The White House hawks who pushed Trump to take on Putin
Speaking in the Oval Office, the US president pledged to send billions of dollars of military equipment to Kyiv and threatened to impose 100 per cent tariffs on Russian trading partners if Vladimir Putin does not sign a peace deal to end the war in 50 days.
The volte face — announced in the same room where Mr Trump berated Mr Zelensky for being ungrateful just five months ago — has been chalked up to the president's increasing frustration with the warmongering tactics of Putin.
Yet behind the scenes, Republican hawks have been working for months to steer Mr Trump towards taking a tougher stance against Moscow, three congressional sources told The Telegraph.
Central to this effort was Gen Keith Kellogg, Mr Trump's envoy to Ukraine and Russia, who appeared to have been frozen out of negotiations in favour of Steve Witkoff, a real estate billionaire with no prior diplomatic experience.
Despite continuing to serve as a go-between with Ukraine, Gen Kellogg was sidelined from direct talks between US officials and Moscow in February.
Meanwhile, Mr Witkoff went on to meet face-to-face with Putin on four separate occasions, despite being unable to remember the names of the Ukrainian territories he was negotiating over in an interview with Tucker Carlson.
The tide began to shift in recent weeks, with much public attention around support for Ukraine focused on Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk who travelled to Kyiv in May and brought forward a sanctions bill described as a 'sledgehammer' against Putin.
But with negotiations floundering and as Putin ramps up his war machine, unleashing some of the most devastating strikes on Ukrainian cities since Russia's full-scale invasion, the subtle work of Gen Kellogg is said to have guided Mr Trump towards taking a harder line on Moscow.
Gen Kellogg has 'been in the ascendancy lately', a congressional aide told The Telegraph. 'He and [Marco] Rubio are driving the new approach.'
A diplomatic source added that Gen Kellogg has 'taken on a bigger role in the past few weeks' while Mr Witkoff has been bogged down in nuclear talks with Iran.
Under the terms of Monday's deal, Mr Trump pledged to send Ukraine $10 billion in US missiles, paid for by other Nato countries, including badly needed Patriot defence systems to help repel large-scale Russian air attacks.
Multiple reports suggested Mr Trump was considering sending long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, however the US president on Tuesday ruled out giving Kyiv deep strike munitions.
'No, we're not looking to do that,' he told reporters in response to a question about sending weapons that could hit targets deep inside Russia.
In what is the first Ukraine weapons shipment agreed since Mr Trump returned to office, he had considered sending long-range Tomahawk missiles, according to multiple reports.
The weapons package, the first shipment agreed since Mr Trump returned to office, sparked fury among Maga isolationists such as Marjorie Taylor Greene.
One of the president's most fervent supporters, she accused Mr Trump of going against his America First campaign pledge to avoid foreign entanglements.
'Maga did not vote for more weapons to Ukraine,' she wrote on X. 'Maga voted for no more US involvement in foreign wars.'
It was the most recent example of outspoken Maga Republicans denouncing US foreign intervention, last seen in June in the lead up to the US military's stealth bombing raid on Iran's three nuclear sites.
Trump is a 'realist'
Yet despite prominent figures within Mr Trump's coalition warning against overseas military action, congressional Republicans warned that it is not always those who shout loudest whose opinions carry weight with Mr Trump.
'With this president, you are not going to win your policy debate in the media. The idea of loud people leading him is wrong,' a congressional source told The Telegraph.
They added that Mr Trump is a 'realist and a pragmatist', which functions as an 'ideological difference' from those on the isolationist wing of his party.
Another insider added: 'Trump can be hawkish when he needs to be and dovish when he needs to be. With him, it's a question of who pays.'
A senior White House source credited Mr Trump's negotiating prowess for the shift in tack, saying: 'It's pressure points, and he knows how to push them to get the best deal possible, and that is an end to the war.'
The other prime mover behind Mr Trump's decision to drop the velvet glove is said to be Mr Rubio, his secretary of state and former Republican leadership hopeful, whom the president dubbed 'Little Marco'.
A long-term foreign policy hawk who once called Putin 'a gangster', 'a thug' and 'a war criminal', Mr Rubio has struck a notably more conciliatory tone towards Moscow since taking up his position.
He was ridiculed when an image of him looking ashen-faced and appearing to sink into a sofa went viral following Mr Trump's Oval Office meeting with Mr Zelensky.
Yet in doing so, he has grown into one of the most influential advisers of Mr Trump's second term, amassing a portfolio of four jobs, including national security adviser.
According to one congressional source, Mr Rubio's close relationship with the president allowed him to intervene when Putin stepped up his attacks in recent weeks, unleashing up to 1,000 missile and drone strikes a day.
'Many of us believed that the Russians will [always mess up],' a congressional aide said. '[Our tactic was to] get out of the way and let the Russians remind us why this is happening. They always go too far.'
Despite Mr Trump telling reporters that the weapons deal does not mean he's on Ukraine's side, sources hailed Monday's announcement as 'substantial'. But they are all too aware that a lot can still change as the ceasefire deadline draws closer.
