Shock moment Russian teen TikToker threatens to have her Putin official mum send online haters to WAR sparking outrage
THIS is the shocking moment a Russian teenage TikTok star threatens to have her pro-Putin mum send haters to the bloody frontline.
Russian mayor Yulia Shevtsova was left humiliated after her 19-year-old influencer daughter sparked fury with her boastful claims.
5
5
Ksenia Shevtsova triggered outrage after bragging to critics on TikTok: "Are you out of your mind, dude? Do you know who my mum is?"
She said in the viral footage: "The mayor! We'll send you to the [war]."
The TikTok video showed pictures and footage of the influencer with her politician parent.
In the short clip, she made the ominous suggestion that she could have her online trolls sent to mad Vlad's bloody war.
The Vologa region mayor apologised for her daughter's crude remarks.
Cringeworthy footage showed the Putin mouthpiece mum fighting to keep her job as a politician.
She said: "Our children make mistakes by stupidity, through inexperience, but it is necessary to realise and correct these mistakes in time."
Clearly embarrassed, she explained: "That is why I had a serious conversation with my child."
The mayor accused foes of exploiting her daughter to harm the mayor's political reputation.
She defended her position, saying: "There is nothing scarier than using children as political weapons."
Russia unleashes 'war's biggest drone attack' as Putin defies Trump's calls to 'stop bloodbath' & vows to keep fighting
The Kremlin mouthpiece said: "I love my motherland and will continue to work for the good of our territory so no one doubts the sincerity of my words."
She also paid tribute to Russian soldiers who have been killed in Putin's bloody war.
The mum said she bowed to "the men who are now in the [war] zone of special military operation" who defend "our Motherland at the cost of their lives".
But furious Russians poured out on social media to blast the mayor and her tasteless daughter.
One critic from the Nyuksensky district said: "Hundreds of thousands of young men died and were left crippled!
"Personally, I also find it unpleasant to see this.
The local continued to blast the TikTok star, saying: "I think that this girl should at least apologise publicly."
5
5
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Fascinating reason why America's bluest city could elect a REPUBLICAN mayor
Republicans have a shock chance to win the New York City mayoral election for the first time in 20 years as Democratic rivals turn on each other. Controversial vigilante group leader Curtis Silwa will take on Zohran Mamdani in the November 4 election after the socialist upstart won Tuesday's primary. Silwa lost to incumbent mayor Eric Adams in a landslide four years ago, but believes he has a much better chance this time after the bitter Mamdani-Cuomo faceoff. Sore losers Adams and Andrew Cuomo are expected to contest the election as independents after failing to win the Democratic nomination. Their presence on the ballot could split the left-wing vote so badly that Silwa could sneak in first if NYC's Republicans all show up to the polls. 'I'm the only Republican and I start with 30 per cent of the vote, minimum, so if I go up a few percentage points, I'm mayor,' he told the Daily Mail. 'All you have to do is do the math.' Mamdani, 33, came from obscurity to outgun Cuomo with a well-organized ground game blanketing the entire city with enthusiastic canvassers and slick marketing. Usually winning the primary would be all it took to become mayor in deep-blue NYC that hasn't elected a Republican since Michael Bloomberg in 2005, and even he only switched parties to avoid a crowded Democratic primary. But this time Mamdani will have to overwhelm his far more experienced rivals a second time as they refuse to go quietly. Another wildcard in the race is former assistant US attorney Jim Walden who is also running as an independent. No polls simulating a battle royale between Adams, Cuomo, Mamdani, and the rest of the field have been conducted. Two polls by Emerson College pitting Cuomo against Adams, Silwa, and Walden showed him easily winning, and the same if he was swapped for Mamdani. Other polls with an even wider field by the Manhattan Institute showed similar results, but none included both Cuomo and Mamdani. Silwa heads the vigilante group Guardian Angels, who in their distinctive red jackets and berets claims to foil crime on NYC streets. He is unsurprisingly running on a law and order platform, pledging to hire 7,000 extra NYPD officers and repeal Cuomo's bail reforms, which he claims let too many violent criminals back onto the streets. Silwa also plans a big effort to reduce fare evasion on the subway and prioritize prosecuting suspects accused of crime against women and minorities on it. Teams of social workers would also roam the subway network to assist homeless and mentally ill people and get them into shelters. He also hopes to address NYC's housing shortage by changing zoning rules and building more density outside Manhattan. Vegan Silwa also believed his animal-friendly views and policy of banning shelters from killing strays would give him an edge. 