Trump statements on Russia and Putin are serious, require analysis: Kremlin
In a major policy shift underscoring his growing frustration with President Vladimir Putin, Trump on Monday announced new deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and warned that buyers of Russian exports could face sanctions unless Russia agrees to a peace deal on Ukraine.
Trump, who has said he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker, later told the BBC, referring to Putin: "I'm disappointed in him, but I'm not done with him. But I'm disappointed in him."
Asked about Trump's recent statements, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
28 minutes ago
- The Star
South Africa Is No Longer Alone on the International Stage
Vashna Jagannath | Published 1 week ago South Africa's position on the human catastrophe in Gaza has been consistent, lawful and morally serious. It has insisted that international law must be applied equally to all countries, regardless of their power or alliances. This has included the referral of Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide. While Pretoria has won international respect in many quarters, the price has been steep. It has come under immense pressure from the United States, in particular the Trump-aligned right, as well as from domestic organisations and figures closely aligned with the West. In this context the formation of the Hague Group—a bloc of states committed to defending international law and ending impunity—marks a development of considerable significance. The group was convened by the Progressive International and launched on 31 January 2025. It is chaired by Colombia and South Africa, with current members also including Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, and Senegal. The coalition—spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Caribbean—pledged to support ICJ and International Criminal Court (ICC) rulings, prevent arms transfers to Israel, bar military fuel shipments, and pursue legal accountability for violations in Gaza. Western governments have long invoked the language of a 'rules-based international order'—sometimes in strident moral terms—to justify their global domination. But this order has often served to shield the West and its allies from legal scrutiny while imposing strictures on others. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States was a clear violation of international law. The NATO-led regime change intervention in Libya in 2011 was also unlawful. In Afghanistan, elements of the two-decade occupation—including targeted killings and drone strikes—breached international humanitarian law. Israel's bombing campaigns in Syria and Yemen, sometimes backed or tacitly accepted by the West, included strikes on civilian infrastructure and violations of territorial sovereignty and have been deemed unlawful by UN experts and legal assessments. In each case, a supposedly rules-based order yielded to the impunity of powerful Western states. Until now, the idea of international law as a universal normative system has been more aspiration than reality. The United States has not ratified the Rome Statute and has actively resisted ICC investigations, including imposing sanctions during the probe into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. Israel remains outside the court's jurisdiction. The ICJ—though central to the UN system—continues to be undermined: the U.S. withdrew from its compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after being found to have violated international law in Nicaragua. South Africa's decision to bring the genocide case against Israel before the ICJ was bold and principled. Though the Court's final ruling is pending, provisional measures have already instructed Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid. That legal action made South Africa a target. In the US the Biden administration expressed concern, but pressure escalated dramatically when Donald Trump returned to the Presidency. This is one reason among many why the Hague Group matters. By aligning with other states in defence of international law, South Africa has built a collective bloc. This bloc's cohesion offers protection as well as enhancing the aim of defending international law. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, argues that the Hague Group provides 'a global push for collective action through international law—no arms for genocide, no aid for occupation, and no tolerance for apartheid.' In her view, the initiative not only exemplifies states meeting their legal obligations but also challenges the exceptionalism that shields powerful states from accountability. She has argued that the Group's efforts 'must become a global initiative' if the integrity of international law is to be affirmed. The next milestone for the Group is the Emergency Conference co-hosted by South Africa and Colombia and set for 15–16 July 2025 in Bogotá. This gathering will include many non-member states—though not all are expected to formally join the Group—and focus on enforcing ICJ rulings, halting ongoing violations, and affirming Palestinian self-determination. Delegates are expected to announce coordinated legal and diplomatic measures. South Africa's response to the crisis in Palestine has helped restore some of the international moral standing lost during the Zuma years. At home, it has given some citizens hope that an ethical core still exists within the ANC and government, and could extend to other pressing issues at home and abroad. Perhaps this is why the legal team were greeted at the airport with the kind of warmth and pride usually reserved for triumphant sports teams when they returned from the ICJ. It was a moment that revealed a deep public hunger for moral seriousness and national purpose. Tellingly, the approach to the ICJ won strong support from mass-based organisations such as the National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) and Abahlali baseMjondolo, which are usually intensely critical of the ANC. In the West there is a clear shift, especially among young people, from uncritical support for Israel. Nonetheless, governments in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom, along with the US of course, continue to back Israel's unlawful actions in Gaza, as well as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. In this context where support for change still confronts powerful opposition the Hague Group is a significant collective challenge to the impunity of powerful Western states. The era in which Western exceptionalism defined the limits of legal accountability is being directly contested . Whether this results in meaningful enforcement or another retreat into hypocrisy will depend not only on the Hague Group's resolve, but on whether other states are prepared to act on the principles they claim to uphold. * Dr Jagarnath sits on the council of the Progressive International. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Can SA forge a new consensus at G20 summit?
