logo
Trump admits Russian sanctions may not work

Trump admits Russian sanctions may not work

Telegraph3 days ago
Donald Trump has admitted that imposing heavy sanctions against Russia and its trading partners may not force Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine.
Just 24 hours after he cut his 50-day ceasefire deadline down to '10 or 12 days', Mr Trump accepted that Putin wants to keep fighting and that financial penalties 'may or may not affect them'.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the president reiterated that the US could impose 'tariffs and stuff' against Russia in 10 days.
However, admitting that the plan may not work, he said: 'I don't know if it's going to affect Russia, because he wants to, obviously, probably keep the war going,' referring to Putin.
'But we're going to put tariffs and the various things you put on. It may or may not affect them. But it could.'
Mr Trump said on Monday that he would give Russia about '10 or 12 days' to end the war before imposing heavy sanctions on Russia's trading partners.
That was down from the 50 days he had given Russia to end the war, which would have given Putin until Sept 5.
Mr Trump's rhetoric against Putin has been shifting in recent months as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have failed to bring about any meaningful progress.
The two sides met for a third round of negotiations in Istanbul last week, but like the two previous rounds, they only agreed to exchange prisoners of war and repatriate the dead.
'Bodies lying all over the street'
The president has also grown increasingly frustrated at the level of intensifying attacks against major Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia.
Just hours after Mr Trump threatened to impose sanctions against Russia, Putin's forces launched a wave of strikes across Ukraine, killing 27 people and injuring dozens more.
'We thought we had that [ceasefire] settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever,' he said at Trump Turnberry in Scotland on Monday.
'You have bodies lying all over the street, and I say that's not the way to do it. So we'll see what happens with that.'
An initial plan for imposing sanctions on Russia came from Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, who threatened to put 500 per cent tariffs on Moscow and its trading partners.
But Mr Trump appears to have watered down those threats, suggesting last month the tariff level would sit at around 100 per cent.
The hope is that Russia's key economic partners, including China and India, will force Putin into ending the war due to the cost of the tariffs.
But a recent report found that China and India have already found ways to disregard or even evade Western sanctions, including by using front companies.
Both nations have been found to be directly contributing to Russia's war effort, which includes a $1.4 million explosive compound sales agreement between a private Indian company and two Russian companies.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

3 people die in overnight Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia
3 people die in overnight Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia

The Independent

time11 minutes ago

  • The Independent

3 people die in overnight Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia

​​Ukrainian drone attacks overnight into Saturday killed three people, Russian officials said Saturday. Russia's Defense Ministry said air defenses intercepted or destroyed 112 drones across eight Russian regions and the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula. A drone attack on the Rostov region, on the border with Ukraine, killed one person, acting governor Yuri Slyusar said. Further from the front line, a woman was killed and two other people wounded in a drone strike on business premises in the Penza region, according to regional governor Oleg Melnichenko. In the Samara region, falling drone debris sparked a fire that killed an elderly resident, regional Gov. Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said. According to the Ukrainian air force, Russia launched 53 drones and decoys at Ukraine overnight into Saturday. It said that air defenses shot down or jammed 45 drones. Eleven people were wounded in an overnight drone strike on the Kharkiv region, Gov. Oleh Syniehubov said Saturday. The reciprocal drone strikes followed a day of mourning in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv on Friday, after a Russian drone and missile attack killed 31 people, including five children, and wounded over 150. The continued attacks come after U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday gave Russian President Vladimir Putin a shorter deadline — Aug. 8 — for peace efforts to make progress. Trump said Thursday that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made. ___

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

The Independent

time11 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.

US appeals court keeps bar on Los Angeles federal immigration arrests
US appeals court keeps bar on Los Angeles federal immigration arrests

Reuters

time12 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US appeals court keeps bar on Los Angeles federal immigration arrests

Aug 2 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court late on Friday affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring U.S. government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on peoples' appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge last month blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity," speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc." The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling in statement: "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store