In Ukraine, a dark cloud lifts. Until Trump's next move
'There is some good news: they didn't fight,' was Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zelezhnyak's reaction on X.
A head-on collision along the lines of the February Oval Office shouting match had been averted.
'I expected much worse,' another MP, Oleksandr Merezhko, told CNN. 'The tone has changed. Trump wasn't negative. The impression is that the presidents have gotten used to each other.'
Maryan Zablotsky, another parliament member and deputy head of the parliamentary US-Ukraine group, said, 'I'm very impressed by the support of our European partners. They all gathered so quickly. Some interrupted their vacations.'
This is all in sharp contrast with the dark mood in the aftermath of the Alaska summit.
After witnessing the red carpet rolled out for Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday; the jet flyover; the ride in the presidential limousine, many Ukrainians feared the American president's bromance with the wily old KGB agent had reignited.
Add to that the angry early Monday morning Truth Social posts by Trump – in which he claimed Zelensky could 'end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight' – followed soon after by another post blasting the so-called 'fake media's' coverage of his Ukraine peace efforts, and it seemed the American leader was in an ominously sour mood in the hours before the meeting.
But when Trump emerged from the White House and greeted Zelensky with a broad smile and a hearty handshake, the dark cloud of dread suddenly vanished. In the rather chaotic encounter with journalists in the Oval Office, both Trump and Zelensky avoided stepping on any rhetorical land mines. All was good.
It speaks volumes that with this US administration the optics of such events are the focus of so much attention.
As far as substance goes, however, there are still more questions than answers.
'How can you negotiate peace without a truce, without a ceasefire, when the situation on the front line is changing?' asked Merezhko. 'If the situation is changing, it's difficult to negotiate.'
Overnight Thursday Russia fired more than 140 drones, and three ballistic missiles, at Ukraine – killing at least 10 people, including an 18-month-old baby and a 15-year-old boy.
A peace agreement still seems very far away from Kyiv.
Earlier Monday, CNN attended a funeral for David Chichkan, a popular Kyiv artist-turned-soldier, killed by a Russian drone earlier this month on the eastern front.
Hundreds of friends, relatives, admirers, and fellow soldiers took a knee as his coffin was slowly carried onto Independence Square, Ukrainian and army flags fluttered in the cool morning breeze. Mourners embraced one another, some quietly weeping.
There, we heard only frustration and resentment toward an American administration seen as fickle and unreliable.
'After thousands of people have died in this war, it feels like we're just being sold out now,' said mourner Oleksandra Grygorenko. Like so many here, she is repelled at the suggestion that the cost of peace with Russia could be the loss of large chunks of Ukrainian land.
Having watched the events in the White House, front line veteran Maria Berlinska said, 'In essence, we are being offered temporary peace at the cost of our interests. Give up your land, hand over millions of people in the occupied territories to Russia, and then maybe you'll get a long respite.'
The next step is a summit involving Trump, Putin and Zelensky. It was floated that perhaps it could happen by Friday. Previous attempts to coax Putin to the table have failed. Zelensky says he's ready to meet. Will it even happen?
And hovering over the entire Trump-led diplomatic push to end the war is the worry that the quixotic American president will change his mind yet again.
Journalist Kristina Berdynskykh put it this way: 'I have a prediction: Everything will go great at the White House. Between Zelensky and Trump. Between Trump and the Europeans. Between Zelensky, Trump, and the Europeans. And then Trump will call Putin, and everything will change a hundred times again.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Widens Metal Tariffs to Target Baby Gear and Motorcycles
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump stunned the logistics industry on Friday by widening his steel and aluminum tariffs to include more than 400 consumer items that contain the metals, such as motorcycles and tableware. Customs brokers and importers in the US were given little notice to account for the change, which went into effect Monday and did not exclude goods in transit. A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds The new tariff inclusion list was posted by the Customs and Border Protection agency just as many were leaving for the weekend and appeared in the Federal Register on Tuesday, creating fresh headaches for trade professionals. Official guidance has been muddled, especially for goods already on their way to the US, and it's unclear whether the metals levies stack on top of country-by-country tariffs. Having weathered six months of Trump's trade war and a pandemic that triggered mass supply disruptions, it's hard to rattle the freight carriers, cargo owners and middlemen that keep cross-border commerce moving. But the scope and implementation speed of this latest notice took many by surprise. 'We've had a lot of these 11th-hour implementations throughout 2025, this one in particular impacts every single client I have to an enormous degree,' Michigan-based customs broker Shannon Bryant said in an interview. 'Earlier announcements at least had some in-transit exemptions so at least importers could make reasonable buying decisions,' said Bryant, president of trade compliance advisory service, Trade IQ. 'This one was unique in that way — it's very much a 'gotcha.'' The new list includes auto parts, chemicals, plastics and furniture components — demonstrating the reach of Trump's authority to use sectoral tariffs. That is separate from the executive power he invoked for his so-called reciprocal tariffs. 'Basically, if it's shiny, metallic, or remotely related to steel or aluminum, it's probably on the list,' Brian Baldwin, a vice president of customs in the US at logistics giant Kuehne + Nagel International AG, wrote in a post on LinkedIn. 'This isn't just another tariff — it's a strategic shift in how steel and aluminum derivatives are regulated.' Compliance Costs The difficulty with applying tariffs to derivative products lies in determining what percentage of an item is made from the targeted materials. Flexport, a digital freight forwarder, said in a blog post that 'for many brands, this means chasing suppliers for detailed data: aluminum weight, percentage of customs value, and country of cast/smelt.' The compliance burden, Flexport said, 'is significant.' This tranche of tariffs is also particularly expansive, including items such as motorcycles, cargo handling equipment, baby booster seats, tableware and personal care products that come in metal containers or packaging. Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, conservatively estimates that the metals tariffs now cover about $328 billion worth of goods, based on 2024 import data. That's six times greater than in 2018 and a big jump from the $191 billion worth of goods covered prior to the change, he said in an email to Bloomberg News. Broker's Plea Bryant, whose clients include cosmetics and commercial cookware importers, sent a letter to her elected officials in Washington on Monday warning that the complexity of overlapping tariffs is becoming unworkable even for professionals. 'For small importers,' she wrote, 'it's impossible.' 'I'm trying to think of a client that's not impacted,' Bryant said. 'These are American companies that employ American people that are being ambushed by their own government.' Trump first imposed steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018 with the goal of boosting US output by making it more expensive for Americans to buy foreign material. But several major suppliers including Canada, Mexico and the European Union were ultimately exempted, and US industries have said they're still struggling to compete with imports. Big Steel Applauds In June, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by doubling the levy on steel and aluminum to 50% and also sought feedback from industry on how to broaden it further. Lourenco Goncalves, chief executive officer of US steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., applauded the expanded tariff list in a statement on Monday, thanking the Trump administration for 'taking decisive and concrete action that will deter tariff circumvention occurring in plain sight with stainless and electrical steel derivative products.' There's very likely more to come. At the end of July, the Trump administration imposed a 50% duty on semi-finished copper imports valued at more than $15 billion and ordered officials to come up with a plan to slap tariffs on an array of other copper-intensive goods. 'This isn't over,' said Pete Mento, DSV's global customs director, in a social media post on Monday. 'The next list will surely be for copper and I expect that to be equally as miserable.' Reference Shelf: Chaotic Tariff Rollout Leaves US Importers Short on Details (1) US INSIGHT: Importers Still Cover Most Tariffs Despite Revisions Why Trump Doubled Down on Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: QuickTake Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Yosemite Employee Fired After Flying Trans Pride Flag ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Court Ruling Kills Congressional Purse Power
Whatever happened to judges just reading the law and doing what it says? After a D.C. appellate court last week ignored a duly enacted law and gutted congressional control over spending, the late Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia must be spinning in his grave. It was Scalia, after all, who said: "The text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed." Apparently, not in the D.C. Court of Appeals, and our cowardly Congress will rue the day this emasculating ruling remains the law of the land. The case was all about congressional power. Did President Donald Trump have the power to refuse to spend as mandated by the budget passed by Congress? President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in flight. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in whether you like or dislike the things Congress chose to fund. Someday the answer will affect things you like and don't like. The point is that the Constitution says that Congress has the sole power to decide what the country spends on, and with a bit of jiggery-pokery, this court let all the air out of those words. The jiggery was for the court to ignore how important it is for a court to rule directly on the real issue in front of it whenever possible. Rather than uphold the words of the Constitution, two of the three judges invented an idea that a party who claims the president violated a law passed by Congress can't also claim that the president violated the Constitution. Why? Beats me, but it also beat half of the claims in the lawsuit. The pokery was even worse. To restrict presidents from grabbing congressional budget power by what's known as "impoundment," Congress passed a law creating strict rules for how a president can ask Congress to cancel spending it mandated. It also authorized the comptroller of the United States to sue presidents to stop them from ignoring the federal budget. Again, ignoring the words of the law, the two-judge majority held that only the comptroller could sue to stop the president, not people whose lives and fortunes were destroyed by the president's impoundment decisions. Incredibly, they ignored that Congress explicitly said in the law that allowing the comptroller to sue must not be seen as "affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment." Tell me, how does destroying those claims not affect them in any way? Forgive them Nino! The net result of the decision is that the Constitution can't be enforced against presidents whenever they might also have violated some statute too, and stopping the president rests on the whim of a single individual—the comptroller. And perhaps the panel knew something about the current comptroller. This comptroller, Gene Dodaro's term ends in December, and guess who gets to appoint his replacement? That's right, Donald Trump, the man the comptroller would have to sue. Game over? Maybe not. One of the three judges wrote a blistering dissent. There are 11 judges on this court, and they could decide to rehear the case with everyone participating. They can fix it. If they don't, the Supreme Court should. And don't expect it to automatically agree with Trump. The justices have actually been more nuanced than people give them credit for. They seem to agree that the Constitution gives the president more power over personnel issues in the executive branch than previous courts. But, when it comes to spending, the Court has repeatedly held that it's sacrosanct—it's controlled by Congress. They even overturned a law that allowed the president a line-item veto. They said it violated the separation of powers. And this is a good time to remember this pivotal principle. We have three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. They are supposed to be equal, so they can keep each other's ambitions in check—and—you know—avoid a dictatorship. If the courts want to avoid dictatorship, they need to overturn this ruling. No excuses. No tricks. Just make it clear now that there are limits to presidential power. Think about what's at stake. Let's say you support President Trump. How will you feel if he is replaced by President Zohran Mamdani, and the man has absolute power? Is that OK with you? Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Spain Foreign Minister José Albares on Commitment to Europe's Security
"We are an important part of backing Ukraine's sovereignty" says José Albares, Spain's Minister for Foreign Affairs. He joins Bloomberg TV on the White House Summit between US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and several European Leaders. (Source: Bloomberg)