'It's an icebreaker with so many people who would never vote for a Republican,' he said. Silwa said Mandami's rivals failed because they didn't understand the changing mood and demographics in NYC, and what young people want. 'What Cuomo and Adams don't understand because they are baby boomers, is we're the minority now,' he said. 'This is the 1960s all over again, they can't figure out why you growing your hair long, why are you smoking weed? Why are you going to anti-war protests? 'Mandami represents that counterculture. 'I'm used to dealing with young people, I understand how they think, I understand what motivates them 'You will lose the millennials if you make it us versus them, and they are the majority now of the population.' Silwa said Cuomo 'self-destructed' because he was out of touch. 'They're not in the neighborhoods, they're not in the streets, they spend all their time up in the suites. That was Andrew Cuomo's problem,' he said. Mamdani took a commanding 43.51 per cent to 36.42 per cent lead over Cuomo in the first round of counting with Brad Lander in third with 11.31 per cent. As no candidate has more than half the vote, the ranked choice voting system will kick in to decide the winner based on preferences. But Mamdani's lead was big enough for Cuomo to concede the primary to his rival late on Tuesday night. Cuomo, in a speech to supporters, said Mamdani 'won' and that 'we are going to take a look and make some decisions. Tonight is his night'. All three Democrats have serious baggage that could depress turnout among left-leaning voters and further aid Silwa's chances. Adams didn't even contest the primary after polls showed he was certain to lose, and instead declared he would run as an independent from the outset. Goodwill from his rousing 2021 victory quickly evaporated after he was charged with corruption in September for allegedly receiving illegal campaign contributions from the Turkish Government in exchange for influence. He was charged with with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, federal program bribery and accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. Adams was also accused of defrauding New York City taxpayers of $10 million through allegedly fraudulent campaign financing. 'What NYC deserves is a mayor who's proud to run on his record - not one who ran from his record, or one who has no record,' Adams said after Mamdani's victory. 'We deserve a mayor who will keep driving down crime, support our police, fight anti-Semitism, and stand up for working-class New Yorkers. It's time to unite.' Donald Trump forced ordered prosecutors to dismiss the charges earlier this year, around the time Adams suddenly began vocally backing the president's migrant crackdown. Despite avoiding possible federal prison, Adams' electoral support evaporated and he had virtually no chance of getting the nomination. Silwa mocked Adams as being in Trump's pocket after he bailed him out. 'The only reason he's not in jail is because of President Donald Trump,' he said. 'He's a eunuch now. When President Trump calls and he says, Eric, I want you to jump, he asks how high.' Cuomo, who won three terms as New York governor, resigned in 2021 after a report from the state attorney general concluded he sexually harassed 11 women. He denied any wrongdoing and later said he regretted caving to pressure and stepping down. Cuomo's career was raised from the dead on the back of massive donations from wealthy Americans to his super PAC Fix the City. Mamdani has little professional experience, having only been employed a total of three years between graduating college in 2014 and his election to the New York State Assembly in 2020. He is also accused of not doing very much once he was elected, skipping 231 votes in the Assembly this year, more than half and the most of any member. His proposals include rent freezes, a free city bus service, universal childcare, and city-subsidized grocery stores - all of which are controversial. Mamdani vowed to pay for his extravagant wishlist by raising taxes on wealthy New Yorkers. To do so, he would need the stamp of approval from Governor Kathy Hocul and state lawmakers - who have already rubbished the proposal. But his biggest problem is he is perceived as anti-Semitic for his anti-Israel views and refusal to denounce fringe elements of pro-Palestine activism who regularly call to 'Globalize the Intifada'.
