ロ特使がトランプ政権高官と会談、ウクライナ侵攻後で最高位の訪米
米政府関係者によると、ロシアとのやり取りを主導するウィットコフ中東担当特使が先週、ドミトリエフ氏を米国に招待したという。
ドミトリエフ氏はスタンフォード大学で学び、ゴールドマン・サックスに勤務した経歴を持ち、トランプ政権の主要メンバーとも親しい関係にある。２０２２年のウクライナ侵攻以来、訪米したロシア高官では最高位となる。
会談内容は分かっていない。
トランプ大統領は先月３０日、ロシアのプーチン大統領に腹を立てていると述べ、ウクライナ戦争終結に向けた自身の取り組みをロシアが妨害していると感じれば、ロシア産原油の買い手に２５─５０％の関税を課すと警告した。ロシアはサウジアラビアに次ぐ世界第２位の原油輸出国。 もっと見る
トランプ政権が２日に公表した相互関税の国別リストにロシアは含まれていなかった。一方、ウクライナには１０％の関税が課された。
私たちの行動規範：
Erin Banco
トムソン・ロイター
Erin Banco is a national security correspondent focusing on the intelligence community. She covers everything from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza to U.S. covert operations overseas. She previously worked at POLITICO as a national security reporter. Banco has a long history covering the Middle East region, from Cairo to Baghdad to Aleppo where she's reported on the Arab Spring and its aftermath, including the civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIS. Her 2017 book, Pipe Dreams, focuses on the development of the oil and gas industry in the northern Kurdistan region of Iraq. Banco attended The University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she majored in Arabic and journalism. She earned a master's in public administration from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs in 2014.
Humeyra Pamuk
トムソン・ロイター
Humeyra Pamuk is a senior foreign policy correspondent based in Washington DC. She covers the U.S. State Department, regularly traveling with U.S. Secretary of State. During her 20 years with Reuters, she has had postings in London, Dubai, Cairo and Turkey, covering everything from the Arab Spring and Syria's civil war to numerous Turkish elections and the Kurdish insurgency in the southeast. In 2017, she won the Knight-Bagehot fellowship program at Columbia University's School of Journalism. She holds a BA in International Relations and an MA on European Union studies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
With Columbia as a model, White House seeks fines in potential deals with Harvard and others
The White House is pursuing heavy fines from Harvard and other universities as part of potential settlements to end investigations into campus antisemitism, using the deal it struck with Columbia University as a template, according to an administration official familiar with the matter. Fines have become a staple of proposed deals in talks with Harvard and other schools, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The new strategy was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Federal civil rights investigations into schools and universities almost always have been resolved through voluntary settlements, yet they rarely include financial penalties. The Biden administration reached dozens of such deals with universities and none included fines. Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration included a $200 million fine in exchange for regaining access to federal funding and closing investigations accusing Columbia of tolerating harassment of Jewish students and employees. The agreement announced Wednesday also orders Columbia to ensure its admissions and hiring decisions are 'merit-based' with no consideration of race, to hire more Jewish studies faculty, and to reduce the university's reliance on international students, among other changes. It places Columbia under the watch of an independent monitor and requires regular disclosures to the government. The agreement deal includes a clause forbidding the government from directly dictating decisions on hiring, admissions or academics. Columbia leaders said it preserves the university's autonomy while restoring the flow of federal money. The Trump administration is investigating dozens of universities over allegations that they failed to address campus antisemitism amid the Israel-Hamas war, and several institutions have faced federal funding freezes, like those at Columbia and Harvard. The federal government has frozen more than $1 billion at Cornell University, along with $790 million at Northwestern University. In announcing the Columbia settlement, administration officials described it as a template for other universities. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a 'roadmap' for colleges looking to regain public trust, saying it would 'ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' As Trump departed the White House on Friday, he told reporters that Harvard 'wants to settle' but that Columbia 'handled it better.' The president said he's optimistic his administration will prevail in Harvard's legal challenge — at least on appeal — and he suggested Harvard may never regain the level of federal funding it received in the past. 'The bottom line is we're not going to give any more money to Harvard,' he said. 'We want to spread the wealth.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
South Wales Guardian
15 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
France's highest court upholds some of Bashar Assad's legal protections
