Russia demands UK stop training Ukrainian troops as Putin aide issues ultimatum
Moscow has claimed Britain is directly complicit in the conflict due to it training programme.
Russia has issued a stark ultimatum to the UK to stop all military training and arms supplies to Ukraine or the war will not end.
Rodion Miroshnik, a senior envoy in Vladimir Putin's foreign ministry, said that continued Western support — including the UK's long-running Operation Interflex — amounts to direct involvement in the conflict.
Moscow insists the programme, which has trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on British soil, must be shut down, reports the Mirror.
'The participation or complicity of other countries is a key issue that must be stopped in all forms — including weapons deliveries and the training of Ukrainian militants,' Miroshnik told pro-Kremlin outlet Izvestia. 'Halting these programmes would be a signal of willingness to seek a resolution.'
The warning came as Ukraine suffered its heaviest aerial bombardment of the war so far, with 537 Russian strikes recorded over the weekend. One of the attacks saw the downing of an F-16 fighter jet, killing pilot Lt-Col Maksym Ustymenko.
President Volodymyr Zelensky posthumously awarded him the Hero of Ukraine honour, calling him 'one of our very best'.
Zelensky last week joined UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to inspect Ukrainian troops in Britain, reinforcing the strong defence partnership between the two nations. That show of unity has drawn anger in Moscow.
Russian officials doubled down on their claims that Western aid, including training and weapons, prolongs the war and escalates hostilities. Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of Russia's upper house, said: 'Any aid that helps Ukraine continue fighting or preparing terrorist operations clearly does not promote conflict resolution. It is unequivocally hostile to Russia.'
He added: 'This is a clear campaign against everything Russian — a full display of militarism. Ukrainians no longer have agency. They are being used as tools for NATO's strategic aims.'
Oleg Karpovich, vice-rector of Moscow's Diplomatic Academy, went further — accusing Britain of having a hand in the deaths of Russian troops. 'In practice, they are participating in the killing of our citizens while coordinating terrorist attacks by the Kyiv regime,' he claimed.
Despite Russia's call for an end to military aid to Ukraine, it maintains its own heavy military operations — insisting its aim remains the 'demilitarisation' of Ukraine.
The Kremlin's demands came just as signs emerged that former US President Donald Trump — long accused of being soft on Putin — may be shifting his stance. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham revealed that Trump had given the green light for a tough sanctions bill targeting Russia's economy.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We 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'.
'For the first time yesterday the president told me... 'it's time to move your bill',' Graham told ABC News. The legislation would slap a 500% tariff on goods from countries that buy Russian energy but do not support Ukraine — a direct swipe at China and India, who currently buy the lion's share of Putin's oil exports.
Graham said the bill is designed to 'crush' Russia's war machine by cutting off its funding. Whether Trump follows through remains to be seen — but Moscow's threats and Washington's shift mark a new flashpoint in the drawn-out war.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
PETER TATCHELL: How can 5 words provoke more outrage than Israel's mass killing?
Something is seriously wrong when chanting five words provokes more outrage than Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza, including 15,000 children. Bob Vylan led crowds at Glastonbury in chants of 'Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces].' He said he was calling for a 'change in foreign policy.' Such a call is legitimate free speech but the way he expressed it is questionable. Although I am highly critical of Israel's (and Hamas's) war crimes, I would not have used those words. But from a Palestinian perspective, Israel is indiscriminately bombing their homes, shops, hospitals and schools. To them, those words are the equivalent to British people saying 'Death, death to the German airforce', as it bombed our cities during World War Two. If we defend the latter, why is a similar sentiment against the IDF over its war crimes so outrageous? Free speech includes the right to say offensive, and even appalling, things. But it does not include the right to make violent threats. 'Death, death to the IDF' comes very close to inciting the murder of Israeli soldiers, in response to their murder of innocent Palestinians. If it had been a call to kill specific Israeli personnel, the charge of incitement might be answerable in court. But a generic call for death probably would not. Besides, no one at Glastonbury is going to kill an Israeli soldier as a result of Vylan's words. It's protest rhetoric; not intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, if a neo-Nazi band urged 'Death, death to black people' most of us would find that unacceptable. We'd agree it was tantamount to inciting murder and could pose a real threat to the safety of Black Britons from violent far right groups. The BBC had no idea what Vylan was going to say. But to cover itself, it posted on-screen warnings about discriminatory language during his set. It could have switched coverage when the offensive chants were heard, which may have been the best option. But that would have left the BBC open to the charge of censorship. Either way, the real issue is the moral obligation to speak out against war crimes. That's what Vylan did, even if his words were outrageous.
