US preparing new Russia sanctions
The US has finalized a new set of economic sanctions targeting Russia as leverage to force Moscow to settle the Ukraine conflict, Reuters reported on Friday, citing several sources. It remains unclear, however, whether US President Donald Trump will approve the measures.
Earlier media reports suggested that Trump has not ruled out the sanctions if a ceasefire is not reached soon. On Monday, Moscow offered a 72-hour ceasefire from May 8 to 10, portraying the initiative as a chance to begin 'direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.' Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky dismissed the overture as 'manipulation,' insisting on a 30-day truce.
The targets of the new sanctions under discussion include state-owned Russian energy giant Gazprom and major entities involved in the natural resources and banking sectors, an administration official told the agency, without providing specifics.
Russia has been under US sanctions over the Ukraine crisis since 2014, which were dramatically tightened after the conflict escalated in 2022. Russia has called the sanctions illegal.
The US National Security Council 'is trying to coordinate some set of more punitive actions against Russia,' a Reuters source familiar with the issue stated, adding that 'this will have to be signed off by Trump.' Another unnamed US official said, 'It's totally his call.'
As the Trump administration has been actively engaged in negotiations with Moscow and Kiev to end the Ukraine conflict, it reportedly floated a peace plan that includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, as well as freezing the conflict along the current front lines and acknowledging Moscow's control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia.
The deal would also reportedly initiate a phased removal of sanctions imposed on Russia and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
Meanwhile, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said at least 72 senators now support 'bone-crushing' sanctions if Russia resists peace talks. The senator insisted that the goal of this group 'is to help the president' gain leverage on Russia.
Last month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio questioned the wisdom of placing new restrictions on Moscow, stating that the Trump administration is 'hoping to see' whether diplomacy will work first. 'The minute you start doing that kind of stuff, you're walking away from it, you've now doomed yourself to another two years of war and we don't want to see it happen,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
US to cut Ukraine aid
The White House will be slashing military funding for Ukraine as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks a peaceful resolution to the conflict, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said. The Pentagon chief made the statement before the House Appropriations Committee in Congress on Tuesday. 'It is a reduction in this budget,' Hegseth said when asked about upcoming military aid funding for Ukraine. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' he added. Trump has worked towards negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict and has diplomatically re-engaged with Russia. Since he took office in January, Moscow and Kiev have restarted direct talks for the first time since 2022, when Ukraine unilaterally left the first Istanbul negotiations. 'A negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests especially with all the competing interests around the globe,' Hegseth said. The Trump administration has also touted an 'America First' pivot and significantly cut foreign assistance, including aid to Ukraine, promising to channel funds towards domestic issues. Last week, US Vice President J.D. Vance echoed Trump's criticism of his predecessor Joe Biden, accusing his administration of spending 'crazy' amounts of money on supporting Kiev. 'They sent $300 billion to Ukraine,' without 'trying to force a diplomatic settlement,' he said. In April, Trump signed a major deal with Kiev allowing the US priority access to Ukraine's mineral wealth, in what he described would be a way for Washington to 'get back' the hundreds of billions it spent on Ukraine under Biden. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has often complained of a constant shortage of US-supplied air defenses, and waning assistance from Washington in recent months. Additionally, the Trump administration rerouted some 20,000 anti-drone missiles – initially earmarked for Kiev under Biden – to the Middle East, the Ukrainian leader claimed on Sunday.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Musk's father comments on son's spat with Trump (VIDEO)
