Trump declares Russia ‘extraordinary threat to US'
The US president said that he would hit India with an additional 25 per cent trade tariff over its purchase of Russian oil, an important source of income for the Kremlin.
Later reports also claimed Mr Trump could meet Putin as soon as next week.
The so-called secondary tariff, which brings the total levy against India to 50 per cent, was announced in an executive order signed hours after envoy Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's top envoy, met Putin in the Kremlin for showdown talks.
Mr Trump gave Putin until Friday to agree to a ceasefire or face tariffs on Russia's main trading partners.
'I have received additional information from various senior officials on, among other things, the actions of the government of the Russian Federation with respect to the situation in Ukraine,' Mr Trump said after Mr Witkoff's meeting.
It is not clear what the 'additional information' is but a top Russian presidential aide said after the talks in Moscow that 'Russia had conveyed signals to the American side on the Ukrainian issue and received corresponding signals from Trump'.
The US president said this information meant that Moscow posed 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States'.
Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, who spoke to Mr Trump and European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer on a joint call after the Moscow talks, said that Russia now appeared 'more inclined' to agreeing a ceasefire.
But in a significant sign of progress, The New York Times reported on Wednesday night that Mr Trump could meet Putin as soon as next week.
A one-on-one meeting between the two leaders would then be followed by three-way talks involving Mr Zelensky, the newspaper reported, citing two sources familiar with the plan.
Ukraine has long pushed for a direct meeting between Mr Zelensky and Putin, though the Kremlin has resisted, insisting progress must first be made during ceasefire talks.
Meanwhile, a senior Trump administration official said after Mr Witkoff's meeting in Moscow that 'secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday'.
The official said: 'The meeting with Russia and special envoy Witkoff went well. The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States. The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday.'
Mr Trump said on social media that the meeting in Moscow was 'highly productive', however, a sign that a deal is still possible.
The language is a significant shift in tone from earlier this year, when Mr Trump went out of his way to placate Putin in order to coax him to the negotiating table.
'I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,' Mr Trump added.
Mr Trump had suggested that Mr Witkoff's meeting with Putin would determine any decision for the US president to follow through on threats to impose tariffs on countries buying Russian energy.
India and China are among the countries buying the most Russian crude oil, which analysts say provides key revenues for Putin to fuel his war machine in Ukraine.
Reducing these revenue streams would make it harder for the Russian president to deliver his maximalist war aims in Ukraine.
The US could also move to ramp up sanctions against Russia's so-called 'shadow fleet', which it uses to deliver oil to New Delhi and Beijing.
Mr Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on Wednesday for the fifth time, in what were considered crunch talks ahead of potential tariffs and sanctions.
Russian officials had hoped to head off the economically crippling measures by offering a partial 'air truce' by halting missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities.
But this fell short of Mr Trump's demand for an unconditional, 30-day ceasefire, which would be used to pave the way for talks over a permanent peace.
A top Russian presidential aide had described the talks as 'useful and constructive'.
'Russia had conveyed signals to the American side on the Ukrainian issue and received corresponding signals from Trump,' Yuri Ushakov told reporters after talks wrapped up.
He claimed that Mr Trump had yet to be 'briefed' on the talks, which he claimed focused on the 'crisis in Ukraine' and 'strategic US-Russia cooperation'.
But the US president announced his executive order with the first economic measures in an attempt to end the war.
It comes after four European countries promised to buy $1bn in US weapons for Ukraine as part of a scheme set up by Mr Trump and Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary-general.
Mr Trump appears to be rowing in behind Kyiv's cause after growing frustrated with Putin's refusal to come to the negotiating table in a serious manner.
Ushakov described the discussion between Putin and Mr Witkoff as an exchange of 'signals' between Moscow and Washington, without elaborating on the content.
Putin has previously tabled unrealistic demands, such as an end to Western military aid to Kyiv or Ukraine's withdrawal from regions partially occupied by Russian forces, as the price for any ceasefire.
Mr Trump's use of the term 'extraordinary threat' is notable.
At the start of his second term, the president was known to have blocked a series of international statements due to be signed by the US if they blamed Russia for the war in Ukraine.
It was thought by his team that this would prevent a deal being brokered with Putin to stop the fighting.
But in recent weeks, Mr Trump has given his blessing to a number of statements attributing the war to Russia, as well as criticising Putin's 'war machine' in his first warning that India would be targeted with tariffs.
India said the tariffs were 'extremely unfortunate'.
The foreign affairs ministry said: 'We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable. India will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shareholders in Spirax Group (LON:SPX) are in the red if they invested three years ago
Explore Spirax Group's Fair Values from the Community and select yours For many investors, the main point of stock picking is to generate higher returns than the overall market. But the risk of stock picking is that you will likely buy under-performing companies. Unfortunately, that's been the case for longer term Spirax Group plc (LON:SPX) shareholders, since the share price is down 46% in the last three years, falling well short of the market return of around 62%. Now let's have a look at the company's fundamentals, and see if the long term shareholder return has matched the performance of the underlying business. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. One imperfect but simple way to consider how the market perception of a company has shifted is to compare the change in the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price movement. Spirax Group saw its EPS decline at a compound rate of 6.6% per year, over the last three years. The share price decline of 19% is actually steeper than the EPS slippage. So it's likely that the EPS decline has disappointed the market, leaving investors hesitant to buy. The image below shows how EPS has tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail). We like that insiders have been buying shares in the last twelve months. Having said that, most people consider earnings and revenue growth trends to be a more meaningful guide to the business. Dive deeper into the earnings by checking this interactive graph of Spirax Group's earnings, revenue and cash flow. What About Dividends? As well as measuring the share price return, investors should also consider the total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR incorporates the value of any spin-offs or discounted capital raisings, along with any dividends, based on the assumption that the dividends are reinvested. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Spirax Group the TSR over the last 3 years was -43%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! A Different Perspective While the broader market gained around 22% in the last year, Spirax Group shareholders lost 18% (even including dividends). Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year's performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 7% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Take risks, for example - Spirax Group has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of. Spirax Group is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of small cap companies at attractive valuations which insiders have been buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on British exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
In a Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine Fears Losing Say Over Its Future
For nearly three years of the war in Ukraine, Washington's rallying cry in backing a fight against a Russian invasion was 'no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.' But when President Trump meets President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday, the Ukrainians will not be there, barring any last-minute invitation. And Kyiv's swift rejection of Mr. Trump's declaration to reporters that he is already negotiating with the Russian leadership over what he vaguely called 'land swaps,' with no mention of the security guarantees or arms supplies for Ukraine, underscores the enormous risks for the Ukrainians — and the political perils for Mr. Trump. Ukraine's fear for these past six months has been that Mr. Trump's image of a 'peace accord' is a deal struck directly between him and Mr. Putin — much as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill divided up Europe at the Yalta conference in 1945. That meeting has become synonymous with historical debates over what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world, smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule. Mr. Zelensky himself invited such comparisons in a speech to his people hours after Mr. Trump raised the specter of deciding Ukraine's fate in a one-on-one meeting in Alaska, territory that was once part of the Russian empire. (While Mr. Putin has made clear that he regards Ukraine as rightful Russian territory dating back to the days of Peter the Great, the Russian leader has not called for the reversal of the $7.2 million sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, during a period of financial distress for the empire.) 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr. Zelensky said, noting that the Ukrainian constitution prohibits such a deal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
