Dmitry Medvedev: Russia's hawkish ex-president
The 59-year-old, who served as head of state between 2008 and 2012, sought "friendly" ties with Europe and the United States during his single term but faded into obscurity after handing the post back to President Vladimir Putin.
Demoted to prime minister in 2012 and then made deputy head of Russia's security council in 2020 -- a largely advisory role -- Medvedev began espousing hardline views on social media shortly after Moscow launched its Ukraine offensive.
In public statements since the conflict began he has described Westerners as "bastards and degenerates", declared that "Ukraine is, of course, Russia" and raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Russia's enemies.
In June, after the US launched air strikes on nuclear facilities in Moscow-allied Iran, Medvedev suggested that "a number of countries" were willing to provide Tehran with nuclear warheads, prompting an angry Trump to accuse him of "casually" threatening a nuclear strike.
On Thursday, Medvedev alluded to Moscow's semi-automatic "Dead Hand" nuclear arms control system in a Telegram post criticising Trump.
Medvedev's critics have derided his posts as an attempt to retain political relevance in Russia's crowded elite circles, but Trump has taken the threats seriously.
"Based on the highly provocative statements," Trump said Friday, "I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that."
- Tandem rule -
Medvedev's often incendiary posts contrast sharply with his public image in office, when he declared Russia did not want confrontation with "any country" as part of his foreign policy doctrine.
In 2010, he signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with US President Barack Obama, while in 2011 he brought Russia into the World Trade Organisation after 18 years of negotiations.
On his watch, Moscow also abstained in a key UN Security Council vote on Libya in 2011 that paved the way for a NATO-led military intervention, a decision Putin has relentlessly criticised since.
But it was always clear who was the senior partner in a pairing dubbed Batman and Robin by a secret US cable.
Medvedev's first act after winning a 2008 presidential election on the back of Putin's support was to appoint the Russian strongman as prime minister, giving Putin broad decision-making power.
While some in the West greeted Medvedev's arrival, others saw him as simply a placeholder for Putin, who was able to circumvent constitutional term limits and remain in de facto power.
In 2008 Russia sent troops into Georgia, fracturing relations with the West, a decision that Medvedev insisted he made but that a top general claimed was planned by Putin before Medvedev was even inaugurated.
His trademark modernisation programme was marked by bold statements but was also mercilessly mocked by commentators for being short on actions as Putin held real power.
- Putin's protege -
Medvedev, born in Putin's home town of Leningrad, owes his entire political career to the former KGB agent.
Putin took his protege to Moscow after being appointed prime minister in 1999 and Medvedev rapidly rose to become chairman of gas giant Gazprom. He also served as chief of staff at the Kremlin and as first deputy prime minister.
After taking office, he said Russia's economy had reached a "dead end" and required urgent reform.
But cynics pointed out that such words counted for little when Russia was still dominated by Putin, and Medvedev himself played down the idea there was any radical difference in their visions.
After championing anti-corruption measures while in office, Medvedev was himself accused of graft in 2017, when late opposition leader Alexei Navalny alleged he had built a luxury property empire using embezzled funds.
Navalny was labelled an "extremist" by Russian authorities in 2021.
While liberals and the West hoped Medvedev would reverse the increase in state control and erosion of civil liberties during Putin's previous rule, he showed little desire for a radical break with Putin's legacy.
"Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin really is modern Russia's most popular, experienced and successful politician," Medvedev said during an attempt to explain why he was standing down in favour of Putin in 2012.