For the second time this year, the world's most powerful finance ministers have gathered in South Africa, this time at the lush resort of Zimbali north of Durban. But one minister will once again be conspicuous by his absence: that from the US. Scott Bessent, the mercurial US Treasury Secretary, has once again skipped the G20, choosing instead to send Michael Kaplan, the acting undersecretary for international affairs at the US Treasury. It all started when Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to participate due to the host's vision of this year's G20 presidency being about 'Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability' — principles the current US administration theatrically rejects. In one sense, the timing of this South African presidency of the G20 could not be worse. Faced with the anti-globalist, protectionist bent of the US, what is usually a processional opportunity for showcasing a nation's soft power and producing vacuous missives about global cooperation has become a near impossible job of managing diplomatic fallout. As the first country from Africa to host the G20, South Africa had hoped to push issues vital for the very developing nations that stand to lose the most from the US president's trade war. With US aid budgets cut to virtual non-existence, and with tariffs about to decimate the export industries that, until now, had been the only hope for small African developing countries to build some semblance of a manufacturing sector, South Africa now finds itself managing the wreckage of international consensus. The G20 is a relatively new arrival to the international global system of forums and talk shops. Established as a response to the global financial crisis in 2008, the whole point was for countries like the US, the UK and the EU to include the faster growing nations of the Global South, which were becoming increasingly critical to the global economy. That promise now looks increasingly hollow. US vs the world: SA salvages G20 How naïve and quaint that looks, from the perspective of the realpolitik of 2025. In addition to Trump's threat of crippling levies on key trading partners from 1 August 2025, the US president has taken aim at the BRICS bloc of emerging economies — which includes host nation South Africa — threatening an extra 10% tariff for 'anti-American' policies. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, following the BRICS summit in Rio last week, was the first of the group to hit back. 'The president of the US must recognise that multiple centres of power now define the global landscape,' he said. Ramaphosa is still trying to convince Trump to attend a G20 leaders' summit in Johannesburg in November, where he is due to hand over the presidency of the group to the US. But hopes that Trump will support any of South Africa's G20 initiatives have largely been extinguished. Under fire from corruption scandals at home, Ramaphosa's efforts are increasingly looking to be in vain. The G20 international outreach also follows a highly publicised Oval Office dressing-down, where Trump repeated false claims about a so-called genocide against white South African farmers. Still, despite Washington's aggressions, South Africa has no option but to press ahead with this week's meetings, which culminate on Thursday and Friday with sessions led by finance ministers and central bank governors. South African Reserve Bank governor Lesetja Kganyago and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana will, at least, be in the limelight as opposed to the embattled president. The EU is now in the firing line It is not only developing countries that have been targeted by Trump. On Saturday, the EU received a typically condescending letter from Trump, threatening blanket tariffs on European goods. In a message that appeared to be copied and pasted from the one sent to South Africa and countless other recipients, Trump invited the EU to 'participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World', while warning of sweeping new levies. His parting line, as ever: 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' The proposed 30% tariff rate, together with existing sectoral duties and an expected levy on critical goods, would take the increase in the US effective tariff rate on the EU to a brutal 26%. According to estimates from Goldman Sachs, if implemented and sustained, it would lower euro area GDP by 1.2% by the end of 2026. The US is the largest trade partner of the EU, with the sum of exports from the EU totalling $815-billion in 2024. The EU understands that such a trade restriction with its biggest partner is nothing short of an existential challenge. In response, the bloc is actively seeking to diversify its trade ties. Besides Canada and Japan, the bloc is now fast-tracking agreements with India and other Asia-Pacific nations. Speaking from Beijing, EU competition chief Teresa Ribera confirmed that discussions with India are expected to conclude by year's end. 'We need to explore how far, how deep we can go in the Pacific area with other countries.' Africa will undoubtedly be next. Can South Africa lead a G19 without the US? Where the tariff war ends is anyone's guess. But with the US — the architect of the post-war global order — now acting as a destabilising force, the need for alternative alliances and renewed multilateralism between other parties has never been clearer. Already, the US absence has drawn others closer. After Rubio's withdrawal, the EU publicly endorsed South Africa's G20 agenda. Within weeks, the EU and South Africa held their first summit since 2018, marking a thaw in previously strained relations. Strangely then this year's G20 could prove to be its most consequential since its inception. Will it become the moment when the rest of the world reaffirms a commitment to open markets, trade and mutually beneficial cooperation? Or will it cement the beginning of the end for the rules-based global economy? In that sense therefore the timing of South Africa's G20 presidency could not be better. As a nation that once symbolised the post-Cold War liberal ideals of inclusion and equality, it is perhaps fitting that it should fall to us to rally the Global South and like-minded powers toward a new consensus. But the challenge is enormous. Can Ramaphosa — wounded politically and isolated diplomatically — rise to the occasion? Can South Africa lead a meaningful G19 in the absence of the US? To quote Tennyson's Ulysses, while 'death closes all, some work of noble note may yet be done'. The South African president may identify with the itinerant Greek after his own interminable political odyssey. Given his patchy track record in office, the answer may not be encouraging. And yet, history never asks whether leaders are ready. It simply presents the moment. Ramaphosa now faces his. DM
TimesLIVE
7 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Trump statements on Russia and Putin are serious, require analysis: Kremlin
US President Donald Trump's recent statements, including a threat of sanctions on buyers of Russian exports, are serious and require analysis, the Kremlin said on Tuesday. In a major policy shift underscoring his growing frustration with President Vladimir Putin, Trump on Monday announced new deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and warned that buyers of Russian exports could face sanctions unless Russia agrees to a peace deal on Ukraine. Trump, who has said he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker, later told the BBC, referring to Putin: "I'm disappointed in him, but I'm not done with him. But I'm disappointed in him." Asked about Trump's recent statements, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin."
