Russia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      America vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers

      by

      The US has rejected a Canadian proposal to establish a task force that would tackle Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, according to reports last night.Canada, which has the current Group of Seven presidency, proposed the measure ahead of a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Quebec later this week.In negotiations to agree a joint statement on maritime issues, the US is pushing to strengthen language about China while watering down wording on Russia, the reports said.The “shadow fleet” refers to ageing oil tankers, the identities of which are hidden to help circumvent western economic sanctions imposed on Moscow since it launched its full-scale military invasion of Ukraine at the start of 2022.As well as vetoing Canada’s proposal to establish a task force to monitor sanctions breaches, the draft G7 statement seen by Bloomberg News shows the US pushed to remove the word “sanctions” as well as wording citing Russia’s “ability to maintain its war” in Ukraine by replacing it with “earn revenue”.G7 communiqués are not final until they are published through consensus. Further talks could still result in changes to the end-of-summit statement.US diplomats briefed their G7 counterparts that the move was because of Washington’s “re-evaluation of its position in multilateral organisations, rendering it unable to join any new initiatives”, according to the Bloomberg report.European countries are discussing plans that will let them carry out seizures of Moscow’s oil-exporting tankers in the Baltic Sea.The proposals include using international law to allow them to take control of vessels on environmental or piracy grounds. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      North Korea Says It’s Building a Nuclear-Powered Submarine

      by

      The announcement came amid fears that Pyongyang may be receiving crucial military technology from Russia in return for sending troops and weapons for its war against Ukraine.North Korea said on Saturday that it was building its first nuclear-powered submarine to enhance its nuclear weapons abilities, and the state news media showed the nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, inspecting part of what appeared to be a new submarine larger than any owned by the country.The announcement, made in the state news media, came as United States and South Korean officials feared that the North may be receiving technological help from Russia to help modernize its military in return for sending troops and conventional weapons to help in its war against Ukraine.Mr. Kim “learned about the building of a nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine,” the North’s official Korean Central News Agency said in a report on Saturday about his visit to an unidentified naval shipyard. The agency carried photographs showing what appeared to be the hull of a submarine under construction.It was the first time that North Korea claimed that a nuclear-powered submarine was under construction and claimed to show a photograph of it.North Korea has dozens of old Soviet-era submarines, all diesel-powered, which would have to resurface frequently to recharge their batteries during a long-distance trip like crossing the Pacific. A nuclear-powered submarine, which can cover a long distance without resurfacing, would enhance North Korea’s ability to approach a faraway enemy like the United States without being detected, and to strike it with nuclear missiles.The state news media on Saturday quoted Mr. Kim as saying that his country’s naval might would be “fully displayed in any necessary waters without limitation.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      If Britain must rearm, how to pay for it? Stiffen the sinews; summon up the taxes | Polly Toynbee

