In his words: Trump's rhetoric about Zelenskyy and Putin has evolved
A summit between Trump and Putin set for Friday in Alaska could now be a pivotal moment in the 3 1/2-year-old war.
'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 Monday.
Trump's rhetoric toward both Zelenskyy and Putin has evolved this year.
At the start of his second term, Trump was conciliatory toward Putin, for whom he has long shown admiration. But as Putin remained intransigent and rejected an unconditional truce proposed by Trump, the Republican leader has expressed increasing exasperation with the Russian leader, criticizing him for his unbudging stance on U.S.-led peace efforts and for prolonging the war.
Until recently, Trump repeatedly said Russia seemed more willing than Ukraine to get a deal done.
Trump appears to have softened toward Zelenskyy after a February confrontation in the Oval Office. And, in a reversal, he promised at some point to provide Ukraine with badly needed Patriot air defense missiles under a deal that would see NATO allies in Europe deliver them from their stock, to be replaced by future U.S. supplies.
Russia's bigger army is pressing on parts of the 620-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line, where thousands of soldiers on both sides have died since the Kremlin ordered the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
June brought the highest monthly civilian casualties in the past three years, with 232 people killed and 1,343 wounded in Ukraine, the U.N. human rights mission in Ukraine said Thursday.
A look at what Trump has said so far during his second term:
Jan. 31
'We want to end that war. That war would have not started if I was president.'
Trump says his new administration has already had 'very serious' discussions with Russia and that he and Putin could soon take 'significant' action toward ending the conflict.
Feb. 19
'A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.'
Trump's harsh words for Zelenskyy on his Truth Social platform drew criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans in the United States, where defending Ukraine from Russian aggression has traditionally had bipartisan support. Zelenskyy said Trump was falling into a Russian disinformation trap — and he was quickly admonished by Vice President JD Vance about the perils of publicly criticizing the president.
Feb. 28
'You're gambling with World War III. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country that's backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.'
Trump and Vance berated Zelenskyy, accusing him of not showing gratitude after he challenged Vance on the question of diplomacy with Putin. The Oval Office argument, broadcast globally, led to the rest of Zelenskyy's White House visit being canceled and called into question U.S. support for Ukraine. A few days later, Trump temporarily paused military aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelenskyy to seek peace.
March 30
'I don't think he's going to go back on his word. You're talking about Putin. I don't think he's going to go back on his word. I've known him for a long time. We've always gotten along well.'
Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump said he trusts Putin to hold up his end of a potential peace deal. The comments were among the last positive remarks he made about the Kremlin leader this year.
April 24
'I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!'
In a Truth Social post, Trump was reacting to Russia attacking Kyiv with a barrage of missiles and drones. It was the first of his rare criticisms of Putin amid increased Russian attacks on Ukraine.
April 29
'A lot of his people are dying. They're being killed, and I feel very badly about it.'
Trump addressed the toll on Ukrainians during an interview with ABC News after he met with Zelenskyy on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral. It was the first time the leaders had met since the Oval Office spat and signaled a shift in Trump's attitude toward the Ukrainian president.
May 25
'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!'
Trump's Truth Social post made it clear he was losing patience with Putin as Moscow pounded Kyiv and other cities with drones and missiles in stepped-up aerial attacks.
June 25
'He was very nice actually. We had a little rough times, sometimes. He was … Couldn't have been nicer. I think he'd like to see an end to this, I do.'
Trump had a closed-door meeting with Zelenskyy during a NATO summit in The Hague. Trump's comments to reporters later also opened the possibility of sending Patriot air-defense missiles to Ukraine.
July 8
'We get a lot of bull—— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.'
Trump also said he's 'not happy' with Putin and that Moscow's war in Ukraine is 'killing a lot of people' on both sides. Trump's comments during a Cabinet meeting came a day after he said the U.S. would send more weapons to Ukraine. It was a dramatic reversal after earlier announcing a pause in delivering previously approved firepower to Kyiv, a decision made amid concerns that U.S. military stockpiles had declined too much.
July 13
'I am very disappointed with President Putin, I thought he was somebody that meant what he said. He'll talk so beautifully and then he'll bomb people at night. We don't like that.'
Trump's remarks to reporters came as Russia intensified aerial attacks on Ukraine.
July 14
'I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy. It's been proven over the years. He's fooled a lot of people before.'
Trump pushed harder against Putin during an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. He said if there was no deal to end the war within 50 days, the U.S. would impose 'secondary tariffs,' targeting Russia's trading partners to try to isolate Moscow.
Trump and Rutte also discussed a rejuvenated pipeline for U.S. weapons. European allies plan to buy military equipment for transfer to Ukraine.
Aug. 11
'I get along with Zelenskyy, but, you know, I disagree with what he's done, very, very severely, disagree. This is a war that should have never happened.'
Trump dismissed the idea of Zelenskyy joining the summit with Putin, declaring the Ukrainian president had been to 'a lot of meetings' without managing to halt a war that Russia started.
He also lashed out at Zelenskyy for saying Ukraine's constitution bans giving up any land.
'I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenskyy was saying, 'Well, I have to get constitutional approval.' I mean, he's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap? Because there'll be some land swapping going on.'
Trump also noted that 'I thought it was very respectful that the president of Russia is coming to our country as opposed to us going to his country or even a third party place.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
