‘Call the Ayatollah': Trump ally gives BRUTAL hint at what would happen to Putin if he ignores 50-day peace deadline
Russia has been stepping up its summer offensive campaign as Washington-mediated ceasefire talks stall - infuriating the US President, Senator Lindsey Graham revealed.
9
9
9
9
Explosions rocked Ukrainian cities overnight after Vlad launched waves of drones and missiles across the war-torn nation in the latest sign the tyrant is avoiding peace.
And amidst the deadly chaos, Republican senator Graham made a chilling warning to mad Vlad that Russia would face the same fate as Iran if he doesn't adhere to Trump's 50-day ultimatum.
He said on X: "If Putin and others are wondering what happens on day 51, I would suggest they call the Ayatollah.
"If I were a country buying cheap Russian oil, propping up Putin's war machine, I would take President Trump at his word."
The clearest sign yet that Trump is done playing diplomatic games with Putin came on Monday.
He said had struck a deal with Nato to supply key American air defence systems and weapons to Ukraine.
Trump vowed to send weapons compromising of "everything" in his arsenal in order to get Putin back into line after weeks of the tyrant incessantly bombing Ukraine.
The US President also threatened Russia with blistering tariffs and sanctions if Putin doesn't agree to a peace deal within 50 days.
Prior to the announcement, Senator Graham told Axios the US President was "really p****d at Putin" and revealed Trump's move would be "very aggressive".
Don has since shared that the first Patriot systems intended for Ukraine "are already being shipped" to allies.
Upon being asked which countries the missiles are coming from, Trump said they were arriving from Germany.
He added that he hadn't spoken to Putin in two days, where he confirmed his intention to send weapons to help Ukraine - including the deadly Patriot systems.
9
9
9
9
Another of the proposed weapons which could be included in the package deal is America's joint air-to-surface standoff cruise missiles (JASSM).
On Tuesday, however, he ruled out sending long-range missiles to Ukraine despite reports claiming the US would give Kyiv weapons that could strike as far as Moscow.
Upon being asked whether the US would deliver deep-strike munitions to the war-torn nation, he clarified: "No, we're not looking to do that."
He also warned Ukraine against attacking the Russian capital, adding: "I'm on nobody's side. You know whose side I'm on? Humanity's side."
The President has spent the first seven months of his White House return urging both sides to come to the negotiating table.
But a snarling Putin has always declined and instead ramped up his ground and aerial offensives across Ukraine.
And the Kremlin's reaction to Trump's latest posture proves he may be set to snub the 50-day deadline.
They are said to have mocked the warning, with sources revealing they may now demand even more Ukrainian territory instead of laying down arms.
Russia will instead keep terrorising Ukrainian civilians during the seven-week period instead of surrendering in any form, they added.
A bombshell report claimed that Trump asked Zelensky if he can "make them [Russia] feel the pain" when the pair held a phone call at the start of the month.
'Really p****d' Trump gives Putin 50-day ultimatum as he unveils major plan
The US President asked: "Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St Petersburg too?", according to the Financial Times, citing two sources.
Zelensky responded: "Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons."
But Trump soon pushed back on the reports of him enquiring about Ukraine's next targets.
He told reporters that he has actually warned Zelensky to not even think about attacking Moscow if he ever wants the conflict to end.
Trump did not directly mention the FT report but the White House did.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt argued Trump's words were taken out of context as the President "was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing".
She continued, in a statement to the BBC: "He's working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war."
It comes after the US President shared with the broadcaster he was 'disappointed but not done with' mad Vlad.
Asked if he trusted Putin, Trump said after a long pause: 'I trust almost nobody to be honest with you.'
Overnight, Ukraine's Air Force made numerous alerts that Russian drones were targeting Kyiv alongside other regions - with a warning even issued of the threat of ballistic missile strikes.
Eight people were wounded in strikes on Ukraine's central region of Vinnytsia, as large-scale fires erupted after civilian industrial facilities were hit.
