Britain's strategic priorities have changed. Australia must take note
With Anthony Albanese visiting China this week, and as we await the outcome of the Colby review of AUKUS, Australian eyes are rightly focused on Beijing and Washington. Why should strategic decisions made in London matter to Australia?
The United Kingdom has long been, second only to the United States, our most important strategic partner: through the Five Eyes security network, the Five Power Defence arrangements, and now through AUKUS itself. This has also been our most longstanding military and intelligence relationship and – at a time of American unpredictability – our most reliable one.
A significant reorientation of the foreign policy of such an important ally – particularly when it involves a change of its approach to our region – matters a great deal.
The launch of the National Security Strategy coincided with the first anniversary of the election of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government. Starmer's landslide victory, after a campaign in which he made himself the smallest possible target, was overwhelmingly driven by public contempt for what had become a comically dysfunctional Conservative government. Starmer's one-word slogan 'Change' captured the public mood but, in its very vacuousness, also demonstrated how anaemic Labour's offering was. The only message: 'We're not them.'
Domestically, Starmer has had a miserable first year. The economy is in an even worse condition than it was when he was elected; capital is fleeing in the face of punitive taxes; the number of illegal arrivals across the English Channel has exploded to 44,000 on Labour's watch. As his government marked its first anniversary, a backbench revolt forced it to abandon reforms to the welfare system, leading to a £5 billion fiscal hole which will undoubtedly be filled with yet higher taxes, accelerating the capital flight. It all has a very retro, 1970s feel.
The abysmal state of the nation is, naturally, reflected in opinion polls: Labour's support has collapsed to 23.9 per cent, nearly five points behind Nigel Farage's insurgent Reform Party. While the Tories remain a joke, Labour is already being seen as a failed experiment.
Yet amidst the domestic gloom, foreign policy has, to the surprise of many, emerged as Starmer's strong suit. What has stood out, in particular, has been his deft handling of Donald Trump – a feat that has eluded most world leaders. On Friday, it was announced that Trump will visit Scotland next month, where he will combine the opening of a new golf course with a bilateral meeting with Starmer. Then, later in the year, he will be flattered by the panoply of a full State visit, at the invitation of King Charles. Two visits in six months (plus an early and successful visit by Starmer to the White House) is pretty effective diplomacy. Some prime ministers can't even get a meeting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Laura Tingle on tricky diplomacy in China
Sam Hawley: Will Australia join a US war against China if it invades Taiwan? That's the stark question Anthony Albanese faced during his delicate visit to Beijing. He's trying to strengthen trade and business ties. So with the prime minister meeting the Chinese president, can he drum up more business while managing tensions in the relationship? Today, the ABC's newly appointed global affairs editor, Laura Tingle, joins us from Beijing. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Laura, Anthony Albanese and President Xi, they're two leaders that have a lot to talk about, to say the least, aren't they? Laura Tingle: They do have a lot to talk about, Sam. News report: Prime Minister is sitting down with China's president in Beijing in a high profile meeting being closely watched in Canberra and Washington. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: Australia values our relationship with China and will continue to approach it in a calm and consistent manner. It's important we have these direct discussions on issues that matter to us and to the stability and prosperity of our region. Xi Jinping, Chinese President: With joint efforts from both sides, the China-Australia relationship has rose from the setback and turned around. Laura Tingle: There are all the sort of cliches about relationships and all those sorts of things, but it's interesting to me to come back to China on a prime ministerial trip after a bit of a break, because it does feel very much like the trips of the 80s and 90s, where it was all love and kisses and opportunities, which, given that there are points of significant difference between the two sides, is interesting. Sam Hawley: Well, Laura, the prime minister did speak after the meeting. He says he raised the detention of the Australian writer Yang Hengjun with the Chinese president. But overall, he was really positive about the economic relationship that Australia has with China right now. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: We had a very constructive meeting with President Xi in which we spoke about the range of issues facing our relationship with China. My government's approach to our relationship with China is patient, is calibrated and is deliberate. Sam Hawley: Not to mention, of course, Donald Trump. He's ever present, isn't he? And his tariffs. Laura Tingle: Absolutely. He's ever present. And just in the last 24 hours, we've had yet another announcement from Donald Trump, of course, about the possibility of really tough tariffs on Russia, over Ukraine, if Vladimir Putin doesn't do as he should, according to Donald Trump. And he's threatening secondary sanctions on China, or he hasn't named China, but on countries that have strong trading relationships with Russia, which would hit China as its biggest trading partner. So it affects everything that's going on here in Beijing at the moment. The world is being rewired before our eyes, I think, Sam. Sam Hawley: Well, we know, of course, that trade and business are crucial items for Anthony Albanese during this trip. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: And given that China is overwhelmingly, by far, the largest trading partner that Australia has, it is very much in the interest of Australian jobs and the Australian economy to have a positive and constructive relationship with China. Sam Hawley: But the thing is, Laura, we've seen before that this relationship with China is so delicate that it can fall apart in a nanosecond. We saw that, didn't we, with Scott Morrison when he called for an inquiry into COVID, trade was just cut by Beijing. So why are we trying to build it up when we know that it can fall apart so easily? Laura Tingle: Well, it can fall apart around the edges, but realistically, we still have this massive trade relationship with China. That's the reality of it. They've cut us off on some particular markets in the past few years, but still 25% of our exports go to China. So that relationship is really solid. China, for the time being, certainly, or for the next little while, is reliant on our iron ore. So while you have these disruptions and things, it's still a fundamental relationship. Now, it is extraordinary to just think about how bad things did get a few years ago, where basically no minister could get a phone call from anybody in China. They were throwing Australian journalists out of the country and jailing others. It was, you know, it was pretty ugly. News report: An Australian journalist working in China has been detained by the Chinese government in a highly sensitive case, posing a fresh challenge to those already fraught Australia-China relations. News report: First, it was barley. Now it's beef. Our largest trading partner suspending imports from four abattoirs. News report: Beyond meat, China is now refusing to accept timber from four states. Lobsters are shut out. Wine exporters face up to 200% tariff. Laura Tingle: I think there's been a bit of a change at the Chinese end. I think the whole culture of the so-called wolf warrior diplomacy was something that they ultimately decided wasn't really working in their interests. And I think once again, to mention Donald Trump, you can see, I think, that not just in their relationship with Australia, but in their relationship with countries like Vietnam. China is really pushing this message that, you know, we're the safe and steady, you know, people who make very sensible, rational, calm decisions about our trade relationships. China's playing the sort of adult in the room role, if you like. Sam Hawley: Well, Laura, of course, trade is one thing. But then there is the flip side to this relationship, and that is security, of course, and the elephant, if you like, in the room, which is Taiwan. And that is when things get really complicated, don't they, for Anthony Albanese? Laura Tingle: Well, they do and they don't get complicated in some way, Sam. If you think about sort of the domestic way this issue has to play out at some point and also then how it plays out on the international stage. Now, a story was leaked over the weekend, just as the prime minister was arriving in Shanghai, about how the Under Secretary of Defense, Elbridge Colby, was pushing Australia and Japan to say exactly what their position would be in the case of a war with Taiwan. On one level, that's sort of a bit embarrassing for the prime minister, but he's made it clear that, you know, we make our own decisions about these things. Reporter: Do you think it's important, from the point of view of deterrence, of China, that you say, yes, we're involved or no, we're not involved? Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: I think it's important that we have a consistent position, which Australia has had for a long period of time. We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don't support any unilateral action. Laura Tingle: And it was being linked to the AUKUS submarines, the Virginia class submarines that we're supposed to be getting from the Americans. Now, it's quite clear, talking to Australian officials, that they don't regard the AUKUS deal is in any way, gives the Americans any right to tell us what we would do with the US submarines once we got them, because they'd be ours, you know, we would buy them. Now, there seems to be a fair degree of confidence that despite these stories, you know, that will all sort of settle down. And I sort of also think you've got to back engineer this a little bit. I mean, if you took Elbridge Colby's comments seriously and said, he's saying that we can't get the submarines unless we're prepared to go to war with Taiwan. Well, wait a minute. The Americans haven't said that they would go to war with China over Taiwan. It sort of doesn't all quite stack up. Sam Hawley: There was some confusion, wasn't there, when Joe Biden was president over some questioning on this, whether the US would support Taiwan militarily. Laura Tingle: Yes. Sam Hawley: That was never really cleared up, but he came pretty close to saying they would. Laura Tingle: He certainly did come close to saying that they would. Donald Trump certainly hasn't. Sam Hawley: What do you think, though, Laura, is the Trump administration justified in asking this question, asking nations if they would support the US if China did invade Taiwan? You know, China has continually been flexing its muscles, hasn't it? Military exercises around the Pacific, including almost all the way around Australia. So there's reason for concern. There's reason for discussions like this. Laura