Connect with us

Business

Trump calls on Ukraine and Russia to ‘stop where they are’ and signals he’s leaning against giving Zelenskyy Tomahawk missiles

Published

2 months ago

on



Trump’s frustration with the conflict has surfaced repeatedly in the nine months since he returned to office, but with his latest comments he edged back in the direction of pressing Ukraine to give up on retaking land it has lost to Russia.

“Enough blood has been shed, with property lines being defined by War and Guts,” Trump said in a Truth Social post not long after hosting Zelenskyy and his team for more than two hours of talks. “They should stop where they are. Let both claim Victory, let History decide!”

Later, soon after arriving in Florida, where he’s spending the weekend, Trump urged both sides to “stop the war immediately” and implied that Moscow keep territory it’s taken from Kyiv.

“You go by the battle line wherever it is — otherwise it’s too complicated,” Trump told reporters. “You stop at the battle line and both sides should go home, go to their families, stop the killing, and that should be it.”

The comments amounted to another shift in position on the war by Trump. In recent weeks, he had shown growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin and expressed greater openness to helping Ukraine win the war.

After meeting with Zelenskyy in New York on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly last month, Trump even said he believed the Ukrainians could win back all the the territory they had lost to Russia since Putin launched the February 2022 invasion. That was a dramatic shift for Trump, who had previously insisted that Kyiv would have to concede land lost to Russia to end the war.

Zelenskyy after Friday’s meeting said it was time for a ceasefire and negotiations. He sidestepped directly answering a question about Trump nudging Ukraine to give up land.

“The president is right we have to stop where we are, and then to speak,” Zelenskyy said when asked by reporters about Trump’s social media post, which he hadn’t seen.

Another change in tone

Trump’s tone on the war shifted after he held a lengthy phone call with Putin on Thursday and announced that he planned to meet with the Russian leader in Budapest, Hungary, in the coming weeks.

The president also signaled to Zelenskyy on Friday that he’s leaning against selling him long-range Tomahawk missiles, weaponry that the Ukrainians believe could be a game changer in helping prod Putin to the negotiating table.

Zelenskyy at the start of the White House talks said he had a “proposition” in which Ukraine could provide the United States with its advanced drones, while Washington would sell Kyiv the Tomahawk cruise missiles.

But Trump said he was hesitant to tap into the U.S. supply, a turnabout after days of suggesting he was seriously weighing sending the missiles to help Ukraine beat back Russia’s invasion.

“I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace,” Trump said. “We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”

In an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Zelenskyy suggested the door was not closed.

“It’s good that President Trump didn’t say ‘no,’ but for today, didn’t say ‘yes,’” he said.

Zelenskyy also said “we need Tomahawks” because “it’s very difficult just to operate only with Ukrainian drones.”

Trump’s latest rhetoric on Tomahawks was certainly disappointing to the Ukrainians. In recent days, Trump had shown an openness to selling Ukraine the Tomahawks, even as Putin warned that such a move would further strain the U.S.-Russian relationship.

Why Tomahawks?

But following Thursday’s call with Putin, Trump began downplaying the prospects of Ukraine getting the missiles, which have a range of about 995 miles (1,600 kilometers.)

Zelenskyy had been seeking the Tomahawks, which would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory and target key military sites, energy facilities and critical infrastructure. Zelenskyy has argued that the potential for such strikes would help compel Putin to take Trump’s calls for direct negotiations to end the war more seriously.

Putin warned Trump during the call that supplying Kyiv with the Tomahawks “won’t change the situation on the battlefield, but would cause substantial damage to the relationship between our countries,” according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser.

It was the fifth face-to-face meeting for Trump and Zelenskyy since the Republican returned to office in January,

The president said Friday it was “to be determined” if Zelenskyy would be involved in the upcoming talks in Hungary — suggesting a “double meeting” with the warring countries’ leaders was likely the most workable option for productive negotiations.

“These two leaders do not like each other, and we want to make it comfortable for everybody,” Trump added.

But Zelenskyy told reporters that the animus toward Putin “is not about feelings.”

“They attacked us, so they are an enemy for us. They don’t intend to stop,” Zelenskyy added. “So they are an enemy. It is not about someone just hating someone else. Although, undoubtedly, we hate the enemy. Undoubtedly.”

Trump, going back to his 2024 campaign, insisted he would quickly end the war, but his peace efforts appeared to stall following a diplomatic blitz in August, when he held a summit with Putin in Alaska and a White House meeting with Zelenskyy and European allies.

