Latest news with #RussiaUkraineConflict
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Key takeaways from Trump's press Q&As in Scotland
Donald Trump has held not one but two lengthy and freewheeling press Q&As on his visit to Scotland, both of them in the company of a notably less voluble Keir Starmer. Here are some takeaways from the US president's many, many opinions. The US president re-entered office promising to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within 24 hours, and to more generally bring peace elsewhere. For all his talk about halting six wars – it was not clear what at least two of these were – you could sense Trump's frustration at the lack of progress with both Ukraine and Gaza. He showed signs of frustration with Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, leaders he generally respects. As well as hinting at a swift imposition of sanctions in Russia, Trump said he was 'not so interested in talking any more' with the Russian leader. With Netanyahu, the tone was less openly aggrieved, but the US president made it clear that a different approach was needed given the ongoing starvation of many in Gaza. 'I want to make sure they get the food, every ounce of food,' he said. Even though Trump and Starmer brandished a newly signed trade deal the last time they met, at the G7 summit in Canada in June, there are numerous issues on tariffs and market access still to be decided, and Trump did not seem in the mood for giving way. Asked about UK access to the US pharmaceuticals market, the president talked about wanting to 'bring a lot of the pharmaceuticals back to America, where they should be'.Asked about exempting Scottish whisky from tariffs he dodged the question. When the issue was raised of reducing tariffs on UK aluminium and steel entering the US, Trump merely said this should happen 'pretty soon', one of those timescales used by politicians when they either don't know or don't wish to say. Whereas Starmer at times appears to feel more at ease with international diplomacy than everyday politics, Trump is a creature of his domestic base, and felt quite hazy when questioned on UK issues. When asked about 'small boats', one of the most salient issues to British voters at the moment, Trump replied: 'I know nothing about the boats,' with Starmer having to explain. Similarly, Trump argued confidently that his host was a small-state 'tax cutter'. Asked about a new Scottish independence referendum, Trump's main reference point was the idea that he predicted its result – when in fact this was about the EU referendum, and it wasn't a prediction as he was speaking after the result. Continuing the theme of all their recent encounters, Trump could hardly have been warmer about the prime minister, calling him a friend, albeit one who was 'slightly liberal'. On the subject of Victoria Starmer, to whom he has taken an apparent shine, Trump said she was 'a respected person all over the United States', which might be news to the PM, not to mention to his wife. Joe Biden's apparent mental fragility was an understandable area of scrutiny during his final period in office, but it is also worth pointing out that Trump is not just often long-winded and meandering, but sometimes veers into impossible-to-follow near-nonsense. Consider this answer to a question on rate cuts, which moved from the refurbishment of the US Treasury to building work on the Trump-owned Turnberry golf course in Scotland: 'Now, this is a brand new building, but if you look outside, it's equally opulent and beautiful. And we didn't do that by spending, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in surrounding a railing underneath the area that you're painting … 'Brand new, beautiful plywood, very expensive, wrapped around a figurine or a railing to preserve it. But you don't have to do that. You can just wrap a cloth. They call it a blanket. And you don't even have to do that if you're careful when you're doing the ceiling. But I don't know what they did. They take down the ceiling and put up a new ceiling, and the new ceiling had no opulence, or they fixed the ceiling, but I would say that all I need is a good plaster and a can of paint.' Eventually, a reporter interrupted to ask again about rate cuts.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Key takeaways from Trump's press Q&As in Scotland
Donald Trump has held not one but two lengthy and freewheeling press Q&As on his visit to Scotland, both of them in the company of a notably less voluble Keir Starmer. Here are some takeaways from the US president's many, many opinions. The US president re-entered office promising to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within 24 hours, and to more generally bring peace elsewhere. For all his talk about halting six wars – it was not clear what at least two of these were – you could sense Trump's frustration at the lack of progress with both Ukraine and Gaza. He showed signs of frustration with Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, leaders he generally respects. As well as hinting at a swift imposition of sanctions in Russia, Trump said he was 'not so interested in talking any more' with the Russian leader. With Netanyahu, the tone was less openly aggrieved, but the US president made it clear that a different approach was needed given the ongoing starvation of many in Gaza. 