Latest News

Trump meets Zelensky and says it’s time to end Russia’s war

Published

1 year ago

2024/09/28

Priyan

President Zelensky met Donald Trump at the end of a six-day visit to the US [BBC]

Donald Trump met Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky at his New York base in Trump Tower on Friday and said it was time Russia’s war in Ukraine was settled.

The Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly criticised the Ukrainian leader on the US campaign trail, and a meeting between the pair had seemed unlikely until hours before.

As the two men stood side by side, Zelensky said he thought they had a “common view that the war has to be stopped and Putin can’t win”, adding that he would discuss with Trump details of his “victory plan”.

Despite years of differences, Trump insisted he had a very good relationship with Zelensky.

“I also have a very good relationship as you know with President Putin and I think if we win [the election] we’re going to get it resolved very quickly,” he said.

Afterwards, Trump and Zelensky spoke to Fox News and the former president said he “learned a lot” from the meeting.

“We both want to see this end, and we both want to see a fair deal made,” he said. “It should stop and the president (Zelensky) wants it to stop, and I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop and that’s a good combination.”

Zelensky said: “Putin killed so many people and of course we need to do everything to pressure him to stop this war. He’s on our territory.”

Zelensky invited Trump to visit Ukraine, and Trump replied: “I will”.

The Ukrainian president later posted on his Telegram channel that the pair had a “very meaningful meeting”.

“We have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped. Putin cannot win. Ukrainians must win,” he wrote.

Trump, meanwhile, said on his Truth Social account that if he is not elected president, “that war will never end, and will phase into WORLD WAR III”.

The pair have long had a tumultuous relationship. Trump was impeached in 2019 over accusations that he pressured Zelensky to dig up damaging information on the Biden family.

A rough transcript of the call revealed Trump had urged Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, as well as Biden’s son Hunter.

Standing beside Zelensky on Friday, he praised the Ukrainian leader’s handling of the issue.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Trump has frequently repeated Moscow’s talking points about the war. During September’s presidential debate, he sidestepped a question on whether he wanted Ukraine to emerge victorious in the conflict.

Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Trump repeated his long-standing claim that he would be able to “work out something” to settle the war if he won the presidential election, long before Joe Biden leaves office in January.

He has refused to elaborate when asked whether he believes Ukraine should cede territory to Russia as a means of ending the war.

Although Zelensky has been visiting the US since Sunday, their meeting was only confirmed on Thursday night, when Trump posted a screenshot of a text message from President Zelensky saying it was “important for us to have a personal contact and to understand each other 100%”.

There have been tensions all week between Zelensky and the Republican party ahead of November’s US presidential election. Some Republicans were angered by Zelensky’s visit to an arms factory in Biden’s hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, with top Democrats, including state Governor Josh Shapiro, earlier this week.

Zelensky’s trip to the key swing state was labelled by leading Republicans as a partisan campaign event. In a public letter, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the visit was “designed to help Democrats” and claimed it amounted to “election interference”.

Trump has grown increasingly critical of continued US funding for Ukraine, and in recent days has sharpened his attacks against Zelensky, calling him the “greatest salesman on Earth” for continuing to obtain military aid.

In contrast, Zelensky recently told the New Yorker magazine that he believes Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop the war” and called Trump’s running mate JD Vance “too radical” and “dangerous” for suggesting that Ukraine should give up territory to end the war, saying it would spark conflict around the world.

When asked about Zelensky’s comments on Thursday, Trump replied: “I do believe I disagree with him. He doesn’t know me.”

Odesa Regional Prosecutors Odesa Regional Prosecutors stand at the site of a Russian drone attack on the port city of Izmail. The man closest to the camera has a vest reading "WAR CRIMES prosecutor". They are looking at a house that has been partly destroyed, there are lots of blackened and charred ruins, and it's still smoking heavily. In the background are firefighters hosing down the smoking ruins with water, and there is also a digger-type vehicle off to the side.

On Thursday, Zelemsky met US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House to discuss his “victory plan”, which he hopes will pressure Russia into agreeing a diplomatic end to the war.

Hours before, Biden had announced a further $7.9bn (£5.9bn) package of military assistance to Ukraine.

As Zelensky visited the US, drone attacks continued in Ukraine. On Thursday night, three people were killed and 14 others wounded in a Russian drone attack on Izmail, a port city on the River Danube.

Russia has targeted Izmail’s grain export facilities in the past. Prosecutors say two boys aged three and 13, and a girl aged 14, were among those wounded in the latest attack.

Romania’s defence ministry said it was possible that one of the Russian drones involved in the attack had crossed the border into Romania, a Nato member state, for a very short period.

All News Advertisement

Latest News

Advisory for Heavy Rain issued for the Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces and in the Ampara, Batticaloa and Polonnaruwa districts

Published

9 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Advisory for Heavy Rain Issued by the Natural Hazards Early Warning Centre at 12.00 noon on 21 February 2026 valid for the period until 08.30 a.m. 22 February 2026

Due to the low level atmospheric disturbance in the vicinity of Sri Lanka, Heavy showers above 100 mm are likely at some places in the Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces and in the Ampara, Batticaloa and Polonnaruwa districts and fairly heavy showers above 75 mm are likely at some places elsewhere.

Therefore, the general public is advised to take adequate precautions to minimize damages caused by heavy rain, strong winds and lightning during thundershowers.

