UK sanctions Russian spies trying to ‘destabilise Europe'
Those sanctioned include a unit that targeted the daughter of Sergei Skripal years before Russian agents attempted to murder him in Salisbury with the nerve agent Novichok.
Others are accused of belonging to units that have carried out cyber attacks in the UK, France, Germany and the US – while also facilitating strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine.
The UK and our allies are striking at the heart of Russia's energy sector by lowering the Oil Price Cap.
This will directly hit Putin's most critical revenue stream and drain his war chest.
We will keep up economic pressure as we stand by Ukraine.https://t.co/ymtpY6hx32
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 18, 2025
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: 'GRU spies are running a campaign to destabilise Europe, undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and threaten the safety of British citizens.
'The Kremlin should be in no doubt: we see what they are trying to do in the shadows and we won't tolerate it. That's why we're taking decisive action with sanctions against Russian spies.'
In total, 18 officers of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence unit, have been sanctioned, along with three men linked to Moscow's efforts to spread disinformation in West Africa.
They include five men said to have been involved in a cyber attack on Yulia Skripal in 2013, in which the GRU's Unit 26165 targeted her emails with malware known as X-Agent.
Development of X-Agent is said to have been overseen by Lieutenant-Colonel Sergey Morgachev, and involved Aleksey Lukashev, Ivan Yermakov, Sergey Vasyuk and Artem Malyshev, who have all been sanctioned.
Lukashev and Yermakov are said to have carried out the attack on Ms Skirpal's emails, five years before members of a separate GRU unit poisoned her and her father with Novichok.
The Foreign Office accused Unit 26165, which is already sanctioned, of attempting to disrupt investigations into the attempted murder of the Skripals along with another already-sanctioned GRU outfit, Unit 74455.
On Friday, the UK added GRU Unit 29155 to the sanctions list, accusing it of carrying out the poisoning and saying the incident 'underscores how GRU Units integrate cyber operations into hybrid activity with the aim of furthering the Kremlin's objectives'.
Also sanctioned are Aleksey Morenets and Yevgeney Serebriakov, accused of carrying out 'close access operations' against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, Netherlands.
As well as carrying out cyber attacks in Western Europe, Unit 26165 is said to have conducted operations in Ukraine, including carrying out reconnaissance that facilitated the 2022 attack on the Mariupol Theatre that killed hundreds of civilians, including children.
Several of the men sanctioned on Friday are already wanted by the FBI in the United States.
They include Colonel Aleksandr Osadchuk, said to be the commanding officer of Unit 74455. He and others have been charged with a series of offences in connection with Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 US election.
Other men sanctioned by the UK on Friday, including Morenets and Serebriakov, are accused of targeting anti-doping organisations and other sporting bodies around the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio De Janeiro.
Meanwhile, the UK joined the EU in lowering the price cap on Russian oil as Ukraine's allies sought to increase pressure on Moscow to engage in peace talks.
The cap, which is currently 60 US dollars per barrel, will fall to 47.60 dollars from September 2 in a move Chancellor Rachel Reeves said was aimed at 'exploiting' President Vladimir Putin's 'biggest vulnerability'.
Energy revenues account for around 30% of the Russian state's income, making them a key source of funding for the Kremlin's war in Ukraine.
Ms Reeves, who is attending a meeting of G20 finance ministers in South Africa, said: 'The UK and its EU allies are turning the screw on the Kremlin's war chest by stemming the most valuable funding stream of its illegal war in Ukraine even further.'
Mr Lammy added the UK would not 'stand by' while Mr Putin 'continues to stall on serious peace talks'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Says He's Readying More Tariffs on Russian Energy Buyers
President Donald Trump suggested he would impose increased tariffs on additional countries buying energy from Russia — including China — after saying earlier Tuesday that he would be raise levies on Indian exports within 24 hours. 'We'll be doing quite a bit of that,' Trump said when asked if he would follow through on a previous threat to impose tariffs on additional countries, including China. 'We'll see what happens over the next fairly short period of time.'
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Why Did God Favor France?
