
Trump seems to really be losing patience with Putin. But why now?
Five months ago, President Donald Trump turned heads when he claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin – the man who had invaded Ukraine – wanted peace in Ukraine.
'I believe he wants peace,' Trump said, adding: 'I mean, I know him very well. Yeah, I think he wants peace. I think he would tell me if he didn't. … I trust him on this subject.'
Trump has sung a very different tune in recent days, and especially on Tuesday.
After days of expressing displeasure with his latest phone call with Putin, Trump went even further at a Cabinet meeting. He suggested the man he had vouched for and spent years curiously avoiding criticizing might not be a reliable interlocutor.
'We get a lot of bullsh*t thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump said. 'He's very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.'
It's not the only suggestion that Trump is evolving in his stance – or at least his rhetoric – on the war in Ukraine.
This week he has reversed a brief pause in defensive weapons shipments to Ukraine (while suggesting this was undertaken by others in his administration). He has, for now, largely abandoned blaming both sides for the war, after almost always pairing any critique of Russia with a critique of Ukraine – as if they were equal partners in prolonging Russia's war of aggression. And on Tuesday he without prompting praised the 'courage' of Ukraine's fighters, suggesting the huge investment the United States has made in Ukraine's defense hasn't been the boondoggle that many in the MAGA base believe.
'And I will say this, the Ukrainians, whether you think it's unfair that we gave all that money or not, they were very brave because somebody had to operate that stuff,' Trump said. 'And a lot of people I know wouldn't be operating it.'
So what's happening here?
Far be it from anyone to suggest that Trump has truly turned on Putin and landed firmly in Ukraine's corner. Trump has signaled over and over again in the last 10 years that he's happy to look unpredictable on the world stage – whether you call it the ' madman theory ' or anything else. And even after his past strong words for Putin, his readouts of their subsequent calls – including a birthday call from the Russian leader – haven't suggested that Trump is applying direct pressure on him to agree to a ceasefire or to calibrate reprisals for Ukrainian attacks.
Now, it's quite possible Trump's latest public comments are an attempt to apply pressure on Putin rather than signal a firm shift in administration policy.
Quite notably, the American president on Tuesday declined to commit to a package of new sanctions on Russia that has the support of more than two-thirds of senators of both parties. To the extent Trump was truly done with Putin, that option is at the ready, and he's not going there yet.
He could just as easily try this strategy and revert to a gentler approach.
But sharply criticizing Putin is also a card that Trump has been extremely reluctant to play.
About the only other time he's gone this far was shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Trump briefly called Russia's invasion ' appalling.'
But that appeared to be a politically oriented course correction as much as anything. Trump, who was cueing up another campaign for president, had been sharply criticized for praising Putin's 'genius' and 'savvy' in invading Ukraine – at a time when virtually all of the Western world was condemning it. Those comments were shocking, even compared to Trump's years of cozying up to Putin. So he briefly rebuked the invasion and then moved on, resuming his kid-gloves treatment of the Russian leader.
The question before us is whether Trump's shift today will prove as fleeting as that was. Perhaps. But there are signs that it might not be.
For one, it seems the president might be coming to the realization that his goals in Ukraine are irreconcilable with Putin's.
For Trump, it's always about getting a 'win' – in this case, the peace deal he promised and failed to obtain on Day One of his presidency. He hasn't seemed to care too much about what that peace deal actually looks like and has floated huge concessions from Ukraine. But Putin has given almost no indication he's truly interested in cutting a deal that involves anything except obtaining all of Ukraine.
And Trump's comments Tuesday weren't just tough on Putin; they seemed to reflect deeper frustration that his Russian counterpart is stringing him along. (Trump in April also suggested Putin might be 'just tapping me along.') Perhaps Trump genuinely believed in his deal-making prowess, and he feels Putin has made a fool of him.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce was asked Tuesday to square Trump's February comments about Putin with his latest remarks, and she suggested Trump was indeed responding to new inputs.
'He's an open-minded man, but he's not naive,' Bruce said. 'He is principled and clear in what he wants to achieve. That's what we're seeing.'
You could certainly understand Trump coming to that conclusion – however belatedly – after the events of last week. Shortly after his call with Putin, Russia launched its largest-ever drone attack on Ukraine.
And nobody should underestimate the role of pride and domestic politics in all of this. Trump has given Putin more of the benefit of the doubt than virtually any other Western leader, as evidenced by his February comments. Just as he has in other foreign areas, he's steadfastly declined to make moral judgments about a strongman leader whose tactics and consolidation of power he genuinely seems to admire.
But picking sides in the war in Ukraine isn't just about morals; it's also about realpolitik. And perhaps that latter calculation, which is much more important to Trump, is changing.
Only time will tell.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does Jaylen Brown's future lie away from the Boston Celtics?
