Trump threatens sanctions on Russia in 50 days as he announces new weapons for Ukraine
US will impose sanctions on buyers of Russian exports, Trump said.
White House has signalled a possible 100 per cent tariffs on Russia. US President Donald Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine, and threatened sanctions on buyers of Russian exports unless Russia agrees to a peace deal, a major policy shift brought on by frustration with Moscow's ongoing attacks on its neighbour. But Trump's threat of sanctions came with a 50-day grace period, a move that was welcomed by investors in Russia, where the rouble recovered from earlier losses and stock markets rose. Sitting with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin and that billions of dollars of US weapons would go to Ukraine. "We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO," Trump said, adding that Washington's NATO allies would pay for them.
The weapons would include Patriot air defence missiles Ukraine has urgently sought.
"It's a full complement with the batteries," Trump said. "We're going to have some come very soon, within days ... a couple of the countries that have Patriots are going to swap over and will replace the Patriots with the ones they have." Some or all of 17 Patriot batteries ordered by other countries could be sent to Ukraine "very quickly", he said. Rutte said Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada all wanted to be a part of rearming Ukraine. Trump's threat to impose so-called secondary sanctions on Russia, if carried out, would be a major shift in Western sanctions policy.
Politicians from both US political parties are pushing for a bill that would authorise such measures, targeting other countries that buy Russian oil.
Throughout the more than three-year-old war, Western countries have cut most of their own financial ties to Moscow, but have held back from taking steps that would restrict Russia from selling its oil elsewhere. That has allowed Moscow to continue earning hundreds of billions of dollars from shipping oil to buyers such as China and India. "We're going to be doing secondary tariffs," Trump said. "If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple, and they'll be at 100 per cent." A White House official said Trump was referring to 100 per cent tariffs on Russian goods as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that buy its exports.
Eighty-five of the 100 US senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Trump the authority to impose 500 per cent tariffs on any country that helps Russia, but the chamber's Republican leaders have been waiting for Trump to give them the go-ahead for a vote.
Since returning to the White House promising a quick end to the war, Trump has sought rapprochement with Moscow, speaking several times with Putin. His administration has pulled back from pro-Ukrainian policies such as backing Kyiv's membership in NATO and demanding Russia withdraw from all Ukrainian territory. But Putin has yet to accept a proposal from Trump for an unconditional ceasefire, which was quickly endorsed by Kyiv. Recent days have seen Russia use hundreds of drones to attack Ukrainian cities.
Trump said his shift was motivated by frustration with Putin, who talked about peace but continued to strike Ukrainian cities. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," he said.
Russia fired 10 times more drones and missiles in June than in the same month in 2024, the UN said. Source: AAP / Presidential Press Service of Ukraine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held talks with Trump's envoy Keith Kellogg on Tuesday AEST. Zelenskyy said they discussed "the path to peace and what we can practically do together to bring it closer", including "strengthening Ukraine's air defence, joint production and procurement of defence weapons in collaboration with Europe." An air-raid alert was declared in Kyiv shortly after Zelenskyy's talks with Kellogg.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
New evidence revealed as grand jury indicts Vance Boelter over murder of Minnesota politician and her husband
Prosecutors have revealed new details surrounding a man's motives to allegedly kill a prominent Minnesota state representative and her husband, and seriously wound a state senator and his wife, while he was allegedly disguised as a police officer. The new information comes after a US federal grand jury indicted Vance Boelter on charges that he fatally shot former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. Investigators say they have found a handwritten letter by Mr Boelter addressed to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the shootings and made bizarre claims. The indictment handed up lists murder, stalking and firearms charges against Mr Boelter. The murder counts in the two deaths could carry the federal death penalty. "This political assassination, the likes of which have never occurred here in the state of Minnesota, has shook our state at a foundational level," acting US Attorney Joseph Thompson said. He said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty "will not come for several months" and will be up to US Attorney-General Pam Bondi. Mr Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, did not comment on the indictment and the new allegations. Mr Boelter has not entered a plea, which was not required until the indictment was handed up. "In the letter, Vance Boelter claims that he had been trained by the US military off the books and he had conducted missions on behalf of the US military in Asia, the Middle East and Africa," Mr Thompson said. Mr Boelter also said in the letter that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had approached him about killing the state's two US senators, fellow Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith. Asked by a reporter if all that was a fantasy, Mr Thompson replied: "Yes, I agree." "What he left were lists: politicians in Minnesota, lists of politicians in other states, lists of names of attorneys at national law firms." Friends have described Mr Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. At a hearing on July 3, Mr Boelter said he was "looking forward to the facts about the 14th coming out". In an interview published by the New York Post on Saturday, Mr Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for Donald Trump, but he declined to discuss why he allegedly killed the Hortmans and wounded the Hoffmans. "You are fishing and I can't talk about my case…I'll say it didn't involve either the Trump stuff or pro life," Mr Boelter wrote in a message to the newspaper via the jail's messaging system. Prosecutors say Mr Boelter was driving a fake squad car, wearing a realistic rubber mask that covered his head