‘Exaggeration': That's what Trump now calls his ‘end Ukraine war on day 1' promise. But he made the claim ‘53 times'
US President Donald Trump admitted in a recent interview that he "exaggerated" when he said he would end Russia's war against Ukraine 'on Day One.'
"Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news [unintelligible]," Trump told the Times Magazine in the interview that was published on Friday.
"Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended," Trump added.
Donald Trump had said during his election campaigns between 2023 and 2024 that he could settle the war between Russia and Ukraine in one day if he were elected US president again.
He said this not once, but "53 times", if a CNN report is to be believed. The report substantiated its claim by citing the Roll Call Factba.se database that catalogues Trump's public remarks.
A search in the data base showed at least 53 examples of Trump making such comments. As per the report, Trump said over and over again, including at both presidential debates of 2024, that he would have the war 'settled' when he was president-elect, before his inauguration.
At a CNN town hall in May 2023, Trump had said: 'They're dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I'll have that done — I'll have that done in 24 hours.'
On March 4, 2023, as well, Trump had said, "'Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them.'
On June 10, 2023, Trump even said, "...In 24 hours between Zelensky and Putin, 24 hours. Everyone says, "Oh, you don't mean that." No, I'd have that thing done in 24 hours…"
On June 24, 2023, he against said, "This world is on fire. Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine totally settled. I'll have it done in 24 hours."
But that promise never came to fruition, and Trump conveyed earlier that negotiations have been more difficult than expected, NBC reported.
"The war has been raging for three years," he told the Time. "I just got here, and you say, what's taken so long?
Donald Trump also said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin would "rather go and take the whole thing" when it comes to Ukraine's territory.
When asked "if Putin can make peace," Trump said in the interview with Time, 'Yeah, I think Putin will. I think Putin would rather do it a different way. I think he'd rather go and take the whole thing.'
The US president went on to say, "Crimea will stay with Russia. And [Ukrainian President] Zelensky understands that, and everybody understands that it's been with them for a long time. It's been with them long before Trump came along."
First Published: 26 Apr 2025, 02:29 PM IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
21 minutes ago
- India Today
Bros again? Elon Musk's posts spark buzz of 'big, beautiful' patch up with Trump
Months of bromance, a surprise resignation, social media rant, public fiery fallout and regret: Elon Musk's relationship with Donald Trump has been nothing short of a Bollywood drama. The duo once appeared inseparable, sharing stages at public events, Oval Office meetings, and joint press conferences. Then came Musk's shock resignation, and with it, an all-out public fallout. What followed was a no-holds-bar attack from both sides, with people and even Musk's father hoping that the frenemies would soon be back regret some of my posts on Donald Trump," said Musk in a humble post on Wednesday after a week of public rants against 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. Though unanticipated, Musk's walk-back didn't come out of nowhere. In recent days, he's been aligning with the Trump administration's stance on the violent protests in Los Angeles, publicly supporting the crackdown while dialling back his earlier attacks."This is not ok," Musk wrote on X just days after calling for Trump's impeachment and denouncing his signature legislation as a 'disgusting abomination.' MUSK DROPPED HINTS Before today's post, Musk softened his stance on Trump, deleted harsh criticisms, reshared US President's posts and re-followed key allies. He reshared posts from Vance, who declared that the 'president will not tolerate rioting and violence,' and included American flag emojis in his also went on a spree to delete his previous posts critical of Trump. In a now-deleted X post, Musk wrote: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!'Musk also deleted a post promising to apologise only 'as soon as there is a full dump of the Epstein files.' In another post, Trump had expressed support for Trump's impeachment. When a user suggested to replace him with Vance, Musk replied 'Yes.'These posts disappeared gradually, some overnight with the links to these post now showing a message that says, "Nothing to see here."Apart from deleting these posts, he re-followed Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, after unfollowing him during their feud last NOT INTERESTED?On Friday, he told ABC News' Jonathan Karl that he was "not particularly" interested in talking with Musk."You mean the man who has lost his mind?" he Friday evening, Trump told reporters, "I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well."Earlier, Trump warned Musk of "very serious consequences" if the tech billionaire follows through on funding primary challengers against sitting Republican have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump said while speaking to NBC News, adding that he has no intentions of reconciliation with the SpaceX CEO.
