Russia-Ukraine Conflict: After Meeting Zelenskyy, Trump Shows Frustration With Putin Over Latest Airstrikes, Threatens To...
The latest meeting between the two leaders was the first since their meeting in the White House, when Zelenskyy faced heat from Trump and Vice President JD Vance over what they saw as a lack of gratitude for the support from Washington. In a post shared on his social media platform, Truth Social, as he was heading back to Washington from Rome, the US President hinted at imposing sanctions against Moscow after Russia's latest missile attack on Ukraine and questioned whether Putin wants to stop the war.
After Trump's criticisism of Zelenskyy over his recent remarks on Crimea, calling them "harmful to peace negotiations" with Russia, he had highlighted that Ukraine has upheld a complete ceasefire for 44 days following a proposal from Washington, while Moscow continued its attacks, launching nearly 70 missiles and around 150 attack drones during that time. Donald Trump even criticised former US President Barack Obama and suggested that he "made it possible for Russia to steal Crimea from Ukraine without even a shot being fired."
In a post shared on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump shared, "No matter what deal I make with respect to Russia/Ukraine, no matter how good it is, even if it's the greatest deal ever made, The Failing New York Times will speak BADLY of it. Liddle' Peter Baker, the very biased and untalented writer for The Times, followed his Editor's demands and wrote that Ukraine should get back territory, including, I suppose, Crimea, and other ridiculous requests, in order to stop the killing that is worse than anything since World War II. Why doesn't this lightweight reporter say that it was Obama who made it possible for Russia to steal Crimea from Ukraine without even a shot being fired. It was also Liddle' Peter who wrote an absolutely fawning, yet terribly written Biography, on Obama. It was a JOKE! Did Baker ever criticize the Obama Crimea Giveaway? NO, not once, only TRUMP, and I've had nothing to do with this stupid war, other than early on, when I gave Ukraine Javelins, and Obama gave them sheets."
"This is Sleepy Joe Biden's War, not mine. It was a loser from day one, and should have never happened, and wouldn't have happened if I were President at the time. I'm just trying to clean up the mess that was left to me by Obama and Biden, and what a mess it is. With all of that being said, there was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through "Banking" or "Secondary Sanctions?" Too many people are dying," he added.
Trump and Zelenskyy spoke ahead of the funeral of Pope Francis. Describing his meeting with Trump as "good," Zelenskyy said that talks focused on "full and unconditional ceasefire." He expressed hope to see results on everything they discussed.
In a post on X, Zelenskyy said, "Good meeting. We discussed a lot one-on-one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out. Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results. Thank you POTUS."
Trump and Zelenskyy had a "very productive" meeting in Rome, a White House official said - their first meeting since a tense meeting in the White House in February this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
a minute ago
- Mint
Barack Obama reveals the one thing every boy needs — And it's not just a dad
Former US President Barack Obama joined wife Michelle and brother-in-law Craig Robinson on a recent episode of the 'IMO' podcast to share insights on raising emotionally intelligent boys and building inclusive communities for the next generation. The podcast featured a question from a new mother of a one-year-old son, asking how to raise emotionally competent men in a world that focuses heavily on empowering girls. 'What can we do to change the fact that we raise our girls and we love our boys?' she asked. In response, Barack Obama offered candid reflections on raising boys to recognize and resist troubling online ideologies, and emphasised the importance of broader male role models. Obama recalled his college days, crediting a gay professor as an influential figure in his development. 'I had a gay professor in college, who became one of my favourite professors,' he said. 'He was a great guy and would call me out when I started saying stuff that was ignorant. You need that to show empathy and kindness.' The former president stressed the need for boys to see different expressions of masculinity. 'That's one of the things that I think a lot of times boys need—not just exposure to one guy, one dad, no matter how good the dad is. He can't be everything,' Obama noted. Obama argued that having LGBTQ friends helps men become better fathers and role models by fostering empathy and inclusiveness. 'You need that person in your friend group so that if you then have a boy who is gay or non-binary or whatever, they have somebody they can go, 'Okay, I'm not alone in this,'' he said. 'That, I think, is creating that community. I know it's corny, but that's what they need.' While praising efforts to uplift girls, Obama critiqued progressives for overlooking boys. 'I will say, as quote-unquote progressives, Democrats, progressive parents, enlightened ones, we've made that mistake sometimes in terms of our rhetoric,' he said. 'We're constantly talking about what's going on with the boys instead of what's right with them. And that's been a mistake.' He added that people are beginning to recognise this imbalance. Obama also reflected on evolving ideas of masculinity, noting positive change among younger men while cautioning against abandoning all traditional values. It's promising that young men are starting to realize there are many different ways of being a good, strong, successful, happy man, he said. Still, he lamented that 'some of the good stuff from the old models,' like chivalry, we just threw out.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard challenges US funding cuts in $3 billion legal battle with Trump administration Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit. The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight. Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding. Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants. Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding. The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants. Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze. Key Information Details Amount frozen Over $2.2 billion Total funds at stake Nearly $3 billion Agencies involved 11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS) Legal claims First Amendment, APA, Title VI Judge Allison D. Burroughs Court location Boston, Massachusetts Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus. Ongoing impact and future implications The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants. The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement. Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
First Post
19 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? Vantage with Palki Sharma
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Indonesia slashes threatened tariffs but imposes steep costs on Jakarta. The agreement keeps a 19% U.S. tariff on Indonesian goods — nearly four times last year's rate — while granting American exports free access to Indonesia. Jakarta also pledged billions in purchases of U.S. oil, agriculture, and Boeing jets. Indonesia's President Prabowo accepted the deal to avoid harsher penalties but admitted it was tough. Critics say the agreement showcases Trump's coercive approach: threaten extreme tariffs, then demand one-sided concessions. The deal raises questions about whether this is negotiation — or economic pressure disguised as diplomacy. See More
