How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours

How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
US President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (R) look on before Trump signed a proclamation expanding fishing rights in the Pacific islands. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 19 April 2025
Follow

How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours

How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
  • He has changed his tone since becoming president again.
  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday suggested the U.S. might soon back away from negotiations altogether without more progress.

DUBAI: During his campaign, Donald Trump said repeatedly that he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in 24 hours” upon taking office. He has changed his tone since becoming president again.
As various US emissaries have held talks looking for an end to the war, both Trump and his top officials have become more reserved about the prospects of a peace deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday suggested the US might soon back away from negotiations altogether without more progress, adding a comment that sounded like a repudiation of the president’s old comments.
“No one’s saying this can be done in 12 hours,” he told reporters.
The promises made by presidential candidates are often felled by the realities of governing. But Trump’s shift is noteworthy given his prior term as president and his long histories with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The White House on Friday did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Trump’s evolving deadline comments.
Here’s a look at Trump’s evolution on the way he talks about the Russia-Ukraine war:
‘A very easy negotiation’
MARCH 2023: “There’s a very easy negotiation to take place. But I don’t want to tell you what it is because then I can’t use that negotiation; it’ll never work,” Trump told Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity, claiming that he could “solve” the war “in 24 hours” if he were back in the White House.
“But it’s a very easy negotiation to take place. I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them,” Trump said of the war, which at that point had been ongoing for more than a year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
MAY 2023: “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours,” Trump said during a town hall on CNN.
JULY 2024: When asked to respond to Trump’s one-day claim, Russia’s United Nations Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told reporters that “the Ukrainian crisis cannot be solved in one day.” Afterward, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said that “a top priority in his second term will be to quickly negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war.”
AUGUST 2024: “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,” Trump told a National Guard Conference. “I’ll get it settled very fast. I don’t want you guys going over there. I don’t want you going over there.”
After Trump wins in November
DEC. 16, 2024: “I’m going to try,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club, asked if he thought he could still make a deal with Putin and Zelensky to end the war.
JAN. 8, 2025: In a Fox News Channel interview, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg — now serving as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia — proposed a 100-day deadline to end the war. Friday marked 100 days since that interview. The 100th day of Trump’s presidency is April 30.
Trump becomes president and starts negotiations
JAN. 31: Trump says his new administration has already had “very serious” discussions with Russia and says he and Putin could soon take “significant” action toward ending the grinding conflict.
“We will be speaking, and I think will perhaps do something that’ll be significant,” Trump said in an exchange with reporters in the Oval Office. “We want to end that war. That war would have not started if I was president.”
FEB. 12: Trump and Putin speak for more than an hour and Trump speaks afterward with Zelensky. Trump says afterward, “I think we’re on the way to getting peace.”
FEB. 19: Trump posts on his Truth Social site that Zelensky is serving as a “dictator without elections.” He adds that “we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP,’ and the Trump Administration, can do.”
FEB. 28: Trump and Zelensky have a contentious Oval Office meeting. Trump berates Zelensky for being “disrespectful,” then abruptly calls off the signing of a minerals deal that Trump said would have moved Ukraine closer to ending the war.
Declaring himself “in the middle” and not on the side of either Ukraine or Russia in the conflict, Trump went on to deride Zelensky’s “hatred” for Putin as a roadblock to peace.
“You see the hatred he’s got for Putin,” Trump said. “That’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.”
The Ukrainian leader was asked to leave the White House by top Trump advisers shortly after Trump shouted at him. Trump later told reporters that he wanted an “immediate ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine but expressed doubt that Zelensky was ready to make peace.
MARCH 3: Trump temporarily pauses military aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to seek peace.
Trump claims his 24-hour promise was ‘sarcastic’
MARCH 14: Trump says he was “being a little bit sarcastic” when he repeatedly claimed as a candidate that he would have the Russia-Ukraine war solved within 24 hours.
“Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that,” Trump says in a clip released from an interview for the “Full Measure” television program. “What I really mean is I’d like to get it settled and, I’ll, I think, I think I’ll be successful.”
MARCH 18-19: Trump speaks with both Zelensky and Putin on successive days.
In a March 18 call, Putin told Trump that he would agree not to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure but refused to back a full 30-day ceasefire that Trump had proposed. Afterward, Trump on social media heralded that move, which he said came “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.”
In their own call a day later, Trump suggested that Zelensky should consider giving the US ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to ensure their long-term security. Trump told Zelensky that the UScould be “very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise,” according to a White House statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz.
APRIL 14: Trump says “everybody” is to blame: Zelensky, Putin and Biden.
“That’s a war that should have never been allowed to start and Biden could have stopped it and Zelensky could have stopped it and Putin should have never started it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Talk of moving on
APRIL 18: Rubio says that the US may “move on” from trying to secure a Russia-Ukraine peace deal if there is no progress in the coming days.
He spoke in Paris after landmark talks among US, Ukrainian and European officials produced outlines for steps toward peace and appeared to make some long-awaited progress. A new meeting is expected next week in London, and Rubio suggested it could be decisive in determining whether the Trump administration continues its involvement.
“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not,” Rubio told reporters. “Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on. It’s not our war. We have other priorities to focus on.”
He said the US administration wants to decide “in a matter of days.”
Later that day, Trump told reporters at the White House that he agreed with Rubio that a Ukraine peace deal must be done “quickly.”
“I have no specific number of days but quickly. We want to get it done,” he said.
Saying “Marco is right” that the dynamic of the negotiations must change, Trump stopped short of saying he’s ready to walk away from peace negotiations.
“Well, I don’t want to say that,” Trump said. “But we want to see it end.”


