Italy's Giorgia Meloni's appears to side-eye to German Chancellor Merz
Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni appeared to give side-eye to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Monday as they attended a high-stakes meeting in the East Room with President Donald Trump . Meloni and Merz were among the European leaders who flew to Washington to back up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , who was receiving a debrief from Trump after the president's meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Trump is attempting to end the war in Ukraine.
During his Oval Office meeting with Zelensky, Trump stated that a ceasefire deal wasn't necessary ahead of a broader peace agreement. Afterward, Zelensky and the other European leaders gathered around a table in the East Room for a meeting. Merz - and later French President Emmanuel Macron - pressed Trump on the ceasefire issue.
'Let's try and put pressure on Russia , because the credibility of this effort, these efforts we are undertaking today, are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations, from next stop on,' Merz told Trump. Between Merz and the American president sat Meloni - who was captured on camera making several odd expressions with her eyes as the German chancellor went on. 'So I would like to emphasize this aspect and would like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which should be a trilateral meeting, wherever it takes place,' Merz said.
Last month Meloni got called out for dramatically rolling her eyes amid a conversation with Macron at the G7 in Canada. A year before, at the G7, she got caught rolling her eyes after then President Joe Biden was late for the third day in a row. The 48-year-old has served as the prime minister of Italy since October 2022 - a particularly lengthy time for an Italian leader.
She came into office as a far-right conservative and thus is more politically aligned with Republican Trump than some of her European counterparts. Going around the table, Trump called Meloni 'a really great leader and an inspiration over there.' 'She's served now, even though she's a very young person, she's served there for a long period of time relative to others,' the president marveled. 'They don't last very long,' he laughed.
'You've lasted a long time. You're going to be there a long time,' Trump said. The friendly banter continued as the press exited. Finnish President Alexander Stubb watched as reporters shouted questions toward Trump, Zelensky and the leaders as they were ushered out by White House wranglers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
We had one chance to sink the Russian economy and we blew it – Putin knew we would
In the weeks following Vladimir Putin 's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Europe 's leaders followed the trail blazed by Boris Johnson to Kyiv to express their undying support for the war effort. Each, in different ways, echoed the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau's mantra that they would give Ukraine 'as much as it takes, for as long as it takes' to resist Putin. Johnson himself assured Volodymyr Zelensky that 'we are with you, and we are on your side' and vowed that Ukraine's right to 'choose its own destiny is a right that the United Kingdom and our allies will always defend'. Three years later, the successors of those leaders crowded into the White House's Oval Office to applaud Donald Trump's opening of direct talks with Putin. Despite the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and billions in military aid to Kyiv, Putin's forces continue to advance beyond the 20 per cent of Ukraine he now controls. His missiles rain nightly death on Ukraine's cities; Moscow's army launched 270 drones and 10 missiles at central Ukraine just hours after President Zelensky concluded peace talks at the White House. Though Putin's economy is floundering, it is by no means crippled. And while Putin has failed to subjugate the whole of Ukraine to his will, he is on course to accomplish many of his war aims, including the 'liberation' of the Russian-speaking region of the country and blocking Kyiv's membership of Nato. The West carries much of the blame for this failure. Oil and gas are the lifeblood of Russia's war machine – yet from the outset of the war, the US prioritised protecting steady world oil supplies over properly punishing Putin. Europe, too, has imposed 18 rounds of sanctions against Russia – yet itself has continued to find ways to import Russian oil, piped and liquefied gas (LNG), and refined oil products. A large proportion of Russia's oil exports are carried in tankers ultimately owned by EU – especially Greek – shipping companies. And the shocking truth is that over the course of the war, Europeans have paid far more into Kremlin coffers in the form of payments for oil and gas than they have given to defend Ukraine. Europe had one chance to sink the Russian economy and blew it. