Latest news with #R-S.C.
The Hill
06-08-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Russia sanctions still expected Friday after Putin-Witkoff meeting: US official
A senior U.S. official said sanctions on Russia's key trading partners are still expected to go into effect on Friday, after President Trump's special mission envoy Steve Witkoff's Wednesday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said Wednesday afternoon that Witkoff and Putin had a 'highly productive' meeting, claiming that 'great progress' was made. The senior official said the talks between Witkoff and Putin in Moscow, their fifth meeting since Trump came back into office, 'went well' and lasted about three hours. ' The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States. The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday,' the official said on Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic talks. Trump said in mid-July that Russia could face 'severe' tariffs if it did not agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine within the next two months. The president said at the time he would slap a 100 percent 'secondary' tariff on countries that do business with the Kremlin, including buying Russian oil and gas. Trump shortened the deadline to Friday, adding he was unsure if the sanctions would deal a great blow to the Russian economy. 'I don't know that sanctions bother him [Putin]. You know? They know about sanctions. I know better than anybody about sanctions, and tariffs and everything else. I don't know if that has any effect. But we're going to do it,' Trump said on July 31. The president's Wednesday post about the Putin-Witkoff meeting did not mention sanctions or tariffs. 'Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,' the president wrote Wednesday. The president penned an executive order Wednesday increasing tariffs on India by 25 percent due to its purchases of Russian oil. The new import tax total is at 50 percent. The levy is set to go into effect in three weeks. 'They're buying Russian oil, they're fueling the war machine,' Trump said during a Tuesday interview with CNBC. India has pushed back, saying that buying Russian oil was a 'necessity' to stabilize energy costs in the country. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have spearheaded a major sanctions bill against Russia, garnering more than 85 co-sponsors in the Senate. The bill would institute a 500 percent tariff on imports from nations that buy Russian oil, gas and uranium. Senators left for the August recess without advancing the legislation. 'We propose in our bill 500 percent. If it's 250 percent, I could live with it. Even if it's 100 percent, possibly. But you ought to impose bone-crushing sanctions that will stop them from fueling Russia's war machine,' Blumenthal said last week. Putin's envoy for investment and economic cooperation, Kirill Dmitriev, said Witkoff's meeting with Russian officials was 'constructive,' adding the U.S.-Russia dialogue would continue and is 'critical for global security and peace.' 'Our side has forwarded some signals, in particular on the Ukrainian issue and corresponding signals were received from President Trump,' Putin's foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said after the meeting, according to Russian state media. Trump, who has long called for the nearly three-and-a-half-year war in Eastern Europe to end, has been expressing his frustration with Putin in recent weeks, demanding the Russian leader halt the attacks, often on civilian areas. Overnight, Russia's military struck a recreational center in the Zaporizhzhia region, where at least two people have been confirmed dead, according to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. 'No matter what the Kremlin says, they will only genuinely seek to end the war once they feel adequate pressure. And right now, it is very important to strengthen all the levers in the arsenal of the United States, Europe, and the G7 so that a ceasefire truly comes into effect immediately,' Zelensky, who talked to Trump on Tuesday, said on social media.