Immigrant rights advocates claim US violated court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan

Updated 22 sec ago
Follow

Immigrant rights advocates claim US violated court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan

Immigrant rights advocates claim US violated court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan
The advocates made the request in a motion directed to a federal judge in Boston

BOSTON: Immigrant rights advocates accused the Trump administration on Tuesday of deporting around a dozen migrants from countries including Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in violation of a court order and asked a judge to order their return.

The advocates made the request in a motion directed to a federal judge in Boston who had barred the Trump administration from swiftly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first hearing any concerns they had that they might be tortured or persecuted if sent there.

Maritime security under threat from ‘emerging dangers,’ UN chief warns

Maritime security under threat from ‘emerging dangers,’ UN chief warns
Updated 20 min 52 sec ago
Follow

Maritime security under threat from ‘emerging dangers,’ UN chief warns

Maritime security under threat from ‘emerging dangers,’ UN chief warns
  • Houthi Red Sea campaign ‘increased tensions in an already volatile region’
  • Antonio Guterres calls for three-point plan to address challenges

NEW YORK CITY: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of rising threats to global maritime transport at a high-level Security Council meeting on Tuesday.

It follows almost two years of turmoil in the Red Sea, a vital shipping lane connecting global trade via the Suez Canal.

Yemen’s Houthi militia launched a campaign in late 2023 to prevent Israel-linked shipping from transiting the Red Sea, claiming to act in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The US responded with Operation Prosperity Guardian, a military campaign to target Houthi launch sites and infrastructure.

The EU contributed with EUNAVFOR Aspides, while Israel later responded to Houthi attacks with extensive strikes on Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, and the Houthi-controlled port city of Hodeidah.

Tuesday’s Security Council meeting was chaired by Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Greek prime minister.

Guterres told the meeting: “Without maritime security, there can be no global security.

“From time immemorial, maritime routes have bound the world together. They have long been the primary means for the trade and transport of not only people, goods and commodities, but also cultures and ideas.”

However, maritime spaces are “increasingly under strain” from traditional threats and “emerging dangers,” Guterres added.

He highlighted contested boundaries, the depletion of natural resources, conflict and crime as key issues affecting maritime security.

The first quarter of 2025 saw a “sharp upward reversal” in reported piracy and armed robbery at sea, Guterres said.

He highlighted the Houthi Red Sea campaign, warning it had “disrupted global trade and increased tensions in an already volatile region.”

Earlier this month, the US reached a ceasefire deal with the Houthis following mediation by Oman.

However, the militia and Israel continue to trade strikes.

Guterres called for three measures to improve global maritime security: Respect for international law; efforts to address the root causes of maritime insecurity; and partnerships involving “everyone with a stake in maritime spaces.”

The international legal framework for maritime security “is only as strong as states’ commitment” to its implementation, he said.

Globally, more must be done “to reduce the likelihood that desperate people will turn to crime and other activities that threaten maritime security,” he added.

Guterres said: “We must involve everyone with a stake in maritime spaces. From coastal communities to governments and regional groups. To shipping companies, flag registries, the fishing and extraction industries, insurers and port operators.

“Let’s take action to support and secure maritime spaces, and the communities and people counting on them.”


Indonesian gig drivers protest demanding lower app fees

Indonesian gig drivers protest demanding lower app fees
Updated 20 May 2025
Follow

Indonesian gig drivers protest demanding lower app fees

Indonesian gig drivers protest demanding lower app fees
  • Motorbike and scooter drivers who form the backbone of Indonesia’s sprawling gig economy earn up to 150,000 rupiah ($10) a day

JAKARTA: Thousands of drivers from ride-hailing and food delivery apps protested in Indonesia on Tuesday, demanding a 10-percent cap on commission fees.

Hundreds of drivers gathered in the streets of the capital Jakarta, driving their motorbikes and waving flags.

Thousands more in Indonesia’s second-largest city of Surabaya drove to the offices of ride-hailing apps GoJek and Grab, before rallying in front of the governor’s office, an AFP journalist saw.