and wearing tactical gear on the night in question. At around 2am on June 14, he went to the home of Senator John Hoffman, a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette, in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He allegedly shot the senator nine times and Yvette Hoffman eight times, but they survived. Prosecutors allege he then stopped at the homes of two other politicians. One, in Maple Grove, was not home, while a police officer may have scared him off from the second, in New Hope. Mr Boelter then allegedly went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanased. Brooklyn Park police, who had been alerted to the shootings of the Hoffmans, arrived at the Hortman home around 3:30am, moments before the gunman opened fire on the couple, the complaint said. Mr Boelter allegedly fled and left behind his car, which contained notebooks listing dozens of Democratic officials as potential targets with their home addresses, as well as five guns and a large quantity of ammunition. Law enforcement officers finally captured Mr Boelter about 40 hours later, about 1.6 kilometres from his rural home in Green Isle, after what authorities called the largest search for a suspect in Minnesota history. AP
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Trump unveils investments to power AI boom
US President Donald Trump went to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to announce $92 billion in energy and infrastructure deals intended to meet big tech's soaring demand for electricity to fuel the AI boom. Trump made the announcement at the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University, with much of the talk about beating China in the global AI race. "Today's commitments are ensuring that the future is going to be designed, built and made right here in Pennsylvania and right here in Pittsburgh, and I have to say, right here in the United States of America," Trump said at the event. The tech world has fully embraced generative AI as the next wave of technology, but fears are growing that its massive electricity needs cannot be met by current infrastructure, particularly in the United States. Generative AI requires enormous computing power, mainly to run the energy-hungry processors from Nvidia, the California-based company that has become the world's most valuable company by market capitalization. Officials expect that by 2028, tech companies will need as much as five gigawatts of power for AI -- enough electricity to power roughly five million homes. Top executives from Palantir, Anthropic, Exxon and Chevron attended the event. The funding will cover new data centers, power generation, grid infrastructure, AI training, and apprenticeship programs. - Race to beat China - Among investments, Google committed $25 billion to build AI-ready data centers in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions. "We support President Trump's clear and urgent direction that our nation invest in AI... so that America can continue to lead in AI," said Ruth Porat, Google's president and chief investment officer. The search engine giant also announced a partnership with Brookfield Asset Management to modernize two hydropower facilities in Pennsylvania, representing 670 MW of capacity on the regional grid. Investment group Blackstone pledged more than $25 billion to fund new data centers and energy infrastructure. US Senator David McCormick, from Pennsylvania, said the investments "are of enormous consequence to Pennsylvania, but they are also crucial to the future of the nation." His comments reflect the growing sentiment in Washington that the United States must not lose ground to China in the race to develop AI. "We are way ahead of China and the plants are starting up, the construction is starting up," Trump said. The US president launched the "Stargate" project in January, aimed at investing up to $500 billion in US AI infrastructure -- primarily in response to growing competition with China. Japanese tech investor SoftBank, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, and Oracle are investing $100 billion in the initial phase. Trump has also reversed many policies adopted by the previous Biden administration that imposed checks on developing powerful AI algorithms and limits on exports of advanced technology to certain allied countries. He is expected to outline his own blueprint for AI advancement later this month.
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
LATIKA BOURKE: Pentagon's MAGA-style push on AUKUS and defence spending may backfire in Indo-Pacific
Elbridge Colby, the man reviewing AUKUS inside the Pentagon, thinks he can replicate MAGA's success in scolding, berating and bullying Europe into lifting defence spending in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. But his cut-and-paste approach may not only fail, but backfire. This is because his hectoring approach fails to recalibrate for the important ways that Europe differs from Asia. Mr Colby's demands that Indo-Pacific allies raise defence spending are legitimate in Australia's case. But he is far from the first person to raise the issue. Well before US President Donald Trump appointed Mr Colby Under Secretary of Defence, the Australian authors of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Peter Dean and Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, were urging an increase in spending from around 2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent. Kim Beazley, former Labor Leader, defence minister and ambassador to the United States, preceded them both. And it is the same plea made by Mike Pezzullo, the former Home Affairs boss who authored the 2009 Defence White Paper for the Rudd Government, the last time Labor was in power. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should raise defence spending and match it to the capabilities that the defence review, which he commissioned, said Australia needed. Should the region become even more dangerous, he will not be remembered for his 94-seat landslide but as the Labor prime minister who ignored every siren call and left the country, negligently and dangerously unprepared. While he should not need to be bullied into doing so by the United States, it is also unwise for MAGA to be pushing the issue as hard as it is and so publicly and not leaving more of the heavy lifting to Australian voices. Mr Colby said in a social media post on Tuesday that: 'Europe's progress over the last few months is showing the wisdom of President Trump's approach.' 'We are actively applying his successful approach to enable our allies around the world to step up efforts for the common defence.' Earlier this week he said urging allies to step up their defence spending was a 'hallmark' of President Trump's strategy in Asia as in Europe, 'where it has already been tremendously successful.' 'Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations,' he said. 