Trump promised peace in 100 days, but Russia's violence against Ukraine has only escalated
"There is no point in negotiating," Maria Rumiantseva told the Kyiv Independent last week, after a missile strike on Kyiv killed her neighbor and stranded her and her family in a wrecked apartment.
"(Russian President Vladimir Putin) won't leave us alone."
Trump celebrates the 100th day of his second term on April 29. As well as a series of devastating Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians since he took office, Russia's battlefield assaults also show no signs of slowing.
In March, the second full month of Trump's term, 164 civilians were killed and 910 were injured, according to UN figures — a rise of 50% compared to February, and 70% compared to March of last year.
Nearly all the losses were on land controlled by the Ukrainian government, and the majority were caused by long-range missiles or loitering munitions.
Similar figures are expected for April, which also saw the deadliest single strike for Ukrainian children since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. On April 14, 18 people died after a ballistic missile detonated over a playground. Among them were nine children.
Recent major attacks in Sumy and Kyiv have similarly made international headlines, while smaller attacks attract less attention abroad but continue to rack up.
Last week, the head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), Danielle Bell, called out "a deeply disturbing trend — civilians bearing the brunt of ever more intense and frequent attacks."
"The near daily barrage of long-range drones killed and injured scores of civilians across the country last month, and disrupted life for millions more," Bell said.
On the frontlines, too, signs of peace are absent, said Emil Kastehelmi, a Finnish military analyst from the Black Bird Group open-source intelligence collective.
Rather than pulling back or slowing down, Russian attacks have intensified in recent weeks, though this has yet to translate into territorial breakthroughs.
"I suspect that the war will at least go on all the way to fall," Kastehelmi said.
"Of course, there's a lot of diplomacy happening behind closed doors. But when we look at the developments on the front, there aren't any clear signs which would point to diplomatic breakthroughs in the coming weeks."
Read also: Investigation: The hidden journey of Ukrainian coal stolen by Russia — and who profits from it
Dozens of times on the campaign trail, Trump pledged to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office, or even sooner.
"Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled," he said in August, just one of many similar statements.
After his election, however, his team dialed back that promise, announcing a new goal of ending the war within 100 days of his Jan. 20 inauguration.
Those first 100 days have been marked by the Trump administration's demands for a deal, a flurry of diplomatic meetings around the globe, severe and sustained pressure on Ukraine, and a reluctance to force any concessions from Russia.
After the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky in February which prompted the U.S. to temporarily paused military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, Ukraine has made multiple concessions to stay in the White House's good graces.
Ukraine walked back its demands that Russia withdraw its troops from Ukrainian land before negotiations, and has declared its readiness to sign a U.S.-proposed, full, unconditional 30-day cease-fire agreement with Russia. To date Moscow has refused.
Despite Trump's aims, signs of peace are few and far between as Moscow refuses to make concessions to its maximalist demands, as well as violating temporary ceasefires it has proposed.
During a temporary three-day ceasefire declared by Russia over Easter earlier this month, Zelensky accused Moscow of nearly 3,000 violations between April 19 and April 21.
On the eve of Trump's 100th day in power, Russia declared its readiness for another three-day ceasefire in May.
The move came only after Trump's recent outbursts showed he appears to be losing patience with Putin's pace of negotiations, and members of Trump's team threatened to walk away from mediation if progress doesn't happen soon.
"I want (Putin) to stop shooting, sit down and sign a deal," Trump told reporters on April 27, describing Zelensky as "calmer" after the two leaders met in the Vatican on April 26.
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha reacted to Russia's latest ceasefire offer by calling on Russia to accept the 30-day ceasefire proposal.
Read also: Trump said Ukraine 'will be crushed very shortly' — this is why he's wrong
Yet the prospects of a broader ceasefire appear slim as Russia continues to demand international recognition of five Ukrainian territories as Russian — a condition Ukraine has ruled out as a "red line." Among the lands are major cities which experts say Russia has no chance of capturing by force in the near future, if at all.
Russia illegally declared ownership over Crimea in 2014, and of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk in 2022 despite not fully controlling the oblasts. Conceding these territories as Russia demands would go far beyond simply freezing battlelines — it would permanently hand over territory home to millions of Ukrainians.
