Officials in Kyiv sense Trump is trying to bully Ukraine into a bad deal with Putin after they received no warning about communications restrictions prior to Russian missile attacks

(Raw Story, Facebook)

Who imposed restrictions on military internet services that limited Ukraine's ability to defend itself against a Russian missile assault on Wednesday? It could be some time before we have a definitive answer to that question. But for now, fingers are pointing in the direction of U.S. President Donald Trump, mainly because of his deteriorating political relationship with Ukraine and his tendency to act with deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The grim bottom line? The official death count at the moment is 18, but several news outlets have projected that the throttling of Ukraine's communications systems might have contributed to scores of deaths. What is the mood in Ukraine? One news account included this sentence: 

The immediate assumption in Kyiv is that the White House is once again trying to bully Ukraine into accepting an unattractive deal with Russia.

That is another example of fingers pointing in Trump's direction. The UK Telegraph provides insight on that angle and more under the headline "Musk blames Trump for Ukraine drone chaos." It includes the following subhead: "Starlink chief says decision to impose restrictions on Kyiv's critical communications devices was taken by the U.S. president." Memphis Barker and Antonia Langford write: 

Elon Musk blamed Donald Trump for limiting the speed limits imposed on Ukrainian drones.

Ukrainian officials said on Wednesday that military missions had been thwarted after restrictions were implemented on the vital communications system.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon set a 100 mph speed limit on Ukraine’s ability to pilot drones using Starshield, the military-grade version of Elon Musk’s Starlink technology, which is under control of the US government.

Hours later, Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine had been betrayed and “people would die” as a result. 

According to a report at NBC News, Ukraine received no warning that its communications systems were about to be reduced. A spokesperson for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told NBC News that the limitations remained in place late Wednesday. "Facing pressure from Trump to halt strikes on Russia’s energy industry, Kyiv and its backers have worried that Washington could cut off battlefield support to try to force it into concessions at the negotiating table." Here is more from the UK Telegraph:

Ukraine’s former defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov said Mr Musk had agreed to lift speed restrictions on the standard Starlink network, adding that it was vital that the Pentagon also dropped the limits from Starshield.

Drone interceptors and some mid-range strike drones are thought to rely on Starshield, which is controlled by the Pentagon. The SpaceX owner pointed the finger at the White House last night.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and POTUS.”

Relations have deteriorated between Kyiv and Washington after Donald Trump agreed to waive sanctions on Russia to import diesel to ease fuel prices and called for Mr Zelensky to be ousted.

The US has also threatened to suspend intelligence-sharing to force Ukraine to stop its refinery strikes, while Mr Zelensky has claimed he stopped receiving warnings from allies about Russian missile attacks. 

The UK Telegraph provides details about the limitations Ukraine was under. Barker and Langford write:

Under the restrictions in place on Wednesday, terminals moving faster than 100 mph lost or partially lost their satellite connection, threatening live video feeds, remote control and real-time tracking for military units and drones.

The slowdown affected Ukraine’s ability to conduct medium-range strikes and to use interceptor drones ‌to counter ‌incoming ⁠long-range Russian drone attacks, a Ukrainian defence ministry ⁠source and a military source said.

Front-line soldiers said the slowdown produced severe operational consequences on Wednesday.

“This is comparable to a nuclear strike against us. All operations are on hold. This will cost many of us our lives,” an experienced Ukrainian officer told Politico and the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network.

The restrictions had brought “all medium-range strike operations to a complete halt,” the officer said.

Key figures in Ukraine's government seemed to agree on this: It was not a coincidence that they were hit by communications restrictions, without warning. Barker and Langford write:

Serhii Beskrestnov, an adviser to Mr Zelensky on defence technologies, added: “Our forces were not given notice of this limit, and this has resulted in the disruption of a number of missions.

“This action is clearly not a coincidence and is related to the current political situation.”

A prominent blogger in Ukraine said a company run by Musk and an administration run by Trump likely share the blame:

Serhii Sternenko, a popular Ukrainian blogger and former adviser to Ukraine’s ministry of defence, said some military reports suggested restrictions on the use of Starlink terminals had been tightened even further, causing communications to drop off at speeds above 44 mph.

He also claimed: “SpaceX likely took these measures at the request of the Trump administration.” 

After Trump's Putin Diesel Deal receives overwhelmingly negative reviews from members of both parties in Congress, the president seems ready to cave in under fire and give us another 'TACO Trump' moment

(Florida Hillbilly, Facebook)

If Americans seem confused about a possible diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- an agreement apparently designed to ease the string of rising diesel costs in the U.S. less than three weeks from midterm elections on Nov. 3 -- that might be partly because a key figure in the transaction seems to be confused himself. We are talking about U.S. President Donald Trump, who has gone from touting the deal as a massive breakhrough on affordability issues that seem to be roiling Trump's Republican base to stating yesterday that the deal essentially is "no biggie" to him and likely will help international consumers as much as American shoppers.