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
MAGA's remaking of universities could have dire consequences
'THIS IS an economic revolution and we will win." Donald Trump's line on tariffs sounds like something from Robespierre or Engels. And as any revolutionary knows, to sweep away the old order it is not enough just to raise import duties. You also have to seize and refashion the institutions that control the culture. In America that means wresting control of Ivy League universities which play an outsize role in forming the elite (including Mr Trump's cabinet). The MAGA plan to remake the Ivies could have terrible consequences for higher education, for innovation, for economic growth and even for what sort of country America is. And it is only just beginning. The target has been exquisitely chosen. Over the past decade elite universities have lost the bipartisan support they used to enjoy. This was partly their own fault. In too many cases they succumbed to faddish groupthink about oppression, became scared of their student-customers and turned away speakers in the name of safety. At the same time, American politics became more polarised by educational achievement. Kamala Harris lost the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. But she won Americans with post-graduate degrees by 20 points. This combination left the academy vulnerable. But the most substantive change has been within the Republican Party. Conservatives considered elite universities to be hostile territory even before William F. Buckley published 'God and Man at Yale" in 1951. Yet they also respected the basic compact that exists between universities and the federal government: that taxpayers fund scientific research and provide grants for students from poor families, and in return, universities do world-changing research. Some of the researchers may have views that irk the White House of the day. Many are foreigners. But their work ends up benefiting America. That is why, in 1962, the government funded a particle accelerator, even though some people who would use it had long hair and hated American foreign policy. And why, later that decade, researchers at American universities invented the internet, with military funding. This deal has been the source of military as well as economic power. It has contributed to almost every technological leap that has boosted output, from the internet to mRNA vaccines and GLP-1 agonists to artificial intelligence. It has made America a magnet for talented, ambitious people from around the world. It is this compact—not bringing car factories back to the rust belt—that is the key to America's prosperity. And now the Trump administration wants to tear it up. His government has used federal grants to take revenge on universities: the presidents of Princeton and Cornell criticised the government and promptly had over $1bn in grants cancelled or frozen. It has arrested foreign students who have criticised the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza. It has threatened to increase the tax on endowments: J.D. Vance (Yale Law School) has proposed raising it on large endowments from 1.4% to 35%. What it wants in return varies. Sometimes it is to eradicate the woke-mind virus. Sometimes it is to eradicate antisemitism. It always involves a double standard on free speech, according to which you can complain about cancel culture and then cheer on the deportation of a foreign student for publishing an op-ed in a college newspaper. This suggests that, as with any revolution, it is about who has power and control. So far, universities have tried to lie flat and hope Mr Trump leaves them alone, just like many of the big law firms that the president has targeted. The Ivy presidents meet every month or so, but have yet to come up with a common approach. Meanwhile, Harvard is changing the leadership of its Middle East studies centre and Columbia is on its third president in a year. This strategy is unlikely to work. The MAGA vanguard cannot believe how quickly the Ivies have capitulated. The Ivies also underestimate the fervour of the revolutionaries they are up against. Some of them don't just want to tax Harvard—they want to burn it down. Resisting the administration's assault requires courage. Harvard's endowment is about the same size as the sovereign-wealth fund of the oil-rich sultanate of Oman, which should buy some bravery. But that mooted tax could shrink it quickly. Harvard receives over $1bn in grants each year. Columbia's annual budget is $6bn; it receives $1.3bn in grants. Other elite universities are less fortunate. If even the Ivies cannot stand up to bullying, there is not much hope for elite public universities, which are just as dependent on research funding and do not have vast endowments to absorb government pressure. How, then, should universities respond? Some things that their presidents want to do anyway, such as adopting codes protecting free speech on campus, cutting administrative staff, banning the use of 'diversity" statements in hiring and ensuring more diverse viewpoints among academics, accord with the views of many Republicans (and this newspaper). But the universities should draw a clear line: even if it means losing government funding, what they teach and research is for them to decide. Like Ike This principle is one reason why America became the world's most innovative economy over the past 70 years, and why Russia and China did not. Yet even that undersells its value. Free inquiry is one of the cornerstones of American liberty, along with the freedom to criticise the president without fear of retribution. True conservatives have always known this. 'The free university", said Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell presidential address in 1961, has been 'the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery". Eisenhower, who was president of Columbia before he was president of the United States, warned that when universities become dependent on government grants, the government can control scholarship. For a long time that warning seemed a bit hysterical. America never had a president willing to exert such authority over colleges. Now it does. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Police make 'mass arrests' in Los Angeles during nighttime curfew