Three people were also wounded in an attack on Ukraine's second city, Kharkiv.
And a 17-year-old boy has been left fighting for his life after missile and drone strikes destroyed an industrial building in south-central Kryvyi Rig - the birthplace of brave leader Volodymyr Zelensky.
Oleksandr Vilkul, the mayor of the city, wrote on Telegram: "This has never happened before.
"A ballistic missile and 28 Shaheds simultaneously."
Meanwhile three people were tragically killed in eastern Ukraine on Tuesday, local authorities say.
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."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
How Russia reins in the internet by blocking websites and isolating it from the rest of the world
YouTube videos that won't load. A visit to a popular independent media website that produces only a blank page. Cellphone internet connections that are down for hours or days. Going online in Russia can be frustrating, complicated and even dangerous. It's not a network glitch but a deliberate, multipronged and long-term effort by authorities to bring the internet under the Kremlin 's full control. Authorities adopted restrictive laws and banned websites and platforms that won't comply. Technology has been perfected to monitor and manipulate online traffic. While it's still possible to circumvent restrictions by using virtual private network apps, those are routinely blocked, too. Authorities further restricted internet access this summer with widespread shutdowns of cellphone internet connections and adopting a law punishing users for searching for content they deem illicit. They also are threatening to go after the popular WhatsApp platform while rolling out a new 'national' messenger that's widely expected to be heavily monitored. President Vladimir Putin urged the government to 'stifle' foreign internet services and ordered officials to assemble a list of platforms from 'unfriendly' states that should be restricted. Experts and rights advocates told The Associated Press that the scale and effectiveness of the restrictions are alarming. Authorities seem more adept at it now, compared with previous, largely futile efforts to restrict online activities, and they're edging closer to isolating the internet in Russia. Human Rights Watch researcher Anastasiia Kruope describes Moscow's approach to reining in the internet as 'death by a thousand cuts." "Bit by bit, you're trying to come to a point where everything is controlled.' Censorship after 2011-12 protests Kremlin efforts to control what Russians do, read or say online dates to 2011-12, when the internet was used to challenge authority. Independent media outlets bloomed, and anti-government demonstrations that were coordinated online erupted after disputed parliamentary elections and Putin's decision to run again for president. Russia began adopting regulations tightening internet controls. Some blocked websites; others required providers to store call records and messages, sharing it with security services if needed, and install equipment allowing authorities to control and cut off traffic. Companies like Google or Facebook were pressured to store user data on Russian servers, to no avail, and plans were announced for a 'sovereign internet' that could be cut off from the rest of the world. Russia's popular Facebook-like social media platform VK, founded by Pavel Durov long before he launched the Telegram messenger, came under the control of Kremlin-friendly companies. Russia tried to block Telegram between 2018-20 but failed. Prosecutions for social media posts and comments became common, showing that authorities were closely watching the online space. Still, experts had dismissed Kremlin efforts to rein in the internet as futile, arguing Russia was far from building something akin to China's 'Great Firewall,' which Beijing uses to block foreign websites. Ukraine invasion triggers crackdown After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government blocked major social media like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, as well as Signal and a few other messaging apps. VPNs also were targeted, making it harder to reach restricted websites. YouTube access was disrupted last summer in what experts called deliberate throttling by authorities. The Kremlin blamed YouTube owner Google for not maintaining its hardware in Russia. The platform has been wildly popular in Russia, both for entertainment and for voices critical of the Kremlin, like the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Cloudflare, an internet infrastructure provider, said in June that websites using its services were being throttled in Russia. Independent news site Mediazona reported that several other popular Western hosting providers also are being inhibited. Cyber lawyer Sarkis Darbinyan, founder of Russian internet freedom group Roskomsvoboda, said authorities have been trying to push businesses to migrate to Russian hosting providers that can be controlled. He estimates about half of all Russian