Military planners must realise security no longer stops at the border, says DroneShield
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
What it would take for Putin to be fazed by Trump's threats
Don't miss out on the headlines from World. Followed categories will be added to My News. It's been six months since Donald Trump walked back into the Oval Office. This time, four years older, with a batch of felonies under his belt and a slew of shiny new promises. One of which was that he would quickly end Russia's three-year war with Ukraine – hopefully within 'six months'. The deadline was a backtrack from his highly touted campaign promise he would end the conflict in a mere 24 hours. But after hitting the half-yearly milestone this week, Mr Trump's ambitious plan has not panned out as he hoped, and his patience is seemingly wearing more and more thin with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump initially said he would the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. Picture: Andrew Harnik/Getty 'Trump thinks because of the aid the United States supplies to Ukraine, he has leverage over Ukraine and because of his own personal relationship with Putin, he has leverage over Putin so he can get the two of them to come together to have a peace deal and that will cement his legacy,' Dr Charles Miller, a senior lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University, told 'So he ties this strategy, puts pressure on Ukraine, makes nice with Russia with the hope that Putin is going to stop at the point where he is at, accept the gains he's already made and end the war for a few years.' But as Mr Trump would soon learn, Mr Putin didn't follow the script. 'Putin more or less rejects any of the overtures that Trump has made to try and end the war … (Trump) has kind of put himself out for Putin and Putin's kind of rejected him,' Dr Miller said. It's been more than three years since Mr Putin announced a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Picture: Kristina Kormilitsyna/Pool/AFP 'A useful idiot' Even before returning to office in January, Mr Trump and Mr Putin had a complicated relationship, with the US President taking a relatively tough approach on Moscow during his first term and claims that Mr Putin had sought to help Mr Trump in the 2016 election later sparking a number of investigations - an issue which has recently been brought back into the spotlight. A 2021 US intelligence later stated Mr Putin had authorised a campaign to assist Mr Trump in the 2020 election - won by former President Joe Biden. Mr Trump also hasn't been shy about publicly praising Mr Putin over the years. He described Mr Putin as a 'big hero in Russia', defended him against accusations that he was a killer and called his move to declare two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states 'genius'. While some have used the term 'bromance' to describe Mr Trump and Mr Putin's relationship, Dr Miller argues it is much more 'unequal'. While Mr Trump shows an 'admiration' for Mr Putin, he believes the Russian leader views Mr Trump with more 'amusement and bemusement'. 'There's a sense that perhaps he has himself a useful idiot, basically. So I don't think there's very much in the way of admiration,' Dr Miller said. '(Trump's) the kind of person that you don't really get so much in Russia. He's a very American kind of character. He's very individualistic, flamboyant, almost camp in a certain sense, and that's just not the kind of person that you really find in Russian culture. 'So, I think he's kind of baffled him … I don't think that he really admires him or respects him to any great degree.' Mr Trump and Mr Putin's dynamic is 'unequal', Dr Miller says. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP Others have also pointed out the relationship imbalance, with John Bolton, who served as the national security adviser to Mr Trump from 2018-2019, saying Mr Putin sees Mr Trump as an 'easy mark'. 'Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin,' Mr Bolton told the Kyiv Independent newspaper in March. 'As a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before.' Trump's recent shift towards Putin After Mr Trump's inauguration, the President said he shared a rare 90-minute phone call with Mr Putin in February to discuss a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. It was the first confirmed direct conversation between Mr Putin and a sitting US President in two years. 'We both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine,' Mr Trump posted to Truth Social at the time. 'President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, 'COMMON SENSE.' We both believe very strongly in it. We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other's nations.' Mr Putin sees Mr Trump as an 'easy mark', commentators say. Picture: Mikhail Metzel, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo/AP Later that month, things looked more favourable for Russia when Mr Trump sensationally clashed with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a heated Oval Office row – an interaction former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul called a 'gift to Vladimir Putin'. 'That is not in our national interest to be on that side,' he toldNBC News. But by March, Mr Trump was singing a different tune, telling NBC News he was 'p***ed off' with Mr Putin when he criticised the credibility of Mr Zelensky's leadership. 