View from Russia: Moscow celebrates Trump-Putin call as step towards normalising relations
Donald Trump's phone call with Vladimir Putin has been hailed by politicians and commentators in Moscow as a success, and a step towards normalising relations between the two superpowers.
The leaders spoke for 90 minutes on Wednesday in a call the Kremlin described as 'very important', discussing a path to peace in the war in Ukraine.
Dmitriy Peskov, Putin's spokesman, said: 'The current (US) administration, as we understand it, holds the view that everything should be done to stop the war and achieve peace.'
Leonid Slutsky, the head of the international committee at the Russian State Duma, said the phone call 'has broken through the anti-Russian blockade of the West and launched the process of defrosting Russian-American contacts'.
It was noted that the two leaders had invited each other to visit their countries. However, they are more likely to meet in a third country, such as Saudi Arabia.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's powerful security council, argued the call proved that any Western hopes of defeating Russia would never be achieved.
'There is not and cannot be a main country and a senior ruler of the planet,' Medvedev said. 'This lesson should be learned by the arrogant American elites.'
Medvedev, the Kremlin's hawkish mouthpiece, blamed Joe Biden's administration for leading the world to the 'brink of apocalypse'.
It was the US who unilaterally decided to be the 'country-in-chief on our planet' and began a 'hybrid war against our people', he added.
'Impossible to bring us to our knees'
Medvedev, a former president of Russia, said none of the US leaders of the past tried to sanction Soviet leaders during crises and that they 'kept lines of communication open'.
He added: 'It is impossible to bring us to our knees. And the sooner our opponents realise this, the better.'
Vladimir Solovyov, Putin's chief propagandist on Russian TV, also celebrated the call during his show on Wednesday, saying it ended the 'narrative' about Russian isolation.
Opening the programme, Solovyov said Mr Trump did not mention anything about Russia being aggressive, provocative, or unjust. He added the US president did not mention 'anything scary or anything about military criminals', and that he spoke very respectfully and calmly.
Russia-US relations hit rock bottom in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, and the US implemented economic and personal sanctions in response to Russia's actions. Mr Biden refused to talk with Putin, saying he had 'no good reason' to.
Peskov, however, noted that the Trump settlement's future is unclear unless the 'first results of the joint work' are seen.
On Thursday, Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia's foreign intelligence service, said the work would be continued at the level of the heads of the state agencies, including law enforcement and special services.
'The order has been given,' Naryshkin said.
'Goodwill' exchange of prisoners
On Wednesday, Russia released an American schoolteacher, Marc Fogel, who had spent three years in custody. The White House said that, in exchange, it would release Alexander Vinnik, a Russian Bitcoin criminal.
According to reports, the prisoner swap included three other people who Belarus must free.
It has been described by analysts as a goodwill gesture, laying the ground for cooperation.
The excitement in the parliament and the media was not shared by Mikhail Zvinchuk, a pro-war blogger known as Rybar, who is wanted in the US with a $10 million reward for his capture.
Zvinchuk pointed out that the sides' positions are different, and it is too early to be confident about the meeting between the leaders.
'The outcome of the possible negotiations will be determined by the sides' capabilities to continue the combat operations,' said Zvinchuk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's policies could have a major impact on your credit score. Here's how
Your support helps us to tell the story Read more Support Now From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference. Read more President Donald Trump returned to the White House this January with a flurry of sweeping orders – some of which may impact Americans' credit scores. Trump and his allies are set on enacting his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which would add trillions to the country's already sizable deficit and drive up interest rates, producing large-scale macroeconomic repercussions. Financial markets have already warned of the rising debt, with Moody's cutting its pristine 'Aaa' U.S. credit rating, which could take even further hits if the deficit continues to rise. To help pay for the bill, Republicans are looking to make cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs, without which, more Americans are likely to go into medical debt. Some 15 million Americans with medical debt may suffer even greater consequences of Trump's policies after his administration paused a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would ban the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports. As of now, medical debt can be included in credit scores and a significant amount of medical bills can drag down a credit score. A lower credit score means a person appears to be a bigger risk to a lender, such as a bank. That could lead to higher interest rates on loans, such as for a car or a home. open image in gallery President Donald Trump's spending bill will have far-reaching macroeconomic repercussions and likely impact Americans' credit scores. ( AP ) A Biden-era rule would have removed $49 million in medical debt from credit score records, but new leadership at CFPB appointed by Trump is attempting to reverse its course, NPR reported. In addition to the complete switch in its stance, the CFPB joined forces with plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit trying to stop the Biden ban. The rule has since been stuck in limbo, with Judge Sean Jordan from Texas' Eastern District federal court twice ordering a stay, delaying the rule's new start date until the end of July. The outcome of the lawsuit will have tremendous financial implications for millions of Americans whose medical debt has negatively impacted their credit scores. Meanwhile, consumer advocates have been speaking out on behalf of the medical debt rule, worried abandoning it would take away necessary consumer protections. "I'm disappointed for the 15 million Americans who have medical bills on their credit reports and have to suffer the consequences of poor credit scores because of it," Patricia Kelmar, senior director of health care campaigns at the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, told USA Today. open image in gallery Trump-appointed CFPB leaders is looking to reverse a Biden-era rule that would ban the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports. ( Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ) In the lawsuit filed in April, CFPB along with plaintiffs, the Consumer Data Industry Association and the Cornerstone Credit Union League, asked the judge to abandon the medical debt rule 'because it exceeds the bureau's statutory authority.' "We believe