Ukraine Crisis Could Spark 'Direct' Russia-US Confrontation—NORAD Commander
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The war in Ukraine could escalate into a direct confrontation between the U.S. and Russia, according to the Pentagon.
General Gregory Guillot, the head of the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued the warning to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
In a written statement to U.S. lawmakers, Guillot said that more than three years on from the start of Russia's full-scale invasion there are "several plausible pathways" in the which the war could escalate into a direct military conflict with the United States.
Newsweek has contacted the Kremlin for comment.
General Gregory Guillot is seen during a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee nomination hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 26, 2023.
General Gregory Guillot is seen during a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee nomination hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 26, 2023.Why It Matters
The specter of escalation has hung over the war in Ukraine since Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion in February 2022, especially given the repeated nuclear threats issued by Moscow.
Guillot also referred to other adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, highlighting the security and defense issues for the Trump administration as it seeks to end the war in Ukraine and combat countries seeking to challenge the U.S. military in the future.
What To Know
Guillot addressed lawmakers from the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. In a written statement presented to the committee, Guillot said the probability of a direct conflict between the U.S. and one of its key rivals is increasing.
The statement said that while China, Russia, North Korea and Iran seek to avoid armed conflict with the U.S., they might try to capitalize on the perception of a Western decline to challenge American power, which could risk miscalculation.
Guillot then said that in the fourth year of Russia's invasion of Ukraine there are several ways that the war could escalate into a direct military conflict with the United States.
The U.S. general also referred to other conflicts that threaten to involve the U.S. such as the war in the Middle East sparked by Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that threatens to embroil the U.S. in a direct conflict with Iran and its proxies.
Guillot said tensions in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea carry a constant risk of escalation into armed conflict between China and the United States, with "consequences that could span a generation."
He said strategic cooperation between and among the U.S.'s four main adversaries had grown substantially since the beginning of the Ukraine War, increasing the risk that war with one could quickly expand into war with an enemy coalition.
What People Are Saying
General Gregory Guillot: "As Russia's brutal and misguided invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, there remain several plausible pathways by which the war could escalate into a direct military conflict with the United States."
What Happens Next
Russian media outlets reported Guillot's comments, which come amid anticipation over negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, whose president Volodymr Zelensky has said he would be in Turkey on Thursday ready for direct talks with Putin, who has not committed to attending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Legal analysts weighed in on whether first lady Melania Trump's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit threat against Hunter Biden has merit. Why It Matters Trump threatened to file a lawsuit against Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, accusing him of making "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" during an interview in which he claimed Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband, President Donald Trump. If she follows through with that threat, the case could test the limits of defamation law involving high-profile individuals such as the first family. The Trump administration has been under scrutiny over its handling of a trove of documents and files related to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in a New York federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking. There have long been rumors of an Epstein "client list," and Trump campaigned on greater transparency on the case. However, Trump's Justice Department has not released those files, fueling political backlash against him. What To Know Hunter Biden made those claims about Melania Trump during an interview with journalist Andrew Callaghan earlier this month, citing an article from The Daily Beast based on claims by Trump biographer Michael Wolff. The Daily Beast retracted that story after receiving a letter from the first lady's lawyer challenging its headline and framing. Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the letter to Hunter Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, on August 6, 2025, reported Fox News Digital. He said Biden's comments are "extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums." First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024. First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, an interview with Callaghan on Thursday, Biden declined to apologize, saying, "F*** that. That's not going to happen." Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that in theory, Melania Trump has a "strong case against Hunter Biden" if his statement was indeed false. "As a public figure, the first lady would have to prove malice, that the younger Biden knew the statement was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But if Epstein did not introduce the president and first lady, that would not be difficult to prove," Rahmani said. If the first lady files the lawsuit, Biden would likely raise First Amendment arguments, including that political speech receives strong free speech protections. Practically speaking, however, Rahmani said he does not believe Melania Trump will file. If she does, she and her lawyers may look for a quick settlement. "The president has been very litigious when it comes to these types of cases, but truth is an absolute defense to defamation. A civil complaint puts how Donald and Melania met and their relationship with Epstein, if any, at issue," Rahmani said. "That means the president and first lady would have to sit for a deposition and answer questions about Epstein. Hunter may dig in his heels and push the case to trial or the brink, like he did with his criminal cases." A trial about the Trumps and Epstein would be a "circus," and no one wants to be associated with Epstein, Rahmani said. However, former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu said he believes Melania Trump does not have a strong case against Hunter Biden. "It's pretty tough for a public figure like a first lady to be able to claim defamation," Wu said. The case could also be difficult to prove because the statements originate from Wolff's book, he said. She would not only have to prove that the claim is false, but that Hunter Biden knew or should have known it was false. "It would be different if he was the only person starting this rumor or something, but given that there's been other people—it may be factually inaccurate, but there are other sources publicly available—it becomes more of a defamation suit based on the idea you're not allowed to reference other publicly reported stories," Wu said. He added that a defamation trial would not "be very helpful at all" to the scrutiny the Trump administration has faced over Epstein. What People Are Saying Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, wrote in his notice to Hunter Biden: "Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer." Hunter Biden said on Channel Five: "What I said was what I have heard and seen reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when The New York Times, I think, Annie Carney and Maggie Haberman reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time. "And then I think excerpted in a book that was published in Vanity Fair, and I think it's been repeated by journalists and authors since then. But the primary source was the interviews that Michael Wolff has been conducting, in which he has, actually, tapes of I think hours and hours of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know, fact of the matter is that, you know, I don't think that these threats of a lawsuit add up to anything other than a design destruction because it's not about who introduced whom to who. I don't know how that in any way rises to the level of defamation to begin with." Nick Clemmens, an aide to Melania Trump, previously told Newsweek: "First lady Melania Trump's attorneys are actively ensuring immediate retractions and apologies by those who spread malicious, defamatory falsehoods. The true account of how the first lady met President Trump is in her best-selling book, Melania." What Happens Next Whether Melania Trump will end up filing the lawsuit against Hunter Biden is yet to be seen. If so, it would garner significant attention while testing the First Amendment and defamation law.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Corey Lewandowski has only worked 69 days under Kristi Noem — with 61 still to go — DHS says after concerns over ‘special' status
WASHINGTON — Corey Lewandowski has logged just 69 days as a 'special' employee of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — allowing him to serve another 61, the Trump administration said Thursday after weeks of speculation about Lewandowski apparently blowing past the 130-day limit. Lewandowski, 51, has served as Noem's de facto chief of staff since late January, and fellow administration aides were puzzled when he remained on the job well past what they believed to be his end date in early June — leading to theories that he was using colleagues' badges to clock into work. 5 Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's de facto chief of staff Corey Lewandowski has worked just 69 days, DHS says. POOL/AFP via Getty Images 5 Lewandowski's continued presence has drawn intrigue due to the usual 130-day limit on unpaid special employees. James Keivom The Department of Homeland Security told The Post Thursday that 69 working days had been recorded by Trump's former 2016 campaign manager, confirming a figure first reported by Axios. 'Mr. Lewandowski's time is kept by a career DHS employee who submits the paperwork on a bi-weekly basis,' the department said. A White House official hailed plummeting illegal immigration numbers under Noem and Lewandowski's leadership when asked about his status. 5 Noem, left, and Lewandowski, right, participate in immigration raid on April 8 in Phoenix. James Keivom 5 Noem, right, and Lewandowski, center, attend a June 25 meeting in Costa Rica. POOL/AFP via Getty Images 5 Noem and Lewandowski, center-left, attend a June 26 meeting in Guatemala. Getty Images 'The Tremendous results coming from the Department of Homeland Security — a historically secure border, safer American communities, and successful deportations of criminal illegal aliens — speak for themselves,' she said. Lewandowski reportedly was denied the permanent role of DHS chief of staff due to widespread allegations that he and Noem, 53, are having an extramarital affair. Both are married to other people and have repeatedly denied an improper relationship. The pair have traveled extensively together on official business this year, including trips to Argentina, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Poland and Italy.
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
A high-stakes 'listening exercise.' What's at stake in Trump's meeting with Putin.
