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
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Putin says special attention should be paid to nuclear triad in Russia's new arms programme
MOSCOW, June 11 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that special attention in the country's new arms programme should be paid to the nuclear triad - land-based, sea-based and aircraft-launched weapons. Putin's remarks, broadcast on state television, were made at a meeting of senior officials devoted to the country's arms industry. "Undoubtedly, special attention should be paid to the nuclear triad, which has been and will remain the guarantee of Russia's sovereignty and plays a key role in upholding the balance of forces in the world," Putin said. A total of 95% of weapons in Russia's strategic nuclear forces, he said, were fully up-to-date. "This is a good indicator and, in essence, the highest among all the world's nuclear powers," he told the gathering.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Serbia's Moscow-friendly president visits Ukraine but refuses to sign 'anti-Russian' declaration
Serbia's Russia-friendly leader made a surprise visit to Ukraine on Wednesday for a summit on strengthening European support for Kyiv 's fight against Russian aggression, but he refused to sign a joint declaration calling for tougher sanctions against Moscow. It was President Aleksandar Vucic 's first visit to Ukraine since taking office over a decade ago. He attended the summit between Ukraine and 12 Southeast European states in Odesa. While saying he wants Serbia to join the European Union, Vucic has maintained close relations with Russia. He defied EU warnings and attended Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9. EU officials said it was inappropriate for Vucic to stand side by side with President Vladimir Putin, considering Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Vucic told Serbian media on Wednesday that the signing of the 'anti-Russian' declaration wasn't 'easy and simple for us," and he abstained, noting its mention of sanctions as one reason. 'But I would like to once again express my full gratitude to President (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy for the exceptional hospitality here in Odessa," Vucic added. Serbia, which relies almost fully on Russia for its energy supplies, has refused to join Western sanctions on Russia imposed after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though it officially supports Ukraine's territorial integrity. Vucic's visit to Ukraine comes weeks after Russia accused Serbia of exporting arms to Ukraine, calling it a stab in the back by its longtime Balkan ally. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service alleged that the exports were going through NATO intermediaries, 'primarily the Czech Republic, Poland and Bulgaria. Recently, exotic options involving African states have also been used for this purpose.' Serbia has neither admitted nor denied reports that it has been providing ammunition to Ukraine, but it has promised Russia it would open an official investigation into the matter.