websites are powered by foreign hosting and infrastructure providers, many offering better quality and price than domestic equivalents. A 'huge number' of global websites and platforms use those providers, he said, so cutting them off means those websites 'automatically become inaccessible' in Russia too. Another concerning trend is the consolidation of Russia's internet providers and companies that manage IP addresses, according to a July 30 Human Rights Watch report. Last year, authorities raised the cost of obtaining an internet provider license from 7,500 rubles (about $90) to 1 million rubles (over $12,300), and state data shows that more than half of all IP addresses in Russia are managed by seven large companies, with Rostelecom, Russia's state telephone and internet giant, accounting for 25%. The Kremlin is striving 'to control the internet space in Russia, and to censor things, to manipulate the traffic,' said HRW's Kruope. Criminalizing 'extremist' searches A new Russian law criminalized online searches for broadly defined 'extremist' materials. That could include LGBTQ+ content, opposition groups, some songs by performers critical of the Kremlin — and Navalny's memoir, which was designated as extremist last week. Right advocates say it's a step toward punishing consumers — not just providers — like in Belarus, where people are routinely fined or jailed for reading or following certain independent media outlets. Stanislav Seleznev, cyber security expert and lawyer with the Net Freedom rights group, doesn't expect ubiquitous prosecutions, since tracking individual online searches in a country of 146 million remains a tall order. But even a limited number of cases could scare many from restricted content, he said. Another major step could be blocking WhatsApp, which monitoring service Mediascope said had over 97 million monthly users in April. WhatsApp 'should prepare to leave the Russian market,' said lawmaker Anton Gorelkin, and a new 'national' messenger, MAX, developed by social media company VK, would take its place. Telegram, another popular messenger, probably won't be restricted, he said. MAX, promoted as a one-stop shop for messaging, online government services, making payments and more, was rolled out for beta tests but has yet to attract a wide following. Over 2 million people registered by July, the Tass news agency reported. Its terms and conditions say it will share user data with authorities upon request, and a new law stipulates its preinstallation in all smartphones sold in Russia. State institutions, officials and businesses are actively encouraged to move communications and blogs to MAX. Anastasia Zhyrmont of the Access Now internet freedom group said both Telegram and WhatsApp were disrupted in Russia in July in what could be a test of how potential blockages would affect internet infrastructure. It wouldn't be uncommon. In recent years, authorities regularly tested cutting off the internet from the rest of the world, sometimes resulting in outages in some regions. Darbinyan believes the only way to make people use MAX is to 'shut down, stifle' every Western alternative. 'But again, habits ... do not change in a year or two. And these habits acquired over decades, when the internet was fast and free,' he said. Government media and internet regulator Roskomnadzor uses more sophisticated methods, analyzing all web traffic and identifying what it can block or choke off, Darbinyan said. It's been helped by 'years of perfecting the technology, years of taking over and understanding the architecture of the internet and the players,' as well as Western sanctions and companies leaving the Russian market since 2022, said Kruope of Human Rights Watch. Russia is 'not there yet' in isolating its internet from the rest of the world, Darbinyan said, but Kremlin efforts are 'bringing it closer.'
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukraine's drone attack sparks fires in Rostov region, Russia says
Aug 5 (Reuters) - An overnight Ukrainian drone attack sparked several fires, including at a power substation, in the southern Russian region of Rostov, the acting regional governor said on Tuesday. There were no injuries as a result of the attack and the fire at the substation on an area of about 500 square metres (5,400 square feet) has been extinguished, Rostov's acting governor, Yuri Slyusar, said on the Telegram messaging app. Russia's defence units destroyed a total of 24 Ukrainian drones overnight, including seven over the Rostov region, which has been a frequent target of Ukraine's strikes, Russia's defence ministry said on Telegram. The ministry reports only the number of downed drones, not how many Ukraine launched. Reuters could not independently verify the reports, and there was no immediate comment from Kyiv. Ukraine has frequently said its attacks inside Russia are aimed at destroying infrastructure key to Moscow's war efforts and are in response to Russia's continued strikes on Ukraine.
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.