bur/tw
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Sen. Booker says institutions are bending the knee to Trump
Sen. Booker says institutions are bending the knee to Trump Sen. Cory Booker speaks with CNN's Manu Raju on Democrats' future and how they can fight back against President Trump, as well as his stance on the Democratic New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. For more of the interview, watch "Inside Politics Sunday with Manu Raju" on Sunday at 8a and 11a ET on CNN. 01:52 - Source: CNN Reporters ask Trump about firing labor stats chief over jobs numbers President Donald Trump has fired Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whom he accused, without evidence, of manipulating the monthly jobs reports for 'political purposes.' 00:35 - Source: CNN Will President Trump release the Epstein files? CNN's Paula Reid explains the latest information on whether President Trump will release the Epstein files after the Trump administration backtracked on its promise to release additional materials in the investigation. 01:30 - Source: CNN GOP candidate deflects direct questions on past Trump comments CNN's Manu Raju presses Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, the GOP nominee for Virginia governor, on critical comments she's made in the past about President Donald Trump, who has yet to endorse her campaign. 02:55 - Source: CNN Corp. for Public Broadcasting to shutter after Trump funding cuts The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that it will wind down its operations due to the successful Republican effort to defund local PBS and NPR stations across the country. CNN's Brian Stelter reports. 01:45 - Source: CNN Smithsonian removes reference to Trump impeachment The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History last month removed a board that referenced President Donald Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit on the American presidency. 01:15 - Source: CNN The politics behind Trump's historic tariffs President Trump has announced historic US tariffs on countries across the globe. CNN's Kevin Liptak breaks down Trump's motives for imposing the new trade deals. 01:30 - Source: CNN Three things to know about Trump's new tariffs President Trump has announced a slew of new tariffs on America's trading partners. But what does that really mean for US consumers, and America's relationships with its allies? And will these new measures be implemented at all? CNN's Anna Cooban explains. 01:34 - Source: CNN GOP lawmaker faces raucous crowd in Wisconsin Republican Rep. Bryan Steil faced tough questions and booing by attendees of a town-hall style event in Wisconsion. Audience members confronted Steil on topics including the economy, immigration policy, and the war in Gaza. 02:08 - Source: CNN Biden warns country is facing 'dark days' under Trump During the National Bar Association's annual gala in Chicago, former President Joe Biden warned that the country is facing 'dark days' under President Donald Trump's watch, saying the executive branch 'seems to be doing its best to dismantle the Constitution.' 01:12 - Source: CNN Harris gives Colbert her first interview since losing election Former Vice President Kamala Harris reflected on her decision not to pursue a gubernatorial run in California, citing systemic dysfunction, while speaking in an interview on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." 00:44 - Source: CNN Virginia Giuffre family's message to Trump about Ghislaine Maxwell pardon CNN's Kaitlan Collins speaks with the family of late Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking accusers, about their response to President Trump potentially pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell. 00:50 - Source: CNN Kerrville mayor admits to missing emergency briefing call CNN's Shimon Prokupecz speaks with Kerrville Mayor Joe Herring Jr. about not seeing emails regarding an emergency preparation call before the deadly July 4 floods. 01:47 - Source: CNN $200 million 'Trump-style' ballroom coming to the White House Construction for a new ballroom on the White House campus will begin in September on a $200 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom, fulfilling a 15-year ambition by President Trump to construct an event space on the White House grounds that expands the building's entertaining capacity. 01:16 - Source: CNN Trump's tariff deadline looms over world economy President Trump's self-imposed midnight deadline is rapidly approaching for countries to strike a trade framework with the United States or face significantly higher tariffs. In a new development today, President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on higher tariffs on Mexico. 01:26 - Source: CNN Trump's tariffs might make coffee in the US more expensive CNN's Isa Soares examines Trump's proposed tariffs on Brazil, and how it may impact coffee prices once they go into effect. 01:34 - Source: CNN US diminished a key weapons stockpile fighting Iran The US used about a quarter of its supply of high-end missile interceptors during the Israel-Iran war, exposing a gap in supplies, and raising concerns about US global security posture. CNN's Tamara Qiblawi reports. 01:35 - Source: CNN Education Dept. resumes collecting student loans in default The Department of Education will start sending federal student loans in default to collections again, ending a pandemic-era pause that began roughly five years ago. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty explains what you need to know. 01:42 - Source: CNN Democrats cite arcane law in letter demanding Epstein files CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox explains how a law from the 1920s could help Senate Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee access to the Epstein files. 01:31 - Source: CNN Tapper presses Pelosi on Trump's insider trading allegations CNN's Jake Tapper spoke to former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who reacted to President Donald Trump accusing Pelosi and her husband of insider trading, calling the allegation "ridiculous." 01:08 - Source: CNN
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who Would Benefit the Most From Trump's $1K Baby Savings Accounts?