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nato: Five takeaways from Hague summit on hiking defence spending
For the Netherlands this was the biggest security operation in its history; for Nato's 32 member states the Hague summit was historic too. There were unexpected moments of levity in among the momentous decisions over the looming threat from Russia and raising defence spending to levels not seen since the Cold War. Here is what we learned from a whirlwind two days in The Hague. Big spike in defence spending The main takeaway is the allies' commitment to a 5% defence spending target, to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2% guideline, which currently isn't even met by eight Nato members out of 3.5% of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons – while the remaining 1.5% can be put towards "defence-related expenditure".And that's a suitably broad concept that can apply to spending even only loosely linked to defence: as long as it is used to "protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base".Reaching that 3.5% core defence spending target will still be a significant ask for many Nato countries, many of which currently hover around the 2% to reach the 5% figure will have to be submitted annually and will have to follow a "credible, incremental path". A review will take place in 2029. One for all and all for one For as long as Nato has existed, its Article Five on collective defence has been a core principle that means an attack against one ally is considered an attack on all. So when Trump suggested on the way to the summit there were "numerous definitions" of the mutual security guarantee, it was a reminder of comments he made on the campaign trail last year, when he suggested if a country did not pay its way "I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage [Moscow] to do whatever they want".This summit agreement appears to put to bed any lingering concerns about Trump's intentions because it reaffirms "our ironclad commitment to collective defence". "I stand with [Article Five], that's why I'm here," he told reporters reassurance will be well received by Nato member states seen as under most threat, but then they paid their way anyway. And Trump has gone back to Washington with a deal that means all other member states have agreed to do up their spending too. Trump and the Russian war The Russia question was always going to be tricky. Most Nato countries – particularly those in close proximity to the Russian border – are in agreement that Moscow could pose a direct threat to them in the near future; Rutte himself has said Russia could use military force against the alliance within five year's end-of-summit declaration referenced – in no uncertain terms – Moscow's "brutal war of aggression" several Trump has had a much softer approach to Moscow, and has resisted treating it as an adversary. As such it was always unlikely he was going to approve a declaration that labelled Russia as the clear culprit for the bloody Ukraine war, now more than three years while the statement mentions the "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security" and reaffirms the need to provide enduring support to Ukraine, there is no specific condemnation of Russia in the communique. The nine Nato countries that missed their defence spending targetsUkraine in maps: Tracking the war with RussiaWho's in Nato and how much do they spend on defence? Spain accused by Trump of wanting 'a free ride' Ever since Volodymyr Zelensky's difficult experience in the White House last February, European leaders have sought to avoid getting off on the wrong foot with Donald Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez went to The Hague already mired in domestic political scandals and he was expecting a tough props up the bottom of the Nato spending league with 1.24% of economic output on defence. He came to The Hague insisting that 2.1% was plenty, and told reporters after signing the summit declaration that Spain considered the amount "sufficient, realistic and compatible with our social model and welfare state". The Spanish PM was noticeably aloof during the "family photo", preferring to stand on the end away from his Nato colleagues. There were suggestions that he had gone out of his way to avoid Trump Sánchez had already caught Trump's eye and the US president was having none of it."It's terrible, what they've done," said Trump, who accused Madrid of seeking "a little bit of a free ride". "We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal but we're going to make them pay twice."Because Spain is a member of the European Union, Trump will find that difficult to do - but Sánchez will go back to Madrid isolated in Nato as well as struggling at home. Rutte and his 'daddy issues' No-one would have been more keenly aware of the potential pitfalls of this summit than Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was involved in a surprising exchange with the US president in which he referred to him as "daddy".Rutte had already flattered Trump in a private message for "decisive action in Iran" that "NO American president in decades could have done". Trump had then posted his words on his social media network and Rutte denied being then in a joint appearance with Trump on Wednesday, Rutte reacted to Trump describing the war between Israel and Iran as "like two kids in a schoolyard" who had had a big fight."And then daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop."Asked if he had gone too far with his flattery, Rutte said he didn't think so: "I think he deserves all the praise."Trump, flanked by a smirking Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, seemed amused by the whole thing: "I think he likes me, if he doesn't… I'll come back and hit him hard. He did it very affectionately: 'Daddy you're my daddy,'" he laughed.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's gamble has failed. Now Reeves will crucify the middle class
