Trucks looted, Hamas enraged: The new reality of humanitarian aid in Gaza
Humanitarian aid trucks sent from Egypt and Jordan entered the Gaza Strip on Monday as Israel's humanitarian pause entered its second day.
The Jordanian Air Force, in cooperation with the United Arab Emirates, airdropped supplies into Gaza as well.
The humanitarian ceasefire was implemented to allow aid entering the Gaza Strip to be organized in warehouses and then distributed to the residents who need it.
However, there are still reports from Gaza of trucks being looted, both by civilians and Hamas terrorists.
Additionally, based on updates regarding the prices of goods in the Strip, it is apparent that the humanitarian aid entering Gaza has not yet affected the prices of goods, meaning those goods are not being sold at affordable prices to the local population.
Al-Sahaba market in Gaza City, July 28 2025. (CREDIT: Majdi Fathi / TPS)
For example, in the refugee camp Nuseirat, a kilogram of sugar costs 400 shekels, and a kilogram of tomatoes costs upward of 100 shekels.
Egyptian involvement in humanitarian aid to Gaza
Reports from inside Gaza have indicated that the purpose of bringing in the humanitarian aid is to 'flood' the markets, leading to lower prices and ensuring the residents do not attack aid trucks.
This would allow an Egyptian security company to return and secure the trucks.
Hamas has pushed for humanitarian aid to be conducted by UN organizations, primarily because of the ties revealed between those organizations and Hamas.
As a terrorist organization, Hamas has used the humanitarian aid as leverage to renew negotiations and continue to intensify its demands.
"There is no meaning to continuing talks under siege, destruction, and the starvation of Gaza's residents," Hamas' chief negotiator and the head of its Gaza operations, Khalil Al-Hayya, said in a recorded statement released Sunday.
Hayya also stated that the immediate entry of food and medicine into the strip in a dignified manner for its people is a serious and genuine expression of commitment to continuing negotiations.
Ultimately, the residents of Gaza have understood that the reality is different than what Hamas pushes.
'We want a solution for a ceasefire, for humanitarian aid, and to stop the bloodshed. These are our demands." one Gazan resident heading to receive humanitarian aid said.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Israel is using US munitions to ‘illegally and indiscriminately' attack Gaza school shelters, Human Rights Watch says
The Israeli military has 'illegally and indiscriminately' used US munitions to attack school shelters in Gaza, killing hundreds of people, Human Rights Watch (HRW) says. The US-based campaigners' report, 'Gaza: Israeli School Strikes Magnify Civilian Peril,' was published Thursday. Israel's campaign following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023 has made the vast majority of Gaza's 2.1 million people homeless – forcing many to flee their neighborhoods in search of civilian infrastructure. Israel has frequently said its strikes on school facilities in Gaza target embedded Hamas fighters. But HRW said it only found seven instances where the military published details of alleged militants killed – and highlighted two strikes, which killed nearly 50 people, where they found no evidence of any military target. Such attacks would violate international law because schools and other educational facilities are civilian objects and protected from attack, HRW said. They lose that protection when used for military purposes or are occupied by military forces. But the use of schools to house civilians does not alter their legal status. HRW called on the US and other governments to halt arms sales to Israel, given the 'clear risk' that weapons might be used to commit or facilitate 'serious violations' of international humanitarian law.' Washington's supply of arms to Israel has made the US 'complicit' in their lawful use, the group said. 'Israeli strikes on schools sheltering displaced families provide a window into the widespread carnage that Israeli forces have carried out in Gaza,' Gerry Simpson, associate crisis, conflict and arms director at HRW, said in the report. 'Other governments should not tolerate this horrendous slaughter of Palestinians merely seeking safety,' added Simpson. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it 'operates exclusively on the grounds of military necessity and in strict accordance with international law.' 'It must be emphasized that the report blatantly ignores Hamas' systematic pattern of unlawfully embedding its' military assets, including weapons and ammunition in, beneath, and in proximity to densely populated civilian areas, and cynically exploits civilian infrastructure for terror purposes,' the IDF added. 