Putin's Victory Day Parade of ‘World Leaders'
Until the Kremlin archives are open, we won't know what economic, military or diplomatic sweeteners Moscow dispensed to prod the 'leaders' to show up in Red Square, but the incentives for most of them aren't hard to imagine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: For Trump, Russia's nuclear saber-rattling may be a useful distraction
There's something faintly undignified about a president of the United States being goaded by a minor Russian official into making nuclear threats on social media. But that's exactly what President Donald Trump has now done by ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines, allowing himself to appear rattled by the hollow saber-rattling of Dmitry Medvedev, an outspoken but long-sidelined former Russian president. In a series of bombastic posts on social media, Medvedev, who has styled himself as a virulent anti-Western critic in recent years, slammed Trump's soon to expire deadline on Russia for a peace deal in Ukraine, saying that each new ultimatum was a 'step towards war' – not between Russia and Ukraine, but 'with his own country.' The US president should remember 'how dangerous the fabled 'Dead Hand' can be,' Medvedev wrote, in a provocative reference to Russia's Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system, which can initiate the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles if it detects a nuclear strike. Trump's own secretary of state, Marco Rubio, played down the Russian's recent posts, pointing out that Medvedev isn't a decision-maker in Moscow anymore. It is a view shared by many Russians, for whom Medvedev is widely seen as politically irrelevant, with little authority, let alone the power to launch a nuclear strike. It begs the question as to why Trump would even engage with what he himself described as 'foolish' statements, and issue such a strident public response which ratchets up the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow. One possible answer is that it's a convenient way for Trump to appear tough on Moscow, singling out a public figure often dubbed 'little Dima' in Russia because of his small stature, without directly confronting the real power in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, or indeed making any concrete changes to the US nuclear posture. Trump said his order for two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' came in case Medvedev's 'foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' But there are multiple US nuclear submarines, armed with hundreds of nuclear warheads, patrolling the world's oceans on any given day. Given the multi-thousand-mile range of the missiles they carry, as well as the vast size of Russia, it is unlikely any repositioning would make a significant difference to their ability to strike Russian targets. But, as ever, the timing is key. Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, in his dual role as a makeshift Russia mediator, is set to hold more talks with the Russian leadership in the coming days. He is likely to again press for a ceasefire as a deadline set by Trump, for the Kremlin to agree to peace in Ukraine or face stiff tariffs, is set to expire. Few realistically expect the Kremlin, which has stubbornly insisted on achieving its stated military objectives before ending the Ukraine conflict, to back down. The latest escalating nuclear rhetoric is unlikely to change that hardline position. But, again, as Trump weighs – and possibly backs away from – the potentially self-damaging impact of imposing secondary sanctions on countries such as India and China who buy Russian oil, as he has threatened to do, the phantom of increased nuclear readiness may prove to be a useful distraction. In fact, creating a distraction from mounting political problems at home may be a welcome byproduct of the escalating nuclear rhetoric. Talk of mounting nuclear readiness towards Russia, which has more atomic weapons than any other country in the world, could overshadow more trifling domestic matters, like the Epstein scandal, for instance. Of course, any mention of nuclear escalation between the world's biggest nuclear superpowers rightly attracts serious attention. But the broader relationship between Washington and Moscow, though under renewed pressure, is nowhere near nuclear confrontation. And while the seemingly flippant use of nuclear threats by both nations may be concerning, it does not signal that a nuclear confrontation is on the way.