'I was very angry – p***ed off – when Putin started getting into Zelensky's credibility, because that's not going in the right location, you understand?' Mr Trump said. 'But new leadership means you're not gonna have a deal for a long time, right?' Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky clashed in the Oval Office of the White House on February 28. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP But Dr Miller said the real shift in actions towards Russia has taken place in 'the past couple of weeks' – during which time Mr Trump has also stepped up rhetoric against the Russian leader, saying 'I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy' and declaring the US 'get a lot of bulls**t thrown at us by Putin' among other remarks. Dr Miller said one sign of the shift was the White House's announcement on July 1, US time, that it had stopped the shipment of some air defence and precision-guided weapons that were on track to be sent to Ukraine – a decision that was reversed days later. 'This was interpreted as being obviously something that's very damaging and an intention towards Ukraine and it absolutely was but then we saw a reversal of that policy,' he said. The following week, Mr Trump said he was 'very, very unhappy' with Mr Putin and warned Russia it would face massive new economic sanctions if it did not end the war within 50 days. 'We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100 per cent,' Mr Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on July 14. He further threatened 'secondary tariffs' targeting Russia's remaining trade partners and announced a deal whereby the US would send 'top of the line weapons' to NATO to support Ukraine. Reacting to the news, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov initially told reporters 'the US president's words are very serious' and said Russia needed time to 'analyse what was said in Washington'. But former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, simply brushed off the threats. 'Trump set a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world trembled in anticipation of the consequences, Europe was disappointed – and Russia doesn't care,' he wrote in a statement on X. Meanwhile, senior Russian diplomat Sergei Ryabkov warned 'any attempts to make demands, especially ultimatums, are unacceptable to us'. 'If we cannot achieve our goals through diplomacy, then the SVO (war in Ukraine) will continue … This is an unshakeable position,' he said. Russia 'doesn't care' about Mr Trump's threats, former President Dmitry Medvedev said. Picture Brendan Smialowski/AFP Dr Miller also isn't confident Mr Trump's threat was enough to pressure Mr Putin, suggesting 'it's quite possible Putin has considered that he's just bluffing'. 'The problem that Trump has is that if he's going around threatening people with tariffs and then giving them a deadline and then not doing anything and then reversing the tariffs and changing his mind, he makes it really really difficult for anybody to really take him seriously.' Instead, he said it will be pressure on the battlefield rather than Mr Trump's ever-changing threats that could prompt Russia to make a deal with Ukraine. What it would take to actually faze Putin? Dr Miller said Mr Trump would have to follow up his words with 'more serious action' such as secondary sanctions or send more aid to Ukraine, for there to be a 'reason for Putin to genuinely be fazed' by the US President. 'There have been many times when Trump has appeared to shift against Putin and then not do something … I think that the key thing to look out for is not necessarily what Trump says but what Trump does,' he said. Dr Miller said if Mr Trump followed through with his threat of secondary tariffs, it would be 'very damaging' for Russia. 'If you were a Chinese company, then you're basically faced with a choice to either do business with the United States or with Russia. In that kind, of situation, I think most Chinese companies would choose to do it with the United States and cut Russia off because it is simply not as lucrative as a market. So that would hurt Russia.' Dr Miller said if Mr Trump followed through with his threat of secondary tariffs it would be 'very damaging' for Russia. Picture: Andrew Harnik/Getty He said a change in Mr Trump's administration, such as the replacement of the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard – who has alleged former President Barack Obama created a false assessment of Russia's role in the 2016 election – would also be a clear sign of a change in Mr Trump's focus. 'I think that's a big sign especially if she's replaced by a more conventional Republican figure. Also if there are other people from the prior Trump administration who come back in who are more conventional Republicans,' Dr Miller said. He added it's possible Mr Trump could turn on Mr Putin – even if he did still admire him. 'When your think about the people that Trump has been involved with over the course of his life, there's a great pattern of instability in his personal relationships … he's had close business partners and close political friends that he then chucks out. 'So the idea that he could turn on Putin eventually for some reason is not implausible at all.' As for Mr Trump's big campaign promise to end the war, Dr Miller said it's possible Russia and Ukraine will reach a ceasefire before the next US election in 2028, but that doesn't mean Mr Trump will be the one behind it. 'There are plenty of other countries that could, Turkey, for example, could mediate the ceasefire. Already both of those countries are talking to Turkey, they've met in Istanbul. 'So, maybe it will ultimately be (President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan rather than Trump who gets the credit for ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.' Originally published as Expert reveals what it would take for Putin to be fazed by Trump's threats
