Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MaddowBlog-Trump praises Putin's neutrality on Iran, despite the obvious lack of neutrality
One foundational problem with the American’s newest compliment of his Russian counterpart: Putin wasn’t “neutral” in Iran at all
When Trump said Putin was “very neutral†in the war in Iran, it generated a straightforward question:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-06-18T13:59:39.639Z
Is the Republican hopelessly ignorant about recent events that he really ought to understand, or does he not know what “neutral†means?
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-putin-neutrality-russia-iran-assistance
As the Group of Seven summit in France wrapped up, Donald Trump covered a lot of ground in an hourlong press conference, including extending some curious praise to his friend in Moscow.
“I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral,” the American president said, referring to the Russian leader’s role in the war with Iran. “They could have made it much more difficult for us.”
Whether Trump realizes this or not, there was a foundational problem with his compliment: Putin wasn’t neutral at all.....
It wasn’t long before any doubts about the accuracy of the reporting evaporated. Iranian officials publicly confirmed Russia’s “military cooperation”; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz acknowledged Russia’s wartime “strategic partnership” with Iran; and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said matter-of-factly that Russia was “providing intelligence to Iran to better attack and kill American troops.”
The Wall Street Journal soon after advanced the broader story, reporting that Russia expanded its intelligence sharing and military cooperation with Iran, “providing satellite imagery and improved drone technology to aid Tehran’s targeting of U.S. forces in the region.”....
In other words, the incumbent American president, during a war, both echoed Putin’s talking points and excused an adversary for helping a different adversary target American troops and assets.
All the while, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared publicly that his country’s government had “irrefutable” evidence that Russia had provided intelligence to the Iranian regime during the war, but he simply couldn’t get the White House to take an interest in the proof.
A simple question appears unavoidable: When Trump said Putin was “very neutral” in the war with Iran, was the American president ignorant about recent events he ought to understand, or does he not know what “neutral” means?
Trump: "I want to thank China, President Xi, I was with him — and he stayed totally neutral and I appreciate it. And I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral…So I just want to thank them."
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-06-17T17:03:49.921Z
“I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral,” the American president said, referring to the Russian leader’s role in the war with Iran. “They could have made it much more difficult for us.”
Whether Trump realizes this or not, there was a foundational problem with his compliment: Putin wasn’t neutral at all.....
It wasn’t long before any doubts about the accuracy of the reporting evaporated. Iranian officials publicly confirmed Russia’s “military cooperation”; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz acknowledged Russia’s wartime “strategic partnership” with Iran; and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said matter-of-factly that Russia was “providing intelligence to Iran to better attack and kill American troops.”
The Wall Street Journal soon after advanced the broader story, reporting that Russia expanded its intelligence sharing and military cooperation with Iran, “providing satellite imagery and improved drone technology to aid Tehran’s targeting of U.S. forces in the region.”....
In other words, the incumbent American president, during a war, both echoed Putin’s talking points and excused an adversary for helping a different adversary target American troops and assets.
All the while, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared publicly that his country’s government had “irrefutable” evidence that Russia had provided intelligence to the Iranian regime during the war, but he simply couldn’t get the White House to take an interest in the proof.
A simple question appears unavoidable: When Trump said Putin was “very neutral” in the war with Iran, was the American president ignorant about recent events he ought to understand, or does he not know what “neutral” means?