'I want to make sure they get the food, every ounce of food,' he said. Even though Trump and Starmer brandished a newly signed trade deal the last time they met, at the G7 summit in Canada in June, there are numerous issues on tariffs and market access still to be decided, and Trump did not seem in the mood for giving way. Asked about UK access to the US pharmaceuticals market, the president talked about wanting to 'bring a lot of the pharmaceuticals back to America, where they should be'.Asked about exempting Scottish whisky from tariffs he dodged the question. When the issue was raised of reducing tariffs on UK aluminium and steel entering the US, Trump merely said this should happen 'pretty soon', one of those timescales used by politicians when they either don't know or don't wish to say. Whereas Starmer at times appears to feel more at ease with international diplomacy than everyday politics, Trump is a creature of his domestic base, and felt quite hazy when questioned on UK issues. When asked about 'small boats', one of the most salient issues to British voters at the moment, Trump replied: 'I know nothing about the boats,' with Starmer having to explain. Similarly, Trump argued confidently that his host was a small-state 'tax cutter'. Asked about a new Scottish independence referendum, Trump's main reference point was the idea that he predicted its result – when in fact this was about the EU referendum, and it wasn't a prediction as he was speaking after the result. Continuing the theme of all their recent encounters, Trump could hardly have been warmer about the prime minister, calling him a friend, albeit one who was 'slightly liberal'. On the subject of Victoria Starmer, to whom he has taken an apparent shine, Trump said she was 'a respected person all over the United States', which might be news to the PM, not to mention to his wife. Joe Biden's apparent mental fragility was an understandable area of scrutiny during his final period in office, but it is also worth pointing out that Trump is not just often long-winded and meandering, but sometimes veers into impossible-to-follow near-nonsense. Consider this answer to a question on rate cuts, which moved from the refurbishment of the US Treasury to building work on the Trump-owned Turnberry golf course in Scotland: 'Now, this is a brand new building, but if you look outside, it's equally opulent and beautiful. And we didn't do that by spending, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in surrounding a railing underneath the area that you're painting … 'Brand new, beautiful plywood, very expensive, wrapped around a figurine or a railing to preserve it. But you don't have to do that. You can just wrap a cloth. They call it a blanket. And you don't even have to do that if you're careful when you're doing the ceiling. But I don't know what they did. They take down the ceiling and put up a new ceiling, and the new ceiling had no opulence, or they fixed the ceiling, but I would say that all I need is a good plaster and a can of paint.' Eventually, a reporter interrupted to ask again about rate cuts.
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top US Army commander issues stark warning to Russia after missile threat
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports the latest on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Volodymyr Zelenskyy's 'mega weapons' deal with the United States and more on 'Special Report.'
Russia Today
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
It's time, Ukraine: Kiev braces for a final reckoning
In our previous pieces, we examined Donald Trump's half-hearted attempts to cast himself as a deus ex machina, descending to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Peace did not follow. Trump, boxed in by political inertia, continued Biden's policy of disengagement while trying to dump the Ukrainian problem on Western Europe – just as we predicted back in January. Its leaders weren't prepared. While Macron and Starmer formed coalitions of the willing and delivered lofty speeches, Germany quietly picked up the tab. Berlin, under its new chancellor, has shown more flexibility, but the broader Western European strategy remains unchanged: keep Washington bankrolling Ukraine at all costs. That plan is now crumbling. Trump is slipping away, and without a dramatic turn of events, no new major aid packages should be expected from the US. This is not hard to understand. Other global crises are emerging, and the depleted American arsenal cannot serve everyone at once. In both Ukraine and across Western Europe, people are adjusting to what once seemed unthinkable: a slow but steady US withdrawal. These European leaders must now decide whether to carry the burden alone or accept a settlement on Moscow's terms – conceding Ukraine from their sphere of influence. But neither Kiev nor its immediate sponsors is ready for serious negotiations. Why would they be? Ukraine believes it can hold without American backing. Russian oil revenues have dipped, the ruble is under pressure, and Moscow has taken hits in the Middle East and Caucasus. Perhaps, they reason, Putin will come begging in another year or two. Let's fight, then. Amid this political theater, the war itself has faded into the background. For many observers, the front lines seem frozen in time – village names flicker in and out of headlines, lines shift, but the broader picture holds. It's a difficult situation for military analysts. They are forced to generate drama from attritional warfare. One day, headlines declare the Lugansk Peoples Republic fully liberated (a few villages remain contested). The next, we hear of Russian forces entering the Dnepropetrovsk region (true in a narrow sense – they crossed a small corner in a broader encirclement maneuver around Pokrovsk). None of this, however, alters the core dynamic. Both sides are largely following the same strategies as a year ago. For Russia, the aim remains clear: exhaust Ukrainian forces until they can no longer