Russian navy leader Mikhail Gudkov confirmed killed in Ukraine missile strike
Major General Mikhail Gudkov, who also led a brigade fighting against Ukraine, died in Russia's Kursk region, the region's governor Oleg Kozhemyako confirmed.
Ten other Russian servicemen were also killed in the attack on a command post in Korenevo, according to Russian and Ukrainian military Telegram channels.
The Kremlin has confirmed the death of Major General Mikhail Gudkov.
Flowers are placed near a board with a photograph of Gudkov in Vladivostok, Russia.
REUTERS
Gudkov is one of the Kremlin's most senior military officers to have been killed since President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale war against Ukraine in February 2022.
Putin had only just appointed him deputy commander of the Russian Navy in March.
'When he became Deputy Chief of the Navy, he did not stop personally visiting the positions of our marines,' Kozhemyako said in a statement.
He added that Gudkov was killed 'carrying out his duty as an officer.'
At the time of his death, he'd been leading a Marine Brigade of Russia's Pacific Fleet, which had been fighting in Kursk region, which borders Ukraine.
Gudkov has previously been given honors for bravery in amid the war in Ukraine and been accused by Kyiv of war crimes.
With Post wires
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
NATO Chief Weighs In on Military Conscription Across Europe
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Each European country will decide independently on whether to introduce military conscription, NATO's secretary-general has said, as the continent forges ahead with its rapid defense ramp up. Why It Matters NATO's European members, plus Canada, are in the middle of a massive defense push, reinvesting in their military after years of leaning heavily on the United States. America has tens of thousands of troops and a host of major bases in Europe, but President Donald Trump—a vociferous NATO skeptic—has demanded that alliance members commit to spending 5 percent of GDP on defense. Many had struggled to hit the 2 percent NATO target as Trump took office. But the alliance inked a pledge in June to reach Trump's figure of 5 percent, a huge leap in military spending for most NATO countries. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon What To Know It is "up to individual countries to decide" whether to put conscription in place, NATO chief Mark Rutte told The New York Times. "Some countries will do it," Rutte said, speaking shortly after the NATO summit in The Hague in late June. "Others will not do it, but it will mean, in general, paying good salaries for our men and women in uniform." Several NATO countries in Europe already have different models of conscription, the need felt much more keenly on the alliance's eastern flank, staring down Russia. The nations with conscription typically also emphasize making sure their societies are ready for war, including by issuing public guides on how to cope during conflict. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have stormed ahead in raising defense spending, all have conscription, as do several of the Nordic countries. Turkey and Greece also have conscription. Other countries, like the U.K., have militaries solely made up of volunteer professional soldiers. In Finland, which joined NATO shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, men must complete mandatory military service before heading into the reserve force. Finland shares hundreds of miles of border with Russia. Sweden, which also became a NATO member after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, reinstituted conscription in 2017. Conscripts train with the Swedish military, and are put into a wartime unit to join if the government activates mobilization or high alerts. In Norway, conscription is obligatory yet very selective, applying to men and women. Denmark recently changed its laws on conscription, meaning women must also present themselves to be assessed for military service as they turn 18. Women previously joined the military purely on a volunteer basis. Rutte said he was "particularly worried" about Europe's ability to roll out large amounts of military equipment. Russia is "on a war footing in every sense," Rutte said, adding: "The size of the military, what they're investing in, in their tanks, in air defense systems, in their artillery, in ammunition—it is amazing." Rutte said during the NATO summit that the alliance will invest in a "five-fold increase" in air defense capabilities, as well as "thousands more tanks and armored vehicles" and millions of artillery rounds. What People Are Saying NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said: "We simply lack the defense industrial base to produce the weapons we need to make sure that we can deter the Russians or the North Koreans or whoever to attack us."
