German chancellor says war in Ukraine still far from over
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz does not expect the war in Ukraine to end soon.
Source: Merz, after a meeting with Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo in Turku, quoted by Die Zeit, a German national weekly newspaper, as European Pravda reports
Details: Merz noted that wars usually end in economic or military exhaustion of one or both sides.
"In this war, we are obviously far from that," the German chancellor said.
Merz accused Russia of being unwilling to negotiate. He said that if the Russian government is not ready to accept Vatican mediation, it means that Russia is not interested in a truce or peace agreement.
As a result, "we have to further strengthen our efforts so that Ukraine can defend itself," Merz said.
He also announced his intention to increase pressure on Russia. "We are under threat, and we will defend ourselves," he said.
Background:
On Monday, Merz said that Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States had lifted all restrictions on Ukraine regarding the range of strikes.
On Tuesday, he clarified that his statement did not refer to a new decision but described what happened several months ago.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA
As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2,000 additional National Guard soldiers as well as 700 active duty Marines. According to Reuters, they will "protect federal personnel and property" as the administration carries out "even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators." Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the president did not have the legal authority to call in the National Guard, as well as requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of the National Guard and active Marines "for law enforcement purposes." This is the first time that active duty military members have been called up to assist with law enforcement since 1992, and unsurprisingly, many of them (as well as veterans) have thoughts on the topic. NotSlayerOfDemons asked, "Those in the American Armed Forces, how do you feel about troops being used to quell unrest in-country?" and service members, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses: 1."Former Army. Unrest is when the citizens are trying to send a message to the government. Using troops against your citizens is the government's way of not listening." —cobra7 2."Marine here. (Once a Marine, always.) Iraq vet. I definitely do not agree with using the Marines. Hopefully, they used MPs with riot training, but using infantry to do police work is not smart. It's like trying to use a trained attack dog to herd sheep. What do you think those teenagers are going to do when someone starts throwing rocks at them?" —Nevada_Lawyer 3."USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person." —chiksahlube 4."Trump is creating his Reichstag fire. Take the time to look this up if you aren't familiar with it." —RuralMNGuy (The Reichstag fire was a fire that burned down the Reichstag building, which housed the German parliament, in 1933. The origins of the fire remain unclear, but it became propaganda for Hitler's Nazi government, and he used it to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, restricting free speech, freedom of the press, and allowing him to begin arresting members of the opposition parties.) 5."As a Marine vet, this fucking sucks. These kids are 18–22 years old and don't know shit about what the Constitution allows or what the Posse Comitatus Act is. They are taught enough not to harm an unarmed civilian, but decades of training for combating guerrilla warfare makes people jumpy. If protesters start throwing Molotov cocktails, or god forbid shooting, then shit gets real for these kids quick. I am afraid that if anything happens, it's going to put a black eye on the Corps that will never be forgotten by the American public." —Maikudono 6."As a vet, I will say it comes across as totalitarian. There is no reason to use active duty military against your own citizens. There's a great quote from Battlestar Galactica: 'The police and the military have always been separate for a reason. One serves and protects the people, the other fights enemies of the state. When the military does both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.'" —Ok-Student7803 7."Army veteran and a SoCal native of 30 years here. Glad to see the president not allowing California to burn to the ground. Everyone knows the governor wasn't going to intervene." —ChinMuscle 8."Man, that makes me think of the saying 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' That's the really scary part of having the military do the policing, isn't it?" —kkeiper1103 Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week 9."Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest." —timf3d 10."Honorably discharged Army veteran here (Gulf War era). I can say that I and my fellow vet friends think that these troop deployments are fucking terrible. Horrifying, actually." —PSadair 11."This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake." —RC10B5M 12."I served in the Marines, and I'm glad I don't have to sit there and think, 'Question the legality of this and get an NJP [Non-Judicial Punishment], or go and potentially be put in a situation where they'll have me on trial in The Hague in a few years…'" "Sooner or later, for everyone, the uniform comes off, and those guys are going to have a hell of a time integrating back into civilian society, even if they end up doing nothing while there." —Bureaucratic_Dick 13."I'm not active, but former military. I think it's wrong. It's an overreach on presidential power. Plus, it's hard enough getting the everyday American to support our troops these days without deploying them to attack our own civilians." —crash218579 Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It 14."Retired Marine here. There are units in the military trained for this. Active duty infantry units are not those