EU state's PM refutes Zelensky's latest ‘Russian threat' claim
There is no indication that the upcoming Russian-Belarusian military exercises pose a threat, Lithuanian Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas has said, rejecting concerns raised by Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky.
Speaking in Vilnius on Tuesday, Paluckas responded to comments made by Zelensky at the NATO Eastern Flank Summit, also in the Lithuanian capital, where he urged European leaders to ask their intelligence agencies 'what Russia is planning in Belarus this summer' and suggested that Kiev and its backers might require additional joint forces.
'I don't know what information the Ukrainian intelligence service or the Ukrainian president have at their disposal,' Paluckas told reporters.
'As regards the Zapad exercise, information is being gathered not only by our intelligence agencies, but also by NATO's intelligence agencies, and all the conclusions are the same: the exercise, which is currently being organized, does not pose any problems or additional threats in terms of its scope and other aspects,' he stressed. 'There's no need to be alarmed,' he added.
The Lithuanian prime minister noted that Ukraine isn't the only country collecting information about the upcoming Zapad-2025 exercises and that NATO is also monitoring the situation. 'NATO does not view these drills as dangerous,' Paluckas stressed
Last week, Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin announced that the Zapad-2025 exercises, scheduled for September, would be reduced in scale and moved further inland, away from the country's western borders. The relocation is intended to reduce regional tension, demonstrate Minsk's readiness for dialogue, and to counter what he called 'stereotypical speculations' by NATO member states, he stated.
Both Moscow and Minsk have stressed that the exercise is defensive in nature.
Zelensky's suggestion that the upcoming exercises pose some sort of threat to the West comes as a number of European nations have recently taken to drastically increasing their military budgets citing the supposed threat posed by Russia.
Moscow, however, has repeatedly dismissed claims it plans to attack Western Europe as 'nonsense,' accusing the West of using scare tactics to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO boss demands huge military spending hike
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that he will propose a new military spending target totaling 5% of each member state's GDP during the bloc's June summit in The Hague. This would mark a sharp increase from the current 2% floor. Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has intensified demands that the bloc's European members spend more on defense. He has repeatedly accused them of failing to shoulder the burden equitably. According to NATO's latest report, ten of its 32 members do not even spend 2% of GDP on defense, while the US remains by far the bloc's biggest contributor. Speaking during a press conference following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, Rutte said that they had 'agreed on an ambitious new set of capability targets,' which included 'air defense, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more.' The military bloc's chief proclaimed that he 'will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of GDP' in order to finance the outlined priorities. Under the scheme, 3.5% of each member state's GDP would go toward 'core defense spending,' with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be allocated each year for related investments, such as infrastructure and industry. Responding to a reporter's question as to whether there is any mechanism built into the plan that would help ensure its implementation in the long run, Rutte said that member states would 'commit to yearly plans showing the increase each year to make sure that you come to the new target of 5%.' In early May, Germany's Der Spiegel reported that the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, had warned member states that failure to agree to the new 5% benchmark could result in Trump declining to attend the summit in late June. Several weeks earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that NATO only makes sense 'as long as it's a real defense alliance, not the United States and a bunch of junior partners that aren't doing their fair share.' Also in April, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned European NATO countries that the 'time of the United States... being the sole guarantor of European security has passed.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO more powerful than Romans and Napoleon – bloc chief (VIDEO)
NATO is the 'most powerful alliance' in global history, Secretary General Mark Rutte has claimed, comparing the US-led bloc to the Roman Empire and Napoleon's army. Rutte urged member states to ramp up military spending to make NATO even 'more lethal' and better prepared to counter the alleged threat from Russia, which Moscow has long denied and ridiculed. 'NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. It's even more powerful than the Roman Empire, and more powerful than Napoleon's empire,' Rutte stated at a press conference ahead of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. 'But the defense alliance needs maintenance and needs investment.' He laid out priorities to strengthen NATO's military, insisting they are essential to deter potential future aggression. 'We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance… We need more resources, forces, and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat,' he added. Rutte claimed that Russia could attack NATO within several years and said the bloc would not be prepared to defend itself unless it moves beyond its long-held 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark. NATO Chief Mark Rutte says the NATO 'defensive alliance' is more powerful than both the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire.1. NATO is essentially the US, and a collection of vassal states that submit to Washington's hegemony 2. The Chief of NATO compares the organisation he… Rutte said he would present member states with a new 'defense investment plan' at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a threat to NATO, calling them 'nonsense' and accusing the West of stoking fear to justify more military spending. Moscow has also warned that the West's rearmament efforts risk escalating into a broader conflict in Europe. Russian officials have also drawn their own historical comparisons. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of trying to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia 'just like in the times of Napoleon and Hitler' through its proxy war in Ukraine. He said the only way to avoid a wider conflict is for the West to abandon its militaristic path. Rutte's imperial comparisons have sparked criticism on social media. Media analyst Michael William Lebron, known as Lionel, wrote: 'NATO's chief boasting they're 'more powerful than the Roman or Napoleonic Empires' sounds less like diplomacy and more like 1939 Berlin. This isn't defense – it's imperial arrogance... Dangerous rhetoric.' John Laughland, a historian and specialist in international affairs, pointed out on X that 'The Roman and Napoleonic empires were not alliances, they were states. Or is NATO now an empire?' 'NATO 'Chief' sounds like Uncle Adolf back in 1939,' Irish journalist Chay Bowes added. British journalist Afshin Rattansi also weighed in, saying it's no wonder non-NATO states view the bloc as 'a hyper-militarist threat' after it 'destroyed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so many others.' Rattansi called Rutte 'a puppet' of Washington and warned that NATO 'is a dangerous, hyper-militarist organization that is far from defensive.'
