Russia sanctions would cost US ‘billions'
US President Donald Trump has said he is not ready to introduce tougher sanctions against Russia despite pressure from allies, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. Trump expressed concern that additional punitive economic measures would cost his country 'a lot of money.'
The American leader has repeatedly said he is weighing new sanctions on Moscow, but has so far stopped short of adopting any. Speaking with reporters at the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada, he said he first wants to see 'whether or not a deal is signed.'
'When I sanction a country that costs the US a lot of money, a tremendous amount of money,' Trump said. 'It's not just, let's sign a document – you're talking about billions and billions of dollars. Sanctions are not that easy. It's not just a one-way street.'
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has advocated massively increasing sanctions in a bill he introduced earlier this year. It includes, among other measures, 500% tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil and gas, should Moscow refuse to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. Graham, who later suggested exceptions for countries that provide military aid to Kiev, described the proposed measures as 'bone-breaking' for Russia.
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the proposed sanctions could undermine diplomatic efforts, and urged lawmakers to give the Trump administration greater flexibility to negotiate with Moscow and Kiev.
Trump told journalists earlier this month that the Senate had prepared 'a very strong bill,' and that Washington would 'use it if it's necessary.' However, the president reportedly asked Senate Republicans to delay putting it to a vote. Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Trump had indicated he was not yet ready to support it.
During their latest round of direct negotiations in Istanbul, Russia and Ukraine both put forward proposals to end the conflict. Moscow's plan would require Kiev to accept the loss of five regions which joined Russia in referendums, pull back its troops from those territories, and adhere to neutrality.
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky dismissed that plan as an ultimatum and ruled out territorial concessions or neutrality. He also insisted on a full 30-day ceasefire as a precursor to negotiations – a condition which the Kremlin has rejected.
Then President Joe Biden cut most contacts with Moscow in 2022 over the Ukraine conflict and imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian officials and companies. Trump has since criticized Biden for eschewing diplomacy and vowed to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow has welcomed Trump's initiative, but progress on reaching a settlement has been slow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here's how the West made Israel-Iran war possible
Israel's attack on Iran, which began last Friday, is the culmination of nearly 25 years of relentless transformation across West Asia. This war was not born overnight, nor can it be explained by simplistic moral binaries. What we see now is the natural outcome of a series of miscalculations, misread ambitions, and power vacuums. There are no neat lessons to be learned from the last quarter-century. The events were too disjointed, the consequences too contradictory. But that doesn't mean they lacked logic. If anything, the unfolding chaos is the most coherent evidence of where Western interventionism, ideological naivety, and geopolitical arrogance have led. For much of the 20th century, the Middle East was kept within a fragile but functioning framework, largely defined by Cold War dynamics. Superpowers patronized local regimes, and the balance – while far from peaceful – was stable in its predictability. But the end of the Cold War, and with it the dissolution of the Soviet Union, dissolved those rules. For the next 25 years, the United States stood uncontested in the region. The ideological battle between 'socialism' and the 'free world' vanished, leaving a vacuum that new forces quickly sought to fill. Washington tried to impose the values of Western liberal democracy as universal truths. Simultaneously, two other trends emerged: political Islam, which ranged from reformist to radical, and the reassertion of authoritarian secular regimes as bulwarks against collapse. Paradoxically, Islamism – though ideologically opposed to the West – aligned more closely with liberalism in its resistance to autocracy. Meanwhile, those same autocracies were often embraced as the lesser evil against extremism. Everything changed after September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks did not just provoke a military response; they triggered an ideological crusade. Washington launched its so-called War on Terror, beginning with Afghanistan, and quickly expanded it into Iraq. Here, the neoconservative fantasy took hold: that democracy could be exported by force. The result was catastrophic. The Iraq invasion destroyed a central pillar of regional balance. In the rubble, sectarianism flourished and religious extremism metastasized. Islamic State emerged from this chaos. As Iraq was dismantled, Iran rose. No longer encircled, Tehran extended its reach – to Baghdad, to Damascus, to Beirut. Turkey, too, revived its imperial reflexes under Erdogan. The Gulf states, meanwhile, began throwing their wealth and weight around with greater confidence. The US, the architect of this disorder, found itself mired in endless, unwinnable wars. This unraveling continued with the US-imposed Palestinian elections, which split the Palestinian territories and empowered Hamas. Then came the Arab Spring, lauded in Western capitals as a democratic awakening. In truth, it hastened the collapse of already brittle states. Libya was shattered. Syria descended into a proxy war. Yemen became a humanitarian catastrophe. South Sudan, birthed under external pressure, quickly fell into dysfunction. All of it marked the end of regional balance. The end of authoritarianism in the Middle East didn't usher in liberal democracy. It gave way to political Islam, which for a time became the only structured form of political participation. This in turn triggered attempts to restore the old regimes, now seen by many as the lesser evil. Egypt and Tunisia reimposed secular order. Libya and Iraq, by contrast, have remained stateless zones. Syria's trajectory is instructive: the country moved from dictatorship to Islamist chaos and now toward a patchwork autocracy held together by foreign patrons. Russia's 2015 intervention stabilized the situation temporarily, but Syria is now drifting toward becoming a non-state entity, its sovereignty unclear, its borders uncertain. Amid this collapse, it is no coincidence