'This will continue to be an issue, [and] we need to continue to put pressure on,' one insider said.
Another congressional source added: 'We've been watching these two dynamics play out in the White House and we're hoping that the more hawkish side has won over the president.'
As the war in Ukraine rages, so too does the battle for the heart of the Republican Party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's $250 billion-per-year spending on US energy is unrealistic
BRUSSELS/HOUSTON, July 28 (Reuters) - The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe and the EU has little control over the energy its companies import. The U.S. and EU struck a framework trade deal on Sunday, which will impose 15% U.S. tariffs on most EU goods. The deal included a pledge for the EU to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. energy - imports of oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear technology - for the next three years. Total U.S. energy exports to all buyers worldwide in 2024 amounted to $318 billion, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. Of that, the EU imported a combined $76 billion of U.S. petroleum, LNG and solid fuels such as coal in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on Eurostat data. More than tripling those imports was unrealistic, analysts said. Arturo Regalado, senior LNG analyst at Kpler, said the scope of the energy trade envisioned in the deal "exceeds market realities." "U.S. oil flows would need to fully redirect towards the EU to reach the target, or the value of LNG imports from the US would need to increase sixfold," Regalado said. There is strong competition for U.S. energy exports as other countries need the supplies - and have themselves pledged to buy more in trade deals. Japan agreed to a "major expansion of U.S. energy exports" in its U.S. trade deal last week, the White House said in a statement. South Korea has also indicated interest in investing and purchasing fuel from an Alaskan LNG project as it seeks a trade deal. Competition for U.S. energy could drive up benchmark U.S. oil and gas prices and encourage U.S. producers to favour exports over domestic supply. That could make fuel and power costs more expensive, which would be a political and economic headache for U.S. and EU leaders. Neither side has detailed what was included in the energy deal - or whether it covered items such as energy services or parts for power grids and plants. The EU estimates its member countries' plans to expand nuclear energy would require hundreds of billions of euros in investments by 2050. Its nuclear reactor-related imports, however, totalled just 53.3 billion euros in 2024, trade data shows. The energy pledge reflected the EU's analysis of how much U.S. energy supply it could accommodate, a senior EU official said, but that would depend on investments in U.S. oil and LNG infrastructure, European import infrastructure, and shipping capacity. "These figures, again, are not taken out of thin air. So yes, they require investments," said the senior official, who declined to be named. "Yes, it will vary according to the energy sources. But these are figures which are reachable." There was no public commitment to the delivery, the official added, because the EU would not buy the energy - its companies would. Private companies import most of Europe's oil, while a mix of private and state-run companies import gas. The European Commission can aggregate demand for LNG to negotiate better terms, but cannot force companies to buy fuel. That is a commercial decision. "It's just unrealistic," ICIS analysts Andreas Schröder and Ajay Parmar said in written comments to Reuters. "Either Europe pays a super high non-market reflective price for U.S. LNG or it takes way too much LNG volumes, more than it can cope with." The United States is already the EU's top supplier of LNG and oil, shipping 44% of EU LNG needs and 15.4% of its oil in 2024, according to EU data. Raising imports to the target would require a U.S. LNG expansion way beyond what is planned through 2030, said Jacob Mandel, research lead at Aurora Energy Research. "You can add on capacity," Mandel said. "But if you're talking about the scale that would be necessary to meet these targets, the $250 billion, then it's not really feasible." Europe could buy $50 billion more of U.S. LNG annually as supply increases, he said. The EU has said it could import more U.S. energy as its plan advances to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028. The EU imported around 94 million barrels of Russian oil last year - 3% of the bloc's crude purchases - and 52 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian LNG and gas, according to EU data. For comparison, the EU imported 45 bcm of U.S. LNG last year. Higher EU fuel purchases would, however, run counter to forecasts for EU demand to decline as it shifts to clean energy, analysts said. "There is no major need for the EU to import more oil from the U.S., in fact, its oil demand peaked a number of years ago," Schröder and Parmar said. ($1 = 0.8571 euro)
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump warns against second independence vote for 75 years
Donald Trump has signalled that there should not be another Scottish independence referendum until at least 2064 because countries 'can't go through that too much'. The US President said he thought there had been an agreement not to hold a rerun of the 2014 separation vote for at least another 50 years. His comments came during the third full day of his visit to Scotland as he met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at his Turnberry golf course, and just hours after John Swinney claimed that an SNP majority in next year's Holyrood election would be a mandate for another independence referendum. During a lengthy press conference with the Prime Minister, Mr Trump also said he wants Scotland to thrive as he vowed to consider removing punishing tariffs on Scotch whisky and made the case for more North Sea drilling. He also directly pressed Sir Keir Starmer to take advantage of the North Sea's oil reserves. When asked about the SNP's plan to demand another independence referendum if it wins a majority at next year's Holyrood elections, Mr Trump said he had predicted the No vote the day before the 2014 referendum when he was visiting his first golf course at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire. He added: 'I do say that when they made that deal (to hold a referendum) somebody said that it was - and I remember this very distinctly, I said 'could they do this all the time?'. 'There was a little bit of a restriction, like 50 or 75 years before you could take another vote because, you know, a country can't go through that too much.' SNP figures including Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon had said at the time the vote was a 'once in a generation opportunity'. Mr Trump made the comments ahead of Mr Swinney attending a dinner with him in Aberdeenshire last night and the opening of his second course at Menie today (TUE). Sir Keir said: 'I believe in a stronger Scotland in a better United Kingdom and I think that at a time like this when it is quite clear there is uncertainty and volatility around the world, the strength of the United Kingdom together is very important for all four nations, very important for Scotland. 'That should be our priority, that should be our focus - not on the politics which feels like the politics of yesteryear now at a time like this. 'I think that the First Minister should probably focus more on his delivery in Scotland than on his constitutional issues, and we might have a better health service in Scotland. 'At a time like this, I think the United Kingdom is always stronger as four nations, I think that is better for all four nations.' It comes as Mr Swinney was condemned for an 'absurd' assertion that a generation has passed since Scots rejected independence. In a desperate attempt to relaunch the SNP's failing bid to break up the UK, he has claimed a majority for the party in next year's Holyrood elections would be a mandate for another referendum. He was accused of trying to silence SNP critics and was mocked for the claim that a generation has passed less than 11 years since Scots voted decisively to stay in the UK. Then First Minister Alex Salmond and his successor Nicola Sturgeon previously described the 2014 referendum as a 'once in a generation opportunity'. After unveiling the latest bid to secure independence, Mr Swinney yesterday said: 'There is fundamentally a democratic issue here that people in Scotland in a voluntary union must be able to choose their own democratic future, and that was accepted after the SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, on our own, in 2011. 'I am making the point that, having established that precedent, we must be in a position to be able to give the people of Scotland the choice about their constitutional future. 'There is now, by the time we get to 2030, going to be a million people who were not eligible to vote in the last referendum in 2014. 'A generation has now passed and I want to make sure that people in Scotland who want our country to have a choice about independence are able to do so in a democratic and legitimate fashion that can enable the establishment of an independent country as a consequence of a Yes vote. 'And the way to do that is the way we did it in 2011, which is to elect a majority of SNP MSPs to the Scottish Parliament.' In the 2014 vote, 55 per cent of Scots voted No and 45 per cent Yes. Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'It's patently absurd - and John Swinney knows it - to claim that 11 years constitutes 'a generation'. 'John Swinney is like a broken record. In a bid to silence internal critics of his weak leadership, he has thrown diehard nationalists some more red meat on the one issue they all agree on: independence. 'Ordinary Scots are sick and tired of the SNP's obsession with breaking up the UK. The public want John Swinney to focus on fixing the damage his government has done in decimating essential services such as schools and the NHS at the same time as making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.' Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'This SNP government has lost its way and ran out of ideas - while one in six Scots suffer on an NHS waiting list.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chaos over Alina Habba's status at the NJ attorney's office even has defendants confused
A man in New Jersey has claimed that his upcoming criminal trial would be unconstitutional, while Alina Habba is head of the U.S. Attorney's Office, saying she is 'unlawfully' in that role. An attorney for Julien Giraud Jr., who is facing trial August 4 for drug and firearm-related charges, says the case cannot move forward with Habba in charge because his client has the right to be prosecuted 'only by a duly authorized United States Attorney'. The motion is the first of its kind to challenge Habba's swift re-appointment to U.S. Attorney after her nomination fell apart. On Thursday evening, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi intervened after New Jersey's district court judges attempted to remove Habba from her temporary post in the state earlier in the week. 'Giraud Jr. has a constitutional right to be prosecuted only by a duly authorized United States Attorney. The illegitimacy of Ms. Habba's appointment undermines Giraud Jr.'s fundamental due process rights,' attorney Thomas Mirigliano, wrote in the legal memorandum filed Sunday. Mirigliano is asking the court to either withdraw the indictment against his client or prevent Habba, or any assistant U.S. attorney under her authority, from prosecuting the case. 'I got the idea over the weekend because my trial was imminent and I thought it was an important issue that needed to be litigated,' Mirigliano told POLITICO. Giraud Jr. is facing two charges, possession and intent to distribute cocaine and fentanyl as well as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He has pleaded not guilty to both Habba, who served as President Donald Trump 's personal lawyer, was named Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in March, a position that she could only hold for 120 days without Senate confirmation. As her expiration date approached, and with no Senate confirmation hearing in sight, the state's judges took matters into their own hands on July 22 and selected First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Desiree Grace, to replace Habba. But the administration swooped in and carried out a legal maneuver that will ultimately allow Habba to remain. Bondi fired Grace while Trump rescinded Habba's nomination and instead named her Acting U.S. Attorney. Under that statute, Habba can remain in charge of the New Jersey attorney's office for at least 210 days. The Independent has asked the White House for comment. Giraud Jr's motion, initially filed with the federal judge overseeing his case in New Jersey, is being handled by a federal judge in Pennsylvania. Habba represented Trump at his New York fraud trial and New York defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll. Trump lost both cases.
