Russia says it takes more territory in east-central Ukraine, creating 'buffer zone' there
MOSCOW, June 9 (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday that its forces had taken control of more territory in Ukraine's east-central region of Dnipropetrovsk, where the Kremlin said fighting was partly aimed at creating a "buffer zone."
State media quoted the Defence Ministry as saying that Russian troops "continued to advance into the depths of the enemy's defence" and had increased the area of territory in Dnipropetrovsk they controlled.
Reuters could not independently confirm the battlefield report. Ukraine said at the weekend that its forces were holding the section of the front near the eastern border of Dnipropetrovsk.
Asked if Russia was trying to create a buffer zone by pushing into Dnipropetrovsk, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "Without a doubt that is part of it."
The Russian offensive there is notable because Dnipropetrovsk is not one of the five regions of Ukraine - including Crimea and four areas in the south and east of the country - that Russia has previously claimed as part of its own territory.
The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War said the purpose of a Russian thrust into Dnipropetrovsk could be to cut off Ukraine's lines of communication and supply to its troops in the Donetsk region, further east.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, said at the weekend that the Dnipropetrovsk offensive showed that if Ukraine did not want to accept the reality of Russia's territorial gains in peace talks then Moscow's forces would advance further on the ground.
Russia and Ukraine renewed peace negotiations in Turkey last month after a gap of more than three years, but the conflict has actually intensified in recent weeks.
Russia has advanced on the battlefield and carried out some of its heaviest air attacks of the war, while Ukraine conducted an audacious operation deep inside Russia on June 1 that inflicted serious damage on Moscow's fleet of nuclear-capable strategic bomber planes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Hope is not a strategy': Why Nato is calling for Cold War levels of defence spending
Nato chief Mark Rutte has called for a 400 per cent boost to air and missile capabilities and his demand to raise defence spending across the alliance to five per cent has raised the voices of doom to a scream. A return to Cold War levels of defence spending is not, however an hysterical plea from a lackey of the military-industrial complex. It is a sad acknowledgement that the peace dividend that came with the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered by the West in a pointless war in Afghanistan and a criminal conflict in Iraq which expanded the lists of peoples with a good reason to hate democracy. But there were plenty around already. Vladimir Putin is one of them, Xi Jinping is another – Donald Trump is rushing to their ranks. Autocracy is on the rise around the world while democracies have been consumed by complacency. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' said Rutte, who called for Nato to become a 'stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance'. 'The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. 'The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.' He's right, of course. But he is the secretary general of a military alliance. He is banging the drum for more money because he wants to see the return to the days when MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was the sword that hung over every head on the planet. In the bad old days, nuclear war was the horror that kept the peace between the superpowers. They pursued their rivalries through proxies – often in Africa. Marxist Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia endured civil wars for decades while western-backed rebels battled the Moscow-backed governments from the 60s to the 80s. Sometimes, as in Vietnam and Korea, the west sent its forces into war – but overwhelmingly the suffering for the ideological schism that split the world was in what was then known as the Third World. In South America, CIA-baked coups removed leaders who were deemed too 'commie-inclined' by Washington where republicans and democrats were terrified of reds getting under beds in their back yards. Kennedy's clash with Khrushchev came close to WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But it was the ability of the West to outspend the Soviet Union that brought the Iron Curtain down on the Soviet Empire. The Soviets spent between 10 and 20 per cent of GDP on the military while Nato was spending half that. Moscow depended on high oil process for its economic wellbeing while its collectivisation of farming and industrial policies stifled innovation. When oil crashed from $120/barrel to the mid $20s/barrel in the 1980s, the social and political necessity for reform became overwhelming. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia is estimated to spend at least 7.2 per cent of its GDP on the military, but this does not account for social welfare payments or the costs of administering the occupied territories in Ukraine. A cheap option for Putin in splitting the attention of the West has been to encourage semi-autonomous private military companies to operate in north Africa – like the proxies of the Cold War. Groups like Wagner have expanded their operations in Mali, Niger, from the Sahel to Khartoum, drawing resources and focus away from Ukraine. But in Europe, Rutte said, Nato seems to be no match for Russia. 