‘You can worry about this later': Trump rejects Putin's offer to broker Israel-Iran ceasefire, asks him to mediate his own first
Amid the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, US President Donald Trump said he rejected his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin's offer to mediate a ceasefire between the two longstanding foes in the Middle East, telling him to focus on brokering his own peace deal with Ukraine first.
'I spoke to Putin yesterday and he actually offered to help mediate,' Trump told reporters on Wednesday (June 18).
'I said, 'Do me a favour, mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first.' I said, 'Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later,' he added.
Trump's remarks come after Putin, during his meeting with senior news leaders of international news agencies in St. Petersburg, said that Russia had shared proposals with Israel, Iran and the United States to de-escalate the situation in the West Asia region.
'We are not imposing anything on anyone; we are simply talking about how we see a possible way out of the situation,' he said. 'But the decision, of course, is up to the political leadership of all these countries, primarily Iran and Israel.'
He then affirmed that even though the situation is complex, a solution to the conflict is possible
'It's a delicate issue,' the Russian president said. 'In my view, a solution could be found.'
Trump and Putin held a telephonic conversation on Saturday where the two leaders discussed the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran and also spoke about Russia's military campaign in Ukraine.
Trump, in a post on his Truth Social handle, said that he and his Russian counterpart spoke about Israel's ballistic attacks on Tehran and Iran's retaliatory missile salvos, while also highlighting that he pressed the Russian president to end the war in Ukraine.
'President Putin called this morning to very nicely wish me a Happy Birthday, but to more importantly, talk about Iran, a country he knows very well,' Trump wrote.
'We talked at length. Much less time was spent talking about Russia/Ukraine, but that will be for next week. He is doing the planned prisoner swaps — large numbers of prisoners are being exchanged, immediately, from both sides,' he said. 'The call lasted approximately 1 hour. He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
38 minutes ago
- The Wire
India Did Go to the G7, But It is Still Alarmingly Isolated in the World
Now that the G7 summit is done and dusted, we may try to assess whether it has helped India break its disastrous isolation that Operation Sindoor revealed. , prime minister Narendra Modi did get a last-minute invitation to join the G7, but not as a participant – only as an observer. There was jubilation among his lesser-informed fans, fanned also by his multi-million rupee IT cells and the enthralled majority in Indian media. The narrative was that he is too important not to be invited and that India is not isolated, or never was. It is, was and continues to remain the Vishwaguru. Facts, unfortunately, speak otherwise and the drift is just too stark, even for jaundiced eyes to miss. History will surely contrast India's current isolation with the post-colonial decades (1940s to 1960s), when Jawaharlal Nehru and India strode like a colossus among the newly liberated nations. Her draconian Emergency notwithstanding, Indira Gandhi will never be forgotten for giving India its finest hour in 1971 by dismembering Pakistan and forcing 93,000 troops to surrender in Dhaka. These are the stuff of legends – however much we dispute, denigrate or deny. The present 'hyphenation' of India with Pakistan, an almost failed state, is a deliberate insult inflicted on Modi's India to cut to a realistic size and to taunt a drum-beaten narrative that we are almost a superpower. True, India's self respect was salvaged when PM Modi was invited by the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney – of Harvard and Oxford, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and then of England, overrode objections from cantankerous Sikh separatists. But to what effect? America, the very fulcrum of G7, disappeared from the scene after Trump gave just a sneering glance and left – to avoid the overtures of the European heads, keen to catch his ear, to drill some sense. Not only could Modi not hug his dear Donald for photo ops, but he had to gulp the ignominy of watching the big man wine and dine his bête noire, the dreadful de facto ruler of Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir. This lunch may have been offered to distance him from Iran, but now that the wily soldier has declared publicly that Trump must get the Nobel Prize for peace, the blonde man is just swooning. All of Modi's efforts to woo him with delirious Indian crowds screaming ' Abki baar, ' at Houston's 'Howdy, Modi' bash has gone down the drain. The bells have been clanging quite cacophonously for India – when, after hyphenating and equating Pak with India, the west-dominated the UN Security Council went a step forward to torpedo India's righteous indignation at Pakistan sponsored terrorism that killed 26 innocents at Pahalgam. India's screams notwithstanding, the UN Security Council declared Munir's Pakistan to be the vice chair of the committee to combat terrorism. "Friend" Russia looked on, with a smirk, as India's recent track record of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds backfired. It hurts all of us and more tragic is the fact that even after two full months, India could neither produce evidence before the international community. Nor could it enforce 'accountability at the highest levels' for the "intelligence failure" at Pahalgam that India's former Army chief, General Shankar Roychowdhury, had openly declared and . The UN Security Council also appointed Pakistan as chair of the Taliban sanctions committee. This is not only ironic, but a repayment with compound interest. In fact, Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that 'new' India reviles for its constant criticism of India's track record over the last 11 years, had boldly recorded Pakistani involvement with the Taliban, long ago. It said: 'Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force'. But, since then, much water has