Has the Trump-Putin bromance finally run its course?
It may not have been Churchillian in oratorical flourish, and with Trump everything is capable of being reversed in hours, but possibly, just possibly, the rupture between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has happened. If so it is a transformatory moment, and a vindication for both Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he arrives in Rome for the annual Ukraine reconstruction conference and for those others, notably the British and the French governments, who have patiently helped the scales to fall from Trump's eyes about Putin's true intentions. At long last and after many false starts, the US president seems to have accepted he is unpersuadable on ending the war.
With Trump the parting of the ways is unlikely to be complete, or permanent. Above all Trump's disappointment in Putin may not translate into the kind of practical financial and support Ukraine and Europe has been seeking, but America First is no longer Russia First.
It has been a long process with many low points. In February it seemed as if the whole transatlantic alliance was on the brink of collapse, as Trump initiated direct talks with Putin, and ordered Ukraine to make concessions. On 19 February he echoed Kremlin talking points in a post to his Truth Social network that called Zelenskyy a 'dictator' and warned him time was running out for Ukraine: 'Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the US into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn't be won […] A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.'
A week later at the UN general assembly in New York, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's invasion of Ukraine and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity – voting the same way as Russia, North Korea and Belarus.
Veteran UK diplomats were then left shaken when the US drafted and voted for a security council resolution that called for an end to the conflict but contained no criticism of Russia. The UK and France both abstained after their attempts to amend the wording were vetoed.
Later that week came the televised blowup with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, followed by the hasty embrace of the Ukrainian leader in London by Keir Starmer and King Charles. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, cheered on the White House from Moscow. 'How Trump and Vance exercised restraint and didn't punch this scumbag is a miracle of restraint,' she posted on Telegram.
All the while, the US negotiator Steve Witkoff revealed a depth of ignorance about the history of Ukraine and a sympathy with Putin's claims the war had been provoked. Frequently he tipped over from trying to understand the Russian perspective into siding with it. In an interview with Tucker Carlson that truly alarmed European diplomats, Witkoff asked: 'Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose, exactly? They don't need to absorb Ukraine. That would be like occupying Gaza … But the Russians also have what they want. They've gotten – they've reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea, and they've gotten what they want. So why do they need more?'
Witkoff also delivered a portrait commissioned by Putin of a bloodied Trump, fist clenched, after last year's assassination attempt. Putin revealed he had prayed for Trump, and on 14 June he remembered the president's birthday with a phone call.
Yet by the end of March, Trump's frustrations with Putin started to show, as the Russian leader refused to commit to the 30-day ceasefire he had proposed and that Ukraine had quickly accepted. On 1 April the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, returned from eight hours playing golf with Trump to report for the first time that he was losing patience with Russia.
Still, even by the end of May it was clear that the process of Trump's patience wearing thin had an almost infinite quality. After fruitless diplomatic exchanges in Istanbul, continued evasions about a ceasefire and escalating strikes on Ukraine, Trump poured out his frustration on Truth Social warning that Putin was 'playing with fire' and declaring in the Oval Office on 28 May that he would know within a fortnight if 'Putin is tapping us along'.
This article includes content hosted on truthsocial.com. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as the provider may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'.
Mid-June came, and still no change in strategy.
A confluence of events may however have tipped Trump in recent weeks. The Nato summit on 25 June was gift-wrapped by Europe as a triumph for Trump on defence spending, making him better disposed to listen to Europe's security concerns. 'There is a line between flattery and self-abasement, and we happily crossed it,' said one European diplomat.
The Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, called Trump 'Daddy'.
With his ego massaged, Trump sounded like a man less willing to be distracted by Putin. 'I consider Putin a person that's been misguided. I'm very surprised actually. I thought we would have had that war settled,' he told the media at the summit, revealing that Putin had called and offered to intervene with Iran.
'I said: 'No, no, you help me get a settlement with you, with Russia,' and I think we are going to be doing that.'
But the next call between the two on 4 July did not go well either, and it seemed as if Putin had determined he could extract more by war than by keeping Trump sweet. The Kremlin was uncompromising: 'Our president said that Russia will achieve its goals, that is, the elimination of the well-known root causes that led to the current state of affairs,' said Yuri Ushakov, a close adviser to the Russian leader. 'Russia will not back down from these goals.'
