Trump adviser emails show attempts to set up Russia meeting, report says - CBS News

Trump adviser emails show attempts to set up Russia meeting, report says

Three days after then-candidate Donald Trump appointed his foreign policy team in March 2016, adviser George Papadopoulos emailed seven campaign officials with the subject line "Meeting with Russian Leadership -- Including Putin," according to a report from The Washington Post.

Papadopoulos offered to facilitate "a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump," according to internal campaign emails read to The Post. The emails also expressed that Papadopoulos' Russian contacts welcomed the potential meeting.

The conversations are recorded as part of the more than 20,000 pages of documents forfeited this month to congressional committees by the Trump campaign after they were reviewed by White House and defense lawyers. The selection pertaining to Papadopoulos' emails were read to The Post by a person with access to them, and portions of the text were confirmed by two additional sources who also had access to the exchanges.

Special Counsel is using grand jury in Russia probe

Papadopoulos' proposed meeting set off a chain of concerned reactions from Trump campaign officials. Campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis suggested discussing with NATO allies before making any plans to meet with the Russians and adviser Charles Kubic expressed a variety of legal concerns, citing the Logan act, which prohibits citizens from participating in unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments.

Then-campaign manager Paul Manafort rejected one of Papadopoulos' requests in May 2016 for Mr. Trump to participate in a Russian meeting. At the time, the Trump campaign was focused on securing Mr. Trump's position as the Republican Party's candidate.

Eschewing the concerns of more experienced campaign advisers, Papadopoulos persisted in suggesting the meeting. Between March and September, he sent at least six requests for Mr. Trump or his team members to meet with Russian officials.

It is unclear from Papadopoulos' emails what benefit the Trump campaign would reap from meeting with the Russian government.

Three months following Papadopoulos' proposed meeting, Mr. Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Manafort met at Trump Tower in June 2016 with a Kremlin-connected lawyer after being promised potentially damaging information on former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. claimed that his father did not have knowledge of the meeting.

That meeting, in addition to several other Trump campaign communications, are now under the scrutiny of the Special Counsel led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller assigned to investigate potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In July 2016, then-senator and Trump foreign policy adviser Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak-- a meeting he has since disclosed in his recusal from any Russia-related investigation into the Trump campaign. In the same month, Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page spoke at an event at a university in Moscow, although he claims the speech was independent of the Trump campaign.

Following his previous efforts, Papadopoulos reached out to then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to explain that he was receiving "a lot of calls over the past month" about arranging a meeting between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government.

"Putin wants to host the Trump team when the time is right," Papadopoulos wrote on April 27, according to The Post.

A week later, Papadopoulos forwarded a note from the leader of the government-funded Russian International Affairs Council on to Lewandowski and others.

In the forwarded message, a senior official to the Russian International Affairs Council Ivan Timofeev explained that Russian foreign ministry officials welcomed a visit from Mr. Trump to Moscow. Timofeev also requested that the Trump campaign coordinate with the Russians to outline a formal letter regarding the meeting.

Clovis responded that, "There are legal issues we need to mitigate, meeting with foreign officials as a private citizen," and there is no apparent response from Lewandowski, according to The Post.

Papadopoulos later forwarded the same Timofeev message to Manafort.

"Russia has been eager to meet with Mr. Trump for some time and have been reaching out to me to discuss," he told Manafort, The Post reports.

"We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips," Manafort responded while forwarding the email to his deputy Rick Gates, who agreed with Manafort on the subject.

Timofeev confirmed that his organization had discussed a potential meeting with the Trump campaign.

"We discussed the idea informally as one of the opportunities for . . . dialogue between Russia and the U.S.," Timofeev said to The Post in an email. "RIAC often hosts meetings with prominent political figures and experts from the US and many other countries.," he said, noting that his organization would have been open to meeting with other presidential candidates' campaigns.

President Trump's recent aggressive threats against North Korea appear to have opened new fissures between the United States and South Korea - ABC News

President Trump's recent aggressive threats against North Korea appear to have opened new fissures between the United States and its most important ally against Kim Jong Un's regime – South Korea.

While the country’s new president Moon Jae-in has largely kept quiet and reaffirmed the strategic alliance with the U.S., his outspoken top aide, Moon Chung-in, openly criticized Trump for his bellicose language.

