Trump taking harder approach towards Russia, says US former adviser
Kurt Volker, Trump's Ukraine adviser in his first term and former U.S. Ambassador to the NATO military alliance, told Reuters the U.S. leader had started his second term with a challenge to Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure peace either "the easy way or the hard way".
Now, after 100 days of his presidency have passed and with Putin showing little willingness to end the war against Ukraine, Trump is increasingly taking the "hard way", Volker said on the sidelines of a security conference in Kyiv.
"I think it is in Ukraine's interest to have an end to the fighting, and so now that the U.S. and Ukraine are really aligned, it exposes how Putin is simply not willing to end the war," said Volker, who resigned as his adviser in 2019 after being named in a whistleblower complaint about the Trump administration.
"Exactly," he responded when asked whether Trump was now taking the hard route, rather than the easy one, adding Congress should strengthen the U.S. leader's hand by approving secondary sanctions against major entities in Russia.
After a disastrous meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in February, the two have gone a long way to patching things up. Their two countries signed a minerals deal in Washington last month which hands the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals.
That for Trump, Volker said, was "politically important" because it allowed him to show his backers that Ukraine was paying its way rather than using U.S. taxpayers' money.
While Ukraine hopes the deal, to be voted on in parliament later on Thursday, will unlock the delivery of new U.S. weapons, at this stage, Trump is reluctant to talk about "the military side" while he tries to cajole Putin to end the fighting.
But that does not mean military aid will not be forthcoming.
"So what it does do, from a security perspective, is it gives the U.S. a stake in Ukraine's prosperity, economic development, security, its survival," said Volker.
"It doesn't spell out what kind of obligations or commitments the U.S. would make toward Ukraine's security. But that doesn't prevent anything either."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Call for Nato action after Russian drone intrudes on Lithuania
Lithuania has called for Nato help to boost its air defences after Russian military drones repeatedly violated its airspace. 'Last Monday, a Russian military drone violated Lithuanian airspace,' said Kęstutis Budrys, the foreign minister in Vilnius. 'This marks the second such incident in less than a month. Similar airspace violations have also been reported recently by other allies.' Budrys added that he and the defence minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, had asked the Nato secretary general for 'immediate measures to enhance air defence capabilities in Lithuania and accelerate the full implementation of the rotational air defence model. Air defence is vital to allied security. Securing Nato's eastern flank must remain a top priority for the alliance.' Amid the nuclear row between Donald Trump and Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin has moved to play down the latter's role in Russian decision-making, the Institute for the Study of War has said. The thinktank said Medvedev was subsequently being portrayed as having a 'different assessment' from Putin on nuclear issues. An ISW assessment said: 'The Kremlin regularly uses Medvedev to introduce nuclear threats into the Russian and international information spaces.' Medvedev, a high-ranked official who was once prime minister of Russia, as well as a proxy for Putin in the presidency, accused Trump of taking 'a step towards war' by tightening an ultimatum for Russia to seek peace. Trump in response said he had moved two nuclear submarines into position 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The ISW further assessed that 'Kremlin officials utilised three main framings to respond to Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines: posing Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines as 'emotional,' discounting the threat that this decision poses to Russia, and posturing Russia as a more responsible international actor than the United States … These official Russian responses ignore the Kremlin's history of frequently using nuclear saber-rattling to push the west to make decisions that benefit Russia. On the battlefield, the ISW said that Ukrainian forces had recently advanced near Pokrovsk, which Russian forces have been trying to capture since at least July 2024. Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Toretsk, and Velykomykhailivka, the institute said. Russian claimed on Tuesday to have captured the village of Sichneve in east-central Dnipropetrovsk region. The Reuters news agency, which carried the claim, said it could not independently confirm it. Donald Trump has said he will make a decision on whether to sanction countries that purchase Russian oil after a meeting with Russian officials scheduled for Wednesday. That is when Steve Witkoff – real estate promoter, friend of Trump and officially his Russia envoy – is due to meet with Russian leadership in Moscow. A Bloomberg report suggested that Putin might agree to a ceasefire in terms of airstrike but not on the ground. Also on Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that Trump's administration is considering additional sanctions on Russia's 'shadow fleet' of oil tankers that illicitly move Russian oil. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president, said on Tuesday he'd had a 'productive' conversation with Trump about ending the war, sanctions on Russia and the finalisation of a US-Ukraine drone deal. Ukraine, he said, had long supported US proposals for an immediate ceasefire and had proposed a number of formats to implement a halt to the fighting. 'We have spoken with and proposed to Russia quiet in the skies, no missile and drone attacks and specifically no attacks on civilian infrastructure or on the energy sector. All of this has been violated by the Russians and in a very cynical fashion.' The $300m superyacht of a sanctioned Russian billionaire is being auctioned off. The 348-foot (106-metre) Amadea was seized in Fiji in April 2022 from its former owner, Suleiman Kerimov, and is berthed in San Diego California. The auction is being held by National Maritime Services, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, company. Sealed bids are being accepted until 10 September subject to a $10m deposit. The US Congress has passed legislation allowing the sale of seized Russian assets to fund humanitarian assistance for Ukraine.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We must have transparency over migrants and crime. The politicians who lose control of our borders cannot be allowed to hide the consequences from us
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, looking more beleaguered and sounding less convincing than ever, said yesterday that the police should routinely reveal the nationality and asylum status of those charged with criminal offences. New legal guidance, she promised, would shortly be issued for police forces to provide greater 'transparency'. Not for the first time, Labour was rushing to follow in the footsteps of Nigel Farage 's Reform party. Only 24 hours before, as part of Reform's 'Britain is lawless' campaign, Farage had called for the ethnicity of suspects charged with rape and sexual assaults to be made public. Now Cooper was in a hurry to oblige.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
