SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A boy holds a banner showing a child and written 'Gaza Stop Genocide!' during a pro-Palestine demonstration held in front of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs in the French capital, Paris, France on February 14, 2024. Demonstrators chanted slogans such as 'Stop the Genocide' as they held flags and banners.
As a matter of international law, Israel does not have "the right to defend itself" like this.
On February 8, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was in Washington on an official visit, aimed at working jointly with the United States to make “sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.”
If such a statement was made soon after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation of October 7, one may cognize its logic, based on the well-known, inherent bias of both Washington and Berlin towards Israel.
The statement and the visit, however, were conducted on the 125th day of one of the bloodiest genocides in modern history.
The purpose of the visit was highlighted in a press conference by White House spokesperson John Kirby, even though, hours later, U.S. President Joe Biden admitted that Israel has gone “over the top” in its response to the Hamas attack on October 7.
If killing and wounding over 100,000 civilians, and counting, is Israel’s version of self-defense, then both Scholz and Biden have done a splendid job in ensuring Israel has everything it needs to achieve its bloody mission.
However, in this context, who is entitled to self-defense, Israel or Palestine?
The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
On a recent visit to a hospital in a Middle Eastern country which remains confidential as a precondition for my visit, I witnessed one of the most horrific sights one could ever see. Scores of limbless Palestinian children, some still fighting for their lives, some badly burned, and others in a coma.
Those who were able to use their hands have drawn Palestinian flags which hung on the walls beside their hospital beds. Some wore SpongeBob T-shirts and others hats with Disney characters. They were pure, innocent, and very much Palestinian.
A couple of children flashed the victory sign as soon as we said our goodbyes. Little kids wanted to communicate to the world that they remain strong and that they know exactly who they are and where they come from.
The children were far too young to realize the legal and political context of their strong feelings toward their homeland.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) has "affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people in Palestine [...], the right to self-determination, (and) the right to national independence and sovereignty.”
The phrase "Palestinian right to self-determination" is perhaps the most frequently uttered phrase in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian struggle since the establishment of the United Nations.
On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also affirmed what we already know, that Palestinians are a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Those injured Palestinian children do not need legal language or political slogans to locate themselves. The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
In this parallel world, Scholz is more concerned about Israel being able to ‘defend itself’ than a besieged Palestinian population, starving, bleeding, yet unable to achieve any tangible measure of justice.
Despite this, Israel still does not have the right to defend itself.
Logically, those carrying out acts of aggression should not demand that their victims refrain from fighting back.
Palestinians have been victimized by Israeli colonialism, military occupation, racial apartheid, siege, and now genocide. Therefore, for Israel to invoke Article 51, Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations is a mockery of international law.
Article 51, often used by great powers to justify their wars and military interventions, was designed with a completely different legal spirit in mind.
Article 2 (4) of Chapter I in the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force in international relations.” It also “calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other states.”
Since Israel is in violation of Article 2 (4), it simply has no right to invoke Article 51.
In November 2012, Palestine was recognized as an Observer State at the UN. It is also a member of countless international treaties and is recognized by 139 countries out of the 193 UN members.
We do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
Even if we accept the argument that the UN Charter only applies to full UN members, the Palestinian right to self-defense can still be established.
In 1960, General Assembly Declaration No. 1594 guaranteed independence to colonized nations and people. Although it did not discuss the right of the colonized to use force, it condemned the use of force against liberation movements.
In 1964, the UNGA voted in favor of Resolution No. 2105, which recognized the legitimacy of the ‘struggle’ of colonized nations to exercise their right to self-determination.
In 1973, the Assembly passed Resolution 38/17 of 1983. The language, this time, was unambiguous; people have the right to struggle against colonial foreign domination by all possible means, including armed struggle.
The same dynamics that ruled the UN in its early days continue to this day, where Western countries, which represented the bulk of all colonial powers in the past, continue to give themselves monopoly over the use of force. Conversely, the Global South, which has suffered under the yoke of those Western regimes, insists that it, too, has the right to defend itself against foreign intervention, colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid.
