Kremlin mocks Trump's 50-day deadline – and ‘unfazed' Putin ‘may demand MORE Ukrainian territory over sanctions threat'
Putin will keep terrorising Ukrainian civilians during the seven-week period, sources said, apparently unfazed by America's threat of sanctions and decision to arm Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of long-range weapons.
5
5
5
Trump on Monday vowed to slap brutal 100 percent tariffs on Russia if Moscow did not reach a peace agreement with Ukraine within 50 days.
Dismissing the President's ultimatum, Russian Foreign Minister said: "We of course want to understand what is behind this statement - 50 days.
"It used to be 24 hours, it used to be 100 days, we have been through all of this and we really want to understand what motivates the President of the United States."
Lavrov suggested Trump's move was simply driven by "indecent pressure from the European Union".
Sources familiar with the internal workings of the Kremlin said that Putin would not end the war under pressure from the west, and believes the economy is strong enough to weather any additional economic measures.
He also believes his military has the upper hand on the battlefield - and will be able to deal with the extra "top-of-the-line' long-range weapons Trump intends to supply.
A source said: "Appetite comes with eating," meaning he is likely to continue grabbing land until the war has stopped.
Explaining the dictator's thinking, another said: "Putin thinks no one has seriously engaged with him on the details of peace in Ukraine - including the Americans - so he will continue until he gets what he wants."
Despite several telephone calls between Trump and Putin, and diplomatic visits to Russia, Putin feels there have not been detailed discussions towards a peace plan, the source said.
They added: "Putin values the relationship with Trump and had good discussions with [Steve] Witkoff, but the interests of Russia come above all else."
Trump shipping long-range missiles to Ukraine will change face of war' after 'p****d' Don's patience with Putin runs out
Meanwhile, former Russian President Dmiitry Medvedev made a jibe on X: "Trump issue a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin.
The world shuddered, expecting the consequences.
"Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care."
It was also reported by The Financial Times and The Washington Post that Trump encouraged Ukraine's President Zelensky during a phone call to strike deeper inside Russia in order to crank up the pressure on Putin.
He apparently asked whether Ukraine could "hit Moscow" in order to "make Putin feel the pain of war", according to anonymous sources cited by the papers.
Zelensky's answer was swift and direct: 'Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.'
However, the White House denied Trump was calling for escalation, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt telling Newsweek: "President Trump was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing.
"He's working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war."
5
5
Putin's indifference was evident just hours after Trump issued the ultimatumwhen he unleashed a fresh devastating blitz on Ukrainian cities from Kharkiv to Zaporizhzhia and Sumy.
In Sumy Oblast, Russian drones injured six people, including a 19-year-old student and 14-year-old girl, when they struck a university.
A separate missile strike in Shostka wounded another teen and damaged a medical facility.
Trump gave a surprise interview to the BBC on Monday night, when he said he was "disappointed but not done with" Putin.
He also repeated his new-found backing for Nato and spoke of his respect for The King and Sir Keir Starmer ahead of his September state visit to the UK.
Trump - for the first time - opened up about his difficulty trusting Putin, who has stalled four US attempts to end the 40 months Ukraine bloodbath.
The President said: 'I thought I had a deal four times.
'I'm not done with him I'm disappointed in him. We thought we had a deal done four time the you go home and find he just attacked a nursing home or something in Kyiv…
'And so what the hell was that all about.'
Trump, who once branded Nato 'obsolete,' told the BBC his view has changed.
'No. I think NATO is now becoming the opposite of that,' he said, because members were 'paying their own bills.'
What have experts said of Trump's sending long-range weapons to Ukraine?
by Sayan Bose, Foreign News Reporter
DONALD Trump sending long-range weapons to Ukraine could be a game-changer for the war by helping halt Vladimir Putin's nightly blitzes, experts said.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a decorated British Army commander, said the shipment of these long-range missiles would have profound "psychological and physical effects" on Ukraine.