Tingle: Absolutely. There's a really legitimate reason for discussions. And I think it's really important that Australia has that discussion internally, because I don't think we've been having it until now. And it affects those decisions about whether we have a forward strategic stance in the South China Sea or not. But I think the crucial question is it's fine for the Americans to ask that question if their own position is clarified. And I think this is the dodgy bit of it, to use the technical phrase. I mean, I think the Americans don't want to say what their position is. And it's not clear that they would go to war over Taiwan with China. Reporter: Would it be reasonable for the United States to demand any sort of assurances from Australia on a Taiwan contingency, given the United States itself maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity, at least in theory, on Taiwan? Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: Well, you've just answered the question yourself, I think, through the comments that you've made. Sam Hawley: Well, Laura, just sum this up for me. How successful do you think the prime minister's approach to China will be? Because it is remarkably different, isn't it, to the way that Scott Morrison, for instance, dealt with Beijing or Donald Trump, for that matter? Laura Tingle: Well, you'd have to say at this stage, it's certainly more successful, Sam, just because we have restored those trade links. He's here. This is another visit. You know, as you say, it's always volatile. But for now, it's quite a good relationship. And it serves both countries well in the context of this global trade war that Donald Trump has started. So I think, you know, it's a it's a good basis to be operating in this very uncertain world. Sam Hawley: But Laura, what about tensions in the relationship? What do you think? Will Anthony Albanese actually tackle those head on? Or is he going to bring some sort of softer approach for fear of backlash from China? Laura Tingle: Look, well, I suppose there are two observations on that. One of them is Penny Wong has in the last week gone out very hard on these issues, both in a speech and also in her meetings with her counterpart when she was at the ASEAN meeting. Penny Wong, Foreign Minister: China continues to assert its strategic influence and project its military power further into our region. And we have seen the worrying pace of China's nuclear and conventional military build up without the transparency that the region expects. We are realistic about China's objectives in changing the regional balance of power. Laura Tingle: So she's laid down Australia's protests on all these issues in a very forthright way. And the prime minister has said that, you know, these issues will not be avoided in his conversations with the president and premier while he's here in Beijing. But, you know, it's always the case that those leader to leader meetings, they're a little bit more diplomatic about what they might say publicly. But Anthony Albanese says that, one, he's on the case and two, that it's been successful in the interests of Australia since he's been prime minister. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Laura, it's a true balancing act. That's for sure. The PM's trying to work with China, but he also wants to keep the US happy too. So this, I think, is one of the most complicated relationships he has to deal with as the leader of Australia, right? Laura Tingle: Absolutely. Absolutely. But I can't help but feeling that the way that the Trump administration has been behaving, if you like, in that broader description of its sort of erraticness and everything, has created both political space at home and abroad for the prime minister to establish a more assertive position with both major powers and sort of establish that more independent voice of our own. I think it's been quite useful because I think people at home are sort of, they look at what Donald Trump's been doing with a bit of confusion and concern, and it's just given him some space. And of course, also, you know, three years ago, there was this sense that the Labor Party couldn't say anything negative about the United States at all or about the alliance because they'd get absolutely pummelled by the coalition. It's harder to do that now because of the way the US has been going. But also, of course, the coalition is weakened politically and its both its capacity and its taste for, you know, fighting every last fight as a sign of, you know, being disloyal to the Americans has really subsided. So I think there's a lot of tectonic plate shifting, which give government of the day room to manoeuvre with both major powers. Sam Hawley: Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Kara Jensen-Mackinnon. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
The Advertiser
44 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Kremlin reacts icily to Trump warnings over Ukraine
Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Putin, who has spoken to Trump by telephone at least six times in 2025, has yet to comment publicly on Trump's remarks. But two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war - on which he said the United States had spent $US350 billion ($A534 billion) - but that he had been "disappointed" by Putin. Trump specifically expressed frustration that Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Trump said of Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The United States says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones that injured 18 people. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war". Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention was to impose "100 per cent tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal was not struck in 50 days. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second-largest exporter of oil Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Putin, who has spoken to Trump by telephone at least six times in 2025, has yet to comment publicly on Trump's remarks. But two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war - on which he said the United States had spent $US350 billion ($A534 billion) - but that he had been "disappointed" by Putin. Trump specifically expressed frustration that Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Trump said of Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The United States says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones that injured 18 people. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war". Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention was to impose "100 per cent tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal was not struck in 50 days. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second-largest exporter of oil Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Putin, who has spoken to Trump by telephone at least six times in 2025, has yet to comment publicly on Trump's remarks. But two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war - on which he said the United States had spent $US350 billion ($A534 billion) - but that he had been "disappointed" by Putin. Trump specifically expressed frustration that Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Trump said of Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The United States says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones that injured 18 people. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war". Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention was to impose "100 per cent tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal was not struck in 50 days. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second-largest exporter of oil Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Putin, who has spoken to Trump by telephone at least six times in 2025, has yet to comment publicly on Trump's remarks. But two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war - on which he said the United States had spent $US350 billion ($A534 billion) - but that he had been "disappointed" by Putin. Trump specifically expressed frustration that Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Trump said of Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The United States says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones that injured 18 people. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war". Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention was to impose "100 per cent tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal was not struck in 50 days. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second-largest exporter of oil
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Russia shrugs off Donald Trump's threat of 'very severe' sanctions over Ukraine war
Russia has attempted to shrug off Donald Trump's threat to impose new and "very severe" tariffs if Vladimir Putin fails to agree to peace with Ukraine. The Kremlin reacted icily to the US president warning on Monday that Moscow had 50 days to agree to a ceasefire, calling it a "theatrical ultimatum". Mr Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, also announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports. The US president doubled down in an interview with the BBC on Tuesday, saying he was "very disappointed" with Mr Putin and frustrated that "talk" had not led to an end to the three-year conflict. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Mr Peskov went on to claim that decisions being made in Washington and other NATO capitals were "perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal for peace but as a signal to continue the war". Two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Mr Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Mr Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war — on which he said the United States had spent $US350 billion ($532 billion). Mr Putin, who has spoken to Mr Trump by telephone at least six times this year, has yet to comment publicly on Mr Trump's remarks. During the interview with the BBC, Mr Trump specifically expressed frustration that Mr Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Mr Trump said of Mr Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Mr Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. "I am disappointed but I am not done with him," Mr Trump in an interview with the BBC, said in regards to Mr Putin and the peace deal with Ukraine he thought was on the cards. When asked by the BBC if he trusted the Russian president, Mr Trump responded saying: "I trust almost nobody, to be honest with you." Mr Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The US says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. Mr Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace — but on his terms — and that there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Mr Trump's intention was to impose "100 per cent tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal was not struck in 50 days. "We can do secondary," Mr Trump said. "We're probably talking about 100 per cent or something like that. We can do secondary tariffs without the Senate, without the House, but what they're crafting also could be very good." Eighty-five of the 100 US senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Mr Trump the authority to impose 500 per cent tariffs on any country that helps Russia. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second largest exporter of oil. Reuters