The Cour de Cassation upheld Assad's head-of-state immunity, but added that since he is no longer in office, 'new arrest warrants may have been or may be issued against him for acts that may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity'. The decision is a blow to activists who had hoped the court would set aside the immunity, a decision that could have had far-reaching consequences for other leaders accused of atrocities. 'From our side as a victim, this is a huge mistake. This will support another dictatorship to keep doing this kind of crime, they know they will enjoy immunity,' said Mazen Darwish, president of the Syrian Centre for Media, which collected evidence of war crimes. 'It is a sad day for us,' Mr Darwish said. ⚖️[Press release] Scope of immunity of foreign officials and Heads of State👓Press release and rulings > — Cour de cassation (@Courdecassation) July 25, 2025 The president of the Cour de Cassation, Christophe Soulard, said in the ruling that 19 judges had declined to lift Assad's immunity, which could have paved the way for his trial in absentia in France over the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta in 2013. Human rights lawyers had said that it was high time to enable prosecution of leaders linked to atrocities while they are in power, not just when they leave. But international law forbids it. 'Under current international law, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not exceptions to the principle of jurisdictional immunity for sitting foreign heads of state,' Mr Soulard said. Assad, the former leader of Syria now in exile in Russia, retained no lawyers for these charges and has denied that he was behind the chemical attacks. 'The court's ruling is a missed opportunity for justice,' said Mariana Pena, a lawyer with the Open Society Justice Initiative, which helped bring the case to the court. But she said that the ruling 'leaves the door open to the prosecution of Assad'. The court also ruled on a case against a former Syrian government finance minister in Assad's government, allowing that he could be prosecuted. Adib Mayaleh's lawyers have argued that he had immunity under international law. For more than 50 years, Syria was ruled by Hafez Assad and then his son Bashar. During the Arab Spring, rebellion broke out against their tyrannical rule in 2011 across the country of 23 million people, igniting a brutal 13-year civil war that killed more than 500,000 people, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. Millions more fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Europe. The Assad dynasty manipulated sectarian tensions to stay in power, a legacy driving renewed violence in Syria against minority groups, despite promises that the country's new leaders will carve out a political future for Syria that includes and represents all of its communities. The International Criminal Court is not bound by head of state immunity and has issued arrests warrants for leaders accused of atrocities – like Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines. The Syrian government denied in 2013 that it was behind the Ghouta attack, an accusation that the opposition rejected, because Assad's forces were the only side in the brutal civil war to possess sarin. The United States subsequently threatened military retaliation, but Washington settled for a deal with Moscow for Assad to give up his chemical weapons' stockpile. Assad survived in power more than a decade longer, aided militarily by Russia and Iranian-backed proxies. Activists and human rights group accuse him of using barrel bombs, torture and massacres to crush opponents. But then in late 2024, a surprise assault by rebels swept into Aleppo and then Damascus, driving Assad to flee to safety to Russia on December 8, 2024. New warrants after Friday's ruling in France could lay the groundwork for the former leader's trial in absentia or potential arrest, if he travels outside Russia. Any trial of Assad, whether in absentia or if he leaves Russia, would mean this evidence could then 'be brought to light', Ms Pena said, including an enormous trove of classified and secret evidence amassed by the judges during their investigations. Syrians often took great personal risk to gather evidence of war crimes. Mr Darwish said that in the aftermath of a chlorine gas attack in Douma, for example, teams collected witness testimonies, images of devastation and soil samples. Others then tracked down and interviewed defectors to build a 'chain of command' for the Syrian government's chemical weapons production and use. 'We link it directly to the president himself, Bashar al-Assad,' he said. Syrian authorities are now investigating nearly 300 people for crimes during several days of fighting on the coast earlier this year. T The interim authorities in Damascus have pledged to work with the United Nations on investigating further war crimes of the Assad government and the civil war.