The deadly nightly Russian assaults on Ukraine (the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said Russia had launched 20,000 drone strikes this year) could not be kept from US screens and, finally, Trump was not happy when it emerged last week that the Pentagon was withholding a shipment of arms earmarked for Ukraine and no one informed the White House. The defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, looked distinctly uncomfortable.
For Ukraine's supporters in Congress and in Europe, the issue now is the extent to which Trump's frustration with Russia transmits into practical support for Kyiv. The true test will come if the crushing sanctions tabled months ago by the Republican senator Lindsey Graham are finally given the presidential go-ahead. The measures would impose a 500% tariff on imports from any country that purchases Russian uranium, gas or oil, with India and China the worst affected.
Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US, has been working behind the scenes to refine Graham's blunderbuss so the proposed secondary sanctions do not catch European firms in their net.
Graham is now proposing a carve-out to his bill to spare countries who still import Russian gas, but have supported Ukraine in its three-year war with the Kremlin's military. The bill also gives Trump the right to waive for 180 days sanctions on countries purchasing Russian oil or uranium and, in its revised form, a second 180-day waiver is proposed.
'We're moving,' Graham said after Trump's diatribe against Putin, adding that Trump 'told me it's time to move so we're going to move'. For Ukrainians on the frontline, they can only hope a turning point has come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ghislaine Maxwell says she opposes release of grand jury material
NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein who was convicted in 2021 of helping him sexually abuse teenage girls, said on Tuesday she opposed the potential release of transcripts of proceedings before the grand jury that indicted her. President Donald Trump last month instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury material, as he sought to quell discontent from his base of conservative supporters and congressional Democrats over his administration's handling of documents from the cases. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted of sex trafficking. Epstein died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
What are the pros and cons of introducing digital identity cards?
The prime minister is said to be 'seriously considering' a national system of digital identification, both to make it easier to access online services, including government ones, and to clamp down on illegal working by irregular migrants. Given the push to introduce artificial intelligence in so many areas of our lives, it may be an idea whose time has come. But there are political, as well as practical, complications. What is digital ID? It would in essence be a virtual ID card, and using it in the existing, and enhanced, Government Gateway would make it easier for people to manage everything from tax records and social security entitlements to driving licences, education, citizenship and probate – a vast array of areas in which the individual has dealings with the state. It could also be used, as a passport or driving licence is now, to help with all sorts of other activities, such as banking or getting a job. There is a separate, and obviously sensitive, question about whether digital ID should also encompass someone's medical history, voluntarily or otherwise. Why digital ID now? According to the briefings, the aim is to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of the government machine, so that, for example, people don't have to spend hours on hold when contacting a government agency. Unavoidably, though, it is also a way to detect people who shouldn't be in the country or working in the UK. That, the theory goes, means less of a 'pull factor' for certain sorts of migrant. Would it work? In a sense it is working already, in that almost everyone must have a unique tax reference, a national insurance number, a driving licence number, an NHS number and so on, and can, if they wish, share this information with others. But at the moment the system is compartmentalised and clunky, even if more and more interactions are taking place online and with chatbots. What stage are we at? Reports emanating from a 'senior minister' say that the prime minister has ordered a 'comprehensive and expansive look' at the proposal: 'Keir is leading on it,' they said. 'This is a serious piece of work. After a year in government, it is clear that technology is underpinning everything. Digital ID is foundational. Things are moving forward.' Didn't we have identity cards before? They were introduced as plain cardboard documents during the Second World War as a national security measure. People had to use them to get rationed food and petrol, and had to be ready to produce them on demand, a serious infringement of the traditional British way of doing things. The request for 'Papers, please' has always been regarded as an alien phenomenon. In the words of Boris Johnson in 2004: 'If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am ... then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.' (He subsequently brought in compulsory photo ID for elections.) Even now, a driver stopped by the police is granted 14 days to produce their driving licence at a police station. The wartime measures were resented, and were abolished in 1952. Mandatory ID would be a minor revolution. What about the ID cards Tony Blair wanted? He still does, by the way. Much of the present momentum for change comes from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), as