Donald Trump has joined Nato in discussing rules that could make it easier to shoot down Russian fighter jets.

Talks have focused on devising a single set of guidelines for engaging with enemy aircrafts.

Defence chiefs have called for Russian jets carrying ground-attack missiles over allied airspace to be potential targets.

The “weaponry and trajectory” of any aircraft would be the key factors for a perceived threat, the Telegraph reports.

The plans are expected to be discussed by defence ministers at a Nato meeting on Wednesday with Europe facing increasing threats from Russian planes and drones.

Nato leaders, alongside Donald Trump, have called for shooting down Russian aircraft that breach Nato’s airspace.

However, some member states fear the move could escalate tensions with Moscow.

It comes as the US President again criticised Russian President Vladimir Putin in comments to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, saying the Russian leader is simply unwilling to end his war in Ukraine.

“Look, I’m very disappointed because Vladimir and I had a very good relationship, probably still do,” Mr Trump said.

“He’s gotta really settle this war. And you know they have long lines waiting for gasoline in Russia right now… And all of the sudden his economy is going to collapse.”

US General and Nato’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich has privately asked for a “unified, single air and missile defence system” in a bid to streamline responses to future Russian provocations.

Many member states operate with varying rules of engagement, however, the move is seen as a way to counteract this.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• Migrants to require A-level English to work in UK under Labour immigration crackdown
• Nigel Farage set for biggest EVER Commons majority as bombshell mega-poll projects Labour disaster
• Epping Council in crunch legal fight to block migrant hotel after asylum seekers forced on community

Some states require pilots to make visual confirmation of perceived threats before they can take action.

Others can act based off radar data.

It has prompted private discussions over what action can be taken when Russian jets enter allied territory.

Nato held two emergency Article 4 meetings last month after separate Russian provocations in Estonia and Poland.

Three Russian MiG fighter jets crossed into Estonian airspace and Italian F-35s were scrambled to intercept them.

The jets were ordered to leave before being escorted to the international border in what has been described as a “textbook” response.

Mr Grynkewich found the jets did not reach the threshold of posing a threat to Nato – if they had done, an armed response would have followed.

Intelligence assessments found the jets were equipped with air-to-air missiles.

But, they did not make any attempt to lock on to the Nato fighters when they arrived on scene.

A decision on whether to engage with the Russian jets could have been made if they were carrying air-to-surface missiles or if they were on a more aggressive flight path, Nato insiders have suggested.

Mr Grynkewich also faces a challenge of bringing together three separate air-defence missions on Nato’s eastern flank.

With varying national rules of engagement, it has left the US General needing to manage the situation carefully.

“Trying to create a more unified, single, integrated air and missile defence system makes sense… in order for him to do that, he needs to get rid of as many national caveats as possible,” a senior Nato diplomat told The Telegraph.

“We all have to look sharply and critically at whether those caveats still make sense.”

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte said discussions would “further strengthen our deterrence and defence posture, including in light of recent incidents”.

Henry Jackson Society Director Alan Mendoza told GB News that making Russia pay would be the right move.

Pressed on whether repurposing Russian cash would set a precedent for the state seizure of assets, Mr Mendoza said: “You could take that view, or you could take the view that using Russian state money to buy weapons for Ukraine is a much better outcome than using British money.

“I know where I’d sit on that one.”

He added: “Of course you’ll note there are interesting legal pitfalls here hence why the Belgians want a guarantee.

“It’s complicated, but why allow the Russians to sit on their oil money? It’s not as if they earned it in any way.”