Now that President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' has been signed into law, many families with newborns can expect to receive $1,000 to invest in their child's future. Referred to as 'Trump Accounts,' they're designed to encourage families to begin investing in a child's future from birth and enjoy the benefits of compound interest. Read Next: Explore More: But is everyone really going to benefit from this plan? Let's explore the details of these Trump Accounts and who they could be most useful for. Who Is Eligible for the $1K? With these accounts, every child born a U.S. citizen with a Social Security number between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, will receive a $1,000 deposit from the U.S. government into the account. Find Out: How Will Trump Accounts Work? Setting up your newborn for a Trump Account can be done in a couple of different ways. Parents or guardians can open the account in their child's name. If not, the Treasury Department could open it, per Kiplinger. Once the account is open, $1,000 will be deposited for those who qualify. There are some restrictions on these accounts that parents should be aware of. There will be a $5,000 yearly contribution limit for each year before the child turns 18. No distributions are allowed until the first day of the year when the child turns 18. After the child turns 18, the account will follow traditional IRA rules. All contributions made to the account before the child's 18th year will be made with after-tax dollars. This means parents will not be able to deduct their contributions from their taxes. Accounts can be used for college expenses, to start a business or to purchase a home. Who Would Benefit From Trump Accounts? Who would benefit from these Trump Accounts will be something that's heavily debated. 'The $1,000 baby savings account is a simple but powerful idea,' said Tim Rosenberger, fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 'It gives every American child, not just those born into privilege, a small but meaningful stake in the nation's future. That's the kind of ownership society that puts America first.' According to Rosenberg, this could benefit working families. 'A universal savings account at birth offers a new kind of opportunity infrastructure. It won't solve every problem, but it's a strong first signal that the country is serious about helping working families build intergenerational stability,' he said. While these accounts may be a good first step, however, they may not always provide the best option for saving for a child's future. 'Everyone eligible for the $1,000 should make sure they get it, but that alone is not enough to set aside for your kids' education or set them up for generational wealth,' said Dave Fortin, co-founder and investment advisor with FutureMoney. '529 plans are a better option than Trump accounts if you're saving for education. When you make a qualified withdrawal from a 529 plan, it's tax-free and penalty-free. Trump accounts are tax-deferred, meaning when the withdrawal eventually happens, the money counts as ordinary income, so income taxes are owed.' Ultimately, while all eligible families should take advantage of the free money being offered, it's important to consider the long-term implications. Before making additional contributions, make sure the account aligns with your child's savings goals. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value 6 Big Shakeups Coming to Social Security in 2025 This article originally appeared on Who Would Benefit the Most From Trump's $1K Baby Savings Accounts? Sign in to access your portfolio
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Republicans are (quietly) making 2028 moves
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. It seems too early, but it's not. Just as Democrats are plotting how to win the next presidential election, Republican candidates are too. But while Democrats will try to outdo themselves in their opposition to President Donald Trump, Republicans will have to navigate a party that Trump has rebuilt around his own political instincts. I talked to CNN's Eric Bradner about which Republicans are likely to run for president in 2028 and how they will balance making their own name with paying homage to their current leader, who likes to joke about not leaving office no matter what the Constitution says. Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below. WOLF: Will Trump try to run for a third term despite what's in the Constitution? Because it's something that he's teased, right? BRADNER: There is no constitutional path for him to seek a third term. But that doesn't mean ambitious Republicans who want to be a successor can flout Trump. They can't be seen as at odds with him. They're trying to stand out in their own ways, but they can't be seen as going against Trump and suggesting that he is ineligible for a third term, even though the Constitution makes that crystal clear to be problematic. WOLF: He likes to joke about running, but has also said he will not run. So let's assume, for the moment, that he doesn't try to do something that would violate the Constitution. How do potential Republican candidates plot a campaign for voters while still staying in his good graces? BRADNER: You have to do it carefully. Part of it is, while Trump is still so popular with the Republican base, demonstrating that you are supportive of his agenda. That can look different depending on whether you are the vice president, in the Senate, in a governor's office. So far, we're seeing ambitious Republicans traveling to some of the early voting primary states and using their speeches to highlight their support for Trump's agenda and looking for ways to cast themselves as the successor to that agenda. It's made much more difficult by the fact that Vice President JD Vance is obviously positioned as Trump's understudy. But they're looking for ways to show that they are, at least in some ways, ideologically aligned with Trump and are taking substantive actions to support his agenda, while