“This is very unusual. We do not expect that the president of the United States would make that kind of statement,” the South Korean ambassador-at-large for international security told ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz. “It is very worrisome for the president of the United States to fill [fuel] the crisis.”

ABC's Martha Raddatz interviews South Korean presidential adviser and ambassador-at-large Moon Chung-in about the Trump administration's response to the North Korean crisis.more +

Amb. Moon said the South Korean president – a member of the country's liberal party who was elected in May – wanted the U.S. president to tone down his rhetoric, a message he conveyed to Trump when they spoke on the phone last Monday.

But, 24 hours after that call, Trump vowed to unleash “fire and fury” on Kim Jong Un's regime, leaving President Moon’s administration “somewhat concerned,” his aide said. What followed was a week of escalating warnings from the U.S., culminating in the president's promise that America's military was “locked and loaded.

North Korea, of course, responded in kind, using the same pugnacious language its propaganda machine has fired off for years – but also specifically threatening to strike around Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific that is home to about 200,000 American citizens and a major U.S. military presence.

Kicking the threats made into higher gear the situation more dangerous, Amb. Moon said. He said both sides should rein it in, a rare rebuke from South Korea of its protector, the U.S.

“It is a chicken game, but I think what is needed right now is mutual restraint,” he said.

The disagreement between the Washington, D.C., and Seoul, however small, is exactly what North Korea wants, according to experts who say the outlaw regime in Pyongyang seeks to destroy the South Korean-American alliance and unify the two Koreas under its communist rule.

These aren’t the first disputes between the two allies.

Trump has angered some South Koreans with his demand that the longtime American ally pay up for U.S. defense, including the THAAD missile system. The weapon system, which could shoot down incoming ballistic missiles from the North, is controversial in South Korea because of its environmental as well as economic impact.

China, too, is concerned about the missile-defense system because of its advanced radar capabilities and has responded with a boycott of tourism to South Korea, impacting the country's businesses.

On a separate note, Trump has also argued that South Korea is cheating the U.S. through an unfair trade advantage, demanding that the two countries renegotiate trade agreements toward equalizing their trade deficit.

Amb. Moon criticized the Trump administration for what he said was a lack of clarity over North Korea. The White House has been knocked for sending mixed signals on North Korea, including on whether the U.S. supports talks with the North and whether it seeks regime change.

“I really don’t see a unified message. There is confusion,” the South Korean ambassador said. “We are very much confused. We think the American government has moved from ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama administration into strategic confusion.”

For eight years, Obama’s policy of “strategic patience” called for ignoring the Kim regime and seeking to increase its international isolation. The Trump administration has derided that strategy, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announcing on a trip to the region in February, “The era of ‘strategic patience’ is over.”

But it is unclear what exactly has replaced it. Tillerson has extended an olive branch to Kim Jong Un if he halts his ballistic missile tests, a position he reiterated earlier this month. But, in contrast, one week earlier, Vice President Mike Pence told The Wall Street Journal that the right strategy doesn’t involve “engaging North Korea directly.”

Amb. Moon is one of the leading advocates of South Korea's “sunshine policy,” which favors dialogue with North Korea and peaceful co-existence alongside its regime.

That sounds similar to Tillerson, who has said repeatedly that the Trump administration does not seek regime change in North Korea, even telling Kim Jong Un, “We are not your enemy.”

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, however, alluded to plans to eliminate the 33-year old leader, answering a question about regime change by saying, “I'm hopeful we will find a way to separate that regime from that [ballistic missile] system … The North Korean people, I'm sure, are lovely people and would love to see him go as well.”

Still, despite the differences, Amb. Moon said the U.S.-South Korean alliance was strong and would remain united against the North’s provocations. And, leaders from both administrations have remained in touch throughout the week, with the two national security advisers speaking Friday.

But with millions of South Koreans caught in the crosshairs, Moon suggested the country's leadership hopes to see a change in Trump's approach to North Korea: “We hope that President Trump will come up with the diplomatic skill to deal with the current crisis.”

Trump Will Get His Tax Cuts, Vast Majority of Economists Believe - Bloomberg

Trump Will Get His Tax Cuts, Vast Majority of Economists Believe

By Rich Miller and Catarina Saraiva

August 14, 2017, 6:00 PM GMT+10

Yet survey suggests the impact on economy will be limited

Fed seen raising interest rates, which may blunt stimulus

The pros who make their living forecasting the economy overwhelmingly expect President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans to push through tax cuts in time for next year’s congressional elections. They just don’t think that the reductions will do all that much to help the economy in 2018.