Scott Alexander, the noted rationalist blogger, has a feature where guest writers pen book reviews and essays for his site, and this week an anonymous writer reviewed the historical literature on Joan of Arc. The results resemble past encounters between skeptical authors (Mark Twain is a notable example) and the historical record around the Maid of Orleans: Her story is one of the most extensively documented cases of a miraculous-seeming intervention into secular history, calculated to baffle, fascinate and even charm like almost nothing else in Western history. Everything in the story sounds like a pious legend confabulated centuries after the fact. A peasant girl with zero political or military experience shows up at a royal court, announces a divine mission and makes a series of prophecies about what God wants for France that she consistently fulfills — a fulfillment that requires not merely some fortunate happenstance, but her taking command of a medieval army and winning an immediate series of victories over an intimidating adversary with Alexandrine or Napoleonic skill. Then after the mission is accomplished (with some miracles thrown in), some of the prophetic and military capacity seems to be withdrawn and she is captured and dies a martyr's death — but not before undergoing a religious trial with a bravura performance that likewise looks like the invention of a theologically trained novelist. And through it all she appears to be extraordinarily lovable, displaying piety and kindliness without any of the fanaticism or delusions of personal grandeur that normally shadow people who think they're supposed to take up arms on God's behalf. The review essay considers some of the more persuasive non-supernatural explanations for all these strange events. But the reviewer's strongest reaction is an understandable one, I think, for any reader who approaches the evidence with an open mind: I talk about 'God stretching down His hand to alter history,' and I'm really not sure I believe it happened, but Joan feels like a giant middle finger to all the people who talk about history being deterministic. Sometimes you get a Great Woman and then history does something really weird. I also kind of feel called out by God. 'So, you say you're a rationalist? You're dismissing all the historical evidence for miracles as insufficient? You won't consider the evidence for Jesus Christ persuasive due to a mere two eyewitness and five contemporary reports? You won't believe in anything without evidence more than sufficient to convince a court? Okay, have 115 witnesses to miracles that nobody could avoid recording because they altered the course of European history. Now, what were you saying about how you're not a Christian because you're a rationalist?' But if Joan challenges skeptics to explain how a career like hers could be possible without supernatural aid, she also challenges Christians and her other religiously inclined fans to explain why, exactly, God sent her to save France. Indeed, the best skeptic's argument probably rests there: not in trying to deny the miraculous-seeming record, but in challenging the believer to explain why God wanted or needed these specific events to happen. Assume, for the sake of argument, that some version of the Catholic theory of miracles is correct. In that case history seems to yield three broad categories of supernatural happenings. First, the 'big miracles' of the Old and New Testaments, associated with major events in the history of God's plan for humanity, from the crossing of the Red Sea to the Resurrection. Second, the signs and wonders associated with the special holiness of specific saints — healings, visions, stigmata, the remarkably well-documented Reformation-era levitations discussed in Carlos Eire's recent book, 'They Flew: A History of the Impossible.' Finally, the miracles and signs and supernatural encounters that happen on a personal level, to ordinary people, as answers to their prayers rather than as manifestations of their sanctity. The story of Joan of Arc doesn't fit neatly into any of these categories. The strange events of her life are clearly more than just a personal sign of God's presence, since all of France is implicated in the drama. They're also clearly more than just a manifestation of her holiness, since the effect isn't just to convert people in her orbit to a deeper Christian faith; it's also to change the outcome of a major war. But was that military outcome, then, somehow a major event in God's unfolding plan? One analogue to Joan's career might be the stories in the Old Testament where God takes an active part in Israel's military conflicts; another might be Constantine's vision at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge that supposedly inspired his conversion to Christianity. But in those cases the alleged divine help was being supplied for an obvious spiritual purpose — the survival of God's chosen people, the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Whereas in Joan's case, the divine help turned the tide in a war where both sides were Christian and Roman Catholic, and where the resolution had no major religious consequences. It was a dynastic triumph for the French kings and a national triumph for their people, but it's not obvious how it was a spiritual one. So why did God raise up a saint to save the French from defeat? No theory seems all that satisfying, but let's consider a few candidates. Because God showed mercy on the French people. A hundred years of war is a lot of war. Undoubtedly a lot of people were praying for relief, and maybe Joan was just the divinely anointed answer to their prayer. Why didn't God send a similar figure to expedite the Thirty Years' War or World War I or any other mass-casualty disaster in human history? Well, maybe he did send saints in some of those cases and people didn't listen to them. (Joan's miraculous career did require a lot of political cooperation.) Or maybe it's just the usual divine inscrutability: Just as most sick people who pray for help don't receive miraculous healing but some people do, most wars don't end by divine fiat but once in a while (once in 2,000 years?) God puts an obvious finger on the scale. Because God wanted to teach Christians what a just war looks like. There is no Joan of Arc figure in Christendom's wars of conquest, no miraculous figure who made the difference in the First Crusade or the Spanish Reconquista or the conquest of the Americas. (The story of Our Lady of Guadalupe involves the divine manifesting itself to the conquered, not to the conquistadores.) Instead, a martial and miraculous saint shows up only in a situation where she's ending a foreign