Yet another Trump ultimatum falls flat in Moscow
Last Tuesday, Russia rejected Trump's ultimatum. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said 'any attempts to make demands, especially ultimatums, are unacceptable to us. If we cannot achieve our goals through diplomacy, then the [war in Ukraine] will continue.'
The Kremlin then promptly returned to its terror tactics of bombing Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles and drones. The White House and mainstream media seem to have moved on.
Ultimata from U.S. presidents do not seem to carry the same weight today as they once did.
Words like 'Don't,' uttered by both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, had no deterrence on Iran. Nor did Trump's demand for an unconditional surrender. Tehran simply 'did,' then declared victory.
President Theodore Roosevelt's 'walk softly and carry a big stick' proverb only carries weight if that big stick is used in a convincing manner. What the Kremlin needs right now is a punch in the face — not another 50 days to attack Ukraine.
Trump's 50-day grace period essentially gives Russian President Vladimir Putin a license to kill and sets conditions for him to mount another offensive to dethrone Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Reports suggest that 160,000 Russian troops are massing along the frontlines and another 30,000 North Korean soldiers are preparing to deploy to Russia.
It is not the American military that our adversaries have a lack of respect for — they know all too well what its capabilities are. No, it is the American commander-in-chief, who needs to be much harder on our adversaries than our allies.
Trump may authorize more strikes but has yet to finish the task. The man who authored ' The Art of the Deal ' needs to start removing threats from the battlefield.
Missing is the bold determination and sheer will to win that Generals Ulysses S. Grant and George S. Patton brought to the battlefield. De-escalation has become a principle of war for the White House, Foggy Bottom, and the Pentagon. Concerns over possible outcomes and counteractions have overcome the necessity of doing the hard right.
Diplomacy has its place — just not with evil. Evil needs to be dealt with directly or it will come back stronger. We see the cost in Ukrainian civilian lives.
Unenforced red lines are neither compelling nor convincing. Neither are two-week extensions, ransom payments, lifting of sanctions, or airstrikes on targets not posing threats. Our adversaries see these as examples of weakness, and they exploit them.
Trump has continued Biden's least intrusive means strategy, and he opts to deliver strategic messages that our adversaries simply ignore. The result: The behavior that led to the strikes resumes — one step forward, two steps back.
For example, Operation Rough Rider commenced on March 15 and concluded on May 5. U.S. Central Command stated the purpose of the campaign was to 'target Houthi rebels in Yemen in order to restore freedom of navigation and American deterrence.'
During that period, CENTCOM reportedly struck more than 1,000 Houthi rebel targets in Yemen, expending upwards to 2,000 bombs and missiles. The strikes reportedly 'killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders … destroying multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities, and advanced weapons storage locations.'
But the strikes neither defeated nor deterred the Houthi rebels, who were still able to attack U.S. Naval vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and launch ballistic missiles towards Israel throughout the operation.
On May 4, a Houthi hypersonic missile managed penetrated Israel's missile defense system, impacting near the Terminal 3 parking lot at the Ben Gurion Airport, injuring eight and temporarily shutting down the airport.
They still fire ballistic missiles towards Israel. The latest came on Friday.
And they are still targeting and sinking commercial shipping in the Red Sea, including two last week — the Liberian-flagged, Greek-operated cargo ship, Magic Seas and the Liberian-flagged, Greek-operated Eternity C.
Operation Midnight Hammer, the bomber strike on the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran, was precision at its absolute best. The B-2 pilots and their support package delivered their bombs precisely where intelligence said the targets were, while an additional 75 precision guided weapons fired by other U.S. aircraft and a guided-missile submarine found their targets at the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities as well.
But Iran was able to strike back, firing ballistic missiles at the mostly abandoned American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in retaliation, which were successfully intercepted by U.S. Patriot missile batteries. Then, like their Houthi counterparts, Iran declared victory and agreed to a U.S. brokered ceasefire to protect what was left of their nuclear and ballistic missile programs and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from additional Israeli airstrikes.