sort of pitching some of their own accomplishments and their own differences in terms of approach. But it's clear that most Republicans that are already hitting the 2028 travel circuit are looking for ways to align themselves. WOLF: The Democrats are trying to change the early primary map and de-emphasize Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. Is the Republican calendar going to be what it has been in recent decades where we go: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. Or is that going to change? BRADNER: It won't be official for a while, but Republicans appear to be on track to keep the same calendar. I talked to Jeff Kaufmann, the longtime Iowa Republican Party chairman, recently, and he said he had already made his case to the White House to keep Iowa's caucuses first, and said they were very receptive. Republicans didn't have the kind of disaster that Democrats had in Iowa in 2020 and have shown no real inclination to shake up their primary… WOLF: But Republicans did have a disaster in 2012 — just ask Rick Santorum. BRADNER: They did. But 2012 at this point will have been 16 years ago, and they have passed on opportunities to change the calendar since then, and there doesn't seem to be any momentum to do so now. WOLF: Who are the Republicans who are flirting with a campaign at the moment and are actively in those states? BRADNER: Even within the last couple of months, we've seen a number of Republicans visiting the early states. Look at Iowa alone. This month, Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia governor, visited Iowa to headline the state Republican Party's annual Clinton dinner. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was there for an event hosted by The Family Leader, a conservative Christian group led by Bob Vander Plaats, a well-known activist there. Recently, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was in Iowa, where he got a little bit of a chilly reception at times because he was making the case for changes to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' And Florida Sen. Rick Scott was there also touting his support for further reductions in spending that the bill included. He also got a bit of a frosty reception from some of the attendees at the fundraiser that I talked to afterward who really wanted to hear more support for Trump's agenda from him and less about their defenses. WOLF: The most obvious heir to Trump would be Vance. What is the thinking among Republicans? Do they believe the nomination is his to lose, or will he really have to work for it? BRADNER: He clearly starts in the pole position. But I was a little surprised during a recent visit to Iowa how frequently the name of Secretary of State Marco Rubio came up, often in the same breath as JD Vance. Both of them, despite their own very public criticism of Trump in the past, now seem to be viewed as team players; as closely aligned with Trump and with his current administration, obviously, as leading members of it. There's interest in Rubio in part because he has run for president before, unlike Vance. A lot of people in the early voting states remember Rubio visiting them in 2016, when he finished third in Iowa in what were pretty competitive caucuses. So a lot of these early-state Republican voters have met Rubio before. They've already formed opinions of him. They like Vance, but they don't know him yet. They haven't had a chance to go through the usual process with him. He obviously starts with an advantage as Trump's legacy, but based on the conversations I've had, it doesn't appear to be a lock. I think a lot of Republican voters are going to want to at least meet and hear from a broader range of candidates. WOLF: That 2016 Iowa race you mentioned, Rubio came in third. Trump came in second. The winner was Sen. Ted Cruz. Is he going to run again? And would he do better this time? BRADNER: He certainly has never stopped acting like someone who wants to be president, right? He has obviously remained in the public eye and has been supportive of Trump, including in that contentious interview with Tucker Carlson, for which Cruz faced a bit of online backlash. He's built a fundraising network. He is someone who has clearly already been a runner-up in that 2016 primary, and probably would enter 2028 with vast name recognition. So he has a number of potential things going for him if he, if he does want to run. WOLF: The party has changed around Trump, who doesn't really have a political ideology so much as political instincts. Now Republican candidates will have to adjust to Trump's populism. Will a person like Sen. Josh Hawley, who sounds very populist, do better than a more traditional Republican like, say, Youngkin? BRADNER: It certainly seems like that lane could be open, although I would say as of right now, Vance probably starts in the pole position there. He has populist instincts that he displayed for quite some time before he became Trump's vice president. You're right about Trump having political instincts that these potential candidates are going to have to react to and adjust to on the fly. Being nimble in interviews and messaging is always important, but it's going to be especially important in a landscape where Trump is the dominant figure in the party. While he won't be on the ballot, he is very likely to have interest in steering things. WOLF: How do you group the potential field? There are senators, there are governors, there are people in the administration. BRADNER: I think that's the right starting point. People in the administration, which you can kind of divide into two groups, right? Vance and Rubio are by far the best known and are the ones that I have heard from Republican voters about the most clearly. There are some other folks, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and potentially others who are former governors, are Trump allies and have their own ambitions, but don't carry the sorts of advantages that Vance and Rubio have. Then there's a group of governors, and to me, this is potentially the most