'Specifically, it has been well documented that Hamas exploits schools and UNRWA facilities for its military activities by building military networks beneath and within schools; establishing command-and-control centers within them, launching attacks toward IDF forces from them, and imprisoning hostages in them.' The military said it takes 'feasible precautions' to mitigate harm to civilians as much as possible and 'regrets any harm caused to uninvolved civilians.' Israeli attacks on school shelters in Gaza have killed at least 836 Palestinians and injured another 2,527 people, as of July 18, HRW reported, citing the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). HRW investigated two such attacks where it identified the use of US munitions. The agency said it reviewed satellite imagery, photos, and videos of the attacks and their aftermath, as well as social media and interviews with eyewitnesses. CNN has previously reported on the use of US weaponry in deadly strikes and has reached out to the State Department for comment on the HRW report. On July 27, 2024, the Israeli military launched at least three strikes on the Khadija girls' school in Deir Al-Balah, central Gaza. At least 15 people were killed. Then on September 21, Israel struck Al-Zeitoun school, northern Gaza. At least 34 people were killed. 'Can you imagine, a building full of displaced people leveled in the blink of an eye?' a journalist cited in the HRW report said. 'I saw people with serious and more minor injuries, and then saw human remains on the ground.' The allegations chimed with repeated human rights warnings that Israel's 22-month bombing and siege has rendered much of the enclave uninhabitable. HRW said attacks on school shelters have diminished access to refuge, exacerbated reconstruction challenges, and disrupted education among a pre-war population of more than 2.2 million people – where half of those are under the age of 18. At least 97% of schools in Gaza have sustained damage, the UNICEF-led Education Cluster reported in August. Efforts to rebuild destroyed homes in Gaza could take until 2040, the UN said in May. The level of destruction is so extensive that it would require external assistance on a scale not seen since 1948, the agency added. At least 61,158 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, the Ministry of Health there reported on Wednesday. At least 193 people have starved to death, including 96 children, the ministry added. One Palestinian student told CNN that days spent going to university have been replaced by a brutal struggle for survival repeated displacement, and severe hunger. 'The war came and destroyed everything,' Raghad Ezzat Hamouda, 20, told CNN on Wednesday. 'I lost my ambitions and dreams,' added Hamouda, who is displaced with nine family members in Tal Al-Hawa, central Gaza. 'Gaza has become uninhabitable. (There are) no homes, no schools, no universities, no infrastructure… Just ashes.'
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Hed:Israel Considers Reoccupying Gaza as the Food Shortage Ebbs - Opinion: Potomac Watch
Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: It's a new Middle East, or at least it was supposed to be after Israel's successful war against Iran and the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. But six weeks later, old tensions are rising again and Israel is facing new international pressure over its continuing war in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. What's next for Israel and the US in the Middle East? That is our subject for today on Potomac Watch. I'm Paul Gigot with the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, and I'm here with a member of the editorial board, Elliot Kaufman. Let's start with Gaza. Steve Witkoff, the US envoy, President Trump's envoy, left the region recently frustrated that there was no deal saying Hamas just doesn't seem to want a ceasefire deal with Israel that would release the hostages and at least have some stop to the fighting. What explains this continuing Hamas resistance, which, if anything, has gotten more strident in recent weeks? Elliot Kaufman: Well, first, I think you are right to frame this in the backdrop of the war with Iran because when I talk to senior Israeli political officials, they are immensely frustrated right now. They say, "We just took out Iran's nuclear program. We have talked about this for 20 years as our country's number one priority, and all we hear is what have you done for us lately?" Because they are sort of stuck in the mire in Gaza and Hamas does not want a deal. And so when it is said, Israel should just get out, cut a deal, free the hostages, disarm Hamas, they would love to do just that, but that deal is not available for them. Paul Gigot: Because Hamas will not cooperate. Elliot Kaufman: Hamas will not cooperate. And they had made progress. Witkoff went to the region hoping previously to close it out himself, but the circumstances changed as Israel has long known, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza equals a Hamas victory, not an Israeli victory. And so the idea has always been you can't allow starvation to take hold. That's how Hamas wins. Hamas has encouraged the crisis in various ways, but once that becomes the dominant international narrative, both in the media and from western states even, it becomes all pressure on Israel, no pressure on Hamas. And Hamas backed off. It not only went back on terms that