That’s the message from the latest Bloomberg monthly poll of economists, taken Aug. 4 to Aug. 9. Of 38 respondents, 29 expect Congress to pass tax-cut legislation by November 2018. The policy changes though are only expected to add 0.2 percentage point to the pace of gross domestic product expansion in 2018, according to the median figure from analysts penciling in an impact.

The Bloomberg survey forecasts growth in 2018 to be only slightly higher than this year -- 2.3 percent versus 2.1 percent, according to median projections from a broader pool of 71 economists. What’s more, analysts see the economy losing momentum in 2019, with expansion falling back to 2 percent, contrasting with the Trump administration’s forecast of a further pickup.

“I think they’ll do something and it will probably be somewhat stimulative in the short run,” said High Frequency Economics Chief U.S. Economist Jim O’Sullivan, referring to Trump and Congress. “I don’t expect a huge impact from it.”

Cuts to individual and corporate rates would fall short of what GOP leaders and the Trump administration have promised -- a once-in-a-generation permanent overhaul of the U.S. tax code, similar to what happened in 1986 under former President Ronald Reagan. If Republicans use a budget procedure for a tax bill to bypass Democratic opposition in the Senate, cuts would have to expire if they add to the long-term federal deficit.

The administration is betting that a mixture of corporate and individual tax cuts, along with other tax code changes, will eventually help lift annual economic growth to 3 percent, from the 2.1 percent average rate of the last eight years. In the first half of 2017, coinciding with Trump’s first six months in office, output rose at a 1.9 percent annual pace.

In order to win passage of a sweeping tax plan, the administration is holding a weekly, all-hands-on-deck meeting to coordinate strategy between the president and his allies, according to White House officials. The intensive discussions contrast with the at times haphazard approach the administration took in its failed attempt to repeal former President Barack Obama’s health-care law.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

White House officials have said they’re still committed to a permanent tax revamp, and the plan is to start hearings and a markup of a tax bill after Labor Day so a version can get through the House in October and the Senate in November. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have sparred in recent days over the amount of time needed to pass complicated legislation, such as repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Trump officials see their policies accelerating GDP growth to 2.7 percent in 2019, on its way to 3 percent within the following two years. Economists beg to differ.

“The type of stimulus being talked about is temporary,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at consultants IHS Inc. “It won’t deliver a sustained increase in growth.”

Texas Representative Kevin Brady, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Friday that Congress is on track to deliver a tax bill to Trump in 2017. Brady, in a Bloomberg Television interview, acknowledged the goal is “aggressive” but said there’s “urgency” in terms of the economy and U.S. competitiveness.

As the administration aims to add fuel to the economy, the Federal Reserve is expected to be withdrawing it, according to the poll. Economists forecast that the central bank will raise interest rates once more this year and three times in 2018, each time by a quarter percentage point.

That’s in line with Fed policy makers’ own projections but significantly below levels implied in financial markets.

“To keep the economy on a sustainable path of growth, we need to gradually reduce the monetary stimulus put in place during the recession and recovery,” San Francisco Fed President John Williams said in an Aug. 2 speech in Las Vegas. “If we delay too long, the economy will eventually overheat, causing inflation or other imbalances to emerge.”

Policy makers last increased borrowing costs in June, when they boosted the target range for the inter-bank federal funds rate to a range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent.

On Radical Islam, Trump Has Lost His Focus - Wall Street Journal

On Radical Islam, Trump Has Lost His Focus

There’s no ‘extreme vetting,’ no outreach to moderates, and too much coziness with Riyadh.By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Aug. 10, 2017 6:19 p.m. ET

Candidate Donald Trump vowed to take a fresh approach to Islamic extremism. He ditched the politically correct language of the Obama administration by declaring that we were mired in an ideological conflict with radical Islam, which he likened to the totalitarian ideologies America had defeated in the 20th century.

Mr. Trump also promised, as part of his immigration policy, to put in place an “extreme vetting” system that screens for Islamic radicalism. He vowed to work with genuine Muslim reformers and concluded with the promise that one of his first acts as president would be “to establish a commission on radical Islam.”

