Medvedev mocks Trump's threats as Kremlin stays defiant
Trump, speaking from the Oval Office alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on July 14, announced a new weapons package for Ukraine and threatened 100 percent tariffs on any country purchasing Russian exports—mainly crude oil—if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days. He also voiced frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him "a tough guy" but stopping short of labeling him "an assassin," a reference to former President Joe Biden's 2021 remark calling Putin "a killer."
"Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin," Medvedev wrote on X (formerly Twitter). "The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care."
The Kremlin has not officially responded to Trump's comments but reiterated on July 14 that the U.S. continues to arm Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian state media emphasized battlefield gains and Ukrainian drone attacks that injured 18 people in Russia. Coverage of Trump's remarks on Russian television highlighted delays in the delivery of U.S. Patriot missile systems and concerns within the U.S. about escalating the war.
Russia, which controls nearly one-fifth of Ukraine's territory, has repeatedly said it is open to peace—but only on its terms. Putin insists that a ceasefire can't be considered until a framework for peace is clearly outlined. European leaders and Ukrainian officials have expressed deep skepticism, urging Trump to abandon any attempts to reconcile with the Kremlin.
In the U.S., a White House official said Trump is pushing for 100 percent tariffs on Russian goods and secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian oil unless peace is reached soon. A Senate bill with support from 85 senators would grant Trump authority to impose tariffs up to 500 percent on nations that support Russia economically, but Republican leaders are waiting for Trump's signal to proceed with a vote.
Major buyers of Russian crude—China, India, and Turkey—could be significantly affected by such sanctions, though it remains unclear how they would respond. Russia currently exports around five million barrels of oil per day, making it the world's second-largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia.
Russian newspaper Kommersant ran a front-page headline invoking Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, signaling disappointment in Trump: "Et tu, Trump – the main peacekeeper of the Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war.'" Despite the rhetoric, Trump told the BBC he still believes a peace deal is achievable and that he is "not done" with Putin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
5 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Trump's Golden Dome missile-defence push on Canada leaves Ottawa with few good options
Washington, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump wants a Golden Dome of missile defence over the United States, and if you're thinking this sounds familiar, you'd be right. Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, aka Star Wars, also aimed to develop a space-based and layered defence system to knock out any incoming strikes. It didn't work out. The space-based part proved elusive, but technology has now advanced enough to make more of it feasible, at least in theory. Trump envisions a system that includes space-based weaponry that can take out missiles — ballistic and hypersonic — and he wants Canada to help pay for building this defensive wall over North America. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State,' the president posted on social in May. Since then, the quoted price has gone up to US$71 billion. Ottawa has acknowledged that discussions with the U.S. are underway, but they're happening against a backdrop of strained U.S.-Canada relations over defence spending and a trade war. With pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cool Washington's belligerence, the Golden Dome's feasibility as a technology may matter less than the symbolism of Canada's willingness to collaborate with the White House. And none of the options for Canada, whether it's spending tens of billions of dollars to buy into a risky initiative or spurning a testy and vindictive president, are painless. U.S. missile defense currently includes the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in Alaska and California, which is designed to intercept ICBMs in space and has a 55 per cent test success rate. The Patriot system defends battlefield and critical sites against shorter-range missiles closer to their targets, and the mobile THAAD system (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) provides regional defence against various missile threats, also closer to their targets. The naval Aegis system, meanwhile, offers effective naval-based missile interception – and the Patriot, THAAD and Aegis all generally outperform GMD. Golden Dome aims to integrate all of the above — the ground and sea-based technologies — while adding a new space-based layer of satellites equipped with sensors and interceptors to detect incoming threats and take them out at various stages of their trajectories. This would improve U.S. missile defence beyond just dealing with potential ballistic missiles coming from rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran, said Patrycja Bazylczyk, a research associate with the Missile Defense Project at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS. 'Now we're thinking about our great power competitors, such as Russia and China, and they don't have just ballistic (missiles),' she says. 