'But many, now led by NATO after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so. 'President Trump has shown the approach and the formula - and we will not be deterred from advancing his agenda.' But there are good reasons for MAGA to pause, reconsider and recalibrate. Their methods might have worked at NATO, when member states agreed to lift their spending to 3.5 per cent next decade, but this is no guarantee of their success in Australia's neck of the woods. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific is not at war. Europe is. It is a statement of the obvious that being caught unprepared to deal with a nuclear-armed imperialist on your border who has rolled tanks inside the borders of an innocent country would inspire a sense of urgency, if not panic. It is true, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said, that US President Donald Trump's methods, including threatening the very concept of the defensive alliance, were also decisive in changing European minds about the need to start to put their shoulder to the wheel. But this is the point. Taking Europe to the edge of the cliff and forcing them to look over the edge and contemplate a world without the United States' security blanket works because of NATO and Article 5. Article 5 is the clause that states an attack on any member state shall be considered an attack on all. It is this clause that allowed Europe to freeload off the United States under more benevolent Presidents for so long. And it is why the US and MAGA's complaints about Europe spending big on its social welfare while expecting the US to pay its security bills was so legitimate. As Vladimir Putin demonstrated, Europe had a menacing bear on its border and remains in a position where it cannot subdue the beast on its own. But these dynamics do not exist for Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific. While it is accepted that China seeks dominance of the region and control of shipping routes, war is neither current nor inevitable. While China's President Xi Jinping has said he wants his military to be ready to take Taiwan by 2027 and, with force if necessary, there are many ways he can subdue the democratic island without an invasion. At one end, this could include a blockade that may or may not be seen as an act of war by the United States. Another more worrying tactic could be China declaring a 'quarantine' of Taiwan, and claiming it is an internal matter, making it even more difficult to define whether it constituted an act of war or not. This is why expecting countries like Australia to start declaring in 2025 that they will take part in a hypothetical war with submarines we will not possess until the early 2030s, in a best-case scenario, is dangerously reductive, as it misses a vital opportunity to talk about how to push back on China's already coercive and menacing behaviour towards Taiwan, and the Philippines. The other, and perhaps most powerful element MAGA misses when it comes to the Indo-Pacific is the one of choice. Australia has a choice about how it wants to respond to the great power competition underway between the United States and China. And so far, MAGA's methods are only moving Anthony Albanese one way – in China's direction. Australians fundamentally don't like Donald Trump, but still believe in and back the alliance. However, it would be hazardous to assume these attitudes are fixed. Australia's population is increasingly migrant-based, as Mr Albanese's appeals to Indian and Chinese voters at the last election and throughout his first term underlined. It should not be assumed that this voting bloc will always have an enduring loyalty and affection to the United States. And MAGA's behaviour to date could easily provoke questions about whether the United States would have Australia's back as per our treaty alliance. All this said, it is extremely likely that were the United States to fight China in the foreseeable future, Australia would take part. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US bases on Australian soil, would make us a target at any rate and all but guarantee our involvement. There is a fundamental inconsistency, if not incoherence, to the premise of the Financial Times report that Mr Colby is demanding allies, including Australia, state whether they would fight over Taiwan, when Mr Trump – wisely — himself refuses to say, strategic ambiguity carries a deterrent effect of its own. But perhaps the greatest question, that MAGA's methods will only justify if it continues to self-righteously and sanctimoniously badger its Indo-Pacific allies, is what values and order would we be fighting for? As Richard Spencer, the former US Navy Secretary who war-gamed these scenarios, recently said, such a war would 'not pretty at all, for either side' ie. it would result in the deaths of thousands of lives. The resolve of the United States and its allies must be to avoid this at all costs. But if Xi were to make such a catastrophic mistake, like his authoritarian collaborator Mr Putin, then Australians would naturally ask, what would we be fighting for? And this is where the MAGA approach could backfire. Because the Trump Administration looks more focused on shoring up American dominance rather than a global order that protects its smaller friends. How else to read the symbolism of his first tariff-imposition letters going to Indo-Pacific allies South Korea and Japan? On top of the tariffs on Australian steel and exports, is now the threat of 200 per cent duties on pharmaceuticals. This is despite Australia and the United States having a free trade agreement. Australia is no stranger to economic coercion. It experienced the Chinese Communist Party's wrath after the pandemic when Beijing effectively killed Australian wine, lobster and barley imports overnight because the Coalition asked for an inquiry into COVID. But unwarranted duties from a treaty ally, that, at the same time has injected uncertainty into the AUKUS deal are such difficult pills to swallow, precisely because of the 'friend' who is administering them. It may well be that if faced with the poisons of a bullying, authoritarian China and a free but selfish, 'America First' mercurial United States, Australians would still prefer the latter. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US military presence on Australian soil, would highly likely make us a target and force our involvement at any rate. But Mr Colby and his MAGA friends should realise that there is a range of tactics that can engineer success, and a one-size-fits-all bully boy model may prove ultimately nihilistic.