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Why Greenland is more important to the US than ever
Wittingly or unwittingly, United Airlines gave Donald Trump a birthday present that more than made up for the lackluster army parade put on by Pete Hegseth. On June 14, the day Trump turned 79, the US carrier launched its inaugural flight from Newark to Nuuk, the capital of Greenland — a rugged Arctic expanse possessing vast mineral wealth, stark beauty and huge strategic significance. The possibility that the timing may have been entirely coincidental did nothing to detract from the political symbolism of United's commercial aviation milestone. 10 A statue of Norwegian missionary Hans Egede in Nuuk, the Capital and largest city in Greenland — which has become one of the most hotly-contested piece of land on the planet since the return of Donald Trump to the White House. robertharding – By connecting the US to Greenland, which Trump has vowed to annex 'one way or another,' its flight demystified the Arctic island for ordinary Americans. Greenland is not some inaccessible fantasyland. It is, in fact, closer to New York than it is to Denmark, which colonized Greenland in the 18th century. The preservation of Danish sovereignty over Greenland has now become a matter of honor for European leaders exasperated by Trump's menacing taunts. Advertisement The United Airlines flight to Nuuk was followed, a day later, by an aircraft carrying Emmanuel Macron. 'The situation in Greenland is clearly a wake-up call for all Europeans,' the French president declared in the presence of Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Macron described the threat to Greenland as a warning for all Europe. 10 The Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, one of the most important strategic military asset under US control in the Arctic region. via REUTERS But why, in the first place, does Trump covet this piece of Arctic real estate? His interest in Greenland — he offered to buy it in his first term — is animated by an obsession with the rewards of owning it. Situated between North America and Europe, Greenland is a linchpin for monitoring Russian missile launches and naval movements through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, a vital Atlantic choke point. The biggest military installation there, the Cold War-era Pituffik Space Base, is already owned by the US. Security, however, is one aspect of Trump's fixation. The president is also drawn to the overabundant natural resources — from precious minerals to an estimated 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — that Greenland, citing climate change, refuses to exploit. Advertisement 10 Greenland is a source of 'strategic wealth' for Denmark says author and academic Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan. Lest anybody doubt his intent to take Greenland, Trump dispatched his vice president to the island in March. JD Vance excoriated Denmark for failing to keep Greenland safe, criticized its stewardship and pitched American control as an opportunity for the locals. His trip was followed by leaks of White House plans to move Greenland's oversight from US European Command to Northern Command, framing it as integral to American, not European, defense. Greenland's history with Denmark could potentially bolster Trump's efforts. Colonized in the 18th century, it was a Danish possession until 1953, when it was integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark. Home rule came in 1979, and it was not until 2009 that the Self-Government Act granted expanded autonomy to the locals over their domestic affairs. 10 French Pres. Emmanuel Macron greeting local Greenlanders during his visit to the island on June 15. AP Advertisement Copenhagen still controls foreign policy and defense. Greenlanders — overwhelmingly descended from Inuit populations that migrated from North America in the 1200s — chafe under Danish control, and many favor independence. What keeps them tethered to Denmark are the subsidies that finance half their budget. Greenlanders are technically allowed an independence referendum, but it is subject to Danish approval — a sticking point for leaders who aspire to self-rule. Trump's pressure has barely scratched the surface of this tension. Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point Military Academy, says that the 'US has not engaged in emotional warfare yet.' Officials in the Trump administration could profit from reading her forthcoming book, 'So You Want to Own Greenland: Lessons from Vikings to Trump,' which explains the contest for Greenland without omitting the perspective of the Greenlanders. 10 Passengers deplaning from the first United Airlines flight from Newark to Nuuk Airport on June 14. Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images 'Strategically picking at the wounds of Danish colonial politics and [its] abhorrent generational effects' on Greenland has not yet begun, she notes. For all its lofty rhetoric, Denmark is not holding on to Greenland for the benefit of the Greenlanders. The island, as Dr Buchanan notes, is a source of 'strategic wealth' for Denmark; without it, Copenhagen would be measurably worse off. Advertisement None of this means Greenlanders are desperate to be governed from Washington. Privately, officials in the local government enumerate the benefits of being subsumed into the United States. But shaped by a history of being the objects of great power competition, they are wary of swapping one foreign overlord for another. What they most want, as a Nuuk-based historian told me, is to 'experience true freedom, real sovereignty.' Even those who are open to the idea of a union with the United States are put off by the way President Trump has gone about it. A Greenlandic academic put it acidly: 'Trump is interested in Greenland. He doesn't give a f–k about Greenlanders.' 10 Donald Trump, Jr. paid a provocative visit to Greenland at the height of his father's bluster just before Pres. Trump inauguration in early January. Donald Trump Jr / Instagram Denmark is no saint among nations — it was an ugly imperial power that oppressed Greenland's natives and maintained colonies from the Americas to India — and its florid proclamations about the sanctity of sovereignty are somewhat undermined by its recent history of enthusiastic participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing.' But it is also this very association that makes the rift between Washington and Copenhagen so surreal. A NATO member since 1949, Denmark has fought alongside America in Baghdad and Afghanistan, while hosting US forces at Pituffik since 1941. Together, the two countries blocked a Chinese bid for a Greenland naval base in 2017. But this partnership, a NATO bedrock forged in trust and prized by successive American administrations, is rapidly unravelling under Trump. Greenlanders are again caught in the crossfire of conflict between big powers. The spectacle of the US threatening annexation in Europe is staggering to those who grew up under the umbrella of American protection. Since 1945, Washington has championed sovereignty and alliances on the continent, not territorial grabs. European leaders are livid. 