'They have hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, etc., a whole host of different weapons that have unique trajectories and characteristics that create challenges for sensing and interception.' While much of the technology for the sea- and land-based systems is sound, some of the space-based components remain theoretical. Space-based interceptors or lasers have improved through proliferation and become more resilient, said Michael O'Hanlon, director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution think tank. But 'the space-based weapons have not gotten much better … and are nowhere near a really practical deployment.' 'It's very difficult to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles,' said Benjamin Giltner, a researcher at the think tank CATO Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department. He explains that the warheads are travelling at speeds north of 1,900 mph during the terminal phase, when they've detached from the missile and reentered the atmosphere. On top of that, the system would have to deal with multiple warheads at once, decoys, and efforts by the enemy to jam its frequencies. It's essentially trying to use a bullet to hit a bullet — amid a maelstrom of chaos. Managing a battlefield with data inputs in a rapidly changing environment, potentially with thousands of objects in the sky, also requires a lot of computing power. 'That would be a piece where artificial intelligence is now making certain things more possible than before,' O'Hanlon said. Bids are being prepared now by several defence contractors, and costs could go sky high. The Trump administration has estimated a cost of US$175 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office says it could cost between US$161 billion and as much as US$542 billion over the next two decades for the whole system. Much of that will depend on the depth of system and the space-based weaponry. Giltner said he's seen 'estimates of (needing) up to tens of thousands of missile defence systems to have a chance at defending most U.S. territory.' It will also depend upon retaining the support of subsequent White House administrations from either party. Beyond cost and efficacy, building a shield over North America is likely to upset the enemy. The secured second-strike capability of nuclear nations — meaning a country can hit back hard even after it's been hit by a nuclear attack — 'has so far proven to be the most stable and best form of nuclear deterrent we have,' said Giltner. A missile defence system like Golden Dome would upend that, creating a more 'vulnerable strategic environment' and 'invite an arms race,' he added. Bazylczyk sees that another way. 'If we look at Chinese and Russian investment in hypersonic and cruise missiles, I think that not having defences to adequately intercept those next-generation threats is kind of concerning for deterrence.' 'If they don't believe that we are able to counter those threats, then they'll be more emboldened to embark on escalatory actions.' Robert Peters, senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security, agrees. He says he's 'increasingly concerned' that U.S. adversaries 'could pursue a low escalation pathway attack or limited coercive attack … because they keep building systems that could execute such an attack.' He means that China and Russia keep discussing development of systems for limited escalation scenarios in which they might launch an attack with just one or a couple of advanced or nuclear missiles, to hit the U.S. without triggering an all-out nuclear war. So, for Giltner and many other critics, Golden Dome is likely to start a new arms race. Others, like Peters, say that a race is already underway, and that Golden Dome, 'at a minimum, gives us a fighting chance to give the adversaries pause before they decide to go down a limited coercive pathway attack.' In short, both sides are toying with developments that could undermine the nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine that prevents nuclear powers from pressing the button on a nuclear war. Today, Canada helps support GMD and NORAD operations by hosting sensors for early warning and tracking of missiles, and Trump has suggested that Canada join Golden Dome, a project he very optimistically says will take three years, with an entry price of US$71 billion. That's well over this year's Canadian defence budget of approximately $62.7 billion, but it's unclear how long Ottawa would have to pay the ticket price. Washington and Ottawa have been involved in volatile trade talks in recent weeks, with Trump stating on Friday that there is no deal likely with Canada and that more tariffs are likely coming on Aug. 1. So how is Carney likely to respond to the Golden Dome invite? Giltner doesn't see how participating in Golden Dome would strategically benefit Canada, because, in addition to the high cost, it would mean being party to a 'more fraught strategic environment.' But Peters said it is in Canada's national interest because inbound threats would likely fly over Canadian territory and may not only be directed at the U.S. He believes most Canadians would feel better knowing a defence system could thwart any such attack. O'Hanlon, however, sees the need for a balancing act. 'It would make sense to be involved in this enough that we can do joint planning and that Canada would get some enhanced consideration as we think about options for protection,' he said. At the same time, the high cost, given Canada's military budget, means Ottawa 'wouldn't want to get so caught up in this that (they) missed out on the opportunities to improve (their) ground forces.' Canada, he says, should aim to be 'a substantial partner in this within reason.' National Post tmoran@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Global News
