Royal Navy comes within metres of Russian warships in English Channel
Royal Navy warships have been following Russian ships through British waters.
The four-day operation in the English Channel and North Sea comes as Nato reaffirmed its support for Ukraine, but stopped short of condemning Russia's invasion in 2022.
Destroyer HMS Duncan and patrol ship HMS Mersey followed and reported on Russian warship Boikiy as it sailed eastwards through the Channel, coming within metres of each other.
Shortly before this, HMS Trent and Wildcat helicopters from a Naval Air Squadron followed RFN Admiral Grigorovich past Gibraltar, through the Channel and onwards into the North Sea.
HMS Duncan used high-tech sensors and powerful radars to track Boikiy's movements, and found that the ship is missing an anchor.
This is in contrast to May, when HMS Tyne tracked Boikiy and its anchors were in place.
HMS Mersey has now been sent out five times this year to track Russian ships in UK waters.
Commander Daniel Lee, Commanding Officer of HMS Duncan, said: 'Escorting foreign warships through waters near the UK is a vital part of our mission to protect our nation and uphold international maritime law.
'It's a clear demonstration of our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our seas, which are so important to the lives and livelihoods of the British people.
'As a ship's company, we are proud to carry out this duty on behalf of the nation, showcasing our professionalism and readiness to respond to any task required of us.'
This latest operation took place between June 20 and 23, and included HMS Trent tracking the Admiral Grigorovich as she returned to the UK for training after four years in the Mediterranean, off West Africa and the Caribbean.
It comes as Finland detained a Russian ship suspected to have been involved in the 'sabotage' of a key underwater power cable. More Trending
It's feared Russia could damage vital cables linking the UK to the rest of the globe – and the country's ambassador to the UK did not deny claims that the Kremlin is tracking our nuclear submarines.
Luke Pollard, Minister for the Armed Forces, said: 'Russian warships are increasingly sailing through the English Channel, and every time they do, a Royal Navy vessel will be keeping an eye on them.
'I have every confidence, as should the British public, that our Royal Navy will continue to defend our waters and keep our undersea cables safe.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Man admits to attempted murder after hurling toddler onto airport floor
MORE: Experts reveal real risk of WW3 — and what's at stake for anywhere that gets dragged in
MORE: Trump threatens to unleash 'most lethal weapons ever built' if Iran is supplied nukes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump just admitted the real motivation for his latest dictator-esque obsession
The US President has previously - at least publicly - claimed he wants to scrap mail-in ballots because, he claims, they are prone to fraud. But he just said the quiet bit out loud Donald Trump just admitted why he really wants to get rid of postal voting in the US. The US President has previously - at least publicly - claimed he wants to scrap mail-in ballots because, he claims, they are prone to fraud. But in an interview with right-wing talk radio host Todd Starnes, he said the quiet bit out loud - and admitted doing so would help him rig the election. "It's the biggest thing we can do," he said. "Bigger than the reapportionment. It's the biggest thing we can do as a party." The "reapportionment" he referred to is Texas' unprecedented redrawing of its electoral map mid-term to create five more winnable seats for Republicans. That could be enough to let Trump keep control of congress, despite being the second most unpopular President in history (narrowly beaten by himself in his first term). Trump admitted on Friday that his recent interest in postal voting had been prompted by Vladimir Putin, who advised him to ban it. Russian elections are among the most corrupt in the world - with last year's re-election of Putin with a 90% landslide judged to be one of the most fraudulent in the nation's history by independent monitors. But Trump went on: "Our elections are extremely corrupt. The mail-in ballot system is seriously corrupt." This is untrue. While researchers accept postal voting is slightly more open to fraud than in-person voting, the evidence suggests it is exceptionally rare. He also claimed, as he has before, that America is the only country that allows postal voting. In fact, around 34 countries allowed some form of postal voting in 2024 - about half of the world's democracies. He then claimed he wouldn't bother campaigning in a state that had postal voting, which he did, repeatedly during the 2024 campaign. Then he confirmed again that his motivation for wanting to ban it was political. "The only way they're going to win is with mail-in ballots, that's the only way," he said. "I say we pick up 100 seats if we have real elections, meaning you go to the voters." Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As the world attempts to keep up with Trump's antics, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. He added: "The biggest thing Republicans can do is get rid of mail-in ballots." He also claimed he "would have won California" if mail-in voting had not been available. This is, at best, implausible. Trump lost California by 3.2 million votes. To flip California he would have to either deter 3.2 million people from voting, or get them to flip - or most likely a good deal more than that, given about a quarter of Trump voters voted by mail.
The Herald Scotland
35 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Aberdeen's Europa League foes dealt major blow ahead of tie
Risto Radunovic of Montenegro, South African centre-back Siyabonga Ngezana and Ghanaian midfielder Baba Alhassan were all held at Aberdeen airport. A report in Romania claims they were kept there for four hours after travelling with the rest of their teammates. When released, they remained under surveillance at the team hotel in the Granite City. Journalist, Emanuel Rosu, claimed on X that a visa request was unsuccessful for the trio. And so, they will play no part in tonight's first leg against the Scottish Premiership outfit. A spokesperson for the British Embassy Bucharest said via Digi Sport : "The embassy has no role in the processing and granting of visas, which is solely in the hands of the Home Office. "We cannot comment on what has happened in this particular case. All those wishing to enter the UK must comply with the Home Office's advice."
Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?
