Trump moves nuclear submarines and threatens Russia over 'foolish' statements
Trump announced his command on Friday, citing 'highly provocative statements' from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation.
'I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,' wrote Trump on his Truth Social platform.
'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.
'Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Four dead in mass shooting at Montana bar with gunman on the loose
MORE: Moment manhole shoots fire onto street as terrified pedestrians run
MORE: Ghislaine Maxwell quietly moved out of Florida prison while seeking Trump pardon
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
US special envoy Witkoff lands in Moscow, source tells Reuters
MOSCOW, Aug 6 (Reuters) - U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff has arrived in Moscow and was greeted at the airport by Russia's investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a source involved in the preparation of the visit told Reuters on Wednesday. U.S. President Donald Trump, who warned that he would impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow does not agree to a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine before Friday, had said earlier that Witkoff might be travelling to Moscow this week. A source familiar with the plan told Reuters on Tuesday that Witkoff would meet with Russian leadership on Wednesday.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The EU is a colossus. So why is it cowering before Trump like a mouse?
Who remembers the spate of 'introduction videos' that emerged during the first Trump administration – a series of tongue-in-cheek clips about European countries to introduce them to Donald Trump? The viral video trend was sparked by the Dutch comedian Arjen Lubach, who ended his segment on the Netherlands with: 'We totally understand it's going to be America first, but can we just say the Netherlands second?' It seems that Europe's leaders remember the videos all too well; that they internalised the caustic message a little bit too much. Afraid of rocking the boat during its trade negotiations with Trump, the EU decided to pre-emptively sink itself. Instead of strategic autonomy, it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on American weapons; in place of future climate goals, it will pour hundreds of billions into US natural gas; instead of a mutual tariff reduction, it will take a huge unilateral hit to EU exporters; instead of self-respect, humiliating prostration. The new trade 'deal' announced by Trump and Ursula von der Leyen last month left a five-year-old's worth of whys to ponder. Why does the EU, a colossus, think it is a mouse? Why is it content to merely nibble at the edges of power? Will it ever respect itself as much as China, which met Trump tariff for tariff until he backed off? Why don't its politicians understand that voters want leaders who will defend them, and that, as for Canada's Mark Carney and Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, there are actually electoral rewards to be reaped by doing so without reserve? Why, even after Brexit, do they ignore the lesson that these same voters prioritise identity and emotion over cold economic rationality? The EU could have called Trump's bluff; the problem is that, as Emmanuel Macron remarked, the EU isn't 'feared enough'. And yet, it has far more leverage than China does against the US economy. If deployed, the EU's anti-coercion instrument would enable it to flatly end the future manufacturing of the most advanced semiconductors in the US by shutting off exports, turning Trump's $500bn Stargate AI project into an intergalactic bridge to nowhere. It could obliterate long-term US tech dominance by taxing the Silicon Valley behemoths, blocking their market access and removing their intellectual property protections. It could severely disrupt Americans' supply of Ozempic and Wegovy for good measure. Would this spiral? Undoubtedly – but as the weaker tech player, the EU arguably has less to lose and ultimately more to gain. Plus, Europeans hate Trump and would probably unify in the face of a full-blown trade war, whereas Americans – half of whom also hate Trump – would not. We tend to take the EU for granted, but there is anger brewing amid latent pride. The first European politician to tell Trump where to shove it – in a crude, unapologetic and very public way – is going to surf a wave of never-before-seen emotion and support. Is this far-fetched and unrealistic? Probably. But everything about Trump is far-fetched and unrealistic. Why are we willing to accept – expect, even – boundary-pushing, shocking behaviour from the US, but not from ourselves? Surrendering to Trump's demands is the act of an entity that still believes the US is a wayward friend to appease, cajole and fear, all while the US under Trump sees and treats Europe as a weak, naive thing to manipulate and exploit. Well, congratulations, Europe proved it right – and all but ensured that Trump and his ilk will come back for a second round of ransom demands and threats. In fact, they already are, with the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, going after EU tech regulations following the deal. Europe might not like it, but the world has changed. In this new era, Russia, China and the US all want a return to spheres of influence and the rule of power in place of the rule of law, just with varying appetites for chaos (Russia) versus stability (China). Within this fuzzy picture, Trump is a genius at twisting emotion to his purposes, but he is also deeply ignorant, intellectually incoherent and follows mafioso-style instincts about how to wield the power he has, with the end result of undermining it more quickly. The EU is the only significant force left with a deep desire for a world that abides by the rule of law. That doesn't mean it's the only actor that wants this – it's joined by the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and, especially when it comes to climate, a host of other nations potentially led by Brazil. For decades, though, Europe has been enthralled with the story the US spins. As a result, it's now in thrall to an America spinning a dark story. That's a bad place for Europe to be. Not just economically, but geopolitically, because its dependence on the US (and fear that Trump will drop Ukraine into the deep end) leaves it in a place of hypocrisy in relation to would-be global partners: unwilling to uphold international law against Benjamin Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza all while rightly exhorting it in response to Vladimir Putin's relentless bombing of civilians in Ukraine. There is an inflection point looming – or perhaps it has just arrived – where Europeans will have to ask themselves, what is the purpose of an EU for ever consigned to can-kicking half measures, choosing the lowest common denominator among its internal divisions, and repeated capitulation? The far-right nationalists have an answer: no real union at all, and a future of vassalage and endless bickering for the scraps of global irrelevance. What is the federalist answer? This is not just a nice intellectual exercise. I don't want to live in a world where aggressors grab land when they want, where genocides go unchecked, where the climate crisis spins out of control and where far-right autocracy takes root. The answer has to be that the EU starts to actually believe in itself, rather than the narrative the US so deftly spins. That means an end to being enthralled by GDP per capita as a measure of prosperity. It means including the climate crisis as context in every economic discussion, for the same reason that a nutrition label that made no mention of sugar content would make no sense. Europe-based economic activity is among the least carbon-intensive in the world; the World Trade Organization is broken, so why not reorganise global trade – among the willing, and excluding the unwilling – around a price on carbon, using the EU's existing emissions trading system as a starting point? It means removing the far-right's complaint that countries 'send' money to the EU by replacing national contributions with a common corporate tax rate for its members, along with wealth taxes and taxes on big tech. It means getting over the internal allergy to spending internationally insignificant sums of money, because almost every sphere in which the EU feels inferior to the US boils down to a willingness to spend – or not. The EU is jealous of the US's big tech firms, but there is no secret sauce here beyond investment. Take space for example, where, again, the US is dominant. How could it be anything other when Nasa's 2023 budget was $25bn and the European Space Agency's was €7bn? Time instead to roll out a budget worthy of a true geopolitical power, and invest in long-term economic, environmental and political success. And finally, it means copying one thing from the Trump playbook: DGAF. Or, for the polite pages of the Guardian, 'caring less'. As in, if a von der Leyen spokesperson is reading this, the next time you hold a press conference, you might shoot back at all the public criticism: 'The European Commission president might not be a great negotiator, but at least she's not a sexual predator or a convicted felon.' Alexander Hurst is a Guardian Europe columnist
Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Missed signals, lost deal: How India-US trade talks collapsed
NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - After five rounds of trade negotiations, Indian officials were so confident of securing a favourable deal with the United States that they even signalled to the media that tariffs could be capped at 15%. Indian officials expected U.S. President Donald Trump to announce the deal himself weeks before the August 1 deadline. The announcement never came. New Delhi is now left with the surprise imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods from Friday, along with unspecified penalties over oil imports from Russia, while Trump has closed larger deals with Japan and the EU, and even offered better terms to arch-rival Pakistan. Interviews with four Indian government officials and two U.S. government officials revealed previously undisclosed details of the proposed deal and an exclusive account of how negotiations collapsed despite technical agreements on most issues. The officials on both sides said a mix of