if the former PM has never given up the struggle. At any rate, the current prime minister's chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, commissioned the TBI to produce proposals, and is said to be 'forceful' in making the case for them to No 10. Certainly, a more primitive version of this project was very much 'on the cards 20 years ago' when the Blair administration tried to bring in ID cards, but it ran into enormous resistance and administrative problems. The motives, in essence, were no different from today. In 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, argued that cards with biometric data were needed so that 'people don't work if they are not entitled to work, they don't draw on services which are free in this country, including health, unless they are entitled to', and that 'when we find people we can identify quickly that they are not entitled and get them out'. When a limited, entirely voluntary ID card was introduced in 2010, some 15,000 were in circulation, but the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat government scrapped the entire scheme, after £5bn had been spent. A voluntary biometric residence permit is available as an option for foreign students or workers. Official photo ID cards for voting have also been introduced in recent years. What does the opposition say? Despite showing little interest in it while in government, earlier this year the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, conceded that digital ID could help tackle 'illegal' immigration. But Nigel Farage remains stubbornly libertarian, and opposes digital ID because he 'doesn't trust this government' and claims that it 'hurts law-abiding citizens'. Labour, and the Tories, could use his reluctance to argue that, given he is not prepared to use every possible measure in the fight against irregular migration, Farage wouldn't succeed in his own ambition to stop the boats. Will it happen? With 40 Labour backbenchers recently calling for change and the Conservatives warming to the idea, alongside the trend towards digitising everything, it feels pretty inevitable, like it or not. Will it work? To some extent, but there are ways to get around any system, and digital is no different from paper in that respect. It could make things worse for some. If a fraudster managed to 'steal' a vulnerable person's digital ID, for example, then it would be 'open sesame' on their entire life, and comprehensive identity theft might become more common. Leaks cannot be ruled out. There's also the grim possibility that a migrant who wanted to come to the UK to work, deprived of any ID, would just melt into the underground economy, and become even more exposed to crime and exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, some criminals or a malign foreign government could execute a mega-hack in which millions of people's data is stolen or frozen and held to ransom. Last, we must reflect on British governments' past lamentable record on grand digital integration schemes – and the fact that the current proposal, which would potentially bring together HMRC, the DWP, the DVLA, the Passport Office, criminal records, local authority records, and the NHS database, would be hugely more ambitious, and hazardous, than anything attempted before.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Has to sting': MTG turned on GOP after Trump snubbed her ambitions to be governor, expert says
Donald Trump 's apparent reluctance to publicly back Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene 's gubernatorial bid triggered her potential break with the GOP, according to an expert. Once one of the president's most loyal supporters, Greene ramped up her anti-Republican rhetoric over the weekend, claiming that she had become disillusioned with the party and questioned its treatment of female politicians. In an interview with the Daily Mail, the conservative firebrand blasted the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, criticized U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June and condemned Israel over its actions in Gaza. Gabby Birenbaum, The Texas Tribune 's Washington correspondent, pointed to one possible source of Greene's fury: her reported ambitions to run for Georgia governor and Trump's lack of public support. 'I think part of the subtext here, right, is she wanted to run for higher office in Georgia, and reportedly he discouraged her,' she told CNN Tuesday morning. 'I mean, I'm sure that has to sting if you're her.' In public, Greene has maintained that she 'has always been Trump's most outspoken ally,' and there is no 'break' between her and the president. Greene announced last Tuesday (July 29) that she will not run for governor next November, citing a desire to focus on her district and a growing frustration with what she called Georgia's 'good ole boy' political system. 'I am humbled and grateful by the massive statewide support that I have to run for Governor, and if I wanted to run we all know I would win,' she wrote in a lengthy X post. 'It's not even debatable.' Weeks before shutting down rumors surrounding a potential gubernatorial bid, Greene pulled her name out of the race for the U.S. Senate seat up for grabs held by Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff. The Congresswoman was reportedly under fire from GOP colleagues – including Trump – who were concerned she might win big at the conservative primary but come up short in a general election. Trump's political team commissioned a poll that showed Greene losing a potential Senate race in Georgia by double digits, sources told the Wall Street Journal last month. The president reportedly shared the result with Greene to discourage her from running in 2026, the sources added.