Mr. Trump has had more than six months to make good on these pledges. He hasn’t gotten very far. The administration’s first move—a hastily drafted executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries—backfired when it was repeatedly blocked in court.

Worse, subsequent moves have tended to run counter to Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges. Aside from a new questionnaire for visa applicants, there has been no clarity regarding the promised “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants and visitors. The promise to work with and empower authentic Muslim reformers has gone nowhere. The status of the promised commission on radical Islam remains unclear.

Perhaps most discouragingly, the administration’s Middle Eastern strategy seems to involve cozying up to Saudi Arabia—for decades the principal source of funding for Islamic extremism around the world.

Some administration critics have blamed the loss of focus on Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who became White House national security adviser in February. The most charitable formulation of this criticism is that military men who slogged their way through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have an aversion to the argument that we face an ideological opponent, as opposed to a series of military problems.

But I put the responsibility on Mr. Trump. With regard to radical Islam, he simply seems to have lost interest.

Is all hope of a revamped policy on radical Islam lost? Not necessarily. Prominent members of Congress—among them Sens. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) and Trent Franks (R., Ariz.)—understand that Islamism must be confronted with ideas as well as arms.

And this need not be a partisan issue. In the early years after 9/11, Sens. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) worked together to analyze the threat of Islamist ideology. Even President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, who visited 80 countries between 2009 and 2014, wrote in 2015: “In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence . . . Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.” In 2016, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) sounded the alarm over Islamist indoctrination in Pakistan, noting that thousands of schools funded with Saudi money “teach a version of Islam that leads . . . into an . . . anti-Western militancy.”

We have already seen one unexpected outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington this summer, over tightening sanctions on Russia in retaliation for President Vladimir Putin’s many aggressions.

I propose that the next item of cross-party business should be for Congress to convene hearings on the ideological threat of radical Islam. “Who wants America on offense, with a coherent and intelligible strategy?” Newt Gingrich asked in 2015, when he called for such hearings. Then as now, if the executive branch isn’t willing—if the president has forgotten his campaign commitments—lawmakers can and should step up to the plate.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and founder of the AHA Foundation.

North Korea : No imminent threat of nuclear war, says CIA chief - BBC News

North Korea : No imminent threat of nuclear war, says CIA chief

Media captionPresident Trump says North Korea will be in "big, big trouble" if it acts against Guam

There is no imminent threat of a nuclear war with North Korea, the top US intelligence official says, amid growing tensions between the countries.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo said Pyongyang was moving at an "ever-alarming rate" with its weapons programme and another missile test would not be surprising.

But he warned that Washington's "strategic patience" was over.

Both sides have used hostile rhetoric, with President Donald Trump threatening "fire and fury" on the North.

Mr Pompeo said he was "quite confident" that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un would "continue to try to develop" the country's weapons programme.

When asked about how close the North was to being able to deploy a nuclear weapon that could hit the US, he said: "They're closer".

What does Kim Jong-un really want?

What could North Korea do?

North Korea's neighbours consider risk of war

Mr Pompeo said he would not be surprised if the North tested another missile

In an interview with Fox News Sunday he added: "They're moving towards that [goal] at an ever-alarming rate."

Long-standing tensions over North Korea's nuclear programme worsened when it tested two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July. That prompted a new round of UN economic sanctions, which angered Mr Kim's regime.

Mr Trump said the US military was "locked and loaded", while Pyongyang has accused him of "driving" the Korean peninsula to the "brink of a nuclear war".

Reality Check: Are Trump's assumptions right?

Kim Jong-un, North Korea's supreme commander

From 'fire and fury' to 'locked and loaded'

Tuesday: "North Korea, best not make any more threats to the United States," Mr Trump tells reporters. "They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen"

Wednesday: Mr Trump boasts that the US nuclear arsenal is "more powerful than ever"

Thursday: He says that his "fire and fury" warning maybe "wasn't tough enough". Asked what would be tougher than fire and fury, he replies, "you'll see"

Friday: The US president warns that military solutions are "locked and loaded" should North Korea "act unwisely".

Trump administration's mixed messages

Who said it: Trump or Kim?

But Mr Pompeo denied that a threat of a nuclear conflict was imminent, saying: "I've heard folks talking about being on the cusp of a nuclear war. I've seen no intelligence that would indicate that we're in that place today."