The Iranian government remains intact and the status of its nuclear program uncertain. It continues to threaten Israel and will likely, with the assistance of Russia and China, rebuild its air defense network and ballistic missile inventories. Surviving is winning. And its leaders now gloat under the protection of the Trump ceasefire.
Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and even Yemen know weakness when they see it, and they are prepared to exploit it. The U.S. has held Ukraine and Israel back on multiple occasions. It is time to take the handcuffs off and enable both to win. Moscow and Tehran should be the ones pleading with the U.S. to resume ceasefire talks.
According to Foreign Affairs, 'Putin shows no intention of abandoning his objectives in Ukraine or ending the war. Even under the threat of new sanctions, he appears ready to go to extremes.'
Russia has publicly rejected Trump's 50-day proposal, so the grace period must end now. Trump has an opportunity to back up his ultimatum immediately — not in September. Threats of sanctions will not sway Putin, but significant combat power will. Together, they may very well force Russia out of Ukraine and undermine China's sights on Taiwan.
Trump must stop considering military assistance and economic sanctions and instead just provide it. Winning solves a lot of problems. Enabling Ukraine and Israel to defeat Russia and Iran sends a strong message to the likes of China and its delinquent North Korean neighbor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why
Politico
2 minutes ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Psychologists predicted Trump's 2024 win before a single vote was cast — here's how they did it
Psychologists pulled off what political pundits and polls failed to do: predict the 2024 presidential election winner. Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. While Trump's tone grew increasingly upbeat in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris's stayed flat. That shift correctly forecast not just that Trump would win, but by how much, according to a new study from Penn's Positive Psychology Center. 4 Trump's 2024 win was predicted weeks before the election by UPenn psychologists who tracked his rising optimism — a shift that set him apart from Kamala Harris, according to a new study. The Washington Post via Getty Images 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' The team analyzed 1,389 explanations of negative events — such as war, crime, or economic hardship — from both candidates. Their dataset drew from speeches, interviews, and their only presidential debate, all delivered between early September and October 27. Each explanation was scored using the CAVE method, or Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations, a positive psychology technique that analyzes how people explain events in speech or writing. Researchers used it to measure optimism by assessing whether causes were described as temporary, specific, and fixable. The narrower and solvable the cause, the more 'optimistic' the candidate's message. 4 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spoke during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024. AFP via Getty Images Trump referenced more than 1,000 negative issues or events — over four times the number cited by Harris — often blaming outside forces while insisting the problems were fixable, usually by himself, the study found. Harris, by contrast, described deep, lasting threats with little sense of resolution, Seligman said. To see whether any other speech patterns could have predicted the results, the researchers also looked at emotional tone, focus on past vs. future and language about control or responsibility. None of them tracked with the outcome. Optimism stood alone. Seligman's earlier research found that more optimism predicted the winner in 9 out of the 10 elections between 1948 and 1984. 4 Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. AFP via Getty Images After that, he advised both political parties on using optimism in their campaigns. But when candidates began scripting fake optimism, he shelved the method. He only revived it this cycle because Trump's off-the-cuff style allowed for real-time analysis. The researchers encrypted their prediction before Election Day and shared it with four outside verifiers, including Wall Street Journal reporters Lara Seligman — daughter of Martin Seligman — and Al Hunt, University of Washington political scientist Dan Chirot, and Hope College psychologist Dave Myers, before publishing the results after the race. 4 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' Getty Images 'We're the only people who predicted a Trump election, as far as I know,' Seligman said. A separate forecasting model, based on economic conditions and presidential approval ratings, was developed by Cornell University professor Peter Enns and also correctly predicted Trump's win in all 50 states. The findings suggest voters respond more favorably to optimistic candidates who present problems as fixable rather than systemic — and that Trump's tendency to 'go off script' gave researchers an authentic glimpse of his true mindset, Seligman said. 'When optimism is genuine, I think there's a lot of reason to believe that the American public wants optimism and wants hope,' he said. 'It speaks to the general optimistic slant of American history.'
