Trump slams Putin again as he backs more weapons for Ukraine
"He's killing too many people, so we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I've approved it,' Trump told reporters at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Earlier in the meeting, he said he was "not happy with Putin' because the Russian leader is "killing a lot of people.'
It was the second time in less than 24 hours that Trump has expressed disapproval of Putin over his refusal to work toward a ceasefire in Ukraine, an idea that Zelenskyy has backed. Trump has turned away from claims he made before taking office that he could end the war in 24 hours.
At the Cabinet meeting, Trump said he's also looking "very strongly' at a bill introduced in the Senate that would impose severe sanctions on Russia and on countries that purchase its oil, petroleum products, natural gas or uranium. He called it an "optional bill.'
Sen. Lindsey Graham said he hoped there would be an announcement by the Senate leadership on the sanctions measure this week. "With the weapons flowing, this bill passing, the Europeans having a sanctions package, I think it's the best chance to get Putin to the table,' Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told reporters Tuesday. He said the latest bill includes waivers giving Trump more flexibility, increasing the likelihood it would pass both houses of Congress.
"President Trump is good, it has a waiver, he told me it's time to move, so we're going to move,' Graham added.
On Monday, Trump said at the start of a dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he was "disappointed' that Putin hadn't stopped fighting. In recent weeks, Russia has been hammering Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with record numbers of drone and missile assault, leading Trump to make clear his mounting frustration with Putin.
The comments suggest Trump is running out of patience with the Russian leader after having openly expressed admiration for him in the past. That's good news for Zelenskyy, who initially bore the brunt of Trump's ire over the war even though Putin was responsible for the invasion that began in 2022. At the Netanyahu dinner, Trump said he was planning on providing more weapons to Ukraine.
That's put the Pentagon in an awkward position. Last week, it ordered a pause in the flow of air-defense missiles, artillery shells and other hardware, saying it needed to review its stockpiles. But Trump's comments prompted a quick reversal, with spokesman Sean Parnell saying Monday night the Pentagon "will send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace.'
The proposed sanctions have gotten support from many of Trump's most ardent backers, including Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House. In a post on X, he said the bill "will send a big signal to Putin that talking and killing is a losing strategy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Brazil indicates retaliation against Trump's 50-percent tariff
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has indicated his country may retaliate against the 50-percent tariff that US President Donald Trump plans to impose on Brazilian imports starting on August 1. The 50-percent rate was mentioned in a letter to Lula that Trump posted on social media on Wednesday. The rate is the highest among eight countries which Trump notified of new rates on that day. It is also a significant increase for Brazil as the figure was initially 10-percent when the Trump administration announced it in April. In the letter, Trump criticized the trial of Lula's predecessor, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, calling him a "highly respected leader throughout the world." Bolsonaro, who has been referred to as the "Trump of the Tropics," is accused of allegedly attempting to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election. In response, President Lula issued a statement on Wednesday which said "any unilateral tariff increase will be met" under Brazilian law. As for Bolsonaro's trial, Lula maintained that "the legal proceedings against those who planned the coup are the sole jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts" and "are not subject to any type of interference or threat that violate the independence of national institutions." Lula also disputed Trump's claim that Brazil has caused "unsustainable trade deficits against the United States." He pointed out that statistics from the US government itself show that the US has had a trade surplus of around 410 billion dollars with Brazil over the past 15 years.
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Japan's united front on tariffs begins to crack as doubts raised
'We must call this a national crisis,' Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said in April , speaking about new U.S. tariffs. 'The government will do its utmost to respond to this crisis, involving the entire country.' Since then, Japanese politicians and business people ― and, to a certain extent, the public — have largely stood with the prime minister's call for unity. They have been supportive, or at least silent, as the government has taken a firm stance in talks with the United States. But after seven rounds of fruitless negotiations and a subsequent letter from U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday indicating that most Japanese goods exported to the U.S. will be subject to higher duties than originally expected, the united front has started to show some cracks. 'They underestimated the determination of Trump,' Takeshi Niinami, chair of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives and chief executive of Suntory Holdings, was quoted as saying by the Financial Times on Tuesday. 'They thought time was on Japan's side. It was a big mistake.' Niinami went on to say that Japan's stubborn insistence that the U.S. remove all levies on Japan may have left Trump feeling 'betrayed,' and that a 10% baseline tariff could have been successfully negotiated if more flexibility had been telegraphed. He added that Japan may have 'squandered' the legacy of Shinzo Abe, the late prime minister who had built a cozy relationship with Trump during the U.S. president's first term. A spokesperson for the Japan Association of Corporate Executives, commonly known as Keizai Doyukai, told The Japan Times on Thursday that Niinami spoke for himself in the Financial Times interview, and that those remarks do not reflect the association's position. As the leader of one of Japan's largest business lobby groups, Niinami also serves on multiple government panels dealing with economic and fiscal policy, and the prime minister and Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's chief negotiator, also attend some of these panels. Niinami's criticisms have been echoed by some politicians as a crucial Upper House election approaches. Yoshihiko Noda, leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, on Tuesday criticized the Ishiba administration's lack of progress in tariff talks, saying it should consider replacing Akazawa. He said Ishiba and Trump should talk things out face to face. The CDP chief previously decided against submitting a no-confidence motion against the Ishiba government, citing fear of leaving a 'political vacuum' amid trade talks. 'The current Trump administration is more protectionist than before and is willing to exert pressure with a more aggressive stance,' said Ryo Sahashi, a professor at the University of Tokyo's Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia. 'There is no guarantee that top-level diplomacy would go well, no matter who conducts it,' he continued. 'Moreover, when someone like a top business leader suggests that Japan is divided, it could create the impression of domestic disunity and weaken Japan's negotiating position.' Niinami's blunt remarks came only a few hours after Trump sent letters to 12 countries notifying them of new "reciprocal" tariff rates effective Aug. 1. Japan's rate was set at 25% — one percentage point higher than what was originally announced on April 2. Japan has already started to signal some flexibility in its position. In recent weeks, it has de-emphasized an early demand that all levies must be eliminated, though it still insists that a 25% duty on autos must be lowered. At a stump speech Wednesday, Ishiba stiffened his tone toward Trump's tariff shocks. Japan will say the things that need to be said loudly and with integrity, even to an ally like the United States, he said. 'This is a battle for our national interest. Like hell we'll let them push us around,' Ishiba said.