Economist
30 minutes ago
- Economist
In Putin's Moscow a summer of death and distraction
Photograph: Aleksandra Astakhova W ATCH RUSSIAN television or listen to Vladimir Putin's chilling speeches, and Russia is a besieged fortress, struggling to preserve humanity against the decadent West, defending the traditional values of family life, and defying death by its readiness to sacrifice life. Walk on Moscow streets, however, and it looks nothing like a city in the grip of a death cult. But neither did Berlin in the early 1940s, with its entertainments, consumption and comforts. Andrej Babis looks set to return as prime minister in the autumn It is ahead of Russia, for now But probably not reverse it Soft-power Europe is often bested by hard-nosed autocrats America's allies have pledged to spend a lot more, but details are thin
Times
an hour ago
- Times
What's Keir Starmer's big idea? He needs to tell us
On May 26, 1797, William Pitt the Younger was not having a good day. Just short of his 38th birthday but already a long-serving prime minister, he was woken in 10 Downing Street by artillery fire. The army at Woolwich arsenal had rioted, following a mutiny in the navy: extremely serious developments, since the country was at war with France. Having issued instructions to suppress the riot, Pitt went into a cabinet meeting where it became clear that his only ally, Austria, was abandoning the war, leaving Britain alone. As the cabinet deliberated, the value of government debt fell to its lowest ever level on the markets. Sending off urgent messages, he then went to the Commons for the rest of the day to debate an opposition motion on reforming elections, defending his domestic political agenda on the same day as momentous international events. Crucially, he also showed that his policies at home were coherent with the goal abroad of winning the war. The large parliamentary majority behind him did not waver. Set against such an example, the explanation given by Sir Keir Starmer that he only focused on the rebellion against his welfare bill on Thursday because he was busy with Nato earlier in the week does not sit at the impressive end of the historical scale. He does not even depend, as Pitt did 230 years ago, on messages being conveyed by a ship or a horse — although the pace at which he and his team realised they were in trouble suggest that might not have made much difference. Prime ministers have always had to deal with multiple crises on the same day. That is partly why the position came into existence in the first place, superseding the habit of isolated departments reporting separately to the crown. But the really vital part is not just being able to fit a lot into a day; it is drawing together the responses to all the issues into a governing idea, and thereby explaining to supporters, the country and the government itself what the purpose of its existence might be. In the absence of such an idea, eloquently explained, prime ministers can become overwhelmed. Trying to deal with all the crises as if they are unconnected leads to exhaustion, loss of support and doing too little on each one to make the decisive difference. As he approaches his first anniversary in office, the PM should reflect that this is where he is heading. There are many sensible policies in the defence review of last month, the industrial strategy of last week, the health strategy of this week and indeed, the welfare proposals that have gone from being a 'moral imperative' to being gutted in recent days. Yet we can all guess where this is going: the revival of defence will be choked by lack of money; the industrial plans will get so far but not match the scale of what is happening in other countries; the efforts to tackle obesity will make some difference but not a big enough one to stop the ballooning of the health budget; the growth of welfare spending will be only marginally slowed; and all that will mean more tax rises, slow growth and the government drifting towards eventual disaster. Starmer now needs to channel his inner Pitt. Perhaps he doesn't have one, in which case his administration is doomed. But if he does, he will realise that instead of a bigger budget he needs to make a bigger argument: that the world he has seen in his first year in power is very different from the rather stable and usually unthreatening one in which we all lived until recently, and that this will make quite different demands on the country and the individuals who live in it. He needs to show that reforming a runaway welfare budget and improving the nation's health, along with effective defences and developing new technologies, are all part of the same need to get ready for a very turbulent period to come. Political leaders do not like warning voters they are in for a shock, particularly when up against populist challengers who tell people they can have everything they want. Yet it is clear that geopolitical disorder is making the world more dangerous, that the arrival of AI is already affecting the job market, that the risk of further pandemics is high, the climate is changing rapidly and other nations are making a grab for the key industries and critical resources of the future. The world is full of opportunities too, to invent new technologies and defeat old diseases, but to take advantage of those we have to be ready for the turbulence, able to cope with rapid change and setbacks, fit for some big new challenges. The prime minister could stand up after a year in office and explain the world he has now seen. Our defences are not ready for drones flying out of parked lorries in surprise attacks when we can't even stop protesters entering an air base and spraying paint into engines. Our system of government is too slow when we are still halfway through an inquiry into the last pandemic. Our investment in research and science is still too low to keep up with the US and China. Soon we will need to retrain and assist millions of people whose jobs are transformed or destroyed by the likes of ChatGPT. He could then explain, in that global context, that there is no way at all of coping with these things if we don't force radical change of our welfare system. A country that spends more on sickness benefits than on defence or schools will be sunk in this world of turbulence. One that adds a city the size of Leicester every year to the numbers claiming disability benefits will go broke. A nation that accepts, as we do, that 26 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds have a mental disorder and that many of them should not work as a result will definitively be unable to defend itself or adapt to rapid changes in the nature of work. Finally, he should say that he has learnt that trying to tackle this with unplanned cuts announced by Rachel Reeves seemingly at random, like the winter fuel controversy, is not the way to do it. The reforms need to support those with poor mental health to build resilience through work and target support towards those with significant disabilities. They are part of a bigger picture: not a spending cut for that moment, or a moral imperative suddenly discovered, but a need that fits with defence and the economy to prepare for a turbulent future. Like Pitt, he could then fit more into his day, because he would not have to work out, on each issue, where he ought to stand.
