Trump to speak with Zelenskyy after disappointing call with Putin
U.S. attempts to end Russia's war in Ukraine through diplomacy have largely stalled, and Trump has faced growing calls -- including from some Republicans -- to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate in earnest.
After speaking to Putin on Thursday, Trump plans to speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, he said in remarks to reporters on his return to Washington from a trip to Iowa.
"I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, because I don't think he's there, and I'm very disappointed," Trump said.
"I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad."
The two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in some U.S. weapons shipments to Kyiv during the nearly hour-long conversation, a summary provided by Putin aide Yuri Ushakov showed.
Within hours of their concluding the call, an apparent Russian drone attack sparked a fire in an apartment building in a northern suburb of Kyiv, Ukrainian officials said, indicating little change in the trajectory of the conflict.
In Kyiv itself, Reuters witnesses reported explosions and sustained heavy machine-gun fire as air defense units battled drones over the capital, while Russian shelling killed five people in the east.
"I didn't make any progress with him at all," Trump told reporters on Thursday.
Zelenskyy told reporters in Denmark earlier in the day that he hopes to speak to Trump as soon as Friday about the pause in some weapons shipments first disclosed this week.
Speaking to reporters as he left Washington for Iowa, Trump said, "We haven't" completely paused the flow of weapons. He also blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for sending so many weapons that it risked weakening U.S. defenses.
"We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons. But we are giving weapons," he said.
"And we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't (completely stopped). You know, Biden emptied out our whole country, giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves."
The diplomatic back-and-forth comes as low stockpiles have prompted the U.S. to pause shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine, sources told Reuters earlier, just as it faces a Russian summer offensive and growing attacks on civilian targets.
Putin, for his part, has continued to assert he will stop his invasion only if the conflict's "root causes" have been tackled, making use of Russian shorthand for the issue of NATO enlargement and Western support for Ukraine, including the rejection of any notion of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance.
Russian leaders are also angling to establish greater control over political decisions made in Kyiv and other Eastern European capitals, NATO leaders have said.
The pause in U.S. weapons shipments caught Ukraine off guard and has generated widespread confusion about Trump's current views on the conflict, after saying just last week he would try to free up a Patriot missile defense system for use by Kyiv.
Ukrainian leaders called in the acting U.S. envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington, and caution that the pause in its weapons shipments would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia.
The Pentagon's move has meant a cut in deliveries of the Patriot defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Ushakov, the Kremlin aide, said that while Russia was open to continuing to speak with the U.S., any peace negotiations needed to happen between Moscow and Kyiv.
That comment came amid some signs that Moscow is trying to avoid a three-way format for possible peace talks. The Russians asked American diplomats to leave the room during such a meeting in Istanbul in early June, Ukrainian officials have said.
Trump and Putin did not talk about a face-to-face meeting, Ushakov said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
As trade deadline approaches, Japan must draw lines
According to conventional wisdom, a strong national leader will force a weak one, or one with less popular support, to buckle in tough negotiations. By that logic, U.S. President Donald Trump has the whip hand in trade talks with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Yet, Ishiba has held out, resisting U.S. pressure to sign a quick deal, a position that is strengthened, ironically, by Ishiba's weakness. The prime minister cannot afford to make concessions as the July 20 Upper House election approaches. His spine is stiffened by the failure of the U.S. to make clear its demands and the U.S. president's record of ripping up deals that even he negotiated. Clarity and trust are the essential prerequisites of successful negotiations. Neither exists today. Japan was worried about Trump's return to the White House, fearful that the bilateral relationship would suffer given the 45th and 47th president's long-time animus toward Japan and the absence of a 'Trump whisperer,' former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Yet, in January, Trump described the partnership as 'a friendship like few others,' certain that 'the cherished alliances between our two countries will continue to flourish long into the future!' Sensing opportunity, Ishiba hurried to Washington to meet Trump, a move that some considered unseemly and perhaps unwise, but the resulting summit was a success. When Trump announced that he would impose blanket 10% tariffs on all trade partners, with still greater sanctions on specific sectors like autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum, Japan was one of the first countries to begin negotiations on a deal, its faith in the relationship yielding confidence