Putin: New hypersonic missiles are in production and will be deployed to Belarus
'Preparatory work is ongoing, and most likely we will be done with it before the year's end,' Mr Putin said, adding that the first series of Oreshniks and their systems have been produced and entered military service.
Russia first used the Oreshnik, which is Russian for 'hazelnut tree', against Ukraine in November, when it fired the experimental weapon at a factory in Dnipro that built missiles when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.
Mr Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack.
He warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's Nato allies which allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia.
Russia's missile forces chief has declared that the Oreshnik, which can carry conventional or nuclear warheads, has a range allowing it to reach all of Europe.
Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 310 to 3,400 miles. Such weapons were banned under a Soviet-era treaty that Washington and Moscow abandoned in 2019.
Last fall, Mr Putin and Mr Lukashenko signed a treaty giving Moscow's security guarantees to Belarus, including the possible use of Russian nuclear weapons to help repel any aggression.
The pact follows the Kremlin's revision of its nuclear doctrine, which for the first time placed Belarus under the Russian nuclear umbrella amid tensions with the West over the conflict in Ukraine.
Mr Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus with an iron hand for over 30 years and has relied on Kremlin subsidies and support, allowed Russia to use his country's territory to send troops into Ukraine in 2022 and to host some of its tactical nuclear weapons.
Russia hasn't disclosed how many such weapons were deployed, but Mr Lukashenko said in December that his country currently has several dozen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump said he ordered 2 nuclear subs moved after Russia nuclear threat
President Donald Trump said on Aug. 1 he ordered two nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions" in response to Russia's nuclear threats. "Based on the highly provocative statements" of Russian spokesperson Dmitry Medvedev, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances."
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Times
5 hours ago
- Times
Gestures are not enough — we need a coherent strategy for Ukraine
In the run-up to the presidential election in 2024, Donald Trump often expressed his confident belief that he could stop the war between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours. In the months since, despite the US president's frequent oscillations between flattery of Vladimir Putin and exasperation, the latter has done everything possible to disabuse Mr Trump of his initial assumption. Indeed, in recent months Moscow has escalated its offensive with thousands of drones and missiles. In Scotland on July 28, Mr Trump warned Russia that it had a new deadline of 'ten or 12 days' to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face tough new sanctions. Mr Putin was not slow to give his reply. Last Thursday morning, just three days later, Kyiv was surveying the grotesque aftermath of a seven-hour Russian aerial bombardment which killed at least 31 people and injured more than 150: the deadliest attack on the city in a year. Mr Trump's early tensions with President Zelensky, the flashpoint of which was a notoriously ill-humoured meeting in the Oval Office in February, have given way to his growing public frustration with Mr Putin. That anger has translated in modern-day gunboat diplomacy with Mr Trump deploying two nuclear submarines nearer to Russia. In April, after a Russian air attack killed 12 people in Kyiv, Mr Trump pleaded in a social media post 'Vladimir, STOP!'. In May, after a weekend of Russian drone and missile assaults upon Ukraine, he observed that Mr Putin had 'gone absolutely CRAZY'. • Peace deadline shows Trump has run out of patience with Putin Following the most recent outrage, the US president's rhetoric has hardened, to describe Russia's actions as 'disgusting' and warn that 'we're going to put sanctions' on Russia. For a man whose abiding creed is the 'art of the deal' this much must now be glaringly apparent to Mr Trump: the US has already made significant concessions with Russia on Ukraine, and received nothing in return. Not least among these were the indications by Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, that Ukraine could not expect to reclaim the land which Russia has seized since 2014, and nor would it be permitted to join Nato. Given Mr Putin's unwillingness to compromise, the time for heavy US sanctions against Russia is long overdue. Without decisive action, Mr Trump will increasingly resemble a spurned and insulted King Lear, threatening, 'I will do such things — what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth!' Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, recently openly ridiculed Mr Trump's shifting deadlines and ultimatums. So did the excitable former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who also verbally menaced the US leader with a Russian Cold-War era nuclear system known as the 'Dead Hand'. Beyond such symbolic gestures as moving the submarines, a much more cool-headed and coherent US approach to Russian aggression is needed. Mr Trump has spoken of sanctions and 'secondary tariffs', suggesting penalties on countries that trade strongly with Russia, such as India, China and Turkey. He has also announced an unspecified 'penalty' on India for its commerce with Moscow in energy and arms. Yet there remain many other potential moves, including pressuring other countries over Russia trade; ramping up the supply of weapons for Ukraine; reaching agreement with Kyiv for the joint production of advanced drones; and encouraging Europe to transfer £230 billion of frozen Russian state assets to Ukraine. A bipartisan bid in the US Congress to provide $54.6 billion in aid to Ukraine over the next two years also deserves widespread support. The US envoy Steve Witkoff is reportedly being dispatched, yet again, to Moscow. He has little thus far to show for his many chats with Mr Putin. If the US itself is not to be irrevocably weakened on the world stage, he must show that he, and his boss in the White House, finally mean business.
