Trump's missile announcement provides vital relief to Ukraine – but lack of stricter sanctions against Russia stings
The good news for Kyiv is familiar. Trump has permitted NATO's other members to buy American arms – a wide range of them, it seems. Included are the urgently needed Patriot interceptor missiles, and the batteries that fire them. Trump even suggested there were 17 hanging around to 'spare' in one NATO nation.
Whatever the precise reality of the arms package NATO eventually affords, it is exactly what Trump suggested at the weekend and exactly what Ukraine needs. The nightly barrage of Russian ballistic missiles can only be stopped by US Patriot missiles, and only the White House can authorize their supply. Ukraine was short of these, and other sophisticated American weapons that may not have been referenced by name and may be included in the deal. This is short-term, vital relief.
But the sting for Ukraine comes in what was not announced: Immediate secondary sanctions against customers of Russian energy, which could significantly empty Moscow's coffers. The scope of sanctions proposed by a bill in the US Senate – potentially 500% on all trade with those who buy Russian hydrocarbons – would have been devastating.
And those sanctions would hit China and India – the US's main rival and key ally respectively – at a time when oil prices are low, but trade turmoil is high. The damage to energy markets would have been palpable, and the US would also have been impacted by likely higher oil prices. But this comes with a significant delay, together with the somewhat toothless threat of sanctions against Russia itself (there is almost no trade to penalize).
Fifty days gives Vladimir Putin until September for Trump to change his mind, or for the Russian president's rumored summer offensive to alter the battlefield reality to the point where Putin is happy to seek a freeze in the conflict. It does create a window in which New Delhi and Beijing may seek to decouple from Russian energy – unlikely given their dependency and how complex that would be – or perhaps apply pressure on Moscow to end the war. That too is a tough ask for Beijing, whose officials have recently indicated they cannot see Moscow lose the conflict without risking the United States turning its full attention to its rivalry with China.
The deadline also shows Trump has yet to give up on the most elusive figment of his Ukraine policy: that the Kremlin actually wants peace, and has yet to be persuaded adequately into it. Trump again held out a deadline to push Russia into a deal. We have been here before, and Putin has let the ticking clock whizz past his ear.
Yet it is important to seize upon Trump's change in tone – mood music being perhaps the more enduring indication of White House policy than the specifics provided. There was a telling moment in which Trump stopped short of calling Putin an assassin, and painted an image of a White House where the first lady often reminds him of how violently Kyiv is hit by Russians drones and missiles.
The US president has swung wildly through all the seasons of Putin – his spring of hope that peace was possible, a brief summer of diplomacy in the Gulf and Istanbul, a fall of souring relations, and now, finally, the same winter of discontent that was President Joe Biden's default position. Yet after six months, in which, Russian diplomacy – its synthetic and performative nature, combined with cynical, maximalist demands – has flexed its muscles, Trump has still not given up on talking the Kremlin into voluntarily stopping its existential war of choice.
Trump has also shied away from some of the tougher options available to him. No new American money is going to Ukraine, and we heard nothing public about new capabilities being delivered either.
Trump's Ukraine policy is transformed in mood, perhaps, but retains key elements from its past. A desire for anyone but the US to foot the bill; deadlines for action, rather than immediate consequences for inaction; and a baffling belief the Kremlin wants peace.
