US to send Patriot air defense system to Ukraine as furious Trump blasts two-faced Putin: 'He talks nice, then bombs everybody'
Trump did not give a number of Patriots he plans to send to Ukraine, but he said the United States would be reimbursed for their cost by the European Union.
The U.S. president has grown increasingly disenchanted with Putin because the Russian leader has resisted Trump's attempts to negotiate a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has asked for more defensive capabilities to fend off a daily barrage of missile and drone attacks from Russia.
'We will send them Patriots, which they desperately need, because Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then bombs everybody in the evening. But there's a little bit of a problem there. I don't like it,' Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington.
'We basically are going to send them various pieces of very sophisticated military equipment. They are going to pay us 100% for that, and that's the way we want it,' Trump said.
He plans to meet NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to discuss Ukraine and other issues this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Musk's America Party can't get off the ground and was just to ‘blow off steam' about Trump's bill
Elon Musk may have proposed the America Party as a rival to the United States' two main political parties, but those familiar with the tech billionaire say his threat was only an act of rebellion against President Donald Trump 's One Big Beautiful Bill. After his fallout with Trump and departure from the White House, Musk is transitioning back to focusing on his various companies and finding firmer footing in the political sphere. Part of his journey to cementing himself in politics included pitching the idea of an alternative party to Republicans or Democrats. At first, the idea rattled some who believe Musk's deep pockets and influence on the public could be enough to shake up the 2026 midterm elections. As the wealthiest person in the world, Musk has enough resources to push candidates forward – as he did for Trump during the presidential election. But nearly a month after promising to form the party, Musk has not filed any official paperwork. Tesla investor James Fishback told Axios he believes Musk was just trying to 'blow off steam' after his heated fallout with Trump. "I look at the half-life of how this guy operates," Fishback told the news outlet last week. "It has been 17 days since he said he was going to start the America Party. There's no filing, no candidate. There's nothing of substance." That's compared to Musk's eagerness to implement ideas swiftly. For example, pushing to have Tesla Robotaxis, or self-driving taxis, roll out in Austin, Texas, or adding his X artificial intelligence system, Grok, implemented in Tesla vehicles. Even while working in the White House, Musk was quick to begin installing his Department of Government Efficiency Team in federal agencies and departments in order to make sweeping cuts. Much of the criticism from Democrats about his actions was that decisions were made too quickly. However, he does not appear to be taking that same fast and hard approach to officially forming the America Party. Musk's motivation behind publicly declaring his desire to create a new political party arose from his bitter feud with Trump. While tensions between the two appear to have simmered for now, at one point, Trump and Musk traded jabs at one another online. Trump threatened to pull Musk's various lucrative government contracts, while Musk took credit for helping elect Trump with his financial backing. The only official political group formed under Musk is the America PAC, which Musk bankrolled to support Trump's campaign. . Despite Musk's efforts, the liberal candidate won. It's unclear if Musk will officially form the America Party, which would require filing with the Federal Election Commission. But even if he doesn't, Musk could still use his influence and wealth through his PAC to bolster candidates.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Out of despair has sprung some unexpected hope for Gaza
It may not be a simple and direct example of cause and effect, but the calls from leading nations in the Arab world for Hamas to disarm and give up its claim to govern Gaza must be giving Sir Keir Starmer additional confidence that his decision to recognise a sovereign Palestinian state is on the right side of history. The prime minister made it clear in his historic statement that these terrorists must 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', and this evidence that the regional geopolitical balance is tipping further against them is highly encouraging. Of course, Hamas can still count on the backing of the ayatollahs in Tehran, but Iran is certainly no longer the power it once was, and their other allies, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, have been similarly quieted. Remarkably, it is almost the entire Arab world, represented by the Arab League, that has made this historic move, in concert with European nations and others. They all now want to see an end to Hamas rule in Gaza, however nominal it may now in reality be, and their call is unequivocal: 'In the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.' With the recent backing for a state of Palestine by Sir Keir and President Macron, the tectonic plates have shifted. The fact that the leaders of Britain and France, two of the old colonial powers in the area, have joined at last in the cause of establishing a free and viable Palestinian state has no doubt weighed heavily in the balance in a part of the world where history matters. As David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said, that part of the Balfour Declaration pertaining to the Palestinian Arabs is now being honoured. The Arab League's declaration is by far the best news that has come from the UN summit being held in New York on a two-state solution. Israel and the United States have chosen not to attend, and the Americans also recently pulled out of the peace talks in Qatar, but even the Trump administration cannot entirely ignore this wind of change blowing through some of America's most important allies and partners – Saudi Arabia and Egypt being the pre-eminent examples. If President Trump wishes to extend the Abraham Accords process that was such a notable success in his first term, then he too should welcome these latest diplomatic initiatives and back them enthusiastically. The Abraham peace treaties, which entailed diplomatic recognition of Israel, that were concluded with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, can and should be joined by Saudi Arabia and others – as President Trump has always intended. It would make Israel more secure, and all involved more prosperous. Indeed, the prospect of the Saudis and Israelis normalising their relations may have been one motive for the Hamas terrorists committing their atrocities on 7 October 2023 – to disrupt such peaceful trends. President Trump also said that he was content for Sir Keir to 'take a position' on Palestinian sovereignty when he was in Scotland only a few days ago, and has repeated that he doesn't have to agree with what the British and French are doing. That is far from an outright condemnation, and, as momentum builds, he may judge that he can lend more backing. In any case, the president should further brief his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, on what a return to the Abraham Accords process would mean to the