‘He didn't fool me' - how Trump changed his tone on Putin and the war in Ukraine
Many of Trump's comments about Putin have reflected his anger about the US investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election that dominated his first term.
'Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' he said in February, seated next to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine in the Oval Office.
But in recent weeks, Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with his Russian counterpart over the lack of progress on a ceasefire in Ukraine, as the New York Times has reported.
'I am disappointed in President Putin,' Trump said today NZT, announcing his plans to impose 'very severe' tariffs that would hurt Russia if it does not agree to a ceasefire deal in the next 50 days. 'The talk doesn't mean anything.'
'My conversations with him are always very pleasant,' Trump said of Putin. 'And then the missiles go off that night.'
The changes in Trump's public remarks illuminate the challenges he has faced in fulfilling one of his main campaign pledges: that he would swiftly end the conflict.
Trump now acknowledges the war in Ukraine has been 'difficult' to end.
While he was running for president, Trump said he could settle the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, ending the largest land war in Europe since 1945 before his first day in office.
The promise was implausible, but he kept doubling down.
After he took office, Trump said he had been speaking 'figuratively'. By May, Trump was telling Zelenskyy and other European leaders that Russia and Ukraine would have to find a solution to the war themselves.
The war is still raging, and Trump's early message has changed dramatically.
'It's more difficult than people would have any idea,' Trump said at the Nato summit last month. 'Vladimir Putin has been more difficult. Frankly, I had some problems with Zelenskyy.'
While Trump previously expressed scepticism about devoting American resources to the conflict, he told reporters last week that it was necessary to bolster Ukraine's defences. He resumed the delivery of US weapons to the country that had been temporarily paused.
'They have to be able to defend themselves,' he said. 'They're getting hit very hard. Now they're getting hit very hard. We're going to have to send more weapons, defensive weapons, primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess.'
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said that Trump had always been consistent on foreign policy and blamed former President Joe Biden for the prolonged war in Ukraine.
Trump 'will always put America first, and he wants peace in Ukraine and around the world,' Kelly said in a statement. After a review 'to ensure all foreign military aid aligns with American interests, the President decided to send Ukraine defensive munitions to help stop the killing in this brutal war.'
Since the resumption of US military aid, Putin has escalated his attack, again striking cities and towns across central and western Ukraine.
According to people close to the Kremlin, Putin is now convinced that his military could overpower Ukraine's in the months to come, aiming for a strategic victory in the war that has lasted 40 months and led to hundreds of thousands of casualties within his military.
Trump is now sharply expressing his displeasure with Putin.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly expressed optimism that he could work with the Russian leader.
'It's a smart thing' to talk to Putin, Trump said in October when asked whether he talked to Putin after his first term. 'If I'm friendly with people, if I can have a relationship with people, that's a good thing.'
After his re-election, Trump seemed to side with Russia in the conflict.
He scolded Zelenskyy for being an ingrate and asking for more military support.
He sent his envoys to Saudi Arabia to negotiate a peace deal in Ukraine with Putin's surrogates — all without input or consent from Zelenskyy, a US ally.
In March, Trump said he was confident Putin wanted to find a path to peace, even though the Russian leader was continuing to bomb Ukraine. 'I believe him,' Trump said. 'I think we're doing very well with Russia.'
But his tone has shifted in recent weeks.
After a July 3 call with Putin, Trump complained to reporters that their conversation did not lead to 'progress'.
The next day, Russia assaulted Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with the largest number of drones and missiles launched since the beginning of the war.
'I'm not happy with President Putin at all,' Trump said on July 7.
Last week, after reversing the pause on US military aid, Trump further expressed his frustration over Putin's recalcitrance.
'We get a lot of bulls*** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting.
Today, he again suggested the Russian President has been duplicitous: 'He has fooled a lot of people. He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden.'
But Trump said that he would be an exception to what he sees as the list of American presidents whom the Russian leader outmanoeuvred.
