Former CIA director says Donald Trump's plan for war in Ukraine is ‘naive and unsophisticated'
Donald Trump's plan for peace in Ukraine has been branded 'naive' and 'unsophisticated' by former director of the CIA John Brennan.
In the first five months of his second term, the U.S. president has aggressively pushed for peace but refused to offer unconditional support to Kyiv in its defence against Russian aggression.
Mr Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine on the first day of his presidency while on the campaign trail, but diplomatic efforts have stalled and Russia has recently launched some of its largest attacks of the war so far.
The US President recently suggested it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' in a sign of his waning interest in ending the three-year conflict.
Speaking on Sky News, Mr Brennan said the U.S. president's approach to forcing through a quick peace deal in Ukraine was 'naive' and 'unsophisticated'.
"I think that Donald Trump doesn't know what he will do,' said Brennan when asked what the President will do next to secure peace in Ukraine.
Delegations from Russia and Ukraine have met for talks multiple times within the past month. But beyond agreements to exchange of prisoners of war, no major breakthrough has been made towards peace.
Mr Brennan and Mr Trump have a tense history, and the former has previously been critical of the U.S. president's foreign policy. During his first term in office, Mr Trump described him as the 'worst' CIA chief in history - and in January he revoked Mr Brennan's security clearance.
The former intelligence official was involved in Ukraine during his time in Langley and first visited the country in 2014 - the same year Russian forces invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula.
Asked about the strength of the Ukrainian military, Mr Brennan told Sky News: "Pound for pound, [it] punches above the weight of virtually every other military on the globe, I would say including the United States, given the tremendous experience that they've gained on the battlefield".
He also suggested that Ukraine's allies were likely aware - at least in part - of the drone attack on Russian airfields deep inside its territory.
"I don't doubt for a moment that they were given some additional assistance from Western intelligence and military authorities and capabilities,' Brennan said.
"The Ukrainians have done a lot on their own, but I think a lot of this is initially enabled by some ideas that come from their Western allies."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
28 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Details of Iran attack still remain fuzzy from Trump and his team
President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn upon arriving at the White House, Saturday, June 21 (PIcture: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Next Friday marks the first anniversary of Labour's landslide win in the 2024 General Election – what a difference a year makes. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Much has changed in the 51 weeks since Keir Starmer was swept to power on the back of a thumping majority. Many loyal voters have been disappointed by him in government, including 120 of his own MPs, and he faces rebellion from within the ranks on the Treasury's proposed benefit cuts. Yet there is still enough spare change down the back of the sofa to buy 12 fighter jets from the USA which will be capable of launching nuclear missiles. I'm sure that is a huge consolation to disabled people already struggling to make ends meet. At least Starmer stopped short of going into full Tony Blair mode, and the UK did not get involved in the US bombing mission to Iran, which may have broken international law. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While a year seems a long time in politics, much can change within the course of a week. Last weekend, many feared we were on the brink of World War Three, as Trump launched his raid on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians responded with attacks on Qatar. By Thursday, the entire episode had descended into farce. The exact details still remain fuzzy at best. Trump claims Iran's entire nuclear capability had been obliterated and tweeted 'Bullseye!' Who knew he was such a fan of 1980s British TV game shows? By the start of this week, a leaked intelligence document suggested the impact had been limited, while the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no leakage of radiation. To a lay person like myself, that suggests two possible scenarios. Either the mission was a failure or the underground nuclear facilities never existed in the first place. By midweek, the CIA had changed the official narrative. The nuclear site had received 'severe damage', which is a few steps down from obliteration. This was backed up by some grainy aerial photos which claimed to show what had happened, but actually proved nothing at all. This is all eerily reminiscent of 2003, with the false evidence trotted out to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kameini said the US failed to achieve anything significant and was claiming the incident to be a victory for Iran. The whole thing may have to referred to VAR for a final decision. On Thursday US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of alcohol abuse and anger management issues, weighed into the debate. The former Fox News presenter lambasted the press for their lack of patriotism in not believing the president. He called the mission a 'historic success' and repeated the claim that the facility had been 'obliterated' at the weekend. Or maybe he was referring to himself being 'obliterated' at the weekend. It's all very unclear. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The only thing we know with any certainty is that if Trump says he devastated Iran's nuclear capability then he definitely didn't. Judging by form, he's either rambling nonsense or deliberately lying. Although he did come up with an uncharacteristic gem of wisdom on Tuesday. He claimed neither Israel nor Iran 'knows what the f**k they are doing'. They're not the only ones, Mr President.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Everything is opportunistic': how will Iran war affect Netanyahu's polling?