The Hill
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump just gave Putin a 50-day license to kill in Ukraine
President Trump's announcement on Monday morning in the White House Oval Office alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was good in that the President has finally come to realize that Russian President Vladimir Putin first 'talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening.' Trump yet again said he is 'not happy with President Putin at all' and that the White House gets 'a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin.' Also good is that Trump confirmed a deal with NATO allies to sell them weapons and munitions to arm Ukraine. On July 8, Trump had stated, 'We're going to send some more weapons. We have to — they have to be able to defend themselves.' However, a list of the weapons and munitions was not provided during the meeting. But Trump's announcement was not so good in that he gave Putin an additional 50 days to agree to a cease-fire deal, or else face 'very severe secondary tariffs' and sanctions. Trump said the tariffs would start at about 100 percent, a stark contrast to the 500 percent tariff in the sanctions bill authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Russian oil imports, which targets not only Russia but also nations such as China, India, and Turkey that continue to purchase its energy resources. Since July 4, Russia has launched relentless and unabated aerial bombardments of Ukrainian cities, with scores of ballistic missiles and 500 to 700 drones every evening specifically targeting civilians. In June alone, Russia launched over 5,438 drones. Ukraine can ill-afford 50 more days of days of aerial strikes and a likely ground offensive in the Sumy region. It is, in effect, giving Putin a 50-day license to continue targeting Ukrainian civilians — men, women and children alike. Seventeen new Patriot missile batteries, while welcomed, will not stop Ukrainians from being killed and maimed by daily large-scale drone and ballistic missile attacks. While they are a necessity to interdict Russian missiles, they have no effect on Russian drones. Nor do they have any effect on Russian ground forces staging in Russia and fighting in Ukraine, which according to Putin number 700,000, nor on the 30,000 North Korean soldiers preparing to deploy to Russia. Although Monday's announcement is a step in the right direction, at first glance, it seems to be more of former President Joe Biden's overly reactive and defensive ' just-enough-not-to-lose ' strategy for aiding Ukraine, which already failed. Significantly, the word 'win' was not spoken during the Oval Office meeting between Trump and Rutte. Biden could not say 'win' either — and two-and-a-half years into the war, he too was solely playing for the tie in Ukraine while Putin was playing to win. Nothing has changed since 2023. As we warned Saturday, 'Putin still believes he can win his war against Ukraine and he has no intention of stopping.' And as Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, stated, 'He will not sacrifice his goals in Ukraine for the sake of improving relations with Trump.' Team Trump needs a winning strategy. Defending is not winning but rather just prolonging the war. As Gen. George Patton once put it, 'Nobody ever defended anything successfully.' The second half of the quote — 'there is only attack and attack and attack some more' — is what is missing in Trump's response to Russia. If Trump really wants peace, Putin is going to need a good punch to the face first. Absent a defining blow, Putin will never give up on conquering Ukraine. Yet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stands ready to throw that punch — just as Israel did in Iran — if greenlighted and fully equipped by NATO. That is the only way Putin will be made to understand that he cannot win. Yet Trump, like Biden before him, appears to be playing for a tie. Team Trump continues searching for that ever-elusive deal that Putin legitimately does not want. In doing so, the White House is effectively punting to our European NATO partners the problem of deterring and containing Russia Meanwhile, Putin's army last month seized control of a key lithium field in eastern Ukraine. If this gain is not reversed, it will negatively affect Trump's much-vaunted mineral deal. The field is believed to be one of Ukraine's most valuable lithium deposits. Given Trump's 50-day reprieve, Putin also has a 50-day license to steal still more Ukrainian territory and to eat into the U.S. rare earth minerals pact. Trump, as he did again during his meeting with Rutte, often says that the war in Ukraine is not his war, but that of the Biden Administration. Maybe so, but it is now Trump's war to win or lose. Renewing arms shipments to Ukraine through NATO cannot not be the only tool in his kit. It needs to be coupled with the proposed Senate sanctions bill and a willingness to use $5 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine. Why wait 50-days to deploy this one-two punch of instruments of military and economic national power now? Putin will not wait — and, most assuredly, many more innocent Ukrainian civilians will die at the hands of his military. The time has come to stop playing for a tie and stop taking 50-day time outs. The U.S. and NATO must enable Ukraine to win this war with offensive weapons, munitions, and intelligence. Deep strikes and interdiction are essential to isolating and removing Russian forces from Ukraine. Defeating Russia's ability to produce and deploy drones is essential as well. No more sanctuary can be afforded to Russia by Western weapons and their munitions. Otherwise, the blitz of ballistic missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities — reminiscent of Operation Linebacker II, designed to bring North Vietnam back to the negotiation table — will continue unabated. Let's build on the good part of this plan and immediately revoke Putin's 50-day license to kill.
Politico
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
MAGA right attacks Zohran Mamdani's religion following his win
Prominent MAGA-aligned commentators launched xenophobic attacks on Zohran Mamdani over the 33-year-old state lawmaker's Muslim religion following his apparent Democratic primary win in the New York City mayoral race. In a series of posts, conservative social media personality Laura Loomer wrote 'New York City will be destroyed,' Muslims will start 'committing jihad all over New York' and that 'NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0.' If elected in November, Mamdani would become the first Muslim mayor in New York City's history. And while many conservatives have criticized Mamdani's progressive policies, others have taken aim at Mamdani for his religion. '24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,' conservative activist Charlie Kirk posted on X, referencing the number of people killed in New York. 'Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.' 'New York City has fallen,' Donald Trump Jr. wrote, quoting a post by Michael Malice about when New Yorkers 'endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.' 'After 9/11 we said 'Never Forget.' I think we sadly have forgotten,' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted on X Wednesday, accompanied by a photo of Mamdani. Mamdani's campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the statements. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won 43.5 percent of first-place votes in New York's ranked-choice voting system. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the once-favorite to take the primary, conceded to Mamdani Tuesday night. However, the city board of elections is not expected to finalize results until early July, once ranked-choice votes are tabulated. During the primary some of Mamdani's critics, including a super PAC backing Cuomo, said he either emboldens antisemitism or has himself espoused antisemitic views, in particular over his stance on Israel. He has repeatedly criticized Israel's actions in Gaza, and in a June interview with The Bulwark, Mamdani said the phrase 'globalize the intifada' represented 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.' Mamdani drew heavy criticism for the statement, marking a tension point in a primary election in a city with large populations of Muslim and Jewish residents. He has repeatedly pushed back against the antisemitism label, decrying violence against Jews in the country. 'I've said at every opportunity that there is no room for antisemitism in this city, in this country,' he said at an emotional press conference in the closing days of the race, adding the reason he does not have a more 'visceral reaction' to being labeled that is because it has 'been colored by the fact that when I speak, especially when I speak with emotion, I am then characterized by those same rivals as being a monster.' At the same press conference, he said he has faced significant attacks because of his religion. 'I get messages that say, 'The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.' I get threats on my life, on the people that I love. And I try not to talk about it,' he said at that press conference.
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Five reasons Trump should renew US engagement in NATO
At next week's NATO Annual Summit in the Netherlands, leaders of the 32 alliance members will come together to discuss priorities and the way ahead for NATO at a time when Russia and China pose pressing security threats. President Trump should pivot towards strengthening the transatlantic organization — here are the five reasons why. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing the United States. He does not want peace in Ukraine. Russia is the antagonist in this conflict, and conditions for Ukraine are slowly worsening with each passing day. To end this trajectory, options are to punish Russia financially or to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) recently met with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and wholeheartedly believe Putin is preparing for a new offensive, despite the high costs. More to the point, a June 2 meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Istanbul, ostensibly to end the war, ended abruptly after less than 90 minutes with no real discussion about peace. If Trump draws back from the negotiations without demonstrating strength towards Russia, Putin will get exactly what he wants — in the end, control over Ukraine and a reformatting of Europe's security structure. Second, NATO has stood by the U.S., and Trump should be proud to return the favor with respect to transatlantic security. The only time NATO invoked Article V (treating an attack on one member as an attack on all) was right after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. If the U.S. fails to remain engaged in NATO, the world could see an escalation to the war more broadly on the European continent. Europe will take more responsibility for its own security, but it needs time to build credible conventional forces and will still depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Trade between the U.S. and the European Union is one of the most expansive in terms of absolute dollars on the global stage coming in at $975 billion in 2024. Market disruptions would be cataclysmic if war expanded to include countries on NATO's eastern flank. Russia will seek to test the resolve of the alliance if it perceives that the U.S. is doubting its commitments. Accordingly, the U.S. must maintain at least a credible forward presence of its military alongside our allies to deter Russia's ambitions from moving westward and strongly uphold Article V. The alternative hurt both the U.S. and European Union economically. Third, a robust relationship with NATO will leave Trump with a freer hand to deal with China. Continuous Chinese military capability and capacities are an increasing threat. On one side, China wants to be a large economic partner to both Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, its security policy actions are detrimental to a constructive relationship with the West. The strategic partnership between China and Russia should be monitored closely — not least the Chinese support enabling Russia's war in Ukraine. U.S. engagement with NATO will improve coordination to deal with this dual threat. Fourth, NATO engagement will provide the U.S. with improved collective intelligence sharing. Joint and combined Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance is an important capability to forewarn NATO (including the U.S.) of impending threats. Moreover, NATO members each have unique intelligence gathering capabilities and, as was the case in the leadup to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, NATO countries should be transparent with the processed intelligence they prepare. Unlike China and Russia, the U.S. benefits from a wide intelligence network, and this collective intelligence sharing could be quite useful regarding antagonistic states, terrorism and President Trump's Golden Dome initiative. U.S. engagement at the summit should press NATO countries to continue to be transparent with intelligence sharing, especially on threats to Alliance member countries. Fifth, NATO engagement will help enhance cyber capabilities — another asymmetric capability that all adversaries of the United States use, as highlighted in the most recent Annual Threat Assessment. Moving beyond cyber defense, discussion at The Hague Summit should press for computer network operations, and more specifically computer network attack and computer network exploitation capabilities. Adversaries such as Russia and questionable actors such as China are using these tools against NATO members and allies alike. Not only does NATO benefit, but all member countries, especially the United States, would realize advantages as well. The fact that the NATO alliance has survived more than 75 years is quite significant. That said, the alliance cannot rest on its laurels. The U.S. plays a pivotal part in moving forward with serious discussion regarding these five issues. The security of both the U.S. and Europe is at stake. Tom Røseth, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Norwegian Defence University College and founder of its Ukraine Program. He is coauthor of 'The 'Five Eyes' Intelligence Sharing Relationship: A Contemporary Perspective.' John Weaver, DPA, is a professor of Intelligence Analysis at York College and author of 'NATO in Contemporary Times: Purpose, Relevance, Future.'