'Our militaries also need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation and medical support,' he said. Cuts in military spending after the Cold War ended were based on the assumption that a western-style way of life would be adopted in Russia. But the country largely fell into gangsterism and is seen by many there to have been rescued by Putin's more organized oligarchic kleptocracy underpinned by vigorous Soviet-style fear and denunciation of 'The West'. It may be a Moscow myth that Nato covets the Russian Federation but it is one that is believed widely in Putin's realm. That the West is somehow always going to be safe for democracy is an equally dangerous delusion, Rutte suggested. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger… Hope is not a strategy. So Nato has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer has committed to spend 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3 per cent over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034. But this is well short of what is needed, according to the Nato chief. Mr Rutte's visit to the UK comes after he proposed members of the bloc spend 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence as part of a strengthened investment plan for the alliance. The target would require nations to raise core defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, while the remaining 1.5 per cent to be made up of "defence-related expenditure". Nato leaders will meet in The Hague later this month, when the 5 per cent spending target by 2035 will be discussed. The leaders gathered in the Hague will all agree that more must be spent. Few, if any, will know how to sell that idea to their voters.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
My son will lose fight with Trump, Elon Musk's father tells Russia
Elon Musk will lose his fight with Donald Trump and made a 'mistake' by challenging him, his father has said. Speaking at a political conference in Moscow, Errol Musk claimed his billionaire son was suffering 'PTSD from the White House' and blamed his row with the US president on 'stress'. 'Trump will prevail – he's the president, he was elected as the president. So, you know, Elon made a mistake, I think. But he is tired, he is stressed,' he told Russian media. Last week, Elon Musk and Mr Trump traded insults after the Tesla chief executive denounced the president's sweeping new tax and spending Bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. He also called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – US government intelligence documents on Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile billionaire. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. Errol Musk told Izvestia, a Russian daily newspaper: 'You know they have been under a lot of stress for five months – you know – give them a break. 'They are very tired and stressed, so you can expect something like this.' Despite the pair's war of words, Mr Musk said he still believed his son's relationship with the president could be mended, describing the row as 'just a small thing' that would 'be over tomorrow'. He made the comments during an appearance at Future Forum 2050, a conference attended by Kremlin heavyweights and led by Alexander Dugin, a Russian ultra-nationalist philosopher often described as Vladimir Putin's 'brain'. Errol Musk was also pictured sitting next to Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister. At one point he praised Putin as a 'very stable and pleasant man' and blamed Western media for projecting 'nonsense' about Russia. It came as Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump's former chief strategist, claimed that in April Elon Musk had a physical altercation with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, down the corridor from the Oval Office. Mr Bannon said: 'President Trump heard about it and said: 'This is too much',' according to The Washington Post. A source told the newspaper that concerns were also raised over Mr Musk's alleged drug use. Mr Musk, the world's richest man, helped bankroll Mr Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. He was then hired to head the new Department of Government Efficiency, controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. The tech entrepreneur stepped back from the role late last month, capping a turbulent 130-day stint in the administration. On Saturday, the US president said his relationship with Mr Musk was over, and warned there would be 'serious consequences' if he switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates. Delighting in the row, Russian MPs have offered political asylum to the South African-born businessman. Last week, Dmitry Novikov, the deputy chairman of the state Duma committee on international affairs, said Moscow would welcome him to the country 'if he needs it'. Senior Putin allies have also mockingly offered to help mediate between the two men. 'We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment. Don't fight, guys!' Dmitry Medvedev, a security official, said, referring to Mr Musk's satellite internet network.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
These are Britain's options for tactical nuclear weapons. We must choose, and act
