Trump threatens 'very severe' consequences if Russia doesn't agree to end Ukraine war
Trump issued the warning Wednesday as he is preparing for a sit-down with Putin in Anchorage.
"Yes, they will. There will be consequences," Trump said in response to a reporter's question on the topic. The president then refused to elaborate on what the punishment would be.
"I don't have to say. There will be very severe consequences," he added.
Trump later appeared to cast doubt on whether he could convince Putin to stop bombing Ukrainian civilians.
"I'll tell you what. I've had that conversation with him. I've had a lot of good conversations with him then I go home and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home or a rocket hit an apartment building, and people are laying dead in the streets," Trump said.
"So, I guess the answer to that is no, because I've had this conversation. I want to end the war. It's Biden's war, but I want to end it. I'll be very proud to end this war, along with the five other wars I ended. But, I guess the answer to that is probably no," Trump continued.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said Wednesday that there is "no sign" that Russia is preparing to end the war in Ukraine.
"At present, there is no sign that the Russians are preparing to end the war. Our coordinated efforts and joint actions – of Ukraine, the United States, Europe, and all countries that seek peace – can definitely compel Russia to make peace," Zelenskyy said on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
National Guard in DC May End Up Carrying Weapons—Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., have been told they should prepare to carry weapons in the nation's capital despite previous assurances from officials that the troops would not be armed, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal. When reached for comment, the D.C. Army National Guard told Newsweek that "Guard members may be armed consistent with their mission and training." Newsweek reached out to the White House by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday afternoon for comment. The Pentagon directed Newsweek to speak with the Washington Guard when reached by email for comment. Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's office told Newsweek it had no comment at this time. Why It Matters President Donald Trump ordered 800 National Guard troops to deploy to Washington, with the troops arriving on Tuesday. The deployment aims to combat crime in the city, even as crime rates have reached a 30-year low, marking one of the most aggressive federal interventions in local law enforcement in recent history. The deployment has prompted strong backlash due to the fact the administration bypassed the city's elected leaders, who have variously described Trump's directive as "unsettling," "unprecedented" and "dangerous." Washington officials sued the administration to block the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), which prompted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to issue a memo that leaves the current police chief in charge of the department but also directs the police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, the Associated Press reported. Anti-Trump protesters demonstrate near U.S. National Guard members at Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 15. Anti-Trump protesters demonstrate near U.S. National Guard members at Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 15. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Administration officials had previously said the National Guard would not carry weapons, and troops who have already made the rounds on patrol around the city have done so without carrying them. The Journal, citing people familiar with the plan, reported on Saturday that those troops were told on Friday evening they should expect an order to carry weapons. As of Saturday afternoon, no formal order had been issued. A White House official told the Journal that additional troops may be called to D.C., and they may be armed, but they would not be making any arrests. The Army had stressed the lack of weapons in a press release issued Thursday, writing that the troops were deployed to "provide a visible presence in key public areas, serving as a visible crime deterrent." "They will not arrest, search, or direct law enforcement," the Army wrote. "While they will not conduct arrests, they have the authority to temporarily detain individuals to prevent imminent harm, ensuring that custody is promptly transferred to law enforcement authorities." Most notably, the Army wrote that the troops would be equipped with personal protective equipment (PPE), including body armor, and that "weapons are available if needed but will remain in the armory," while noting that "future requirements will be assessed and determined based on the evolving needs of the supported law enforcement agencies." The shifting framework highlights the tension in the capital and the unease between the administration and local officials. Bondi in her Friday notice wrote of the responses from Washington officials, saying that "unfortunately, the D.C. Attorney General continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety in Washington, D.C.," in contrast to Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, "who is dedicated to ensuring the safety of residents, workers, and visitors in Washington, D.C." What People Are Saying Captain Tinashe T. Machona, a spokesperson for the D.C. Army National Guard, told Newsweek in an email statement: "Guard members may be armed consistent with their mission and training. Their presence is focused on supporting civil authorities and ensuring the safety of the community they serve. The DC National Guard remains committed to assisting the District of Columbia and serving its residents and visitors whenever called upon." U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi on Friday wrote on X: "I have just issued a new directive to Mayor Bowser requiring MPD to provide the services found necessary by my designee, DEA Administrator Terry Cole, to comply fully and completely with federal immigration law and authorities, regardless of any policies MPD might otherwise have." "Unfortunately, the D.C. Attorney General continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety in Washington, DC. It is important to note that this same D.C. Attorney General is responsible for failing to enforce consequences for dangerous juvenile offenders," Bondi wrote. "We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser, who is dedicated to ensuring the safety of residents, workers, and visitors in Washington, D.C." D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in an open letter to city residents this week, in part: "...Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety. I was born one year after Home Rule became law, and while our autonomy has been challenged before, our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now. My jobs are many right now. Part of my job is just managing us through this crisis and making sure that our government continues to operate in a way that makes DC residents proud." ...In fact, this evening, I am pleased to be able to report that, after a day in court and in accordance with Home rule, Pamela Smith remains our Chief of Police, and command and control of our 3,100 men and women at the Metropolitan Police Department. I am incredibly proud of how the chief has handled this experience." She concluded: "...I know that if we keep sticking together, we will make it to the other side of this, we will make future generations of Washingtonians proud, we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy—even when we don't have full access to it."
