Connect with us

News

Putin wins 88% of votes in election where opposition was banned, early results show

Published

on

Putin wins 88% of votes in election where opposition was banned, early results show

Vladimir Putin is cruising to victory in Russia’s presidential election, cementing his rule for another six years amid his invasion of Ukraine and brutal suppression of dissent.

Early results on Sunday showed the Russian president on track to be re-elected with a record 88 per cent of the vote and turnout of more than 70 per cent, according to the Russian electoral commission with 25 per cent of returns counted.

The outcome — which included totals from five Ukrainian regions occupied by Russia — was a foregone conclusion after the Kremlin outlawed all criticism of Putin or the war and blocked any opposition candidates from running.

As the results came in, Putin thanked volunteers and spoke to reporters at his campaign headquarters near the Kremlin. “All the plans we have created to develop Russia will certainly be carried out and their goals achieved,” he said. “We have come up with grandiose plans and will do everything to carry them out.”

Appearing eager to send a message to the west, Putin exuded confidence that Russia would win the war and said the high turnout showed that he enjoyed overwhelming public support to wage it.

Advertisement

The main challenges of his next six-year term, Putin said, were “achieving the goals of the special operation [in Ukraine] and strengthening our defence capacity and armed forces.”

Putin mused about a potential Russian military conflict with Nato, which he said would be “one step away from a third world war” after France’s Emmanuel Macron speculated on sending troops to Ukraine.

“Everything is possible in the modern world [ . . . ] I don’t think anyone’s really interested in that,” he said.

Putin also suggested he was more legitimate than Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has postponed elections originally scheduled for later this year under martial law. “We will think about who to hold talks with” on ending the war, he said. “We are for peace negotiations, but not because the enemy is running out of ammunition.”

Ahead of Putin’s comments, Zelenskyy wrote on X: “The Russian dictator is simulating another election. Everyone in the world understands that this figure . . . has simply become addicted to power and is doing everything he can to rule forever . . . There is no legitimacy in this imitation of elections and there cannot be.”

Advertisement

The longest-serving ruler since Joseph Stalin, Putin has solidified his grip on power despite western efforts to impose harsh economic sanctions on Moscow for the invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s army has regained the initiative against outmanned and outgunned Ukrainian forces while the Russian economy has rebounded thanks to a wartime surge in defence spending and economic lifelines from countries such as China.

Voters at a polling station in St Petersburg at noon on Sunday. Alexei Navalny’s supporters called on people to arrive en masse at midday and vote against Vladimir Putin © AP

Putin’s repression of domestic dissent since the invasion has left him with no challengers after Alexei Navalny, his most prominent opponent, died in a remote Arctic prison colony last month. Navalny’s family and supporters have been forced into exile and have blamed Putin for his death, an allegation the Kremlin denies.

Asked about Navalny on Sunday night, Putin — who had studiously avoided saying his name in public for more than a decade — dismissed claims Russia had murdered him.

“As concerns Mr Navalny. Yes, he left this life, it is a tragic event. But there have been other instances where incarcerated people left this earth. Hasn’t that happened in the US? It has, and more than once,” Putin said.

Putin added that he had agreed to an informal proposal to release Navalny in a prisoner exchange not long before he died. “A few days before Navalny left this life I was told that there was an idea to swap him for people in prison in western countries. The person who said that [ . . .] didn’t finish his phrase before I said, I agree.

Advertisement

“But unfortunately, what happened happened. I agreed under one condition: we swap him, and he doesn’t come back. But such is life.”

From exile or prison, opposition leaders had urged supporters to go to the polls en masse at noon on Sunday in Navalny’s memory and vote against Putin. Hundreds of people followed the call, according to footage posted on social media.

“My wife, my friend and I came to the polling station around twelve,” said Danil, a corporate lawyer who lives in a northern Moscow neighbourhood. He said that a “visible line” of people of all ages started forming at noon.

“I expected problems, that the authorities would close the station at noon. But except for the line, there was nothing extraordinary,” Danil said.

Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of Alexei Navalny, stands in a queue outside the Russian Embassy in Berlin on Sunday
Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of Alexei Navalny, holding flowers as she stands in a queue outside the Russian Embassy in Berlin on the final day of the election © Annegret Hilse/Reuters

Vera, a young woman in Moscow, said she came to vote at midday to show her opposition to Putin, and “that I do not support everything that is happening in the country”.

Abroad, even longer lines formed in cities with large Russian émigré populations including Dubai, Almaty and Berlin, where Navalny’s widow Yulia Navalnaya queued to vote.

Advertisement

One of the longest lines was recorded in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, which is home to one of the largest Russian communities.

Elena, a podcast editor, said she had travelled from neighbouring Georgia, which does not have a Russian embassy, with more than a dozen friends. “I understand my vote won’t change anything, but I think it’s an important event to observe and to see how many of us are there,” she said.

In London, the queue outside the Russian embassy that formed towards noon was nearly 2km long. Alina, 25, a student from the Siberian city of Kogalym, said she had come to the polling station because “we have very few rights in our country. We must exercise the ones we have left”.

Russian police detained more than 65 people on Sunday including for writing “No to war!” on a ballot, wearing a T-shirt with Navalny’s name on it, or trying to slip a photo of him into the ballot box, according to independent rights monitor OVD-Info.

In the first two days of the election, dozens were arrested across Russia for setting voting booths on fire, or throwing Molotov cocktails at polling stations.

Advertisement

Some officials tried to explain away the protests. Authorities in Novosibirsk, Siberia’s largest city, claimed the noon queues had been caused by repair works.

Independent election monitor Golos, whose co-chair Grigory Melkonyants was jailed last year, said authorities had also coerced public sector employees into voting early or pushed them to vote online.

The three lawmakers who were allowed on the ballot alongside Putin support the war and have avoided criticising the president.

Additional reporting by Daria Mosolova in London

Advertisement

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending