Ukraine says North Korean missiles becoming more precise
Ukraine's Air Force and other authorities said Russian forces had staged assaults across the country with more than 300 drones and seven missiles, including those made in North Korea, overnight through Tuesday morning. They said three people were killed in the capital Kyiv and the southern region of Odesa.
A spokesperson for the Ukrainian foreign ministry, told reporters on Tuesday that two North Korean KN23 short-range ballistic missiles had been shot down in Kyiv.
He noted that the North has significantly improved the accuracy of its missiles as it uses them on the battlefields in Ukraine. He said the latest development should be a "wake-up call" for everyone.
The spokesperson called on the international community to join efforts to pressure Pyongyang to stop cooperating with Moscow.
The head of the Ukrainian defense intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, viewed the KN23 missile as a military threat in an interview released on Monday.
He said the North Korean missiles used to land a few kilometers off the mark, but now they are accurately hitting the target.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Govt Eyes Drones for Coastal Defense by Fiscal 2027; New Initiative Dubbed ‘SHIELD' Will Operate on Air, Sea and Underwater
The Defense Ministry has decided to establish a new initiative to use unmanned vehicles in the air, at sea and underwater for coastal defense by fiscal 2027, according to government sources. Called 'SHIELD,' the plan seeks to deter foreign forces attempting to invade Japan, according to the sources. As unmanned vehicles can be introduced in large numbers due to being relatively inexpensive, the ministry aims to establish a cost-effective defense system. Under the plan, unmanned aircraft will be launched from naval vessels, with unmanned surface vessels and unmanned submarines to intercept enemy ships on the water and underwater, respectively. Small unmanned aircraft will be launched from land to attack enemy ships approaching the coast. The ministry also plans to begin experiments on introducing a control system to manage the simultaneous operation of a large number of unmanned vehicles. In April, the ministry set up a team to examine future combat methods, including the use of unmanned vehicles, and has been considering approaches how to attack and conduct reconnaissance against targets. In light of the large-scale deployment of unmanned vehicles in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the ministry has determined that the establishment of a multi-layered defense system including such vehicles is an urgent priority. Separately from the SHIELD initiative, the ministry is also advancing research on AI-equipped unmanned aircraft to support the next-generation fighter jets being jointly developed with Britain and Italy. It plans to acquire the U.S.-made 'MQ-9B SeaGuardian' as an unmanned aircraft designed for long-endurance flights for maritime surveillance. The ministry intends to include the costs required for the initiative in its budget request for the next fiscal year.
NHK
7 hours ago
- NHK
Japan, Germany FMs agree on need for G7 unity over early Ukraine ceasefire
The foreign ministers of Japan and Germany have agreed on the importance of unity among the Group of Seven nations to realize an early ceasefire and lasting peace in Ukraine. Iwaya Takeshi met with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, for about 40 minutes on Monday for the first Japan-Germany Foreign Ministerial Strategic Dialogue. The German Foreign Minister is visiting Tokyo for the first time since he took office. At the start, Iwaya noted that the need for cooperation and collaboration between their countries is increasing. He expressed readiness to engage in constructive talks not only on the situation in Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific region, but also on ways to deepen bilateral cooperation including economic security. In response, Wadephul said Japan is a special partner in Asia, and in this time of crises and conflicts, this exceptional bilateral relationship plays a significant role. The two also agreed on the importance of unity within the G7 bloc to realize an early and complete ceasefire, as well as a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The consensus comes against the backdrop of talks between the presidents of the US and Russia, as well as the scheduled meeting between the presidents of the US and Ukraine in Washington on Monday, local time. To realize a free and open international order, the top diplomats also agreed to hold another Foreign and Defense Ministers meeting, or a 2 plus 2 meeting, at an early date. They also agreed to strengthen dialogue in the cyber domain to further materialize bilateral cooperation in security fields.