Mr de Bretton-Gordon told The Sun: "These weapons can strike Moscow - over 400 miles from the border. That allows the Ukrainians to strike drone factory production and ammunition sites, and others.
"So this will have both psychological as well as physical effects.
"People in Moscow will realise that they potentially could be targeted.
"And when you also add to it the American bombings on Iranian sites that were supposed to be impregnable, it shows that American missile and drone technology rather superior to the Russian air defence system."
The former army chief said these weapons will put real pressure on Russia, adding: "The metric has now changed and Trump's decision could make a huge difference."
Ex-military intelligence officer Colonel Philip Ingram told The Sun how these long-range weapons could help strike Russian missile and drone launchpads - the ones that are used to launch nightly attacks on Ukraine.
He said: "The Ukrainians are already attacking to hit Russian military logistics, defence industry bases.
"And with these sophisticated weapons, they will have increased capability of doing so.
"It will impact the ability of the Russians to prosecute these increasingly large drone and rocket attacks on a nightly basis.
"And then that's the best way for the Ukrainians to stop it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inquiry launched after identities of SAS soldiers leaked in fresh data breach
Army leaders have launched an inquiry after the identities of soldiers in the SAS were revealed in a fresh data breach. Details about the elite unit, part of UK Special Forces, are usually kept so secret that its members are barred for life from discussing their involvement unless they receive prior approval. News of the breach comes just days after it emerged the Ministry of Justice had taken out an unprecedented superinjunction after up to 100,000 lives were put at risk of reprisals from the Taliban in a catastrophic data leak. Around 18,700 Afghans who applied for sanctuary in Britain after the withdrawal of western forces in 2021 had their names and contact details exposed after an MoD official emailed a secret database to trusted contacts in February 2022. A number of SAS members and MI6 operatives were also compromised in the major leak. In yet another data lapse, the Sunday Times reported that details of at least 20 Special Forces soldiers recruited from the Grenadier Guards have been publicly available online for a decade. In response, General Sir Roly Walker, the head of the army, has ordered an 'immediate review' of the data sharing arrangements that led to the incident. At least 20 least 20 SAS members have been named by two different regimental publications over more than a decade, according to the newspaper. The Grenadier Guards in-house publication included a roll call of the names and current deployments of its most senior officers. In the latest edition, published last year and available online, the names of ten men in the regiment allegedly appeared next to the codename 'MAB' — shorthand for MoD A Block, which is the site of the UK Special Forces headquarters at the Regent's Park Barracks in London. The codename is well-known in military circles and means enemies would know which soldiers were linked to an elite unit. The breaches were first reported in April and while another regiment removed similar publications, the remaining information on the Guards was only taken down on Friday. Those whose details were compromised have been notified and protected, it is understood. General Sir Roly Walker said: 'The security of our people is of the utmost importance and we take any breach extremely seriously. '[As a result of this incident], I have directed an immediate review into our data sharing arrangements with our regimental and corps associations to ensure appropriate guidance and safeguards are in place to best support the vital work they do.'