What a Hiroshima-sized blast would have done to LONDON: Unseen government diagrams imagine carnage if nuke was used on UK in 1945
Imagine a very different end to the Second World War. Instead of the US dropping the world's first atomic bombs on Japan, it was the Japanese hammering London with the devastating new weapon. In 1945, that is more or less what was considered by the British government, which was freshly in the hands of Labour's Clement Attlee after his triumph over Winston Churchill at that year's election. Official diagrams envisaged the impact of atomic bomb blasts in London, with the force described as being equivalent to what was unleashed on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945. One of the two maps - recently seen by the Mail at the National Archives in Kew, West London - imagines the impact of a bomb detonated over Trafalgar Square. It said everything within 1,000 yards of the epicentre - so all of Whitehall, Covent Garden and St James' Palace - would be totally wiped out. Then, there would have been damage 'beyond repair' to areas within a distance of one mile - including the rest of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the BBC 's headquarters and the British Museum. The likes of St Paul's Cathedral, Smithfield Market, Victoria Station and Marble Arch were within the third ring up to 1.5 miles away, described as 'uninhabitable without major repairs'. The final ring - up to 2.5 miles away - includes King's Cross Station, the Bank of England, Tower Bridge, Battersea Power Station and Regent's Park. Everything in this area would have been 'uninhabitable without first aid repairs', the report's authors said. The two maps feature as part of a file that also includes a report titled, 'An Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bombs Dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki', which was compiled after an official visit to the ruined cities by British officials. The other map gives a wider view, showing the impact of five blasts over London. Again the explosions are 'as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. As well as the bomb over Trafalgar Square, four others are depicted detonating over Poplar in East London; in Primrose Hill above Regent's Park; in Hammersmith in West London and in Tooting in South London. Collectively, they would have rendered nearly all of Central London a flattened wasteland. Areas such as Lambeth in the south of the capital would have been unscathed, but the borough's inhabitants would have faced having to grapple with a likely total breakdown in law and order and a collapse of the emergency services. Although the official report - which was compiled by the British Mission to Japan - is dated December 1945, the maps themselves were made the following year, as an Ordnance Survey label on them shows. The key on the map detailing how everything up to a distance of 1,000 yards from the epicentre of the blast would have been 'demolished' The foreword to the report optimistically concluded: 'His Majesty's Government consider that a full understanding of the consequences of the new form of attack may assist the United Nations Organisation in its task of securing the control of atomic energy for the common good and in abolishing the use of weapons of mass destruction.' The British mission included scientists and senior officials in the Home Office, War Office and Air Ministry. It laid out in horrifying detail the devastation wrought by 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' - the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces. In Hiroshima, the blast - at 8.15am on August 6, 1945 - obliterated everything within the surrounding square mile, killing around 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. At least 30,000 more died from their devastating injuries in the 48 hours that followed. A total of five square miles of the city were consumed by fire storms, and the blast obliterated 90 per cent of Hiroshima's structures. The police, fire and ambulance services were all virtually wiped out, with survivors left to fend for themselves before help arrived from further afield. The attack on Nagasaki came on August 9, after Japan refused to surrender despite the carnage in Hiroshima. The key for the second map, explaining the colours detailing the respective levels of destruction The device - Fat Man - was carried by the B-29 bomber named Bockscar. It claimed at least 50,000 more lives and wiped out a third of the city. Japan finally agreed to the Allies' terms of surrender on August 14. The British Mission's report estimated that, for several reasons, the impact of a blast like the ones that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be less devastating in London. Because of factors such as population density, the presence of well-built houses offering more protection and better rescue services than in Japan, the death toll from a single blast is estimated at 50,000. But the report chillingly added: 'The comparable figure for the German V2 rocket was about 15 dead'. The authors continued: 'The figure of 50,000 dead from one atomic bomb in average British urban conditions is probably the most important which this report contains. 'It shows that much of the most serious effect of the atomic bomb is in producing casualties. 'The problem of providing against and of treating gamma ray casualties is exceptionally grave and difficult.' The explosion of a bomb of the power of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have wiped out around 30,000 houses in a British city. Between 50,000 and 100,000 more properties would be rendered temporarily uninhabitable. The report went on: 'Thus a total of roughly 400,000 people might be rendered temporarily homeless'. It was not until the 1970s - when the risk of conflict with the Soviet Union was high - that the Government's public information campaign advising what to do in the event of a nuclear attack was released. The 'Protect and Survive' series told Britons to prepare a 'fall-out room' in which they would need to store enough food and water for two weeks. They were also advised to bring the likes of kitchen utensils, a portable radio, toilet paper, a bucket and a first aid kit. Shortly after the leaflet was released, expert critics said the advice would not be helpful. One said the protective measures were 'illusory' because people would immediately 'panic' in the event of a nuclear attack. The Protect and Survive campaign also included newspaper adverts, radio broadcasts and public information films. Whilst the campaign had been intended for use only in an emergency, it came to public attention in a series of newspaper articles. The Government then decided to publish the leaflet in May 1980 and the public information films were leaked to the BBC and anti-nuclear group CND. The 1984 BBC drama Threads depicted the horrifying consequences of a nuclear attack on Britain. Threads was watched by seven million people on BBC Two and won four Baftas, but it also left many viewers traumatised. The gruesome details - the shocking burns, the radiation sickness, the obliteration of buildings following the imagined attack on the city of Sheffield - were a constant presence in the drama. Dozens of those who watched were so shaken that they called the charity Samaritans for support.
