Trump slams Obama, Trudeau for pushing Russia out of G8 summit years ago: 'Wouldn't have a war'
President Donald Trump slammed former President Barack Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for their 2014 "very big mistake" when Russia was removed from the G8 summit, which Trump argued would have prevented further war from breaking out between Russia and Ukraine.
"The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in," Trump said Monday from Canada, where the G7 summit is being held, while joined by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
"I would say that that was a mistake because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia. And you wouldn't have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago," Trump continued. "But it didn't work out that way. But it used to be the G8."
Russia officially was removed from G8 summit meetings in 2014, following Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
"They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake, even though I wasn't in politics then. I was very loud about that it was a mistake," he continued of how he reacted to the news in 2014.
Trump added later during the meeting that he was not arguing for Russian President Vladimir Putin to join the current summit, but that the previous decision more than a decade ago to remove the country was a "big mistake."
"But, it was a big mistake. Obama didn't want them and the head of your country (Trudeau), the proud head of your country, didn't want him. This was a big mistake. You wouldn't have that war. You know, you have your enemy at the table … he wasn't really an enemy at that time. There was no concept," Trump continued, referring to Putin.
"If I were president, this war would have never happened. But likewise, if he were a member of the, what was called the G8 at that time, it was always the G8, you wouldn't have a war right now."
The G7 summit kicked off in a remote ski resort town in Alberta, Canada, Monday, and includes leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the European Union and the United Kingdom, representing seven of the world's largest economies. The meeting, which concludes Tuesday, marks Trump's first G7 summit of his second administration.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum are also joining the summit and are expected to meet with Trump.
The summit this week is expected to largely focus on escalating attacks between Israel and Iran, after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran Thursday evening following months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program.
The strikes, which were part of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion," targeted Iran's nuclear and missile infrastructure and killed at least four Iranian military leaders.
Iran said the strikes were a "declaration of war" and has subsequently launched its own strikes on Israel, which have rocked residential communities and left locals killed and buried under the rubble of buildings.
Trump has continued pushing for Iran to make a nuclear deal after the country pulled out of ongoing negotiations with the U.S. Sunday.
"They'd (Iran) like to talk, but they should have done that before. I had 60 days and they had 60 days. And on the 61st day I said, we don't have a deal. They have to make a deal. And, it's painful for both parties. But I'd say Iran is not winning this war. And they should talk and they should talk immediately before it's too late," he said.
The summit is expected to also focus on trade and the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Internet Had A Field Day Over Trump's Military Parade — Here Are All The Funniest Tweets
Saturday saw millions of people gather across the country for the "No Kings" protests, and at least 10 people for Donald Trump's military parade on his birthday (there were AT LEAST 10, right?). If you missed it, don't worry: The internet surely didn't. Here are the best jokes from the weekend: 1. 2. 3. 4. Related: "Let Them Eat Teslas": People At The "No Kings" Protests This Weekend Brought Signs That Were So Clever I'm Still Laughing About Them 5. The silent crowd with the squeaking has me CRYING — B.W. Carlin (@BaileyCarlin) June 14, 2025 @BaileyCarlin / Via Twitter: @BaileyCarlin 6. 7. 8. Related: Well, Well, Well, For The Second Time In 2 Weeks, People Are Letting JD Vance Know EXACTLY How They Feel About Him In Public 9. 10. You can view the clip here. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. And lastly: 17. Also in In the News: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week Also in In the News: This Dem Lawmaker Is Going Viral For His Extremely Shady Question To Secretary Kristi Noem Also in In the News: This Conservative Said He Wears A Fake ICE Uniform For A Really, Really, Really Gross Reason
Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer, Trump Set to Agree to Implement Tariff-Cutting Pact
By and Josh Wingrove Save Prime Minister Keir Starmer is set to agree Monday with President Donald Trump to implement a trade deal announced last month to slash US tariffs on key British exports and raise UK quotas on certain American agricultural products, people familiar with the matter said. The two men will meet at the Group of Seven summit in Kananaskis, Canada to finalize the agreement, according to the people, who requested anonymity discussing matters that haven't been publicly announced. A US official said a proclamation is ready for Trump to sign, while a UK official said the leaders were set to enact last month's agreement.