While Scholz was in Washington to discuss yet more ways to kill Palestinian civilians, the country of Nicaragua made an official request to join South Africa in its effort to hold Israel accountable for the crime of genocide in Gaza.
It is interesting how the colonizers and the colonized continue to build relations and solidarity around the same old principles. The Global South is, again, rising in solidarity with the Palestinians, while the North, with a few exceptions, continues to support Israeli oppression.
Just before I left the hospital, a wounded child handed me a drawing. It featured several images, stacked one on top of the other, as if the little boy was creating a timeline of events that led to his injury: a tent, with him inside; an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian; prison bars, with his father inside and, finally, a Palestinian fighter holding a flag.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
On February 8, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was in Washington on an official visit, aimed at working jointly with the United States to make “sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.”
If such a statement was made soon after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation of October 7, one may cognize its logic, based on the well-known, inherent bias of both Washington and Berlin towards Israel.
The statement and the visit, however, were conducted on the 125th day of one of the bloodiest genocides in modern history.
The purpose of the visit was highlighted in a press conference by White House spokesperson John Kirby, even though, hours later, U.S. President Joe Biden admitted that Israel has gone “over the top” in its response to the Hamas attack on October 7.
If killing and wounding over 100,000 civilians, and counting, is Israel’s version of self-defense, then both Scholz and Biden have done a splendid job in ensuring Israel has everything it needs to achieve its bloody mission.
However, in this context, who is entitled to self-defense, Israel or Palestine?
The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
On a recent visit to a hospital in a Middle Eastern country which remains confidential as a precondition for my visit, I witnessed one of the most horrific sights one could ever see. Scores of limbless Palestinian children, some still fighting for their lives, some badly burned, and others in a coma.
Those who were able to use their hands have drawn Palestinian flags which hung on the walls beside their hospital beds. Some wore SpongeBob T-shirts and others hats with Disney characters. They were pure, innocent, and very much Palestinian.
A couple of children flashed the victory sign as soon as we said our goodbyes. Little kids wanted to communicate to the world that they remain strong and that they know exactly who they are and where they come from.
The children were far too young to realize the legal and political context of their strong feelings toward their homeland.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) has "affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people in Palestine [...], the right to self-determination, (and) the right to national independence and sovereignty.”
The phrase "Palestinian right to self-determination" is perhaps the most frequently uttered phrase in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian struggle since the establishment of the United Nations.
On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also affirmed what we already know, that Palestinians are a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Those injured Palestinian children do not need legal language or political slogans to locate themselves. The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
In this parallel world, Scholz is more concerned about Israel being able to ‘defend itself’ than a besieged Palestinian population, starving, bleeding, yet unable to achieve any tangible measure of justice.
Despite this, Israel still does not have the right to defend itself.
Logically, those carrying out acts of aggression should not demand that their victims refrain from fighting back.
Palestinians have been victimized by Israeli colonialism, military occupation, racial apartheid, siege, and now genocide. Therefore, for Israel to invoke Article 51, Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations is a mockery of international law.
Article 51, often used by great powers to justify their wars and military interventions, was designed with a completely different legal spirit in mind.
Article 2 (4) of Chapter I in the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force in international relations.” It also “calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other states.”
Since Israel is in violation of Article 2 (4), it simply has no right to invoke Article 51.
In November 2012, Palestine was recognized as an Observer State at the UN. It is also a member of countless international treaties and is recognized by 139 countries out of the 193 UN members.
We do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
Even if we accept the argument that the UN Charter only applies to full UN members, the Palestinian right to self-defense can still be established.
In 1960, General Assembly Declaration No. 1594 guaranteed independence to colonized nations and people. Although it did not discuss the right of the colonized to use force, it condemned the use of force against liberation movements.
