As Trump's ‘two week' deadline for Russia expires, he faces a series of unresolved foreign conflicts
Two weeks after President Donald Trump set a 14-day timeline for determining the willingness of his Russian counterpart to end the conflict in Ukraine, he says he is coming to believe Vladimir Putin doesn't care about the human cost of his war.
'I'm starting to think maybe he doesn't,' Trump said when an interviewer asked whether Putin minded losing thousands of his soldiers in Ukraine every week.
The candid admission, made in a New York Post podcast recorded this week, underscored the difficulties Trump continues to face in brokering complex international deals, including on issues he once said could be easily resolved.
He also now appears less confident in striking a nuclear deal with Iran, despite saying days ago he believed the talks were progressing in the right direction. And negotiations to end the war in Gaza have been deadlocked, with Trump's agitation toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deepening.
While Trump did find success this week in working out an agreement with China to roll back some of the punitive measures each side had enacted amid a worsening trade war, it wasn't clear how long the new framework would hold. A deal made last month in Switzerland with similar terms quickly fell apart.
And so far there has been only one trade agreement to emerge from the 90-day negotiating period Trump set with US partners this spring after pausing his reciprocal tariffs. The deadline comes due in early July.
Even Trump's overtures to his onetime pen-pal Kim Jong Un have apparently fallen flat. Attempts to deliver a letter from Trump to the North Korean dictator were rebuffed by diplomats based at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, according to the Seoul-based NK News, scuttling immediate hopes of rekindling the first-term friendship Trump enjoyed with the strongman.
'The president remains receptive to correspondence with Kim Jong Un. He'd like to see the progress that was made at that (2018) summit in Singapore,' press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday when asked about the report.
But the administration hasn't given up on any of the difficult issues that remain unresolved. Despite suggesting he might walk away entirely from the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump hasn't entirely abandoned his efforts. He is entering an intensive stretch of summitry that is likely to focus on the war, including a Group of 7 meeting in Canada next week and a NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month.
His team, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff, plans another round of Iran talks in the coming days, even amid loudening opposition to a deal from some Iran hawks and Israeli officials.
And trade talks continue apace as the July 9 deadline nears.
'You're going to see deal after deal that's going to start coming next week. And the week after and the week after,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC on Wednesday. 'We've got lots of them in the hopper. We just want to make sure they're the best deal we can possibly make. We don't want to rush.'
Still, Trump's own comments this week offered stark insight into his frustrated — and, for him, frustrating — attempts at negotiating deals around the world.
'We make progress and then all of a sudden, something gets bombed that shouldn't be bombed, and that's the end of the progress,' he said of the Ukraine conflict, describing a two-steps-forward, one-step-back reality to the grinding efforts to broker a ceasefire.
It was two weeks ago Wednesday that Trump vowed to have an answer in a fortnight on Putin's willingness to end the war, a timeline he's used repeatedly this spring when questioned about his Ukraine policy.
Since then, Trump has not made a decision on applying new sanctions on Moscow, even as his Republican allies on Capitol Hill agitate for harsher measures and Europe imposes new restrictions on Russia's oil and gas sector.
'I'll use it if it's necessary,' he told reporters aboard Air Force One last Friday. He said senators, many of whom have signed on to a bill to increase sanctions on Russia, are leaving the decision up to him. But he said he hadn't discussed the matter with them.
'I haven't spoken to them about it,' he said. 'They have a bill, it's going to be up to me, it's my option.'
At the same time, Trump hasn't taken steps toward boosting military assistance to Ukraine, which this week has come under some of the biggest drone assaults of the war. It's something he's likely to hear about from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the upcoming summits, which Zelensky is expected to attend.
Trump's defense chief Pete Hegseth told lawmakers Tuesday there would be a 'reduction in this budget' of military assistance to Kyiv.
'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict. We believe that 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 in congressional testimony.
Since he offered the two-week deadline two weeks ago, Trump spoke to Putin once. But in his own telling, the conversation was not enough to prompt an immediate peace.
'We had a good conversation,' Trump said. 'But so far, nothing's come of it.'
So, too, has nothing come yet from his efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.
'I'm getting more and more less confident about it. They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame, but I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago,' Trump said in the podcast interview. 'Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made,' he went on, saying it was his 'instincts' telling him a deal was moving further from reach.
At issue is Iran's insistence it be able to continue enriching uranium, which Trump has said it must give up in order to see some sanctions lifted as part of a deal.
That's much the same issue that prolonged nuclear talks with Iran under Barack Obama, whose eventual deal allowed low levels of enrichment. Trump withdrew from the pact during his first term, but now finds himself working through many of the same sticking points.
A new round of talks with Iran is set to take place in the coming days, US officials have said. The US has been waiting for an official response from Tehran to its latest proposal.
A two-month deadline to reach a deal that Trump set in a letter to Iran's leaders in April is set to expire this week. In the podcast interview, Trump said Iran would regret not making a deal, since the alternative was war.
'It would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying,' he said. 'Yes, so much nicer to do it. But I don't think I see the same level of enthusiasm for them to make a deal.'
