Trump sets deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia on war with Ukraine
Trump has threatened both sanctions on Russia and buyers of its exports unless progress is made.
Speaking in Scotland, where he is holding meetings with European leaders and playing golf, Trump said he was disappointed in Putin and shortening a 50-day deadline he had set on the issue earlier this month.
"I'm going to make a new deadline of about ... 10 or 12 days from today," Trump told reporters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "There's no reason in waiting... We just don't see any progress being made."
There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin.
Trump, who has expressed annoyance also with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has not always followed up on his tough talk about Putin with action, citing what he deems a good relationship that the two men have had previously.
On Monday Trump indicated he was not interested in more talks with Putin. He said sanctions and tariffs would be used as penalties for Moscow if it did not meet Trump's demands.
"There's no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs," Trump said. "I don't want to do that to Russia. I love the Russian people."
The U.S. president has repeatedly voiced exasperation with Putin for continuing attacks on Ukraine despite U.S. efforts to end the war. Trump has played up successes in other parts of the world where the United States has helped to broker peace agreements and has been flattered by some leaders who suggest he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.
"I'm disappointed in President Putin," Trump said on Monday. "I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen."
Before returning to the White House in January, Trump had promised to end the conflict within 24 hours.
"We thought we had that settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever," Trump said. "And I say that's not the way to do it."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
Reeves can't continue to ignore the entrepreneurs fleeing Britain
Major listed companies have already switched from London to New York. The non-doms are all fleeing for Milan and Dubai. And now it turns out that company directors are quitting Britain in record numbers. The exodus of entrepreneurs is accelerating all the time. And yet, so far the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have remained completely silent on the issue. Surely, sooner or later they will have to say something? An analysis by the Financial Times this week found that almost 3,700 company directors have left Britain over the last few months, almost double the number before the Budget. Given the time lags involved in filing data with Companies House, the total is likely to be far higher by now. We already had data suggesting that 16,500 millionaires have left Britain, the highest total in the world, while many high-profile non-doms have left, including Lakshmi Mittal, the founder of the steel empire ArcelorMittal, and Guillaume Pousaz, the founder of the fintech giant Checkout. Add it all up, and one point is clear. Entrepreneurs are leaving the UK. It is not hard to see why. The non-doms are now subject to British taxes on their global income, including one of the highest rates of inheritance tax in the world. Meanwhile, British entrepreneurs face a punishing combination of corporation tax, dividend tax, and income tax on any money their business makes, and they can no longer leave their company to their children without paying 40 per cent of its value to the state. We have created one of the most hostile environments in the world for company founders. And yet the Chancellor Rachel Reeves has remained completely silent on the issue, as has the Prime Minister. There are plenty of lines she could take. She could argue it doesn't matter and we don't need them. After all, we now have GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund, and they will create new industries. She could lambast the quitters as unpatriotic, shaming them for their reluctance to properly fund public services. Alternatively, she could slap an exit tax on them, as countries such as Sweden have done, to make it more expensive to leave than to stay. Or, most radically of all, Reeves could U-turn on some of her policies and offer some tax incentives to try and bring them back – or at least persuade any more from leaving. Each option would be a credible response. But surely just ignoring the issue is no longer an option? Sooner or later Labour will have to acknowledge the crisis and try to do something to stem it. Or else within a few years the UK will have no businesses left beside a few state-controlled monopolies.
ITV News
10 minutes ago
- ITV News
First migrants detained in UK under new UK-France returns deal
Migrants who arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel have been detained under the new 'one in, one out' returns deal announced last month by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron. The first detentions came as people arrived in Dover on Wednesday, which was the first day the pilot scheme came into force. Pictures showed the migrants wearing life jackets and disembarking from Border Force boats. The Home Office said detentions began for those who arrived on Wednesday afternoon and they will be held in immigration removal centres until they are returned to France. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Yesterday, under the terms of this groundbreaking new treaty, the first group of people to cross the Channel were detained after their arrival at Western Jet Foil and will now be held in detention until they can be returned to France. 'That sends a message to every migrant currently thinking of paying organised crime gangs to go to the UK that they will be risking their lives and throwing away their money if they get into a small boat.'
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves should exempt defence pledge from budget rules, says Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown has said Chancellor Rachel Reeves should exempt the Government's defence spending pledge from her borrowing rules to help free up economic headroom. The former prime minister said the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035 should be dealt with jointly as a ' Nato initiative', with costs shared across Europe. Leading economists have warned the Chancellor will likely have to raise taxes in the autumn budget to plug a £51 billion black hole in the public finances. Ms Reeves is currently on track to miss one of her borrowing rules by £41.2 billion and needs to rebuild a fiscal buffer of nearly £10 billion that has been wiped out, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr). Mr Brown, who served as chancellor for a decade in Sir Tony Blair's Labour administration, said on Thursday that the rise in defence spending should be treated as 'exceptional', as it has been in Germany. 'When you come to the fiscal position, look, there's one thing that's happened over the last few months that has been quite unprecedented – to spend 5% on defence expenditure as we want to spend by the 2030s,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'But this is a Nato initiative, this is a European initiative. We should be doing this jointly. 'We should have either jointly issued bonds or a Nato defence fund, and we should be sharing the cost across the continent, and that should be regarded as something extraordinary and exceptional, outside the fiscal rules. 'That would create the kind of headroom that Rachel Reeves needs.' Germany has exempted some defence spending from its strict borrowing rules – the so-called 'debt brake' – to allow an increase in expenditure. When she entered the Treasury, Ms Reeves set out two key fiscal restrictions which she has said are 'non-negotiable'. The first rule is to ensure that day-to-day spending is matched by tax revenues so the Government only borrows to invest, and the second is to reduce net financial debt as a share of the economy. Ministers have already announced a cut to overseas aid to fund a boost in defence spending but economists have said the new Nato target of 5% by 2035 could increase expenditure by a further £38.6 billion. The Treasury has been contacted for comment.