In 1964, the UNGA voted in favor of Resolution No. 2105, which recognized the legitimacy of the ‘struggle’ of colonized nations to exercise their right to self-determination.
In 1973, the Assembly passed Resolution 38/17 of 1983. The language, this time, was unambiguous; people have the right to struggle against colonial foreign domination by all possible means, including armed struggle.
The same dynamics that ruled the UN in its early days continue to this day, where Western countries, which represented the bulk of all colonial powers in the past, continue to give themselves monopoly over the use of force. Conversely, the Global South, which has suffered under the yoke of those Western regimes, insists that it, too, has the right to defend itself against foreign intervention, colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid.
While Scholz was in Washington to discuss yet more ways to kill Palestinian civilians, the country of Nicaragua made an official request to join South Africa in its effort to hold Israel accountable for the crime of genocide in Gaza.
It is interesting how the colonizers and the colonized continue to build relations and solidarity around the same old principles. The Global South is, again, rising in solidarity with the Palestinians, while the North, with a few exceptions, continues to support Israeli oppression.
Just before I left the hospital, a wounded child handed me a drawing. It featured several images, stacked one on top of the other, as if the little boy was creating a timeline of events that led to his injury: a tent, with him inside; an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian; prison bars, with his father inside and, finally, a Palestinian fighter holding a flag.
On February 8, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was in Washington on an official visit, aimed at working jointly with the United States to make “sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.”
If such a statement was made soon after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation of October 7, one may cognize its logic, based on the well-known, inherent bias of both Washington and Berlin towards Israel.
The statement and the visit, however, were conducted on the 125th day of one of the bloodiest genocides in modern history.
The purpose of the visit was highlighted in a press conference by White House spokesperson John Kirby, even though, hours later, U.S. President Joe Biden admitted that Israel has gone “over the top” in its response to the Hamas attack on October 7.
If killing and wounding over 100,000 civilians, and counting, is Israel’s version of self-defense, then both Scholz and Biden have done a splendid job in ensuring Israel has everything it needs to achieve its bloody mission.
However, in this context, who is entitled to self-defense, Israel or Palestine?
The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
On a recent visit to a hospital in a Middle Eastern country which remains confidential as a precondition for my visit, I witnessed one of the most horrific sights one could ever see. Scores of limbless Palestinian children, some still fighting for their lives, some badly burned, and others in a coma.
Those who were able to use their hands have drawn Palestinian flags which hung on the walls beside their hospital beds. Some wore SpongeBob T-shirts and others hats with Disney characters. They were pure, innocent, and very much Palestinian.
A couple of children flashed the victory sign as soon as we said our goodbyes. Little kids wanted to communicate to the world that they remain strong and that they know exactly who they are and where they come from.
The children were far too young to realize the legal and political context of their strong feelings toward their homeland.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) has "affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people in Palestine [...], the right to self-determination, (and) the right to national independence and sovereignty.”
The phrase "Palestinian right to self-determination" is perhaps the most frequently uttered phrase in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian struggle since the establishment of the United Nations.
On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also affirmed what we already know, that Palestinians are a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Those injured Palestinian children do not need legal language or political slogans to locate themselves. The right to live without fear of extermination, without bombs, and without military occupation is a natural right, requiring no legal arguments and unfazed by racism, hate speech, or propaganda.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
In this parallel world, Scholz is more concerned about Israel being able to ‘defend itself’ than a besieged Palestinian population, starving, bleeding, yet unable to achieve any tangible measure of justice.
Despite this, Israel still does not have the right to defend itself.
Logically, those carrying out acts of aggression should not demand that their victims refrain from fighting back.
Palestinians have been victimized by Israeli colonialism, military occupation, racial apartheid, siege, and now genocide. Therefore, for Israel to invoke Article 51, Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations is a mockery of international law.
Article 51, often used by great powers to justify their wars and military interventions, was designed with a completely different legal spirit in mind.