News.com.au
18 hours ago
- News.com.au
Expert reveals what it would take for Putin to be fazed by Trump's threats
It's been six months since Donald Trump walked back into the Oval Office. This time, four years older, with a batch of felonies under his belt and a slew of shiny new promises. One of which was that he would quickly end Russia's three-year war in Ukraine – hopefully within 'six months'. The deadline was a backtrack from his highly touted campaign promise he would end the three year conflict in a mere 24 hours. But after hitting the half-yearly milestone this week, Mr Trump's ambitious plan has not panned out as he hoped, and his patience is seemingly wearing more and more thin with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'Trump thinks because of the aid the United States supplies to Ukraine, he has leverage over Ukraine and because of his own personal relationship with Putin, he has leverage over Putin so he can get the two of them to come together to have a peace deal and that will cement his legacy,' Dr Charles Miller, a senior lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University, told 'So he ties this strategy, puts pressure on Ukraine, makes nice with Russia with the hope that Putin is going to stop at the point where he is at, accept the gains he's already made and end the war for a few years.' But as Mr Trump would soon learn, Mr Putin didn't follow the script. 'Putin more or less rejects any of the overtures that Trump has made to try and end the war … (Trump) has kind of put himself out for Putin and Putin's kind of rejected him,' Dr Miller said. 'A useful idiot' Even before returning to office in January, Mr Trump and Mr Putin had a complicated relationship, with the US President taking a relatively tough approach on Moscow during his first term and claims that Mr Putin had sought to help Mr Trump in the 2016 election later prompting a number of investigations - an issue which has recently been brought back into the spotlight A 2021 US intelligence also stated Mr Putin had authorised a campaign to assist Mr Trump in the 2020 election. Mr Trump also hasn't been shy about publicly praising Mr Putin over the years. He described Mr Putin as a ' big hero in Russia ', defended him against accusations that he was a killer and called his move to declare two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states 'genius'. While some have used the term 'bromance' to describe Mr Trump and Mr Putin's dynamic, Dr Miller argues it is much more 'unequal'. While Mr Trump shows an 'admiration' for Mr Putin, he believes the Russian leader views Mr Trump with more 'amusement and bemusement'. 'There's a sense that perhaps he has himself a useful idiot, basically. So I don't think there's very much in the way of admiration,' Dr Miller said. '(Trump's) the kind of person that you don't really get so much in Russia. He's a very American kind of character. He's very individualistic, flamboyant, almost camp in a certain sense, and that's just not the kind of person that you really find in Russian culture. 'So, I think he's kind of baffled him … I don't think that he really admires him or respects him to any great degree.' Others have also pointed out the relationship imbalance, with John Bolton, who served as the national security adviser to Mr Trump from 2018-2019, saying Mr Putin sees Mr Trump as an 'easy mark'. 'Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin,' Mr Bolton told the Kyiv Independent newspaper in March. 'As a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before.' Trump's recent shift towards Putin Shortly after Mr Trump's inauguration, the President shared a rare 90-minute phone call with Mr Putin to discuss a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. It was the first known direct conversation between the pair in two years. 'We both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine,' Mr Trump posted to Truth Social at the time. 'President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, 'COMMON SENSE.' We both believe very strongly in it. We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other's nations.' The following month, things looked more favourable for Russia when Mr Trump sensationally clashed with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a heated Oval Office row – an interaction former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul called a 'gift to Vladimir Putin'. 'That is not in our national interest to be on that side,' he told NBC News. But by March, Mr Trump was singing a different tune, telling NBC News he was 'p***ed off' with Mr Putin when he criticised the credibility of Mr Zelensky's leadership. 