logo
Russian Newspaper Gives Donald Trump New Nickname

Russian Newspaper Gives Donald Trump New Nickname

Newsweek23-06-2025
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A Russian newspaper branded Donald Trump the "President of War" following a U.S. military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend.
U.S. bombers deployed 30,000-pound "bunker busters" on Iran's underground nuclear facilities, ending days of speculation over whether Trump would authorize direct military intervention for his objective to put "a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror."
The developments were published by several state-owned and independent Russian newspapers, including Rossiskaya Gazeta, Komsomolskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moskovsky Komsomolets and Kommersant, according to BBC's Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.Why It Matters
The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure has far-reaching impact for American security interests, global energy markets and the volatile Middle East region. Israel and Iran are waging direct hostilities, with hundreds killed as both sides launch missiles.
The intervention by Washington could define regional stability for years, test U.S. alliances in Europe and the Gulf, and set dangerous precedents over nuclear nonproliferation enforcement. Congressional leaders and protesters nationwide have warned of the risk of a third U.S. war in the Middle East this century.
Russian President Vladimir Putin described the strikes as "unprovoked aggression," and coverage in major Russian outlets questioned the long-term fallout for global stability and Russia's regional interests.
What To Know
Over the weekend, the U.S. launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—using "bunker-buster" bombs weighing up to 30,000 pounds. The attack, dubbed Iran Operation Midnight Hammer, involved more than 125 U.S. military aircraft.
Putin on Monday condemned the U.S. strikes as "an absolutely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran."
"It has no basis or justification," Putin said, according to Kremlin newswire Tass.
Putin made the comments during a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, adding that Russia was "making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people."
Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran a front-page headline that read: "Trump has become the president of war" and said the strikes marked a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy.
Trump "violated his election promise to be the president of peace, not war," the newspaper said.
"For the Russian Federation, such a transformation in the White House policy does not bode well. It may mark the end of Trump's peacekeeping efforts in the Russian-Ukrainian [war]," the newspaper added.
Rossiskaya Gazeta, a state-run publication, mocked Trump's campaign slogan with the headline: "Trump Makes America Wage War Again."
Komsomolskaya Pravda questioned what the attack meant for Russia, quoting a Middle East expert who said: "If this [Iranian regime change] happens, we [Russia] would lose a partner, the Islamic Republic, and be left with a new center of instability affecting not only the Middle East, but also Central Asia and the South Caucasus, regions which are very sensitive for us."
Trump floated the possibility of "regime change" in Iran in a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, writing: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!"
Moskovsky Komsomolets warned of possible economic repercussions, asking: "The Americans committed aggression against Iran after all...Will war raise the price of oil to $200 a barrel?"
That's possible because Iran has warned that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, in retaliation for U.S. involvement in its conflict with Israel.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea which handles around 26 percent of global oil trade, making it one of the most strategically important maritime passages in the world.
The International Energy Agency notes that any disruption to flows through the strait would have significant consequences for world oil markets.
Meanwhile, Kommersant ran a headline with a hint of skepticism: "The U.S. carried out a strike on Iran in order to 'end this war...'."
What People Are Saying
Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov, on Monday on the situation in the Middle East possibly interfering with dialogue between Russia and the United States: "These are different areas. We have our partnership relations, a strategic partnership with Iran, but we are also working on restoring our relations with the United States. Both are very important areas.
"And our dialogue with the Americans also depends, so to speak, on the possibility of reaching a settlement in many other areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will interfere, one will interfere with the other."
What Happens Next
Iran has repeatedly threatened retaliation for the U.S. strikes. The full extent of the attacks is not yet clear, but Trump claimed Sunday that "the hits were hard and accurate" and "obliterated" Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Map Shows US Cities Where Homicide Rates Are Highest
Map Shows US Cities Where Homicide Rates Are Highest

Newsweek

time26 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Map Shows US Cities Where Homicide Rates Are Highest

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has said multiple cities could face federal action to deal with their violent crime, after he declared a public safety emergency in Washington, D.C. Newsweek has produced a map showing homicide rates in cities across the country. Baltimore and Chicago—both mentioned by Trump as possible targets—feature in the map as cities with the second and tenth highest homicide rates respectively, while Washington D.C. comes in at 19th. The data, compiled by the civil rights group Freedom for All Americans, does not present a complete and current nationwide picture, as not all cities have compiled complete figures for 2024. Why It Matters Homicide rates shape policy debates over policing, federal intervention and community investment, especially when presidential action and local officials clash over the meaning of the numbers. Crime levels in cities are making headlines in the wake of Trump's concerns about Washington, D.C. on Monday, when he invoked emergency powers to place the city's police department under federal control and deploy around 800 National Guard troops. What To Know The 10 cities with the highest homicide rates, according to Freedom for All Americans' 2024 data, are: St. Louis, Missouri (69.4 per 100,000 people) Baltimore, Maryland (51.1 per 100,000 people) New Orleans, Louisiana (40.6 per 100,000 people) Detroit, Michigan (39.7 per 100,000 people) Cleveland, Ohio (33.7 per 100,000 people) Las Vegas, Nevada (31.4 per 100,000 people) Kansas City, Missouri (31.2 per 100,000 people) Memphis, Tennessee (27.1 per 100,000 people) Newark, New Jersey (25.6 per 100,000 people) Chicago, Illinois (24.0 per 100,000 people) The group compiled is data from multiple sources, including AreaVibes, NeighborhoodScout, city police reports and public safety databases. Newsweek has contacted mayors' offices' for Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit and Cleveland, via email, for comment. Washington D.C. comes in at 19th, with a murder rate of 17.0 per 100,000 people. Violent crime in the capital hit a 30-year low in 2024, the district's U.S. Attorney Office said in January, citing police data. District Council member Charles Allen and District Attorney General Brian Schwalb both cited this statistic in their criticism of the president's federal intervention in the capital, with Allen calling Trump's actions a "dangerous abuse of power." Mike A. Males, a senior researcher at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, told Newsweek that urban crime was down across the country. "D.C. has a high rate because it is the only district wholly comprised of a city, but trends for all states mostly are down," he said. Analystsat the Council on Criminal Justice reported year-end 2024 declines in homicides across a set of 40 cities, noting a 16 percent drop in homicides overall. What People Are Saying Trump suggested other cities may face similar federal action to Washington, telling a press conference on Monday: "We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore there." "They're so far gone. We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this." Washington D.C. District Attorney General Brian Schwalb responded to Trump's move in a post on X: "The Administration's actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful. "There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year. "We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents." The Administration's actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful. There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year. We are considering all of our options and… — AG Brian Schwalb (@DCAttorneyGen) August 11, 2025 What Happens Next Some jurisdictions reported declines in homicide in 2024 and early 2025, but national and local trends vary by city and by the data source used. The Council on Criminal Justice and the FBI have both signaled overall declines in violent crime through 2024. Monitoring will continue to see if this pattern continues.