Japan Times
10 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's transactional policies threaten global stability
The much-hyped Trump-Putin Alaska summit ended Friday without any agreement on Ukraine, despite both leaders hailing the 'progress' made. U.S. President Donald Trump conceded that no deal was reached, while Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted they had achieved an 'understanding.' The meeting, filled with pomp but lacking substance, only reinforced the perception of Trump's transactional style — warmth for adversaries but little clarity on outcomes. Just before the Alaska summit, Trump also claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping had privately assured him that China would not invade Taiwan during his tenure, underscoring the unpredictable yet highly consequential impact of Trump's diplomacy on global security. These developments form the backdrop against which Trump's renewed tariff wars must be understood. His second term in the White House is dramatically reshaping the global geopolitical landscape, particularly in trade and strategic alignments. While some of these changes may be guided by his ambition to 'make America great again,' there is a growing sentiment — both within and outside the United States — that his actions are shaped as much by pay-to-play and personal motivations as by strategic vision. At the heart of these shifts lies a reinvigorated tariff war, which has not only targeted traditional rivals like China but also extended to strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific such as Japan and India. Trump's first presidential term (2017-20) was marked by a clear foreign-policy orientation that sought to contain the rise of China. Recognizing China as the principal challenger to U.S. supremacy, his administration sought to forge new alignments in the Indo-Pacific region, bolstering ties with countries such as Japan, Australia and India to act as counterweights. The strategic language was couched in terms of preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific, in which the U.S. portrayed itself as a Pacific power with legitimate stakes in the region's balance of power. Trump's second term, however, has seen a notable pivot: economic protectionism now overrides strategic consistency, and trade wars are being used not only as economic instruments but as tools of geopolitical leverage. As with Trump's steep tariffs on Japan , his more recent imposition of tariffs on India — America's largest democratic partner and a crucial player in the Indo-Pacific — is a startling manifestation of this shift. On Aug. 6, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, raising the overall tariff to a staggering 50%. The rationale given was India's continued purchase of Russian oil, which the White House claimed represented an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to American national security and foreign-policy interests. Yet upon even cursory examination, the Trump administration's reasoning is riddled with inconsistencies and double standards. Data shows that India accounted for only 13% of Russia's fossil-fuel revenue since the start of the Ukraine war, whereas the European Union — despite its anti-Russia rhetoric — contributed 23%. Still, the EU has been spared punitive tariffs, while India faces the economic brunt. This selective application of punitive measures suggests that the logic behind the tariffs is not solely grounded in principled foreign policy. It increasingly looks like an attempt to pressure countries that have limited leverage over the United States. Unlike China, which retaliated against earlier tariffs by banning the export of rare earth minerals — forcing Washington to reduce its tariff burden — India lacks such economic levers. With a vast population dependent on agriculture and dairy, New Delhi has long resisted opening up these sensitive sectors. Trump's insistence that India must make concessions in these very sectors adds further strain, as such demands are politically unacceptable in the Indian domestic context. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded with firmness, making it clear that India will not compromise the interests of its farmers, fishermen and dairy producers. Speaking at a public event, he acknowledged that India might have to pay a heavy price for its stance, but asserted his readiness to bear it, saying he will 'stand like a wall against any harmful policies' impacting Indian agriculture. This defiant posture marks a significant deterioration in U.S.-India trade ties, especially since Washington has simultaneously ruled out any further trade talks until the matter is resolved. For a relationship once touted as among the most consequential of the 21st century — not only in the Indo-Pacific region but globally — the fallout is deeply disconcerting. What adds to the complexity is Trump's seemingly contradictory behavior toward other global actors. His previous hostility toward NATO and its European members has, during his second term, given way to more transactional economic deals with both the EU and the U.K. With this change in tack he has managed to extract higher defense spending from them, fulfilling one of his longstanding demands. Meanwhile, Trump's initial soft posture toward Russia — based on the belief that he could persuade Putin to end the war — has hardened as that expectation failed to materialize. Yet, rather than directly penalizing Russia — and even taking steps to normalize relations with Putin at the Alaska summit — Trump has chosen to exert pressure on countries like India that maintain energy ties with Moscow. Even more puzzling is Trump's stance toward China. Despite earlier confrontations, he now appears to be exploring a potential trade deal with Beijing. There is speculation that he may even visit China, signaling a thaw that could have wide-ranging geopolitical ramifications. This approach stands in stark contrast to the harsh tariff measures directed at India and Brazil, both of which are founding BRICS members. Trump has also described BRICS (a 10-nation grouping of major emerging economies including Brazil, India, China and South Africa) as 'anti-American' and blamed the group for pushing de-dollarization — claims that are contested and oversimplified, but serve to justify further economic penalties. The net effect of these shifting positions is a growing perception that Trump's foreign and trade policies lack coherence and are driven more by short-term gains and political optics than by long-term strategic thinking. For India, this unpredictability represents a significant challenge. The country must now navigate an increasingly volatile external environment in which even its traditional partnerships can no longer be taken for granted. The economic consequences are already visible. According to Moody's, the new tariffs could slow India's GDP growth by 0.3% in fiscal year 2025–26, pulling it down from 6.3% to around 6%. Key sectors like electronics manufacturing may see reduced foreign investment due to the tariff gap compared to other Asia-Pacific economies. Investor sentiment is weakening, with foreign portfolio investors pulling out $2 billion in July and nearly $1 billion more in early August. Although the stock market has shown some resilience, the broader trend is one of caution and concern. At the same time, China's recent export restrictions on rare earth elements have highlighted the vulnerabilities in America's high-tech and defense manufacturing sectors. While the U.S. has invested in domestic production and diversification strategies, it remains years away from building a self-reliant supply chain. This gives China a significant bargaining chip in any future negotiation — one that India lacks. Trump's willingness to go easier on China while punishing India only reinforces the perception that his administration picks its targets based on expediency rather than principles. Another layer of complexity is Trump's sudden pivot toward Pakistan, a country he had once derided as duplicitous. His recent deal with Islamabad and the hosting of Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir at the White House are being viewed as part of a larger recalibration in the Indo-Pacific. Taken together with his softer posture toward China, this development raises serious questions about U.S. strategic priorities in the region and how India figures in the American calculus going forward. India, therefore, faces a geopolitical moment that demands both caution and clarity. As Trump's second tenure introduces a mix of unpredictability, pressure tactics, and transactional diplomacy, New Delhi must work to safeguard its long-term interests without compromising its sovereign decision-making. This will require not only diversifying its strategic partnerships but also strengthening domestic economic resilience in the face of external shocks. The tariff war may just be one front — but the battle for geopolitical stability is far from over. Anand Kumar is associate fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.