interesting group, because they have their own agendas outside of Washington and are less tied to whatever's going on in the White House or on Capitol Hill on any given day. Youngkin, the Virginia governor, ran an impressive campaign in 2021, and because Virginia does not allow governors to run for second terms, he is just a few months away from leaving office, which means he will be a popular Republican elected in a Democratic-leaning state who now is out of a job and has all day to campaign. A couple other Republican governors who are in that basket would include Sanders, who obviously is forever aligned with Trump due to her time as his White House press secretary, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which gets him a way to build connections with donors all over the country. Kemp is among the Republicans who have had the biggest differences with Trump on the list of prospective 2028 candidates because he didn't support Trump's claims that Georgia was stolen from him in 2020. But the two of them seem to have played nice in more recent years and Kemp is conservative. He does have his own record in Georgia that he can talk about. Then finally there are the senators. Tim Scott is one who ran for president in 2024 and did appear to end that race with a closer relationship with Trump than when he started it, which was a really tricky thing to (do). The problem Scott faces is one that Trump laid out in 2024, which is that he's a better salesman for Trump and his agenda than he is for himself. There are other senators, Rand Paul (Kentucky), Rick Scott (Florida), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), who I think everyone will be keeping an eye on. But it's going to take some lucky breaks for them to make a ton of headway in a potentially crowded field, especially when they'll be having to spend so much of their time participating in and reacting to what's happening in Washington. They don't have the kind of freedom that governors have at this stage. WOLF: There are also two governors that are closely aligned with Trump's policies in Texas and Florida, which are the two biggest red states in terms of electoral votes. What about Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas)? BRADNER: Both are clearly aligning themselves with Trump's most popular policies, which is strict immigration enforcement, border security and ramping up deportations. For DeSantis, building 'Alligator Alcatraz' was a clear example of political maneuvering to be seen publicly as having Trump's back. Both of them are absolutely on the 2028 landscape, and DeSantis, in particular, appears to have smoothed over the tensions that remain from his 2024 run. DeSantis is one to watch because he has already built a fundraising network. He has already traveled the early states and made those inroads, so launching a presidential campaign, perhaps earlier and perhaps without some of the mistakes that hampered his 2024 effort, would certainly be possible. WOLF: What about someone from Trump's new coalition? Robert F. Kennedy ran as a Democrat and an Independent in 2024; why not a Republican in 2028? BRADNER: If Kennedy runs in 2028, it'll be a fascinating test of how durable parts of Trump's winning 2024 coalition are once Trump is off the ballot. How big is the so-called MAHA movement that was merged into Trump's MAGA movement? Does party loyalty still matter at all in Republican primaries and caucuses? Or are figures who weren't even Republicans — like Kennedy and potentially former Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, who grabbed headlines recently with wild accusations that former President Barack Obama committed treason — received with open arms? Have cultural issues like abortion, where they've long staked out positions at odds with the GOP base, lost some sway? WOLF: Vance would run from within the administration. Rubio would have to leave the administration. Extricating yourself from Trump's orbit without drawing his ire would be kind of an incredible feat. What would be the timeline to do something like that? When should we start to expect to see would-be presidential candidates leave the Trump administration? BRADNER: The traditional answer would be shortly after the midterms, but it also depends on, obviously, the point you raised about Trump and a third term, and whether that sort of freezes the start of the 2028 primary and stops candidates from campaigning openly. It depends on what Vance does. I think people who are in the administration will have to react to the speed at which the field appears to be developing. I can tell you that in the early states, party leaders, activists, donors, party faithful are already eager to hear from these 2028 prospects and I doubt there will be much room to wait long past the midterms. So potentially late 2026, early 2027 is when anybody in the administration that wants to run for president would probably need to be in motion. WOLF: A lot of what happens will depend on how popular Trump remains with Republicans and how successful his second term is. Is there a lane for a Nikki Haley or somebody who has been critical of Trump, or should we assume that everybody who tries to run will just be swearing fealty to him? BRADNER: Only time will tell. Right now, none of these major Republican figures are publicly distancing themselves from Trump, but if Republicans are shellacked in the midterms, if they lose the House or — much, much longer shot — if they lose the Senate, that could change the landscape significantly. Primary voters want to win, and they're loyal to Trump, but if his popularity nosedives; if the party performs poorly in the midterms; if his tariffs wind up damaging the economy; if the roiling controversy over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files continues — all these sorts of things could wind up becoming political time bombs that could change the landscape and lead Republicans, even if they aren't publicly criticizing Trump, to do more to show their differences and to pitch themselves as their own person.