that an agreement was possible. Since then, Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's chief tariff negotiator, has visited Washington regularly, sometimes weekly, in search of a deal. Despite seven rounds of talks, periodic claims that an agreement was imminent and impressive efforts by Japan to court the mercurial U.S. president — at one point, Akazawa wore a 'Make America Great Again' cap while meeting Trump — the two countries remain at loggerheads. In the last round, held late last month, Akazawa failed to even meet Scott Bessent, U.S. treasury secretary and chief U.S. negotiator, or U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Worse, when the talks adjourned Trump unloaded on Japan, complaining that the country was 'spoiled' and took no U.S. rice or automobiles. Talking to reporters, he wasn't sure if a deal with Japan was possible, saying 'I doubt it. ... They're very tough.' Trump said that he would be sending Japan 'a letter,' or notice of his intent to impose tariffs on its goods, which would mark 'the end of the trade deal.' In an interview, Trump warned that Japan would 'pay a 25% tariff on your cars,' and later comments hinted it could be as high as a 35% levy. Japan responded with silence. While the current deadline for a deal is July 9, Bessent has indicated that an extension might be possible. There are reports that Akazawa may make yet another trip to Washington for another round of talks. One of the questions he needs answered is what purpose U.S. tariffs serve. If they are intended to raise revenue that facilitates the restructuring of the U.S. tax system, which would imply that they are permanent, then the parameters of a deal are much changed. An agreement is difficult when one side doesn't understand the facts. The charge that Japan imports no U.S. rice is false, as agriculture minister Shinjiro Koizumi explained. 'Rice imports from abroad, including from the U.S., had increased 120 times from a year earlier.' If Japanese consumers don't buy U.S. automobiles, it isn't because of tariffs — this country imposes no levy on imported passenger cars — but because American automakers don't build vehicles that Japanese want. Koizumi was right to call Trump's comments an 'obvious misunderstanding of the facts.' Autos are central to any eventual resolution of this dispute. Trump insists that his 25% tariff, imposed in March, is nonnegotiable. Japan wants it gone. The U.S. may believe that Japan will be squeezed by its tariffs. And, in fact, exports to the U.S. dropped by 11% year on year in May, with automobile exports down 24.7%. Automakers have been working to avoid passing on the tariff costs, but they are reaching the limits at which they can squeeze their supply chains. Japanese automakers have increased production in the U.S., which is one of Trump's objectives. Any eventual resolution is more likely to reflect larger political and economic considerations than the specific terms of any document. Fearful of some of the consequences, Trump has been criticized for failing to follow through on his threats and the prospect of an economic slowdown in the U.S. — the perpetual warning of economists when they evaluate his trade policy — could force him to back off again. Trump has also been promising deals for so long and has achieved such meager results — only agreements with Vietnam and the U.K., while a purported pact with China remains unclear — that his administration might settle for something with Japan that is more symbolic than real. If Trump believed that Ishiba would readily submit to his demands, he was mistaken. That error is understandable. The U.S. is central to Japan's economy and critical to its security but the leverage that affords the U.S. president is limited. Growing numbers of Japanese voters oppose gross concessions. One poll shows more than half of voters believe Japan should not make a deal even if it hurts the bilateral relationship. Only 15% agree to concessions to avoid additional tariffs. Most worrisome now is a growing sense among the Japanese public that the U.S. is no longer a reliable partner. After all, in 2019, Trump and Abe released a joint statement after signing a trade pact that said 'While faithfully implementing these agreements, both nations will refrain from taking measures against the spirit of these agreements and this Joint Statement.' Yet here we are again. American credibility is also diminished by constant calls for ever-more defense spending, first to 2% of gross domestic product, then 3% and now 5%. It is not surprising, then, that another recent poll showed that only 22% either greatly (3%) or somewhat (19%) trust the U.S., while 68% somewhat (46%) or entirely (22%) distrust it. An agreement is difficult in these circumstances. Still, it is possible. And Japan has cards to play. It could pledge to increase purchases of crude oil, natural gas and agricultural products to help balance trade accounts. While these are ultimately private sector decisions, the Japanese government could also encourage companies to invest in the U.S. This shouldn't take much effort since it is already occurring. But Japan must also draw lines. While this country needs a good working relationship with the U.S., it must not be at any cost. This country has national interests to protect. They include a thriving security partnership, a stable and growing economy and a rules-based international order. Indulging a mercurial if not arbitrary U.S. president is not among them, especially if it threatens those other concerns. The Japan Times Editorial Board
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
In the Trump era, how much should countries really be spending on defense?
What percentage of gross domestic product should a country be spending on its defense? That question has continued to be at the center of debates on defense, with NATO allies recently committing to increase the target from 2% to 5%. The White House has since stated that 5% should be the standard for all of America's allies. Voices around the globe are arguing the pros and cons of such a target. In truth, the 'percentage of GDP' approach is a political one, not a practical one. The actual debate is far more complex and includes alliance management issues that have existed for as long as there have been military alliances. The percentage of GDP standard stems from a core issue in alliance management: How do you ensure that everyone is contributing their fair share to the security relationship? Certainly, no country wants to do all the heavy lifting in fulfilling commitments, so there must be some quantifiable measure for contributions to ensure fairness. But the reality is that no two alliances are the same. This may seem obvious for alliances defined by different treaties such as the U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea, but it also applies within multinational alliances like NATO. Poland and the Baltic states have vastly different circumstances with the Russia-Ukraine war raging next door than say, Luxembourg, which is nestled comfortably between the much larger and militarily robust nations of France and Germany. So, how does one measure contributions between countries like Luxembourg and Poland? Is it the number of military operations in which their soldiers participate? Is it the number of bases provided for allied use or the amount of money provided to alliance institutions and initiatives? These are questions with complicated answers and it is impossible to apply a universal rubric for every ally, so years ago, it became popular to use the percentage of GDP standard. In other words, a universal measure for alliance contributions would be how much a country is spending on its own defense proportional to its economy. This became a formal standard for NATO in 2014 during the Wales summit in which they declared that all NATO allies would aspire to 2% of GDP for defense spending. With the most recent summit in the Netherlands, the standard is now 5%. In principle, this seems like a fair approach. But as useful as it is as a political benchmark, this method has its flaws. First of all, what qualifies as 'defense spending' that would count on the stat sheet? Is this everything that touches the military in some way, including retirement pay, veterans administration and military recreation facilities? Is there a distinction between research and development for new capabilities and maintenance of older weapon systems? Does infrastructure construction count if it may support allied operations? Would it be fair if one country included certain items on the cost sheet that the other did not? With the new 5% standard, NATO allies are creating at least some distinction in this debate. In practice, the allies are to spend 3.5% on conventional defense spending, while 1.5% can be on defense-related expenditures. These are still broad categories that will raise some questions. For example, Italy, which only reports 1.49% of GDP spending on defense, has a long way to reach NATO's new 5% standard. Italian lawmakers have proposed solving the problem by reclassifying a new €13.5 billion ($15.9 billion) bridge between the mainland and Sicily as a defense-related expenditure because it could potentially be used for NATO operations. This is just one example of many that will surely emerge as the allies contemplate implementation of the new standard. The second issue is that the percentage of GDP approach assumes that all security alliances are predicated on the same types of tradeoffs. They are not and the utility of those tradeoffs differ based on geography and threats. Even the U.S. recognizes this, with its publication on multinational operations listing seven areas of partner-nation contributions. One is the provision of combat forces and the rest are noncombat in nature, including diplomatic support; financial support; basing, access and overflight support; logistics, lift and sustainment; stabilization and reconstruction support; and governance and ministerial support. Several of these noncombat contributions have no direct tie-ins with an ally's defense spending or even defense-related spending, but it still represents a contribution to the security relationship. So, as an observer trying to make sense of the current debate, it is important to dive deeper than simply looking at percentages. We need to understand the specific tradeoffs within each alliance and the utility that different partners bring. Where does Japan fit into this debate? In 1976, then-Prime Minister Takeo Miki institutionalized the percentage of GDP standard by declaring that he would cap defense spending at 1%. This ceiling remained in place for decades, but while Japan has since eclipsed the 1% figure, there is renewed criticism from some American policy circles. This is nothing new, as Japan has received criticism for free riding in its relationship with the United States long before the current administration. One of the core arguments is that Japan relied on America to deal with its tough security issues so that it could focus primarily on the meteoric economic rise the country enjoyed in the postwar decades. As the logic goes: Less money spent on defense meant more money for growing the economy. There are a couple of flaws in that argument. It ignores the fact that there were plenty of policy actors in the United States in the postwar years who were wary of a rearmed Japan, meaning the notion of an equal military partner in the Self-Defense Forces would have been antithetical to their preferences. Another flaw is that Japanese military contributions to the alliance was a core expectation in the security relationship. When the two countries signed their alliance treaties in 1951 and 1960, the central tradeoff was that the United States would provide for the security of Japan and, in return, Japan would provide basing and access for U.S. forces. This served both governments well. Naturally, the alliance evolved over time and with that evolution came to the realization that there needed to be newly defined roles, missions and capabilities between the two allies. Those were codified in the Japan-U.S. Guidelines on Defense Cooperation, the most recent version of which was published in April 2015. The guidelines clearly lay out the expectations that each ally has for the other, meaning that any substantive debate over defense spending really starts from there. In this case, the question is less about what percentage of GDP either ally is spending on its defense, but rather if they are resourced, trained and equipped to meet the expectations established in their negotiated guidelines. Of course, politics being politics, the percentage of GDP figure will continue to garner headlines and drive public debates. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has expressed his intent to focus those debates on meaningful issues related to readiness and capabilities. But with an ally urging Japan to do more for security and a domestic populace demanding the Ishiba administration do more for a lagging economy, success in the defense spending debate is far from guaranteed. Michael MacArthur Bosack is the special adviser for government relations at the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies. He previously served in the Japanese government as a Mansfield fellow.