Errol Musk has weighed in on the public feud between his son, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and US President Donald Trump, telling reporters in Moscow that the two may yet find common ground. The dispute between Musk and Trump – once close allies – escalated last week over the president's so-called 'Big Beautiful' tax and spending bill. Musk, who recently stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), had repeatedly criticized the bill, arguing it undermines his efforts to trim the fat off the federal budget. On Thursday, he accused Trump of 'ingratitude,' backed calls for his impeachment, and threatened to halt the US space program by grounding the Dragon spacecraft. Trump fired back, saying Musk had 'gone crazy' and blaming the spat on the end of what he called the 'EV mandate' – a reference to federal incentives that had benefited Tesla. Musk responded with a now-deleted post linking Trump to deceased financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Speaking to journalists in Moscow on Monday, where he was attending a tech forum, Errol Musk suggested that his son's strong response was rooted in principle, but added there may be room for compromise. 'I think Elon might agree to step down a little … because he's basically standing up for his principles,' the elder Musk said. Errol Musk said his son had backed the Trump administration, believing it would cut government spending, not increase it, and that the shift in direction left him frustrated, as it went against the values he had agreed to support. The 79-year-old pointed out that government policy often requires compromise and long-term thinking. 'In politics, sometimes you have to spend money on products you have yet to make, because that money later helps increase production. It's the laws of economics,' Errol Musk explained. He added that both men may now be taking a more mature view of the situation – and hinted that a thaw in relations could be possible.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
The Russians' new enemy #1 is not the US. And we've been there before
They probably won't but Germans should pay close attention to a recent news item out of Russia: The Levada polling institute – long internationally acknowledged as serious and dependable – has published the result of a recent survey. It shows that Germany is now considered peak hostile by ordinary Russians: 55% of them name Germany as the country most unfriendly toward Russia. Five years ago, that figure stood at 40%. That was no small number either, but two things stand out now: First, the rapid increase in Germany's un-favorability rating and, second, the fact that Berlin has managed to take over the top position in this dismal ranking: For 20 years it was securely held by the US, which still came in at a whopping 76% as recently as last year. But now, clearly responding to Trump's new, comparatively more rational course toward Moscow, 'only' 40% of Russians see the US as the most unfriendly state. To paraphrase an old Soviet motto: Berlin has caught up with and overtaken America. Many Germans, especially in the political, mainstream media, and conformist 'expert' elites will either completely ignore or dismiss this shift. Others will even be foolish enough to feel pleased: What better evidence that the new German bellicism has left an impression? For a historian – or really anyone with a memory – the Levada finding should be alarming. To see why, we need a broader context. The thing about Germany is that, sooner or later, the question of war or peace – at least in Europe or even the world – depends on it, whatever usually unoriginal ideas its elites get worked up about at any given time. Maybe that special combustibility is due to a deep mismatch between Germany's resources and location, on one side, and its geopolitical environment, on the other, as Henry Kissinger used to quip. Perhaps the explanation is less forgiving and has to do with a failing political culture shaped by persistent habits of shortsightedness and misguided ambitions. In any case, in about 1945, after the second global war caused by Berlin in much less than half a century, everyone who mattered – not the Germans anymore at that point – seemed to understand that one large Germany can be, let's say, awkward for the rest of the world. Two seemed about right, especially when both were under firm control, from Washington and Moscow, respectively. The other thing generally accepted was that the old enmity between Germany and France had to be buried. A third crucial issue, however, was not only left unresolved but instead weaponized for Cold War purposes: if Germans had to finally play nice with the French and other West Europeans in general, the US needed its Germany to stay nasty toward the Russians, that is, at the time, the Soviets. In effect, West Germany was re-trained to come to heel toward the West but keep barring its teeth toward the East. The polite term for this act of national house-training in Western 'values,' 'civilization,' and, last but not least, geopolitical hierarchies is 'the long way West.' Fortunately, from the 1970s and through the unexpected yet quietly earthshaking advent of German unification (de facto West Germany annexing East Germany with Soviet, i.e., Russian permission), the deterrent logic of the Cold War and a fundamentally wise 'Ostpolitik' mitigated that teeth-baring a little. But now that policy has not merely been abandoned but anesthetized. Today, even wanting to talk to 'the Russians' to convey anything other than ultimatums is smeared as 'appeasement.' Former representatives of normal engagement are either forced into humiliating public recantations (for instance, President – no less – Frank-Walter Steinmeier) or ostracized (the once tone-setting journalist Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, for example). The