Don't believe the denials, the hubristic promises to fight on, the chest-thumping from deep down in the Number Ten bunker. It's all over for Sir Keir Starmer, a hollow husk of a Prime Minister stripped of his last vestiges of authority and credibility. His final, doomed showdown with his MPs over his plan to trim incapacity benefits will only expose his impotence and lack of strategic nous. His premiership, not even a year old, is already on borrowed time. He will have to surrender again, or suffer total humiliation. He is now beholden to Labour MPs, and survives only on their say-so. There are, for the first time, whispers that he could be ousted as early as after the May local elections. I'm not so sure: I suspect that Rachel Reeves, his beleaguered Chancellor, is likely to be sacrificed first. She has certainly failed disastrously. She convinced herself that her supposed technocratic brilliance and moral superiority meant she could manage Britain's broken economy and welfare state more competently than the Tories. She sought to combine a few cuts with a massive increase in overall expenditure in a crude attempt at 'triangulation'. She lied about Tory 'black holes' and repeatedly broke the spirit of her party's election promises, jacking up National Insurance. Her staggering arrogance has caught up with her. The deficit is too high, and gilt yields have surged. She hasn't fixed housebuilding or anything else. Her tax rises have vandalised the economy. Britain will lose 16,500 millionaires this year, on top of 10,800 last year, according to Henley and Partners. We are now home to just 156 billionaires, down from 165 in 2024. The rich are taking jobs, spending and tax receipts with them. The number of children in private schools is down 11,000; Labour expected its hateful VAT raid to force just 3,000 children to move to state schools. The irony is that Labour MPs still see Reeves as too Right-wing, even though she is the most Left-wing Chancellor since Denis Healey. Her Personal Independence Payments reforms would save £4.5 billion a year by 2029-2030; working-age health and disability spending would still increase by £15.4 billion between 2024-25 and 2029-30. These are not cuts, merely slightly slower spending growth, and yet even this has proved too much. Labour isn't in the mood for nuance, for being sensible. They want to revolutionise Britain, and damn the consequences. Starmer can't pass the buck. The activists who backed him for Labour leader liked his 2020 personal manifesto. He wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, for sure, but neither was he another Tony Blair. He promised to maintain Labour's 'radical values' and hailed 'the moral case for socialism'. His foreign policy proposals explains his choice of Lord Hermer as our worst ever Attorney General. Starmer demanded 'no more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales.' His other ideas have yet to be implemented. He called for an 'increase [in] income tax for the top 5 per cent of earners', the dismantling of Universal Credit and an 'end [to] the Tories' cruel sanctions regime'; the abolition of tuition fees; massive labour market regulations and powers to the trade unions; a defence of 'free movement'; the lionisation of the 'green deal'; the nationalisation of utilities; and the end of NHS outsourcing. This is what Labour thought they would get when he became Leader, and they are determined Starmer should deliver at least some of this agenda as PM. They accepted he had to pretend to be somebody he wasn't at the election, to fool centrist voters, but will no longer tolerate any deviation from what they believe was the plan all along. Britain is becoming ever more polarised. Some 25 per cent of the public believe taxes on top incomes are too high, close to the highest support for that enlightened position of the past 35 years; 24 per cent think the level is about right, the British Social Attitudes Survey notes. But 44 per cent think they are too low, up from 27 per cent in 2006. The Right is becoming sounder, but the Left is becoming ever more extreme, which is bad for Labour. Whatever it does is never good enough. Today's average activist is a graduate with quasi-communist economic ideas who wants to rejoin the EU, implement woke radicalism, believes in open borders, hates Israel and is soft on crime. They are not happy that Starmer is buying F-35A jets able to carry nuclear warheads. They do not support spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence (including 'resilience' expenditure), as agreed with Nato. They are shocked that Palestine Action is being categorised as a terrorist group. They are ideologically and sociologically similar to the young, prosperous, uber-credentialed New Yorkers who picked the woeful 'democratic socialist' and 'anti-Zionist' Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic Mayoral Primary. The coup de grâce for Starmer will come if a new Left-wing party is launched. If it were led by Jeremy Corbyn, such a venture would attract 10 per cent of the electorate, a poll for the New Statesman suggests, cutting Labour's share to 20 per cent. In alliance with the Greens, a Corbynite party – absorbing the pro-Gaza independents – could poll 15 per cent, overtaking the Lib Dems, and doing to Labour what Reform did to the Tories. To buy time, Starmer will need to concede to the Left on everything. He will start defaming Israel again. He will push through his Employment Rights Bill. He will task Reeves with one final mission: raise even more taxes at a kamikaze Autumn Budget to pay for defence commitments, the U-turns and to splash out even more on Labour's client groups. She will surely freeze tax thresholds, dragging millions more into higher bands. She may impose the first increase in petrol duty since 2010-11. She will slap more taxes on gambling. Such 'soft' measures won't be sufficient. She may also target pension tax relief, or increase inheritance tax, or raid Isas, or revalue council tax, or mull nationwide road pricing, or even consider the nuclear option, a wealth tax. It will be tantamount to declaring total war on the aspirational, on anybody who wants to work, save and improve their lives. The Left will lap it all up, but Britain will never recover.
