NATO chief on whether Trump is at risk of rewarding Russia for invading Ukraine: ‘I don't think the risk is there'
ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked Rutte on 'This Week' if he believed, like former national security adviser John Bolton does, that negotiations are sliding in Russia's favor, which could potentially reward the country for its invasion.
'No, I don't think the risk is there,' Rutte replied. 'And all my respects for John, and please send him my best regards, but I would not agree on this point with him. We have seen President Trump putting incredible pressure on Russia.'
'So, this is all clear evidence that President Trump is absolutely adamant to bring this war to an end, but also to keep maximum pressure on Putin,' Rutte later added.
Rutte said the Friday meeting between to two leaders was important because it 'is testing Putin, how serious he is in this whole process, which will then have to continue after Friday, with Ukraine involved, with others involved, to bring this war to an end.'
Trump and Putin are set to meet in Alaska on Friday to discuss peace negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited to the summit; however, the White House and the NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said there is a possibility he will attend.
Bolton, who was the national security advisor during Trump's first term, said Saturday on CNN's 'The Source' with host Kaitlan Collins, 'The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow.'
'So, the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin,' he continued.
On Aug. 6, Trump signed an executive order adding a 25 percent tariff on India's purchases of Russian oil, bringing the tariffs up to a total of 50 percent. The tariffs will be in effect 21 days after Trump signed the executive order.
This was intended to let India negotiate with Russia; however, in the meantime, India's leader has reaffirmed its bipartisan relations with the Kremlin.
'We also reviewed the progress in our bilateral agenda, and reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership. I look forward to hosting President Putin in India later this year,' Narendra Modi said.
The NATO chief also mentioned Trump's actions within the international organization as proof that the president is dedicated to this peace deal.
'He was the one delivering the big success at the NATO summit, the 5 percent spending commitments in June, one of the biggest foreign policy successes of the U.S. in the last couple of years,' he said.
Rutte also mentioned the deal struck in July between the Trump administration and NATO countries to send more weapons to Ukraine.
The meeting in Alaska will discuss territorial claims. Last week, Putin shared a ceasefire agreement with the Trump administration, which asked for control of Eastern Ukraine.
Zelensky adamantly opposed the deal by posting on X, 'Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace.'
Rutte said the negotiations would include talks about territory as well as 'security guarantees' and 'the absolute need to acknowledge that Ukraine decides of its own future, that Ukraine has to be a sovereign nation, deciding on its own geopolitical future, of course, having no limitations to its own military troop levels, and for NATO to have no limitations on our presence on the Eastern flank in countries like Latvia, Estonia and Finland.'
Whitaker reassured on Sunday that no matter what deal is struck between the parties, there will be verification that both countries are acting towards peace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
By sending troops to D.C. and eyeing Oakland, Trump continues targeting Black-led cities
When President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will deploy National Guard troops to the streets of Washington D.C. to combat crime, he named several other cities where he might take similar action. 'We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad,' Trump said during the White House news conference. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore there.' Trump and other members of his administration, while often using false or misleading statistics, have cited rampant crime as the justification for deploying federalized troops within U.S. cities. But these cities share another commonality: They're led by Black mayors. Critics don't think that's a coincidence. Trump's focus on Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, New York and Oakland is part of a larger pattern in which the president has suggested cities with majority-Black populations, or those led by Black leaders, are hotbeds of crime and corruption and symbols of American decline. 'I see this as a political dog whistle to his base, evoking long-running stereotypes that Black mayors cannot adequately govern or are soft on crime in their cities,' said Jordie Davies, a professor of political science at UC Irvine. 'Donald Trump is engaging in political theater so he can be seen as responding to the racist ideas that these cities are poorly run and overrun with crime — even as statistics demonstrate that violent crime in major U.S. cities, including D.C., is down this year.' Reports of violent crimes — homicides, robberies, assaults and sexual abuse —have seen steep declines over the last two years, the Washington Post reported. 'If he is going to start lying about major American cities to justify sending the military there, it is not surprising to me that he would pick cities with Black leadership and significant Black populations,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said Monday. 'That is straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Crime is also falling in Oakland, a trend that Mayor Barbara Lee cited Monday in arguing that Trump was less interested in facts than in scoring 'cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Oakland experienced a 6% increase in reported violent crimes in 2024, but saw a decrease in homicides and property crimes, according to a Chronicle analysis. So far in 2025, violent crimes including homicides are down significantly in the city. 'We're making real progress on public safety in Oakland, and while we acknowledge we have more work to do, we are doing this work each and every day,' Lee said. 'Our comprehensive public safety strategy is working — crime rates are coming down even though we still face many challenges. And let me repeat, President Trump is wrong.' Before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year, he reportedly called the city 'horrible.' 'Trump is a lot of things but he certainly isn't subtle—all of the cities he denigrates have one important thing in common: they all have significant Black populations,' DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement to the Daily Beast at the time. In 2020, Trump said of Detroit, Oakland and Baltimore, 'these cities, it's like living in hell.' 'And everyone gets upset when I say it, they say, 'Is that a racist statement? ' It's not a racist,' Trump told Fox News. 'Frankly, Black people come up to me, they say, 'Thank you. Thank you sir for saying it.'' Davies, the UC Irvine professor, said using the fear of crime — especially the idea of 'Black crime' — has always been an effective political message in the U.S. It was a message Trump hammered consistently in the 2024 election, a race in which he doubled his share of Black voters from 2020. (still, Trump's opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, won 83% of Black voters.) 'Crime evokes fear and fear provides a political vacuum that can be filled with state violence,' Davies said. 'It will be important for experts, politicians, and journalists to call out Trump's lies about crime in these places and name this for what it is: a racist attempt to dominate Black cities and a performance of power for his base.'
