Donald Trump explodes in furious rant at Vladimir Putin over Ukraine peace
Donald Trump has issued a fresh warning to Vladimir Putin after the Russian president made a series of demands for the West to meet in order to secure peace in Ukraine
The former US president, clearly agitated, sounded an alert that Putin might be "tapping us along" whilst persisting with the hostile military offensive in Kyiv.
According to The Sun, Trump expressed his irritation following Putin's intensified demands for the West to steer clear of Russia's ex-Soviet domains, even calling for written vows to stop NATO's progression eastwards.
Top Russian officials, speaking to Reuters, indicate that Putin is seeking a "written" commitment from Western leaders, ensuring that NATO will not spread to include nations such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
These requests emerge as global leaders' patience wears thin, with Trump leading the charge in pushing Putin to engage earnestly in peace talks.
Addressing journalists at the White House on Wednesday, Trump didn't mince words: "We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not, and if he is, we'll respond a little differently," reports the Express.
Despite a lengthy discourse with Putin just last week, Trump conceded that he still "can't tell" if the Russian leader genuinely seeks conciliation.
His remarks followed shortly after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov disclosed that Moscow had proposed new peace negotiations with Ukraine slated for June 2 in Istanbul, waiting for Kyiv's answer.
The standoff between Russia and NATO continues to escalate, with Putin firmly against the alliance's expansion, particularly Ukraine's potential membership, which the Kremlin deems entirely unacceptable.
Kyiv remains defiant, asserting that Russia has no authority to dictate its aspirations for NATO membership.
Former US President Trump, known for his blunt rhetoric, intensified his critique of Putin on Truth Social, cautioning the Russian leader about the risks he's taking.
His post read: "What Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!".
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Medvedev swiftly retorted, suggesting that the only 'REALLY BAD' outcome to be wary of would be a global war.
Medvedev commented: "Regarding Trump's words about Putin 'playing with fire' and 'really bad things' happening to Russia, I only know of one REALLY BAD thing: WWIII."
In a recent two-hour conversation, Putin reportedly agreed to collaborate with Ukraine on a memorandum draft. The Kremlin has confirmed it is preparing its version of the document, with no definitive deadline set for finalising ceasefire conditions.
Meanwhile, the conflict on the ground shows no signs of abating. In a dramatic nocturnal operation, Ukraine executed a fierce retaliatory strike on Moscow in response to Russia's three-day aerial onslaught.
Ukrainian forces aimed at crucial infrastructure in Moscow's Zelenograd district, allegedly causing damage to an essential microchip facility. Blasts were also reported at a drone manufacturing plant and another defence installation in Dubna.
Both locations are thought to have incurred substantial damage, delivering a new setback to the Kremlin's military endeavours. Russia's defence ministry alleges that Ukraine launched nearly 300 drones overnight in this audacious counterstrike.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
German labour office fears 12-bln-euro shortfall by 2029 amid rising unemployment
BERLIN, May 30 (Reuters) - Germany's labour office foresees a shortfall of 11.9 billion euros ($13.48 billion) by 2029 amid rising unemployment that may have to be plugged with government loans, the agency said in a letter to parliamentary budget committee on Friday. For this year alone, the agency anticipates a deficit of 5.27 billion euros that will use up its reserves of 3.2 billion euros, it said in the letter seen by Reuters. "It would also require additional liquidity assistance from the federal government in the form of loans totalling almost 2.35 billion euros," the letter said, adding that another 3.8 billion euros would be required for 2026. The calculations are based on April forecasts from the government that foresee economic stagnation this year, down from a previously forecast 0.3% growth rate. An annual average of just under 1 million people are expected to receive unemployment benefits, according to the letter. Economic malaise has put pressure on the job market even against a backdrop of long-term labour shortages, adding to pressure on conservative Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has vowed to pull the economy out of a two-year decline. Tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump could deal a major blow to those efforts - possibly putting the German economy on track for a third straight year of recession for the first time in the country's post-war history. ($1 = 0.8828 euros)
South Wales Guardian
25 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ukraine ready to resume talks with Russia but wants clarity on Kremlin's terms