it had provisionally agreed to, but it said, "We don't want to talk. Flood the territory with aid. Give us all we could possibly want to sustain our own fighters, and then maybe we'll talk once again." And so that's where things are at and that's why Witkoff is out of the region. There isn't much to talk about there. Paul Gigot: To your point, Witkoff was sounding very optimistic a couple of weeks ago, so was Donald Trump saying we're very close to a deal. Some of the Arab intermediaries, interlocutors had been saying, "We think there'll be a deal." Why do you think Hamas feels now that it doesn't need to cooperate? I mean, obviously the humanitarian food problem is playing as you suggest in its favor as a global diplomatic public relations catastrophe for Israel. It's really hurting them, I think. And most of the press doesn't really dig into the root causes of that. The United Nations recently reported, I think, that 86% of their trucks that bring in food aid to the Strip, they've been ransacked or raided. That's the UN, that's not Israel's data. That's the United Nations data. A lot of that is Hamas, no question about it. And Hamas, they continue to benefit from the suffering of the Gazan people, which gets blamed on Israel. But what's turned Hamas here, obviously if they give up the hostages, they feel that they've lost this advantage that they have negotiating leverage. But meanwhile, Israel can continue to prosecute the war and continue to degrade Hamas fighters. Elliot Kaufman: It's a very good question, and I think the way to answer it is to look at when Hamas has actually made a deal, what have the factors been? And so the first deal was in November 2023, so not long after the October 7th attack massacre that started this war. And the way Israel views that first deal is that Hamas faced a combination of military and political pressure that was much stronger than what it had expected, meaning Israel was rolling on the ground in those days and came in heavy attacking Northern Gaza, Gaza City, the capital in a way that was so aggressive that it even scared the Biden administration, which afterward told them, "Don't fight that way again, please tone it down." But at the same time, those disagreements with the Biden administration were kept private in those early days. It hadn't yet been the sort of daily public confrontation between the US and Israel. And so Hamas saw this unprecedented military pressure and also political backing for Israel's war effort and said, "We have to stop this, reset things." And it released a lot of hostages in that first deal and on worse terms than it got later on and on worse terms than Israel is willing to give now. So that's how they got a first deal following that, military pressure weakened Israel's political backing weakened and there was a long period without a deal. And that probably would have continued because Hamas figured Israel's paying a worse price than we are from this, and that Israel will buckle first until President Trump got elected. And that changed the whole political horizon going forward to the point where Trump was saying, "Release the hostages, or else the gates of hell will open, or else we will unleash hell, or else I'll give full backing to Israel." Hamas looking at that prospect of a totally different political situation, made a second deal at the very end of the Biden administration leading right into President Trump's inauguration. Since then, has Israel been able to put on new military pressure, substantially change the political situation? Well, it had this offensive that it hyped, but it's moved very slowly and Israel has still been unwilling to fight in the 25, 30% of Gaza that it has never fought in for 22 months. Paul Gigot: Elliot, that's a real surprise to me, that figure of that amount of territory that it hasn't fought in. It cleared out Gaza City then it went and cleared out Rafah. It's cleared out that Philadelphi Corridor. It cut to Gaza in half, well over a year ago to control the north. Obviously then people flowed back after Israeli troops withdrew from the north substantially. But where are these territories that they haven't gone into and why haven't they? Elliot Kaufman: Right. So Gaza City in the north, Rafah in the south, Khan Younis still south. It's the central camps in the middle of Gaza. Paul Gigot: Those would be too high risk to go into for Israeli soldiers because Israel obviously got to be wary about casualties. Elliot Kaufman: That's right. But the main idea is that Israeli hostages are being held there. Paul Gigot: I see. Elliot Kaufman: And Israeli intelligence has long assessed this, and the Israeli military accordingly has judged again for 22 months that it would be too dangerous to the hostages for Israel to operate on the ground in those areas. And that's a major sacrifice because if you think about insurgencies, which this has certainly become, one of the main issues always is if the enemy has a safe haven, if the Taliban can cross over into Pakistan, if the North Vietnamese can cross over into Cambodia, you have a real problem. And Israel has been allowing in effect a safe haven within Gaza. And then last point on this is that Israel can say, "Well, we control even 75% of Gaza." But very few of the people of Gaza live in those areas because everywhere Israel goes, it says the, "People, you have to move." And where do the people move? Exactly to that Hamas run area- Paul Gigot: Because they want to reduce civilian casualties. Elliot Kaufman: Reduce casualties, but at the same time, it's kept the entire population under Hamas control. Paul Gigot: All right, we're going to take a break and when we come back, we'll talk about the rumblings that perhaps Israel will go back into Gaza and reoccupy it when we come back. Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch the daily podcast of Wall Street Journal Opinion. And I'm here with editorial writer Elliot Kaufman talking about events in the Middle East. Let's talk about the food crisis for a second, but first, let's listen Donald Trump talk about delivering US aid for food deliveries in Gaza, and then also the discussion, some of the leaks that Israel intends to reoccupy all of Gaza. Let's listen. Speaker 4: Would you support Israel reoccupying all of Gaza as been suggested by some Israeli officials? Donald Trump: Well, I don't know what the suggestion is. I know that we are there now trying to get people fed. As you know, $60 million was given by the United States fairly recently to supply food and a lot of food, frankly, for the people of Gaza that are obviously not doing too well with the food. And I know Israel's going to help us with that in terms of distribution and also money. We also have the Arab states are going to help us with that in terms of the money and possibly distribution. So that's what I'm focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really can't say. That's going to be pretty much up to Israel. Paul Gigot: Let's take these one at a time, Elliot. First the food problem, is that easing in Gaza? Elliot Kaufman: It is easing. More aid has been coming into Gaza in recent days. More aid is being distributed in Gaza and food prices are falling. So that is a good sign and it was made clear to the Israelis by the US, by the Trump administration that whose ever fault this is, you have to fix it. And because you can make all kinds of arguments, it's the UN's fault, Hamas's fault. They're all true to some extent. And yet Israel pays the cost. Like we said, if there is a real humanitarian crisis and starvation, and I would say serious hunger had become a major risk and was developing in parts of Gaza, especially in the north of Gaza. Paul Gigot: But there is an attempt by several nations to deliver food to Gaza to get it there, to ease starvation issues that have been developing. What about this issue of reoccupying Gaza? Israel got out of Gaza. I mean, when I visited there, I think I was in Gaza in the early nineties in the wake of the Clinton-Oslo Accords. Israel was still there and there were still settlements in Gaza. Of course it left in mid-2000s or so, and Hamas won the election that was held over the Palestinian authority or Fatah and has ruled it ever since. That's not something that Israel seems to want to do because occupying it would make them vulnerable to terrorism attacks, car bombs, what have you. And instead Israel had been talking about, "We're going to occupy or police part of this Philadelphi Corridor between Egypt and Gaza that had been the corridor because of smuggling and so on." Hamas had been able to smuggle in arms, rockets, and materials to build the tunnel network, and they were also going to build a kind of a buffer zone elsewhere between Israel proper and Gaza. Do they have to go in and occupy it? I can't imagine that they want to do this. Elliot Kaufman: So everything you say about the costs and unpleasantness of occupying Gaza is true. The problem is that the costs and unpleasantness of not occupying Gaza was also demonstrated in the years since Israel left. So Egypt occupied Gaza from the end of the 1948 war until 1967, Israel conquered Gaza in 1967, occupied it. Paul Gigot: And said to Egypt, "Take it please." And Egypt said, "No." Correct? Elliot Kaufman: "No, thank you," they said, because it's a problem. And sort of always has been. Now Israel had a full military occupation until 1994 when it withdrew troops from Gaza City. And then like you said, 2005, Israel withdrew everyone, all of the Israeli civilian settlers, troops, and they said, "We will sit behind our border. We don't want to run your affairs. Please leave us alone." And of course, they got the opposite, exactly the opposite. And so the question now, now that the other ways of pressuring Hamas into releasing hostages have failed, and they're not going to do it with aid. I think it's clear they can try to get the aid only to the civilians and not to Hamas, but if they work too hard at that, some civilians do suffer. And then Israel buckles first, not Hamas. Israel buckles first on that question every time. And so that's not going to work. The question becomes what can they do to finally pressure Hamas? And internally, Israeli political leaders have been discussing several