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump, Newsom square off in court over deployment of troops to quell LA riots
Justice Department lawyers were in federal court Monday to defend the Trump administration's deployment of Marines and California National Guard troops during violent anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles in June. The three-day trial kicked off in San Francisco, with attorneys for the state arguing the deployment — which California Gov. Gavin Newsom strenuously objected to — violated a federal law against using military forces for domestic law enforcement. 4 Trump administration and State of California lawyers are facing off in federal court this week over the deployment of National Guard members during June's anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement The protests began June 6 as lawful demonstrations stemming from a series of raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that saw more than 100 illegal immigrants rounded up around the city. Hundreds took to the streets, chanting in opposition and waving Mexican flags and anti-ICE signs while clashing with cops and federal immigration officers. 4 The riots began as protests but quickly descended into anarchy. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement But the protests soon escalated into full-blown riots, with cars burned in the streets, public buildings vandalized and local businesses pillaged by looters. As the violence dragged on, President Trump announced he was deploying some 4,000 Coast Guard members and around 700 active-duty Marines to the City of Angels to put an end to the anarchy. Newsom condemned the deployments, saying it amounted to using soldiers as 'props in the federal government's propaganda machine.' The Trump administration fired back, arguing the state's sanctuary city laws preventing local law enforcement from upholding immigration laws made federal intervention necessary. Advertisement Newsom sued the administration, and federal Judge Charles R. Breyer — a former President Clinton appointee who is overseeing the California bench trial — ruled the deployment was illegal. However, hours later an appeals court rejected Breyer's ruling which cleared the way for the mobilization to continue. 4 Trump's lawyers have argued the president was within his rights to order the troop deployments. By July 1, nearly all of the National Guard members and Marines called to Los Angeles had been released, with around 300 still in the city. Advertisement Those remaining on duty are 'supporting the request for assistance' from federal law enforcement agencies, William Harrington, former deputy chief of staff for the Army task force in charge of the Guard troops said in court Monday, according to the New York Times. 4 California Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawyers insist the mobilizations were illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 1878 federal law prohibiting the use of soldiers to engage in civil law enforcement. Jonathan Alcorn/UPI/Shutterstock The trial could set a legal precedent for the extent of a commander-in-chief's authority over the military on US soil. Newsom's lawyers are vehement that sending troops to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law prohibiting the president from using armed forces to engage in civil law enforcement. Attorneys for the state also argue that by deploying troops over the objections of the governor and other California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which delineates the balance of power between the federal government and US states. Also being alleged is that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing they 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom,' the complaint reads. Trump's lawyers have staked their counter-argument on a little-known law — Section 12406(3) of the US Code — which permits the president to federalize the National Guard under certain circumstances. Advertisement Among them, if the US is in danger of being invaded or currently under invasion, if there is an ongoing rebellion or danger of one occurring, or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Newsom and California are seeking a formal declaration from the court that Trump and Hegseth's orders were illegal, as well as injunctive relief, which would prohibit future deployments of the California National Guard without the governor's express approval. The bench trial opened on the same day President Trump announced he was placing Washington, DC's police department under federal control and deploying the National Guard to patrol the streets amid a surge of violent crime in the US capital.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abbott: Texas can ‘eliminate' 10 Democratic districts in response to California
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) warned that Texas could get rid of as many as 10 Democratic districts if California moved ahead with its plan to redraw its House map and neutralize the expected GOP gains in the Lone Star State. 'Listen, all those big blue states, they've already gerrymandered,' Abbott told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday, when asked if he was concerned about a redistricting arms race as Texas moves forward to create new congressional lines. 'Look at the map of Illinois. Look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts, and so many other blue states they gerrymandered a long time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what they can do,' Abbott said. 'And know this: If California tries to gerrymander, find more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state.' Abbott's remarks underscore how Republicans plan to be as aggressive as possible in trying to knock off as many Democrats as they can. Right now, the state has 25 House Republicans and 12 Democrats, in addition to one vacancy waiting to be filled after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. So far, the Texas GOP's new map is looking to make five pickup opportunities for the party next year. But Texas Republicans' efforts to pass new congressional lines are stalled as Democrats have fled the state to deny the GOP a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed present to conduct business. As the redistricting war heats up, blue states have signaled they're moving ahead with their own redistricting plans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced last week that he would be calling for a special session in November as Democrats in the Golden State look to pass a new House map that looks to offset the gains Republicans are hoping to make in Texas with their new map. New York and Illinois have also signaled they're exploring their options over how to redraw their maps in response to Texas. Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has signaled readiness to revisit his state's maps while Missouri and Indiana could also revisit their congressional maps.