'I was very angry – p***ed off – when Putin started getting into Zelensky's credibility, because that's not going in the right location, you understand?' Mr Trump said. 'But new leadership means you're not gonna have a deal for a long time, right?' But Dr Miller said the real shift in actions towards Russia has taken place in 'the past couple of weeks' – during which time Mr Trump has also stepped up rhetoric against the Russian leader, saying 'I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy' and declaring the US 'get a lot of bulls**t thrown at us by Putin'. Dr Miller said one sign of the shift was the White House's announcement on July 1, US time, that it had stopped the shipment of some air defence and precision-guided weapons that were on track to be sent to Ukraine – a decision that was reversed days later. 'This was interpreted as being obviously something that's very damaging and an intention towards Ukraine and it absolutely was but then we saw a reversal of that policy,' he said. The following week, Mr Trump said he was said he was 'very, very unhappy' with Mr Putin and warned Russia it would face massive new economic sanctions if it did not end the war within 50 days. 'We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100 per cent,' Mr Trump said during an Oval Office meeting. He further threatened 'secondary tariffs' targeting Russia's remaining trade partners and announced a deal whereby the US would send 'top of the line weapons' to NATO to support Ukraine. Reacting to the news, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov initially told reporters 'the US president's words are very serious' and said Russia needed time to 'analyse what was said in Washington'. But former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, simply brushed off the threats. 'Trump set a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world trembled in anticipation of the consequences, Europe was disappointed – and Russia doesn't care,' he wrote in a statement on X. Meanwhile, senior Russian diplomat Sergei Ryabkov warned 'any attempts to make demands, especially ultimatums, are unacceptable to us'. 'If we cannot achieve our goals through diplomacy, then the SVO (war in Ukraine) will continue … This is an unshakeable position,' he said. Dr Miller also isn't confident Mr Trump's threat was enough to pressure Mr Putin, suggesting 'it's quite possible Putin has considered that he's just bluffing'. 'The problem that Trump has is that if he's going around threatening people with tariffs and then giving them a deadline and then not doing anything and then reversing the tariffs and changing his mind, he makes it really really difficult for anybody to really take him seriously.' Instead, he said it will be pressure on the battlefield rather than Mr Trump's ever-changing threats that could prompt Russia to make a deal with Ukraine. What it would take to actually faze Putin? Dr Miller said that until Mr Trump follows up his words with 'more serious action' such as secondary sanctions or sends more aid to Ukraine, then there would be a 'reason for Putin to genuinely be fazed' by Mr Trump. 'There have been many times when Trump has appeared to shift against Putin and then not do something … I think that the key thing to look out for is not necessarily what Trump says but what Trump does,' he said. Dr Miller said if Mr Trump followed through with his threat of secondary tariffs, it would be 'very damaging' for Russia. 'If you were a Chinese company, then you're basically faced with a choice to either do business with the United States or with Russia. In that kind, of situation, I think most Chinese companies would choose to do it with the United States and cut Russia off because it is simply not as lucrative as a market. So that would hurt Russia.' He said a change in Mr Trump's administration, such as the replacement of the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard – who has alleged former President Barack Obama created a false assessment of Russia's role in the 2016 election – would also be a clear sign of a change in Mr Trump's focus. 'I think that's a big sign especially if she's replaced by a more conventional Republican figure. Also if there are other people from the prior Trump administration who come back in who are more conventional Republicans,' Dr Miller said. He added it's possible Mr Trump could turn on Mr Putin – even if he did still admire him. 'When your think about the people that Trump has been involved with over the course of his life, there's a great pattern of instability in his personal relationships … he's had close business partners and close political friends that he then chucks out. 'So the idea that he could turn on Putin eventually for some reason is not implausible at all.' As for his big campaign promise to end the war, Dr Miller said it's possible Russia and Ukraine will reach a ceasefire before the next US election in 2028, but that doesn't mean Mr Trump will be the one behind it. 'There are plenty of other countries that could, Turkey, for example, could mediate the ceasefire. Already both of those countries are talking to Turkey, they've met in Istanbul. 'So, maybe it will ultimately be (President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan rather than Trump who gets the credit for ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.'