NBC News
40 minutes ago
- NBC News
A MAGA bot network on X is divided over the Trump-Epstein backlash
A previously unreported network of hundreds of accounts on X is using artificial intelligence to automatically reply to conservatives with positive messages about people in the Trump administration, researchers say. But with the MAGA movement split over the administration's handling of files involving deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the accounts' messaging has broken, offering contradictory statements on the issue and revealing the LLM-fueled nature of the accounts. The network, tracked for NBC News by both the social media analytics company Alethea and researchers at Clemson University, consists of more than 400 identified bot accounts, though the number could be far larger, the researchers say. Its accounts offer consistent praise for key Trump figures, particularly support for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. As often is the case with bot accounts, those viewed by NBC News tended to have only a few dozen followers, and their posts rarely get many views. But a large audience does not appear to be the point. Their effectiveness, if they have any, is in the hope that they contribute to a partisan echo chamber, and that en masse they can 'massage perceptions,' said Darren Linvill, the director of Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub, which studies online disinformation campaigns. 'They're not really there to get engagement. They're there to just be occasionally seen in those replies,' Linvill told NBC News. The researchers declined to share specifics on how they identified the accounts, but noted they shared a number of distinct trends. All were created, seemingly in batches, around three specific days last year. They frequently punctuate their posts with hashtags, often ones that are irrelevant to the conversation. They post almost exclusively by replying to other users, often to people who pay X for verification and by repeating similarly worded sentiments over and over in short succession. At times, they will respond to someone's post by repeating it back to them verbatim. It's unclear who is behind the network, or which of the multiple AI chatbots that are widely accessible to the public was used to power it. The bots have posted support for conservative figures since 2024, including supporting Trump and other Republicans on the ballot in the lead-up to the election, and then afterward posting that they were excited for Trump to take office. Though they would occasionally mix their messages — some have professed affection for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance — their messaging was consistently in favor of MAGA figures until the recent Epstein files controversy. A core constituency of Trump supporters voted for him on the belief that Trump, a former friend of Epstein's, would expose a list of supposed rich and powerful clients and bring justice to Epstein's victims. It's only since earlier this month, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced she would not release additional Epstein files, that the accounts' messaging has become so split, with some accounts telling different users opposite opinions almost concurrently. During the same minute last Saturday morning, for example, one account in the network both cautioned a MAGA supporter from judging Bondi too harshly and told another that Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino should resign over the scandal.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
British Gas boss warns Miliband against ‘outrageous' energy bill divide
Forcing households with gas boilers to pay higher green taxes than those with heat pumps would be an 'abomination', the boss of British Gas has warned. In a stark warning to Ed Miliband, Chris O'Shea said that removing net zero levies from electricity bills would punish the poor and amount to a 'terrible distortion of the market'. It comes amid reports that the Energy Secretary is considering stripping green levies from electricity in a bid to encourage the adoption of heat pumps. Instead, the costs would be moved on to gas, making a boiler more expensive to run. Mr O'Shea, the chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, warned Mr Miliband to resist such an 'outrageous' overhaul and instead focus on protecting billpayers from the soaring cost of net zero. 'It's a preposterous idea,' Mr O'Shea told The Telegraph. 'The idea you'd put the levies on gas bills will mean those better-off people with heat pumps will be subsidised by those poorer people with gas boilers. That's nonsense. 'I think those of us with the broadest shoulders should help those of us who have the most need. 'To put them on gas bills would be an abomination, outrageous and a terrible distortion of the market. It would also be unfair because the people [who have] gas boilers the longest will also be those who can least afford to pay higher bills. 'I have heard the argument that it will encourage more people to use electricity. But encouraging people to use subsidised electricity by forcing gas users to pay just doesn't make any sense.' Mr O'Shea said the Government should shift the cost of green levies on to general taxation rather than creating an energy bill divide between households. 'Hostage to fortune' The Climate Change Committee, a Government quango, has urged Mr Miliband to remove the taxes from electricity bills to encourage more people to buy heat pumps and electric cars. However, experts have warned such a move risks increasing the average gas bill by £120 a year. Mr Miliband is considering the reforms as part of a radical rethink on clean power, as he fights to defend Britain's goal of reaching net zero by 2050. An announcement is expected this autumn. Mr O'Shea's plea to protect households with gas boilers came as he warned that Mr Miliband's net zero targets would be challenging. 