Russia to start trial of suspects in Moscow concert hall attack
Armed men stormed the Crocus City Hall music venue on March 22 last year, opening fire and then setting the building alight in what was one of the deadliest attacks in Russia's history.
Hundreds of people were injured. The Islamic State (IS) group claimed responsibility.
The four suspected attackers, all from Tajikistan -- an ex-Soviet republic in Central Asia -- and another 15 people accused of being accomplices were expected to go on trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump orders NASA to kill 2 satellites that can function for many more years - the reason will shock all
Trump NASA satellite shutdown: The White House has directed NASA to shut down two carbon-tracking satellites. These satellites monitor carbon dioxide levels. The satellites provide crucial data for understanding climate change. Scientists, farmers, and energy companies use this data. One satellite is on the International Space Station. The other will burn up in the atmosphere if shut down. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Satellites Tracking Carbon Emissions To Face Early Shutdown What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Former NASA Scientist Raises Concerns What Are the Orbiting Carbon Observatories? Lawmakers Push Back, Call Cuts 'Catastrophic' Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs A decision that has left many scientists and space lovers scratching their heads is that the White House has ordered NASA to shut down two important satellites that are still working perfectly and could keep doing so for years, as per a report. These satellites track carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere, which helps to understand climate change and how it affects everything from farming to energy industries, as per a Futurism Trump administration's officials have reached out to NASA to draw up plans for terminating the two missions, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatories , as reported by Futurism. Both of them have been used to collect widely used data, which provide information to oil and gas companies and farmers about the distribution of carbon dioxide and how it can affect crop health, according to the READ: When is Labor Day 2025 in US and what should you know before celebrating? One of the satellites is attached to the International Space Station, and the other is collecting data as a stand-alone satellite, as reported by Futurism. The latter would see its permanent demise after burning up in the atmosphere if the mission gets terminated, according to the Trump administration's move to end the missions comes at a time when the two observatories had been expected to function for many more years, and a 2023 review by NASA found that the data they'd been providing had been "of exceptionally high quality," as reported by review also found that the observatories give detailed carbon dioxide measurements across various locations, which let scientists get a detailed glimpse of how human activity is affecting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the READ: Another Indian-American shakes up Silicon Valley - Meet Shyam Sankar, Palantir's CTO powering company's meteoric rise An ex-NASA employee, David Crisp, who worked on the Orbiting Carbon Observatories' instruments, revealed that current staffers reached out to him, saying, "They were asking me very sharp questions," adding, "The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan," as quoted by explained that it "makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data," pointing out that it costs just $15 million per year to maintain both observatories, which is a small fraction of the agency's $25.4 billion budget, as reported by other scientists who have used data from the missions have also been asked questions about terminating the missions, as per the the two observatories are just two of dozens of space missions that are currently facing existential threats due to the Trump administration's proposed 2026 fiscal year budget, according to the reasons for terminating these missions are not known yet, but there is only speculation given US president Donald Trump's staunch climate change denial and his administration's efforts to deal the agency's science directorate a potentially existential blow, as per the has led many scientists to argue that the move could precipitate an end to the United States' leadership in space, according to the Futurism report. Many lawmakers have also drawn up a counteroffer that would keep NASA's budget almost in line with this year's budget, as per the and top appropriator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) had siad in a July, "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47 percent and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," as quoted in the representative and Committee on Science, Space and Technology ranking member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said thar, "Eliminating funds or scaling down the operations of Earth-observing satellites would be catastrophic and would severely impair our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters," adding, "The Trump administration is forcing the proposed cuts in its FY26 budget request on already appropriated FY25 funds. This is illegal," as quoted in the Futurism farmers, environmentalists, energy companies, anyone needing detailed carbon emission will burn up in the atmosphere, and the other will stop collecting data, ending their missions prematurely.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 hours ago
- First Post
What is the nuclear treaty Russia has exited after Trump's submarine move? Why does it matter?