      by

      “A new era is upon us.” Ursula von der Leyen was not holding back. This is a world turned upside down, changed beyond recognition. Leaders across Europe are echoing the alarm sent out by the European Commission president, and rippling across the continent, Canada and elsewhere: that we face a “clear and present danger on a scale that none of us has seen in our adult lifetime”. She has proposed a plan that would offer €800bn (£660bn) for immediate rearming, with a European sky shield to protect Ukraine.The hooligan Russian asset in the White House has changed everything so profoundly that it is hard to keep track. The US, whose coat-tails we clung to, whose culture we revelled in, whose cleverness dazzled and stupidity confounded, is now the enemy. The shock feels viscerally personal because American culture is deep in our veins at all ages, from Sesame Street to Marvel, from Philip Roth to Philip Glass, the Oscars to Silicon Valley, like it or not. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we obediently followed their blunders, and 642 British soldiers died, as Keir Starmer adroitly reminded JD Vance in parliament. Our glamorous friend has turned fiend. How do we cauterise that off us? Or reconfigure the map of the world in terms of friends and foes?Former UK ambassadors to Washington ruminated over this “seismic” shift, which has shaken every norm from their Foreign Office days. “This is not a blip in the relationship, something fundamental is going on,” one old knight warned a Lords select committee, while another cautioned that the US giving up on Europe in favour of Russia was likely a “current reality”. Sir David Manning pinpointed Britain’s specific anguish at this moment, the downside of the so-called special relationship: as Europe galvanises to rearm, unlike our continental neighbours, we depend on the US for our defence.With every new shock wave, Britain feels this trauma in its marrow. Yet there is hesitancy in government about addressing the nation with a call to arms, as French president Emmanuel Macron has done, warning: “the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”Look at the remarkable response of Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, lifetime financial conservative and fiscal dogmatist, as he grasps the severity of the times: he will reverse all his previous fiscal policies and his nation’s usual dread over borrowing, breaking their “basic law” with a huge €500bn loosening of debt rules to rearm. This amounts to “one of the most historic paradigm shifts in German postwar history”, according to Deutsche Bank. German borrowing costs shot up, but so have predictions of German growth from a sluggish 0.8% to 2%, with investors sending industrial stocks soaring. But note this: in his fiscal sea change, rearming will not be accompanied by any cuts to German social spending.How about Britain? Our government has announced no change to fiscal policy. Living within our self-imposed straitjacket, our rearming will be paid for by cuts to aid, benefits and most departments, as Rachel Reeves this week sends her plans to the Office for Budget Responsibility to prove the books are balanced. Yet the promises the government has made are impossible to keep: no more borrowing, no more tax rises and no return to austerity. These are terrible choices – the aid cut already breaks a manifesto pledge – destroying trust whichever way Labour turns. But which is the least bad?A copy of Duncan Grant’s portrait of John Maynard Keynes hangs by my desk, a reminder to reach for his 1940 prescription How to Pay for the War, a book that spelled out the necessary financial sacrifices of the time. Emergency action needed then was draconian, rapidly increasing production while drastically reducing consumption, introducing rationing and diverting everything to the war effort. In comparison, what’s needed in this new emergency is a pinprick, to raise the 3% of GDP for defence spending that Starmer is aiming for. Take just this one measure: in a disgraceful (and failed) act of crude election bribery, Jeremy Hunt cut 4p off employees’ national insurance. Restoring that would cover the cost of this extra defence spending alone, says Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies; so would 2p more on income tax for all.Labour’s Treasury team winces at the very thought of any further tax rises, after the walloping Reeves got for the £40bn tax rise in October’s budget. They are jumpy: remember Liz Truss’s mini-budget, maxi-catastrophe, they say. Look how even small tax changes such as the farmers’ inheritance tax can create a storm; some policies make absolute sense in economic and fairness terms, but crash politically. Besides, tax rises that cut people’s spending money risk stunting growth, they say – but then so do cuts to public spending. Borrow more? That adds to the mammoth £100bn a year we spend servicing existing debt, they say. But we are now on the hunt for the least-worst option – and Britain still pays less tax than similar countries.Starmer has risen to the needs of the hour. But he has yet to address his citizens on what rearming means, and what it requires of them. We like to think of ourselves as warlike, and at the ready. We are good at displays of national pride and national parades, with a four-day celebration planned for the 80th anniversary of VE day in May. But tax and financial sacrifice were essential parts of that victory. The alternative – miserable cuts to benefits for the weakest, and stripping yet more from threadbare stricken public services – is the worst of all the bad options. In our finest hour, Britain shed its traditional tax-phobia. If ever there was a moment to stiffen the sinews and summon up the taxes, it is now: for the defence of the realm.

      Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      C.I.A. Director Says U.S. Has Paused Intelligence Sharing With Ukraine

