GENEVA (AP) — Talks between Ukraine and its Western allies on a U.S.-proposed peace plan to end Russia's invasion got underway in Geneva on Sunday, Ukrainian officials said Sunday.

The head of the Ukrainian delegation, presidential chief of staff Andrii Yermak, wrote on social media said that they held their first meeting with the national security advisers from the U.K., France and Germany. The allies have rallied around Kyiv in a push to revise the plan^[1], which is seen as favoring Moscow.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio^[2] was expected to join the talks together with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff.

“The next meeting is with the U.S. delegation. We are in a very constructive mood,” Yermak said. “We continue working together to achieve a lasting and just peace for Ukraine.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was waiting for the outcome of the talks. “A positive result is needed for all of us,” he said.

“Ukrainian and American teams, teams of our European partners —- are in close contact, and I very much hope there will be a result. Bloodshed must be stopped and it must be guaranteed that the war will not be reignited," he wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday.

Ukraine and allies have ruled out territorial concessions

The 28-point blueprint^[3] drawn up by the U.S. to end the nearly four-year war has sparked alarm in Kyiv and European capitals. Zelenskyy has said his country could face a stark choice^[4] between standing up for its sovereign rights and preserving the American support it needs.

The plan acquiesces to many Russian demands that Zelenskyy has categorically rejected on dozens of occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. The Ukrainian leader has vowed that his people“will always defend” their home.

Speaking before Sunday’s talks, Alice Rufo, France’s minister delegate at the Defense Ministry, told broadcaster France Info that key points of discussion would include the plan’s restrictions on the Ukrainian army, which she described as “a limitation on its sovereignty.”

“Ukraine must be able to defend itself,” she said. “Russia wants war and waged war many times in fact over the past years.”

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, Trump said the U.S. proposal was not his “final offer.”

“I would like to get to peace. It should have happened a long time ago. The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened,” Trump said. “One way or the other, we have to get it ended.”

Trump didn’t explain what he meant by the plan not being his final offer and the White House didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

Rubio's reported comments cause confusion

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Sunday that Warsaw was ready to work on the plan with the leaders of Europe, Canada and Japan, but also said that it “would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created."

Some U.S. lawmakers said Saturday that Rubio had described the plan as a Russian “wish list” rather than a Washington-led proposal.

The bipartisan group of senators told a news conference that they had spoken to Rubio about the peace plan after he reached out to some of them while on his way to Geneva. Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said Rubio told them the plan “was not the administration’s plan” but a “wish list of the Russians.”

A State Department spokesperson denied their account, calling it “blatantly false.”

Rubio himself then took the extraordinary step of suggesting online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source for the information. The secretary of state doubled down on the assertion that Washington was responsible for a proposal that had surprised many from the beginning for being so favorable to Moscow.

___

Associated Press writers Claudia Ciobanu in Warsaw, Poland and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine^[5]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration is promoting efforts to work with Nigeria's government to counter violence^[1] against Christians, signaling a broader strategy since he ordered preparations for possible military action^[2] and warned that the United States could go in “guns-a-blazing” to wipe out Islamic militants.

A State Department official said this past week that plans involve much more than just the potential use of military force, describing an expansive approach that includes diplomatic tools, such as potential sanctions, but also assistance programs and intelligence sharing with the Nigerian government.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also met with Nigeria’s national security adviser to discuss ways to stop the violence, posting photos on social media of the two of them shaking hands and smiling. It contrasted with Trump’s threats this month to stop all assistance to Nigeria^[3] if its government “continues to allow the killing of Christians.”

The efforts may support Trump’s pledge to avoid more involvement in foreign conflicts^[4] and come as the U.S. security footprint has diminished^[5] in Africa, where military partnerships have either been scaled down or canceled^[6]. American forces likely would have to be drawn from other parts of the world for any military intervention in Nigeria.

Still, the Republican president has kept up the pressure as Nigeria faced a series of attacks on schools^[7] and churches in violence^[8] that experts and residents say targets both Christians and Muslims^[9].

“I’m really angry about it,” the president said Friday when asked about the new violence on the “Brian Kilmeade Show” on Fox News Radio. He alleged that Nigeria's government has “done nothing” and said “what’s happening in Nigeria is a disgrace.”

The Nigerian government has rejected his claims.

