Belarus to scale down Zapad military drills to 'reduce tensions,' Minsk claims
Belarus will reduce the parameters of the upcoming Zapad-2025 military drills and move maneuvers further inland from the western border to reduce tensions in the region, Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin claimed on May 28.
Zapad drills are large-scale joint military exercises regularly held by Russian and Belarusian forces. Minsk confirmed earlier this year that the 2025 drills will take place in mid-September, involving 13,000 soldiers.
"We have made a decision to reduce the parameters of the Joint Strategic Exercise 'Zapad-2025' and move its main maneuvers deep into the territory of the Republic of Belarus from the western borders," Khrenin said, according to the Belarusian Defense Ministry's Telegram channel.
Khrenin made the announcement during a meeting of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) ministers in Bishkek.
The exercises have raised alarm in Kyiv and NATO, as they will take place amid Russia's ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Moscow's increasingly aggressive posture toward Western allies.
President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Russia plans to deploy 15 divisions, totaling 100,000 to 150,000 troops, primarily in Belarus, possibly in preparation for a major military escalation.
Responding to the Russian-Belarusian drills, Poland has announced it would hold simultaneous and proportional exercises involving NATO partners.
Khrenin claimed that Zapad drills are "not aimed against anyone," stressing that Minsk's decision "indicates a readiness for dialogue and a reduction in tensions in the region."
Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko has been a key ally to Russia during its full-scale war against Ukraine. While not deploying its soldiers for combat, Belarus has provided its territory as a launching ground for Russian ground forces and missiles in 2022.
Read also: Ukraine allegedly launches almost 300 drones at Russia; UAV facility near Moscow reportedly targeted
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Merz says US in 'strong position' to stop Putin, Trump says 'let them fight for a little while'
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told President Donald Trump he is in a "strong position" to stop Russia's war in Ukraine, to which the president suggested maybe the world needs to "let them fight for a little while." "America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," Merz said, while also referencing the U.S.'s role in ending World War II on the eve of the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the turn of events that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. "So let's talk about what we can do jointly, and we are ready to do what we can." Merz called for more pressure to be placed on Russia in coordination with European allies. Trump responded by providing an analogy of two kids fighting, and suggested perhaps it was "too early" to break up the fight between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don't want to be pulled," Trump said. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart." Trump said he gave that analogy to Putin in his call with him on Wednesday and said he told the Kremlin chief "maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot." Reporters asked Merz, who has been an ardent supporter of Ukraine and recently lifted Germany's existing strike bans, if he agrees with Trump that "fighting it out" was the way to proceed. "I think we both agree on this war and how terrible this war is. And we are both looking for ways to stop it very soon," Merz said. "I told the president before we came in that he is the key person in the world who can really do that now by putting pressure on Russia, and we will have this debate later on again, how we can proceed jointly between the Europeans and the Americans. "I think we are all… having the duty to do something on that now, to stop it after three and a half years, which is really terrible," he added, making it clear without directly contradicting the president that he did not agree with Trump. "We are on the side of Ukraine, and we are trying to get them stronger and stronger just to make Putin stop this war. This is our approach," Merz added.
Wall Street Journal
10 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
