Putin stages deadly war games after NATO agrees to increase defence spending
Vladimir Putin's nuclear-capable Yars missile systems were sent on a combat patrol in the Altai region of Siberia.
The RS-24 Yars missile typically carries three or four nuclear warheads, each with a yield estimated between 100 and 300 kilotons, making each warhead between seven and 20 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
They have a range of up to 7,500 miles, enabling strikes on both the US and Europe.
They are currently the main element of the ground-based component of the Russian strategic nuclear force.
Defence ministry TV channel Zvezda said the drills were 'to check the readiness of military personnel, weapons and equipment for long-term duty in field conditions'.
A statement explained: 'Soldiers are engineering field positions, organising camouflage and combat security.'
They were exercising in countering 'enemy scouts and saboteurs', with support units removing 'special equipment from areas of simulated chemical contamination'.
The war games are days after the NATO bloc agreed to increase defence spending to counter the danger.
Russia already mocked the spending increase, calling it 'frenzied'. As foreign minister Sergey Lavrov put it, the 5% rise – which Donald Trump hailed a 'big win for Europe and… Western civilisation' – is the 'talk of the town'.
The Kremlin has previously accused Nato of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a 'fiend of hell' to justify its major increase in defence spending.
Russia, which is spending more than 40% of this year's budget on defence and security, denies any intention to attack a Nato state. More Trending
Allies agreed to raise their collective spending goal over the next decade, citing what they called the long-term threat posed by Russia and the need to strengthen the civil and military resilience.
NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, even hailed Trump as 'Daddy' for dropping the F-bomb live on TV over alleged ceasefire violations in Israel's war with Iran.
Former Dutch PM Mark Rutte praised the US president, saying: 'Sometimes daddy has to use strong words.'
The comment came as leaders of the 32-nation alliance gathered in The Hague, to agree the new defence spending target of 5% of the gross domestic product.
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: Donald Trump is already selling 'Daddy' T-shirts for £20
MORE: Map shows safest countries to be in if global conflict breaks out
MORE: Six places which could be safe if World War Three erupts – including two in UK
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
First ladies are leading the way in writing wrongs
Donald Trump will have the world's most powerful military at his disposal when he finally squares up to (or, more likely, vacillates in front of) Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. And yet when it comes to paving the way to possible peace talks, his wife Melania seems to be doing a fine diplomatic job – armed only with her Montblanc. At the Alaska summit on Friday, Putin walked all over the supine US president. He did receive, however, a letter from the Slovenian-born first lady, which addressed Russia's malevolent treatment of Ukrainian children and implored Putin to do his best to protect them. Melania is not the only president's wife to have taken to her writing desk in an effort to end the Ukraine war. President Zelensky avoided a repeat of his disastrous Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump, and he softened his landing by handing over a letter from his wife, Olena Zelenska, thanking her opposite number for her efforts in sparing the lives of Ukrainian children. "It's not to you, it's to your wife,' a smiling Zelensky told Trump, in a considerably more convivial atmosphere than the one in February that saw him mugged in front of the world's cameras. In bygone centuries, when foreign relations depended on the back and forth of handwritten entreaties, often in legal French, it was known as 'letter diplomacy'. Today, it could be termed 'Smythson diplomacy' – and decent stationery is all the more commanding in an era of the dashed-off WhatsApp. If it helps stop the carnage in conflict zones, all power to the first ladies' elbows. It is very easy to mock Melania's missive to Putin: its glutinous semi-literacy, its use of vague euphemisms and its refusal to call a spade a spade. Take this for example this sentence, alluding to Putin's abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children – for which he has been indicted as a war criminal: 'A simple yet profound concept, Mr Putin, as I am sure you agree, is that each generation's descendants begin their lives with a purity – an innocence which stands above geography, government and ideology.' Never mind that Putin, white nationalist, imperialist and would-be heir to Peter the Great, doesn't share these sentiments. Melania knows there was no point in further riling the Russian leader – not that he was the intended audience. The letter was meant for her husband, and those Republicans with a conscience. Polls show that GOP supporters' attitudes to Russia and its brutalisation of Ukraine are hardening. Trump has said his wife is 'very neutral' on Ukraine. No one believes that. Melania, 55, who grew up in Slovenia, the most western-leaning part of what was communist Yugoslavia, made a point of posting her thoughts and prayers for the people of Ukraine on X immediately after Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary-general, has shared Trump's own reports of how the first Lady has tried to remind her husband what he's up against in the Kremlin. Rutte recalls the US leader telling how 'I'd get home, I'd say: 'First lady, I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir. I think we're finished.' And then I'll turn on the television, or she'll say to me one time: 'Wow, that's strange because they just bombed a nursing home…'' The ease with which Putin can sway Trump with a handshake, an impish grin and a private, five-minute chat is terrifying. This means that it's vital that as many voices as possible, from European leaders to his wife, remind the US president that Putin is an evil, lying megalomaniac – and that you won't get a Nobel Prize by sucking up to him. Olena Zelenska also has form when it comes to exercising soft-power diplomacy. In April 2022, Ukraine's first lady posed serenely for Vogue magazine. She certainly looked like glossy mag material in un smoking in white silk, but spoke about the grim reality of the Russian invasion for Ukraine's women and children. First lady diplomacy is not new: JFK employed Jackie Kennedy as a potent tool of soft-power. Nancy Reagan sought to speed the end of the Cold War, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush and championed women's rights. But none of them was in the pivotal position that Melania now finds herself. This is for the simple reason, that none of them was married to a US commander in chief so in thrall to dictators. May your inkwell never run dry, Melania.