Trump is betting a face-to-face meeting with Putin on Aug. 15 can help generate the breakthrough that has proven elusive in the peace talks. One of the biggest diplomatic events of Donald Trump's second term will unfold in Alaska as the president meets with his Russian counterpart in a bid to end the war in Ukraine. Trump is betting a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Aug. 15 can generate a breakthrough that has so far proved elusive, even as the White House says it's just a 'listening exercise.' 'At the end of that meeting, probably the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made,' Trump said Aug. 11. More: Trump-Putin summit spotlights Alaska's strategic importance, vulnerability The trip is Putin's first to the United States in a decade, and his first meeting with an American president since a chilly sit-down with President Joe Biden in 2021. The next year Putin invaded Ukraine, initiating the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, one that has killed more than 250,000 Russian and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The summit is being closely watched by Ukrainian and European leaders, who are worried that any peace terms discussed could be unfavorable to Kyiv. Here's what to know about Trump's Alaska meeting with Putin. More: What's latest in Russian-Ukraine war? A closer look at the map ahead of Trump-Putin meet Ukraine has been largely left out Much of the discussion leading up to the summit has been about who won't be there. Ukrainian President Volodoymyr Zelenskyy isn't attending, which raises questions about how much can be achieved when one of the sides pivotal to any peace deal won't be present. Zelenskyy and European leaders said no decisions about a peace agreement can be made without Ukraine. Zelenskyy spoke with Trump twice ahead of the summit, the second time on a call that included European leaders. "I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal," Trump declared Aug. 11. Jockeying over territorial concessions Trump is trying to push Moscow into an accord that Kyiv and its allies fear will include the loss of significant territory seized by Russia in its 3-year-old war. Speculating about an eventual deal on Aug. 8, Trump said it would involve 'some swapping of territories." That drew a sharp response from Zelenskyy, who said, 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.' But Trump has continued to push, saying on Aug. 11 that he was a 'little bothered' by the Ukrainian leader's assertion that a land swap would violate the country's constitution. "There will be some swapping,' Trump insisted Aug. 11. 'There will be some changes in land.' The debate over territorial concessions hangs over the summit. Putin claims four Ukrainian regions – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – as well as the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which he annexed in 2014. Trump's relationship with Putin in the spotlight Trump has had a famously warm relationship with Putin over the years, often praising the Russian autocrat. Trump reportedly shared classified intelligence with Russian officials during his first term and tried to soften U.S. opposition to Russia's past aggression against Ukraine and its human rights violations. Meanwhile, Ukraine and Zelenskyy featured in one of the lowest points of Trump's first term. He was impeached over allegations that he pressured Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on political rival Joe Biden. Trump's friendly approach to Putin has largely continued as he worked to get a peace deal and focused his ire on Zelenskyy, most notably during an explosive Oval Office meeting when the two clashed publicly. Trump told the Ukrainian leader he didn't 'have the cards' when it came to resolving the conflict in the country's favor. Lately, though, Trump has repeatedly slammed Putin and complained about his unwillingness to stop the fighting. Putin escalated his attacks on Ukraine ahead of the summit, which former GOP House speaker and Trump ally Newt Gingrich called 'a sign of very bad faith.' Trump said Aug. 13 that there would be 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to end the war. Economic sanctions in play Trump's tougher approach to Russia is exemplified by his announcement July 14 that he would levy stiff secondary tariffs on countries that do business with Moscow. The administration took a step toward punishing Russia's oil customers on Aug. 6, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its imports of Russian oil. It marked the first financial penalty aimed at Russia in Trump's second term. The broader sanctions Trump had said he'd place on Putin if a ceasefire was not reached by Aug. 8 appear to be on hold. The summit could help determine whether Trump follows through on the sanctions. Trump plays down expectations Though meeting with Putin is a big step, Trump and the White House are downplaying the chances for a breakthrough. "This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit,' Trump said Aug. 11. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the summit a 'listening exercise for the president.' 'Look, only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present,' Leavitt said Aug. 12. A Trump-Putin reunion Trump and Putin will meet in Anchorage, Alaska, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, home to about 30,000 service members, their families and civilian employees. Alaska was once part of Russia – the U.S. bought it for $7.2 million in 1867 − and is separated by the Bering Strait from the Russian mainland by just 55 miles at the narrowest point. More: Trump-Putin summit spotlights Alaska's strategic importance, vulnerability Trump met with Putin multiple times during his first term, including in Helsinki, Finland, in 2018. Putin denied interfering in the 2016 election, comments that Trump embraced, saying Putin 'was extremely strong and powerful in his denial" despite U.S. intelligence assessments pointing to interference by Moscow on Trump's behalf. Contributing: Reuters; Michael James, Francesca Chambers, Joey Garrison, Tom Vanden Brook, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Lauren Villagran, USA TODAY