But Ukrainian officials have insisted that the Kremlin provides a promised memorandum setting out its position on ending the war, before the two delegations sit down to negotiate. 'Ukraine is ready to attend the next meeting, but we want to engage in a constructive discussion,' Andrii Yermak said in a statement on Thursday on the website of Ukraine's Presidential Office. 'This means it is important to receive Russia's draft. There is enough time – four days are sufficient for preparing and sending the documents,' Mr Yermak said. Ukraine and its European allies have repeatedly accused the Kremlin of dragging its feet in peace efforts, while it tries to press its bigger army's battlefield initiative and capture more Ukrainian land. Kyiv's western partners, including the US, are urging Moscow to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, something Kyiv has embraced while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Ukraine's top diplomat, Andrii Sybiha, also told reporters on Friday that Kyiv is waiting for Russia to clarify its proposals ahead of a next round of talks. 'We want to end this war this year. We are interested in establishing a ceasefire, whether it is for 30 days, 50 days or 100 days. Ukraine is open to discussing this directly with Russia,' Mr Sybiha said at a joint news conference in Kyiv with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan. Mr Sybiha and Mr Fidan also held the door open to a future meeting between Mr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, possibly also including US President Donald Trump. Mr Fidan said the ongoing peace push in Istanbul could be 'crowned with' such a meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday told reporters that a Russian delegation will head to Istanbul and stand ready to take part in the second round of talks on June 2. Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday publicly invited Ukraine to hold direct negotiations with Moscow on that date. In a video statement, Mr Lavrov said Russia would use Monday's meeting to deliver an outline of Moscow's position on 'reliably overcoming' what it calls the root causes of the war. Russian officials have said for weeks that such a document is forthcoming. Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov on Wednesday said that Ukraine is not opposed to further direct talks with Russia, but that they would be 'empty' if Moscow was to fail to clarify its terms. Mr Umerov said he had personally handed a document setting out Ukraine's position to the Russian side. Low-level delegations from Russia and Ukraine held their first direct peace talks in three years in Istanbul on May 16. The talks, which lasted two hours, brought no significant breakthrough, although both sides agreed to the largest prisoner exchange of the war. It was carried out last weekend and freed 1,000 captives on each side. On Friday Mr Fidan voiced a belief that the successful swap has 'proved that negotiations can yield concrete results'. 'There are two paths in front of us. Either we will turn a blind eye to the continuation of the war, or we will reach a lasting peace within the end of the year,' he told reporters in Kyiv.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's slavish obedience to international legalism prevents us from defeating Putin
Don't you know there's a war on?' This challenge, usually directed at someone who was being selfish and demanding, was frequently thrown at people during the Second World War. I want to ask the same question today, the war being that in Ukraine. It needs to be asked of all Nato countries, both in Europe and North America. Once again, it is, sort of, a rhetorical question. Almost everyone knows there's a big war on. Nobody can state accurately how many people have died in the Ukraine war, but if you guessed more than 250,000 dead, most would say you were underestimating. Russia has invaded, massacred and tortured. It has repeatedly and deliberately bombed civilians and abducted about 20,000 children. Although the Balkan wars of the 1990s were grim, with more than 100,00 people dying, the invasion of Ukraine is much the largest and most serious war in modern Europe. It was started by a great European power. In this, it is unique since 1939. Not only is it the engine of death and destruction; it is also a massive, deliberate violation of the entire post-1945 legal, political and military European peace which was designed to prevent the alteration of borders by force. We know this, and most of us, in Britain at least, hate it. Polls show popular support for Ukraine remains very high. But there is an unresolved question about how much we believe it involves us. Shortly before he went off to appease Hitler at Munich in September 1938, Neville Chamberlain self-contradicted on precisely this point. He acknowledged Britain's responsibility for ensuring peace, yet he also lamented being dragged toward war 'because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.' His word 'quarrel' implied equal fault on both sides rather than identifying one side's aggression. Such what's-it-got-to-do-with-us? ideas lurk somewhere in our collective psyche about Ukraine, even though part of the answer hit us directly in 2022 when energy prices exploded. In Donald Trump's America, there is a disturbing strand which thinks the conflict was got up by President Zelensky to get the United States to pay. That mode of thought leads to dreams of some quick deal about material advantages rather than