flowed down the Indus, on which India has no tap, despite our current bluster to stop water. We chose not to hear these bells and blame it all on the Trump family's commercial interest in World Liberty Financial's new deal with Pakistan – to make it 'the crypto capital of South Asia" and a "global leader in the digital finance revolution." Back to our theme that India is completely isolated, especially after Operation Sindoor, we sifted through every phrase uttered at the pined-for G7 summit but could find not a word of support for India's justified war on terror. Even the Pahalgam attack was taken up by G7 only after India launched its operation against Pakistan. On the third day of the furious battle of aircrafts, missiles and drones (with no boots on the ground), the G7 did wake to 'strongly condemn the egregious terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22' without pointing fingers. But G7's chief focus was to 'urge maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan' (note how both are equated) and to 'call for immediate de-escalation and …engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome.' This is when the calculated blunderbuss Trump walked in to claim he pulled apart the two fighting children. To drive home USA's infatuation with Pakistan, the US Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla said that America appreciates Munir's cooperation against the Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS‑KP). At the G7 Summit, nations waited for Trump to ramp up pressure on Russia and the Group was ready to lower the price cap on Russian oil from $ 60 to $ 45 dollars per barrel. This would drastically decrease Russia's oil revenues that financed its war in Ukraine. Not only did Trump veto the proposal (rewarding Putin) but he expressed his undisguised annoyance at G7 for dropping Russia from the original G8. Those Indian GDP enthusiasts who swear that high GDP means world power may note that Russia figures nowhere in the list of top 10 GDP countries. These consist of the G7 ones and China, India and Brazil. So, India's fourth GDP rank counts for so little in the Game of Thrones. Salt on wounds do not seem to stop as Trump is even reported to have suggested inclusion of China into a new G9. Wasn't he at Xi Jinping's throat – until the latter kicked his anatomy where it hurts the most? India's foreign office must surely have noted Trump's penchant for kissing those who behave the worst. Remember how passionately he had wooed the terribly unreliable Kim Jongun of North Korea? But not even mentioning India to expand it to G 10 is a diabolical outrage, meant to wake us up to play rugger the way he does. Incidentally, this G7 summit was among the rarest – from which no joint communique could be issued – so fragmented are the big boys. It is time for India to assiduously befriend just two of the European four and try to strengthen positive relations with Japan to the next level. If China and Türkiye can stand rock-like behind Pakistan, India can not be so hopelessly isolated that not one major country comes out boldly, as an all-weather friend. Well, PM Modi did get a day's rest in Canada when the leaders of G7 huddled together, without the other 'invitees'. He figured not in the actual G7 photo, but in that of the extended group – standing somewhere on the second row, looking lost as others were busy networking. It goes, however, to a dignified, erudite Canadian PM's credit that he kept the few handful of Sikh agitators at bay and took positive steps to normalise relations with India. And, surely, PM Modi must have held bilateral talks with most – and one sincerely hopes that they begin to matter. After all, his visit to a record total of 74 countries so far could not persuade even one country– even Guyana or Fiji or Papua New Guinea would do, to begin with – to come out and say that they condemn Pakistan's terrorists and support India's retaliation. Also read: Rousing Rhetoric for Diaspora, Tourist Spot Visits, Courting Domestic Voter Base: What MPs Did Abroad The hyper-publicised seven 'all party' delegations are back home after visiting 32 countries. My former colleagues in parliament must all be tired. But the 31 political leaders from the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) must now be happy that Modi has finally cast his benevolent gaze at them – after excluding most, for years together, from either importance or power. The 20 politicians from 'other parties' are also grateful for this unique world tour and one of them weaponised it against the detractors in his party. Fine, but it is doubtful if even one of the 32 countries visited would stand up for India. But politics is politics and neither performance nor results matter – something else does. That's why I left it. We have taken the PM and his prickly, ultra-pontificating foreign minister to task in the earlier piece for landing us in such a friendless world. But we also have to admit that there is surely a strong malicious tinge in this west's disaffirmation of India's indisputable economic elevation. India's manufactured superpower narrative is also hot air, because economic growth is only one factor. History shows that no nation has ever been conferred a place on the high table without facing initial scorn, condescension and trial by fire. England, for instance, was just pooh-poohed as a nation of shopkeepers until Poseidon (or Varun) intervened with unruly storms in 1588, for Francis Drake to defeat the invincible Spanish Armada. But, England continued to face ridicule from the continental powers that dominated land warfare and its conquests in India and elsewhere attributed to a cocktail of fluke and bribery. It was only after Wellington managed to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, with dollops of timely assistance from Field Marshal Blucher and his merciless Prussian cavalry that England mattered. If we look intently at each one of the other nations of G7, we will understand how much blood and gore they have gone through in the past centuries. In fact, the dropped-out eighth nation, Russia, alone has witnessed more death and devastation than any other country. What is more relevant is that the entire population of these nations was involved and every village lost her sons. There was, therefore, no time for pampered citizens to indulge in warmongering from air-conditioned homes. Those mercenary TV anchors who won imaginary victories in Pakistan (and their counterparts there) have brought shame to the profession and are now a laughing stock among informed global citizens. India's isolation is a current reality and while we break out of it with all we have in us, we must also realise that 'demeaning an upstart' is left-handed recognition. The rest of the nation's journey up is long, perilous and, hopefully, less violent. Jawhar Sircar is a former Rajya Sabha MP of the Trinamool Congress. He was earlier Secretary, Government of India, and CEO of Prasar Bharati.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
