G7 a ‘dead club'
The G7 has long lost its relevance and cannot provide a sufficient answer to existing challenges, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. He also praised US President Donald Trump's conduct at the latest summit of the group in Canada and his decision to leave early.
'Well Done!' Medvedev wrote in an X post on Tuesday, referring to the American' president's actions during the meeting. Trump 'scolded' the European members of the group 'for kicking out Russia, refused to discuss sanctions, and left,' he said.
During the meeting, Trump stated that removing Russia from the group that was called G8 at the time was a mistake, arguing that the nation's presence could have helped prevent the Ukraine conflict.
'You spend so much time talking about Russia, and [Russian President Vladimir Putin is] no longer at the table,' Trump told the meeting, arguing that it only 'makes life more complicated.'
The US president left the event early, despite having a scheduled meeting with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, to address the escalation between Israel and Iran, according to the White House. Trump was also skeptical about EU and UK calls for more sanctions against Russia.
'Sanctions cost us a lot of money,' he argued, adding that he would like the EU to 'do it first.'
Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, stated that it 'has long been clear [the G7] is a dead club.' The former president recalled when he himself took part in the then G8 summits between 2008 and 2012, arguing that the other participants 'were all zombies, even then.'
Trump has repeatedly stated he would 'love' to see Russia back in the group.
The Kremlin said in February that the G7 had 'lost its relevance' as it no longer reflects current global economic dynamics. The G20 is a more representative format that includes fast-growing economies like China, India, and Brazil, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said then, calling it a group that 'reflects the economic locomotives of the world.'
Dating back to the 1970s, the G7 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the UK. Russia was a member of the group between 1998 and 2014. The G20 includes 19 of the world's biggest economies, as well as the EU and the African Union. It was first formed in 1999 but only started convening annually a decade later.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
35 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Council of Europe censures EU state for treatment of Russian speakers
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has reported an increase in hate speech targeting Russian speakers in Latvia in recent years, suggesting that the naturalization procedures in the EU state for non-citizens could 'fuel negative sentiment.' After Latvia gained independence in 1991, a large proportion of residents originating from other parts of the Soviet Union (predominantly Russians), even those who were born in the Baltic state, were issued 'non-citizen' passports, which barred them from voting or working in certain jobs. The resulting ethnic division within the population was only made worse by the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, when Latvia and its Baltic neighbors stepped up their efforts to combat Moscow's perceived influence. Riga has implemented travel restrictions targeting Russian citizens and introduced a mandatory Latvian language test for long-term residents of foreign origin. Thousands who have failed or refused to take the exam have been deported. The Kremlin has denounced the measures as 'blatant discrimination.' In a report published on Thursday, the European Commission stated that since February 2022, there has been a notable spike in hate speech on Latvian internet sites directed at local Russian speakers. According to the document, local authorities may be fueling this animosity with their policies. The EU watchdog singled out the country's rigorous naturalization procedures, particularly the Latvian language tests that resident non-citizens have to take if they wish to acquire citizenship in the Baltic EU member state if they were born before 1991. The report urged Riga to take 'due account of individual circumstances and [provide] support as appropriate,' when conducting such tests. The commission noted that as of June 2024, only 54% of applicants had passed language proficiency tests, raising concerns over the threat of forced deportation facing those who failed. The ECRI also cited complaints it had received from the Russian-speaking community in Latvia regarding the local government's decision to phase out their native language from school curriculums by 2025. The watchdog stressed that Russians, who comprise 24% of the general population in Latvia, constitute the largest ethnic minority in the country. Earlier this month, a Latvian lawmaker who is an ethnic Russian was removed from a parliamentary session for uttering a few sentences in his mother tongue during proceedings. Aleksey Roslikov of the For Stability! Party spoke out against what he described as the growing marginalization of Russian speakers in Latvia. In latte May, Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze called on EU member states to stop issuing Schengen tourist visas to Russian citizens, citing an alleged threat to the bloc's security. Moscow has criticized Riga's measures targeting Russian speakers as 'blatant discrimination,' with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warning that Moscow could file a complaint against Latvia at the International Court of Justice.
Russia Today
43 minutes ago
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next. In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world. The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain. Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist. If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates. Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order. The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival. Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons. The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy. Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions. Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war. The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow. Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place. Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win. Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too. But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast. Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls. That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure. Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon. That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd. None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive. Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response. But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback. And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism. Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain. What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict. And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability. So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran? 1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged. 2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. 3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly. 4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking. 5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war. 6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger. 7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it. 8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war. 9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel. 10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become. So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Vance opposes US involvement in Iran-Israel war
US Vice President J.D. Vance does not support his country's involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran, Reuters has reported, citing two informed sources. A Reuters article revealing his stance came out on Saturday, hours before US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear sites. According to the sources, Vance made his opinion clear during a 'tense' phone call between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top officials from Washington and West Jerusalem on Thursday. Netanyahu and his associates used the exchange to try to persuade the US president to give up on the two-week deadline that he had given to Tehran to reach a deal on the country's nuclear program and immediately take part in the Israeli attacks on Iran, the report read. The Israelis argued that there is only a limited window of opportunity to use the American bunker-busting bombs against Iran's deeply-buried Fordow facility, it said. During the call, the Iraq War veteran 'pushed back' against West Jerusalem's demands, insisting that Washington 'should not be directly involved' in the conflict, the sources claimed. His concern was that 'the Israelis were going to drag the country into war,' they added. Vance appeared beside Trump when the president delivered a televised address from the White House, in which he announced the US strike and claimed that the Iranian nuclear sites have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' Tehran claimed that the attacks did not deliver any serious damage. Social media users later shared screenshots of the vice president from the event, describing his facial expression as 'confused' and 'not happy at all.' Later on Sunday, Vance gave an interview to NBC News 'Meet the Press,' saying that 'we do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace, but we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program.' If Tehran refrains from targeting US troops in the Middle East in retaliation and gives up on their 'nuclear weapons program once and for all, then I think, the president has been very clear, we can have a good relationship with the Iranians. We can have a peaceful situation in that region of the world,' he argued. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Sunday that the US does not have the ability to escape 'heavy responses' by Tehran for its 'illegal military attack on the peaceful nuclear facilities' in Iran. The IRGC claimed that it has already identified the locations where the planes that took part in the strikes are stationed.