Kyiv will be relieved immediately but may also soon feel a familiar sense of disappointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Tough Stance on Semiconductor Tariffs Could Soften, Wedbush Says
Key Takeaways President Donald Trump said late Tuesday that new tariffs on semiconductors could be coming soon, though Wedbush analysts suggested his stance could soften. The analysts pointed to Nvidia's assurances from the Trump administration of licenses to resume AI chip sales to China, and called the development 'a key strategic positive for the tech space.' ASML shares tumbled Wednesday after the semiconductor equipment maker said it couldn't guarantee growth in 2026 amid macroeconomic and geopolitical Donald Trump said late Tuesday that new tariffs on semiconductors could be coming soon, but Wedbush analysts suggested his stance could soften. The president said late Tuesday that he is probably going to impose tariffs on semiconductors, along with pharmaceuticals, by Aug. 1, Bloomberg reported. Wedbush analysts led by Dan Ives told clients in a note Wednesday, however, that they 'believe the Trump Administration will continue to soften its stance around tariffs and look to ink trade deals across the board including China, Japan, and India that do not dramatically alter the current landscape for Big Tech.' Wedbush confirmed those comments stand after the president's latest statements on semiconductor tariffs. The analysts pointed to Nvidia's (NVDA) announcement Monday that it was given assurances from the U.S. government of licenses to resume selling its H20 AI chips to China, signaling a walkback from the Trump administration after it imposed the curbs in a bid to limit Beijing's AI ambitions. The expanding access to China was, they wrote, 'a key strategic positive for the tech space.' But shares of ASML Holding (ASML) tumbled over 8% Wednesday after the semiconductor equipment maker said it couldn't guarantee growth in 2026 amid macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. The company, whose machines are needed to make advanced AI chips, made the statement as it posted second-quarter results. ASML sells its machines to customers globally, including U.S. chipmaker Intel (INTC) and TSMC (TSM), the world's largest contract chip maker. Shares of Intel and memory chip maker Micron Technology (MU) also lost ground Wednesday. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
College sports leaders shouldn't get too excited about Trump NIL executive order
It's not a great sign for President Trump's potential involvement in college sports when people who work in college sports are caught off-guard after word of a forthcoming executive order leaks out of the White House. And yet that was the case Wednesday after CBS reported the night before that Trump intended to sign one 'establishing national standards for the NCAA's Name, Image and Likeness program' in the coming days. What does that mean exactly? People who are generally informed on the interplay between college sports and the federal government didn't seem to know an executive order was imminent or what exactly would be in it – even folks with a direct line to Trump and who have engaged with about potential federal action that would bail college sports out of its current dysfunction. So now we wait. For something – or maybe nothing. With the Trump Administration, you can never quite tell. What we do know, however, is that the White House has, in fact, been working on something in the form of a likely executive order since Trump met with former Alabama coach Nick Saban at the school's graduation ceremony in May. Regardless of what's ultimately in it, however, coaches and administrators should resist the temptation to get excited about the possibility of Trump saving the day for a few simple, but important reasons. An executive order isn't a law. College sports and the NCAA do not operate under the purview of the executive branch of the federal government, thus any executive order compelling them to do anything would be legally questionable at best. And finally, any so-called 'fix' for college sports made with the stroke of one man's pen can be undone by the next one who occupies that office. UNWANTED TALK: Nick Saban rumor is last thing Alabama needs Sorry, college sports executives. You're going to have to actually do the work on this one. We know that's not easy, which makes the temptation to rely on Trump more tempting. It's been nearly six years since the NCAA pivoted toward begging Congress for relief from its never-ending string of lawsuits, and so far they've gotten no reward for their effort. Unless, of course, you consider it a reward to be dragged into more committee hearings to answer ridiculous, superficial questions from legislators who know as much about college sports as they do about the Finnish language. Oh sure, there's another bill on the way. And this one apparently has bipartisan support in the House. But then there's the Senate, where the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., last week called it 'the National Championship of all heists' because it is too favorable to the NCAA's interests. Remember, any bill must get 60 votes due to filibuster rules in the Senate, which means a minimum of seven Democrats will need to sign off on it. That's not going to be easy, especially if it puts hard caps on how much college athletes can earn and eliminates the potential to bargain collectively for their rights in the future. Purely from a political standpoint, I'm not sure why Senate Democrats would cooperate at all here. If a bill finally passes that fixes some issues with the NCAA, they won't get credit – because Trump will take it. And he'll play it to the hilt, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to their electoral goals heading into the midterms next year. That's just how stuff works in Washington, and both parties play that game on issues far more serious and important than the NCAA's ability to regulate the transfer portal. It's part of why the NCAA's 'let Congress fix our mess' strategy has been a complete failure thus far and may never pay off. At the end of the day, there's a lot more upside for Congress to use college sports as a political plaything than to make a law that will only impact a relatively small number of people and