'I don't think they are a work of fiction, and it's good that we have stretching targets,' he said. 'But even if you were to speak to those who helped to set them, then even they would say it will be difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.' The Centrica boss also cast doubt over Mr Miliband's pledge to cut household energy bills by 2030, supposedly aided by Britain's move to a greener economy. Mr O'Shea said he was sceptical that the Energy Secretary's promise to lower bills by £300 this parliament was 'achievable'. 'The energy transition is not cheap and it is not simple,' said Mr O'Shea. 'If it were, then we would have done it already. He urged the Government to take a more honest approach when it came to net zero. 'What renewables will do is give you more price stability,' he said. 'You will get fewer highs and fewer lows. Home-grown renewables give you more security than imported gas. 'But I wouldn't have made the £300 statement because it makes you a hostage to fortune.' As Britain's second-largest energy supplier behind rival Octopus, Centrica takes an 'agnostic' view when it comes to net zero, according to Mr O'Shea. That means the company is as comfortable building gas-fired power stations as it is investing in heat pumps. However, he said the business has abandoned wind and solar investments in the UK because they do not make enough money. Instead, Centrica is exploring wind investments in Ireland. Mr O'Shea was also critical of Mr Miliband's pledge to ban all new drilling in the North Sea, even though Centrica no longer conducts any exploration activity in the basin. 'I don't agree with the decision,' he said. 'If you take it from an environmental point of view, we import LNG [liquefied natural gas]. 'If you produce gas domestically, then it will have a lower carbon content than the LNG that we import. And the reason is the cost of shipping and the cost of turning the gas into a liquid.' Zonal pricing row By taking a less fiercely aggressive approach on net zero, Mr O'Shea has set himself apart from Greg Jackson, his counterpart at Octopus, who has made a virtue of being a clean-energy champion. This distinction came to the fore in recent months amid the fierce debate over zonal pricing. Unlike British Gas, Mr Jackson was a vocal supporter of plans to divide up the country into different energy pricing zones in an effort to incentivise developers to build wind and solar farms where demand – and prices – are highest. However, the proposals were highly controversial because they would have in practice meant higher bills in the South for electricity than in the North. 'It has been a very divisive debate,' said Mr O'Shea. 'We did not want a postcode lottery.' Mr Miliband recently abandoned the proposal, which British Gas believes was the right decision. Octopus disagrees and claims the Energy Secretary missed a vital opportunity to lower bills by billions of pounds. Mr O'Shea said: 'There was one very, very vocal proponent of it, and I think the benefits were all quite theoretical. 'For a company that purports to put the customer first, I don't know why they would want a system that would be more complex. I think they missed the point. 'I don't know why they went so hard on it and why they were so vicious about the Government's decision. One of their guys made a post on social media saying 'good game, well played'. This is not a game. People are struggling to pay their energy bills. 'I think that a lot of things have become too polarised. And energy is no different.' Rough decisions Now that the battle over zonal pricing is over, Centrica is turning its attention to Rough, the gas storage facility it runs 18 miles off the coast of East Yorkshire. It accounts for about half of the capacity the UK has to store gas. However, Mr O'Shea has warned that Rough risks closure by the end of the year unless ministers agree to help fund the site's redevelopment. 'Rough is going to lose about £100m this year and we can't sustain that,' he said. 'I think we have probably got to see something by the end of this year. 'If we get towards the end of the year and we've got a situation whereby we've got no prospect of making a profit, then we're just throwing good money after bad. It would be like a charitable donation, and that's not our business.' Rather than securing a handout, Centrica has asked ministers for a so-called cap and floor mechanism to help transform the 40-year-old site to store hydrogen as well as natural gas. This would provide a guaranteed minimum revenue level for the project - the floor – as well as limited excessive profits – the cap. Centrica has already stopped filling the facility amid mounting losses. Mr O'Shea said a full closure would involve the loss of hundreds of jobs. As well as impacting the local community, such a move threatens to deal a hammer blow to Britain's energy security, just years after the country recovered from one of its worst-ever energy crises following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Worse still, it also sends the wrong message to our allies in Europe, according to Mr O'Shea. 'If Rough closes, then the UK has just six days of gas storage available, compared to 100 in France, Netherlands and Germany. 'If we get into a crisis and the UK hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure it will flow from the Continent. 'Politically, if you're the prime minister of France or Germany and you look at a country that hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure that will work. There is a need for us to recognise the risk that no one likes a freeloader.'
