DUBAI: During his campaign, Donald Trump said repeatedly that he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in 24 hours” upon taking office. He has changed his tone since becoming president again.
As various US emissaries have held talks looking for an end to the war, both Trump and his top officials have become more reserved about the prospects of a peace deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday suggested the US might soon back away from negotiations altogether without more progress, adding a comment that sounded like a repudiation of the president’s old comments.
“No one’s saying this can be done in 12 hours,” he told reporters.
The promises made by presidential candidates are often felled by the realities of governing. But Trump’s shift is noteworthy given his prior term as president and his long histories with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The White House on Friday did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Trump’s evolving deadline comments.
Here’s a look at Trump’s evolution on the way he talks about the Russia-Ukraine war:
‘A very easy negotiation’
MARCH 2023: “There’s a very easy negotiation to take place. But I don’t want to tell you what it is because then I can’t use that negotiation; it’ll never work,” Trump told Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity, claiming that he could “solve” the war “in 24 hours” if he were back in the White House.
“But it’s a very easy negotiation to take place. I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them,” Trump said of the war, which at that point had been ongoing for more than a year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
MAY 2023: “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours,” Trump said during a town hall on CNN.
JULY 2024: When asked to respond to Trump’s one-day claim, Russia’s United Nations Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told reporters that “the Ukrainian crisis cannot be solved in one day.” Afterward, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said that “a top priority in his second term will be to quickly negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war.”
AUGUST 2024: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Trump told a National Guard Conference. “I’ll get it settled very fast. I don’t want you guys going over there. I don’t want you going over there.”
After Trump wins in November
DEC. 16, 2024: “I’m going to try,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club, asked if he thought he could still make a deal with Putin and Zelensky to end the war.
JAN. 8, 2025: In a Fox News Channel interview, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg — now serving as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia — proposed a 100-day deadline to end the war. Friday marked 100 days since that interview. The 100th day of Trump’s presidency is April 30.
Trump becomes president and starts negotiations
JAN. 31: Trump says his new administration has already had “very serious” discussions with Russia and says he and Putin could soon take “significant” action toward ending the grinding conflict.
“We will be speaking, and I think will perhaps do something that’ll be significant,” Trump said in an exchange with reporters in the Oval Office. “We want to end that war. That war would have not started if I was president.”
FEB. 12: Trump and Putin speak for more than an hour and Trump speaks afterward with Zelensky. Trump says afterward, “I think we’re on the way to getting peace.”
FEB. 19: Trump posts on his Truth Social site that Zelensky is serving as a “dictator without elections.” He adds that “we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP,’ and the Trump Administration, can do.”
FEB. 28: Trump and Zelensky have a contentious Oval Office meeting. Trump berates Zelensky for being “disrespectful,” then abruptly calls off the signing of a minerals deal that Trump said would have moved Ukraine closer to ending the war.
Declaring himself “in the middle” and not on the side of either Ukraine or Russia in the conflict, Trump went on to deride Zelensky’s “hatred” for Putin as a roadblock to peace.
“You see the hatred he’s got for Putin,” Trump said. “That’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.”
The Ukrainian leader was asked to leave the White House by top Trump advisers shortly after Trump shouted at him. Trump later told reporters that he wanted an “immediate ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine but expressed doubt that Zelensky was ready to make peace.
MARCH 3: Trump temporarily pauses military aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to seek peace.
Trump claims his 24-hour promise was ‘sarcastic’
MARCH 14: Trump says he was “being a little bit sarcastic” when he repeatedly claimed as a candidate that he would have the Russia-Ukraine war solved within 24 hours.
“Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that,” Trump says in a clip released from an interview for the “Full Measure” television program. “What I really mean is I’d like to get it settled and, I’ll, I think, I think I’ll be successful.”
MARCH 18-19: Trump speaks with both Zelensky and Putin on successive days.
In a March 18 call, Putin told Trump that he would agree not to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure but refused to back a full 30-day ceasefire that Trump had proposed. Afterward, Trump on social media heralded that move, which he said came “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.”
In their own call a day later, Trump suggested that Zelensky should consider giving the US ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to ensure their long-term security. Trump told Zelensky that the UScould be “very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise,” according to a White House statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz.
APRIL 14: Trump says “everybody” is to blame: Zelensky, Putin and Biden.
“That’s a war that should have never been allowed to start and Biden could have stopped it and Zelensky could have stopped it and Putin should have never started it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Talk of moving on
APRIL 18: Rubio says that the US may “move on” from trying to secure a Russia-Ukraine peace deal if there is no progress in the coming days.
He spoke in Paris after landmark talks among US, Ukrainian and European officials produced outlines for steps toward peace and appeared to make some long-awaited progress. A new meeting is expected next week in London, and Rubio suggested it could be decisive in determining whether the Trump administration continues its involvement.
“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not,” Rubio told reporters. “Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on. It’s not our war. We have other priorities to focus on.”
He said the US administration wants to decide “in a matter of days.”
Later that day, Trump told reporters at the White House that he agreed with Rubio that a Ukraine peace deal must be done “quickly.”
“I have no specific number of days but quickly. We want to get it done,” he said.
Saying “Marco is right” that the dynamic of the negotiations must change, Trump stopped short of saying he’s ready to walk away from peace negotiations.
“Well, I don’t want to say that,” Trump said. “But we want to see it end.”
How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
https://arab.news/7mn4j
How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
- He has changed his tone since becoming president again.
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday suggested the U.S. might soon back away from negotiations altogether without more progress.
OpenAI abandons plan to become for-profit company
SAN FRANCISCO: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced Monday that the company behind ChatGPT will continue to be run as a nonprofit, abandoning a contested plan to convert into a for-profit organization.
The structural issue had become a significant point of contention for the artificial intelligence (AI) pioneer, with major investors pushing for the change to better secure their returns.
AI safety advocates had expressed concerns about pursuing substantial profits from such powerful technology without the oversight of a nonprofit board of directors acting in society’s interest rather than for shareholder profits.
“OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be,” Altman wrote in an email to staff posted on the company’s website.
“We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,” he added.
OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit in 2015 and later created a “capped” for-profit entity allowing limited profit-making to attract investors, with cloud computing giant Microsoft becoming the largest early backer.
This arrangement nearly collapsed in 2023 when the board unexpectedly fired Altman. Staff revolted, leading to Altman’s reinstatement while those responsible for his dismissal departed.
Alarmed by the instability, investors demanded OpenAI transition to a more traditional for-profit structure within two years.
Under its initial reform plan revealed last year, OpenAI would have become an outright for-profit public benefit corporation (PBC), reassuring investors considering the tens of billions of dollars necessary to fulfill the company’s ambitions.
Any status change, however, requires approval from state governments in California and Delaware, where the company is headquartered and registered, respectively.
The plan faced strong criticism from AI safety activists and co-founder Elon Musk, who sued the company he left in 2018, claiming the proposal violated its founding philosophy.
In the revised plan, OpenAI’s money-making arm will now be fully open to generate profits but, crucially, will remain under the nonprofit board’s supervision.
“We believe this sets us up to continue to make rapid, safe progress and to put great AI in the hands of everyone,” Altman said.
OpenAI’s major investors will likely have a say in this proposal, with Japanese investment giant SoftBank having made the change to being a for-profit a condition for their massive $30 billion investment announced on March 31.
In an official document, SoftBank stated its total investment could be reduced to $20 billion if OpenAI does not restructure into a for-profit entity by year-end.
The substantial cash injections are needed to cover OpenAI’s colossal computing requirements to build increasingly energy-intensive and complex AI models.
The company’s original vision did not contemplate “the needs for hundreds of billions of dollars of compute to train models and serve users,” Altman said.
SoftBank’s contribution in March represented the majority of the $40 billion raised in a funding round that valued the ChatGPT maker at $300 billion, marking the largest capital-raising event ever for a startup.
The company, led by Altman, has become one of Silicon Valley’s most successful startups, propelled to prominence in 2022 with the release of ChatGPT, its generative AI chatbot.
Ukraine’s attack damages power substation in Russia’s Kursk region, regional governor says
- Two teenagers were injured in the attack
Ukraine’s attack late on Monday damaged a power substation in Russia’s Kursk region and injured two teenagers, the governor of the Russian region on the border with Ukraine said.
The attack on the power substation in the town of Rylsk damaged two transformers and cut off power, Alexander Khinshtein, the acting governor of the Kursk region, said on the Telegram messaging app.
Trump’s Alcatraz prison restoration plan gets cold reception from tourists
- Site known as ‘The Rock’ draws 1.2 million tourists a year
- US closed prison in 1963 due costs of operating on an island
SAN FRANCISCO: US President Donald Trump’s plan to turn Alcatraz back into a federal prison was summarily rejected on Monday by some visitors to the tourist site in San Francisco Bay.
Trump revealed a plan over the weekend to rebuild and expand the notorious island prison, a historic landmark known as “The Rock” and operated by the US government’s National Park Service. It’s “just an idea I’ve had,” he said.
“We need law and order in this country. So we’re going to look at it,” he added on Monday.
Once nearly impossible to leave, the island can be difficult to get to because of competition for tickets. Alcatraz prison held fewer than 300 inmates at a time before it was closed in 1963 and draws roughly 1.2 million tourists a year.
US Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall said on Monday he would vigorously pursue the president’s agenda and was looking at next steps.
“It’s a waste of money,” said visitor Ben Stripe from Santa Ana, California. “After walking around and seeing this place and the condition it’s in, it is just way too expensive to refurbish.” he said.
“It’s not feasible to have somebody still live here,” agreed Cindy Lacomb from Phoenix, Arizona, who imagined replacing all the metal in the cells and rebuilding the crumbling concrete.
The sprawling site is in disrepair, with peeling paint and rusting locks and cell bars. Signs reading “Area closed for your safety” block off access to many parts of the grounds. Chemical toilets sit next to permanent restrooms closed off for repair.
The former home of Al Capone and other notable inmates was known for tough treatment, including pitch-black isolation cells. It was billed as America’s most secure prison given the island location, frigid waters and strong currents.
It was closed because of high operating costs. The island also was claimed by Native American activists in 1969, an act of civil disobedience acknowledged by the National Park Service.
Mike Forbes, visiting from Pittsburgh, said it should remain a part of history. “I’m a former prison guard and rehabilitation is real. Punishment is best left in the past,” Forbes said.
No successful escapes were ever officially recorded from Alcatraz, though five prisoners were listed as “missing and presumed drowned.”
Today a “Supermax” facility located in Florence, Colorado, about 115 miles (185 km) south of Denver, is nicknamed the “Alcatraz of the Rockies.” No one has ever escaped from that 375-inmate facility since it opened in 1994.
Congress in fiscal year 2024 cut the Bureau of Prisons infrastructure budget by 38 percent and prison officials have previously reported a $3 billion maintenance backlog. The Bureau of Prisons last year said it would close aging prisons, as it struggled with funding cuts.
18 British student groups support legal action to remove Hamas from UK terror list
- The groups, some of which are affiliated with student unions at leading universities, say the ban ‘creates an atmosphere where advocacy for Palestine becomes a legal risk’
- The prohibition of Hamas means it is a criminal offense for anyone in the UK to have links with the organization or show support for it
LONDON: Eighteen student groups at British universities have supported legal moves to remove Hamas from the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organizations.
Some of the groups are affiliated with student unions at leading UK academic institutions, including the London School of Economics, the University of Edinburgh, and University College London.
The groups said the legal petition “defends the right of students, academics and communities to think freely, speak openly and organize without fear of being criminalized,” The Times newspaper reported on Monday.
In April, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk instructed British firm Riverway Law to take legal action with the aim of removing his organization from a Home Office list of terrorist groups. The military wing of Hamas was banned by UK authorities in 2001. The ban was extended in 2021 to include its political bureau.
Lawyers from the firm said in April that by banning Hamas, “Britain is effectively denying the Palestinians the right to defend themselves.” The organization “does not pose any threat” to Britain’s national security, they added, and the ban was therefore “disproportionate.”
The prohibition of Hamas means it is a criminal offense for anyone in the UK to have any links with the organization or show support for it.
The student groups said the ban on Hamas “creates an atmosphere where advocacy for Palestine becomes a legal risk,” and students who participated in pro-Palestinian activism faced intimidation and threats.
“We therefore stand in support of Riverway Law’s application to deproscribe Hamas, not as an endorsement of any group, but to protect the civic space essential for academic freedom and open inquiry,” they said.
The student organizations backing the legal challenge include Edinburgh University Justice for Palestine Society, LSE Divest Encampment for Liberation, University of Birmingham Friends of Palestine, Newcastle Apartheid Off Campus, and the Students Against Apartheid Coalition at the University of Leeds.
Hegseth directs 20 percent cut to top military leadership positions
- In a memo dated Monday, Hegseth said the cuts will remove “redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership”
WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday directed the active duty military to shed 20 percent of its four-star general officers as the Trump administration keep pushing the services to streamline their top leadership positions.
Hegseth also told the National Guard to shed 20 percent of its top positions.
In a memo dated Monday, Hegseth said the cuts will remove “redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership.”
On top of the cuts to the top-tier four-star generals, Hegseth has also directed the military to shed an additional 10 percent of its general and flag officers across the force, which could include any one-star or above or equivalent Navy rank.