10 The iconic Trump jet on the tarmac during Donald Trump, Jr's visit in January of this year. Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images Macron's visit in June was a calibrated demonstration of 'European unity' against Trump's designs. Even Macron's political rivals endorse his action. Greenland's defense 'must concern all Europeans,' says André Rougé, a member of the European Parliament and a leading light of the nationalist Rassemblement National. Rougé is keen to emphasize that this issue 'transcends partisan divides' in France. Advertisement Macron is the last great liberal politician on the continent — a man who, for all his flashes of hubris and impulsiveness, has a profound understanding of the perils facing Europe. But will he really race to defend Denmark's territorial integrity if Trump decides to seize Greenland? 'Let me tell you very directly that you're not alone,' Macron assured Danes and Greenlanders. This was a well-intentioned platitude. In truth, all the noise about solidarity can scarcely conceal the fact that NATO was audibly silent about Greenland at its annual summit last month at The Hague. 'The sheer effort to tell the world 'everything is fine' points to the fact that NATO will avoid at all costs any issues that undermine the precious veneer of resolve and unity it currently has,' says Dr. Buchanan. 10 Greenland's defense 'must concern all Europeans,' says André Rougé, a member of the European Parliament. Courtesy of André Rougé Picture a scenario in which Denmark, facing an invasion by US troops, triggers Article 5 — the mechanism meant to compel NATO members to mobilize a collective defense of an ally under attack. What then? NATO, predicated on mutual defense, will be confronted with an intra-alliance conflict. This is not novel — Turkey and Greece have fought in Cyprus. Advertisement But a war of annexation waged against a NATO member by the United States, the alliance's anchor, would be unprecedented. NATO members will for the most part urge de-escalation. Some states may be tempted to put on a show of token support for Denmark. But there will be no serious 'military intervention' against America, says Professor Jeremy Black, a prolific historian of Europe. Instead, any coercive US action against Greenland will destroy the very idea of 'being allied to America.' 10 There is little doubt that NATO do everything possible to avoid any sort of military confrontation over Greenland. Picture of NATO-member leaders at The Hague on June 24. Getty Images The post-war order will face certain ruin. The taboo against aligning with Russia and China will be impossible to sustain. Beijing may come to be regarded as a potential reinforcer of European security and some states may forge open alliances with Moscow and Beijing. Washington will gain Greenland, along with the resentment of its people for being snatched by force. It will permanently squander its already diminishing dominance in Europe and the world. Trump's craving for Greenland is not without precedent: The US sought to purchase the island on at least two occasions in the 20th century. What is different today is that America already enjoys primacy in Greenland through its military base and pacts with Denmark, a longstanding ally of Washington. Minerals and shipping lanes are eminently negotiable without the use force. Annexation would alienate Greenlanders, most of whom demonstrated their contempt for the idea of US rule by boycotting Vance during his March visit. Governing a hostile population would drain, not gain, resources. Advertisement 10 European political historian and author Jeremy Black says there is little likelihood of military intervention against the US if it were to attempt a Greenland take-over. Trump's claim that for American security 'we can't' do without Greenland ignores reality: America already 'has' Greenland. And anything else it wants is achievable, within reason, through conversation, not conquest. Greenlanders are eager to deepen their relationship with the US — as friends, not subjects.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reuters' X accounts blocked in India amid confusion over ‘legal demand'
The primary X handles of international news agency Reuters were blocked in India 'in response to a legal demand', according to a notice on the microblogging platform. A message displayed on Reuters' X account (formerly Twitter) read: '@Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.' However, the Indian ministry of electronics and information technology denied issuing any new legal demand to block Reuters' accounts on the Elon Musk-owned platform. 'There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold the Reuters handle. We are continuously working with 'X' to resolve the problem,' the spokesperson for the ministry said. The absence of clear reasons for the block has led to confusion and concern among Indian users and media watchers, once again raising questions over press freedom and digital censorship in India. The block gained attention on Saturday evening. The Reuters World account became inaccessible shortly afterward, by 11.40pm local time. An Indian government source told the Press Trust of India that a demand to block several hundred X accounts was made during India-Pakistan tensions in April, particularly when India launched a counter-terrorism operation inside Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. The unnamed source said the government had issued the order on 7 May, but Reuters seems to have acted only now, calling it a 'mistake on their part'. India launched what it called Operation Sindoor, carrying out an attack inside Pakistani territory to target terrorist camps. Pakistan denied that terrorists were attacked, claiming all casualties were civilians. Around the same time, Indian news website The Wire said the Indian government blocked access to its news website and ordered the removal of Pakistan-linked content across digital platforms. The website of The Wire, a news organisation known for its investigative journalism and critical coverage of the government, became inaccessible across much of the country. In recent years, the Indian government has expanded its information technology laws to bring social media under its ambit and to allow the blocking of online content on the grounds of national security or public order. India ranked 151st in the World Press Freedom Index in 2025, a slight improvement from 159th last year. Reuters has not issued any statement yet. The Independent has reached out to Reuters for a comment.