Russia has said that it no longer considers itself bound by the terms of the treaty it signed with the United States decades ago. Moscow in a statement said it made the decision due to the actions of Western countries, which it claimed had created a direct threat to its security. But what do we know about the treaty? Why does it matter? read more Photo of President Vladimir Putin released by the Kremlin Russia has announced that it is leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Moscow has said that it no longer considers itself bound by the terms of the treaty it signed with Washington decades ago. Russia in a statement said it made the decision due to the actions of Western countries, which it claimed had created a direct threat to its security. Russia said the conditions for adhering to the treaty had disappeared. It said it thus 'no longer considers itself bound' by the 'previously adopted self-restrictions'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'West's build-up of destabilising missile potentials create a direct threat to security of our country,' Russia said in statement. But what do we know about the INF Treaty? What does Russia's exit mean? Let's take a closer look: The INF Treaty The treaty was signed between the United States and the then Soviet Union in 1987. The treaty witnessed both countries agreeing to tamp down on intermediate and medium range land missiles that could carry nuclear warheads. The origins of the treaty go back to the 1970s when the US was calling for arms control with regard to intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). This came after the Soviet Union began to deploy the SS-20 intermediate-range missiles domestically. These SS-20s, which could hold three nuclear warheads, allow the Soviet Union to hit Western Europe within 10 minutes. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) responded to the Soviet Union by both pushing arms control. It also called on the US to deploy its own ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing II IRBMs to counter Russia. Negotiations for the treaty began in 1980s. However, little progress was made in the early part of that decade. However, things began to change after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985. That year, the Soviet Union suggested keeping the number of SS-20 missiles and the Nato and US' missiles in Europe at a parity – to which Washington listened. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By 1986, talks had expanded to include all US and Soviet missiles across the globe. Gorbachev and then President Ronald Reagan then began signalling the signing of a treaty. Ronald Reagan signed the treaty with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev X/@ChineseEmbinUS On December 8, 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the treaty in Washington DC. In 1988, it was ratified by the two countries. The INF Treaty took effect on June 1, 1988. The treaty defined shorter-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) as those having ranges from 500 kilometers to 1,000 kilometers and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) as those with ranges from 1,000 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers. It called over 2,600 of them to be done away with, over half of which were deployed when the treaty was signed, by June 1, 1991. This was a landmark pact for several reasons. It was the first time the two superpowers had agreed to arms control when it came to their nuclear arsenals. The country is also agreed to do away with a specific type of nuclear weapon. The treaty also called for on-site inspection of the missiles being destroyed, which was yet another major first. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It was seen a massive thaw in the ongoing Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Around two-thirds of the missiles destroyed belonged to the Soviets, while the rest were from the US. While the two countries were allowed to keep the warheads and guidance systems, missile launchers and other types of equipment were destroyed. INF Treaty in modern times The treaty has been the cause of much back and forth between Russia and the United States in modern times. Russia in particular has been unhappy with the terms set forth under the treaty – particularly with China making strides when it comes to missiles. In July 2014, the then Obama administration in its compliance report accused Russia of violating the treaty. Washington claimed Moscow had violated the terms which stated it was 'not to possess, produce, or flight-test' a ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers or 'to possess or produce launchers of such missiles'. Then, in 2017, US officials claimed that Russia had deployed a non-compliant cruise missile. On March 8, 2017, General Paul Selva, the then Vice-Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the development. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US accused Russia of 'violating the spirit and intent' of the INF Treaty. Russia has rebuffed such allegations and in turn accused the United States of violating the treaty. In December 2017, the first Trump administration announced it would be developing a conventional, road-mobile, intermediate-range missile system to counter Russia. Nearly a year later, in October 2018, Trump announced he would be 'terminating' the treaty. Trump blamed Russia and China's efforts at developing intermediate-range missiles arsenal. In December 2018, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States found Russia in 'material breach' of the treaty. Pompeo said the US would suspend its treaty obligations in 60 days if Russia refused to comply. In February 2019, the Trump administration announced it was suspending its obligations and that it would leave the treaty in six months. Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country would also suspend its obligations. In August 2019, the United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD So, what happened now? The decision came just days after Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to be 'repositioned in the appropriate regions'. Dmitri Medvedev is a former President and Prime Minister of Russia. Reuters/File Photo 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions,' Trump wrote on social media. 'Just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances,' he added. 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' This came after former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, who is deputy chairman of the country's security council, made a nuclear threat against America. Russia also cited the US deploying a Typhon missile launcher in the Philippines and missile firings during the Talisman Sabre exercise in Australia as reasons behind its decision. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps', Medvedev wrote on social media in the aftermath of Russia's announcement. What do experts say? Experts aren't surprised by this development. Phil Breedlove, a retired US Air Force general told The New York Times, 'This is a fairly standard approach Russia takes when they're trying to deter or intimidate the West'. 'Every time the West considers a change, like giving new weapons to Ukraine, this is what happens', Breedlove, who headed up US European Command from 2013 to 2016, added. Some have expressed concern to a return to the bad old days of the Cold War, where each side lived in fear of what the other could do. They point to the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, which Russia deployed against a Ukrainian city in November. The Oreshnik's range that violates the INF Treaty. Putin last week said the nuclear-capable Oreshnik will be placed in Belarus – which borders three Nato nations. Russian media has claimed that the weapon could take out European capitals in 15 minutes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US last year said it would start 'episodic deployments' of intermediate-range missiles in Germany from 2026. This leaves New Start, which expires in 2026, as the only major arms control treaty between the two countries. Putin in 2023 said Russia would no longer participate in New Start. What will happen next? No one is quite sure, but watchers are playing close attention.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Medvedev Warns of 'Further Steps" as Russia Exits Nuke Pact With US, Ukraine "Blows Up" S-300
Russia formally announced its withdrawal from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on August 4. The Kremlin blamed US deployment of nuclear submarines and 'the actions of Western countries' for creating a 'direct threat' to Russia's security. The move came days after US President Donald Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to "be positioned in the appropriate regions" near RussiaRussia's Foreign Ministry declared that the conditions for obliging to the Soviet-era treaty had "disappeared.'Former Russian President and Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev has blamed NATO's 'anti-Russia policy' for Moscow's exit from 1987 INF Treaty with America. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' the Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman said. n18oc_world n18oc_crux0:00 INTRODUCTIONMEDVEDEV POINTS TO 'NEW REALITY, WARNS OF 'FURTHER STEPS'RUSSIA HITS UKRAINIAN MILITARY FIELDS, KYIV DESTROYS RUSSIAN S-300KYIV SECURES MASSIVE DUTCH MILITARY AID PACKAGE
