Russian State TV Network Mocks Donald Trump's Attack on Putin
President Donald Trump's social media attacks on Vladimir Putin have prompted derision and a warning from Russian state media.
Trump took to Truth Social to condemn Putin following last weekend's Russian missile and drone barrage on Ukraine which he followed up with a post that said the Russian leader is "playing with fire."
But the state-run propaganda outlet RT said Trump changes his opinion frequently, while a Russian state television anchor warned that the U.S. president should keep in mind that Moscow can "destroy the world several times over."
Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment.
Russian state media have a complicated relationship with Trump. Kremlin propagandists were initially uncertain whether he would be good for Moscow, but since he returned to the Oval Office, they have welcomed his rhetoric against Kyiv and reluctance to impose sanctions as evidence he could serve the Kremlin's interests.
Independent Russian outlet Agentstvo reported how Russian state media ignored Trump's jibe that Putin was "crazy" following Russia's weekend bombardment of Ukraine. Now Kremlin propagandists seem happy to condemn him.
Given the tightly controlled nature of Russian state TV, this suggests that they have been given the go ahead by Russian authorities to go after Trump as he grows impatient with Putin's stalling over peace talks.
Trump posted on Truth Social that Putin was "playing with fire" and that if it were not for him "lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia," without specifying further.
The broadside came only two days after Trump called the Kremlin leader "absolutely CRAZY" following a combined missile and drone attack launched by Russia on Kyiv and other parts of Ukraine over the weekend.
The Kremlin responded to the first jibe as being down to "emotional overload" and while Russian state channels appeared to sidestep Trump's comments, Kremlin propagandists reacted strongly to the U.S. leader's second criticism.
RT posted on X about Trump's claim Russia had avoided bad consequences thanks to him that it was a message which "leaves little room for misinterpretation, until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning."
Putin ally and anchor on the Russia 1 channel, Vladimir Solovyov, said on Tuesday that Trump lives inside an "information bubble" and "does not even ask basic questions."
Moscow has been preparing for a conflict with NATO Solovyov said and so when Trump suggests that something bad can happen to Russia, "let me remind you, we can destroy the world several times over" adding there would be "no meekness" from Moscow.
It is unclear what Trump's Truth Social posts mean for his intentions towards Putin, especially after his absence from Russian talks with Ukraine in Istanbul this month, which failed to move the dial in peace negotiations and the U.S. president's warning he would walk away from the process if there is no progress.
Retired U.S. Vice Admiral Robert Murrett, professor of practice at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, told Newsweek there is little if any evidence that Moscow is interested in terminating its military offensive against Ukraine, or is willing to retreat from its maximalist demands.
This includes full control of five Ukrainian territories, no significant security guarantees or future NATO membership for Kyiv, and the removal of Volodymyr Zelensky as Ukraine's president.
Elina Beketova, fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), told Newsweek that she did not believe the U.S. will simply step back and that strategic pressure is being applied to both parties, "with a constant juggling of carrot-and-stick tactics."
U.S. President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "If it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia..and I mean REALLY BAD. [Putin's] playing with fire!"
Russian broadcaster RT on X: "President Trump warns Moscow, claiming Russia avoided 'REALLY BAD' consequences only thanks to him. Putin doesn't realize... he's playing with fire!' — Trump's message leaves little room for misinterpretation. Until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning."
Russian TV anchor Vladimir Solovyov: "Let me remind you of something. We can destroy the world several times over."
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump is considering imposing sanctions against Russia this week, although no final decision has been made and his social media posts, and Russia's reaction to them, will add to anticipation.
Related Articles
Ukraine Sounds Warning Over Russian Troops Massing at Front LineZelensky Makes Trump, Putin ProposalThe Sanctions Era Is Quietly Ending. The West Isn't Ready | OpinionPutin Ally Warns Donald Trump of World War III
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's memorandum proposes ceasefire across land, air, and sea, NYT reports
Ukraine's proposed memorandum to Russia includes provisions for a ceasefire on land, in the air, and at sea, to be monitored by international partners, the New York Times (NYT) reported on May 30, citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official. Ukraine has submitted its document to the Russian side ahead of a second round of peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow that may take place in Istanbul on June 2, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said on May 28. The points reported by NYT echo Ukraine's and its partners' long-standing call for a comprehensive, unconditional ceasefire on land, in the air, and at sea for at least 30 days — a proposal Russia has consistently ignored. The peace talks in Istanbul also concluded on May 16 with no agreement between the two sides on a ceasefire. Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Serhii Kyslytsia, who was present at the Istanbul talks, said that Russia's negotiating team in Istanbul has repeatedly stated that "an unconditional ceasefire is categorically unacceptable." Moscow has proposed June 2 as the date for the next round of talks with Ukraine, despite escalating its attacks on the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on May 29 that the Russian delegation, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, is prepared to present the ceasefire memorandum to the Ukrainian side and provide necessary clarifications during the next Istanbul meeting. Presidential Office Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak said that Ukraine is ready to hold the new round of talks next week but insists on receiving the memorandum in advance. Reuters reported that Putin's conditions for ending Russia's war against Ukraine include a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members, lifting of some sanctions, and Ukraine's neutral status, among other demands. Read also: Infighting around EU rearmament undermines grand ambitions for European defense We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI. "We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work." Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office. Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI. One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26. Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work. "They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process." The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities. Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines. Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers. "Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs." The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research. Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%. There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965. In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%. The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps. "It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