'He didn't fool me,' Trump said.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Minho Kim
Photographs by: Erin Schaff
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Winston Peters: ‘Careless' immigration ‘transforming cities', Nigel Farage's Reform ‘compelling'
Peters, who is the Foreign Affairs Minister, spoke about what he described as an 'alarming development' overseas. 'People are concerned as to where their countries are going, and New Zealanders are no different. They are more acutely aware of the problem we're dealing with here than the politicians are. 'They have seen the international circumstances of careless immigration policies transforming cities, changing cities, changing centuries of development and social life, and people feel at risk because of it.' He pointed to several European countries, including England, where he said there were concerns about 'people who have come there who don't salute the flag, don't salute the values of the country, don't salute the people who were there before them, don't respect the right to have your own religion'. 'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here.' He believed New Zealand was experiencing similar issues. 'Some of these people are out there celebrating diversity, flying all sorts of flags. We have one flag in this country and it's been there since 1904 ... That's what they should be saluting. People have died for it.' NZ First leader Winston Peters speaks to the Herald about his party's view on immigration. Photo / Mark Mitchell His comments come against the backdrop of the rising popularity of Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. It has soared past Labour and the Conservatives in recent polls, though a general election could be several years away. Peters has told the Herald he is 'friends' with Farage and that they communicate. He was 'entertained' by the Reform leader last time he was in the UK. 'I think that there are things to do with that party and New Zealand First which are so similar. That is why we've got confidence going into the future.' Those similarities were 'true grit, determination and principles'. Asked whether he looked at Reform and its targeting of immigration, Peters responded: 'Yes, I do. It's very compelling, but that they had to come to that is a serious worry'. Farage, best known for his Brexit advocacy, takes a hardline approach to immigration policy. Last year, he said British culture was 'under threat' and 'in decline', and proposed a freeze on non-essential migration. He warned of riots last year if migrants did not 'integrate' into their communities. While Farage has faced allegations of emboldening racism – he denies this and says Reform is 'non-racist' - his party appears to be influencing the public debate in the UK about immigration. An Ipsos poll in May found Reform had the highest level of trust on immigration policies, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party has taken a stronger line on border issues. In a May speech, Starmer said the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'. He later expressed regret after criticism that his comment echoed British politician Enoch Powell, who said in 1968 that the UK's white population could find themselves 'strangers in their own country'. Massey University distinguished professor Paul Spoonley previously told the Herald that he didn't believe there was a similar anti-immigration sentiment here. 'Australia, Canada and New Zealand target skilled migrants, and we use our point[s] system to identify who's going to be appropriate. We have a very managed immigration system. Most of Europe does not.' Winston Peters met Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom last year. Photo / Facebook/Winston Peters 'Still our plan', 32 years on The interview with Peters was held as NZ First celebrates its 32nd birthday. When it was formed, the party laid out 15 principles, including acknowledging that, while New Zealand would need 'overseas skills and expertise', it did not want immigration to be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. That remained 'as much a principle now as it was back then', Peters said. 'We, like wise countries, have always believed we should be training and employing our own people first and not use immigration as an excuse not to do that. That is still our plan.' He expressed concern about the current number of migrants to New Zealand. In the year to May 2025, there was a net migration gain of 15,000, driven by 140,000 arrivals offset by 125,000 departures. The number of arrivals is down from a peak of roughly 235,000 in late 2023, but still above the long-term average of 119,000. However, due to the large number of departures, the net gain is below the average of nearly 28,000. Peters' concern about the immigration figures is in part prompted by his desire for New Zealanders to be employed, but he also remembers a time when arriving migrants were supported by appropriate infrastructure. 'There was a time when we were getting people from around the world putting down £10 to get here. They were coming to a job and a house and infrastructure, schooling, everything. Teachers and doctors and all sorts of people were coming here.' New Zealand's infrastructure deficit and pressures in the health system are well-reported, and Peters said work was under way on a population policy that he hoped would be revealed this term. 'If you're going to bring in people that you essentially need, we've got to make sure we've got the infrastructure for them,' he said. Net migration gain is below the long-term average, but about 140,000 people still arrived here in the year to May. Photo / Alex Burton In 2003, while speaking from the opposition benches in Parliament, Peters complained that 'a hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work, yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants'. With Peters now in power, the Herald put it to him that, at the end of June, 216,000 people were receiving Jobseeker support while thousands of migrants were arriving. He responded that, if his party's message had been given more prominence, it would have 'far more members and we'd be in control of the circumstances now'. 'Unfortunately, you didn't, and we're working for the next campaign to ensure that this time our voices are heard on the way through. 'We are still saying that the drivers to take people from secondary school into employment aren't strong enough. 'Too many people are able to access social welfare without making every effort to get employment, to get jobs. How come we've got so many people who are so-called job-ready but not in jobs?' Part of NZ First's coalition agreement with National included strengthening obligations for beneficiaries and sanctions if those were not fulfilled. Coalition engagement While NZ First may have strong views on immigration, it's National MP Erica Stanford who is the Immigration Minister. 'She's inherited the most difficult portfolio, and it's very hard to try to meet the demands of employers who need essential workers when we've had such a haphazard system,' Peters said. The Government announced last month that it would establish a Parent Boost Visa in September. Based on a National Party election policy, it will allow the parents of migrants to visit New Zealand for up to 10 years as long as they fulfil certain criteria, including having health insurance. As the Herald has reported, the visa has no cap, but Stanford doesn't expect it will lead to an 'explosion' in migration. However, Cabinet documents warned there was 'significant uncertainty' about how many people might take up the visa and that there would be impacts on the health system. Asked for NZ First's view on the policy, Peters stressed that conditions attached to the visa required migrants to pay their medical costs. 