defend. The goal isn't to seize a specific line, but to break the enemy's army. Russia has pursued this with steady, grinding pressure. Last winter, Moscow shifted from large mechanized thrusts to small, flexible assault groups. Instead of smashing through defenses, these units infiltrate after prolonged bombardment from artillery, drones, and air power. The results aren't flashy, but the goal is cumulative. The summer campaign began in May; we'll see its full effect by late summer or even winter. This mirrors the pattern of 2024, when Russian forces made their biggest gains in October and November, capturing several cities in Donetsk with minimal resistance – Novogrodovka, Ugledar, Selidovo, Kurakhovo. The key question now is scale: can Russia turn these tactical wins into a full collapse of Ukrainian lines? The answer depends in part on the weakened state of Ukraine's forces. By spring, Kiev had fewer armored vehicles, fewer Western shipments, and fewer elite units. The best troops were spent in the failed Kursk push and are now stuck holding Sumy. But the gravest issue is manpower. The supply of volunteers has dried up. Ukraine's army now relies on forced conscription – the so-called 'busified.' And the results are telling. In just the first half of this year, Ukraine recorded over 107,000 criminal cases for desertion – 20% more than in all of 2024, and nearly half of the total since the war began. That's only the official count; the real number is undoubtedly higher. Desertion is now the Ukrainian army's leading cause of losses. Draft officers are hated, and civilians fear being dragged into vans and thrown to the front. Power outages have lessened, and life behind the lines is almost normal. But the threat of forced mobilization looms. In a telling detail, real soldiers now mark their cars with 'not TCR' to avoid attacks from angry civilians. So how does Ukraine still hold the line? The answer is drones. As we've reported before, the drone war is reshaping military doctrine. Both sides now operate in a battlefield dominated by constant aerial surveillance – Mavic or Matrice drones scouting every move, FPV drones striking within minutes. In such conditions, defense holds the upper hand. Any movement in the 'zero zone' or rear is dangerous. No one has yet found a reliable way to break through such defenses quickly. It's a slow war of attrition. While Russia refines its assault tactics, Ukraine has focused on entrenching its drone defenses. Its latest move is the introduction of 'kill zones' – defensive belts 10 to 15km deep, controlled primarily by UAVs, not artillery. The idea is to neutralize Russia's air and artillery superiority, turning Ukrainian defenses into no-go areas. This strategy requires fewer troops. All Ukraine needs is a small, motivated core and a huge stock of drones – and in this area, they've seen success. Defense Express reports Ukraine's domestic drone output has increased tenfold over the past year and may hit 2.4 million units in 2025. But there's a catch. For all their talk of modern warfare, Kiev still craves spectacle. What we call 'military actionism' has become a political necessity. To maintain Western support and boost public morale, Ukrainian leaders pursue headline-grabbing offensives. Last year's incursion into the Kursk region is a prime example – an operation that ultimately drained resources from the Donbass and weakened Ukraine's main front. If Kiev avoids such distractions this year and focuses on defense, it will strengthen its position. But that's a big 'if.' As of mid-July, the 2025 summer campaign is in full swing. Ukraine withstood the initial May assaults, but the front is still moving. Russian strikes on rear infrastructure have intensified. The rate of Ukrainian attrition is now estimated to be three times higher than a year ago. In the coming months, we'll see which model prevails: Russia's methodical offensive, or Ukraine's drone-based defense. If the front stalls, Kiev lives to fight another year. But if Russian forces punch through, 2025 may mark the end of Ukraine as we know article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Associated Press
15-07-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Trump wields tariffs to sway Putin on Ukraine. Here's how they might work, or not
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has sacrificed an estimated 1 million of his soldiers, killed and wounded, in a three-year campaign to crush Ukraine. Now President Donald Trump is betting that his go-to economic weapon — tariffs — can succeed where Ukrainian drones and rockets haven't, and finally persuade Putin to end his war. Tariffs, which the U.S. president has called ' the most beautiful word in the dictionary,'' are taxes on imports. They are Trump's all-purpose fix — a tool he deploys to protect American industry, lure factories to the United States, tackle drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and raise money to pay for his massive tax cuts. On the campaign trail last year, Trump promised he'd negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. But months have passed without a peace deal, and the president has recently expressed frustration with the Russians. 'We're very, very unhappy with them ... I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there,' Trump told reporters Monday. So in addition to agreeing to send more weapons to Ukraine, he's once again unsheathing tariffs. He said Monday the U.S. would impose 100% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, natural gas and other products if there isn't a peace deal in 50 days. The levies are meant to cause Russia financial pain by making its trading partners think twice before buying Russian energy. 