      by

      The C.I.A. director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that intelligence sharing with Ukraine had been paused alongside military aid to pressure its government to cooperate with the Trump administration’s plans to end the country’s war with Russia.Speaking on Fox Business, Mr. Ratcliffe applauded the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement on Tuesday praising President Trump and insisting that he supported peace with Russia. Mr. Ratcliffe said he thought intelligence sharing would resume.“President Zelensky put out a statement that said, ‘I am ready for peace and I want President Donald Trump’s leadership to bring about that peace,’” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “And so I think on the military front and the intelligence front, the pause that allowed that to happen, I think will go away, and I think we’ll work shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine as we have, to push back on the aggression that’s there.”On Tuesday, after Mr. Trump ordered a halt to military assistance, officials differed on whether the United States was continuing to share intelligence. One official said all intelligence that was not directly related to the protection of Ukrainian troops had been put on hold. Another official said that exception covered most intelligence sharing, and information still was flowing to Ukrainian forces.Mr. Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that Mr. Trump asked for a pause on intelligence sharing. And his comments suggest that the C.I.A. put at least some of its intelligence sharing with Ukraine on hold for a short time.Trump administration officials have said the pauses were a warning to the Ukrainians of the consequences if they did not cooperate with Mr. Trump’s peace plan. The details of those plans remain unclear. Mr. Trump has spoken approvingly of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and his aides have endorsed elements of the country’s ideas for ending the war.But European countries are trying to develop their own plan that could win over both Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Zelenskyy says he will work under Trump’s leadership as he proposes Ukraine peace plan

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proposed a possible peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, saying he is willing to work “constructively” under Donald Trump’s “strong leadership” and to sign a deal giving the US access to his country’s mineral wealth.In an attempt to mend fences with Washington after Trump abruptly suspended supplies of military aid, Zelenskyy said on Tuesday he was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible”.“I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace,” he wrote on X.In an extraordinary turnaround, late on Tuesday both sides appeared to be close to signing a critical minerals deal that the White House has indicated is a precursor to peace talks, Reuters reported, underlining the chaotic nature of the relationship between Kyiv and Washington under Donald Trump.Alarmed European leaders reaffirmed their backing for Kyiv on Tuesday as it emerged that Ukraine’s Nato allies had not been told in advance of the suspension of US aid.A spokesperson for the Polish foreign ministry said Trump’s announcement “was made without any information or consultation, neither with Nato allies nor with the Ramstein group which is involved in supporting Ukraine”.Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, announced proposals to increase EU defence spending, which she said could raise up to €800bn ($848bn). “This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up,” she said.In his comments, Zelenskyy sketched out a plan for how the war might stop. The “first stages” could include a release of prisoners and a ban on missiles and long-range drones used to attack energy and civilian infrastructure. This “truce in the air” might be applied to the sea as well, he said, “if Russia will do the same”.Zelenskyy’s post came hours after the Trump administration said it was blocking all deliveries of ammunition, vehicles and other equipment, including shipments agreed when Joe Biden was president.He acknowledged his meeting on Friday with Trump and the US vice-president, JD Vance, “did not go the way it was supposed to”. He said: “It is regrettable it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”But his conciliatory comments appear to fall short of the grovelling apology demanded by the White House. Trump has accused Zelenskyy of disrespect, and the US president’s aides have claimed Zelenskyy provoked the row by insisting any peace deal had to come with security guarantees. Vance also repeatedly accused Ukraine’s president of ingratitude.By way of response on Tuesday, Zelenskyy thanked Trump for providing Kyiv with Javelin missiles during his first presidential term. “We really do value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence,” he said.On Tuesday, Vance denied that Trump wanted a public apology from Zelenskyy despite media reports to the contrary, saying that the “public stuff” did not matter as much as Ukrainian engagement toward a “meaningful settlement”.“We need the Ukrainians privately to come to us and say: ‘This is what we need. This is what we want. This is how we’re going to participate in the process to end this conflict,’” Vance told reporters on Capitol Hill. “That is the most important thing, and that lack of private engagement is what is most concerning.”US officials have said Zelenskyy and an adviser, Andriy Yermak, had sought the White House meeting despite the concerns of some Trump advisers who had said there was the potential for a clash. But there are also suspicions the White House was looking for a pretext to distance itself from Ukraine.At a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to propose plans to “restore peace around the world”. A White House official told Fox News he would “lay out his plans to end the war in Ukraine”, as well as plans to negotiate the release of hostages held in Gaza, the outlet reported.Ukraine and the US were supposed to sign a minerals deal that would have resulted in the US investing in Ukraine’s underdeveloped minerals and mining sector. Trump has said the presence of US workers in Ukraine would be enough to deter Putin from future acts of aggression, with no further security promises needed.Asked whether he believed there was still hope for the minerals deal, Vance responded: “Yeah, I certainly do.” He added: “And I think the president is still committed to the mineral deal. I think we’ve heard some positive things, but not yet, of course, a signature from our friends in Ukraine.”Kyiv was ready to sign the deal “in any time and in any convenient format”, Zelenskyy indicated. “We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” he wrote.“It’s a temporary pause and it’s to do a reset,” Mike Johnson, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, said of the suspension of US military aid. “I am heartened by the development that President Zelenskyy has indicated that he does want to do this deal after all … I certainly encourage that to happen and he needs to come and make right what happened last week – the shocking developments in the Oval Office – and if he does that then I think this is the win-win-win scenario for everyone involved.”Moscow celebrated Trump’s decision to suspend military aid as “the best possible step towards peace”, with the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, saying the US had been “the main supplier of this war so far”.Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, told a cabinet meeting in Warsaw that Europe faced unprecedented risks, including “the biggest in the last few decades when it comes to security”. Tusk said his government would have to make some “extraordinary” decisions. “A decision was announced to suspend the US aid for Ukraine, and perhaps start lifting sanctions on Russia. We don’t have any reason to think these are just words,” he said.“This puts Europe, Ukraine, Poland in a more difficult situation,” Tusk said, adding that Warsaw was determined to “intensify activities in Europe to increase our defence capabilities” while maintaining the best possible relations with the US.France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said the US decision meant it was vital Europe helped Ukraine hold the frontline against Russia, which he said was “the first line of defence for Europe and France”. The time had come for Europe to drop its dependency on US weapons, he added. “We are faced with a choice that is imposed on us, between effort and freedom, or comfort and servitude,” he told MPs.The French prime minister, François Bayrou, said the US decision to suspend weapons aid in wartime signalled that Washington was “abandoning Ukraine and letting the aggressor win” and that it was Europe’s responsibility to replace them.Bayrou told parliament that Europeans “are going to have to think about our model, about our priorities and to look at the world differently … We have seen it is more dangerous than we had though, coming from those we thought were allies.”Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, said: “Two things are now essential for peace through strength: additional aid – military and financial – for Ukraine, which is defending our freedom. And a quantum leap to strengthen our EU defence.”EU leaders are scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss a five-part, €800bn (£660bn) plan presented by the European commission to bolster Europe’s defence industry, increase military capability and help provide urgent military support for Ukraine. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US suspension of military aid: Ukraine and Europe’s race against time | Editorial