A comprehensive approach

Following his meeting Thursday with Nigerian national security adviser Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, Hegseth on Friday posted^[10] on social media that the Pentagon is “working aggressively with Nigeria to end the persecution of Christians by jihadist terrorists.”

“Hegseth emphasized the need for Nigeria to demonstrate commitment and take both urgent and enduring action to stop violence against Christians and conveyed the Department’s desire to work by, with, and through Nigeria to deter and degrade terrorists that threaten the United States,” the Pentagon said in a statement.

Jonathan Pratt, who leads the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs, told lawmakers Thursday that “possible Department of War engagement” is part of the larger plan, while the issue has been discussed by the National Security Council, an arm of the White House that advises the president on national security and foreign policy.

But Pratt described a wide-ranging approach at a congressional hearing about Trump’s recent designation of Nigeria as “a country of particular concern”^[11] over religious freedom, which opens the door for sanctions.

“This would span from security to policing to economic,” he said. “We want to look at all of these tools and have a comprehensive strategy to get the best result possible.”

Nigeria's violence ‘will not be reversed overnight’

The violence in Nigeria is far more complex than Trump has portrayed, with militant Islamist groups like Boko Haram killing both Christians and Muslims. At the same time, mainly Muslim herders and mostly Christian farmers have been fighting^[12] over land and water. Armed bandits who are motivated more by money than religion also are carrying out abductions for ransom, with schools being a popular target.

In two mass abductions at schools^[13] this past week, students were kidnapped from a Catholic school Friday and others taken days earlier from a school^[14] in a Muslim-majority town. In a separate attack, gunmen killed two people^[15] at a church and abducted several worshippers.

The situation has drawn increasing global attention. Rapper Nicki Minaj spoke at a U.N. event^[16] organized by the U.S., saying “no group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion.”

If the Trump administration did decide to organize an intervention, the departure of U.S. forces from neighboring Niger^[17] and their forced eviction from a French base near Chad’s capital^[18] last year have left fewer resources in the region.

Options include mobilizing resources from far-flung Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and from smaller, temporary hubs known as cooperative security locations. U.S. forces are operating in those places for specific missions, in conjunction with countries such as Ghana and Senegal, and likely aren’t big enough for an operation in Nigeria.

The region also has become a diplomatic black hole following a series of coups that rocked West Africa, leading military juntas to push out former Western partners. In Mali, senior American officials are now trying to reengage the junta^[19].

Even if the U.S. military redirects forces and assets to strike inside Nigeria, some experts question how effective military action would be.

Judd Devermont, a senior adviser of the Africa program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said if Trump orders a few performative airstrikes, they would likely fail to degrade the Islamic militants who have been killing Christians and Muslims alike.

“Nigeria’s struggles with insecurity are decades in the making,” said Devermont, who was senior director for African affairs at the National Security Council under Democratic President Joe Biden. “It will not be reversed overnight by an influx of U.S. resources.”

Addressing the violence would require programs such as economic and interfaith partnerships as well as more robust policing, Devermont said, adding that U.S. involvement would require Nigeria’s cooperation.

“This is not a policy of neglect by the Nigerian government — it’s a problem of capacity,” Devermont said. “The federal government does not want to see its citizens being killed by Boko Haram and doesn’t want to see sectarian violence spiral out the way it has.”

US intervention carries risk

The Nigerian government rejected unilateral military intervention but said it welcomes help fighting armed groups.

Boko Haram and its splinter group, Islamic State of West Africa Province, have been waging a devastating Islamist insurgency^[20] in the northeastern region and the Lake Chad region, Africa’s largest basin. Militants often crisscross the lake on fast-moving boats, spilling the crisis into border countries like Chad, Cameroon and Niger.

U.S. intervention without coordinating with the Nigerian government would carry enormous danger.

“The consequences are that if the U.S deploys troops on the ground without understanding the context they are in, it poses risks to the troops,” said Malik Samuel, a security researcher at Good Governance Africa.

Nigeria’s own aerial assaults on armed groups have routinely resulted in accidental airstrikes that have killed civilians.

To get targeting right, the governments need a clear picture of the overlapping causes of farmer-herder conflict and banditry in border areas. Misreading the situation could send violence spilling over into neighboring countries, Samuel added.

___

Adetayo reported from Lagos, Nigeria, and Metz from Rabat, Morocco.