Every summer, Jaylen Brown's name is floated in trade talks. The 2024 NBA Finals MVP is often viewed as a dispensable member of the Boston Celtics' rotation, despite being one of the top forwards in the NBA and a key player in Joe Mazzulla's rotation. This summer has been no different, despite the fact that Brown is set to embrace a leading role on the Celtics roster due to Jayson Tatum's injury-induced absence. Recently, Brown sat down for an interview with Noa Dalzell of Celtics Blog. During the discussion, he noted how he hasn't always felt capable of being his true self around the city, noting politics as a potential reason. 'It's been a long journey here in Boston,' Brown said. 'I've had to deal with a lot. I feel like I haven't been able to be myself in certain capacities — because of the politics, and because maybe people feel uncomfortable with who I am.' Those comments were quickly used to create a new wave of potential trade talk surrounding Brown. In a recent episode of "WEEI Afternoons," the concept of Brown potentially being traded, either this season or next, was a primary discussion point among the two hosts. You can watch the full discussion by clicking on the embedded video above. Watch the "Taylor Talks Celtics" podcast on: YouTube: Website: This article originally appeared on Celtics Wire: Does Jaylen Brown's future lie away from the Celtics?
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ford Foundation's outgoing president joins the board of Obama Foundation
Darren Walker's post-Ford Foundation future is starting to take shape, as the outgoing president is now set to join The Obama Foundation's board of directors. The Obama Foundation, the Chicago-based nonprofit of former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama focused on encouraging active involvement in democracy through initiatives like the My Brother's Keeper Alliance and the Obama Youth Jobs Corps, announced Monday that Walker would join the board on Nov. 1. 'Darren Walker is an outstanding example of what it means to lead with purpose in philanthropy,' President Obama said in a statement. 'Darren's work to challenge long-held assumptions, stand up to injustice, and build unlikely partnerships aligns perfectly with the mission of the Obama Foundation. His experience and insight will sharpen our thinking and deepen our impact as we help the next generation of leaders change their world for the better.' Walker, 65, who has led the Ford Foundation since 2013 and oversaw major investments in gender equity and disability rights, is one of philanthropy's best-known leaders. He has been one of Rolling Stone's '25 People Shaping the Future' and Time's '100 Most Influential People.' 'Joining The Obama Foundation Board feels like coming home to everything I believe about leadership and change,' Walker said in a statement. 'I believe deeply in the power of individuals to change the world, and I'm honored to work with President and Mrs. Obama to help empower and support the next generation of changemakers.' In addition to his new role at the Obama Foundation, Walker has already been named president of the National Gallery of Art. In September, 'The Idea of America: Reflections on Inequality, Democracy, and the Values We Share,' a collection of his essays, will be published. The Ford Foundation has selected Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken, a leading expert on constitutional law and democracy, to succeed Darren Walker as its president. Marty Nesbitt, chairman of the Obama Foundation's board of directors, said Walker will help the nonprofit stick to its mission. 'Darren brings a rare combination of visionary thinking and practical know-how that will strengthen our governance and sharpen our impact,' he said. 'His deep experience leading through complexity and bringing diverse voices to the table will be an invaluable asset as we guide the foundation into its next chapter and open the Obama Presidential Center next year.' _____ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit Glenn Gamboa, The Associated Press


Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
Republican tax law leaves experts searching for words
At the same time, it remains to be seen whether Republicans' decision to dub their new savings accounts for children 'Trump accounts' will prove a marketing misstep that will blunt its appeal to the 75 million Americans who voted for Kamala Harris. The overall legislation was christened by Trump, but the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' was scrubbed from the legislation once it got to the Senate, after Democratic leader Chuck Schumer had it struck as a violation of the chamber's internal rules — the latest shot in a long-running feud in which the two parties take turns deleting the names of each other's reconciliation bills. 'I just forced Republicans to delete their ridiculous bill name,' Schumer wrote shortly thereafter on X. 'Nothing about this bill is beautiful.' Technically the legislation is now called 'An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.' Of course, that isn't stopping many from still using the now-unofficial name. 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' was the winner in a recent EY survey of 10,000 tax pros asking how they referred to the tax law. 'OB3" came in a close second. A similar survey by Grant Thornton also had those names going one-two. Over at the Tax Policy Center, senior fellow Howard Gleckman prefers the colloquial '2025 budget act' or, simply, 'the big budget bill.' The studiously nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, uses the extremely neutral 'H.R. 1.' Some of the individual provisions have been renamed to reflect substantive changes made by the legislation. 'GILTI' was made obsolete by Senate Republicans' revisions to how multinationals will be taxed. The original tax was intended to target profits from things like patents that businesses squirreled away in tax havens. Republicans had trouble coming up with a way of legally defining those earnings, so in the 2017 law they essentially said GILTI was everything except profits resulting from tangible assets like factories. The idea was to distinguish between the money companies made from their actual operations abroad from things that were just accounting maneuvers. Naturally, the tangible stuff got its own acronym — QBAI, or Qualified Business Asset Investment. But the new law dumps QBAI, and so the distinction made by GILTI no longer matters, leaving the tax world with 'Net CFC Tested Income.' Something similar is happening with FDII, or Foreign Derived Intangible Income, another provision that originated in 2017. It's a deduction for companies with overseas profits from intellectual property held in the U.S. — although it's probably best known for inspiring a years-long dispute about whether it should be called 'Fiddy' or 'F-D-I-I.' QBAI was part of the calculations that went into FDII, so, with QBAI now going away, FDII is also renamed in the new law, as the Foreign Derived Deduction Eligible Income, or FDDEI. But if anything, it's even less clear how to shorthand that. Warren Payne, a former Republican tax aide now at the firm Mayer Brown, says he's heard it called 'Fa-Day' — though he's not going there. 'I haven't figured out how to pronounce it,' he said. 'I just spell it out.'