      by

      How long do Ukraine and Europe have to respond to US betrayal? When Russia launched its full-scale invasion three years ago, each day that Kyiv held out was a victory. The west rallied to Ukraine’s support at equally remarkable speed.Now, as the Trump administration turns upon the victim, and embraces the aggressor, Europe is accelerating nascent plans to bolster Ukraine and pursue security independence. Trump allies blame Friday night’s extraordinary Oval Office confrontation between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump and JD Vance for the shocking halt to all US military aid. Others suspect that the administration was seeking a pretext for the suspension. Mr Zelenskyy pledged on Tuesday to “work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts” and expressed gratitude for his first-term approval of Javelin missile defence systems sales.That may or may not be enough. The suspension concluded a fortnight in which Mr Trump attacked Mr Zelenskyy as a “dictator”, the US sided with Russia against western allies at the UN, and the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, suspended offensive cyber operations against Moscow. There are reports that the US is preparing plans for loosening the economic pressure on Russia – even as it imposes punitive tariffs on allies. Little wonder the Kremlin crows that Washington “largely coincides with our vision”. Vladimir Putin has reportedly offered to mediate US-Iran nuclear talks. Observers were braced for further developments in the US president’s address to Congress on Tuesday.Analysts suggest that Ukraine’s forces should be able to continue fighting at their current rate for a few months if US aid does not resume, depending on what it has stockpiled. Though it is far less dependent on the US than three years ago, key elements like Patriot air defence missiles will be hard to replace. If US logistical and intelligence assistance and Elon Musk’s Starlink’s services were suspended, those would be further punishing blows.Mr Trump is in a hurry – hence his angry threat that Mr Zelenskyy “won’t be around very long” if he doesn’t cut a deal. This came after the Ukrainian president suggested on Sunday that the end of the war was “very, very far away”. Yet he has also squandered leverage he might have exerted on Moscow before reaching the table. He has emboldened Russia to pursue further territorial gains, especially if it can shape a deal with the US before a ceasefire.The US has already undermined central pillars of Sir Keir Starmer’s approach – maintaining military support for Kyiv and economic pressure on Moscow, and creating a “coalition of the willing” to guarantee Ukrainian security. Mr Vance derided “20,000 troops from some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years”, then claimed that he was not referring to Britain or France.European leaders must continue trying to buy time, deferring further US perfidy, and hasten rearmament for themselves and Ukraine. On Tuesday, Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, announced a proposal, including changes to EU fiscal rules, which she said could mobilise nearly €800bn for defence spending. A rival operator to Starlink is in talks with European leaders about satellite services.But this is an administration which moves abruptly and erratically. Ukraine and Europe are racing against the clock, not knowing when zero hour will arrive. It is likely to be sooner rather than later. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Why this is no time for Zelenskyy to grovel to Trump | Paul Taylor