Is it any wonder that our foreign allies have given up on trying to trust anything Trump says? In this instance, Trump is backing off because of heat mostly from his own party. Yahoo! Finance has the latest under the headline 'Not a USA deal: Trump downplays Russian diesel plan in the face of GOP criticism." 

Is this another case of the president becoming TACO Trump ("Trump Always chickens out")? Is this also a sign that his addled brain cannot help him remember what he recently said, and his ever-shrinking spine doesn't allow him to stand up for what he supposedly believes -- although much of what he believes does little or nothing to advance American interests? 

Ben Werschkul, Washington correspondent for Yahoo!Finance, fills us in on the latest about a story that seems to be perpetually evolving:

President Trump has begun to downplay his new deal with Russia after a plan to allow imports of Russian diesel into the US came under withering criticism, even from members of his own party.

"It's a deal for the world ... It's not a deal with me," Trump told reporters on Tuesday morning, repeating that it was "not a USA deal."

"They're releasing it to the entire world," Trump added, after making similar comments on Monday that the deal would help US farmers, but said, "It's not really a deal with me, it's a deal for the rest of the world." 

The contention is a marked shift since Trump announced the plans last week. 

The shift is so radical that Trump hardly sounds like the same guy who seemed so revved up about the plan a few days ago. He has had so little pushback from Congress during his second term that perhaps he has forgotten how to handle it.

"I have just concluded a highly successful discussion with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia," he wrote on Truth Social, adding that it will be a "great announcement...for Americans and, indeed, the World."

The deal will include a quick release of 300,000 tons (about 2.2 million barrels) of diesel. That would then be followed by another 500,000 in November and 1 million tons "immediately thereafter" for a total of about 13.5 million barrels.

His administration quickly authorized US purchases of Russian diesel through next April.

What seemed to deflate Trump's view of the plan? A bipartisan "thumbs down" response from members of Congress surely did not help, Werschkul reports:

Blowback to the plan has been notable — even within Trump's own party.

A bipartisan group of senators called on the president to "immediately reverse course," in a letter signed by Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and John Curtis of Utah, along with three Democrats. 

The plan has also received a lukewarm reception on the midterm campaign trail, with figures like Republican Mike Rogers, who is locked in a tight Senate contest in Michigan, distancing himself from it.

Some energy experts suggest the deal might run afoul of US law, while others suggest it simply won't work since Russia seems to lack enough excess diesel refining capacity to markedly increase exports and move US or global diesel prices.

Trump seems unbothered by the idea that Iran could attack a blue state that features metro areas teeming with immigrants, suggesting he doesn't rule the whole U.S., just parts he favors

Trump welcomes Natalie Harp to the stage (AP)

Americans who have been paying attention to current events over the past 20 months or so know that Donald Ttump, our president, is apt to say almost anything at any time. After Trump's campaign stop in Grand Island, Nebraska, on Monday night, we can take the word "almost" out of the equation. That is when Trump uttered the most abhorrent, depraved words to ever leave a president's mouth -- at least during the post-World War II media age. Trump suggested that a foreign adversary, Iran, could "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego -- two metropolitan areas that are home to almost 22 million people -- and he said it in a tone that suggested he would not be all that upset if such an event actually happened. In fact, he said it would be a "small price to pay to keep . . . our country safe."

A reasonable person might say, "Those are just the warped rantings of an 80-year-old man who has been showing signs for months that he is sliding into dementia." That statement probably describes part of what's going on. But I think something else is afoot, and it adds to the growing body of evidence that Trump is unfit to serve as president. Note that Trump picks out cities in California, a state that never has gone his way in an election. He also picks out cities with large immigrant populations; the population of metro Los Angeles consists of 33 percent immigrants, while the San Diego metro is made up of 23 percent immigrants. As a devout anti-immigrant politico, Trump would not see these numbers as favorable. As a believer in retribution, Trump likely sees significant chunks of the LA and San Diego pupulations as expendable.

It's doubtful Trump ever has given much thoughts to the duties of a president. I am probably among a massive group of Americanswho suspect Trump -- like many of his Republican brethren -- cannot govern and has no interest in even trying. His distaste for the work of government, I'm guessing, leads him to spend time on "vanity projects," such as the White House ballroom/military bunker, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and the Triumphal Arch (complete with sniper nests and ammunition depot.)

I don't think Trump realizes that his job entails serving all Americans, not just MAGA firebrands, and locked-in conservatives -- not just people who voted for him (even though many of those misguided souls now seem to regret it). He holds no interest for serving immigrants, so that probably is why the thought of a massive explosive that would decimate Southern California is not so horrifying to him. 