'There'd be no cost on the New Zealand taxpayer. Why should the New Zealand taxpayer be paying for someone to come here as a worker, but also now they've got somebody else who is coming here to access our social welfare for free? 'The condition was they would not be required, would not access our social welfare system. That's still our position.' Officials' advice, however, highlighted that, even if the parents had insurance, they could take up spots in GP clinics and emergency rooms. Peters said it was the Government's responsibility to fix 'our GP problem'. He also suggested that, while the visa had no cap, there was a limit on how many people would meet the criteria. Ministers were warned of an impact on the health system from Parent Boost. Photo / File In 2023, NZ First campaigned on having a cap of 1000 on the Parent Resident Visa. It's currently 2500. Asked if he was happy with that cap, Peters responded: 'There are a number of things we're not happy with, but we're working on them every day and every week with the ministers who are concerned. 'We want the outcome and the finality of a policy to be accepted and hopefully across the political divide.' So why should people vote for NZ First over National or Act when it comes to immigration policy? 'There's only one nationalist party in this country, and you're looking at it. The rest are globalists. They don't deny that. 'We're a nationalist party, and I see the success of Croatia, modern Croatia. I see the success of modern Poland. These countries are focused on their people's national interests first and foremost because that's what democracy is answerable to: the people, not the world, but your own people.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Our public sector rot, and a wonderful response from the community to find a missing woman
Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth. Public sector rot Sadly for the sake of our grandchildren, the demise of our once world-class public service began with the introduction of the State Sector Act 1988. This act compromised the independence and integrity of our public service. Most permanent heads were placed on three-year contracts. Their focus changed to ensure renewal of their contracts. Thank you for nothing Messrs Douglas, Prebble, Palmer, Lange and co. Bruce Tubb, Devonport. NCEA Following on from the report on NCEA (July 20), I must agree that it has been abused extensively and must be replaced by something meaningful, may I suggest School Certificate. NCEA credits have been issued for such menial tasks that demean the education system, so tinkering with it will be meaningless. But the part of the report I take most exception to is the comments by Labour leader Chris Hipkins. His comment that NCEA Level 1 is necessary for apprenticeships is totally derogatory of the trades. His comments are taking things back to the time Helen Clark was in charge stating everybody needed a degree to get a job, and funded bums on seats at universities while the trades never got apprentices, leading to our shortage of tradesmen. Trades are not secondary to academia but are equal and need the same level of education to excel at. Trevor Green, Matamata. Joseph Parker v Oleksandr Usyk Joseph Parker is absolutely dreaming if he thinks he can outbox the Ukrainian world champ. If the fight does go ahead it will be a set-up, with Joe given a few rounds before 'goodnight nurse'. Joe has shown he doesn't have the hitting power to put a good opponent away. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. Quiet choppers Wouldn't you have thought the helicopter owners could scramble a few billion dollars together to create a quiet helicopter? Technology is so advanced these days that it surely would not be impossible to add blades or vibrational techniques that cancel out the awfully disturbing noise a 'modern' helicopter transmits in residential areas. So, here's a challenge to the Mowbray couple if they want to stay popular in their community, perhaps. René Blezer, Taupō. Nato and the UN I cannot agree with Jock MacVicar (July 20). Nato is a defence pact; the hardware belongs to its member states. Without Nato I would have the Soviet red star on my lapel and so would have four million other Europeans. As for cost, Nato is cheap compared to a Russian invasion. Also, the UN is doing exactly what it was set up to do: serve as a platform where diplomats can lie, cheat, blockade and hurl insults at one another. K H Peter Kammler, Warkworth. Defence spending Your reader Bernard Walker (July 20) gets letter of the week for suggesting we don't need a credible defence force because of our isolation from the rest of the world. It seems reasonable until you look at the facts regarding defence spending. First, we would be considered bludgers by our current allies the US, Australia, the UK and the South Pacific nations. Second, being considered bludgers, we would certainly lose any credibility in trade negotiations and thereby lose huge amounts in exports to two of our largest customers. Third, if other world leaders were invited and came here to avoid a potential World War III, this is considered desertion, an offence punishable by a death sentence. Remember the previous world wars, where soldiers were shot dead for desertion by their commanders? Obviously, it is a proposal which was not to be taken seriously and should have never been published. Bruce Woodley, Birkenhead. Sunday television Sunday night TV1 viewing is these days a heartwarming, New Zealand-centric experience. With the long-running Country Calendar leading at 7pm, this television icon is followed half an hour later by Moving Houses hosted by the likeable Andy Ellis. It is delightful to have primetime viewing that showcases our own heartland places and people. Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay.
Otago Daily Times
18 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
White House seeks fines from other universities after Columbia deal
Harvard University. File photo: Getty Images The White House is seeking fines from several universities it says failed to stop antisemitism on campus, including Harvard University, in exchange for restoring federal funding, a Trump administration official said on Friday. The administration is in talks with several universities, including Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown, the source said, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is close to striking deals with Northwestern and Brown and potentially Cornell. A deal with Harvard, the country's oldest and richest university, is a key target for the White House, the official added. A spokesperson for Cornell declined to comment. Other universities did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump and his team have undertaken a broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which the Republican president says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The Trump administration has welcomed the Columbia deal, with officials believing the university set the standard on how to reach an agreement, the official said. Harvard has taken a different approach, suing the federal government in a bid to get suspended federal grants restored.
