Germany probes warship ‘sabotage'
The issue with the corvette-class Emden was reportedly discovered during an inspection at a shipyard in Hamburg last month shortly before its first departure, according to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and the broadcasters NDR and WDR.
The 89-meter-long warship, intended for deployment in the Baltic Sea, had not yet been delivered to the German Navy when the metal shavings were discovered. This could have caused significant damage to the vessel if not detected in time, the report said.
The German Navy has commissioned a total of five corvette-class ships, including the Emden, which is set to be used for maritime surveillance.
READ MORE:
NATO nation clears Russian-crewed ship in sabotage probe
A shipyard spokesperson told the media that the Emden recently completed
'a successful sea trial,'
but declined to comment further.
The incident is now under investigation by the Hamburg regional prosecutor's office and the local criminal police.
While the report did not provide evidence linking Moscow to the incident, it claimed that Germany, along with other NATO countries, suspects Russia could be behind covert actions targeting the West.
The article cited a recent police investigation into drone sightings over a northern German air base where Ukrainian forces are trained, claiming the incident is part of a growing trend of drones being spotted over military and industrial sites in Germany.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, German Navy Chief Jan Christian Kaack refrained from commenting on the sabotage allegations regarding the Emden, but stated that several German warships had previously sustained damage due to acts of sabotage.
'Our assessment: We are being tested,'
he said, without specifying who the Navy suspects to be responsible for these acts.
'The growing threat from Russia is more pressing at the beginning of 2025 than it was two years ago,'
Kaack said.
'Experts and intelligence services agree that Russia will be in a position to seek conflict with NATO from 2029 onwards,'
he added.
READ MORE:
NATO steps up patrols in Baltic Sea
Russia has denied having any intention of attacking NATO states, with President Vladimir Putin describing warnings about Russian aggression as
'nonsense'
aimed at alarming citizens and increasing defense budgets in the West.
The warship case follows a string of incidents involving damage to critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, with speculation that Russia could have played a role. Western officials have refrained, however, from making direct accusations.
Moscow has dismissed allegations of its involvement as
'absurd.'
Meanwhile, NATO has increased its Baltic Sea presence and stepped up patrols in the region on the pretext of an alleged Russian threat and protecting undersea infrastructure.
The Baltic Sea – a strategic area for Russian naval operations and energy exports – became, as Moscow put it, an
'internal lake of NATO'
after Finland and Sweden joined the alliance, which left Russia controlling only a small portion of the coastline.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine kills civilians trying to cross into Russia
Ukrainian troops have over the course of the conflict killed hundreds of civilians attempting to cross the frontline into Russia, senior diplomat Rodion Miroshnik has told the media. Miroshnik, who serves as the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large for the Kiev regime's war crimes, said the cases were documented through testimony and video evidence. 'There are hundreds of cases. There are instances where people were shot while trying to cross the [front] line, bombarded with drones, attacked,' the diplomat told the TASS news agency on Friday. Miroshnik went on to claim that Kiev's forces deliberately murder civilians in the new Russian region of Donetsk. 'There were cases where Ukrainian forces went through the basements of houses and threw grenades at people 'as a preventive measure,' he said. Such tactics, seen in the towns of Avdeevka, Selidovo, and Dzerzhinsk in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) left areas 'completely cleared' of civilians, he added. The same happened in Chasov Yar, a key Ukrainian stronghold liberated by Russian forces two weeks to the diplomat, evidence suggests that Kiev's forces kill those whom Ukraine no longer sees as its own citizens, but rather as 'separatists' waiting to be liberated by Russia. In June, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Kiev of deliberately exterminating civilians in Donbass, including mass killings of the elderly and drone strikes on residential buildings. Russia will not overlook any crimes committed against the civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law, Miroshnik stressed. The diplomat argued that under international conventions Ukraine is obligated to investigate alleged war crimes and hold perpetrators accountable but claimed that Kiev is unlikely to do so and that its Western backers will not apply pressure. Miroshnik added that Russia will push for the extradition of Ukrainian war criminals, noting that around 108,000 criminal cases have already been opened and roughly 500 individuals have been convicted, including some in absentia.
Russia Today
6 days ago
- Russia Today
Why Kiev always escalates before talks – and why it won't work this time
On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia's border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process. The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow's interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms. The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia's gains and ends the war on Moscow's terms – not by fighting 'to the last Ukrainian,' but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine's population. Key European backers share Zelensky's preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a 'bulwark' against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect. By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the 'threat' narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat. Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow's reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism. That realism includes acknowledging Russia's current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks. Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington's decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow's calculus, this is where Trump's role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has. From the Kremlin's point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow's eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored.
Russia Today
6 days ago
- Russia Today
Russia derails Ukraine's Western-backed missile program – FSB (VIDEO)
Russian forces have struck four Ukrainian defense industrial facilities producing long-range missile systems, causing 'colossal' damage and stalling Kiev's domestic missile program, the Federal Security Service (FSB) has said. In a statement on Thursday, the FSB said the operation mounted by the agency and the Russian Defense Ministry targeted chemical and mechanical plants in Pavlograd, Dneptropetrovsk Region, as well as the 'Zvezda' plant and State Scientific Research Institute of Chemical Products in Shostka, Sumy Region. The impact of the strikes had been confirmed by satellite imagery and open-source intelligence, it added. The FSB said that Ukraine, with NATO's permission, had planned to use Sapsan long-range missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory. 'Thanks to the joint efforts of the FSB and Russian Armed Forces, Ukraine's missile program plans have been thwarted,' the statement added. The agency described the damage to Ukraine's military industrial complex as 'colossal,' and said it far surpassed Kiev's 'Spiderweb' operation that targeted strategic Russian aviation in early June. Moscow said that the Ukrainian attack, which involved dozens of drones, damaged several aircraft but dismissed Kiev's claims that approximately 40 warplanes were destroyed. An unnamed FSB official told TASS that the Sapsan missile systems were developed with financial support from Germany and assistance from foreign specialists. The Sapsan is a Ukrainian tactical ballistic missile with a warhead weighing around 480kg. The missile can travel at speeds over 6,000kph and has a range estimated of up to 700km. The FSB published a map outlining the Sapsan's range, with a large part of Western Russia – including Moscow – being within the kill zone. In May, Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that Germany would fund Ukraine's domestic production of long-range missiles, although he did not specify the type of weapon. The German Defense Ministry also stated at the time that investing in Ukraine's production would enable Kiev to have a 'substantial' number of long-range weapons this year. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has since threatened new long-range strikes deep into Russia, saying Kiev will 'do everything possible to bring the war onto Russian territory.'