Several countries have expressed concern with the escalation of the crisis. China, North Korea's only major ally, has urged restraint.

Media captionIt's not the first time North Korea has made threats against Guam

North Korea announced on Thursday plans to fire missiles near the US Pacific territory of Guam, even though there was no indication an attack is imminent.

In response, Mr Trump said North Korea should expect "big, big trouble" if anything happened to Guam.

The North Korean Threat Is Good for the Doomsday Prepper Business - TIME Business

---

The North Korean Threat Is Good for the Doomsday Prepper Business Posted: 11 Aug 2017 02:33 PM PDT President Trump’s inflammatory warnings to North Korea appear to have unsettled the stock market as fears of nuclear war likely triggered a global sell-off this week. But far away from Wall Street, the looming threat of the apocalypse is good business. Larry Hall, the project manager and owner of the Survival Condo Project, is one of the few who’s benefiting in the wake of tension between the U.S. and North Korea. The Project comprises of two underground silos equipped with nine-foot thick blast doors, diesel generators, a movie theater, indoor swimming pool and luxury condos in a complex somewhere around Salinas, Kansas. The exact location can’t be revealed due to “security reasons.” “The North Korea situation got us a 40% spike in inquires,” Hall said. On a monthly basis, he estimates the condos get about 300 inquires total. Over the past 10 days, he received roughly 200, he noted. “Ever since I started building the bunkers I’ve noticed that any time there’s a natural disaster that a bunch of people are worried about, we get a whole bunch of calls — the 2012 Mayan [calendar] thing, the Fukushima tsunami in Japan, major earthquakes, when Trump got elected.” Hall purchased the first of the abandoned silos in 2008 and converted them into fifteen-floor, nuclear bomb-resistant apartment complex by 2012. Every unit in the first silo was sold with the exception of one, he told the New Yorker in January, and that success has led to the development of a new condo, which is a little over halfway completed, he said. It could house up to 28 units depending if they sell full, half or penthouse apartments. “We thought it would take another year to sell it out by September, and we still have units available, but roughly 60% has sold out already,” he said. Because of the luxury amenities and advertised $3 million sales price, the Survival Condos attract affluent guests. “These are people you’d see on the Forbes list as the richest people in America,” Hall said. “There’s famous people that are definitely recognizable.” But the fortified homes aren’t just for dire situations like war with North Korea, he said. “We didn’t build this project for doomsday. We built if for Superstorm Sandy. 9.0 earthquakes. Economic collapse. Food shortages. It’s all stuff that can happen any time of the year, the whole range of the bell curve,” he explained. “The time to get a bunker is when you don’t need it,” Bell added. “You can’t just wait for a catastrophe happen.”

American Allies and Adversaries Urge Caution on North Korea - New york times

American Allies and Adversaries Urge Caution on North Korea

World leaders expressed alarm on Friday at the bellicose language emanating from North Korea and the United States, but also some support for President Trump, as they sought to allay their citizens’ fears of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

“I am convinced that a verbal escalation will not contribute to a resolution of the conflict,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told journalists in Berlin. “I also see no military resolution to the conflict.”

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said that Moscow was “very alarmed” by talk of pre-emptive military action by the United States. “Unfortunately, the rhetoric in Washington and Pyongyang is now starting to go over the top,” Mr. Lavrov said. “We still hope and believe that common sense will prevail.”

Among America’s allies, Australia was perhaps the most decisive in denouncing North Korea’s weapons program.

“We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States,” Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, said in a statement, adding that Australia and the United States were “joined at the hip.”

European leaders, whose summer holidays had already been interrupted by political uncertainty, and who are usually occupied by the threat from a resurgent Russia, were focused on the Korean Peninsula.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany criticized the escalation of the war rhetoric between the United States and North Korea.© Clemens Bilan/European Pressphoto Agency Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany criticized the escalation of the war rhetoric between the United States and North Korea.

Ms. Merkel said diplomacy offered the only way out of the crisis. She did not single out Mr. Trump — with whom she has had a frosty relationship — for criticism, but she made clear that his language was not helpful.

“Germany will be intensively involved in any possible nonmilitary solutions, but I consider an escalation of words to be the wrong answer,” she said.

Russia’s Defense Ministry on Friday denied reports on state-controlled media that air defense units in the Russian Far East had been placed on high alert. Russia shares a short border with North Korea, near Vladivostok, a Pacific port city.