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Telegraph
Columbia University's $220m Trump settlement exposes the Left's basic hypocrisy
Columbia University has just agreed to a massive $220 million settlement with the Trump administration after a fight that centred around rampant anti-Semitism on campus. The university has also agreed to a number of policy reforms, designed to limit future attacks on Jewish students and faculty. Of the settlement, $200 million will go to the federal government and the remaining $20 million to settle employment discrimination claims. Separately, the university has suspended or expelled students who seized the university library in the name of anti-Zionism. The headlines imply that Columbia's settlement is unique, but it may not remain that way for long. Harvard's former president, Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury, has said the deal should set a template for Harvard to settle its own deepening clash with the Trump administration. The issues at the two universities are similar. Left-wing academics are already furious about the Columbia deal, saying it is pure extortion and an unprecedented intrusion into academic affairs. The 'extortion' charge focuses on the Trump administration's efforts to cut Columbia's huge flow of federal money for research and limit its permission for foreign students to enrol. The issues regarding foreign students involve virtually all universities, and are still being argued in federal court. But the Left-wing attacks are largely wrong. They are right in saying that the Trump administration's initial demands went too far in seeking to supervise teaching, appointments, and scholarly work. Those would be wholly inappropriate intrusions into areas where university faculty and administrators should have sole control, as long as they comply with federal law. For any university to approve that kind of intrusion would stifle free speech and set a terrible precedent. Fortunately, those excesses are not part of the Columbia agreement. Where the Leftist criticism is wrong is to call financial threats against universities 'unprecedented' and to say that the Trump administration is using the fight against anti-Semitism as a mask for other punitive policies. For years, under Democratic administrations, the federal government has threatened severe financial sanctions against universities that did not comply with bureaucratic regulations. Those threats went unnoticed, beyond a narrow circle who were directly involved. Why didn't you hear about those threats? For two reasons. First, universities caved in very quickly because they were desperate for federal money. Second, most university faculty and administrators actually agreed with the then-government's politicised, progressive agenda. The mainstream media agreed with it, too, so they rarely if ever reported on this bureaucratic overreach. I saw this supine agreement first hand when federal bureaucrats audited the hiring practices of a major university. The university's DEI administrator told a small, supervisory committee of faculty that the university had completed a federal audit and was in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Then the administrator announced that the federal bureaucrats were demanding 'only a few changes' – demands that went beyond any legal requirements but advanced the bureaucrats' ideological goals. Faced with those demands, every scientist involved in the decision-making favoured immediate compliance with the government's extra-legal demands. Why? Because their research depended on federal money and they couldn't risk a drawn-out conflict, which could hold up their funding. The same hidden fist lay behind the government's effort to require the inclusion of biological men in women's collegiate sports. The threat is that the government will cut off money for other grants if you don't buckle to those demands. You never heard about those threats because universities assented to them so quickly. As for anti-Semitism on campus, it is wilful blindness not to see its pervasive, malign force today. It has been particularly visible and pernicious at Ivy League universities, except for Dartmouth, and at flagship state research universities, except for those in the South. As anti-Semitism has spread across university campuses, administrators and faculty have done little to stop it. Neither did the Biden administration. Many university administrators effectively tolerated the harassment of Jewish students and did almost nothing to punish the malefactors, at least until this week at Columbia. In some cases, faculty – especially in the Humanities, some Social Sciences, and some graduate programmes (notably, schools of divinity and social work) – actively supported the disruptions. The rationale is that social justice demands anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism quickly turns into full-scale anti-Semitism. If the settlement at Columbia and that university's belated decision to punish students who took over the library sets a precedent for other universities, that's good news and a victory for the basic Western values of religious toleration and civil discourse. The impact is likely to be felt well beyond Columbia University. Now that the Trump administration has scored a major win in this culture war, expect them to keep pressing other universities. Two final points about the Trump administration's willingness to confront Columbia and Harvard. First, taking on elite institutions is smart politics for a president who is reshaping his party around populist goals. Second, Trump is characteristically going head to head with the strongest adversaries he can find, not the weakest. He is not going after some small teaching college, which would undoubtedly cave quickly because it needs the money. He is going after Harvard, which has the deepest pockets of any university and a campus population that generally loathes him. Confronting them is a high risk strategy for Trump, but a high reward one, too. When the top Ivy League schools begin to settle with Trump, as Columbia just has, who else can resist? That question must be echoing through the ivied halls in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton. The answer, they will conclude, is increasingly obvious. It's time to strike a deal.