      by

      For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this is no time to grovel.After last Friday’s ambush in the Oval Office – where the Ukrainian president, who has led his country in resistance to three years of brutal Russian aggression, was beaten up in public by Donald Trump and JD Vance – some European leaders, including Keir Starmer and the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, rushed to urge him to mend fences with Washington. It was bad advice – and Zelenskyy should ignore it. In any case he doesn’t have much choice.The US president and his team have since made it clear that they want his scalp as part of their plan to rush through a ceasefire deal with Moscow that would leave Ukraine partitioned, without US or Nato security guarantees, but with US companies pouring in to exploit its strategic minerals. In the mafia style that he wields so convincingly, Trump unleashed his attack dogs to call for Zelenskyy’s removal, and declared “this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing”. Then he pulled the plug on US military assistance to Kyiv in an attempt to force Ukraine to its knees and impose Vladimir Putin’s terms for an end to the fighting.It is now abundantly clear that the Trump administration isn’t interested in mending fences with Zelenskyy, so he would merely court more humiliation without gaining extra arms supplies or security guarantees if he went crawling to his tormentors now. The man who refused to surrender to Putin’s invasion should not yield now to Trump’s ultimatums and extortion.He would do better to pressure his European supporters to deliver fast on their promises, while dangling the same reward of access to Ukrainian rare earths if they do so. This could become part of a package for an accelerated EU accession process for Kyiv.If Trump goes further, as he may well do, and cuts off the US intelligence feed to Ukraine and access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communications, European countries must step in fast to help Kyiv using the EU’s government satellite network to avoid being totally blinded. The US should beware of taking such steps, which would signal to allies around the world that neither its security partnership nor its tech companies can be relied on for dependable service in a crisis.The White House train wreck happened so fast that some European leaders are still struggling to catch up with the significance of the event. That’s understandable, since it upended their mental universe, in which the transatlantic bond was always the bedrock of European security, enabling them to live in prosperity for decades without spending too much on defence because they were under a protective US shield.Within hours of the Oval Office bust-up, Rutte said it was “important that President Zelenskyy finds a way to restore his relationship with the American president and with the senior American leadership team”. You can’t blame him for trying to hold together the alliance that pays his wages and that has kept the peace in Europe for 75 years. But Rutte is in denial about the new reality in Washington. It will take time to adjust, but we don’t have that time.Likewise, Starmer’s call for bridge-building and mending relationships with the US, even as he declared Britain’s full support for Ukraine, was an exercise in mental gymnastics at a time when the Trump administration has decided to throw Kyiv under the bus in the quest for a new bonanza in relations with Russia. The UK’s security is so intertwined with the US, including the closest of intelligence-sharing relationships and reliance on US components and targeting software for its nuclear deterrent, that no British leader ever wants to face the nightmare choice between loyalty to Ukraine’s just cause and the so-called special relationship with Washington.It’s now up to the Europeans, including the UK, to show they are willing to go on supporting Ukraine practically, by emptying their ammunition stocks to keep Kyiv supplied and ramping up industrial production to deliver a steady flow of shells. They must remove remaining self-imposed restrictions on allowing Ukraine to use medium-range missiles to strike Russian bases and supply lines. And they must draw up practical plans for a security force to support Ukraine after a ceasefire with the assumption of little or no US support, despite Starmer’s plea for a US backstop.Zelenskyy cuts both a heroic and a tragic figure. He embodied Ukrainian resistance to tyranny when Russia struck, he has been a brave war leader under fire, yet now he increasingly looks like a martyr, to be torn asunder between a vengeful Putin and an unscrupulous Trump.But Zelenskyy and Ukraine can still emerge from this war as the successful defenders of their own and Europe’s freedom, provided European countries now back him to the hilt. Even if they cannot recover every inch of stolen territory, Ukrainians should fight on under Zelenskyy’s leadership and with European support for a fairer peace.

      Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Slim majority of Americans support Ukraine, poll finds

      by

      A US poll taken before the diplomatic meltdown in the Oval Office on Friday between Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, found that only 4% of surveyed Americans are backing Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine – but a large minority of 44% said they do not support the invaded country either.The CBS News/YouGov poll, conducted over three days beginning on 26 February, also found that a relatively slim majority – 52% – said they “personally support” Ukraine.Support for Russia was highest among Republicans – whose party is led by Trump – at 7%. A 56% majority of those Republican said they didn’t have a preference between the two, and 37% supported Ukraine.The polling found that – overall – 11% believed Trump’s actions and statements have favored Ukraine, and 46% said Russia.Asked if they approved or disapproved ofthe way Trump was handling the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, 51% approved and 49% said they didn’t. The same percentages supported or opposed military aid to Ukraine.The CBS polling also revealed that 30% consider Russia “friendly but not an ally” of the US – while 61% considered countries of western Europe, like the UK, France, Italy and Germany to be allies of the US.But 35% said they considered western European nations to be “friendly but not allies”; 3% said unfriendly; and 1% said they considered them an enemy.The most revealing aspect of the poll goes to the heart of the contentious Oval Office exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian president attempted to persuade Trump and his cabinet that despite a “nice ocean” between the US and Europe, the US would in time feel “influenced” by Russia’s actions.Trump retorted: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.”A separate poll conducted using online interviews after the confrontation found that 49% of those polled said that Trump and Vice-President JD Vance had a stronger argument over the value of diplomacy with Russia.The 2Way poll also found that 62% thought Zelenskyy’s remarks were offensive – and 55% said Ukraine needs to negotiate and end the war.On Monday, the US president hit out at Zelenksyy’s comments that a deal to end the war “is still very, very far away”.Trump posted that the comment was “the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer! … this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing.”That post from Trump came after a New York Times report on Monday that said the president had planned to meet with top aides to discuss suspending or canceling US military aid to Ukraine.The CBS poll appeared to reflect a sense of insulation to the Russia-Ukraine war. Poll respondents were asked if what happens between Russia and Ukraine matters to the interests of the US. And 31% said it mattered “a lot”; 42% said “some”; 18% agreed with “not much”; and 9% “not at all”.Senior Republicans not directly involved in Russia-Ukraine peace talk efforts have continued to denounce Putin – even as they express support for how Trump handled his meeting with Zelenskyy.That included the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who told CNN on Sunday that Putin is “not to be trusted and he is dangerous”, adding that Russia and other countries like China are “not on America’s side”. Yet Johnson also said on NBC that someone other than Zelenskyy may need “to lead” Ukraine after failing to show gratitude over US aid.The Oklahoma senator James Lankford told NBC that Putin was “a murderous KGB thug” and a “dictator”, saying Zelenskyy was “rightfully concerned” that Putin “can’t be trusted” to respect a ceasefire agreement.And regardless of political support for the US president, 76% said they thought Trump was making major changes to the America’s relationships with other countries. Of those, 31% said the relationships were better, 42% said worse, and 26% said it was too soon to say.But there may be some optimistic signs for European countries hoping that the Nato will hold together through the current turmoil. Asked if the US should stay in the alliance or leave, 78% said it should remain – and 22% said it should leave.But broader support for the current US foreign policy appears more mixed. Sixteen per cent said the US should take a leading role in the world; 67% said it should work equally alongside other allies; and 17% said it should not get involved in the world’s issues. More