Los Angeles: Los Angeles police began arresting people in the city's downtown late Tuesday, as groups gathered in violation of an overnight curfew after a fifth day of protests against Donald Trump 's immigration crackdown. Looting and vandalism in the second-biggest US city have marred the largely peaceful protests over ramped-up arrests by immigration authorities. The demonstrations, which began Friday, and isolated acts of violence prompted Trump to take the extraordinary step of sending in troops, over the objection of the state governor. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Upto 15% Discount for Salaried Individuals ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo The protests again turned ugly after dark Tuesday, but an hour into the overnight curfew only a handful of protesters were left downtown, with police making several arrests as they warned stragglers to leave. "Multiple groups continue to congregate on 1st St between Spring and Alameda" within the designated downtown curfew area, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) wrote on X late Tuesday. Live Events "Those groups are being addressed and mass arrests are being initiated." Police arrested 25 people on suspicion of violating the curfew as of Tuesday evening, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing an LAPD spokesperson. The number of arrests was likely to rise as law enforcement worked to remove the remaining protesters from the area, the newspaper said. Earlier, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said she had issued the curfew "to stop the vandalism, to stop the looting." One square mile (2.5 square kilometers) of the city's more-than-500 square mile area will be off-limits from 8:00 pm and 6:00 am (0300 to 1300 GMT) for everyone apart from residents, journalists and emergency services, she added. One protester told AFP the arrest of migrants in a city with large immigrant and Latino populations was the root of the unrest. "I think that obviously they're doing it for safety," she said of the curfew. "But I don't think that part of the problem is the peaceful protests. It's whatever else is happening on the other side that is inciting violence." At their largest, the protests have included a few thousand people taking to the streets, but smaller mobs have used the cover of darkness to set fires, daub graffiti and smash windows. Overnight, Monday 23 businesses were looted, police said, adding that more than 500 people had been arrested over recent days. Protests against immigration arrests by federal law enforcement have also sprung up in cities around the country, including New York, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco and Austin. 'Provide protection' Trump has ordered 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, along with 700 active-duty Marines, in what he has claimed is a necessary escalation to take back control -- despite the insistence of local law enforcement that they could handle matters. A military spokeswoman said the Marines were expected to be on the streets by Wednesday. Their mission will be to guard federal facilities and to accompany "federal officers in immigration enforcement operations in order to provide protection." Demonstrators told AFP the soldiers "should be respected" because they had not chosen to be in Los Angeles, but Lisa Orman blasted it as "ridiculous." "I was here for the Dodger parade," she said, referring to the LA team's World Series victory. "It was 100 times bigger," she said, branding the idea that Marines were necessary as "a big show" that Trump wanted. The Pentagon said the deployment would cost US taxpayers $134 million. Photographs issued by the Marine Corps showed men in combat fatigues using riot shields to practice crowd control techniques at the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Late Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said his state would deploy its National Guard "to locations across the state to ensure peace & order" after solidarity protests. "Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest," Abbott wrote on X. The Texas National Guard "will use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order." Behaving like 'a tyrant' In sprawling Los Angeles on Tuesday, it was largely a typical day: tourists thronged Hollywood Boulevard, celebrities attended red carpet premieres, tens of thousands of children went to school and commuter traffic choked the streets. But at a military base in North Carolina, Trump was painting a much darker picture. "What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and national sovereignty," the Republican told troops at Fort Bragg. "This anarchy will not stand. We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy." California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has clashed with the president before, said Trump's shock militarization of the city was the behavior of "a tyrant, not a president." In a filing to the US District Court in Northern California, Newsom asked for an injunction preventing the use of troops for policing. US law largely prevents the use of the military as a policing force -- absent the declaration of an insurrection, which Trump has mused. The president "is trying to use emergency declarations to justify bringing in first the National Guard and then mobilizing Marines," said law professor Frank Bowman.