As the dust begins to settle on the Strategic Defence Review, Lord Robertson's interview with the Telegraph 's Roland Oliphant answered a number of important issues. However his lordship danced around the critical and pressing issue of re-introducing a tactical nuclear capability to our national deterrent. This is vital against the background of continuous nuclear threats against the UK and Europe from President Putin and the gangsters who advise him. The need to show military strength to Moscow could not be more pressing. The re-introduction of a tactical nuclear capability would impact Putin's decision-making far more than a few hundred tanks or half a dozen capital ships, but it is not quite so straight forward as strapping a nuclear bomb to a jet or on the end of a cruise missile. If the UK sticks with our closest ally, probably still the US, we will most likely purchase some F-35A runway stealth jets to go alongside our existing jumpjet F-35Bs. The Bs have the advantage of being able to operate from our carriers, but their vertical thrust equipment means that they lack range and cannot carry larger weapons in their internal bays. The F-35A is also the only 5th generation stealth jet that is certified to carry nuclear weapons – specifically the American B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. This can be carried by German jets, will soon be certified on Italian ones, and would most likely be our tactical option also. But this may not be a credible enough option to effectively deter Putin. Though the F-35 is paraded as the stealthiest thing in the sky it is not actually invisible to radar and it might be shot down before it could get above its target to drop its B61-12s. This brings up the need to be able to knock out Russian air defences in order to make our tactical nukes (or other air power) effective. Air defence is nowadays hugely important and has been possibly the defining issue in the Ukraine war. In my day, you became an air defence officer – a 'cloud-puncher' – if no other path was open. Today the air defence officers are the first pick. Air defences, even modern and powerful Russian ones such as the S-400, can be suppressed: we have seen Israel do this against Iran's S-300s before bombing some of Iran's nuclear research establishments this and last year. Recent Ukrainian attacks, most especially the strike last week on the Russian military air base at Bryansk show that Russian AD is not as water-tight as the Kremlin would have us believe. Nonetheless it might be a big ask to get F-35s almost on top of their target in order to deliver a free-falling gravity bomb like the B61-12. The other option possibly available to the UK is to do what the French have done: rather than a free-falling nuke, France has the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMPA) supersonic cruise missile, which can be released from its carrying jet hundreds of miles from the target. The ASMPA is supersonic, making it harder to knock down than a normal subsonic cruise missile. Our missile making capability is joint with France and Europe anyway, so if we went down this route we could partner with the French, who already know what they're doing in this area. Our existing subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile is actually French too – the warhead is the only British part. It has been put to good use against Russia in Ukrainian hands, though it appears to need help – either US defence-suppression technology or special forces operations against Russian defence radars – to be fully effective. It could be argued that it is now Monsieur Macron and France who are our closest allies, as President Trump seems to shun us 'pathetic' Europeans. This could be a viable way forward. Even I, a soldier, can recognise that reintroducing a tactical nuclear air delivered capability is not an insignificant task. It is complicated by our current lack of any AWACS radar planes and other specialist defence-suppression equipment. Nonetheless we have been in the nuclear deterrence game almost since the beginning and our Atomic Weapons Establishment can at least furnish us with the key: the actual warhead. We might alternatively make a beginning by developing a home-grown nuclear tip for our stock of US-made, submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise weapons: the Tomahawk was originally developed to deliver nukes, so we know it can do that job. One thing I am sure of is the need. As a former commander of the UK and Nato's chemical and nuclear defence forces, I know the overwhelming impact that tactical nuclear weapons can have on the battlefield, and the huge advantage they give to an aggressor against somebody who does not possess these weapons. We must be ready to deal with the Russian bear. Putin will not be deterred by 12 more submarines in the ocean in the next decade, and Dad's Army covering the White Cliffs perhaps sooner – useful and vital as these things will be. As Uncle Sam backs away from the fight, the prospect of the UK joining France in fielding a tactical capability which could cripple a Russian army in the field would likely get Putin talking peace quicker than most other threats. For 80 years there has been nuclear equilibrium in Europe, but this has become unbalanced. It is the major metric in Putin's decision making, psychologically if not physically. It isn't very important which tactical nuclear option we choose – F-35A, a French style standoff weapon, or Tomahawk. What is important is that we choose at least one and get it into service.
