Feed aggregator

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stark warning to European nations on Friday, declaring that the deployment of European troops to Ukraine would trigger a direct military confrontation with Russia as Western governments discuss possible security guarantees for Kyiv following an eventual end to the war.

Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, where he was attending the BRICS summit, Putin responded to proposals under consideration by European countries to establish an international military presence designed to protect Ukraine following a peace agreement.

“Now, they say they are thinking of how to deploy troops to Ukraine,” Putin said, according to Russia’s state-run TASS news agency. “This would mean a war with Russia.”

The warning followed discussions among Ukraine’s European allies over what security arrangements could be put in place if a ceasefire or peace agreement is ultimately reached.

French President Emmanuel Macron previously announced that 26 countries had committed themselves to providing postwar security guarantees for Ukraine. The countries were considering various forms of assistance, with some prepared to participate in a force operating on land, at sea or in the air, while others could contribute without stationing personnel inside Ukraine.

“The day the conflict stops, the security guarantees will be deployed,” Macron said.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected the prospect of Western forces being stationed inside Ukraine. Putin has previously warned that Western troops deployed there would be considered legitimate military targets by Russia.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reinforced Putin’s latest warning on Saturday, saying Moscow had made its position unmistakably clear to European governments.

“It’s not a red line, but Russia’s position that has been conveyed to the whole world, primarily to Europeans, in an extremely specific and clear manner,” Peskov said.

The escalating rhetoric came as fighting continued at high intensity across Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia launched nearly 500 attack drones across the country on Saturday, part of a major wave of strikes that hit numerous regions.

Ukrainian officials reported that Russian attacks on Saturday killed 10 civilians and wounded dozens more, damaging residential areas and infrastructure. Among the locations hit were Odesa, Kramatorsk, Kryvyi Rih, Zaporizhzhia and the Zhytomyr region.

The attacks have increasingly extended toward Ukraine’s western frontier with NATO countries. On Sunday, Russia struck a truck near the Dorohusk-Yahodyn crossing on the Polish border, temporarily disrupting operations there. Moscow said the target was infrastructure used to support European military shipments to Ukraine.

Ukraine borders NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, as well as Moldova. The possibility that troops from European countries could eventually operate inside Ukraine has therefore become one of the most sensitive questions surrounding efforts to establish lasting security guarantees for Kyiv.

European governments supporting the proposal have described a potential international presence as a postwar deterrent rather than a force intended to enter the current fighting. Planning has focused on what would happen after hostilities cease and how Ukraine could be protected against another Russian attack.

Russia, however, has consistently opposed NATO or other Western military forces operating on Ukrainian territory and has portrayed the issue as a fundamental security concern.

Putin’s latest warning significantly raised the stakes surrounding those discussions, making explicit that Moscow would regard the arrival of European troops in Ukraine as a direct confrontation between Russia and the countries deploying them.

The warning came as diplomatic efforts to end the war continued alongside the fighting. During the BRICS gathering in New Delhi, India and other participating countries renewed calls for negotiations, while Moscow signaled that it remained open to further talks involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

For now, however, the gulf between Moscow and Kyiv’s European allies remains substantial. European leaders are attempting to devise guarantees strong enough to deter another Russian offensive after a settlement, while Putin is warning that one of the most significant options under discussion — putting European military personnel on Ukrainian soil — could itself produce a direct war between Russia and Europe.

[COMMUNICATED]

When it comes to an esrog, everybody’s got their thing. Some guy wants a Chazon Ish. Some guy’s holding out for a Teimani. Somebody’s asking about the pitom, somebody wants it greener, somebody’s got a whole opinion about the gartel that most people don’t even understand. It’s personal. 

Most people walking into a store are picking from whatever’s sitting on the table in front of them. That’s it. That’s the selection. EsrogShopper.com does it completely differently. You tell them exactly what you’re looking for, and someone who actually knows esrogim goes and searches for it. Not close enough. Not pretty good. The one you actually had in mind. They’re going through over ten thousand esrogim to find it, and every set comes rabbinically certified and checked.

So if you want an esrog that somebody actually shopped for, instead of one you just settled on, check out EsrogShopper.com, or give them a call at 732-246-6300.