that the key powers in today's Middle East are non-Arab: Iran, Turkey, and Israel. Arab states, while vocal, have opted for caution. In contrast, these three countries each represent distinct political models – an Islamic theocracy with pluralist features (Iran), a militarized democracy (Turkey), and a Western-style democracy increasingly shaped by religious nationalism (Israel). Despite their differences, these states share one trait: their domestic politics are inseparable from their foreign policy. Iran's expansionism is tied to the economic and ideological reach of the Revolutionary Guard. Erdogan's foreign escapades feed his domestic narrative of Turkish resurgence. Israel's doctrine of security has shifted from defense to active transformation of the region. This brings us to the present. The liberal order that peaked at the turn of the century sought to reform the Middle East through market economics, elections, and civil society. It failed. Not only did it dismantle the old without building the new, but the very forces meant to spread democracy often empowered sectarianism and violence. Now the appetite for transformation has dried up in the West, and with it the liberal order itself. In its place we see a convergence of systems once thought irreconcilable. Israel, for instance, no longer stands as a liberal outpost surrounded by authoritarian relics. Its political system has grown increasingly illiberal, its governance militarized, and its nationalism more overt. The Netanyahu government is the clearest expression of this change. One may argue that war justifies such measures – especially following the October 2023 Hamas attacks. But these shifts began earlier. The war simply accelerated trends already in motion. As liberalism recedes, a new kind of utopia takes its place – not democratic and inclusive, but transactional and enforced. Trump, the Israeli right, and their Gulf allies envision a Middle East pacified through military dominance, economic deals, and strategic normalization. The Abraham Accords, framed as peace, are part of this vision. But peace built on force is no peace at all. We are witnessing the result. The Iran-Israel war is not a bolt from the blue. It is the direct consequence of two decades of dismantled norms, unchecked ambitions, and a deep misunderstanding of the region's political fabric. And as always in the Middle East, when utopias fail, it is the people who pay the price.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump eyeing intervention in conflict against Iran
President Donald Trump is seriously considering getting the US directly involved in Israel's conflict with Iran as he meets with his national security team on Tuesday, multiple media outlets have reported. The president has lauded the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities but has so far held off on joining offensive operations, opting instead to use US military assets to help West Jerusalem shoot down Iranian missiles and drones. Ahead of a national security meeting in the White House Situation Room to discuss the escalating Middle East conflict, Trump was considering entering the US into the fray, Axios and CBS news wrote on Tuesday. 'Trump was seriously considering joining the war and launching a US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow,' Axios wrote, citing three anonymous officials. West Jerusalem believes the US will 'enter the war in the coming days,' the outlet said, citing Israeli officials. The decision will be discussed at Tuesday's meeting, but there is no full agreement among Trump's closes advisers, CBS News wrote, citing fire sources familiar with the matter. Fordow, a heavily fortified uranium enrichment plant built deep inside a mountain, has been hit with Israeli airstrikes, but there is no indication that it's underground section sustained significant damage, according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi. The Jewish state lacks the bunker-buster bombs needed to fully destroy the entrenched facility, but US forces deployed in the region do, Axios wrote on Sunday. According to National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, the Israeli campaign against Iran 'will not end without damaging the Fordow nuclear facility.' While it is unclear 'if the US will join,' Israel is in constant communication with Washington on the matter, he said in an interview on Tuesday. A few hours prior to Tuesday's security meeting, Trump delivered a chain of militant posts on Truth Social, claiming that the US now had unobstructed primacy in Iranian airspace, boasting that he could assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and demanding that Tehran capitulate.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Two civilians dead in Ukrainian strikes on Russian border region
Two elderly people have been killed in Ukrainian shelling of the village of Zvannoe in Kursk Region, western Russia, Governor Aleksandr Khinshtein said on Tuesday. The victims were identified as a woman, 59, and a man, 69, Khinshtein said on Telegram, expressing condolences to their families. At least four homes and a local school were damaged in the attack, he added. The governor denounced the strike as 'barbarian' and branded the Ukrainian military behind it 'cruel and merciless.' He also urged the region's residents to avoid travelling to areas bordering Ukraine because of 'very high' security risks. Zvannoe is located less than 20 kilometers from Ukraine. Ukraine launched a large-scale incursion into the region last August, in what Kiev officials hyped as a blow to Russia. However, Russian forces quickly turned the tide, and by the time the Ukrainians were fully expelled in late April, the Defense Ministry in Moscow estimated that Kiev had sustained more than 76,000 casualties in the operation. Ukraine has regularly launched cross-border drone, artillery, and missile strikes targeting Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions, since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022. In recent weeks, Ukraine has significantly ramped up drone attacks targeting Russian territory, both border regions and more distant targets, including Moscow. Russia has accused Kiev of 'terrorist' attacks on the country's railway infrastructure, which have led to civilian fatalities. According to the Kremlin, the indiscriminate raids are intended to derail direct bilateral talks that resumed between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul in May. Earlier on Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported intercepting almost 150 Ukrainian drones overnight that targeted a dozen Russian regions. Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large, reported on the same day that nearly 70 civilians, including 14 children, were casualties of Kiev's FPV drone strikes over the past week.