New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Backs Off Cease-Fire Demand in Ukraine War, Aligning With Putin
After their summit in Alaska, President Trump sided on Saturday with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, adopting Mr. Putin's preference for pursuing a sweeping peace agreement based on Ukraine's ceding unconquered territory to Russia instead of the urgent cease-fire Mr. Trump had said he wanted before the meeting. The change could give Russia an advantage in talks to end the fighting, which are due to continue on Monday when President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine visits the White House. It would also be a break from the strategy that Mr. Trump and European allies, as well as Mr. Zelensky, had agreed to before the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, and it provoked a chilly reception in Europe, where leaders have time and again seen Mr. Trump reverse positions on Ukraine after speaking with Mr. Putin. Mr. Trump wrote on social media early on Saturday that he had spoken by phone to Mr. Zelensky and other European leaders after his meeting with Mr. Putin. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,' Mr. Trump posted. Mr. Trump told European leaders that he believed a rapid peace deal could be negotiated if Mr. Zelensky agreed to cede the rest of the eastern Donbas region to Russia, even those areas not occupied by Russian troops, according to two senior European officials briefed on the call. In return, Mr. Putin offered a cease-fire in the rest of Ukraine at current battle lines and a written promise not to attack Ukraine or any European country again, the senior officials said. Mr. Putin has broken similar promises before. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
Urban Deployments Raise Questions: What Is Our Military For?
As noted in a recent report by the Center for American Progress, in 2022 Donald Trump stated that 'the next President should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops' to conduct law enforcement activities on U.S. soil. In 2023, said that if restored to office, that he he would send troops to U.S. cities to combat crime: 'The next time, I'm not waiting. … We don't have to wait any longer.' Ominously, the president has talked of using troops to combat 'the enemy within." That time has come. Earlier this year the Trump administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles to deal with immigration protests. At the time, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops.' The new target of troops deploying to a U.S. city is in Washington, DC. On Saturday August 16th West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey annnounced a plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard member of his state's National Guard to Washington, DC, stating that 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President [Donald]The question is why? Violent crime in Washington, DC is projected to be down 26% this year from 2024. The demonstrations in Los Angeles were overwhelmingly peacaful until the show of force – police, National Guard and Marines – prompted clashes between protesters and military and law enforcement officials. Local law enforcement officers have gone so far as to fire munitions that have left both protesters and journalists injured. Many veterans have taken exception to the deployments, and some have filed an amicus brief in support of California Governor Gavin Newsom's opposition to the troop presence. One of them, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, said 'This is the politicisation of the armed forces. It casts the military in a terrible light." President Trump's rationale for sending troops into U.S. cities is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which does indeed allow the president to deploy troops for domestic law enforcement in the event of an insurrection. But neither the immigration protests in Los Angeles nor the crime rate in DC qualify as an insurrection, by any stretch of the imagination. The deployments are deeply disturbing, and should be questioned by our elected leaders across the spectrum, along with veterans and average citizens concerned about federal overreach. Questions about the troop deployments need to be louder and more persistent. This is not a partisan issue. It is a basic issue about the role of the. military in a democracy. We can't afford to ignore it and go about business as usual.