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has pocketed nearly €1 trillion from oil and gas. After China, the EU has been the second biggest buyer of Putin's gas, handing over €260bn. While the EU has repeatedly pledged to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, it has never actually placed any sanctions or price caps on it. Ironically, it was saboteurs rather than European governments that put the biggest dent in Gazprom 's revenues after three of the four Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines were blown up in September 2022. The culprits, according to arrest warrants issued by German police, were Ukrainians. But even after the Nord Stream sabotage, Europe quickly switched to Russian LNG exported from the Baltic terminals of Ust-Luga and Vysotsk. Over three years of war, European leaders have promised Kyiv their support is absolute, or 'your fight is our fight,' in the words of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. But rather than cut off Putin's core revenues, the thing that could have really inflicted serious damage, Europeans have chosen legal workarounds. The price of crude oil legally exported by Russia was capped at $60 a barrel – an American strategy to keep oil flowing while squeezing Russian profits. In practice, though, millions of tonnes of Russian crude were fraudulently pumped from one tanker to another with 'clean' paperwork off the coasts of Denmark and Greece. At the same time, Lukoil, Russia's largest private oil company, continues to operate refineries in the Netherlands, Romania and Bulgaria, and can with perfect legality sell its own oil to itself at capped prices, but retail the products at normal market prices. Not wanting to make the crucial economic sacrifice that would accompany any real boycott, other European countries have opted for legal fig-leaves to disguise the true source of their energy. Hungary, Slovakia and other central European countries continue to import oil and gas via Russian pipelines – but it's labelled as coming from Kazakhstan. Amazingly, until 1 January 2025, Russian natural gas kept flowing through Ukraine's pipeline network — set up when Ukraine and Russia were both part of the Soviet Union – to Europe, under a five-year agreement. Russia's state-owned energy giant Gazprom earned money from the gas, and Kyiv collected hundreds of millions in fees for the transit of gas to Europe via pipelines running through Ukrainian territory into Slovakia. Those payments also made Gazprom one of the largest single contributors to Kyiv's state budget. The rest of southern Europe buys billions of piped gas via the Black Sea Turk Stream and Blue Stream pipelines that run from Russia to Turkey, but because it's mixed with gas from Azerbaijan, European customisers can claim they're buying from Baku, not Moscow. Europe now imports more refined Russian oil products than before the war, except that rather than buy directly, much of the petrol, diesel and aviation fuel is refined in India, which has more than doubled its imports of Russian crude and grown rich on the proceeds. Oil and gas are Putin's achilles heel. He needs his economy to survive to keep his war machine running. With the pressure of war, high interest rates and an economic slowdown, another year and he would be in significant problems which would make his negotiating position weaker. But still we cannot sever that vulnerable spot with an arrow because it's our achilles heel too. In Germany, a fateful electoral deal with a now long-departed Green coalition partner led to the closure of the country's nuclear power stations. That left Germany and its neighbours dangerously dependent on cheap Russian gas. Europe's pledges for net zero have also helped rob the continent of the excess energy capacity it would need to 'just say no' to its addiction to Putin's energy. The price for this refusal to countenance economic suffering for the sake of Ukraine has been paid by Ukrainians in blood. When Putin launched his war he was sure that Europe's talk of international law was hypocritical nonsense – not least because he remembered that in the aftermath of his 2014 invasion of Crimea, Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel swore that 'military aggression in Europe cannot go unpunished' and yet little more than a year later signed a €9.5bn deal to build a second Nord Stream pipeline. And though Putin has been undoubtedly surprised by the scale of Europe's military aid to Kyiv, ultimately he has been proved right about the fundamental hypocrisy. 'Ukraine must win this war,' Von Der Leyen boldly told the assembled European elites at the 2022 Davos conference. 'And Putin's aggression must be a strategic failure.' Though Ukraine has not exactly lost the war, it certainly has not won it. And by the same token, while Putin may have failed to dominate Ukraine, he has nonetheless succeeded in snapping up large chunks of it. If a peace deal is struck, it will be on Putin's terms. That outcome could have been very different if the actions of Ukraine's self-declared allies had been as bold as their words.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sport should not get involved in taking the knee or wearing rainbow armbands
One of the reasons that sports, music and other entertainment enthrals us is that they provide an escape from the hard realities of everyday life. Whether as a spectator or participant, when we enter the venues of our choice we should be able to block out these challenges and frustrations and focus on the event or activity ahead of us. However, this is proving to be increasingly difficult. Sports organisations and personalities are constantly posturing for political and social causes. With its worldwide audience, football is particularly prone to these distractions. Lighting the Wembley arch, taking the knee, the wearing of armbands or other symbolic adornments, displaying inappropriate flags or banners and commentators airing their prejudices. They are examples of an increasing trend which, if not controlled, might get further out of hand. These actions are clearly supported by some but are a source of extreme irritation to many others who I would guess form a very silent majority. These