Sky News AU
a day ago
- Sky News AU
The two-timing Chinese act that made a complete fool of Albo's charm offensive as the world again sits on the brink of all-out war
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recent six-day visit to China has once again raised hard questions about Labor's stance on our relationship with Beijing, which runs in parallel to our allied commitments to the US, the UK and other core security partners. Trade was on top of the PM's China agenda, despite renewed fears of Beijing's plans to resolve the Taiwan dilemma by force. Australia finds itself in a far more complex region than was envisaged a decade ago, a fact the recent talks seem to largely neglect. From 'undefeated combat brotherhood' to loose security triangles The problem with understanding the current geopolitical setting - who is your friend, who is your ally, and who is your foe - is no longer straight and clear as it used to be. We have truly entered the phase of geopolitical fluidity when old norms and rules are no longer set in stone. A need for an adaptive approach is of growing relevance when it comes to assessing allied dynamics in the Indo-Pacific, particularly with respect to our geopolitical rivals. The Moscow-led allied relationship between Russia and North Korea continues to progress and mature, as was noted during the visit of Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the country on July 12. During his meeting with the North Korean counterpart Choi Son-hui, Lavrov described the bilateral strategic treaty as "the basis of undefeated combative brotherhood". The alliance between the two nuclear-armed autocratic states will have to form a part of any future strategic calculus vis-a-vis power dynamics in northeast Asia and beyond. It is also worth reminding ourselves of China's close strategic relations with both Moscow and Pyongyang. Following his stopover in North Korea, Lavrov travelled to China to hold a series of strategic talks with his counterpart Wan Yi, even though he spoke to him just days before at the ASEAN summit in Malaysia. Although, it's too soon to look at this trio through the prism of a formed triangular security partnership, such as the 2023 Camp David agreement between the US, South Korea and Japan, the intensity of at least Russia-China high level contacts is telling and should not be dismissed as it happened to date. I doubt anyone imagined five years ago that Russia-North Korea rapprochement would reach current levels and that DPRK troops would see combat in the eastern European theatre of war. Being trapped in a set of self-comforting perceptions in such a dynamic and fluid geopolitical environment is a road with a dead end. What also requires closer attention is another emerging allied security triangle, China-Pakistan-Iran, in which Beijing is claiming a leadership role. It is a well-documented fact that China has close strategic ties with both countries, just like there is a close relationship between Islamabad and Tehran. Over the past two months, these deepened ties were put to the test during two major regional crisis, a near-war between India and Pakistan, and the 12-day war between Israel, the US and Iran. During the latest round of hostilities between New Delhi and Islamabad in May, Beijing was believed to be supplying Pakistani military not just with armaments and training but also with operational intelligence. According to the Depurty Chief of the Indian Army Lieutenant-General Rahul Singh, Islamabad received 'all possible support' from its de-facto ally, including 'live inputs' on India's defensive layout. Aside from political declarations, Beijing's military support for Iran during its latest open clash with Israel last month was more evasive. Yet, it had a limited footprint. During the intensive phase of the conflict, Chinese aircraft were believed to be delivering defence supplies into Iran, while an electronic warfare vessel was operating in the Gulf area, possibly tracking the trajectory of Israel's aerial and missile missions. In early July, the 47th Naval Escort Task Force of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), while operating in the Red Sea, was involved in a dangerous standoff with a German surveillance aircraft. This action could be perceived as a covert show of support for the Iran-backed Houthi militants, which stepped up their spectacular strikes against western shipping of the coast of Yemen. Pakistan was bolder in its support of the Iranian regime, by also escalating its political rhetoric with references to its nuclear capability and promises to offer its neighbour a de-facto extended deterrence. It is doubtful that the Chinese authorities were blissfully unaware of Pakistan's war of words over Israel. In the future, this triangular relationship may mature into a more substantive organisational structure. No appetite to 'discuss hypotheticals' This message from Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, was designed to be a bold response to equally bold messaging from Pentagon and the White House, which are seeking a clear commitment to a possible war contingency in the Taiwan Strait from Australia and Japan. 'The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance…', Mr Conroy said. Clearly, Canberra was reluctant to engage in warmongering rhetoric prior to the PM's visit to China. This is all very well. But what is equally clear is that while Albanese prioritises trade with China, others like Minister Lavrov are busy discussing a whole range of strategic matters. 'The importance of strengthening close coordination between the two countries [China and Russia] in the international arena…. jointly respond to the challenges brought about by a turbulent and changing world," read extracts from the statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry following Lavrov-Wan Yi talks. At the same time, Canberra finds it completely normal to engage in political fencing with our key security and defence ally, instead of securing a sit-down meeting between the PM and US President Donald Trump. Labor's ongoing balancing act may have worked in the past when the world's geopolitical dynamics were different. But not now, when geostrategic competition between great powers and respective allies gave way to power contests and conflict. Dr. Alexey Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies at Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.
