Trump is right to move up his too-generous peace deadline for Putin
On Monday, the prez told reporters he's giving the Kremlin just 10 to 12 more days to agree to a cease-fire — or face real consequences.
'There's no reason to wait' the full 50 days before pummeling Russia with sanctions, potentially including a whopping 100% tariff on countries that import Russian goods, Trump declared.
Advertisement
He's right. As we've pointed out, his original deadline of Sept. 2 just gave Russia more time to stack up more dead bodies.
Putin's goal was never peace; it is and has always been the total obliteration of Ukraine.
Mad Vlad has openly operated in bad faith, telling the president what he wants to hear in one-on-one calls and then unleashing hell on Ukrainians right after.
Advertisement
That was exactly Putin's response to Trump's original 50-day deadline: Hours after the threat, Russia hit civilian sites in Ukraine.
The message was clear: You keep giving me more string, and I'll keep stringing you along.
Moscow has played tough, with one top Russian official brushing off Trump's sanctions threat as 'a theatrical ultimatum.'
Advertisement
But the Kremlin should worry; Russia's economy is a house on wobbly stilts.
Its population is shrinking, inflation is skyrocketing and Putin has poured at least 40% of the national budget into his war machine, even as his people struggle to buy basic goods.
Russia's Minister for Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov is warning that the country is facing a recession.
Meanwhile, China has been propping up Russia since the start of the war, buying hundreds of billions in goods and shipping in products of its own. India, too, imports Russian oil.
Advertisement
The threat of steep tariffs on these countries could get them to do business elsewhere.
And that could deal a devastating blow to Russia.
It's that logic that has fueled not only Trump's secondary-sanctions threat but a bill by Sen. Lindsey Graham that would slam buyers of Russian oil with a 500% tariff.
Fact is, if Putin has his way, the war won't be over until Ukraine is entirely under his control. And hundreds of thousands more lives are lost.
It's long past time for the West to ratchet up the pressure and make the war too costly for Putin to keep it going.
Trump has no choice but to make the Russian strongman feel some real pain. And now's the time to do it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hensoldt Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: EPS Misses Expectations
Hensoldt (ETR:HAG) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: €549.0m (up 5.6% from 2Q 2024). Net loss: €12.0m (loss widened by 20% from 2Q 2024). €0.10 loss per share (further deteriorated from €0.081 loss in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Hensoldt Earnings Insights Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 15% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 20% growth forecast for the Aerospace & Defense industry in Germany. Performance of the German Aerospace & Defense industry. The company's shares are down 5.5% from a week ago. Risk Analysis It's necessary to consider the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 2 warning signs with Hensoldt (at least 1 which is a bit concerning), and understanding them should be part of your investment process. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Unilever First Half 2025 Earnings: EPS: €1.43 (vs €1.48 in 1H 2024)
Unilever (LON:ULVR) First Half 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: €30.1b (down 3.2% from 1H 2024). Net income: €3.51b (down 5.1% from 1H 2024). Profit margin: 12% (in line with 1H 2024). EPS: €1.43 (down from €1.48 in 1H 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Unilever Earnings Insights Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 2.8% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 2.9% growth forecast for the Personal Products industry in the United Kingdom. Performance of the British Personal Products industry. The company's shares are up 1.5% from a week ago. Risk Analysis You should always think about risks. Case in point, we've spotted 2 warning signs for Unilever you should be aware of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. Advertisement 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Advertisement The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. Advertisement 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.