isn't an urgent matter of national interest. But a 'let Trump fix it' strategy could be worse, particularly right now as institutions are scrambling to implement terms of the House vs. NCAA settlement that allow athletic departments to pay their athletes directly. At the moment, the House settlement and the College Sports Commission – a regulatory body created by the power conferences to enforce the settlement rules – hold the key to how college sports will operate over the next several years. Will the CSC get sued by athletes and booster collectives whose deals get denied because they aren't considered true NIL? Of course, but they already knew that. Unless Congress quickly grants college sports some type of antitrust exemption, the CSC will have to go in front of a judge and show that it follows the law to continue having regulatory power over college athletes' paychecks. That's really the only issue worth talking about right now, regardless of what Trump may write in an executive order. And what can he possibly do anyway? Maybe he can decree that college athletes can't be made employees through some type of National Labor Relations Board policy -- but they already aren't. So unless the NCAA is going to become a federal agency, where the president would have significant legal authority to regulate it, anything in an executive order is mostly going to be performative. And anything that touches actual NCAA business like the transfer portal or limiting how athletes earn money stands on far shakier legal ground than the guardrails that were already installed through the House settlement. Regardless of which direction a president wants to take college sports – any president, for the record – the fundamental problem will not change no matter who's in the office or how many executive orders they write. By refusing to engage in a true collective bargaining effort that mimics the relationship between the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB and their respective players associations, the college sports industry left itself in a vulnerable position where any attempt to enforce its rules will face legal scrutiny. For better or worse, that's the American Way. And at this point, the focus of college sports should be long-term stability through the appropriate legal and legislative means instead of a flimsy proclamation. Colleges need to be especially careful right now. We've seen how the Trump Administration strongarms schools it has ideological disagreements with: Withholding federal grants, deporting international students, pressuring university presidents to resign. His involvement in college sports issues on behalf of the NCAA's immediate interests is going to inevitably create the appearance of long-term leverage. As frustrated as college sports executives might be with Jeffrey Kessler and other sports attorneys who keep them in court, creating space for tussles with this White House might not be the best tradeoff. Keep all that in mind when Trump issues his mysterious executive order. Because at the end of the day, only the people in charge of college sports can truly save it – no matter how much a president is itching to claim credit for doing so. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump NIL executive order shouldn't excited college leaders
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump tells fictional story about his uncle and the Unabomber
President Donald Trump likes to boast about the brilliance of his late uncle John Trump, who spent decades as a professor of electrical engineering at the renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). And when speaking about all manner of subjects, the president likes to make up stories filled with dramatic but fictional details. On Tuesday, Trump conjured an especially odd imaginary tale – that linked his uncle with the late terrorist Theodore 'Ted' Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber. Trump was speaking at a Pennsylvania event about energy and innovation when he said he had to 'brag just for a second' about his uncle's intelligence. After wrongly saying his uncle was 'the longest-serving professor in the history of MIT' (he was one of the longest-serving but not the very longest) and wrongly saying his uncle's three university degrees were 'in nuclear, chemical, and math' (two were in electrical engineering and one was in physics), the president claimed, 'Kaczynski was one of his students.' He went on to tell a story about having asked his uncle about what Kaczynski was like. ''I said, 'What kind of a student was he, Uncle John?' Dr. John Trump. I said, 'What kind of a student?' And then he said, 'Seriously, good.' He said, 'He'd correct – he'd go around correcting everybody.' But it didn't work out too well for him.' For two big reasons, this story could not possibly be accurate. First, the president's uncle died in 1985. Kaczynski was publicly revealed as the Unabomber more than a decade later, in 1996, when he was captured; before that, he had lived as a recluse in the Montana wilderness. There is no apparent reason that Donald Trump would have been asking anyone about Kaczynski in 1985 or earlier. Second, Kaczynski attended Harvard University and the University of Michigan, not MIT. An MIT spokesperson said in a Wednesday email: 'We have no enrollment record or information that Ted Kaczynski ever attended MIT.' Harvard has long allowed some students to register for classes at nearby MIT, but media outlets and MIT itself have found no sign that Kaczynski ever did that during his time at Harvard in the late 1950s and early 1960s – much less that Kaczynski, a Harvard mathematics major, studied under Trump, the MIT professor of electrical engineering. MIT reported on its website in 1996 that Kaczynski's high school guidance counselor said Kaczynski had been offered admission to MIT in the 1950s but had chosen Harvard instead. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the president's tale. What the president could have accurately said is that his uncle was an esteemed MIT professor. The MIT spokesperson said Wednesday that John Trump 'remains among the longest-serving professors in our history and was a highly valued member of the MIT community throughout his tenure as a researcher, innovator, entrepreneur, teacher, and colleague.'