Trump emerged from those meetings certain he was on track to arranging direct talks between Zelenskyy and Putin. But the Russian leader hasn’t shown any interest in meeting with Zelenskyy and Moscow has only intensified its bombardment of Ukraine.

Asked Friday if he was concerned that Putin was stringing him along, Trump acknowledged it was a possibility but said he was confident he could handle the Russian leader.

“I’ve been played all my life by the best of them, and I came out really well,” Trump said. He added, “I think I’m pretty good at this stuff.”



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

Rivian CEO says it’s a misconception EVs are politicized, with a 50-50 party split among R1 buyers

Published

7 minutes ago

on

December 10, 2025

By



If Rivian’s sales are any indication, owning an electric vehicle isn’t such a partisan issue, despite President Donald Trump’s rollbacks of mandates, incentives, and targets for EVs.

At the Fortune Brainstorm AI conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said it’s a misconception that electrification is politicized, explaining that most customers buy a product based on how it fits their needs, not their ideology. The questions car buyers ask, he said, are the same whether they’re purchasing one with an internal-combustion engine or a battery: “Is it exciting? Are you attracted to the product? Does it draw you in? Does the brand positioning resonate with you? Do the features answer needs that you have?”

Buyers of Rivian’s R1 electric SUV are split roughly 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, Scaringe told Fortune’s Andrew Nusca. “I think that’s extraordinarily powerful news for us to recognize—that this isn’t just left-leaning buyers,” he added. “These are people that are saying, ‘I like the idea of this product, I’m excited about it.’ And this is thousands and thousands of customers. This is statistically relevant information.”

Buying an EV was once an indication of left-leaning politics, but the politics got scrambled after Tesla CEO Elon Musk became the top Republican donor and a close adviser to Trump. That drew some new customers to Tesla, and turned off a lot of progressive EV buyers, with many existing owners putting bumper stickers on their Teslas explaining that they bought their cars before Musk’s hard-right turn. Trump and Musk later had a stunning public feud, in part over the administration’s elimination of EV and solar tax credits.

But Scaringe said he started Rivian with a long-term view, independent of any policy framework or political trends. He also insisted that if Americans have more EV choices, sales would follow. Right now, Tesla dominates a key corner of the market, namely EVs in the $50,000 price range. Rivian’s forthcoming R2 mid-size SUV will represent a new choice in that market, with a starting price of $45,000 versus the R1’s $70,000.

Ten years from now, Scaringe said he hopes—and believes—that EV adoption in the U.S. will be meaningfully higher than it is today across the board, explaining that the main constraint isn’t on the demand side. Instead, it’s on the supply side, which suffers from “a shocking lack of choice,” especially compared to Europe and China, he added. EV options in the U.S. are limited by the fact that Chinese brands are shut out of the market.

More choices for U.S. EV buyers would presumably create more competition for Rivian—and indeed, the flood of low-priced Chinese EVs in other auto markets has created a backlash, with countries such as Canada imposing steep tariffs on them. But Scaringe appears to view more competition as positive for the market overall.

“I do think that the existence of choice will help drive more penetration, and it actually creates a unique opportunity in the United States,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Powell warns of a ‘very unusual’ economy as inflation remains high amid a weakening job market

Published

37 minutes ago

on

December 10, 2025

By



Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Wednesday described the U.S. economy as “very unusual,” saying policymakers are navigating a rare combination of tariff-driven goods inflation and a labor market that may already be weaker than official data suggests.

The Fed cut interest rates for the third consecutive meeting, a quarter-point reduction Powell framed not as a confident pivot toward easier policy, but as a defensive move meant to keep the labor market from slipping further. He repeatedly emphasized risks to employment have risen “in recent months,” and noted that behind the headline numbers, job creation may already be negative.

Powell made the striking admission the Fed believes the official payroll figures—which have slowed sharply since the summer—are overstating job growth by roughly 60,000 per month. 

“Forty thousand jobs could be negative 20,” he said, adding this dynamic is not well understood by the public because unemployment claims remain historically low—something both economists Mark Zandi and Claudia Sahm recently toldFortune could be giving people a false sense of security about the job market.

“I think a world where job creation is negative… we need to watch that very carefully,” Powell said. 

It is this weakening backdrop Powell said makes the current moment “very unusual”: Inflation remains elevated, but most of the remaining overshoot comes from goods categories directly affected by tariffs, as opposed to domestic economic overheating, which he said the Fed has worked hard to cool since its 2022 highs; inflation excluding tariff-affected goods is “in the low [two percent],” he said. Services inflation is cooling, wage pressures are easing, and neither the labor market nor business surveys suggest a “Phillips-curve” kind of inflation threat, Powell said, referring to the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. 

Instead, Powell said, the bulk of the problem is a “one-time price increase” pushing up goods categories as import levies work their way through supply chains. Goods inflation, he noted, should peak around the first quarter of 2026, assuming no additional tariff rounds.

Those crosscurrents have fractured the Fed. Three officials formally dissented from the rate cut on Wednesday, and several others offered what Powell described as “soft dissents,” when an official’s personal projection falls out of what they ultimately voted for. There were six such “soft dissents” this time, during one of the deepest divides inside the FOMC in years, driven by disagreement over how to weigh the risks of lingering inflation against the possibility that job growth is weaker—and much more fragile—than reported.

Powell stressed that policymakers cannot simply choose one mandate to prioritize. 

“There is no risk-free path,” he said, a refrain he’s repeated for months. “When both sides of the mandate are threatened, you should be kind of neutral.” 

He characterized the current stance as being at the “high end” of neutral, allowing the Fed to “wait and see” how the data evolve.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Top economist Diane Swonk: Jerome Powell risks losing the Fed’s credibility on a gamble about AI and immigration

Published

1 hour ago

on

December 10, 2025

By



Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned Wednesday afternoon that the U.S. labor market may be significantly weaker than the official data suggest. But according to KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk, the Fed may be drawing the wrong conclusion—and in doing so, risks undermining its hard-won credibility on fighting inflation.

In a new analysis shared with Fortune, Swonk argues that Powell is treating the slowdown in hiring as a sign of weakening demand that must be offset with lower interest rates. But if that weakness is being driven instead by structural forces—specifically, AI adoption and sharp declines in immigration—then cutting rates won’t fix the underlying problem and could worsen inflation.

“Powell risks the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility if the weakness in employment is due more to AI and curbs in immigration than weak demand,” Swonk wrote.

That warning comes after one of the most contentious Federal Open Market Committee meetings in years. The Fed cut rates by a quarter point for the third meeting in a row, taking the federal funds rate down to 3.5%–3.75%, but the vote fractured the committee. Swonk notes it was the first time since 2019 that there were three dissents, and they came “in opposite directions.”

Governor Stephen Miran — currently on leave from the White House Council of Economic Advisers — voted for a half-point cut, while Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid and Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee voted to hold rates steady.

Swonk highlights that the Fed’s statement resurrected language meant to indicate a pause: “In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments… the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.” Powell reinforced that stance, saying “We are well positioned to see how the economy evolves” and emphasizing that policymakers would need to “be a bit skeptical” of data distorted by the government shutdown.

But the bigger issue, Swonk argues, is that Powell kept pointing to imminent downward revisions to employment, revisions she warns may not mean what the Fed thinks they do.

If job growth is negative because automation is replacing workers or because the labor force is shrinking due to immigration policy, then monetary policy can’t solve the problem. That’s because rate cuts can stimulate demand, but they cannot create workers or reverse automation decisions already made by firms. 

“The challenge is if that weakness is due to AI and curbs on immigration, then rate cuts will not do much to shore up the labor market. More could show up in inflation,” she wrote.

Powell, during the conference, acknowledged that AI may be “part of the story” behind the cooling labor market, citing major employers like Amazon that have linked hiring freezes and job cuts to automation. But he stressed that it’s “not a big part of the story yet,” and said it’s too early to know whether this wave of technological change will ultimately destroy more jobs than it creates.

He also noted that labor supply has “come down quite sharply” due to a drop in immigration and participation.

A misread could become especially dangerous given the fiscal backdrop. Swonk notes that “expansions to tax cuts last year will show up as a record high tax refunds in early 2026,” warning that the windfall could “further entrench inflation much like we saw in the wake of the pandemic.” 

At the same time, federal debt is projected to surpass GDP for the first time since World War II, marking a level of issuance that is “a lot of debt for bond markets to absorb.”

Swonk also flags mounting risks to credibility inside the Fed itself.

Six participants wanted to hold rates steady, and the market openly dismissed Powell’s attempt at a hawkish spin: investors “priced in more cuts after the meeting,” she notes. Powell now appears to be one of the more dovish voices on the committee, raising questions about the direction of policy if the administration installs a new chair aligned with Miran’s more aggressive easing stance.

Swonk expects the Fed to pause early next year, but warns that if inflation fails to cool as expected, “the bond market could grow more skittish about rate cuts.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.