Donald Trump sets two-week time frame to assess Russia-Ukraine peace talks
"I would say within two weeks we're going to know one way or the other," he said in a telephone interview when asked about the chances of a peace agreement.
"After that, we'll have to maybe take a different tack," Trump told Todd Starnes, a host for right-wing media outlet Newsmax, without giving further details.
The Republican, who had promised during last year's presidential election to end the war in one day, has so far failed to achieve any major breakthroughs -- more than three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
He met Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday at a highly anticipated summit in Alaska that failed to reach an accord and saw Trump drop his push for an initial ceasefire.
On Monday, the US president held talks at the White House with Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky and a handful of European allies.
Those meetings raised hopes that Putin and Zelensky could meet directly for a peace summit, as both leaders initially appeared open to that option.
But Zelensky on Thursday accused Russia of "trying to avoid the necessity to meet" and said that it did not want to end the war.
Russia, meanwhile, said that Ukraine did not seem to be interested in "long-term" peace, accusing Kyiv of seeking security guarantees completely incompatible with Moscow's demands.
Trump has a track record of issuing two-week deadlines to deliberate on Ukraine and other issues.
In late May, he said he would assess within that period whether Putin was serious about achieving a peace deal, promising to respond "differently" if not.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push
The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court has ruled. The split court on Thursday lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was among those who wouldn't have allowed the cuts, along with the court's three liberals. The high court did keep the Trump administration anti-DEI guidance on future funding blocked with a key vote from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, however. The decision marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with cancelling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life'. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination'. The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training programme cuts that the administration also linked to DEI. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. Five conservative justices agreed, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a short opinion in which he criticised lower-court judges for not adhering to earlier high court orders. 'All these interventions should have been unnecessary,' Gorsuch wrote. The plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups had unsuccessfully argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. They said that defunding studies midway though halts research, ruins data already collected and ultimately harms the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a lengthy dissent in which she criticized both the outcome and her colleagues' willingness to continue allowing the administration to use the court's emergency appeals process. 'This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,' she wrote, referring to the fictional game in the comic strip 'Calvin and Hobbes.' In June, US District Judge William Young in Massachusetts had ruled that the cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court had left Young's ruling in place
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Left Red-faced: U.S. F/A 18 Jet & Patriot Missile Caught Exploding On Cam In US Ally Nations
Putin Warned Of 'Colossal Threats' After Meeting Trump In Alaska; Told To Upgrade Nuclear Arsenal In a stark warning, Rosatom CEO Alexey Likhachev has highlighted the "colossal threats" facing Russia, emphasising the necessity for continuous enhancement of its nuclear weapons capabilities. Likhachev's remarks underscore the strategic importance of Russia's nuclear arsenal in maintaining national security amid escalating global tensions. This development comes as Russia updated its nuclear doctrine, reflecting a shift in its defence posture. It also comes after Donald Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska followed by talks with Volodymyr Zelensky and EU leaders in White House to find a solution to Ukraine war. Watch for more details.#Rosatom #AlexeyLikhachev #RussiaNuclearDoctrine #NuclearWeapons #NationalSecurity #RussiaDefense #GlobalTensions #NuclearPolicy #RosatomCEO #RussiaMilitary 193 views | 52 minutes ago
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Gavin Newsom calls for special election over redrawn California congressional map
California voters will decide in November whether to approve a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats next year, after Texas Republicans advanced their own redrawn map to pad their House majority by the same number of seats at President Donald Trump's urging. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after he and other lawmakers signed the "Election Rigging Response Act" in Sacramento, California(REUTERS) California lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve legislation calling for the special election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has led the campaign in favor of the map, then quickly signed it — the latest step in a tit-for-tat gerrymandering battle. 'This is not something six weeks ago that I ever imagined that I'd be doing,' Newsom said at a press conference, pledging a campaign for the measure that would reach out to Democrats, Republicans and independent voters. 'This is a reaction to an assault on our democracy in Texas.' Republicans, who have filed a lawsuit and called for a federal investigation into the plan, promised to fight the measure at the ballot box as well. California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was 'wrong' to push for new Republican seats elsewhere, contending the president was just responding to Democratic gerrymandering in other states. But he warned that Newsom's approach, which the governor has dubbed 'fight fire with fire,' was dangerous. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire and what happens?' Gallagher asked. 'You burn it all down.' In Texas, the Republican-controlled state Senate was scheduled to vote on a map Thursday night. After that, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature will be all that is needed to make the map official. It's part of Trump's effort to stave off an expected loss of the GOP's majority in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. A battle for the US House control waged via redistricting On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterms. The president has pushed other Republican-controlled states including Indiana and Missouri to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan. Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. While some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said the Constitution does not outlaw partisan gerrymandering, only using race to redraw district lines. Texas Republicans embraced that when their House of Representatives passed its revision Wednesday. "The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance,' state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the bill revising Texas' maps, said. On Thursday, California Democrats noted Hunter's comments and said they had to take extreme steps to counter the Republican move. 'What do we do, just sit back and do nothing? Or do we fight back?' Democratic state Sen. Lena Gonzalez said. 'This is how we fight back and protect our democracy.' Democrats have sought a national commission for redistricting Republicans and some Democrats championed the 2008 ballot measure that established California's nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with the 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps. Democrats have sought a national commission that would draw lines for all states but have been unable to pass legislation creating that system. Trump's midterm redistricting ploy has shifted Democrats. That was clear in California, where Newsom was one of the members of his party who backed the initial redistricting commission ballot measures, and where Assemblyman Joshua Lowenthal, whose father, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, was another Democratic champion of a nonpartisan commission, presided over the state Assembly's passage of the redistricting package. Newsom on Thursday contended his state was still setting a model. 'We'll be the first state in U.S. history, in the most democratic way, to submit to the people of our state the ability to determine their own maps,' Newsom said before signing the legislation. Former President Barack Obama, who's also backed a nationwide nonpartisan approach, has also backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said Tuesday during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm, noting that California voters will still have the final say on the map. California's plan is temporary The measure would have the California map last only through 2030, after which the state's commission would draw the next decade's map. Democrats are also mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps for mid-decade redraws. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. In Texas, outnumbered Democrats turned to unusual steps to try to delay passage, leaving the state to delay a vote by 15 days. Upon their return, they were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring. California Republicans didn't take such dramatic steps but complained bitterly about Democrats muscling the package through the Statehouse and harming what GOP State Sen. Tony Strickland called the state's 'gold-standard' nonpartisan approach. 'What you're striving for is predetermined elections,' Strickland said. 'You're taking the voice away from Californians.'