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: For Trump, Russia's nuclear saber-rattling may be a useful distraction
There's something faintly undignified about a president of the United States being goaded by a minor Russian official into making nuclear threats on social media. But that's exactly what President Donald Trump has now done by ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines, allowing himself to appear rattled by the hollow saber-rattling of Dmitry Medvedev, an outspoken but long-sidelined former Russian president. In a series of bombastic posts on social media, Medvedev, who has styled himself as a virulent anti-Western critic in recent years, slammed Trump's soon to expire deadline on Russia for a peace deal in Ukraine, saying that each new ultimatum was a 'step towards war' – not between Russia and Ukraine, but 'with his own country.' The US president should remember 'how dangerous the fabled 'Dead Hand' can be,' Medvedev wrote, in a provocative reference to Russia's Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system, which can initiate the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles if it detects a nuclear strike. Trump's own secretary of state, Marco Rubio, played down the Russian's recent posts, pointing out that Medvedev isn't a decision-maker in Moscow anymore. It is a view shared by many Russians, for whom Medvedev is widely seen as politically irrelevant, with little authority, let alone the power to launch a nuclear strike. It begs the question as to why Trump would even engage with what he himself described as 'foolish' statements, and issue such a strident public response which ratchets up the rhetoric between Washington and Moscow. One possible answer is that it's a convenient way for Trump to appear tough on Moscow, singling out a public figure often dubbed 'little Dima' in Russia because of his small stature, without directly confronting the real power in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, or indeed making any concrete changes to the US nuclear posture. Trump said his order for two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' came in case Medvedev's 'foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' But there are multiple US nuclear submarines, armed with hundreds of nuclear warheads, patrolling the world's oceans on any given day. Given the multi-thousand-mile range of the missiles they carry, as well as the vast size of Russia, it is unlikely any repositioning would make a significant difference to their ability to strike Russian targets. But, as ever, the timing is key. Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, in his dual role as a makeshift Russia mediator, is set to hold more talks with the Russian leadership in the coming days. He is likely to again press for a ceasefire as a deadline set by Trump, for the Kremlin to agree to peace in Ukraine or face stiff tariffs, is set to expire. Few realistically expect the Kremlin, which has stubbornly insisted on achieving its stated military objectives before ending the Ukraine conflict, to back down. The latest escalating nuclear rhetoric is unlikely to change that hardline position. But, again, as Trump weighs – and possibly backs away from – the potentially self-damaging impact of imposing secondary sanctions on countries such as India and China who buy Russian oil, as he has threatened to do, the phantom of increased nuclear readiness may prove to be a useful distraction. In fact, creating a distraction from mounting political problems at home may be a welcome byproduct of the escalating nuclear rhetoric. Talk of mounting nuclear readiness towards Russia, which has more atomic weapons than any other country in the world, could overshadow more trifling domestic matters, like the Epstein scandal, for instance. Of course, any mention of nuclear escalation between the world's biggest nuclear superpowers rightly attracts serious attention. But the broader relationship between Washington and Moscow, though under renewed pressure, is nowhere near nuclear confrontation. And while the seemingly flippant use of nuclear threats by both nations may be concerning, it does not signal that a nuclear confrontation is on the way.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
India responds to U.S. penalty over Russia oil
Aug. 2 (UPI) -- Indian officials confirmed Saturday the country is not altering policy and will continue buying oil from Russia, despite threats of a financial "penalty" from U.S. President Donald Trump. India's government has not given any directive to the country's oil refiners to stop or reduce the amount of Russian crude oil, the New York Times reported, citing two senior Indian officials. Trump earlier this week said he would impose a financial "penalty" on the South Asian country if it did not cut back on its reliance on Russian oil. The sanction would be in addition to a 25% American tariff on Indian goods. The president did not elaborate on the extent of the additional financial "penalty." "Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country, " Trump said in a Truth Social post. "Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE." Trump on Friday said it was his understanding "that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens." Indian officials told the New York Times the country has "not given any direction to oil companies" to change direction. Publicly, Indian officials said they are considering options without confirming or denying the Times report. "We have taken note of the sanctions, and we are looking into it," Ministry of External Affairs of India spokesman Shri Randhir Jaiswal said during a news conference Friday in New Delhi. "On the other question about proposed oil sale, I would say that I have no comments to offer in this particular matter. As far as sourcing our energy requirements is concerned, you are well aware of our broad approach, meaning our overall approach and stance. We take decisions based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time. As for the specifics of your particular question, I am not aware of it. I don't have details of these specifics." Jaiswal also attempted to avoid further escalating the situation. "I would also like to underline this particular point that this is a sensitive and complex case and therefore, I would urge all to be mindful that media reports based on speculation and misinformation are not helpful at all," he told reporters. "In so far as the reports claiming that there has been certain developments etc., such reports are incorrect. Please wait for an update from us, this is a sensitive matter, and we urge all sides to stay away from misinformation." Solve the daily Crossword