The success of a key Nato summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defence spending
The success of a key Nato summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defence spending (Image: AP) BRUSSELS: The success of a key Nato summit hung in the balance on Friday, after Spain announced that it cannot raise the billions of dollars needed to meet a new defence investment pledge demanded by US President Donald Trump . Trump and his Nato counterparts are meeting for two days in the Netherlands from next Tuesday. He insists that US allies should commit to spending at least 5 percent of gross domestic product, but that requires investment at an unprecedented scale. Trump has cast doubt over whether the US would defend allies that spend too little. Setting the spending goal would be a historic decision. It would see all 32 countries invest the same amount in defence for the first time. Only last week, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed confidence that they would endorse it. But in a letter to Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote that "committing to a 5percent target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive." "It would move Spain away from optimal spending and it would hinder the (European Union's) ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defence ecosystem," Sanchez wrote in the letter, seen by The Associated Press. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Spain is not entirely alone Belgium, Canada, France and Italy would also struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars, but Spain is the only country to officially announce its intentions, making it hard to row back from such a public decision. Beyond his economic challenges, Sanchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He's under growing pressure to call an early election. In response to the letter, Rutte's office said only that "discussions among allies on a new defence investment plan are ongoing." Nato's top civilian official had been due to table a new proposal on Friday to try to break the deadlock. The US and French envoys had also been due to update reporters about the latest developments ahead of the summit but postponed their briefings. Rutte and many European allies are desperate to resolve the problem by Tuesday so that Trump does not derail the summit, as he did during his first term at Nato headquarters in 2018. Budget boosting After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Nato allies agreed that 2 percent of GDP should be the minimum they spend on their military budgets. But Nato's new plans for defending its own territory against outside attack require investment of at least 3 percent. Spain agreed to those plans in 2023. The 5 percent goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defence spending to 3.5 percent of GDP. A further 1.5 percent would go to upgrade roads, bridges, ports and airfields so that armies can better deploy, and to prepare societies for future attacks. Mathematically, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals Trump's 5 percent. But a lot is hiding behind the figures and details of what kinds of things can be included remain cloudy. Countries closest to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have all agreed to the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the June 24-25 summit. The Netherlands estimates that Nato's defence plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5 percent to core defence spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defence spending. Nato estimates that the US spent around 3.2 percent of GDP on defence last year. Dual use, making warfighting possible The additional 1.5 percent spending basket is murkier. Rutte and many members argue that infrastructure used to deploy armies to the front must be included, as well as building up defence industries and preparing citizens for possible attacks. "If a tank is not able to cross a bridge. If our societies are not prepared in case war breaks out for a whole of society approach. If we are not able to really develop the defence industrial base, then the 3.5 percent is great but you cannot really defend yourselves," Rutte said this month. Spain wanted climate change spending included, but that proposal was rejected. Cyber-security and counter-hybrid warfare investment should also make the cut. Yet with all the conjecture about what might be included, it's difficult to see how Rutte arrived at this 1.5 percent figure. The when, the how, and a cunning plan It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit the 2 percent target, although most will this year, and they had a decade to get there. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That's far shorter than previous Nato targets, but military planners estimate that Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within 5-10 years. The US insists that it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and that a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5 percent target. Another issue is how fast spending should be ramped up. "I have a cunning plan for that," Rutte said. He wants the allies to submit annual plans that lay out how much they intend to increase spending by. The reasons for the spending hike For Europe, Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat. A major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents is blamed on Moscow. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The United States also insists that China poses a threat. But for European people to back a hike in national defence spending, their governments require acknowledgement that the Kremlin remains Nato's biggest security challenge. The billions required for security will be raised by taxes, going into debt, or shuffling money from other budgets. But it won't be easy for many, as Spain has shown. On top of that, Trump has made things economically tougher by launching a global tariff war - ostensibly for US national security reasons - something America's allies find hard to fathom.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