a just – and therefore lasting – peace. Even when President Trump this week rounded on Putin for bombing Ukrainian cities more heavily than ever, his tone was not that of a man repelled by wickedness, but of an exasperated friend: 'I don't know what the hell happened to Putin. I've known him a long time.' He distributed blame equally between Putin, Zelensky and Joe Biden. Why the surprise? Russia's attempt to flatten every Ukrainian city is horribly consistent with Putin's declared war aims. Our current Labour Government, like our previous Conservative one, has not fallen into the Chamberlain/Trump trap. It is clear about the central issue. Putin is the aggressor, says Sir Keir Starmer. Britain can accept no deal which does not satisfy the people of Ukraine. We will do – the phrase endlessly repeated – 'whatever it takes'. This is not insincere, and there are some in the Government, notably the Defence Secretary, John Healey, who are really working for Ukraine to prevail. Nevertheless, if the Government believes it is doing 'whatever it takes', it has not plumbed the depth of the problem. This was brought home to me on Thursday when I attended a conference organised by Policy Exchange about the Law of Armed Conflict. Under the Ottawa Treaty, the signatories are forbidden to use anti-personnel mines. A comparable convention also restricts the use of cluster munitions. The conference, partly private, was addressed by the leading retired US general David Petraeus, by political and military leaders from frontline states such as Poland, Estonia and Finland, and by many of our own top brass and legal experts. The consensus was that these agreements, forged in the piping time of peace, now seriously disadvantage all Nato signatories. Russia ignores all such rules and tries to cover Ukraine with landmines. It was its vast use of mines which stalled the Ukrainian counter-offensive planned for late summer 2023. If Ukraine had not responded in kind, including not only landmines but its effective use of cluster munitions against Russian tanks, it would by now have been overrun. Those Nato frontline states countries with the most vivid and direct experience of Russian attitudes and tactics are now withdrawing from the relevant agreements. They know it is illegal to do so once a war has started: they think a Russian attack is likely, so they are withdrawing now. Yet Britain, though their most significantly engaged European defender, still purses its lips and reiterates its support for the treaties. This is what General Petraeus characterised as 'legal freeloading'. The need to repudiate Ottawa is, as he puts it, a 'no-brainer'. At the very same time as this highly practical, war-focussed and well-informed gathering, elsewhere in Westminster, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, was addressing the Royal United Services Institute. Although he made much of the need to counter Putin in Ukraine, he spoke as if it would be international law, rather than allied political, economic and military strength, which would do the trick. Recalling his visit to Bucha, scene of Putin's worst massacre, he seemed to see the solution in the hope that international justice would hold the guilty to account. One shares that hope, but what Lord Hermer did not acknowledge was that Putin has so far got away with these horrors precisely because the rules-based international order, which includes Nato, has let him do so. As in the 1930s, we are acting as if we do not fully accept that there is a war on. Indeed, we have even less excuse than did the Western democracies then. When Chamberlain flew to Munich, he was talking to a man who, clearly evil though his intentions were, had not yet waged aggressive war. Putin has done so for more than three years, arguably for 11 years, and still we have not concerted to stop him. Lord Hermer says he wants to 'depolarise' our disputes in this country about international law and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Even he now dimly senses that his absolutism and that of his chief legal and political patron, Sir Keir, on this point, is divisive and unpopular. Nevertheless, the strongest focus of attack in his RUSI lecture was not on warmongers abroad, such as Putin, but on what he called the 'pseudo-realists' at home. These wicked people are those Conservatives and Reform supporters who think we should leave the ECHR. Such persons, says Lord Hermer, may have patriotic motives, but are falling for the trap of the Nazi legal thinker, Carl Schmitt, who invented spurious philosophical justification for the exercise of 'raw power'. This incendiary comparison is unworthy of the sober-sided role of a law officer. It shows how the mind of the human-rights extremist – the school of thought in which Sir Keir spent his whole professional life – works. The people who disagree with you are Nazis. The threat from the true 'raw power' merchants of the modern world – Putin, Hamas, North Korea – is sidelined. Surely at the top the hierarchy of wrongs which international law is designed to prevent is aggressive war. Rules which prevent allies resisting aggression with the necessary weapons objectively assist the aggressor. There is just such a war on. If, like Lord Hermer, we apply self-righteous legalism to the problem, we cannot win it.