Hiddur. Delivered.

President Donald Trump doubled down Sunday on his pledge to send $5,000 “dividend” checks to American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress in November, declaring that the payments will “happen 100 percent” and arguing that the United States is bringing in enough money to finance them. The proposal, however, would require congressional authorization and could carry a price tag exceeding $1 trillion.

Trump compared the proposed payments to the $1,776 checks distributed to U.S. military personnel last year, telling reporters outside Air Force One that he has encountered similar skepticism about his latest plan.

“The $5,000 is going to happen 100 percent,” he said. “And the reason is because our country is taking in trillions and trillions of dollars. And it’s going to happen.”

Trump said he deliberately does not intend to distribute the money before the midterm elections, tying the proposal to Republicans maintaining control of both the House and Senate.

“I don’t want to do it now, because if the Democrats get it, our country will be in shambles and they won’t be able to do it,” he continued. “If we get in, we’re taking in tremendous amounts of money. We’re taking in over $20 trillion in terms of investment. And with the Democrats, all of that money will be thrown out. If the Democrats get in, they won’t be able to pay it.”

Trump first unveiled the proposed payments last Wednesday during the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas, where he said the country’s economic performance would allow his administration to distribute $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans win both chambers. He also stipulated that the money would have to be spent inside the United States.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday that the administration does not envision financing the checks through taxpayer dollars. Instead, he said the administration believes it can generate the necessary funds through other government revenue sources.

Lutnick said the administration could “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out, not from the deficit and not from taxpayers.”

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has suggested that Congress could approve the payments through a budget reconciliation package. Under the Constitution, Congress controls federal appropriations, meaning the administration cannot simply distribute public money without legislative authorization.

House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed Sunday that congressional action would be necessary. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Johnson called Trump’s proposal a “creative idea” but said lawmakers would have to determine the specifics.

The President has compared his latest proposal to the $1,776 payments that approximately 1.45 million U.S. military service members received last year. Those checks were funded through a one-time housing supplement included in Trump’s sweeping tax and spending legislation.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio quickly embraced Trump’s latest proposal, announcing after the President’s Dallas speech that he intends to introduce legislation aimed at putting the $5,000 payments into effect if Republicans retain control of Congress.

The cost of such a program would be substantial. With roughly 245 million adult U.S. citizens, providing each of them with $5,000 would cost more than $1.2 trillion. Other estimates have put the potential price tag at approximately $1.3 trillion, depending on the eligibility rules ultimately adopted.

Paul Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, has questioned whether tariff revenue could come close to financing the program. The Hill reported that Treasury data cited by the Bipartisan Policy Center showed approximately $341 billion in net tariff revenue collected since the beginning of 2025 — far below the estimated cost of the proposed checks.

“Even if there were, that’s money that goes back to the public fisc, and then Congress is the one that has the power of the purse to allocate it,” Berman said.

The financing question has become more complicated after the Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Trump administration’s tariff program and ordered refunds of revenue collected under the invalidated tariffs. Independent analyses have likewise concluded that tariff receipts would be insufficient on their own to finance payments of $5,000 to every adult citizen.

Not all Republicans have embraced the proposal. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has pointed to the size of the national debt and warned that another massive round of direct payments could contribute to inflation.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has also expressed reservations about the potential cost and the absence, thus far, of an income limit determining who would qualify.

“From the few details we have, it seems that the proposed $5,000 dividend would not have an income cap and would be extraordinarily costly,” Collins said about the dividends.

The administration has not yet released a detailed legislative proposal explaining exactly who would qualify, how the checks would be financed, when they would be distributed or how the requirement that the money be spent in the United States would be enforced.

Trump, however, made clear Sunday that he is standing firmly behind the promise. Despite questions about the cost, congressional approval and the source of the funding, the President said there should be no doubt about his intention to deliver the payments if Republicans maintain control of Congress.

“The $5,000 is going to happen 100 percent,” he said.