that Congress is the only one who can act on this and determine whether or not it can be on the credit report," Dan Smith, CEO and president of the Consumer Data Industry Association, told NPR. "Our intention here is to protect the credit reporting system. To ensure that it is as complete and accurate as possible," he said. In the lawsuit, the groups also note that the three largest credit bureaus - Experian, TransUnion and Equifax – no longer list paid medical debts, unpaid medical debts less than a year old and medical debts less than $500. Americans' credit scores may also see some changes thanks to a proposal from Trump that would cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent – a significant reduction from the current average interest rate of about 21 percent. Lower rates mean people would be able to pay back credit card bills quicker, and improve their credit scores by having less debt. The proposal was touted as a solution to the debt many Americans owe due to high credit card interest rates, Newsweek reported. open image in gallery Americans held $45 billion more in credit card debt in 2024 than in 2023. ( Getty Images/iStockphoto ) Americans held $1.21 trillion in credit card debt as of December 2024 – an increase of $45 billion from September 2024, per New York Fed data. Data also shows that 7.18 percent of U.S. credit card debt is in serious delinquency, likely causing many credit scores to take a serious downward spiral. Following Trump's campaign promise, Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Ny) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla) introduced legislation to cap credit card interest rates at a maximum of 10 percent. The measure would take the financial burden away from consumers, especially those with high-interest debt. The cap would last until January 1, 2031, according to the bill.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Political pawns': Morale among California National Guard and Marines deployed in LA is underwater, report claims
The 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 US Marines sent to Los Angeles in response to the ongoing anti-immigration raid protests are reportedly suffering from low morale, according to members of the veterans community, amid allegations of a chaotic initial deployment and widespread concerns of the military being drafted into domestic law enforcement. 'Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the Marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that Marines are apolitical,' Marine Corps veteran Janessa Goldbeck, who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, told The Guardian. 'Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where Marines were necessary.' 'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn't the kind of national security we signed up for,' added Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative in an interview with the outlet. Controversy has followed the deployment since President Trump first federalized the California National Guard and ordered the state troops into Los Angeles on Saturday and a battalion of Marines was activated two days later. California has sued the Trump administration over deploying the Guard, alleging the decision has 'caused real and irreparable damage' to both Los Angeles and the state's larger sovereignty. Governor Gavin Newsom has also accused the White House of sending in thousands of troops without adequate provisions or training, sharing photos obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle of guardsmen sleeping head-to-foot on bare floors. 'You sent your troops here without fuel, food, water or a place to sleep,' he wrote on X. 'Here they are — being forced to sleep on the floor, piled on top of one another.' 'This is what happens when the president and (Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth) demand the National Guard state assets deploy immediately with no plan in place … (and) no federal funding available for food, water, fuel and lodging,' a source involved in the deployment told the Chronicle of conditions during the early stages. 'This is really the failure of the federal government. If you're going to federalize these troops, then take care of them.' U.S. Northern Command later said the photo showed soldiers who weren't current on a mission in what were only temporary accommodations due a 'fluid security situation.' When asked for comment, a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command pointed to a website for Task Force 51, which is coordinating the protection mission in Los Angeles. 'The Soldiers and Marines have contracting for billeting, latrines, showers, handwashing stations, food service, full laundry service, bulk ice, and bulk fuel,' the website reads, in regards to troop conditions. 'While awaiting fulfillment of the contract, Soldiers and Marines have adequate shelter, food, and water.' Federal officials say the military members in Los Angeles will not be formally arresting protesters, though they might temporarily detain individuals to stop threats or interference against federal agents, and they have authorization to provide security to federal buildings and operations. U.S. Northern Command shared a photo Thursday showing Marines training in non-lethal tactics with riot shields, and the military has said the troops could deploy within the next 48 hours. President Trump has faced larger criticisms for allegedly politicizing the military in response to the protests, including upset over a campaign-rally style speech about the crisis in front of jeering troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Base officials reportedly screened the crowd for those who disagreed with Trump and asked them to alert their superiors so others could be put in their place during the speech.
South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Mr Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Mr Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer when Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Mr Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. Representative Mike Turner asked: 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' As Mr Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Mr Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Mr Hegseth responded. Time and again, officials pressed Mr Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. 'You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead,' Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said on Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Mr Hegseth danced around the direct question from Mr Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Mr Smith said. Mr Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with representatives. He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Mr Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed. That became a quick trap, as Mr Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Mr Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Mr Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Mr Moulton then asked Mr Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Mr Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president'.