options. One of them was, "We can tell Hamas every week that you don't release hostages." Israel will annex land along the border or the buffer zones of Gaza and say, "You have lost this land." And maybe losing land, maybe that will get through to them, or not, or maybe it won't. Another option was this full occupation option, meaning fight in that remaining 25, 30% of Gaza and put real military pressure on Hamas. Maybe that will do it. Paul Gigot: Well, on the other hand, the risk there is obvious, a lot more Israeli casualties and Hamas may end up killing the hostages. Elliot Kaufman: It's a real risk. It's a real risk and it's huge. And it's also not clear if Israel would stay there so it could fight in those areas and then leave. And so that would avoid a lot of the problems of not having to run the lives of 2 million Palestinians. But if you're going to leave, are you really pressuring Hamas? Can't it just wait you out? Then again, if you stay, you have all the problems of being responsible for Gaza. This has been a long-term problem in the war that the IDF, for better or for worse- Paul Gigot: Israeli defense forces. Elliot Kaufman: That's right, has really resisted being responsible for Gaza. Paul Gigot: Well, and you can imagine why. Elliot Kaufman: They're soldiers. They don't want to be dealing with handing out food and the sewer systems and everything else. Paul Gigot: And thinking that every civilian that approaches them is a potential death threat. Elliot Kaufman: And so they've kept it safe and they have cleared civilians out of their zones. But like I said, at the same time, that has allowed Hamas to stay in power because it controls the civilian lives. And so Israel's now facing a real choice, and will Prime Minister Netanyahu force this on the army, force it to take responsibility for Gaza? He's been talking about it and leaking about it, but he hasn't actually decided it yet. And were this threat to work on Hamas and Hamas would say, "Please don't occupy us. We'll make a deal." I would say that Netanyahu would take that in a second. However, I don't think Hamas is going to bail him out in that way. And so he's going to have to make a very difficult choice. Paul Gigot: We are going to take another break, and when we come back, we'll talk about how much support is eroding for Israel in the United States when we come back. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." That is, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch, and I am here talking about Israel, Gaza, and the United States interests with Elliot Kaufman in the wake of the Iranian conflict. And that successful attack by Israel and disarming Hezbollah and muting with US help the Houthis to some extent. And of course, Hamas has been set back. A former American defense official, very sympathetic to Israel, said, "Look, Hamas is no longer a threat." Military threat, you can be contained. The best Israeli approach would be back off and just say, "Let the Palestinians run Gaza, and with Qatar and some others providing money for rebuilding, just quarantine them and then move on to try to get back to a more normal life for Israelis and then reach out and try to extend the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and so on." Is that just not possible? Speaker 1: It is possible to some extent. It also comes with risks. I think it's right that Israel has accomplished a great deal here in the region and is actually in a strategic position as it's been in many years. Paul Gigot: I think since the early seventies at least. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. And the problem is it doesn't feel that way because in Gaza there are no good solutions right now. And so one thing that people talk about is could Israel say the war's over, but just continue doing raids into Hamas territory, keep a military presence in various buffer zones and corridors, preventing Hamas from Rearming and preventing it from amassing the kind of forces that could ever do another October 7th attack. So that's not the full withdrawal. It won't satisfy the United Nations, but it could provide Israel the security it needs while allowing it to move on and actually enjoy some of the gains of this by now, very long war. It's an intriguing option, but the risks come from that rebuilding process, especially if the money comes from Qatar whom Israel does not trust. And they say, if you rebuild too early, does Hamas use that to rebuild its tunnels, its infrastructure to sort of reconstitute the governance of Gaza? Can you force Hamas to disarm or go into exile before rebuilding starts? Paul Gigot: Probably not. Elliot Kaufman: Probably not. I think that would be a very difficult political move to pull off. Paul Gigot: Well, look, there are risks on both sides here, and increasingly, I hear from a lot of Americans, many of whom are sympathetic to Israel. That Israel is paying a political price here and not just global opinion with the French and the United Kingdom and Canada saying they'll endorse in September at the United Nations, a Palestinian state. That of course doesn't exist yet, but they'll endorse it nonetheless. In US public opinion, we've seen it in the Democratic Party, which is much more anti-Israel than it has been. There's still some pockets of pro-Israel support in Congress among Democrats, but we're beginning to see a little bit of breaking even among Republicans, certainly not the Trump administration, although there's some frustration sometimes between the Israel government and the US. I mean, is there a real danger for Israel here of losing what has long been bipartisan support in the United States? Elliot Kaufman: The danger is real. In fact, it may be too late to save the bipartisan support. By now that may be baked in. This could have been true before the war. I think certainly now it's very difficult Paul Gigot: Because of the erosion among Democrats. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. Paul Gigot: And particularly younger Democrats. Elliot Kaufman: That's right. And in the Republican Party, I think you still see overall strong support among voters. However, when you talk about Republican influencers online, low-level and mid-level staffers in the Trump administration, it gets more dicey. And so there are risks there as well. I would- Paul Gigot: Some of the isolationist voices inside the administration really do want us to pack away from Israel. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. And represented more there than outside. I would just say that I think the larger risk for Israel is ending this war with Hamas still running Gaza. If that's the case, I think Israel will pay for it diplomatically because people will look at the past two years and say, "What was all that for? Why did you kill all these people for if you didn't even achieve anything?" Paul Gigot: Well, they will have achieved some form of retribution for October 7th, and they will have achieved some sense of greater security because Hamas is not in anywhere near a position to be able to do what it did on October 7th. So they would've accomplished that. Elliot Kaufman: Yes, and that's important, and it needs to make that case. However, I think even if it means fighting on for one month more or two months more, I think in the long run, this will be less important diplomatically even than what the actual result is and what the future of Gaza is. So I think Israel needs to get that right, and the options are very difficult, but big choices right now in the next few days and weeks. Paul Gigot: Yes, some momentous ones for Israel and certainly some repercussions for not just US-Israel relations, but also US interests in the Middle East. All right. Thank you Elliot Kaufman. Thank you all for listening. We're here every day on Potomac Watch. Hope to have you with us tomorrow.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump escalates nuclear tensions as Russia deadline nears
President Trump is rattling the U.S.'s formidable nuclear saber amid his growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin's refusal to halt the war in Ukraine, just days ahead of Trump's deadline for a ceasefire. Trump last week said he was moving two 'nuclear' submarines closer to Russia in response to threatening rhetoric from a top Kremlin official. On Sunday, he confirmed the vessels were now 'in the region.' It's not clear if Trump is referring to nuclear-armed submarines or nuclear-powered attack submarines, but the confusion adds to the threat, which coincides with the president's Friday deadline for Russia to end the war or face further economic isolation. Experts say it's a risky tactic unlikely to sway Putin, who has stood in the way of the president's campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of returning to the White House. 'I don't see a lot of the benefits or the advantages, given that the Russians know very well that we have, for decades, had nuclear-armed submarines that could target what matters to them,' said Erin Dumbacher, the Stanton Nuclear Security Senior Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. 'I see more risk than reward to using statements like this.' While experts don't see an imminent threat, they warn against careless and bombastic statements that could lead to risky miscalculation and confrontation. 'Does this mean that all of a sudden we should all be going to the cellar and locking ourselves in? No,' said former Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), who is the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in a call with The Hill. 'Of major concern is nuclear rhetoric that could all too easily lead to mistake or miscalculation resulting in catastrophe. Trump's verbal engagement with an essentially powerless Russian politician is inappropriate and unhelpful,' he said in an earlier statement. 'What is needed is a steady hand, not someone who allows his anger at a personal insult to risk escalating to a dangerous situation.' Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy for peace missions, is expected in Moscow later this week to push Putin to agree to a ceasefire. If that fails, Ukraine's supporters are hoping Trump will pull the trigger on 'secondary tariffs' on countries that import oil from Russia, in a bid to choke off the Kremlin's ability to finance its war. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Monday downplayed the movement of the U.S. submarines to its nearby waters, saying it does not want to be dragged into a tit-for-tat escalation. 'In general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,' Peskov told reporters, according to Reuters. 'Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.' Peskov added that Russia does not currently see the movement as an escalation. 'It is clear that very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, are perceived very emotionally by many people,' he added. Trump announced the move after what he called 'highly provocative statements' from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the deputy chair of the country's security council. Medvedev had criticized Trump's foreign policy and threat of sanctions. Earlier this week, Trump reduced a 50-day timeline for Russia to reach a ceasefire, after repeatedly lashing out at Putin for continued attacks on Ukraine. Medvedev, a frequent anti-Western critic seen as having little decision-making power in the Russian government, said Trump is 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10,' and he warned about the risk of war between 'nuclear-armed adversaries.' He also referenced Russia's 'dead hand' capabilities — a Cold War relic that describes Moscow's ability to launch a nuclear strike even if the Russian leadership is taken out. 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences,' Trump responded in a Truth Social post. 'I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Trump has wielded America's nuclear arsenal in the past, particularly during his attempts to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions during his first term. Trump often raised the prospect of nuclear war with Pyongyang, boasting he would unleash 'fire and fury' on the country, and that he had a 'much bigger' and 'more powerful' nuclear arsenal. Trump's latest move to send two U.S. nuclear submarines to circle near Russia is unlikely to cause major concern for Moscow, given that such vessels patrol oceans across the globe daily, experts said. But the heightened rhetoric and concerns for miscalculation are underscoring key gaps in nuclear arms control and nonproliferation efforts. The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday said it was not bound by a moratorium on short- and intermediate-range missiles, in what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said was a response to U.S. discussions to deploy long-range conventional missiles to Europe. The missiles were banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Trump pulled out of in his first term in response to Russian violations of the treaty. And the New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia is set to expire in February. The treaty put restrictions on America and Russia's nuclear arsenals and allowed reciprocal inspection and verification. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023, and the U.S. took countermeasures that effectively suspended American participation, raising concerns among nuclear arms control experts about the next steps. 'I'm not seeing a lot of conversation about what would happen after that, in an effort to restrict or limit or even maintain the current levels,' said Dumbacher, who most recently was a CFR international affairs fellow with the Pentagon. In that role she helped craft language signed on by the U.S. and China that humans, and not artificial intelligence, should control nuclear weapons. Dumbacher pointed out Russia is not a party to that agreement, which speaks to Medvedev's threats of Russia's 'dead hand' capabilities. 'I think every nuclear weapons country should sign on to some sort of confidence building measure like that, where we say we're never going to hand this decision over to a machine,' she said. Even as Trump heightens his rhetoric against Russia, the president has highlighted nuclear arms control as a priority. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, he said he wanted nuclear arms reduction talks with both Russia and China. And Trump boasts of halting fighting between Pakistan and India as averting a nuclear war. Rose Gottemoeller, who served as deputy secretary-general of NATO from 2016-19, noted Trump's success in getting Putin in 2019 to a freeze on all nuclear warheads, as well as his signal more recently that he is not interested in the U.S. building more warheads. 'Today's U.S. political reality mandates that the next arms control treaty has to be wholly owned by President Donald Trump if it is to be successful,' Gottemoeller wrote in an article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists late last month, pointing out that any new arms control treaty will need the ratification of Congress. 'With the willingness that President Trump has already shown to take on the issue of constraining warheads, the current U.S. administration has the opportunity to forge into new territory on nuclear arms control.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