Transgender Marine speaks out against Trump's ban on trans servicemembers
Transgender Marine speaks out against Trump's ban on trans servicemembers

NBC News

time26 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Transgender Marine speaks out against Trump's ban on trans servicemembers

On Jan. 27, Trump announced an executive order titled 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.' It states that, 'expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.' The order then continues to say, 'beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life.' On May 6, after a court challenge, the Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration the ability to move forward with the order. That same day, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, delivered a keynote speech at Special Operations Forces Week 2025, that was clipped and posted in a public video on the verified X account for DOD Rapid Response, and said, 'We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns. No more climate-change obsession. No more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses.' The following week, on May 15, a memo was sent to every branch of the military from the U.S. Department of Defense that stated that all transgender personnel would need to self-identify and begin a voluntary leave process by Jun. 6 for active duty and Jul. 7 for those in the reserves. A transcript posted on the DOD's website on the same day, that cited a 'Senior Defense Official' without listing their name, explained that those who chose to leave would be compensated based on 'rank as well as time in service.' The DOD transcript explained further, that all transgender personnel who leave because of this will receive some benefits, but that it is greater for those who start the process on their own accord. 'So, for involuntary category separation, an E-5 with 10 years of service, we estimate that that involuntary separation payment would be just under $51,000. For an O-3 with seven years in service that involuntary separation pay would be approximately $62,000. The way the voluntary separation pay is calculated is a multiple of two from the involuntary, so that E-5 with 10 years would be approximately $101,000 and the O-3 with seven years in service would be approximately $125,000,' the transcript said. On Aug. 7, however, it was reported by NBC News that the Air Force is denying early retirement to all transgender service members with between 15 and 18 years of military service, opting instead to force them out with no retirement benefits, according to a memo seen by Reuters. The DOD transcript also explained that, 'for those that elect not to voluntarily participate, the primary means of identification for the involuntary process will be through medical readiness programs. Individual medical readiness programs are a long-standing program and policy in the department. They are not new. They are not tied specifically to the implementation of this policy.' Savoie told NBC San Diego they chose to stay, and not begin that voluntary separation process, as an act of resistance. 'There's a lot of reasons to that,' Savoie said. 'I don't have dependents that are specifically banking on me having a paycheck. I know you're probably familiar with the buyout option that they gave, so double what your normal separation pay would be. For me, to be transparent with you, that was about $100,000, so a significant chunk of income. That's about a year's worth of income for me; it wasn't worth it.' 'I didn't commission to make the easy choice, and in this position, when you're faced with choices like these, are you going to make them on principle or are you going to make them on what the easy way out is. That's not everyone's scenario, but it is for me,' Savoie continued. 'I should caveat and say anyone who's taking this right now is under duress. Like it is a forced thing and, again, it does not come without risk. We don't know what they're going to do to us right now.' Savoie said they do have concerns for the future, including which separation code will be used for them if they are forced to leave the Marines and how that could impact their future employment opportunities. NBC San Diego reached out to Savoie's command and the public affairs team for the USMC Manpower and Reserve Affairs office for more information on their status, as well as the status of other transgender servicemembers. They forwarded the request to the Pentagon, where the on-duty public affairs officer referred NBC San Diego to the department's May 15 transcript. When it comes to how many servicemembers, including Savoie, may be impacted by Trump's executive order, in that transcript, the unnamed senior defense official said, 'the Department has cited a previous study that estimated approximately 4,200 service members with gender dysphoria. I have not seen a more recent study the department is relying on. So, that would be the most recent study that we would rely on. And of course, that may not be current as of today because service members are entering and departing service in the normal course of events all the time.' Savoie echoed that, saying 'there's not great numbers on how many transgender people are in the military." "From the communities that I am a part of and my experience working and connecting with other trans service members, I would guesstimate there's maybe seven or eight transgender officers in the Marine Corps," they said. "Some of those I know are not out right now and others, they fly under the radar. Others are taking the retirement and just kind of want to gracefully exit because they've already done their part and they've had to fight their fights under the first ban, and they're tired.' If it were up to Savoie — who has continues to show up for work each day, unsure of what comes next — they said they would serve until their EAS, or end of active service, in 2028.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store