'I use trade for a lot of things,'' Trump said, 'but it's great for settling wars.' Trump did not spell out exactly how these 'secondary'' tariffs would work, and trade analysts are skeptical. 'Unilateral tariffs are likely to be ineffective in influencing Putin's actions,' said Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who studies American trade policy. 'Financial sanctions in cooperation with European and other allies are much more likely to damage Russian economy, but whether they soften Russia's approach is also uncertain.'' The secondary tariffs idea isn't new. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut earlier this year introduced legislation that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian oil, petroleum products and uranium. If Trump goes through with his threat, his 100% tariffs have the potential to disrupt global commerce and push oil prices higher. They might also complicate Trump's efforts to strike separate trade deals with countries like China and India. The 100% tariffs would likely target China and India Since December 2022, when the European Union banned Russian oil, China and India have bought 85% of Russia's crude oil exports and 63% of its coal, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finnish nonprofit. So they would likely be the two countries most affected by Trump's 100% import taxes. Trump has already tangled with China this year, and things did not go well. In April, Trump plastered a 145% levy on Chinese imports, and Beijing counterpunched with 125% tariffs of its own. The triple-digit tariffs threatened to end trade between the world's two biggest economies and briefly sent financial markets reeling. China also withheld shipments of rare earth minerals used in products such as electric vehicles and wind turbines, crippling U.S. businesses. After showing how much pain they could inflict on each other, the United States and China agreed to a ceasefire. A new 100% secondary tariff 'would blow up that deal,' said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is particularly well-placed to hold out,' said Nicholas Mulder, a Cornell University historian. 'All this would get us back to a position of full confrontation that would be uncomfortable for all sides.'' Hufbauer also noted that the secondary tariffs would also likely end 'any rapprochement with India'' — the world's fifth-biggest economy and one with which Trump is pursuing a trade deal. Energy prices could climbIf Trump goes ahead with the tariffs, 'it would invariably lead to higher global energy prices,'' especially for natural gas, economists Kieran Tompkins and Liam Peach of Capital Economics wrote in a commentary Monday. Other oil-exporting countries have enough spare capacity to ramp up production and offset any loss of Russian oil exports in global market. But if they did, the world would have no buffer to rely on if there were an oil shock caused by, say, conflict in the Middle East — and prices could skyrocket. 'Removing that spare capacity would be akin to riding a bike with no shock absorbers,'' Tompkins and Peach wrote. The Russian economy has proven resilientAfter Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its allies slammed Russia with sanctions. Among other things, the U.S. froze the assets of Russia's central bank and barred some Russian banks from using a key international payments system run by Belgium. With its allies from the Group of Seven rich nations, it also capped the price that importers could pay for Russian oil. The sanctions were expected to crush the Russian economy, but they didn't. Putin put Russia on a wartime budget, and high defense spending kept unemployment low. Military recruits were given big sign-up bonuses and the families of the fallen received death benefits, pumping income into some of Russia's poorer regions. To keep its oil sales going, Russia deployed 'shadow fleets,'' hundreds of aging tankers of uncertain ownership and dodgy safety practices that delivered oil priced above the G7 price cap. 'The experience of the G7 oil price cap against Russia showed how challenging the enforcement of measures against the Russian oil trade can be,' Mulder said. Last year, the Russian economy grew 4.1%, according to the International Monetary Fund. But strains are showing, partly because Putin' war has made Russia a pariah to foreign investors. The IMF forecasts growth will decelerate to 1.5% this year, and last month the Russian economy minister warned the country is 'on the brink of going into a recession.'' Trump's tariffs could increase the pressure, in part by driving down Russia's energy exports — and the revenue the Russian government collects from an energy tax. Tariffs are mostly untried as a diplomatic lever'To my knowledge, tariffs have never been applied as an explicit anti-aggression measure,' said Mulder, author of a 2022 history of economic sanctions. 'I am skeptical that the secondary tariffs threat will be effective.'' For one thing, he said, it's unclear whether Trump will actually impose them after 50 days. The president has repeatedly announced tariffs against other countries, and then sometimes suspended or tweaked them. For another, the secondary tariffs would target countries — namely China and India — that might have some sway in Moscow. 'The United States needs cooperation and collaboration to bring Russia to the negotiating table,' said Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. 'Threatening to harm the actors who actually have leverage over Moscow may backfire.'' ____ AP writers Katie Davies in Manchester, England, and Chris Megerian in Washington, contributed to this report.
