nuclear race and Pakistan reached that same milestone in 1998.

Since then, India and Pakistan have had one major border skirmish in 1999 that killed at least 1,000 combatants. The fighting only stopped after the U.S. intervened.

A conflict could bring in China

India and China are geopolitical rivals whose armies clashed along the disputed Himalayan border in 2020. Ties between the Asian giants have improved since, but they still maintain large numbers of troops on their borders. Their borders are also contiguous to Pakistan’s, making it the world’s only three-way nuclear junction.

Beijing also controls a part of the Kashmir region that New Delhi says belongs to India.

On the other hand, China is also a main ally of Pakistan and has helped advance its missile programs, creating additional military concerns for New Delhi. Meanwhile, India maintains strong defense ties with the U.S., which has long sought to limit Beijing’s rise in the Indo-Pacific region.

Experts say any conflict between India and Pakistan is unlikely to stay strictly between them, as their strategic partners are likely to get involved.

Kashmir tensions can lead to a war over water

In response to the massacre, India suspended a crucial treaty that governs the flow of river waters into Pakistan. Pakistan said it would consider any attempt to stop the flow of water from India an “act of war.”

Under the Indus Water treaty, India is obliged to let six rivers flow freely to Pakistan. If India follows through and restricts the flow, it could have a devastating impact on Pakistan’s agriculture as it battles acute water shortages.

It’s also a major environmental issue. Water insecurity is a big concern in both India and Pakistan due to rapidly growing populations and climate change.

Attacks by militants and rights abuses in Kashmir test world’s response

Rights groups — including the U.N. — have blamed New Delhi for rights violations, including civilian killings and arbitrary arrests, in Indian-controlled Kashmir as a result of an intense crackdown by Indian forces. It has hurt India’s human rights record and raised concerns that global powers are not doing enough to pressure New Delhi and hold it accountable.

Militants fighting against Indian rule have also killed scores of civilians, including Hindu pilgrims.

India has used military response against militants as part of its efforts to eradicate “terrorism,” saying it threatens regional stability.