How did we get to a place where an American president would say out loud the words Trump spoke in Nebraska. A jointly published article at Daily Beast and Yahoo News! provides important background on that question, while showing that White House efforts to paint a more favorable version of what Trump was trying to say was merely an exercise in "defending the indefensible." Under the headline "White House melts down over Trump's bonkers war talk," Martha McHardy writes:

The White House has scrambled to defend Donald Trump after the president casually offered up Los Angeles and San Diego for Iran to "take out," prompting furious backlash.

Trump made the remarks Monday night at a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, where he was campaigning for Republican candidates ahead of the November midterm elections.

The president was discussing the economic consequences of the war with Iran, particularly higher gasoline prices, when he argued, in his typical rambling and clumsy fashion, that higher gas prices and other consequences of the war were a "small price to pay" to prevent Iran from potentially causing catastrophic damage, such as destroying a city.

But in doing so, he also appeared to inadvertently offer up Los Angeles and San Diego to Iran. 

Let's take a look at a word-by-word recital of the relevant section of Trump's speech. McHardy writes:

"Remember, with the war, it's just artificial. It's a little bit high," Trump told the crowd. "It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe."

Trump then appeared to pivot from the economic cost of the war to the potential consequences of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

"They can take out a city—let 'em take, let 'em take out Los Angeles, let 'em take out San Diego. That's—this is a very small price to pay," he said, prompting cheers from the crowd.

"And it's going to be over very soon," Trump continued. "It's essentially almost over with. And they might keep going a little long, you know. They always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it, let me tell you."

McHardy notes the irony of Trump making statements that feature a doomsday quality, while the press has created a virtual cottage industry of medical professionals who point to signs that Trump's physical, emotional, and mental health appear to be in decline. Such a story came out yesterday as Trump's garbled speech during a campaign swing through Alabama prompted a forensic psychologist to note signs of a possible brain lesion. From the DailyBeast/Yahoo! report:

The commander-in-chief, who is in control of the nuclear codes and whose cognitive health has come under mounting scrutiny, added that the seven-month-old war will end "one way or the other."

The comments immediately triggered a political firestorm, particularly in California.

McHardy provides details about a panicked White House effort to create a revisionist narrative -- one that did not make Donald Trump sound so much like Donald Trump:

The White House insists that Trump was not advocating an Iranian attack on American cities.

"The media freakout over President Trump's comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money," White House communications director Steven Cheung said on X.

The White House Rapid Response X account added: "He was saying the U.S. is fighting to STOP Iran from having the ability to take out LA and San Diego with a nuclear weapon — which they would if they had the chance." 

Cheung & Co. essentially are trying to con Americans into not believing a president they saw with their own eyes, speaking words they heard with their own ears. Trump is a rambling, unorganized, off-the cuff orator -- one who mixes braggadocio with thinly veiled falsehoods. The speech in Nebraska was pure Trump, and any effort by the Cheung bunch to change that is likely to fail.

Gov. Gavin Newsom drove home a deluge of outrage from California politicos, McHardy reports:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom led the outrage to Trump's remarks.

"After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," Newsom wrote. "He is deranged and dangerous."

Newsom's press office followed up with an even sharper condemnation: "Let's be clear: The President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America's largest cities. This is not normal. None of this is."

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also called the remarks dangerous, warning that Trump's words could have consequences for public safety.

"The President of the United States suggested that a foreign government attack Los Angeles," Bass said. "His statements against our city are dangerous and could potentially compromise our safety."

She added: "The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives." 

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria rejected the suggestion that his city could somehow be treated as an acceptable sacrifice.

"San Diego is not collateral damage," Gloria said. "We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay'. Keep our city out of your reckless war talk."

Kennedy family member and former first lady of California Maria Shriver also chipped in: "This should outrage every American. This is the president of the United States telling Iran to bomb American cities. I live in Los Angeles, but that's beside the point. Tomorrow it could be your city. My fellow Americans, this is not normal. This is not funny. This behavior should ring alarm bells for us all!" she said on X.

In the end, Trump's comments were a case of very poor timing, McHardy writes:

Trump's characterization of the Iran war as a "small price" to pay lands particularly hard when measured against the toll already being paid by U.S. service members on the ground.

Pentagon figures show 861 U.S. service members have been wounded and at least 19 killed. U.S. officials told The Washington Post that at least three additional deaths are missing from the tally.

The war in Iran has caused energy prices to spike. AAA figures show the average price of fuel at $4.37 a gallon, while diesel stands at $6.32.

Food prices have also risen, with ground beef up 7.2 percent over the past 12 months, while seafood, sugar, and coffee are all up around 6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.