Sen. Ruben Gallego said Sunday that if he were elected president, he would support undoing many of President Donald Trump’s architectural changes to Washington, including tearing down the new White House ballroom and Trump’s planned 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

The Arizona Democrat, who has not announced a 2028 presidential campaign but has acknowledged considering a run, made the remarks during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” His comments marked one of the clearest statements yet from a potential Democratic presidential contender that some of Trump’s major construction projects should ultimately be demolished rather than simply inherited by a future administration.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper raised the subject while discussing Trump’s extensive effort to reshape prominent landmarks and public spaces around the nation’s capital, including the White House ballroom, the proposed triumphal arch and changes involving the Kennedy Center and Reflecting Pool.

“President Trump is putting his mark on Washington, DC quite a bit, building a White House ballroom. He plans to build an arch, attempts to rename the Kennedy Center, the reflecting pool, and on and on and on. It seems clear to me that this is going to be a big issue for Democrats running for president in 2028. I know you haven’t made a decision yet about whether or not you’re going to run for president, but if you do, would you advocate for tearing down the ballroom or tearing down the arch?” Tapper asked.

Gallego indicated that he would favor reversing nearly all of the changes.

“I think I’d be advocating for almost all of that. You know, the the real stain that this president has put on this country has been the fact that he eroded democracy, right. Let’s start with January 6. The fact that for the first time ever, a U.S. president attempted an actual coup. That right there is a reason why we should not have anything named toward him. The fact that he has destroyed the institutions that have kept this government together through some of the hardest times, and eroded, for example, our Department of Justice, is another reason why we needs to be taking down all these honorific situations or emblems of him. The fact that he wants to destroy the Kennedy Center, a man that contributed so much to this country, to replace it with his name, who has done everything to destroy this country, is another reason why we have to make sure that we wipe him out. So this is not me trying to get to Donald Trump because I don’t like Donald Trump, it’s because of what Donald Trump has done to this country. And as somebody who visits a lot of my friends at Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, the fact that we’re going to have this ugly monstrosity in the view of this very sacred site —”

Tapper interrupted to clarify which project Gallego was referring to.

“The arch?”

Gallego confirmed that he was referring to Trump’s planned triumphal arch.

“The arch is another reason why that needs to be taken care of. Because, again, this man has done nothing but actually destroy the very fundamental things that these men and women have fought for, which is to save this country in continuous democracy.”

Gallego’s remarks came as Trump has moved aggressively ahead with a series of major construction and renovation projects in Washington. The proposed arch is planned for Memorial Circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery and has been envisioned at roughly 250 feet tall. The administration has said the monument would honor American veterans and has compared its design to Paris’ Arc de Triomphe.

The arch has generated both political and legal opposition. Critics contend that the structure would interfere with the historic sight line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House and argue that the administration lacks the congressional authorization required to build it. The administration has disputed those arguments, while the project has yet to receive final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission.

Trump has strongly defended the project, saying of the planned arch, “I think it will be the most beautiful in the world.” He has compared it to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and said the Washington structure would be of a similar scale, though slightly larger.

The White House ballroom has separately become a major political and legal flashpoint. Construction on the project has continued following litigation over whether congressional approval was required, with the Supreme Court recently allowing work to proceed while the legal battle continues.

Trump has defended the ballroom as both a major improvement to the White House and a project intended to serve future presidents, rather than himself. He has also described the facility as designed with significant security features.

“This is for future presence. This isn’t for me. This is for future presence. And it’s a gift. We’re making a gift to our country, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a ballroom,” Trump said last month.

The dispute over what a future administration should do with Trump’s Washington projects has been building for months. Some Democrats have discussed reversing name changes and other alterations, although others have suggested that physically demolishing completed structures would be far more difficult to justify. CNN reported earlier this month that Democrats it had spoken with generally did not expect a future Democratic administration to tear down completed projects because doing so could itself be viewed as destructive.

Gallego, however, went considerably further Sunday, saying he would favor removing much of Trump’s imprint if he eventually reached the White House. His comments were particularly pointed regarding the arch, which he described as an “ugly monstrosity” because of its planned location within view of Arlington National Cemetery.

The Arizona senator tied his opposition to friends buried in Section 60 at Arlington, arguing that Trump should not be memorialized near a site honoring American servicemembers.

Gallego’s remarks also offered a preview of an issue that could become part of the 2028 presidential debate: whether Trump’s physical transformation of Washington should remain after he leaves office or whether a succeeding administration should attempt to reverse it.