units. They can say all they want that they are trained in de-escalation, but in reality, it's maybe one to two days of training a year and maybe some rapid last-minute refreshers as soon as they found out they were getting sent to LA. The bulk of their training and instincts are to destroy the enemy. This will not go well." —RonWill79 15."Former Army here — it's complete bullshit. Let law enforcement enforce the law, let the military do military operations. To be honest, they were waiting for any reason to do this because they want to 'send a message,' but the message that's sent isn't what they think it is. I feel sorry for those soldiers sleeping on the hard floor with no plan of provisions for water/food, not abroad in a war zone, but in downtown fucking LA." —mcstevied 16."Former Marine, from Los Angeles, from immigrant parents. Fuck this administration. I hope those troops remember their oath to the US Constitution and to the people of the nation. I'm so disappointed with this whole situation." —Tacos_and_Yut 17."I think following the orders of a 34-count felon who is responsible for attacking the Capitol of the USA is reprehensible. I sincerely regret my service to the USA and wish I could take it back. It will not happen again." —TheDwellingHeart 18."I don't support violent protests. I also don't support Marines being used to quell said protests. Marines are a tool you use to destroy an area or group of people, not to peacefully resolve it. The guard makes more sense here, but the best answer is just keeping it at the police level." —Well__shit 19."GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] veteran here. This shit is absolutely wack. The United States has used the National Guard MANY times throughout its history, albeit for civil unrest or not. The National Guard does an impeccable job at this, and to hear the National Guard is being utilized isn't too concerning." "The VERY large, stomach-churning moment is the president giving the green light to utilize 2/7 out of Twentynine Palms. These are not 'peacekeepers.' Their motto is fucking literally 'First to Fight.' They have a long history of intense combat operations from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT. This is a highly decorated combat unit within the US military's arsenal. Pitting young, war-fighting men against the people they thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck." —NSTalley 20."I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law." —Bravelakes 21."Served in the Navy from '09–'13. The bulk of these guys have never deployed, which is a badge of honor. Young, untested 18–22 year olds with guns seems like a really bad idea to me." —anthonyajh 22."As a veteran I am pissed that I spent four years defending this country only to have some idiots vote for and support a Christo-fascist government and despite all evidence still believe this is going to be a 'good' thing." —MediocreDecking 23."Retired Navy here and also a former Marine. Sending an infantry battalion (2/7) to assist the LAPD and the National Guard is the wrong move. There are whole-ass battalions of military police who are specifically trained for this scenario. Why weren't they sent? Every active duty/veteran I know is against this." —Baker_Kat68 24."It's a complicated issue. Most service members take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, which includes the rights of Americans to protest. Using the military for domestic unrest should be an absolute last resort, not the go-to option. We're trained to engage enemies, not fellow citizens." "Many of us feel deep discomfort at the idea of turning our training inward. Peace, order, and public safety are crucial, but so is trust between the people and their government! And nothing erodes that faster than boots on home soil in situations that call for dialogue, not force." —Emotional_Ticket_357 25."Marine here, many of the brothers and sisters I served with came from immigrant families and communities in LA or ones just like them. I'm sure there's a few Marines who are on board with this crap, but many are really struggling with this, I can guarantee you." —skamatiks671 26."Nobody likes the idea that this administration is attempting to politicize the military. It's awkward for us. The way the Secretary of Defense talks is vile, unprofessional, and embarrassing. Recruiting and retention will plummet." —220solitusma 27."It's an accident waiting to happen." —kozmo30 finally, "Real take, most of them don't particularly care and just want to do their job and go home, regardless of the situation. Marines are people and lean slightly right — so you do have people who are giddy about 'enforcing order' — but nobody wants to be dressed up in full kit in LA summer heat." —HerrArado What do you think? Let us know in the comments. Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war
Moscow said its troops had crossed into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and were conducting offensive operations in the region, a claim Kyiv quickly denied as 'Russian disinformation.' Russian troops have been pushing toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for months, trying to solidify the southern flank to capture Pokrovsk and the remaining parts of the adjacent Donetsk Oblast. Western military experts who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said it was clear that Russian troops would eventually penetrate the southeastern region. But they didn't expect either side to throw 'a significant amount of forces' in this sector, as the capture of Donetsk Oblast remains Moscow's main objective. Emil Kastehelmi, an analyst at the Finland-based Black Bird Group, confirmed that geolocation shows Russian troops entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in recent days. Russian troops will likely advance 'at least somewhat' deeper in the coming months, though it won't change the overall dynamic of the front line, he added. Kastehelmi believes that Russian troops could try advancing northwest from the southern flank of Pokrovsk to encircle the city that is already penetrated from the southern and eastern sides. 'The Russians probably have understood that if they want to make a proper encirclement threat, they need to widen the flanks and then continue operations near Pokrovsk,' Kastehelmi told the Kyiv Independent. The Russian Defense Ministry said on June 8 that its troops were pushing forward in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — a region adjacent to Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts but have thus not seen combat actions. It added that the Russian military's 90th Guards Tank Division units had reached the western border of Donetsk Oblast and were thrusting forward into the industrial Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The Ukrainian military immediately denied the claim, saying that the fighting continued inside Donetsk Oblast, calling Russia's claims 'disinformation.' The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState has put the proximity of Russian troops to the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border at about two kilometers, yet painting that distance between the regional border and the alleged position of Russian troops as no man's land. The Kyiv Independent requested a comment to the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces but has not heard back in time of publication. Even if militarily not as significant, the Russian penetration into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast would mean yet another Ukrainian region would be now a warzone. It could also help strengthen the Russian negotiation position as the U.S. continues to push both sides to hold peace talks to end the war at all costs. "If they [russians] find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Russia had begun its long-expected offensive in April but has only made limited gains since then, besides opening a new front in the northeastern Sumy Oblast by occupying a number of border villages there. Kastehelmi from the Black Bird Group said that the Ukrainian defense of Pokrovsk would be compromised if Russian troops are able to widen their flanks, which would enable them to bring their support elements forward. 'It can mean that they may be able in the summer to threaten the remaining supply routes to the city in a way which makes it even more dangerous for Ukrainian units,' Kastehelmi said. Kastehelmi added that it would be 'an operational success' for Moscow if it is able to first expand its flank westward toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and then begin attacking northward, while also building on the eastern flank. But he stressed that Russian troops have not been the best at coordinating attacks, even if it looks 'doable' on paper. Jakub Janovsky, a Prague-based military analyst at the Oryx open-source project tracking Ukrainian and Russian equipment losses, said that it likely won't make 'any difference' if Russian troops advanced a kilometer or two into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. He added that Russia appears to be continuing to rely heavily on small infantry group assaults, either on foot or motorcycles, thus decreasing the use of Soviet-era BMP fighting vehicles or tanks. 'It seems more likely that Russia will focus on Donetsk Oblast,' Janovsky told the Kyiv Independent. 'But it's entirely possible that if they find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Read also: Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain should stay close to US to ward off Russian threat, says defence chief
Britain should stay close to the US to stand up to the threat from Russia, the Chief of the Defence Staff has said. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin's comments came after Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, told The Telegraph that people in Britain had 'better learn to speak Russian' if the Government did not drastically increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Sir Tony, the head of the British military, appeared before the Commons defence select committee on Tuesday, where he was asked if he agreed with Mr Rutte's comments. He said such a scenario could be avoided by sticking close to America and strengthening Nato, telling MPs: 'We all accept that we are in this era of change. 'The piece that I think is so true and consistent for the UK is this security construct which is extraordinary and we should celebrate. 'We are a nuclear power. We are the world's largest and most powerful military alliance and we have as our principal ally the world's most powerful country on the planet. That's what keeps us safe. 'That's what we need to bind to, that's what we are doing, and that's what we need to strengthen so that we don't have the concerns that we are all going to be speaking Russian.' Sir Tony's remarks came as Rachel Reeves prepared to deliver her spending review, in which the Chancellor will set out the details of departmental spending, on Wednesday. However, Sir Tony, who steps down as CDS this autumn and will be replaced by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, refused to say whether he supported an uplift in defence spending to 3 per cent and beyond. Sir Tony also acknowledged the changing relationship between America and the UK, now that Donald Trump has asked the UK to shoulder more of the burden in Europe. Asked if the US withdrew, either entirely or partly, its contribution to Nato, would Europe be strong enough to 'match' Russia, Sir Tony said it was. However, he also insisted that 'America is sticking with Nato'. 'America is going to continue to provide all of us in Europe with the nuclear security guarantee,' he said, while cautioning that the US has other priorities, from homeland security to the Indo-Pacific. 'We no longer have that guarantee in terms of conventional American help for the security of Europe,' Sir Tony said. 'That is a significant change and that's why you are seeing Europe responding.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
