Trump says Putin told him Russia will respond to Ukrainian airfield attack
US president
Donald Trump
has said Russian president
Vladimir Putin
told him 'very strongly' in a phone call on Wednesday that he will respond to
Ukraine
's weekend drone attack on Russian airfields.
The US president said in a social media post that 'it was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace.'
The call that lasted for an hour and 15 minutes was Mr Trump's first known with Mr Putin since May 19th.
Mr Trump said he and Mr Putin also discussed Iran's nuclear programme.
READ MORE
Ukraine's security service gave more details on Wednesday about its weekend drone strike on Russian airbases, which it claimed destroyed or damaged 41 Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers.
The agency claimed the planes struck included A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160, An-12, and Il-78 aircraft, adding that artificial intelligence helped guide the drones thousands of kilometres from Ukraine.
It also said it set off an explosion on Tuesday on the seabed beneath the Kerch Bridge, a vital transport link between Russia and illegally annexed Crimea, claiming it caused damage to the structure.
But Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that there was no damage.
Russia's defence ministry said on Wednesday that its troops have taken control of another village in Ukraine's northern Sumy region, on the border with Russia.
Mr Putin announced on May 22nd that Russian troops aim to create a buffer zone that might help prevent Ukrainian cross-border attacks. Since then, Russia's ministry of defence has claimed its forces have taken control of nine Sumy villages.
Mr Trump says part of his call with Mr Putin was focused on Iran and 'the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!'
Mr Trump said in a post on his social media site that he told Russia's president 'that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement'.
He said Mr Putin suggested 'that he will participate in the discussions with Iran' and could perhaps 'be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion'.
Mr Trump previously boasted that a major announcement on Iran was coming – but none has materialised.
He suggested in his latest post that Iran has been slow-walking their decision 'and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!'. – AP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Philip Bump: Elon Musk has already lost the war as Republicans rally behind Donald Trump
No one really knows where the billionaire and the president will go from here ©Washington Post There is only one person who is unquestionably able to both maintain a high level of public visibility and stay on president Donald Trump's good side. That person is Donald Trump. Everyone else who sidles up to him suffers from the deficit that they are not Trump himself. They therefore risk discovering that Trump has suddenly turned against them, bringing his fervent base of support – tens of millions of Americans strong – with him. Options from that point are limited: obsequious efforts at reintegration with the president or lining up for one of the modest but endless slots reserved in the public conversation for Trump's former allies.
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: Manscaping of society has gone on for far too long
Considering the latest bromantic melodrama emanating from the sadistic reality TV show that is the USA, I'm thinking of writing a non-fiction book called The Penis Apologist in which I make a case that men should not be allowed to run for public office for a century — at least. The ban would be worldwide, and effective immediately. Where snap elections cannot take place, the closest female relative to the outgoing official's nemesis will be jettisoned in until a plebiscite is possible. In the case of Keir Starmer, for example, Jeremy Corbyn's wife would take charge. Their qualifications are irrelevant, just as they've been irrelevant for men. The same standard will apply to the general staff of all militaries. I understand there will be considerable pushback to this idea from all sides. From the feminists, who might argue that I am appropriating the legacy trauma of women everywhere. From the Andrew Tate acolytes, who will argue treachery to a non-existent brotherhood. From the centrists, who will accuse me of flagrant populism and suggesting I have hopped aboard a bandwagon — or a fallopian flotilla — all in the name of ingratiating myself to the sisterhood. To all of them, I simply say: This isn't working The manscaping of society has gone on for far too long and the results of the masculine monopoly have proven to be much too disastrous for humankind, for the planet, for the arts, culture, and academia. The only thing men have not ruined all by themselves is sport — both the watching of it and the playing of it. That, and drinking silently in pubs. Literally every other thing has been tainted to some degree by an inglorious arms race between men intent on one thing: Winning a big micky contest. The cost of that megalomaniac pursuit has been catastrophic. War. Famine. Drought. Climate change. Kanye. And now, in the case of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, a break-up so unedifying they make Kim Kardashian look like Grace Kelly. Women themselves are not entirely blameless. Maggie Thatcher didn't exactly woo the working class with a mother's touch. Kamala Harris may have proven slightly less duplicitous a president than Donald Trump, but she was too incompetent to defeat him. Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, and Priti Patel were nearly as bad as Boris Johnson, which is a quite the reach. Ursula von der Leyen displays all the empathy of a data centre, and I wouldn't trust Giorgia Meloni as far as I could throw her. Closer to home, the nuns — as a collective — did considerable damage, especially to women Despite all of this, I still think men have had the reins for long enough. All its brought us is disaster. As of this year, only 13% of the world's nations are led by women. Historically, only about one third of United Nations member states have ever had a woman serve as head of government. According to UN figures, women hold just 23% of ministerial positions globally in 2025. The same study notes women are more often assigned portfolios related to social affairs, while defence, foreign affairs, and finance remain predominantly the purview of men. In terms of wealth, women constitute approximately 13.3% of the world's billionaires. According to Forbes' rich list published this year, out of 3,028 billionaires globally, only 406 are women. Let's put the diversity, equity and inclusion argument to one side for a moment. Clearly, that was beyond our abilities to properly implement, probably because it was men responsible for it. Perhaps we don't even need to try that hard. Perhaps we should just seek to put the best people in the jobs with the most power. Perhaps, after many millennia of evidence, men are not those people. Perhaps the best people to be in power are those who do not seek it out. 'Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond; no more nor less.' So said Cordelia, the youngest of King Lear's daughters, when the narcissistic monarch sought some sycophancy before dividing up his kingdom. Cordelia the character was, of course, a work of Shakespeare's imagination. However, she endures in my mind as the antithesis of what we have come to expect from Trump, Putin, Biden, Boris Johnson, Churchill, Blair, Kennedy, Clinton, Netanyahu, Musk, Bezos et al. If we flipped it entirely, we should really let the children be in charge. We'd eat nothing but Nutella with every meal, but you'd be guaranteed wars would quickly end, the hungry would be fed, and there'd be no such thing as genocide. What is absolutely certain is that they could not do any worse.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Lebanon complains of ‘one-sided ceasefire' after Israeli air strikes on Beirut
Israel 's wave of air strikes on greater Beirut and southern Lebanon on Thursday night has renewed complaints in Lebanon about a 'one-sided ceasefire'. The strikes occurred more than six months after the truce between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hizbullah came into force. Many Lebanese families had gathered to celebrate Eid al-Adha, one of the most important holidays on the Islamic calendar, when Israeli warnings about expected air strikes were announced through social media, prompting panic and displacement. At least 10 strikes hit Beirut's southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh, according to the Reuters news agency, while others hit the southern village of Ain Qana. In the aftermath, Lebanese president Joseph Aoun condemned 'the Israeli aggression', calling the strikes a 'flagrant violation of an international accord' and noting they were occurring 'on the eve of a sacred religious festival'. READ MORE When questioned about the timing of the strikes and whether Israel is deliberately violating the ceasefire, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said they had struck 'underground UAV [drone] production and storage facilities ... as well as a drone manufacturing workshop'. 'Despite the understandings between Israel and Lebanon, Hizbullah's aerial unit continues to engage in terrorism and expand its capabilities. The unit is working to produce thousands of UAVs under the direction and funding of Iranian terrorists, as part of Iran's efforts to harm the State of Israel.' The spokesperson said the alleged activity 'constitutes a blatant violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon. The IDF is prepared in defence and offence and will continue to operate to remove any threat posed to the State of Israel and its civilians, and will prevent any attempt by Hizbullah to re-establish itself.' Israeli defence minister Israel Katz, in a post on X, said that there was 'perfect execution' of the strikes. 'We see the Lebanese government as directly responsible for preventing violations of the ceasefire and all terrorist activity against the State of Israel,' he said. Under the ceasefire agreement, which came into force in the early hours of November 27th, 2024, Hizbullah fighters were required to move north of the Litani river, while Israel was required to withdraw completely from Lebanon, though its forces remain in five 'strategic' positions. Between November 27th and May 6th, a spokeswoman for the UN peacekeeping force Unifil said it had documented more than 2,700 air violations and almost 70 air attacks by Israel in Lebanon, while there were 19 violations from the Lebanese side, not counting 'legacy violations' of weapons and ammunition left behind. Those figures do not include Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, which is outside Unifil's area of operations in southern Lebanon, the spokeswoman said. On May 29th, Irish peacekeepers in southern Lebanon came under fire from Israeli forces while on a joint patrol with the Lebanese Armed Forces. 'This is the latest in a range of what I view as intimidatory behaviour by the IDF towards peacekeepers or, as we saw recently, Irish diplomats too. So this is not acceptable,' said Tánaiste Simon Harris at the time.
