Trump expresses doubts Putin is willing to end the Ukraine war, a day after saying a deal was close

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with US President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, Russia, April 25, 2025, in this still image taken from video. (Kremlin.ru/Handout via REUTERS)
Short Url
Updated 27 April 2025
Follow

Trump expresses doubts Putin is willing to end the Ukraine war, a day after saying a deal was close

  • “There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days,” Trump said
  • “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?”

ROME: President Donald Trump said Saturday that he doubts Russia’s Vladimir Putin wants to end his war in Ukraine, expressing new skepticism that a peace deal can be reached soon. Only a day earlier, Trump had said Ukraine and Russia were ” very close to a deal.”
“There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days,” Trump said in a social media post as he flew back to the United States after attending Pope Francis’ funeral at the Vatican, where he met briefly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump also hinted at further sanctions against Russia.
“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!!!” Trump wrote.

 

The new doubts aired by Trump come as the president and top aides intensify their push to come to a deal to end the war that began in February 2022 when Russian invaded Ukraine.
The comments also sharply contrasted with Trump’s positive assessment that the two sides were “very close to a deal” after his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, had met with Putin in Moscow on Friday.
The Trump-Zelensky conversation on the sidelines of the pope’s funeral was first face-to-face encounter between the two leaders since they argued during a heated Oval Office meeting at the White House in late February. That confrontation led to the White House to briefly pause US military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
Days after ordering the pause, Trump also announced he was “strongly considering” imposing new sanctions and tariffs on Russia to try to prod Putin to negotiate in earnest. Trump has not yet followed through on the threat — something even some of his staunch Republican allies are now pressuring him to do.
It’s the second time a matter of days that Trump has rebuked Putin, whom the American president rarely publicly criticizes.
On Thursday, Trump publicly urged the Russian leader to “STOP!” after a deadly barrage of attacks on Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.
After their brief meeting Saturday, Zelensky’s office had said the US and Ukrainian teams were making arrangements for the leaders to talk again Saturday. But Trump went directly to the Rome airport after the funeral and boarded Air Force One for the 10-hour flight back to the United States.
Zelensky’s spokesperson, Serhii Nykyforov, said Trump and Zelensky did not meet again in person because of their tight schedules.
Zelensky called it a “good meeting” on social media after the funeral.
“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,” he said on X. “Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results. Thank you.”
The White House called the discussion “very productive” and said it would release more details later. The meeting lasted about 15 minutes inside St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, where Francis often preached the need for a peaceful end to the war, just before Trump and Zelensky took their seats at the outdoor funeral service.
The Vatican long ago had offered to help facilitate peace talks and Francis had regularly called for peace and dialogue from the altar of the basilica. That Trump and Zelensky spoke privately, face to face and hunched over on chairs on the marbled floors of the pope’s home, on the day of his funeral, was perhaps a fitting way to honor his wishes.
Trump said on social media, after he arrived in Italy late Friday, that Russia and Ukraine should meet for “very high level talks” on ending the war.
Neither Putin nor Zelensky have commented Trump’s calls for direct talks.
Trump has pressed both sides to quickly come to an agreement to end the war, but while Zelensky agreed to an American plan for an initial 30-day halt to hostilities, Russia has not signed on and has continued to strike at targets inside Ukraine.
Putin did not attend Francis’ funeral. He faces an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, which has accused him of war crimes stemming from Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, in a statement Friday night, Zelensky said “very significant meetings may take place” in the coming days, and that an unconditional ceasefire was needed.
“Real pressure on Russia is needed so that they accept either the American proposal to cease fire and move toward peace, or our proposal — whichever one can truly work and ensure a reliable, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire, and then — a dignified peace and security guarantees,” he said.
“Diplomacy must succeed. And we are doing everything to make diplomacy truly meaningful and finally effective.”
The meeting Saturday also came shortly after Trump had issued his most definitive statement to date about the need for Ukraine to give up territory to Russia to bring the war to a close. He said in a Time magazine interview published Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia.”
Russia seized the strategic peninsula along the Black Sea in southern Ukraine in 2014, years before the full-scale invasion that began in 2022. Zelensky wants to regain Crimea and other Ukrainian territory seized by Russia, but Trump considers that demand to be unrealistic.
Referring to Crimea during the interview, which was conducted at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said, “everybody understands that it’s been with them for a long time,” meaning Russia.


Trump’s Iran war violates international law, experts say

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Trump’s Iran war violates international law, experts say

  • Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the attack on Iran “had no justification under international law“
  • “The US probably could have prevented any Israeli attack on Iran by virtue of the leverage afforded by critical US military support,” said Finucane

WASHINGTON: The United States insists it attacked Iran to curb “direct threats” from the Islamic republic, but legal experts say the dangers cited by Washington do not justify war under international law.
US and Israeli forces launched a massive air campaign against Iran on February 28, with Washington saying it aimed to curb nuclear and missile threats from Tehran. Yet the war has also decapitated the country’s government, and President Donald Trump is now demanding “unconditional surrender.”
The White House laid out Washington’s justification for the war during a news conference this week.
“This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose (an) imminent and direct threat,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday.
She went on to cite Iranian sponsorship of “terrorism,” its ballistic missile program and its alleged efforts to “create nuclear weapons and nuclear bombs.”
But Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the attack on Iran “had no justification under international law.”
“The law is clear that international disputes are to be resolved using peaceful means — negotiation, mediation, the intervention of international organizations,” said O’Connell, an expert in international law on the use of force and international legal theory.
The Trump administration has offered “vague mentions of imminent attacks by Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” while the UN Charter “requires, at the least, that evidence of a significant attack by Iran be underway,” she said.

- ‘Even less plausible’ -

“No shred of such evidence has been provided. Nor is there any right whatsoever to start a war over a weapons program.”
While Leavitt cited threats from missiles and militants, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a different justification for the war earlier in the week: fears that an Israeli attack would trigger reprisals against US forces.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the International Crisis Group’s US Program, said there were several issues with Rubio’s explanation, including that the Trump administration has since offered other rationales for the war.
“The US probably could have prevented any Israeli attack on Iran by virtue of the leverage afforded by critical US military support,” said Finucane, who previously worked in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the US Department of State.
The Iran war is not the only legally dubious military intervention by the Trump administration.
In early September, the United States began carrying out strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and later the eastern Pacific — a campaign that has killed more than 150 people.
The US government has yet to provide definitive evidence that the vessels it targets are involved in drug trafficking, and legal experts and rights groups say the strikes likely amount to extrajudicial killings.
Trump also ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last year, and sent US forces into Caracas in early January to seize leftist Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, who is now on trial in the United States.
Finucane said Trump’s Friday demand for “unconditional surrender” by Iran “further undercuts prior justifications for US military action.”
“The administration has not even bothered to argue that Operation Epic Fury complies with international law, but certainly statements like this make any such argument even less plausible,” he said, referring to the Iran operation.