worst sin in the new old German catechism is to even try to 'understand' Russia, literally: A 'Russlandversteher' is a heretic almost worthy of the stake now. Such heretics are clearly in the way of a new course – taken by all mainstream parties – that starts from the assumption that Germany and Russia must always be enemies, as current Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul recently stated in an unguarded and therefore honest moment. Consequently, the only policy that seems to be left to such hidebound minds is to build up the military and massively increase armament spending. That such spending has already been practiced and has a miserable record of inefficiency in Europe, as even the Financial Times admits, does not matter to them. Neither will it, of course, to the arms industry and its shareholders. And perish the thought that Germans could be smart enough to do both: (sensibly) modernize their military and, at the same time, engage in genuine talks and compromise – as well as renewed, mutually beneficial commerce, too – with Russia. That pattern – not dumb 'appeasement' – after all, was the real signature style of the cheaply maligned 'Ostpolitik.' But it seems that this ability to walk and chew gum, as Berlin's former American idol Joe Biden would have said, has been lost, or, perhaps, willfully abandoned. With the urge to splurge on weapons comes a clearly coordinated propaganda campaign as not seen since the early 1980s (at best): German politicians, generals, mainstream media, and conformist 'experts' have been unleashing a torrent, a veritable 'Trommelfeuer' of war hysteria on the German public. Professors of ancient history – noticing unintentional irony has never been a German forte – are explaining again that parents must be ready to sacrifice their offspring in war. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, and so on… As if the First World War had never been lost. The German military's top general can't quite make up his mind if Russia will attack in a few years or maybe tomorrow. And one TV talk show and documentary after the other is dedicated to the need for 'war proficiency' (in the original German 'Kriegstüchtigkeit,' a term with an untranslatably traditional ring to it, in a bad way). Finally, we have Friedrich Merz, a German chancellor with a flimsy mandate who clearly believes that it is his historic task to be even more bellicose than the Americans and take over their role in NATO Europe if necessary. The irony of a vassal government finally finding a spine just to be even more ideologically immobile than even its changing hegemon is not new in recent German history. That is, after all, how Erich Honecker, the last (relevant) leader of the former East Germany, chose to go out: by demonstratively snubbing Moscow's thaw with the West. In a similar spirit, Merz insists on continuing the proxy war in Ukraine and makes a point of not wanting the Nord Stream pipelines repaired, even while Russian and US investors (close to Trump, as it happens) are talking about precisely that. Merz has just been to see Trump in Washington. And mainstream media reporting on their encounter is unintentionally revealing of just how little he has achieved. In essence, the German chancellor is being praised for not having been brutally humiliated by Trump. Indeed, Merz was spared the fate of Vladimir Zelensky of Ukraine – and that is the best that can be said. Let's set aside that, actually, Trump did haze his guest, if comparatively mildly, teasing him about Germany's not-so-great experience of D-Day 1944 and offering condescending congratulations on his English. It was the kind of affability that Trump the former reality show host would have displayed toward an 'apprentice' currently in favor. What is more substantial is that Merz was not given one inch on any topic he cares about: Regarding NATO, US-European trade, and the Ukraine War, the German chancellor got precisely nothing. On the contrary, Trump has already made sure to signal how absolutely unimpressed he is by whatever Merz may have had to say, when not modestly silent: On Ukraine, Trump has publicly conceded that Kiev's recent sneak drone attack gives Russia the right to massively retaliate. On trade, Trump has increased the pressure again with steel and aluminum tariffs that will hit the EU and Germany hard. What a world Germany has made for itself: It has the US, a hegemon and 'ally' that first either blows up or is involved in blowing up its vital-infrastructure pipelines and then gets ready to take over and repair the ruins to have even more power over Berlin. With Zelensky's Ukraine, it has a very expensive, very corrupt client that even the Germans now admit was involved in the same terrorist attack on Nord Stream. Germany's economy, meanwhile, would greatly benefit from re-establishing a reasonable relationship with Russia. But Berlin's only strategy regarding Moscow is prolonged confrontation, an extremely costly armament program, and war hysteria so intense it makes it look as if German elites are not-so-secretly longing for yet another devastating clash with Russia. And by now, Russians have taken notice, not only within the elite but the general population. Good luck, Berlin: You've poked the bear long enough to get his attention. Again.
