.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
Putin's right-hand man tells Lindsey Graham to ‘Work on America' in response to peace talk demands
Dmitry Medvedev, a high-ranking Russian official who currently serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, snarkily responded to Graham on X on Monday after the South Carolina senator echoed Trump's request for Russia to negotiate to end the war.
'To those in Russia who believe that President Trump is not serious about ending the bloodbath between Russia and Ukraine: You and your customers will soon be sadly mistaken. You will also soon see that Joe Biden is no longer president,' Graham told Medvedev. 'Get to the peace table.'
But Medvedev waved off Graham's threat, insisting, 'It's not for you or Trump to dictate when to 'get at the peace table.''
'Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved. Work on America first, gramps!' Medvedev said.
The exchange between Medvedev and Graham occurred on the same day that Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had 10 to 12 days to make progress on a peace deal to stop the war with Ukraine, or Russia would face 'severe tariffs.'
Russia invaded Ukraine more than three years ago, and since then, the two countries have been battling. Ukraine has relied heavily on support from allies, including the U.S., to fight Russia.
Trump had initially opposed providing Ukraine with financial, humanitarian, and military aid. He heavily campaigned on the idea that he could 'end' the war between Russia and Ukraine swiftly. However, it's proven difficult for the U.S. president.
Earlier this month, Trump said he would give Putin 50 days to strike a deal. However, he shortened that timeframe on Monday while expressing some frustration with Putin's lack of effort in striking a ceasefire.
Hours later, Medvedev took to X to warn Trump that 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia' would lead to war between Russia and the United States.
That's when Graham stepped in to demand Russia begin peace negotiations.
The Independent has asked Graham's office for comment.
From Medvedev's response, it appeared Russia is in no hurry to stop the fighting in Ukraine. That was all but formally confirmed on Monday evening after Russia bombarded Ukraine with a series of missiles.
At least 22 people were killed as part of the Russian strikes, which targeted a Ukrainian prison camp and a Ukrainian hospital. At least one of those people killed was a pregnant woman, the Washington Post reported.
Should Russia fail to come to the peace table talks, Trump could impose hefty sanctions – which would be on top of the sanctions the U.S. has already imposed on Russia.
Graham, who has largely supported the U.S. sending aid to Ukraine, has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation that would impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that purchase Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Trump's ICE raids as court upholds ban on snatching people based on appearance or job
The Trump administration suffered another blow to its mass deportation agenda on Friday after an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from detaining a person based on their appearance, native language, or job. A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles said the plaintiffs, a cohort of five individuals and three immigration advocacy organizations, were likely to succeed on their claim that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on four factors to form reasonable suspicion to support detention stops. Those four factors include apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a particular location such as a laborer pick-up site, and the type of work a person does. Three plaintiffs who are day laborers said in their original lawsuit against Trump administration officials that they were waiting to be picked up to go to a construction site job when ICE agents swooped in and intimidated them. The plaintiffs said the immigration law enforcement officers never identified themselves, stated they had arrest warrants, nor informed the plaintiffs of the bases for the arrests. The Ninth Circuit panel upheld a previous temporary injunction set by District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in June. In keeping with Trump's mass deportation agenda, immigration law enforcement officers were deployed throughout Southern California to begin conducting sweeping raids. Many of those raids, according to the lawsuit, were conducted at 'certain types of businesses' such as car washes, because immigration law enforcement officials determined those businesses were more likely to hire people without legal documentation. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit referred to those as 'roving patrols' and said they were being detained without reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizures. The raids, which led to protests in downtown Los Angeles back in May, have been challenged by multiple individuals and immigration advocacy groups. One plaintiff, Jason Brian Gavidia, said ICE agents stopped him in June after he stepped onto the sidewalk outside of a tow yard in Montebello, California. Gavidia, who is an American citizen, identifies as Latino and said ICE agents pushed him up against a chain-link fence and interrogated him. Even after Gavidia gave ICE agents his Real ID, they seemingly did not believe him. In her earlier ruling, Frimpong said Gavidia and other plaintiffs were likely to succeed 'in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.' Frimpong ordered immigration law enforcement not to rely solely on the four factors 'except as permitted by law.' While the appeals court panel upheld much of Frimpong's ruling, they did strike the 'except as permitted by law,' saying that language was too vague.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Trump makes decision on pardoning P Diddy after conviction
