New Pentagon chief says US will not send troops to Ukraine
Source: He said this during a conversation with journalists in Stuttgart on Tuesday, as reported by European Pravda
Details: The US Secretary of Defense was asked whether the new administration would be open to sending US troops to Ukraine, in particular, to monitor the supply of weapons. Hegseth answered tersely: "We are not sending American troops to Ukraine".
He also noted that President Trump is committed to a quick agreement to end the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Background:
On 12 February, Hegseth will take part in a meeting of the Contact Group on Ukraine's defence, known as the Ramstein format. According to media reports, he will not announce new arms supplies for Ukrainian soldiers.
The Pentagon chief is expected to reaffirm President Trump's commitment to a diplomatic end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reaffirmed the ruling limiting President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking the president's Day 1 order. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a proclamation seeking to end asylum for all migrants besides those who entered the U.S. at ports of entry, contending the change was needed to address the 'invasion' at the border with Mexico. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration on behalf of nonprofits in early February. Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge, Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Trump's ban, saying the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Gregory G. Katsas – issued an administrative pause on Moss' early July ruling. Moss argued that the president overstepped his authority in severely limiting asylum for those migrants fleeing danger and persecution. The D.C. circuit panel lifted its stay on Moss' decision. The three-judge panel narrowed the extent of the district judge's decision, permitting the U.S. government to keep utilizing Trump's order to forbid migrants from participating in the asylum system. 'The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News. 'The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system,' McLaughlin added.
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad
The left is trying its best to stir up a furor over the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans (or is it genes) TV commercial to ignite a backlash similar to the Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle. Sorry progressives, it ain't happening. Yes, there's lots of chirping from lefty columnists, purple-haired TikTok influencers, late-night hosts who are still employed, and assorted wokesters after American Eagle had the audacity to feature the attractive blond, blue-eyed actress expressing her sartorial flair in a pair of tight-fitting blue jeans. Advertisement 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color . . . my jeans are blue,' the 'Euphoria' star says. The ad ends with a voice-over: 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' Blond women? Blue-eyed? Good genes (I mean jeans)? Oh, the horror! That's if you are listening to the leftist commentariat that still hasn't piped down weeks after the spot first appeared. The lefties are freaking because they think the jeans company is looking to bring back the bad old days, pre-George Floyd of course, when white blond oppressors ruled over American culture. Advertisement It's all very Hitler-like to the progressive numbskull class, but not to just about every other segment of American society. Most Americans of all colors and genders either don't care, or they know good genes and jeans when they see it. I know this based on lots of reporting on the mind virus known wokeness — the progressive orthodoxy that embraces everything from cultural Marxism, DEI and, of course, the oppressor-oppressed theology. We are a diverse country, and that's good. The wokesters take it to a level that excludes rather than includes. Good-looking white people, particularly if their hair is that evil shade known as blond, are nowhere near the intersectional matrix they demand for hiring or image making in their version of America. Advertisement That's why Sydney Sweeney, known more for her cleavage than her politics, has become a touchstone in our culture wars, and here's why the attacks won't work: Wokeness was once big in the business world, but notice my use of the past tense. Corporate America listened to these kooks for many reasons, including their own progressive management leanings, with disastrous results. They learned the hard way that most Americans of all races hate being proselytized with political dogma, particularly of the left-wing variety that pushes the limits of identity and gender politics beyond cultural norms. I chronicled this spectacle with a healthy dose of schadenfreude in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America.' Just a few short years ago, DEI was the norm; so was radical environmentalism pushed by asset managers through something called ESG investing. It was difficult finding a straight man or woman — God forbid a blond — who survived the Madison Avenue woke censor machine. Budweiser thought its customers were ready for a commercial featuring a half-naked trans woman in a bubble bath. Disney decided it could sell more kids programming featuring same-sex kissing scenes. Money managers like BlackRock thought they could increase returns by advocating environmentalism and de facto racial quotas on their portfolio companies. Advertisement All of the above resulted in some of the biggest brand-destroying disasters in modern business history. Marketing is a lot like politics. It's a business of addition, not subtraction. You build customers just like you attract voters, through messaging that unites rather than divides — or customers flee. There are exceptions, of course. Niche brands like Ben & Jerry's ice cream attempt and succeed at targeting the tree-hugger demo. Try this stuff on a mass audience and you will get the beatdown of the century. The predictable customer revolt impacted the businesses of Budweiser, Disney and BlackRock in such a measurable way that shareholders revolted, too, forcing some of the most progressive CEOs in the world to course-correct. That's why the Sydney Sweeney uproar will go nowhere with the people who matter most: Most American consumers, and American Eagle shareholders. Unless you're stretching it like Silly Putty, there's nothing inherently political about a pretty blond (dare I say 'All American'-looking) woman in jeans and pointing out the health of her genes to sell stuff. Zero. Zilch. Otherwise, Pamela Anderson would have been a poster child for Aryan Nations instead of the 'Baywatch' babe most American men and many women adored, and still do. Shares of American Eagle are up since the Sydney Sweeney ad ran, despite the backlash. NYU Marketing Professor Eitan Muller points out the obvious, telling Fox Business's Teuta Dedvukaj that the commercial 'attracts attention, drives Google searches, and boosts the brand. Yes, she does have great genes — and it rings authentic. That's what you want from an ad.' My bet: You will be seeing a lot more of Sydney Sweeney. Most men will be rejoicing, many women will buy the company's jeans. Management will be rewarded with higher sales and a stock price that matches. The attacks will ultimately fail for the same reason Mulvaney's tenure as a spokeswoman for Bud Light was so short-lived. Recall: The nation's Number 1-selling beer dropped to Number 3 and never recovered. Sydney Sweeney has both good jeans and genes and there's nothing the wokesters can do to change that reality.
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, from Laos to Brazil. And there were no real winners
WASHINGTON — President Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers — from small, poor countries such as Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty export taxes — tariffs — on the products they export to the U.S. starting Thursday. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that succumbed to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded — dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' — April 2 — when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after April announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually some of them did, acceding to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs to maintain their ability to sell to the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the U.K. for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low-single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening — 30% on the EU and 25% on Japan. Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt by a U.S. ally that China claims as its territory. 'Twenty percent from the beginning has not been our goal. We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei on Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral loss and inspiring a riot in the capital in 2023 — recalling Trump's role in the Jan. 6. insurrection two years earlier at the U.S. Capitol. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on long-standing U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his April 2 tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wends its way through the legal system, and may end up at the Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who typically pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all raised prices due to U.S. tariffs. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report.
