Trump sets new deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia to act on Ukraine
Trump has threatened both sanctions on Russia and buyers of its exports unless progress is made. The fresh deadline suggests the US president is prepared to move forward on those threats after previous hesitation to do so.
Speaking in Scotland, where he is holding meetings with European leaders and playing golf, Trump said he was disappointed in Putin and shortening a 50-day deadline he had set on the issue earlier this month.
"I'm going to make a new deadline of about ... 10 or 12 days from today," Trump told reporters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "There's no reason in waiting... We just don't see any progress being made."
There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin.
In a post on X, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of Putin, said Trump was playing "a game of ultimatums" that could lead to a war involving the US.
Medvedev wrote: "Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with (Trump's) own country."
Ukraine welcomed Trump's statement. Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's chief of staff, thanked Trump in a social media post for "standing firm and delivering a clear message of peace through strength."
Trump, who has expressed annoyance also with Zelenskyy, has not always followed tough talk about Putin with action, citing what he deems a good relationship that the two men have had previously.
On Monday, Trump indicated he was not interested in more talks with Putin. He said sanctions and tariffs would be used as penalties for Moscow if it did not meet Trump's demands.
"There's no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs," Trump said. "I don't want to do that to Russia. I love the Russian people."
Ukraine had proposed a summit between Putin and Zelenskyy before the end of August, but the Kremlin has said that timeline was unlikely and that a meeting could only happen as a final step to clinch peace.
Russia's foreign ministry said on Saturday that if the West wanted real peace with Ukraine, it would stop supplying Kyiv with weapons.
Trump has repeatedly voiced exasperation with Putin for pursuing attacks on Ukraine despite US efforts to end the war.
He has played up successes in other parts of the world where the United States has helped to broker peace agreements and has been flattered by some leaders who suggest he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.
"I'm disappointed in President Putin," Trump said on Monday. "I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen."
Trump, who is also struggling to achieve a peace deal in Gaza, has touted his role in ending conflicts between India and Pakistan as well as Rwanda and Congo.
Before returning to the White House in January, Trump campaigned on a promise to end Russia's conflict with Ukraine in a day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
42 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Recognition of a Palestinian state should not be a pawn in a diplomatic game
On 29 July, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, "unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long-term sustainable peace". Of course, any British recognition of the state of Palestine, if and when it happens, would mark a historic moment. Britain bears a unique responsibility as the author of the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory power in Palestine. If recognition does take place, it would reinforce the British government's stated support for a two-state solution, after decades of recognising only one state, Israel, while denying the other. It would chart a trajectory that rejects Israel's attempt to impose a one-state apartheid reality across the whole of historic Palestine. It would set the terms for any future peace process, in which the end goal must include a Palestinian state, reaffirming the British government's stated commitment to a two-state solution, as outlined in its announcement. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters So why were Palestinians and others not out on the streets celebrating the British government's announcement that emerged from an emergency recall of the cabinet? Empty gesture It is worth revisiting the statement that outlines the conditions under which Britain has said it would recognise Palestine. The cabinet decision stipulates that recognition will proceed only if Israel fails to meet a series of conditions: it must commit to a ceasefire and take action to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including "allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank". Netanyahu could, if he wished, respond: fine, go ahead and recognise Palestine - but you will be recognising a dream, not a reality The result is a surreal formulation: recognition of the Palestinian right to statehood and self-determination is no longer treated as a right, but as something conditional on Israeli intransigence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could, if he wished, respond: fine, go ahead and recognise Palestine - but you will be recognising a dream, not a reality. Yet the announcement also presents options for Hamas. Contrary to the simplistic anti-Palestinian narrative that this would be a "reward" for Hamas - that it could block a ceasefire and still secure recognition - many within the Palestinian national movement see it differently. Although Hamas did accept the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state framework in its modified charter of 2017, it has had little interest in pushing for this as a goal. For the resistance group, such a move reeks of the despised Oslo process. Still, Hamas does not want an already discredited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah to gain credit among Palestinians for any recognition. Vague demands Looking closely at the British conditions on Israel, Starmer's team has embedded enough vague language to allow the prime minister considerable leeway. What are the "substantive steps" Israel must take in Gaza? This is never clarified. There is no requirement that Israel withdraw its forces. These decisions are left to Starmer's interpretation. Israel is asked to commit to a "long-term sustainable peace", yet there is no mention of a two-state solution in that vision, let alone an end to the occupation. The language is so vague as to be meaningless. On the very day that the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) determined that Gaza is experiencing famine - brought on by an Israeli policy of starvation - the British government demanded only that Israel "allow" the UN to resume humanitarian deliveries. But the UK has been making this demand for months. Why would it succeed now? Worse, this statement is even weaker than the previous ones. "Allowing" the UN to deliver limited aid is not the same as demanding full, unimpeded access for all humanitarian agencies. The UK also insists that Israel must commit to a ceasefire. But what kind? A temporary truce, as the Israeli government has long sought, or a permanent one that Hamas is demanding? If Netanyahu claims to accept specific US terms for a ceasefire - terms that Israel likely helped shape - would that be enough to claim Israeli compliance? Even before this announcement, Netanyahu may have been planning for a ceasefire by the end of August, having spent a month mopping up what remains in Gaza. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel's war on Gaza What else is left to bomb? He could declare an end to military operations while keeping his forces on the ground. He knows the war is unpopular in Israel. He can claim victory and shift the focus to the West Bank. He can allow limited aid to enter Gaza through the UN, just enough to reduce starvation deaths. As for the West Bank, the British conditions are hardly stronger. Netanyahu need not announce annexation any time soon. Settlement expansion can continue - including the doomsday E1 project - without violating any of the terms outlined by Starmer. Non-negotiable There is no reason that Britain's recognition could not have happened in July. Imagine how much more powerful it would have been if France and Britain had stood together at the UN, announcing recognition with solemn conviction. President Emmanuel Macron and Starmer could have shown real leadership. Instead of recognising 'Palestine', countries should withdraw recognition of Israel Joseph Massad Read More » Yet the most egregious failure of the announcement lies in the absence of any sanctions on Israel for its conduct in Gaza, even as it continues its genocide. Sanctions should have been imposed, with the possibility of suspension only if Israel met a clear and enforceable set of demands, including full, unimpeded humanitarian access. That is where conditionality ought to have been placed. Instead, the British government has been reduced to airdropping aid into Gaza - the least effective and most dangerous method of humanitarian delivery. The fittest will get it first; the neediest will get it last. British weakness is on full and painful display. Recognition of a Palestinian state should never have been subject to negotiation. It is not a tool to punish Israel. It is a right to be upheld, not a pawn in a diplomatic game. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
UPDATE 1-AT&T to dual list on NYSE Texas
Wireless carrier AT&T said on Thursday it will dual list on the NYSE Texas, effective August 1. NYSE Texas officially opened for business in March and has seen several companies, including oilfield service company Halliburton and Truth Social-parent Trump Media & Technology Group, dual list on the Dallas-based exchange in the first three months. "Following its dual listing, AT&T will maintain its primary listing on the New York Stock Exchange and trade with the "T" ticker symbol on NYSE Texas," the company said. (Reporting by Harshita Mary Varghese in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila)
Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump says US will set 15% tariff on South Korean imports under new deal
President Donald Trump said late on Wednesday the U.S. will charge a 15% tariff on imports from South Korea, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that eases tensions with a top-10 trading partner and key Asian ally. South Korea also agreed to invest $350 billion in the United States in projects selected by Trump and to purchase energy products worth $100 billion. The arrangement, announced after Trump met with Korean officials at the White House, came during a blizzard of trade policy announcements. Many countries are rushing to cut deals ahead of August 1, when Trump has promised higher tariffs will kick in. "I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has agreed to a Full and Complete Trade Deal with the Republic of Korea," Trump wrote on Truth Social. The negotiations were an early test for South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who took office in June after a snap election. He said the deal eliminated uncertainty and set U.S. tariffs lower than or at the same level as major competitors. "We have crossed a big hurdle," Lee said in a Facebook post. Trump said Lee would visit the White House "within the next two weeks" for his first meeting with the U.S. president. South Korea will accept American products, including autos and agricultural goods into its markets and impose no import duties on them, Trump added. South Korea's top officials said the country's rice and beef markets would not be opened further, and discussions over U.S. demands on food regulations continue. Seoul appeared to have defended its non-tariff barriers while keeping its tariff rate on par with Japan and the European Union, said Citi economist Kim Jin-wook. "While the headline figure looks like a huge win for the U.S., details appear to be favorable for South Korea," he said. Devil in the details South Korea seems to have avoided the worst, agreed Cheong In-kyo, a former South Korean trade minister. But he also said opinions about the deal could change if the $350 billion was not well spent. It was not clear what the investment would involve, where the financing would come from, over what time frame deals would be implemented and to what extent their terms would be binding. Trump said additional South Korean investments would be announced later. Of the total, $150 billion is aimed at a shipbuilding partnership, while $200 billion would include chips, nuclear power, batteries, and biotechnology, Kim Yong-beom, the South Korean presidential office's policy chief, told a briefing. He said "ambiguity is good", while adding that negotiators had ensured there would be safeguards over how the funds were used. Existing investment plans by South Korean companies would be part of the fund, according to another presidential official. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a post on X that 90% of the profits from the $350 billion fund were "going to the American people." Kim said South Korea understands that to mean that some profits could be reinvested. The energy purchases would include LNG, LPG, crude oil, and a small amount of coal, he added. "This is within our usual import volume," he said, noting it might lead to a "slight shift" in the country's mix of imports from the Middle East to more American sources. Lutnick said the energy purchases would happen "over the next 3.5 years." The tariff rate on South Korean autos would also be 15%, Lutnick said, which is down from the current rate of 25%. Lutnick also said semiconductor and pharmaceutical exports would not be treated more harshly than those from other countries. Steel, aluminum, and copper were not covered by the new deal. Scramble in South Korea South Korea is one of three Asia-Pacific countries that had a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States, but that did not spare it from new tariffs. Negotiations took place in a turbulent political environment in South Korea with former President Yoon Suk Yeol removed in April after he was impeached for trying to impose martial law. Pressure on negotiators increased after Japan clinched its deal earlier this month. South Korea has been a particular target of Trump for its trade surplus and the cost of maintaining some 28,500 U.S. troops in the country to defend against North Korea. Last year South Korea posted a record $55.7 billion trade surplus with the United States, up 25% from a year earlier. South Korean companies welcomed the deal, saying it would reduce uncertainty. Amid the last-minute push to reach a tariff agreement, Samsung Electronics inked a $16.5 billion chip deal with Tesla . LG Energy Solution also signed a $4.3 billion deal to supply Tesla with energy storage system batteries, a person familiar with the matter said.