In the absence of a ceasefire, dozens of Ukrainian civilians across the country each week continue to be killed in aerial strikes, while on the front lines, Russia continues to grind forward with its slow war of attrition.
The largest change in battlelines since Trump's election has been the near collapse of Ukraine's positions within Russia's Kursk Oblast.
Russia has also reportedly intensified its attacks in recent weeks, including in the Sumy region, though it has not made any other breakthroughs.
Apart from Kursk, noted Kastehelmi of Black Bird Group, the broader situation in most directions has not changed significantly since January.
"The spring offensive is ongoing, but it has not yielded very significant gains for the Russians," he said.
"The Russians are capturing a village here and there occasionally, they are slowly finding their way forward. But small tactical victories don't mean there's any kind of larger operational change in the whole situation," he added.
With breakthroughs looking unlikely on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena, Russia appears to have no plans of changing course.
At the end of March, Putin ordered a spring conscription of 160,000 men, making it the largest call-up of men in 14 years.
Read also: What's next for North Korean troops fighting for Russia? A possible Ukraine deployment, experts, officials say
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
30 minutes ago
11 injured as Russia attacks Ukraine with hundreds of drones
KYIV, Ukraine -- Russia targeted Ukraine overnight with 322 drones, 292 of which were "neutralized" by being either shot down or supressed by other means, according to the Ukrainian air force. Eleven people, including two children, were injured in the Kharkiv area, in a drone strike overnight there, according to local emergency services. Many of the drones fired by Russia were targeted at Ukraine's Khmelnytskyi region, including the city of Starokostiantyniv, the air force said. The massive aerial attack arrived a day after Russia hit Ukraine with the biggest missile and drone attack of the war, launching a record number of drones at Kyiv overnight into Friday.
Business Insider
44 minutes ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans
S trange things happen when details of a massive tax and budget bill, like the one President Donald Trump signed yesterday, are tweaked behind closed doors. Among them: A couple dozen of the nation's wealthiest small private colleges will be getting a tax cut next year, even as bigger rich universities, including Princeton, MIT, Yale and Harvard, will be slammed with higher taxes. It all began as an effort by House Republicans to dramatically raise the excise tax imposed on the earnings of college endowments, and particularly the endowments of wealthy 'woke' schools like Harvard University that they (and President Donald Trump) have targeted. But as it turns out, while Harvard's tax bill will likely more than double, some smaller schools with famously left-leaning student bodies (e.g. Swarthmore College and Amherst College) are getting tax relief. That's because schools with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students will be exempt from the revamped endowment tax beginning next year. It currently applies to private schools with more than 500 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students and endowments worth more than $500,000 per student. Using the latest available federal data from fiscal year 2023, Forbes identified at least 26 wealthy colleges that are likely subject to the endowment tax now, but will be exempt next year based on their size. Along with top liberal arts schools like Williams College, Wellesley College, Amherst and Swarthmore, the list includes the California Institute of Technology, a STEM powerhouse, and the Julliard School, the New York city institution known for its music, dance and drama training. Grinnell College in Iowa, which enrolled 1,790 students in 2023, will save around $2.4 million in tax each year as a result of the change, President Anne Harris said in an email to Forbes . Here's what happened. As passed by the House in late May, the One Big Beautiful Bill (its Trumpian name) increased the current 1.4% excise tax on college endowments' investment earnings to as high as 21% for the richest institutions—those with endowments worth more than $2 million a student. (While these schools are all non-profits and traditionally tax exempt, the 1.4% tax on investment earnings was introduced by Trump's big 2017 tax bill. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 56 schools paid a total of $381 million in endowment tax in calendar 2023.) Along with raising the rate, the House voted to exempt from the tax both religiously-affiliated schools (think the University of Notre Dame) and those that don't take federal student financial aid. (The religious exemption was structured in a way that Harvard, founded by the Puritans to train ministers, wouldn't qualify.) The House also sought to penalize schools like Columbia University, with heavy international student enrollments, by excluding students who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from the per capita calculations. Then the bill went to the Senate, where the Finance Committee settled on more modest–albeit still stiff–rate hikes. Schools with endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 per capita would still pay at a 1.4% rate, while those with endowments above $750,000 and up to $2 million would pay 4%. Those with endowments worth more than $2 million per student would pay an 8% tax on their earnings, not the 21% passed by the House. Enter Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who makes decisions on the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires parts of a budget reconciliation bill like this one to have a primary purpose related to the budget—not other types of policy. The Byrd rule was put in place because reconciliation isn't subject to filibuster. 