The success of a key NATO summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defense spending
The success of a key NATO summit hung in the balance on Friday, after Spain announced that it cannot raise the billions of dollars needed to meet a new defense investment pledge demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump . Trump and his NATO counterparts are meeting for two days in the Netherlands from next Tuesday. He insists that U.S. allies should commit to spending at least 5% of gross domestic product, but that requires investment at an unprecedented scale. Trump has cast doubt over whether the U.S. would defend allies that spend too little. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Victoria Principal Is Almost 75, See Her Now Reportingly Undo Setting the spending goal would be a historic decision. It would see all 32 countries invest the same amount in defense for the first time. Only last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed confidence that they would endorse it. But in a letter to Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote that "committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive." Live Events "It would move Spain away from optimal spending and it would hinder the (European Union's) ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem," Sanchez wrote in the letter, seen by The Associated Press. Spain is not entirely alone Belgium, Canada, France and Italy would also struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars, but Spain is the only country to officially announce its intentions, making it hard to row back from such a public decision. Beyond his economic challenges, Sanchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He's under growing pressure to call an early election. In response to the letter, Rutte's office said only that "discussions among allies on a new defense investment plan are ongoing." NATO's top civilian official had been due to table a new proposal on Friday to try to break the deadlock. The U.S. and French envoys had also been due to update reporters about the latest developments ahead of the summit but postponed their briefings. Rutte and many European allies are desperate to resolve the problem by Tuesday so that Trump does not derail the summit, as he did during his first term at NATO headquarters in 2018. Budget boosting After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO allies agreed that 2% of GDP should be the minimum they spend on their military budgets. But NATO's new plans for defending its own territory against outside attack require investment of at least 3%. Spain agreed to those plans in 2023. The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP. A further 1.5% would go to upgrade roads, bridges, ports and airfields so that armies can better deploy, and to prepare societies for future attacks. Mathematically, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals Trump's 5%. But a lot is hiding behind the figures and details of what kinds of things can be included remain cloudy. Countries closest to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have all agreed to the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the June 24-25 summit. The Netherlands estimates that NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defense spending. NATO estimates that the U.S. spent around 3.2% of GDP on defense last year. Dual use, making warfighting possible The additional 1.5% spending basket is murkier. Rutte and many members argue that infrastructure used to deploy armies to the front must be included, as well as building up defense industries and preparing citizens for possible attacks. "If a tank is not able to cross a bridge. If our societies are not prepared in case war breaks out for a whole of society approach. If we are not able to really develop the defense industrial base, then the 3.5% is great but you cannot really defend yourselves," Rutte said this month. Spain wanted climate change spending included, but that proposal was rejected. Cyber-security and counter-hybrid warfare investment should also make the cut. Yet with all the conjecture about what might be included, it's difficult to see how Rutte arrived at this 1.5% figure. The when, the how, and a cunning plan It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit the 2% target, although most will this year, and they had a decade to get there. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That's far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate that Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within 5-10 years. The U.S. insists that it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and that a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. Another issue is how fast spending should be ramped up. "I have a cunning plan for that," Rutte said. He wants the allies to submit annual plans that lay out how much they intend to increase spending by. The reasons for the spending hike For Europe, Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat. A major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents is blamed on Moscow. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The United States also insists that China poses a threat. But for European people to back a hike in national defense spending, their governments require acknowledgement that the Kremlin remains NATO's biggest security challenge. The billions required for security will be raised by taxes, going into debt, or shuffling money from other budgets. But it won't be easy for many, as Spain has shown. On top of that, Trump has made things economically tougher by launching a global tariff war - ostensibly for U.S. national security reasons - something America's allies find hard to fathom.