Latest News

Ranaweera’s four-for leads Sri Lanka to tense win over West Indies

Published

13 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Inoka Ranaweera returned figures of 4 for 44 [Cricinfo]

Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the ODI series with a tense ten-run win over West Indies, thanks largely to a match-defining performance from Inoka Ranaweera.

After being asked to bat, Sri Lanka posted 240 for 6, built on half-centuries from Hasini Perera (61 off 86) and Harshitha Samarawickrema (66 off 105). Captain Chamari Athapaththu made 27, while useful middle-order contributions from Nilakshika Silva and Kavisha Dilhari kept the innings moving at a controlled rate. A late cameo from Dewmi Vihanga, who struck 14 off six balls, ensured Sri Lanka pushed towards a competitive total in St George’s in Grenada.

But it was Ranaweera who tilted the contest. The experienced left-arm spinner returned figures of 4 for 44 from her ten overs. She removed the No. 3 Shemaine Campbelle cheaply, dismissed Chinelle Henry soon after, and then returned to break the dangerous stand of 89 between Stefanie Taylor and Jannillea Glasgow in the 40th over, just as West Indies were threatening to surge ahead. Ranaweera also accounted for Shawnisha Hector at the death.

Taylor’s 66 off 83 balls and Glasgow’s 50 off 67 had revived West Indies from early setbacks, and with Aaliyah Alleyne in the middle, the chase remained alive deep into the game. West Indies needed 18 from the last two overs, and 12 from the last six balls. However, Sri Lanka’s spinners held firm, with Dilhari finishing with three wickets, including two in the final over, to complement Ranaweera’s starring role.

West Indies were eventually bowled out for 230 in 49.4 overs. Sri Lanka have now won four of their last five ODIs against West Indies since 2017.

Brief scores:
Sri Lanka Women 240 for 6 in 50 overs (Harshitha Samarawickrama 66, Hasini Perera 61; Hayley Matthews 2-46, Karishma Ramharak 2-57) beat West Indies Women 230 in 49.4 overs (Stefanie Taylor 66, Jannillea Glasgow 50; Inoka Ranaweera 4-44, Kavish Dilhari 3-49) by ten runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

Trump brings in new 10% tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes

Published

18 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

US President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10% global tariff to replace ones struck down by the Supreme Court, calling the ruling “terrible” and lambasting the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

The president unveiled the plan shortly after the justices outlawed most of the global tariffs the White House announced last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the president had overstepped his powers.

The decision was a major victory for businesses and US states that had challenged the duties, opening the door to potentially billions of dollars in tariff refunds, while also injecting new uncertainty into the global trade landscape.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle, saying he expected the matter to be tied up in court for years.

He also said he would turn to other laws to press ahead with his tariffs, which he has argued encourage investment and manufacturing in the US.

“We have alternatives – great alternatives and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said.

The court battle was focused on import taxes that Trump unveiled last year on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The tariffs initially targeted Mexico, Canada and China, before expanding dramatically to dozens of trade partners on what the president billed as “Liberation Day” last April.

The White House had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

But the measures sparked outcry at home and abroad from firms facing an abrupt rise in taxes on shipments entering the US, and fuelled worries that the levies would lead to higher prices.

Arguing before the court last year, lawyers for the challenging states and small businesses said that the law used by the president to impose the levies made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

They said that Congress did not intend to hand off its power to tax or give the president an “open-ended power to junk” other existing trade deals and tariff rules.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with that view.

“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” he wrote.

“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

The decision to strike down the tariffs was joined by the court’s three liberal justices, as well as two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

At the White House, Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who voted against his trade policy.

He said they were “just being fools and lap dogs” and were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”.

Shares on Wall Street rose after the announcement, with the S&P 500 closing up about 0.7%, as businesses across the US cautiously welcomed the ruling.

“I feel… like a thousand-pound weight has been lifted off my chest,” said Beth Benike, the owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, which manufactures products in China.

Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the small businesses involved in the case, called the ruling a “relief”.

“Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly-collected duties,” he said.

The anticipated refunds and relief from tariff costs may prove elusive, however.

On Friday, Trump imposed the new 10% tariff under a never-used law known as Section 122, which gives the power to put in place tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, at which point Congress must step in.

Analysts expect the White House to consider other tools, such as Section 232 and Section 301, which allow import taxes to address national security risks and unfair trade practices.

Trump has previously used those tools for tariffs, including some announced last year on sectors such as steel, aluminium and cars. Those were untouched by the court ruling.

A White House official said countries that struck trade deals with the US, including the UK, India and the EU, will now face the global 10% tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

The Trump administration expects those countries to keep abiding by the concessions they had agreed to under the trade deals, the official added.

“Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today,” said Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

Reaction by major trade partners was relatively muted.

“We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill wrote on social media.

The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using the IEEPA law, according to the most recent government data.

In recent weeks, hundreds of firms, including retailer Costco, aluminium giant Alcoa and food importers like tuna fish brand Bumble Bee, have filed lawsuits contesting the tariffs, in a bid to get in line for a refund.

But the decision by the majority does not directly mention refunds, likely handing back the question of how that process might work to the Court of International Trade.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the situation would be a “mess”.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, warned that the cost of litigation could make recouping funds difficult for smaller firms.

“Unfortunately, I’d say curb your enthusiasm, although I understand the desire for relief,” she said.

Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said the “best thing” for businesses would be if the government created a procedure that did not require filing a lawsuit.

[BBC]

“I think companies can be fairly confident that they’ll get their money back eventually,” he added. “How long it will take really is up to the government.”