'You can't get into a lot of prescriptive activity' in a budget reconciliation bill, explains Dean Zerbe, a national managing director for Alliantgroup, who worked on college endowment issues back when he was tax counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Like, 'you've got to hop on one foot,' or 'you've got to make tuition affordable,' or 'you've got to do better in terms of admission.'' The Parliamentarian ruled that those three House provisions—exempting religious-affiliated schools, exempting schools that don't take federal aid, and excluding foreign students from the per capita calculation—didn't pass the Byrd test. At that point, Republican senators settled on the 3,000-student threshold in large part to specifically exempt one school from the tax: Hillsdale College, an ultra-conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan and a GOP darling. It enrolled 1,794 students in 2023, had an endowment worth $584,000 per-student, and notably accepts no federal money, including student aid. (So both the religious exemption and the one for schools taking no federal student aid would have presumably shielded Hillsdale from the endowment tax—before the Parliamentarian gave them the thumbs down.) There was also a broader group of small schools pushing for the exemption, notes Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. 'They made an argument that I think got some positive reception among Republican senators of saying that essentially, while their endowments may be big relative to the fact that they have small student bodies … their endowments weren't big.' A school like Amherst, he adds, 'might have a big endowment for a small school, but they don't have a big endowment relative to the Ivies and the more heavily resourced [universities].' House Republicans, under intense pressure to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, ended up accepting the final Senate product in full. That meant exempting the smaller schools, including the 'woke' ones, while levying a rate of up to 8% on the endowments of bigger schools. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates colleges will now pay an extra $761 million in tax over 10 years, compared to the extra $6.7 billion they would have paid under the House version with its higher 21% rate and broader reach. Based on data from 2023, Forbes estimates that at least 11 universities will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will continue to pay the 1.4% rate. Three schools—Princeton University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will likely be required to pay an 8% excise tax on their endowment earnings. Another eight, including Harvard, Stanford University, Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, will likely pay a 4% tax. The remaining five schools—Emory University, Duke University, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University—would pay the same 1.4% endowment tax rate they're paying now, based on fiscal 2023 numbers. One school that will likely pay 4% is the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic-affiliated school which would have been exempt from the tax were it not for the Byrd rule. 'We are deeply disappointed by the removal of language protecting religious institutions of higher education from the endowment tax before passage of the final bill,' Notre Dame wrote in a statement to Forbes . 'Any expansion of the endowment tax threatens to undermine the ability of a broad range of faith-based institutions to serve their religious purpose. We are proud to have stood with a coalition of these institutions against that threat, and we are encouraged by the strong support for a religious exemption received from both chambers.' Fansmith, for his part, won't call the exemption of the small schools a win. 'We think the tax is a bad idea and it's bad policy, and no schools should be paying it. But, by the standard that fewer schools are paying, it's better, but it's still not good,' he says. 'It's not really about revenue,' adds Fansmith. 'It's really about punishing these schools that right now a segment of the Republican party doesn't like.' The schools make the argument that it's students who are being punished, since around half of endowment spending pays for student scholarships. Meanwhile, Zerbe warns the now exempt schools shouldn't take that status for granted. 'Once revenue raisers are in play and out there, they come back again and again,' he says. 'It would be a disaster for [colleges] to think somehow this was a win for them. This was a billion dollar hit on them and there's more to come later.' More from Forbes Forbes Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Foreign Student Crackdown Puts These 16 Struggling Colleges At Risk By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Visa Ban Is Barring New Foreign Doctors From Entering U.S. By Emma Whitford Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb