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - From Odesa with love: Ukraine fights on with or without the US
The city of Odesa, once the pearl of the Black Sea and host to nearly 1,000 attendees during this year's Black Sea Forum, has regained its luster. Aside from smatterings of plywood-covered windows and burned-out or partially destroyed buildings, one would be hard pressed to think that it was in a country under siege, fighting for its collective life. This city is enjoying, under the circumstances, a fairly normal existence. The streets are pristine, unlike in too many American cities. Much of the architecture is Russo-French in design, dating back to the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. But most impressive are the Ukrainians. Determined to win this war, one is reminded of the stubborn British enduring the Blitz and Hitler's relentless attacks. This seemingly boundless display of optimism extends to the taxi drivers, restaurants and hotel staff, and the non-conference-attending civilians I encountered during my time here. The message is clear and is echoed by most of the European delegates who attended from parliaments and ministries of government, including the military, as well as the private sector, media and academia: Russia is a menace. If not stopped in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is determined to wreck NATO and reestablish a new and greater Soviet Union-like empire. And America is unconscious or blind to this threat. On one hand, the war in Ukraine is not atop the list of things worrying most Americans. As someone in the distant past remarked, 'it's the economy, stupid.' On the other hand, the behavior of the current president fills the media and the airwaves on a daily basis, often blocking out other news and reporting. Yes, a growing percentage of Americans of both political parties say they support Ukraine, a statistic that is widely used here as evidence that the U.S. can and should do more. Yet, when pressed as to what that support should be in specific terms, from equipping Ukraine with the most modern weapons, to rebuilding a country largely still suffering the ravages of war, to the question of whether to send U.S. troops to the region or not, that consensus quickly dissipates. At this writing, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others have gained the support of some 80 of their colleagues to impose sanctions on Russia. Has that chamber suddenly grown a backbone to take on Donald Trump, who so far has dominated Congress in ways Lyndon Johnson would envy? That said, I take the Ukrainian rationale to smash Russia now before it becomes too great a threat — and many would argue that this view has taken hold across Ukraine — with a bit of cold water. I believe we in the West are exaggerating Russia's ability to mount a broader military assault; certainly, for now and for the foreseeable future, while it rebuilds a force that has reportedly taken nearly a million casualties. To be sure, a supermajority of Ukrainians do not accept that Putin's appetite will be satisfied if he perseveres in this war. But the fact is, the acidic warning that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend or ally may apply here. Millions of Vietnamese, Afghans and Iraqis would not disagree with that observation. Will Ukraine be next is a tragic question that must be addressed. Many of us in the relatively small foreign and defense policy world argued that wars are often lost by getting too little too late; meaning that from Russia's February 2022 invasion (which, for too long, Trump incredibly blamed on Ukraine) the U.S. has not supplied enough weapons and sinews of war to enable the Ukrainian military to turn the tide of battle beyond halting, and in some places, reversing Russian gains. But that is the past. What next? Despite my dissenting analysis of Putin's military muscle, what Russia has done has to be reversed. That almost certainly will not happen. Now, Trump will decide Ukraine's fate for better, or more likely, worse. Tragedy can be defined as a collision with reality. There was every reason to support Ukraine while some exit strategy could be developed. Now it appears the Trump exit strategy will leave it up to the two combatants — Russia and Ukraine — to end the war. Should that be the case, we should not be surprised by the outcome. And frankly if that does happen, Americans should be ashamed. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