Speaking at a youth forum east of Moscow, Mr. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said Moscow was “very worried” by fiery declarations in Washington and Pyongyang.

“Talk of the need to carry out a pre-emptive strike at North Korea, Pyongyang’s talk of the need to strike at Guam island at the U.S. military base, this has been continual, and we are very worried by this,” Mr. Lavrov said.

He said that Russia, which last weekend joined the United States and China in voting at the United Nations Security Council for severe new sanctions against Pyongyang, did not accept North Korea as a nuclear power. But he said it was up to the United States, as the more powerful country, to take the first step.

“I believe when it actually comes to a fight, the one that is stronger and smarter should take the first step away from the dangerous line,” Mr. Lavrov said. “Together with China, Russia offered a very reasonable plan providing for the ‘double freeze.’ Kim Jong-un freezes any nuclear tests, any ballistic missile launches, while the U.S. and South Korea freeze large-scale military exercises, which are constantly used by North Korea as an excuse to conduct tests.”

Russian experts worry that while the United States is unlikely to launch an all-out military attack on North Korea, it could make a limited strike. This, warned Vladimir I. Batyuk, of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies in Moscow, would shatter the united front that Russia, China and the United States displayed in the sanctions vote at the United Nations.

“If the Americans apply military force against the D.P.R.K., they will clearly lose whatever political support Moscow and Beijing have provided so far for U.S. policy toward North Korea,” Mr. Batyuk told Kommersant, a Russian newspaper, using the initials for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the formal name of the North.

Vladimir Frolov, an independent foreign policy specialist, contrasted Russia’s “passive” response to the risk of nuclear war near its eastern border with the “hyperactive Russian diplomacy on Syria and Ukraine.”

Writing in Republic, an online Russian journal, Mr. Frolov complained that Moscow was engaged in “geopolitical outsourcing,” leaving China and the United States to calm a grave danger on its own border. The approach “works for now, but is not a very good look for the Russian leadership,” he said.

The leaders of France, America’s oldest ally, and Britain, America’s closest ally, did not offer fresh comments on the tensions, but Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of the opposition Labour Party in Britain, said war would be catastrophic.

“The idea that anyone can contemplate using nuclear weapons at any stage against anybody is unthinkable,” Mr. Corbyn, who has advocated that Britain give up its nuclear weapons, told Sky News. “There is no such thing as an isolated nuclear attack. It will kill millions on both sides of the Korean border and, of course, in neighboring countries.”

Damian Green, Britain’s first secretary of state, said during a visit to Scotland that “the sensible way for people to proceed is to work through the U.N. process.”

He added, “That’s what the British government has been supporting and will continue to support.”

Several allies of the United States, while expressing dismay about the heated language, said Washington was correct to condemn North Korea’s weapons program.

“The international society cannot allow North Korea to further develop its nuclear and ballistic missile program,” Denmark’s foreign minister, Anders Samuelsen, said in a statement. “This would enable North Korea to terrorize the region — and beyond — even more. We are obviously not going to accept that threat. It must be stopped.”

Mr. Samuelsen added: “What we are witnessing at the moment is an escalation of rhetoric on North Korea. One could argue about the choice of words, but it’s important that North Korea accepts that the international society is putting its foot down.”

New Zealand’s foreign minister, Gerry Brownlee, re-emphasized the need for a strong diplomatic response, saying any pre-emptive action would be a mistake.

“Committing to an aggressive response now — while encouraging all involved to avoid escalation — is not a position we want to take,” Mr. Brownlee said, according to local reports.

Tom Plant, director of proliferation and nuclear policy at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said European experts would generally agree that “a diplomatic resolution is the only feasible and sensible resolution” to the tensions.

Mr. Plant said he hoped that, behind the scenes, diplomats from the two sides were meeting in private to defuse the crisis.

“There are still very competent people in the State Department and in the White House capable of suggesting and conducting that course of action,” Mr. Plant said, adding that he was not confident that Mr. Trump himself would pursue such a course.

Tom Tugendhat, a former British military officer and the new head of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, compared the situation to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

“Kennedy and Khrushchev showed that nuclear tensions can be unwound by measured and thoughtful action,” Mr. Tugendhat told journalists. “I look forward to the U.S. and North Korea working with regional partners, including China, to reduce tensions and end the nuclear brinkmanship.”