administration's legacy, and the prospects for extending American power and trade across the Middle East. There are reservations. The claim made by the Israelis, by Mr Trump and others, that recognising Palestinian sovereignty is a 'reward' for Hamas terrorism is an understandable one – but it is wrong. As has been seen with the widespread demands for Hamas to give up the hostages, disarm and transfer governance to the Palestinian Authority, the organisation is hardly being rewarded for what it did. It is not Hamas that is to be recognised as a legitimate authority, but the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas, based in Ramallah, who are no allies of Hamas. The truth that Benjamin Netanyahu has to confront is that it is his conduct of the war in Gaza that has made more Western states – normally friends and partners of Israel – decide that recognition of Palestinian sovereignty has to be made now for fear that the whole project of a two-state solution and lasting peace becomes completely unviable. In other words, had the Israelis gone after the Hamas leaders and the terrorists, rather than flattening the entire territory, with the loss of an estimated 80,000 lives, these moves on establishing the state of Palestine would not be taking place. Not that it matters much in the context of a historic move towards peace that is as dramatic as it is unexpected, the prime minister has also defused the growing unrest in his own party over Gaza. Sir Keir's principled stand that Israel had a right to defend itself after the 7 October attacks cost him dear in domestic electoral terms, but he stuck with it. It stands today, too – but the disproportionate way Israel has behaved towards civilians, culminating in a growing famine, has undoubtedly weakened its international support and left the nation isolated. In that sense, in lashing out in a vengeful manner for so long, it is Mr Netanyahu who has played into Hamas's plans and damaged the long-term interests of the Israeli people. That war suited him politically, as it did Hamas, is one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this conflict. Today, out of despair has sprung some unexpected hope for Gaza and for an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people – but also for Israel to be free of attack and invasion. Mr Netanyahu's government will not be in power for ever, and the inglorious era of Hamas rule is coming to a close. Those factors are also cause for optimism. That hope for peace should be cherished, for everyone knows what the inhuman alternative looks like, and it doesn't work.
The Guardian
4 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour settles claims brought by 20 people over leaked antisemitism dossier
Labour has settled claims brought by 20 people, mainly former staffers, who featured in a leaked internal document about antisemitism within the party, with the costs estimated to be close to £2m. The settlements include a payout to Labour's former elections chief Patrick Heneghan, who was falsely accused in the dossier of having tried to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn's chances of winning the 2017 election. It is understood the payouts will total just under £1m, but with Labour paying both sides' legal fees the cost to the party will be near £2m. This puts the total legal costs for Labour connected to the dossier to more than £4m, with court documents released last year showing the party spent £2.4m on its own eventually abandoned lawsuit pursuing five separate staffers it accused of being behind the leak. The 800-page document was produced under Corbyn's leadership. It was billed as being part of a submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for the rights watchdog's inquiry into antisemitism within Labour, but was never submitted. It was instead anonymously leaked and included hundreds of private WhatsApp messages from named staff detailing hostility towards Corbyn and his allies. The report said factional hostility contributed to an ineffective handling of antisemitism complaints, and set out claims of anti-black racism, Islamophobia, sexism and bullying. The 20 people whose cases have been settled took action over alleged defamation or the unauthorised use of personal data, or both. Six opted to be named, including Heneghan, who had previously labelled the idea he sabotaged the 2017 election a 'stab-in-the-back' conspiracy theory. A statement by the named claimants' legal team, read to the court, said this claim was among a series of false allegations against Heneghan. Also named was Labour's former head of governance John Stolliday, who took action over the leak of private messages and what the statement called 'false and damaging' allegations that he tried to obstruct action on antisemitism in order to undermine Corbyn. A staffer in the governance unit, Fraser Welsh, took action over similar claims. Another named party was Joe Goldberg, then a Labour councillor in Haringey, north London. The statement to the court said the leaked document made 'wholly untrue' claims that Goldberg was Islamophobic and had tried to smear another party member with an unfounded allegation of antisemitism. Another payout went to Ben Santhouse, who had made a confidential complaint to the party about alleged antisemitism and was then named in the leaked report as 'a vexatious complainant who made disproportionate and unfounded allegations of antisemitism against individuals', claims the document read to the court said were defamatory. According to the claimants, as well as not being told about the fact their private messages and emails were being leaked, the dossier in some cases used the messages to create misleading narratives. In the wake of the furore over the leaked dossier, Labour under Keir Starmer's leadership commissioned a report by the senior lawyer Martin Forde QC. Published in 2022, it concluded that destructive infighting within the party under Corbyn's tenure meant antisemitism was often used as a 'factional weapon' by his critics, and then denied by his supporters. It also said it was 'highly unlikely' that staff sought to sabotage the 2017 election, and that the leaked report was itself a factional document with an agenda to advance. The Forde report did not, however, agree with claims that derogatory messages in the leaked dossier were 'cherrypicked and selectively edited'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In June last year, Labour withdrew legal action against five former staff members, including Corbyn's former chief of staff Karie Murphy and his former director of communications Seumas Milne, who were accused of leaking the report. All of the five, also comprising Georgie Robertson, Laura Murray and Harry Hayball, had vehemently denied being responsible. The Forde report said it had been unable to determine who leaked the document. Separate to the dossier, in 2020 the party apologised to seven former employees and a BBC journalist after admitting it had defamed them in the aftermath of a Panorama investigation into its handling of antisemitism. The settlement to the ex-staff and the reporter John Ware was believed to have cost Labour about £600,000. It retracted claims by the party that the whistleblowers were motivated by opposition to Corbyn and that Ware had acted misleadingly. A Labour spokesperson said: 'The party welcomes the resolution of this matter.' It is understood the latest claims were settled before last year's general election, although the details have only been set out now. The party did not comment on the payouts or costs.