35 minutes ago
- Global News
‘Dark day': French PM says EU's Trump trade deal is a ‘submission'
The European Union's trade deal with the United States is 'submission' to U.S. President Donald Trump and marks a 'dark day' in the history of the bloc, French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said on Monday. Trump announced a trade deal between the U.S. and the EU on Sunday after meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland. Bayrou took to social media to criticize the deal, which would see an across the board 15 per cent tariff on most goods from Europe. 'Von der Leyen-Trump Agreement: it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission,' Bayrou posted in French on the social media platform X. 2:04 What Trump's EU trade deal reveals about talks with Canada The response from French government officials stands in contrast to some other European nations. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal. Story continues below advertisement 'We have been able to safeguard our core interests,' Merz said in a statement on Monday. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy On the other hand, French President Emmanuel Macron has not reacted to the announcement of a trade deal, while other senior French officials have been cautious in their reactions. 'The trade agreement negotiated by the European Commission with the United States will bring temporary stability to economic actors threatened by the escalation of American tariffs, but it is unbalanced,' French deputy minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad said in a statement on X. 'The current situation is not satisfactory and cannot be sustainable. The free trade that has brought shared prosperity to both sides of the Atlantic since the end of the Second World War is now rejected by the United States, which is choosing economic coercion and complete disregard for WTO rules,' Haddad added. The private meeting between Trump and von der Leyen culminated months of bargaining, with the White House deadline Friday nearing for imposing punishing tariffs on the 27-member EU. 'It was a very interesting negotiation. I think it's going to be great for both parties,' Trump said. The agreement, he said, was 'a good deal for everybody' and 'a giant deal with lots of countries.' Von der Leyen said the deal 'will bring stability, it will bring predictability that's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Story continues below advertisement Trump said the EU had agreed to buy some $750 billion worth of U.S. energy and invest $600 billion more than it already is in America, as well as making a major purchase of military equipment. 'We are agreeing that the tariff straight across for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15 per cent,' Trump said. 'We have a tariff of 15 per cent. We have the opening up of all of the European countries.' Von der Leyen said the 15 per cent tariffs were 'across the board, all inclusive' and that 'indeed, basically the European market is open.' — With files from Associated Press
Winnipeg Free Press
35 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale to 2035
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A Maine congressman and several commercial fishing groups are getting behind a push to delay rules designed to protect a vanishing species of whale for 10 years. The North Atlantic right whale numbers only about 370 and has declined over the last 15 years. They have been the subject of proposed federal fishing laws that are backed by conservation groups because the whales are threatened by lethal entanglement in commercial fishing gear. The federal government is in the midst of a pause on federal right whale rules until 2028. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and a coalition of fishing organizations said in letters to congressional officials that they want to extend that moratorium out to 2035. Golden, who played a role in the initial moratorium, said extending the pause would give the government the time it needs to craft regulations that reflect science. He also said it would protect Maine's lifesblood lobster fishing industry, which is one of the fishing sectors that would have to comply with rules intended to protect right whales. 'Maine's lobster fishery has most recently been valued at more than half a billion dollars — and that's just the value of the catch. It also supports tens of thousands of jobs. It is an iconic part of our state's economy, heritage and appeal to visitors,' Golden said in a July 22 letter to a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee. The extension of the moratorium was originally proposed by Alaska Republican Nick Begich. It's one of several changes to the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act proposed by Begich, who like Golden represents a state with a large commercial fishing industry. The changes have drawn condemnation from environmental organizations and praise from commercial fishing groups. A group of fishing organizations including the Maine Lobstermen's Association said in a July 21 letter to the subcommittee that 'heavy regulation comes at a heavy cost.' Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. The whales were once numerous off the East Coast, but they were decimated during the era of commercial whaling and have been slow to recover. They are also threatened by collisions with large ships. The population of the whales fell about 25% from 2010 to 2020.