occupation and vindicating a beleaguered nation against an invader. So the fact that she does appear, armed and militant, suggests that maybe God was teaching a lesson in just war theory — giving the faithful a clear example of a saint-soldier to prove the pacifists wrong, while making sure that her example can be legitimately invoked only in wars waged in self-defense. Because the Reformation was coming and it was necessary that France remain Catholic. In the timeline where Joan doesn't appear and the Hundred Years' War ends with England retaining a strong hold on France, maybe the English Reformation still happens, France as well as England flips to Protestantism, and suddenly you have a Protestant Anglo-French bloc with command of the seas and soon the world. In which case you could suggest that Joan was necessary either because of specific divine protection for Catholicism or, more subtly, because it was important that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism win a final victory in the 17th century, given each side's un-Christian crimes against the other. Because modernity was coming and it was necessary that France and England exist as rivals and competing poles. This is essentially an extension of the last argument, in which an Anglo-French balance of power, a persistent dualism between London and Paris, is essential not just to balance Protestants and Catholics but also for the healthy development of the entire modern world. How? Well, maybe by preventing not just one but a whole series of undesirable outcomes: the total victory of one side in the Reformation, the total victory of just one version of the Enlightenment, the total victory of 20th century totalitarianism, even the total victory of the American empire or the total victory of the European Union — who can say? And since the French part of that story isn't finished yet, the last possibility remains open as well: Because God loves the French in a special way, and they have a cosmic destiny that still waits to be fulfilled. C'est certainement possible! Breviary Matthew Milliner on Jungians and Christians. Robert Bellafiore on capitalism and its undertakers. Nina Power on the religion of William Blake. Adam Ozimek reviews a century of American automaking. U.S.A.I.D.'s former chief economist on fixing foreign aid. Ingrid Rowland on the painter of the serene republic.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Police chief hits back after accusations of ‘cover-up' regarding rape suspects
Police have denied a 'cover up' after a Reform UK councillor accused the force of withholding information following the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl. Warwickshire Police's chief constable, Alex Franklin-Smith, has asked the Home Office to confirm the full immigration status of Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, who have been charged in connection with the offence. It comes after Reform UK's leader Nigel Farage and Warwickshire County Council leader George Finch claimed there had been a 'cover up' after police charged the two men, who are Afghan asylum seekers. In a letter to the Home Secretary and Warwickshire Police's chief constable, Mr Finch, the youngest council leader in the country, claimed that not publicising the pair's immigration status 'risks public disorder breaking out on the streets of Warwickshire'. Responding to Mr Finch, Mr Franklin-Smith wrote that the force 'did not and will not' cover up alleged criminality. 'I am confident that Warwickshire Police has treated this investigation seriously from the outset working tirelessly to identify, locate, arrest and charge those suspected of being responsible for this awful crime as quickly as possible.' Of the suspects, he wrote: 'The immigration status of Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir is now public knowledge, having been placed into the public domain by yourself. 'In light of that, I have asked the Home Office to confirm the full immigration status of Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir as per the information we shared with the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts as part of this case.' Of a conversation he and Mr Finch had on July 31, Mr Franklin-Smith wrote: 'You informed me you had already received a confidential briefing from your chief executive and that you knew the person charged was an asylum seeker. 'I confirmed this was accurate and we wouldn't be releasing immigration status at point of charge as we follow national guidance. 'I explained the information would become public knowledge as part of the court process and that all partners must ensure we are prepared to manage any potential protest and/or disorder at that stage. 'I explained we had a police gold commander leading the overall response to this case and that the communications plan agreed by them followed consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. 'I also explained we had briefed the Home Office. 'To be clear, I cannot tell elected individuals what to do.' Following the reported attack in Nuneaton, Mulakhil, 23, was arrested on July 26 and charged the next day with rape, according to police. Mulakhil appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court last Monday and has been remanded in custody. Kabir, 23, was arrested in Nuneaton on Thursday and charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting rape of a girl under 13, the force added. Kabir appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court on Saturday and has been remanded in custody. The issue of how much information is revealed by police regarding suspects has been the subject of fierce debate following a string of high-profile cases including the Southport killings last year. On Tuesday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said 'we do think more transparency is needed' in the information given by police and that 'guidance needs to change'. In a statement released on Tuesday evening, a Home Office spokesperson said: 'As the Home Secretary said this morning, it has been widely reported that this case involves two Afghan individuals who are in the asylum system, some of which information has already been confirmed in open court. 'The Home Secretary has made clear that there is a strong public interest in maximum transparency wherever that is possible. 'That is why the Home Office and College of Policing are working together to strengthen and clarify the guidance around how and when information is released.' Warwickshire Police previously said they do not believe anyone else was involved in the reported rape but are continuing to appeal for witnesses who may have information that could assist inquiries.
