'Kyiv should be ours': Russians boosted after Putin-Trump call
A day after Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump spoke by phone on Ukraine, showering each other with compliments, Russian home-maker Anastasia had one wish: for Moscow to finish what it started in 2022.
In the fourth spring of Moscow's devastating offensive, which has killed tens of thousands, diplomatic movement in recent days has given Russians a boost in confidence that victory -- in some shape or another -- is approaching.
In the call with Trump on Monday, the Russian leader once again brushed off calls for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, as demanded by the West and Kyiv.
Despite that, the US president said the "tone" of the conversation was "excellent".
Russia controls a fifth of Ukraine and holds an upper hand on the battlefield.
"I am rooting for our country, I love it very much and I just want Vladimir Vladimirovich (Putin) to just, after all, get justice done," Anastasia told AFP in the Moscow suburbs, echoing official language calling for the defeat of Ukraine.
Not knowing how or when it would happen, the 40-year-old mother, who declined to give her surname, said she was getting impatient.
"I don't want my children to have to solve this issue. Let's decide it here and now."
But she had no trust in Trump -- who she said is "just a businessman" who "wants money and nothing else" -- and worried the "Anglo-Saxons" will trick Russia.
Putin has shown no sign of scaling down his maximalist demands for ending the Ukraine conflict, seeking little short of capitulation from Kyiv.
- 'Final offensive' -
At talks in Istanbul last week, Russian negotiators demanded Ukraine abandon territory it still controls in the east and south.
Russia also wants Ukraine barred from NATO and for Western military support to end.
Putin has repeatedly called for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to be removed from office.
Confidence was tinged with uncertainty in Moscow after the Putin-Trump call, in which the Russian leader floated a vague "memorandum" that would outline demands for a peace deal and Trump said Kyiv and Moscow would begin talks swiftly.
Many in Moscow did not know what Trump or Putin meant.
Asked what her main feeling was following the talks, pensioner Sofiya said: "Uncertainty."
"It's interesting what will happen to us, not only to our families, but our country," said the 72-year-old, who declined to give her surname.
Like many, Sofiya saw no real progress from last week's talks -- the first direct negotiations on the conflict in more than three years.
"I don't know how to express this, but I would like calm and peace," she said.
Moscow has ramped up military censorship amid its Ukraine offensive, threatening years in prison for those who criticise or question the campaign.
Zelensky said Russia was not serious about talks and is trying to "buy time" to continue its offensive.
Putin was indeed hoping to advance more on the ground and will not "miss the opportunity" for a summer offensive, said Russian analyst Konstantin Kalachev.
He called the Trump call a "tactical victory" for the Russian leader.
"Russia is hoping to push them (Ukrainian forces) this summer," Kalachev said.
"There will be no peace, while Russia has not yet used the option of a final offensive," he said, highlighting the prospect of a summer ground campaign.
- 'No other way' -
Though Putin said both sides should be ready to make "compromises", few were forthcoming from the Kremlin or on the streets of Moscow.
"I believe that Odesa, Kharkiv, Nikolayev (Mykolaiv), Kyiv should be ours," said another pensioner, 70-year-old Marina, who also declined to give her surname, reeling off a string of Ukrainian cities that Russia has not formally claimed.
Russian state TV said Moscow's negotiators threatened in Istanbul to seize more land if Ukraine does not pull its troops out of the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions that Moscow claims to have annexed.
"If the four regions will not be recognised in the nearest future, the next time there will be six regions," said state TV presenter Yevgeny Popov.
Moscow's chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky later evoked Russia's 21-year war with Sweden in the 18th century, hinting Moscow was ready for a long fight.
Marina, too, said she would support Russia to fight on, even as thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed.
"Of course, it is a big shame that our people are also dying," she told AFP. "But there is no other way."
bur/jhb
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
30 minutes ago
- Business Insider
World Bank restores funding to Uganda despite controversial anti-gay law
The World Bank has restored funding to Uganda nearly two years after suspending new financing in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The World Bank has resumed funding to Uganda after a two-year suspension instigated by the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The Bank justified resumption through effective mitigation measures within ongoing Ugandan projects to limit potential adverse impacts. While Uganda's AHA remains unchanged, the decision signals shifting geopolitical dynamics by international financial institutions. The World bank in 2023, suspended funding to Uganda after the country's parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), saying the law contradicted its values. The legislation sparked international condemnation for imposing severe penalties on LGBTQ+ individuals, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. According to Reuters, the World Bank said it had developed a working relationship with Ugandan authorities to implement strong measures aimed at mitigating potential harm resulting from the law. " We have now determined the mitigation measures rolled out over the last several months in all ongoing projects in Uganda to be satisfactory," " Consequently, the Bank has prepared three new projects in sectors with significant development needs – social protection, education, and forced displacement/refugees, which have been approved by the Board." said a Bank spokesperson, who requested anonymity. The decision to resume funding signals a shift in the Bank's engagement strategy with Uganda and raises broader questions about how global institutions navigate the tension between promoting human rights and maintaining development partnerships. While there has been no indication of changes to Uganda's legal position on LGBTQ+ rights, the World Bank's renewed support may reflect wider geopolitical and economic considerations in the region. How the world reacted to Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), signed into law in May 2023, imposed sweeping criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, including life imprisonment and, in cases of so-called 'aggravated homosexuality,' the death penalty. The law drew swift and widespread condemnation from Western governments, human rights organizations, and international institutions, and was widely regarded as one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Beyond the World Bank's suspension of funding, several Western governments issued strong rebukes and implemented measures affecting Uganda's international standing. The United States led the diplomatic response, with the Biden administration describing the law as 'a tragic violation of universal human rights.' In turn, Washington imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials believed to be involved in the legislation and initiated a review of its financial assistance to the country. The European Union also condemned the law, emphasizing its incompatibility with international human rights norms and warning that it would reassess its relationship with Uganda. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the legislation 'shocking' and 'discriminatory,' urging its immediate repeal. Outside of official government action, Western-based human rights organizations, NGOs, and civil society groups amplified the global outcry. Advocacy campaigns were launched to pressure the Ugandan government, while some multinational corporations voiced concern about the law's potential impact on employees and business operations in the country. Despite this international backlash, Ugandan officials have welcomed the recent restoration of World Bank funding, portraying it as an endorsement of the country's sovereignty and development agenda.
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