political misjudgment, missed signals and bitterness broke down the deal between the world's biggest and fifth-largest economies, whose bilateral trade is worth over $190 billion. The White House, the U.S. Trade Representative office, and India's Prime Minister's Office, along with the External Affairs and Commerce ministries, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. India believed that after visits by Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Delhi, it had made a series of deal-clinching concessions. New Delhi was offering zero tariffs on industrial goods that formed about 40% of U.S. exports to India, two Indian government officials told Reuters. Despite domestic pressure, India would also gradually lower tariffs on U.S. cars and alcohol with quotas and accede to Washington's main demand of higher energy and defence imports from the U.S., the officials said. "Most differences were resolved after the fifth round in Washington, raising hopes of a breakthrough," one of the officials said, adding negotiators believed the U.S. would accommodate India's reluctance on duty-free farm imports and dairy products from the U.S. It was a miscalculation. Trump saw the issue differently and wanted more concessions. "A lot of progress was made on many fronts in India talks, but there was never a deal that we felt good about," said one White House official. "We never got to what amounted to a full deal - a deal that we were looking for." Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Washington in February, agreed to target a deal by fall 2025, and more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. To bridge the $47 billion goods trade gap, India pledged to buy up to $25 billion in U.S. energy and boost defence imports. But officials now admit India grew overconfident after Trump talked up a "big" imminent deal, taking it as a signal that a favourable agreement was in hand. New Delhi then hardened its stance, especially on agriculture and dairy, two highly sensitive areas for the Indian government. "We are one of the fastest growing economies, and the U.S. can't ignore a market of 1.4 billion," one Indian official involved in the negotiations said in mid-July. Negotiators even pushed for relief from the 10% average U.S. tariff announced in April, plus a rollback of steel, aluminium and auto duties. Later, India scaled back expectations after the U.S. signed trade deals with key partners including Japan, and the European Union, hoping it could secure a similar 15% tariff rate with fewer concessions. That was unacceptable to the White House. "Trump wanted a headline-grabbing announcement with broader market access, investments and large purchases," said a Washington-based source familiar with the talks. An Indian official acknowledged New Delhi wasn't ready to match what others offered. South Korea, for example, struck a deal just before Trump's August 1 deadline, securing a 15% rate instead of 25% by offering $350 billion in investments, higher energy imports, and concessions on rice and beef. "At one point, both sides were very close to signing the deal," said Mark Linscott, a former U.S. Trade Representative who now works for a lobby group that is close to the discussions between the two nations. "The missing component was a direct line of communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi." A White House official strongly disputed this, noting other deals had been resolved without such intervention. An Indian government official involved in the talks said Modi could not have called, fearing a one-sided conversation with Trump that could put him on the spot. However, the other three Indian officials said Trump's repeated remarks about mediating the India-Pakistan conflict further strained negotiations and contributed to Modi not making a final call. "Trump's remarks on Pakistan didn't go down well," one of them said. "Ideally, India should have acknowledged the U.S. role while making it clear the final call was ours." A senior Indian government official blamed the collapse on poor judgment, saying top Indian advisers mishandled the process. "We lacked the diplomatic support needed after the U.S. struck better deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the EU," the official said. "We're now in a crisis that could have been avoided." Trump said on Tuesday he would increase the tariff on imports from India from the current rate of 25% "very substantially" over the next 24 hours and alleged that New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil were "fuelling the war" in Ukraine. Talks are ongoing, with a U.S. delegation expected in Delhi later this month and Indian government officials still believe the deal can be salvaged from here. "It's still possible," one White House official said. The Indian government is re-examining areas within the farm and dairy sectors where concessions can be made, the fourth official said. On Russian oil, India could reduce some purchases in favour of U.S. supplies if pricing is matched. "It likely will require direct communication between the prime minister and the president," said Linscott. "Pick up the phone. Right now, we are in a lose-lose. But there is real potential for a win-win trade deal."