“Many of our friends got into accidents on the road, died on the road because they have to chase their income,” Raden Igun Wicaksono, chairman of the driver’s union Garda Indonesia, told AFP.

“It’s about lives, not about business calculation.”

Drivers are also demanding the end of discounted fare programs and calling on lawmakers to meet with the drivers’ association and app companies.

Motorbike and scooter drivers who form the backbone of Indonesia’s sprawling gig economy earn up to 150,000 rupiah ($10) a day, but costs including app commissions and fuel eat into their income.

Gojek — which alongside Singapore’s Grab is among Asia’s most valuable startups — said it was committed to “supporting the long-term welfare of our driver partners.” 

But lowering its 20-percent commission fee, which complied with regulations, was “not a viable solution,” according to Ade Mulya, head of public policy for Gojek’s parent company GoTo.


Pentagon chief orders review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan

Pentagon chief orders review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan
Updated 20 May 2025
Follow

Pentagon chief orders review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan

Pentagon chief orders review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan
  • A special review panel will “thoroughly examine previous investigations,” Hegseth said in a memo
  • “This team will ensure ACCOUNTABILITY to the American people”

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday ordered a Pentagon review of the chaotic 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has long been a target of Republican criticism.

“I have concluded that we need to conduct a comprehensive review to ensure that accountability for this event is met and that the complete picture is provided to the American people,” Hegseth wrote in a memo.

A special review panel will “thoroughly examine previous investigations, to include but not limited to, findings of fact, sources, witnesses, and analyze the decision making that led to one of America’s darkest and deadliest international moments,” the memo said.

“This team will ensure ACCOUNTABILITY to the American people and the warfighters of our great Nation,” it added.

The US withdrawal saw Taliban fighters sweep aside Afghan forces, forcing the last American troops to mount an evacuation from Kabul’s airport that got more than 120,000 people out of the country in a matter of days.

On August 26, 2021, a suicide bomber targeted crowds of people on the perimeter of Kabul airport who were desperate to get on a flight out of the country, killing more than 170 people, among them 13 American troops.

Joe Biden, who was US president during the withdrawal, defended the decision to leave Afghanistan, which critics have said helped cause the catastrophic collapse of Afghan forces.

That paved the way for the Taliban to return to power two decades after their first government was toppled by American forces in the wake of the September 11 attacks.


Muslim Brotherhood ‘threat to national cohesion’: French report

Muslim Brotherhood ‘threat to national cohesion’: French report
Updated 20 May 2025
Follow

Muslim Brotherhood ‘threat to national cohesion’: French report

Muslim Brotherhood ‘threat to national cohesion’: French report
  • The report pointed to the spread of Islamism “from the bottom up” and at the municipal level
  • It highlighted the “subversive nature of the project,” saying it aims “to gradually bring about changes to local or national rules“

PARIS: The Muslim Brotherhood movement is a “threat to national cohesion” in France and action must be taken to stop the spread of “political Islamism,” according to a report to be presented to President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday.

“The reality of this threat, even if it is long-term and does not involve violent action, poses a risk of damage to the fabric of society and republican institutions... and, more broadly, to national cohesion,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP on Tuesday.

The report, prepared by two senior civil servants, is to be examined by the Defense Council on Wednesday.

France and Germany have the biggest Muslim populations among European Union countries.

The report pointed to the spread of Islamism “from the bottom up” and at the municipal level, adding the phenomenon constituted “a threat in the short to medium term.”

In France, the movement is “based on a solid structure, but political Islamism is spreading primarily at the local level,” the authors stressed.

“Resolute and long-term action on the ground seems necessary to stem the rise of political Islamism,” they said.

The report highlighted the “subversive nature of the project,” saying it aims “to gradually bring about changes to local or national rules,” particularly those concerning secularism and gender equality.

Such “municipal Islamism” risks affecting the public sphere and local politics, the report said, pointing to “the creation of increasingly numerous Islamist ecosystems.”

France’s tough-talking Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau expressed concern on Tuesday about “a low-level Islamism” whose “ultimate goal is to turn the entire French society to Sharia law.”

But the report authors said that “no recent document demonstrates the desire of Muslims in France to establish an Islamic state in France or to enforce Sharia law there.”

Muslims in France (Musulmans de France), formerly the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, is identified as “the national branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in France.”

“We are not dealing with aggressive separatism” but a “subtle (...) yet no less subversive aim for the institutions,” the authors said.

The report estimates that there are 139 places of worship affiliated with Muslims of France, with an additional 68 considered close to the federation.

This represents seven percent of the 2,800 Muslim places of worship listed in France, the report said.

The Islamist movement is losing its influence in the Arab world and “focusing its efforts on Europe,” it added.

A public awareness campaign must be combined with renewed efforts to promote a “secular discourse” as well as “strong and positive signals to the Muslim community” including the teaching of Arabic, the report said.