When Benjamin Netanyahu described the opportunities for peace that Israel's successes in its brief war with Iran might bring, supporters took him at his word. 'This victory presents an opportunity for a dramatic widening of peace agreements. We are working on this with enthusiasm,' Israel's longest-serving prime minister said on Thursday in a pre-recorded statement. Critics of the 75-year-old leader saw something else. 'Whatever he does, he tries to turn everything to his advantage … This is a guy who never takes responsibility but only credit … Everything is opportunistic and everything is transactional,' said Prof Yossi Mekelberg at Chatham House in London. Quite how long Netanyahu will stay in power is now a burning question in Israel, as the country recovers from the rollercoaster of fear and elation of the last weeks. With the Iran war apparently over, the conflict in Gaza has returned to the headlines. On the day after the US declared a ceasefire, seven Israeli soldiers died in an attack on an outdated armoured vehicle in the south of the devastated territory, prompting further urgent calls within Israel for the hostilities there to be brought to a close. Back in the headlines, too, are the deep divisions in Israeli society and within the coalition Netanyahu put together after elections in November 2022. This is the most rightwing government ever seen in Israel, and has survived multiple challenges since the 7 October 2023 Hamas raid into Israel, in which militants killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took another 251 hostage. For Prof Tamar Hermann, a specialist in public opinion at the Israel Democracy Institute, the war has changed little in terms of Israel's polarised domestic politics. 'Netanyahu's supporters support him even more and opponents oppose him like before. They see the [war against Iran] as very successful but don't credit Netanyahu. He gets some points … but not so many,' Hermann said. Netanyahu loyalists hope for a major boost in the polls. Udi Tenne, a strategic adviser and campaign manager for ministers in the current government, said: 'The operation [against Iran] led by Prime Minister Netanyahu was unquestionably justified, but it also, undeniably, benefited him politically. To put it metaphorically, the missiles launched at Iran also landed on the Israeli opposition.' A key question is whether the perceived victory over Iran will convince enough voters to forget that the 2023 attack – Israel's worst ever security failure – not only occurred on Netanyahu's watch but can be attributed in part to policies he had pursued over a decade or more. 'Since that horrific day, Israel's security situation has dramatically improved: the Iranian threat has been neutralised, Syria has collapsed, [the Lebanese militant group] Hezbollah has been severely damaged, and Gaza lies dismantled. We are living through a profound security transformation – and for that, great credit is due to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and to the government,' said Tenne. Others are less convinced, and recent polls are inconclusive. The relatively minor gains made by Netanyahu's ruling Likud party have largely been at the expense of other coalition parties, notably the far right, and would not necessarily guarantee a win at any election. And a requirement for a 90-day gap between a dissolution of parliament and new elections means a snap poll would be a big risk for Netanyahu, even if his personal ratings have risen. 'People are going to give Netanyahu a lot of credit for the operation against Iran and polls show this. But they haven't forgotten [the 7 October attack] and politics have not become less divisive,' said Lahav Harkov, a senior political correspondent at the US-based Jewish Insider. Netanyahu's tactical instincts have never been in doubt throughout his long and controversial career. They are still admired by his supporters and bitterly regretted by detractors. 'One of his greatest political talents is he knows how to delay and come up with temporary workarounds so he can live another day,' said Harkov. Advisers to leaders of Israel's opposition parties said last week they were encouraged by recent polls and believed that the many other issues that have riled voters – persistent corruption allegations, Netanyahu's ongoing graft trial, a bitter row over whether Orthodox Jews should be exemption from conscription and the rising cost of living – will come to the fore as new elections loom. Others point out that Netanyahu's political base is far from monolithic, and that his comments about the cost to his family of the recent conflict have provoked much anger. Netanyahu's political demise has been often predicted, most recently in October 2023. However, he has not only retained power but consistently outmanoeuvred rivals and opponents. A bid to bring down his government was only narrowly defeated a day before he launched Israel's warplanes against Iran. 'He desperately needed some success. I don't think it was a coincidence that it happened as he was being cross-examined in his corruption trial,' said Mekelberg. Loyalists have no doubt who will be in charge in the coming years. 'He has returned to power with a firm grip,' said Tenne. 'If David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence, then it is Benjamin Netanyahu who is now securing its future.' Netanyahu appears convinced, too. With only weeks of the parliamentary term to go before a three-month summer recess, he has at least bought himself time until the late autumn. 'I have many more objectives, and as long as I believe I can fulfilthem, I will,' he said last week.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Transgender campaigners call for European rights body to report on UK
A collection of groups campaigning on transgender issues have urged Europe's main human rights body to investigate the UK over the implementation of the supreme court's ruling on gender. In a joint letter to the Council of Europe, the organisations said the situation in which transgender people were likely to be barred from using toilets of their acquired sex or joining single-sex organisations placed them in an 'intermediate zone' of gender, saying this was a violation of the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The five groups, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, TransActual, Equality Network and Scottish Trans, Trans Safety Network and Feminist Gender Equality Network, have asked the council to report on trans rights in the UK, adding: 'We note that the situation is urgent and that without intervention, it seems likely to further deteriorate.' The letter follows April's landmark supreme court ruling that 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex. In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word 'biological' did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, 'the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman'. If 'sex' did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face 'practical difficulties', it said. The justices added: 'Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.' According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is consulting on the formal post-ruling guidance, due out later this summer, transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets or changing spaces of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they also cannot use toilets of their birth sex. The letter argues that this would leave transgender people reliant on gender-neutral facilities, which are often unavailable 'and mandating their usage may require trans people to out themselves'. It argues that this, plus the post-ruling interim advice that transgender people would not be allowed to join single sex associations of their acquired sex, would place them in an 'intermediate zone' on sex, a violation of their right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR. The convention is interpreted by the European court of human rights, part of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU and to which Britain remains a member. Jess O'Thomson from Trans+ Solidarity Alliance said trans people had already experienced 'a huge rollback' of rights even before the final guidance on implementing the ruling had been published: 'We are asking for a report to be opened into the state of trans people's human rights in the UK, in the hope that this will encourage our politicians to listen and take action.' Rebecca Don Kennedy, chief executive of Equality Network, said: 'Trans people and their allies all over the UK are horrified with the recent chain of events following the supreme court ruling in April. The threat to trans people's autonomy, freedom and dignity should concern anyone who values equality and human rights. 'Trans people have a right to public life, and dignity in social interaction, they have a right to use the toilet safely, to leave their homes knowing that they can. They have a right to privacy, a right to engage with the world as themselves, to join clubs that fully celebrate and welcome them as who they are.'