public exhibitions tend to be highly and disproportionately selective and dangerously simplistic. They distract from the event itself. They are bound to create resentment and possible counter actions. The authorities should act. Enough is enough. As this new season begins with the usual anticipation and excitement, there is also a second thorny subject which merits consideration – one that is particularly important to fans, highlighted at the weekend by the supporters of Newcastle United and Aston Villa. Together they strongly complained about the existing Premier League profitability and sustainability rules and the impact they were having on their clubs. I am in total agreement with them. These fans are right to argue that, in effect, these rules are anti-competitive and prevent ambitious clubs who have the funding from accelerating their development and challenging the established 'Big Six'. The existing rules place restrictions on the quantum of wages that can be paid depending on the club's income. Of course, it is important to have proper controls because nobody wants to see clubs get into trouble because of financial excess. But to deal with this equitably, what is needed are rules based upon cash-flow, proper long-term financing and sustainability. Those three elements are the key to getting us out of this mess. A substantial club owner should be allowed to demonstrate it can increase spending via sustainable means. If a club can provide evidence that it is a solid, well-financed organisation, it must be allowed to reach for its ambitions. This will enable aspiring clubs that are properly financed to accelerate their development and even to do what Manchester City have done in the recent past. Unless these changes are made, it is extremely difficult for either smaller or larger clubs to challenge the establishment. This country cherishes its footballing fairy tales. Without reform, there can be no more against-the-odds breakthrough successes at the top of our Premier League. It is this issue – and not political posturing – that I dearly hope our footballing powerbrokers can focus on in the new season ahead.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump admin plans to screen social media accounts for 'anti-American' views before allowing applicants into US
The Trump administration's immigration services is going to begin scanning potential visa and green card applicants' social media accounts for 'anti-Americanism.' President Donald Trump has made toughening up U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services a key part of his agenda on immigration. USCIS said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a visa or green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused' anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America´s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits-including to live and work in the United States-remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions,' Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. 'The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny - just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That´s really worrisome,' said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for `good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant´s positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration´s activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who´s trying to enter the United States,' said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They´re allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.' USCIS has made several moves as Trump has returned to office to ally with the president's agenda. They have implemented new restrictions in compliance with Trump's executive orders to suspend processing of requests for legal permanent residency for immigrants granted refugee or asylum status, CBS News reports. The Department of Homeland Security said the green card processing pause was necessary to comply with two executive actions issued by the president. 'USCIS is placing a temporary pause on finalizing certain Adjustment of Status applications pending the completion of additional screening and vetting to identify potential fraud, public safety, or national security concerns, in alignment with Mr. Trump's executive actions,' the statement said. According to a presidential proclamation cited by officials, Donald Trump has instructed federal agencies to 'vet and screen to the maximum degree possible all aliens who intend to be admitted, enter, or are already inside the United States.' The administration's tightening of restrictions on immigration policies and procedures are the latest attempts to tackle concerns of national security and fraud. The move comes after Trump questioned the immigration vetting procedures under the Biden administration. USCIS also announced earlier this month that they have updated immigration policy to restrict visa eligibility for transgender women seeking to compete in women's sports. Under the policy update, USCIS will consider 'the fact that a male athlete has been competing against women' as a negative factor when evaluating visa petitions in categories such as O-1A for extraordinary ability, EB-1 and EB-2 green cards for highly skilled workers, and national interest waivers. 'USCIS is closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women,' said USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser. 'It's a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women's sports.' set to host the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028.