Donald Trump has said he is unlikely to pardon Sean 'Diddy' Combs following the music mogul's conviction for transportation to engage in prostitution, In an interview with Newsmax on Friday, the former president addressed speculation that he might offer Combs a presidential pardon, revealing he had been 'seriously considering' the possibility. However, Trump ultimately suggested the answer would be 'more likely a no'. 'Well he was essentially, sort of, half-innocent. I don't know what they do that he's still in jail or something,' Trump said. 'He was celebrating a victory but I guess it wasn't as good a victory.' EAD MORE: Sharon Osbourne breaks down in tears at Ozzy's funeral in heartbreaking scenes. READ MORE: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are set for new 'goldmine' offer - but could face issue. Combs, 55, was acquitted earlier this month of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges related to ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura and another woman referred to as Jane. But he was found guilty on two federal counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, which was a violation of the Mann Act, and now faces up to 10 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for October 3. Trump recalls having a friendly rapport with Combs in the past as they were both prominent figures in New York. But he claimed that their relationship soured after Trump entered politics, pointing to Combs' vocal support of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race. 'When I ran for office he was very hostile,' Trump told interviewer Rob Finnerty. 'He made some terrible statements, so I don't know — it makes it more difficult to do.' When he was pressed on whether a pardon was off the table, Trump replied: 'I'd say so.' Behind the scenes, sources previously indicated that the idea of a pardon had moved beyond idle talk and was being taken seriously by the Trump team. One insider told Deadline it had progressed from 'just another Trump weave to an actionable event'. Combs' legal team has already filed for either an acquittal or a retrial. In a strongly worded motion, his lawyers argued that his conviction under the Mann Act was unprecedented and should be overturned. 'This verdict is unsound. And this conviction, rooted in a misapplied, overbroad statute, should not stand,' they wrote, and maintained that all parties involved in the so-called 'Freak-Offs' were consenting adults and that no commercial sex acts had taken place. They also claimed that Combs' activities were in the same vein as producing amateur adult films for private viewing, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. 'The men were paid for their time,' the motion continued. 'They enjoyed the activities and had friendships with Ms. Ventura and Jane and were not merely traveling to have sex for money.' If a full acquittal isn't granted, Combs' attorneys argue a retrial should be ordered due to 'severe spillover prejudice' from the inclusion of inflammatory evidence during the trial, including surveillance footage from a 2016 incident showing Combs physically assaulting Ventura. Combs remains in custody at a Brooklyn detention centre.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Talks held over making Trump first US president to be given Freedom of the City of London
Your support helps us to tell the story Read more Support Now From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference. Read more Talks have been held over giving Donald Trump the Freedom of the City of London during his state visit in September, in a highly symbolic move. According to a source, the proposal to give President Trump the honour was made because it would give the Corporation the opportunity to meet the US leader and make the case for free trade and against tariffs at the ceremony. It would also be a way of marking the UK receiving the first of the Trump trade deals with questions still over tariffs on steel. The president would helicopter in from Windsor Castle to the US ambassador's Winfield House residence in Regent's Park for the ceremony. The Independent was told: 'It would be an important honour for the president just as our countries prepare to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next year. President Donald Trump ( REUTERS ) 'More importantly it would be the perfect opportunity for the City to address the importance of free trade and the issues of tariffs. 'The symbolism of being allowed to herd your sheep across the bridge and not pay taxes is very important all things considered.' But while the president was understood to be keen on the idea of receiving the honour, the Freedom Applications Sub (Policy & Resources) Committee chaired by Sir William Russell, half brother of the actor Damian Lewis, has not been persuaded. According to sources the sub committee was warned that the award would be 'too controversial'. The Corporation rarely gives government leaders the honour and had to withdraw it from Myanmar'ss Aung San Suu Kyi after criticism of her government being involved with persecution of the Rohingya. However, the official explanation is that President Trump has not been in government long enough. A spokesperson said: 'By convention, only Heads of State or Government who have served a minimum of seven years in office are eligible to be considered for the Honorary Freedom. 'The decision to grant the Honorary Freedom rests solely with the Court of Common Council – our highest decision-making body – not with any individual elected member.' The last head of government to be awarded the Honorary Freedom was Baroness Margaret Thatcher, who was recognised after serving 10 years as prime minister. The Honorary Freedom has never been awarded to a sitting US president, although Dwight Eisenhower received it after the Second World War for his role as commander in chief of the allied forces. According to a source, the City may change its mind if there is a request from the government which has not been made yet. It means that the US president is facing a second snub in his state visit. It follows a decision not to ask him to address a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament with the state visit happening the day after parliament rises for the conference season recess. This is despite the fact that when Pope Benedict came on a state visit in 2010 he was given the honour of addressing Parliamentarians in Westminster Hall even though it was the day after recess had begun. Trump's state visit - the first time an individual has been granted a second state visit - will take place between 17 and 19 September. It will include a state banquet hosted by the King with the president staying at Windsor Castle.