This story has been updated with new reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Air India crash refuels Boeing and airline's problems
The fatal crash of a 787 Dreamliner that was being operated by Air India from Ahmedabad in northwestern India to London Gatwick Airport has once again fueled scrutiny of both Boeing and the airline, as the two companies have been trying to emerge from years of crises and poor reputations. The nearly 12-year-old Dreamliner crashed on a densely populated part of the city soon after takeoff, killing 241 of the 242 people on board on Thursday. The total death toll is expected to rise as the plane fell on a medical college hostel and rescue operations are still under way. The crash raises new concerns for Boeing, which continues to face mounting safety issues that have undermined public trust in its aircraft. These challenges come as the Seattle-based aerospace giant grapples with economic pressures from tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump, as well as increased regulatory attention that followed its recent safety issues. The reason behind the crash is not yet clear. But it is yet another fatal accident involving a Boeing aircraft, adding to a string of public relations crises that have made many travellers wary of flying on its planes. 'Boeing has become notorious and infamous with flyers at this moment, regardless of the model of the plane. Even the word 'Boeing' triggers a lot of people,' Adnan Bashir, an independent global communications and corporate affairs consultant who specialises in crisis communications, told Al Jazeera. The company's safety reputation began to unravel in October 2018 when a Lion Air flight operating a 737 MAX crashed due to a malfunction in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a programme designed to prevent stalls. That crash killed all 189 people on board. Just months later, in March 2019, an Ethiopian Airlines flight using the same aircraft model crashed for the same reason, killing all 157 people aboard. Turmoil resurfaced in January 2024, when a door panel detached mid-flight on an Alaska Airlines route between Ontario, California, and Portland, Oregon. But until now, the 787 Dreamliner aircraft had maintained a relatively strong safety record. 'This is the first fatal crash of the 787, so despite all of its problems in the early days and all the production issues that Boeing had with the aeroplane, this has had a perfect safety record up to this point,' aviation expert Scott Hamilton told Al launched in 2011, Boeing has sold more than 2,500 of the model globally. Air India bought 47 of them, and to date, Boeing has delivered 1,189 Dreamliners. The model has faced years of safety-related scrutiny. In 2024, John Barnett, a former Boeing quality manager, was found dead under suspicious circumstances after long voicing concerns about the 787. Barnett had alleged that Boeing cut corners to meet production deadlines, including installing inadequate parts. He also claimed that testing revealed a 25-percent failure rate in the aircraft's emergency oxygen systems. In 2019, The New York Times published an expose that revealed Boeing had pressured workers not to report safety violations, citing internal emails, documents, and employee interviews. More recently, another whistleblower, Sam Salehpour, told lawmakers he was threatened for raising safety concerns about Boeing aircraft. Today's crash is the latest fatal incident to occur under the leadership of Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who returned from retirement in 2024 to replace Dave Calhoun. Ortberg had pledged to restore the company's safety reputation. Previously, the last fatal Boeing incident occurred in December, when a Jeju Airlines flight crashed after a bird strike, killing 179 of the 181 people on board. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice reached a settlement with Boeing that allowed the company to avoid prosecution for previous crashes. The deal required Boeing to pay $1.1bn, including investments to improve safety standards and compensation to victims' families. On Wall Street, Boeing's stock dropped nearly 5 percent from the previous day's market close. At this point, experts believe that ultimately, Boeing executives will be careful with their words because of the looming legal challenges they may face if an investigation finds the fault lies with the plane-maker. 'You can almost guarantee there's going to be lawsuits of some sort. Right now, they're likely triaging internal and external communication plans with their legal team. Because anything they say in public right now could be used as evidence. And so what they're going to be doing right now is staying quiet, most likely until more facts come out,' Amanda Orr, founder of the legal and policy communications consultancy firm Orr Strategy Group, told Al Jazeera. In response to today's crash, Boeing said, 'We are in contact with Air India regarding Flight 171 and stand ready to support them … Our thoughts are with the passengers, crew, first responders and all affected.' Boeing did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. For Air India, which has been undergoing a major reinvention in the last few years, today's crash is a major setback in its efforts to rebrand and modernise. Founded in 1932, the airline was nationalised in 1953. After years of financial struggles and mounting debt, Tata Group acquired the airline for $2.2bn in 2022. As India's only long-haul international carrier to Europe and North America, Air India has a strong hold on global travel from across the country. In 2023, the carrier ordered 220 Boeing aircraft, including 20 Dreamliners, 10 777x jets, and 190 of the embattled 737 MAX. For now, Air India is focused on its response to the crash. 'At this moment, our primary focus is on supporting all the affected people and their families. We are doing everything in our power to assist the emergency response teams at the site and to provide all necessary support and care to those impacted,' said N Chandrasekaran, chairperson of Tata Sons, the holding company of Tata Group, in a statement provided to Al Jazeera. 'I express our deep sorrow about this incident. This is a difficult day for all of us at Air India. Our efforts now are focused entirely on the needs of our passengers, crew members, their families and loved ones,' Craig Wilson, the airline's CEO, said in a video statement. The airline has experienced a few fatal accidents in recent years. In 2020, an Air India Express flight skidded off the runway in Kozhikode in India, killing 20. A similar accident in Mangalore involving a 737-800 claimed 156 lives. Despite the shock of today's crash, flying remains one of the safest modes of travel. According to a 2024 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the risk of dying in a commercial airline accident is one in every 13.7 million passengers. This continues to be the safest decade in aviation history.
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
