Trump is clearly fed up with Putin - but will his shift in tone force Russia to the negotiating table?
His shift in tone and policy on Ukraine is stark. And his shift in tone (and perhaps policy) on Russia is huge.
Ever since Mr Trump returned to the White House he has flatly refused to side with Ukraine over the Russian invasion.
He has blamed Ukraine and Joe Biden for the incursion but has never been willing to accept that Russia is the aggressor and that Kyiv has a legitimate right to defend itself.
Today, all that changed. In a clear signal that he is fed up with Vladimir Putin and now fully recognises the need to help Ukraine defend itself, he announced the US will dramatically increase weapons supplies to Kyiv.
But, in keeping with his transactional nature and in a reflection of the need to keep his isolationist "America-First" base on side, he has framed this policy shift as a multi-billion dollar "deal" in which America gains financially.
American weapons are to be "sold" to NATO partners in Europe who will then either transfer them to Ukraine or use them to bolster their own stockpiles as they transfer their own existing stocks to Kyiv.
"We've made a deal today," the president said in the Oval Office. "We are going to be sending them weapons, and they are paying for them. We are manufacturing, they are going to be paying for it. Our meeting last month was very successful... these are wealthy nations."
2:27
This appears to be a clever framing of the "deal". Firstly, America has always benefited financially by supplying weapons to Ukraine because much of the investment has been in American factories, American jobs and American supply chains.
While the details are not entirely clear, the difference now appears to be that the weapons would be bought by the Europeans or by NATO as an alliance.
The Americans are the biggest contributor to NATO, and so if the alliance is buying the weapons, America too will be paying, in part, for the weapons it is selling.
However, if the weapons are being bought by individual NATO members to replenish their own stocks, then it may be the case that the US is not paying.
NATO officials referred all questions on this issue to the White House, which has not yet provided clarity to Sky News.
It is also not yet clear what type of weapons will be made available and whether it will include offensive, as well defensive, munitions.
1:49
A key element of the package will likely be Patriot missile batteries, 10 to 15 of which are believed to be currently in Europe.
Under this deal, it is understood that some of them will be added to the six or so batteries believed to be presently in Ukraine. New ones would then be purchased from US manufacturers to backfill European stocks. A similar arrangement may be used for other weapons.
The president also issued the Russian leader with an ultimatum, saying that Putin had 50 days to make a peace deal or else face 100% "secondary tariffs". It's thought this refers to a plan to tariff, or sanction, third countries that supply Russia with weapons and buy Russian oil.
This, the Americans hope, will force those countries to apply pressure on Russia.
But the 50-day kicking of the can down the road also gives Russia space to prevaricate. So, a few words of caution: first, the Russians are masters of prevarication. Second, Trump tends to let deadlines slip. And third, we all know Trump can flip-flop on his position repeatedly.
2:00
Maybe the most revealing aspect of all this came when a reporter asked Mr Trump: "How far are you willing to go if Putin sends more bombs in the coming days?"
"Don't ask me questions like that..."
Mr Trump doesn't really know what to do if Mr Putin continues to take him for a ride.
Mr Biden, before him, supplied Ukraine with the weapons to continue fighting.
If Mr Trump wants to end this, he may need to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to win.
But that would prolong, or even escalate, a war he wants to end now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
White House launches probe into Biden's autopen use
By The White House is opening its own probe of President Joe Biden's use of an 'autopen' for commutations and other matters over a period of years – in the latest escalation of what President Trump calls a 'tremendous scandal.' The investigation is to be conducted by the White House counsel's office. A senior administration official told Fox News that the probe is anticipating a review of up to one million documents. It comes as Trump's Republican allies in the House are gearing up their own probe of the president's use of an 'autopen' on a series of pardons and commutations, including some high-profile ones at the end of his presidency. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has subpoenaed former Biden administration aides in its probe, and the Justice Department has its own investigation. Trump has regularly pointed to the issue since the first reports of Biden's use of the device, claiming his predecessor was incompetent and many of his actions were invalid. The move comes after Biden spoke to the New York Times and said he 'decided' on the commutations that bore his signature. 'I made every decision,' he told the paper, which also reviewed internal email traffic among senior aides who met with the president about commutations, then sent around emails to keep a record of what happened. Biden knocked down the sentences of about 4,000 federal convicts, while issuing 'preemptive' pardons of Trump targets including former chairman of the joint chiefs Gen. Mark Milley and members of the House January 6th committee. Everybody knows how vindictive he is, so we knew that they'd do what they're doing now,' Biden said. 'I consciously made all those decisions.' Trump, however, has claimed repeatedly that Biden was experiencing mental decline and had 'no idea' what he was doing. 'The autopen I think is maybe one of the biggest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years. This is a tremendous scandal,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Monday. 'I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing. I guarantee it.' Some of the pardons, including those in the final hours of Biden's term, followed extensive public reporting about whether he would do it. The move comes days after Biden's former White House physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, repeatedly pleaded his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during an appearance before Comer's committee. Comer blasted the move in a blistering statement. 'Most people invoke the Fifth when they have criminal liability. And you know, that's what it would appear (to be) on the surface here,' he said. 'Joe Biden was the worst, most incompetent, and senile president in our country's history,' press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the network Tuesday. 'It has been widely reported that Joe Biden handed the power of the presidency to an autopen controlled by unelected leftist staffers, who were allowed to make terrible decisions that destroyed our country.' She said the White House was 'committed to finding the answers to the many outstanding questions the American people still have about how business in the Biden White House was conducted.' The probe gives Trump and his team the ability to sift through mountains of documents at the National Archive and put information into the public domain. Biden, 82, who is battling prostate cancer and working on a memoir, told the Times he used the device because there were too many commutations for him to have done individually. 'We're talking about a whole lot of people,' he said. Trump, meanwhile, has made it a practice to regularly hold press events when slapping his John Hancock onto executive orders.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Yet another fiscal 'black hole'? Here's why this one matters
Why you can trust Sky News You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes". It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image. After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal. And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor. Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation. That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain. Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind. Reeves made f iscal rules matter The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look. Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn. But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit. And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly. Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater. Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are. Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Former defence secretary makes ‘no apology' for Afghan injunction
The former Conservative defence secretary who applied for an injunction blocking reporting about the Afghan data leak has said he makes 'no apology'. Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850 million scheme set up in the wake of the breach. Sir Ben Wallace has said that the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up' and that he believed that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'. It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said that the person involved was 'no longer doing the same job'. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was made at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak. Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. A total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. It is understood that the unnamed official had emailed the dataset outside of a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows. However, there were more than 33,000 rows of information which were inadvertently sent. Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government. Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and that 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'. Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.' The injunction was in place for almost two years – covering Labour and Conservative governments. Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' in being unable to speak about it in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch also said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach. She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that. 'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.'