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Ursula Von der Leyen faces a moment of truth
On Thursday, the European Parliament will vote on whether to dismiss Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her entire team. This motion of censure — the European Union's equivalent of a no-confidence vote — is highly unusual. While such motions have never succeeded, they represent the bloc's most powerful check on executive authority and have historically reshaped the political dynamics in Brussels. The stakes could not be higher. As Europe negotiates a potential trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration and struggles to maintain its influence in the on-again, off-again Ukraine-Russia peace talks, the vote's outcome could determine the EU's strategic direction. It may finally compel von der Leyen to make a defining choice: Govern from the political center or continue what some Europeans see as a drift toward the nationalist right. Von der Leyen's choice could have profound implications for the bloc's global relevance and credibility. The censure motion, prompted by a recent court ruling criticizing von der Leyen's refusal to disclose the text messages she exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during the COVID-19 vaccine negotiations, was initiated by right-wing and far-right groups. It also reflects broader concerns about her alleged bypassing of the EU Parliament and centralization of power within the Commission. Although the motion has little chance of passing, it cannot be dismissed as mere posturing or, as von der Leyen put it, 'another crude attempt to drive a wedge between our institutions, between the pro-European, pro-democratic forces in this House.' Ironically, the right-wing push to unseat von der Leyen has provided a platform for mainstream parties to air their own frustrations with her increasing willingness to accommodate far-right positions. The three centrist parties that played a vital role in securing a second term for von der Leyen as Commission President – the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe (formerly ALDE) and the Greens/European Free Alliance – have grown disillusioned with what they see as her abandonment of their shared political priorities. Although she pledged to govern from the center with these parties' backing, her European People's Party (EPP) has increasingly relied on support from the right. This strategic pivot has led the EPP to undermine the European Green Deal by diluting corporate sustainability-reporting regulations and delaying the EU's deforestation law. More recently, it has reportedly sought far-right support to secure key rapporteur appointments on two immigration laws that could make the bloc's migration policies significantly more restrictive. These shifts have left von der Leyen politically vulnerable. A Commission president caught between two incompatible parliamentary blocs threatens the EU's ability to pursue a coherent political agenda. Since its establishment in 1958, the European Parliament has held censure powers as a key instrument of democratic oversight. From the moment of its appointment, the European Commission is collectively accountable to the Parliament. When trust breaks down, Parliament retains the authority to impose the ultimate sanction. Yet all 13 censure motions brought forward since the European Parliament's creation have either been withdrawn or failed. This is partly due to the deliberately high threshold: two-thirds of votes cast, representing at least 361 members — an even higher bar than for electing the Commission president in the first place. The far-reaching consequences of forcing the entire Commission to resign have traditionally dissuaded mainstream parties from endorsing such motions. More fundamentally, members of the European Parliament have long been guided by a sense of institutional loyalty, often prioritizing European unity over democratic accountability. But limited use has not rendered the mechanism politically irrelevant. In parliamentary democracies around the world, opposition parties routinely use no-confidence votes to extract concessions from governing coalitions. While the EU's version is more demanding, the underlying dynamic remains the same: Opposition forces can create leverage even when success is out of reach. It's happened before. In 1996, Parliament established a committee of inquiry into the mad cow disease crisis. Although a subsequent censure motion was defeated, it paved the way for a 'conditional censure' mechanism through which lawmakers gave the Commission six months to address specific concerns, using the threat of future action to secure concrete policy commitments. Today, mainstream European parties find themselves in a surprisingly strong position to apply similar pressure. Without their continued support, von der Leyen cannot advance several major policy priorities: the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework budget negotiations, the implementation of the EU's competitiveness agenda, a package of single-market reforms and the European rearmament initiative, which requires unprecedented levels of fiscal coordination. The Social Democrats, Liberals and Greens in Parliament could use this moment to demand explicit commitments in exchange for their continued support. More importantly, they must force von der Leyen to choose between two irreconcilable political paths: governing with the centrist coalition that has defined EU policy for the past five decades or continuing to court nationalist parties whose votes come with decidedly noncentrist policy strings attached. With democratic institutions under pressure worldwide, Europe's ability to self-correct matters far beyond its own borders. The question isn't whether Parliament will remove von der Leyen — it won't — but whether it will seize the opportunity to define the terms for responsible European governance. Von der Leyen's ongoing political ambiguity has become a strategic liability at a time when Europe's allies need clarity. Above all, they must know whether they are engaging with a Commission committed to democratic values or one being shaped by nationalist actors who often prioritize the interests of Russia and the Trump administration. The July 10 vote will reveal whether European democracy has matured to the point where democratic accountability takes precedence over institutional loyalty and whether the bloc is prepared to face today's challenges with purpose and resolve. Alberto Alemanno, professor of European Union law at HEC Paris and visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and Natolin, is founder of The Good Lobby and the author of "Lobbying for Change: Find Your Voice to Create a Better Society" (Icon Books, 2017). © Project Syndicate, 2025