Article 2 (4) of Chapter I in the UN Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force in international relations.” It also “calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other states.”
Since Israel is in violation of Article 2 (4), it simply has no right to invoke Article 51.
In November 2012, Palestine was recognized as an Observer State at the UN. It is also a member of countless international treaties and is recognized by 139 countries out of the 193 UN members.
We do not live in a world of common sense, but in topsy-turvy legal and political systems that exist to only cater to the strong.
Even if we accept the argument that the UN Charter only applies to full UN members, the Palestinian right to self-defense can still be established.
In 1960, General Assembly Declaration No. 1594 guaranteed independence to colonized nations and people. Although it did not discuss the right of the colonized to use force, it condemned the use of force against liberation movements.
In 1964, the UNGA voted in favor of Resolution No. 2105, which recognized the legitimacy of the ‘struggle’ of colonized nations to exercise their right to self-determination.
In 1973, the Assembly passed Resolution 38/17 of 1983. The language, this time, was unambiguous; people have the right to struggle against colonial foreign domination by all possible means, including armed struggle.
The same dynamics that ruled the UN in its early days continue to this day, where Western countries, which represented the bulk of all colonial powers in the past, continue to give themselves monopoly over the use of force. Conversely, the Global South, which has suffered under the yoke of those Western regimes, insists that it, too, has the right to defend itself against foreign intervention, colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid.
While Scholz was in Washington to discuss yet more ways to kill Palestinian civilians, the country of Nicaragua made an official request to join South Africa in its effort to hold Israel accountable for the crime of genocide in Gaza.
It is interesting how the colonizers and the colonized continue to build relations and solidarity around the same old principles. The Global South is, again, rising in solidarity with the Palestinians, while the North, with a few exceptions, continues to support Israeli oppression.
Just before I left the hospital, a wounded child handed me a drawing. It featured several images, stacked one on top of the other, as if the little boy was creating a timeline of events that led to his injury: a tent, with him inside; an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian; prison bars, with his father inside and, finally, a Palestinian fighter holding a flag.
Any such effort, said one democracy watchdog, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
In his latest full-frontal assault on democratic access and voting rights, President Donald Trump early Monday said he will lead an effort to ban both mail-in ballots and voting machines for next year's mid-term elections—a vow met with immediate rebuke from progressive critics.
"I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election," Trump wrote in a social media post infested with lies and falsehoods.
Trump falsely claimed that no other country in the world uses mail-in voting—a blatant lie, according to International IDEA, which monitors democratic trends worldwide, at least 34 nations allow for in-country postal voting of some kind. The group notes that over 100 countries allow out-of-country postal voting for citizens living or stationed overseas during an election.
Trump has repeated his false claim—over and over again—that he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost, in part due to fraud related to mail-in ballots, though the lie has been debunked ad nauseam. He also fails to note that mail-in ballots were very much in use nationwide in 2024, with an estimated 30% of voters casting a mail-in ballot as opposed to in-person during the election in which Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took back the US Senate and retained the US House of Representatives.
Monday's rant by Trump came just days after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Trump claimed commented personally on the 2020 election and mail-in ballots. In a Friday night interview with Fox News, Trump claimed "one of the most interesting" things Putin said during their talks about ending the war in Ukraine was about mail-in voting in the United States and how Trump would have won the election were it not for voter fraud, echoing Trump's own disproven claims.
Trump: Vladimir Putin said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting… he talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.. it was a rigged election. pic.twitter.com/m8v0tXuiDQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2025
Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order on election processes, suggesting that it would forbid mail-in ballots as well as the automatic tabulation machines used in states nationwide. He also said that states, which are in charge of administering their elections at the local level, "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, which tracks voting rights and issues related to ballot access, said any executive order by Trump to end mail-in voting or forbid provenly safe and accurate voting machines ahead of the midterms would be "unconstitutional and illegal."
Such an effort, said Elias, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.