The Mainichi
3 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Russia hammers Kyiv in largest missile and drone barrage since war in Ukraine began
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) -- Waves of drone and missile attacks targeted Kyiv overnight into Friday in the largest aerial attack since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began more than three years ago, injuring 23 people and inflicting severe damage across multiple districts of the capital in a seven-hour onslaught. Russia launched 550 drones and missiles across Ukraine during the night, the country's air force said. The majority were Shahed drones, but Russia also launched 11 missiles in the attack. "It was a harsh, sleepless night," Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Russia is escalating its long-range attacks on Ukrainian cities. Less than a week ago Russia launched its previous largest aerial assault of the war. That strategy has coincided with a new push by Russia's bigger forces along parts of the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where Ukrainian troops are under severe pressure. Trump 'not happy' with Russia's attacks The attack on Kyiv began the same day a phone call took place between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy called the timing of the strikes a deliberate signal that Moscow has no intention of ending the war. Trump said he would call Zelenskyy on Friday. U.S-led international peace efforts have been fruitless so far. When asked if he made any progress with Putin on a deal to end the fighting in Ukraine, he said: "No, I didn't make any progress with him today at all." "I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy about that," Trump said of Russia's war in Ukraine. According to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser, the Russian leader emphasized that Moscow will seek to achieve its goals in Ukraine and remove the "root causes" of the conflict. "Russia will not back down from these goals," Ushakov told reporters after the call. Putin has argued he sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022 to fend off a threat to Russia posed by Ukraine's push to join NATO and to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine, arguments rejected by Kyiv and its allies. He insisted any prospective peace deal must see Ukraine abandon its NATO bid and recognize Russia's territorial gains. Pentagon halts deliveries of air defense missiles The U.S. has paused some shipments of military aid to Ukraine, including crucial air defense missiles. Ukraine's main European backers are considering how they can help pick up the slack. Zelenskyy says plans are afoot to build up Ukraine's domestic arms industry, but scaling up will take time. Throughout the night, Associated Press journalists in Kyiv heard the constant buzzing of drones overhead and the sound of explosions and intense machine gun fire as Ukrainian forces tried to intercept the aerial assault. "Absolutely horrible and sleepless night in Kyiv," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on social media platform X. "One of the worst so far." Ukraine's Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko described "families running into metro stations, basements, underground parking garages, mass destruction in the heart of our capital." "What Kyiv endured last night, cannot be called anything but a deliberate act of terror," she wrote on X. Kyiv was the primary target of the countrywide attack. At least 14 people were hospitalized, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko. Russia strikes 5 Ukrainian regions Ukrainian air defenses shot down 270 targets, including two cruise missiles. Another 208 targets were lost from radar and presumed jammed. Russia successfully hit eight locations with nine missiles and 63 drones. Debris from intercepted drones fell across at least 33 sites. In addition to the capital, the Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy, Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Kyiv regions also sustained damage, Zelenskyy said. Emergency services reported damage in at least five of the capital's 10 districts. In Solomianskyi district, a five-story residential building was partially destroyed and the roof of a seven-story building caught fire. Fires also broke out at a warehouse, a garage complex and an auto repair facility. In Sviatoshynskyi district, a strike hit a 14-story residential building, sparking a fire. Several vehicles also caught fire nearby. Blazes were also reported at non-residential facilities. In Shevchenkivskyi district, an eight-story building came under attack, with the first floor sustaining damage. Falling debris was recorded in Darnytskyi and Holosiivskyi districts. Ukraine's national railway operator, Ukrzaliznytsia, said drone strikes damaged rail infrastructure in Kyiv.