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Has Trump really ended ‘seven' wars?
While sitting beside Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Donald Trump once again boasted of ending 'six wars' in as many months – without negotiating a single ceasefire. 'If you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn't do any ceasefires,' Trump said before turning to Zelensky, adding: 'I don't think you need a ceasefire.' Since his trip to Scotland last month, Trump has repeated multiple times a version of his claim that he's ended wars 'at about one a month,' according to PolitiFact. Earlier Monday, the president posted on Truth Social that in one case, he had averted a 'possible unclear disaster.' During an interview on Fox & Friends on Tuesday morning, Trump alluded to ending 'seven wars.' The president did not elaborate on which conflict he was now including in his list. The Independent has reached out to the White House for clarification on Trump's claims. The White House has lauded Trump as the 'peacemaker-in-chief,' and the president has styled himself as the 'president of peace.' Meanwhile, the commander-in-chief has openly signalled his ambitions of winning a Nobel Peace Prize despite campaigning on a largely non-interventionist platform. Are Trump's claims of halting hostilities credible or an embellishment of the truth? The Independent takes a closer look at the president's peacemaking record. Israel and Iran Approximately three days after launching Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump told NATO leaders that his administration 'just ended a war in 12 days that was simmering for 30 years.' On June 23, the major Iranian uranium enrichment sites, Fordow and Natanz, and the research base of Isfahan faced a wave of U.S. bunker buster bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which Trump claimed left the facilities 'obliterated.' The U.S. intervened in the conflict on June 21 after Israel launched a surprise attack eight days earlier on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile strikes, and military infrastructure. Iran responded with a wave of missile and drone strikes at Israeli army bases and cities. On June 23, Trump declared on Truth Social that Israel and Iran had reached a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE,' which was mediated by the U.S. While Trump's actions against Iran's nuclear program may have curtailed immediate strikes, it is not possible to claim to have secured lasting peace, with tensions in the region remaining high. India and Pakistan The brief but deadly military exchange between India and Pakistan that began on May 7 reignited long-standing tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir. It drew a surprise offer of mediation from Trump, who said he could help find a 'solution' to the Himalayan region that is claimed by both nations. 'We also appreciate President Trump's expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,' said the Pakistani government. By contrast, India remained publicly silent while reinforcing its view that Kashmir is an internal matter. Major General Rameshwar Roy, a retired Indian Army officer, dismissed Trump's offer outright, calling it irrelevant and intrusive and telling The Independent in May that it was a 'bilateral agreement' reached without U.S. involvement. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri doubled down in June that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Trump there was 'no U.S. mediation between India and Pakistan.' Thailand and Cambodia On July 26, Trump said he was calling the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia to urge a ceasefire after three days of intense border fighting. A truce between the nations, brokered by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, was reached on 28 July after Trump said he had spoken to the leaders. Trump leveraged his most powerful economic weapon: tariffs. He said he threatened to derail existing trade deals that had been brokered with the two countries if the fighting persisted. Just days later, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, lauding his 'extraordinary statesmanship' in halting the border conflict with its neighbor. However, foreign policy experts caution that there is no evidence that the president personally negotiated or directly brokered a ceasefire between the two countries. Reports indicate that the fragile truce has been violated multiple times, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Egypt and Ethiopia After 12 years, Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said on June 29 that talks with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the River Nile had ground to a halt. Days later, Ethiopia said its GERD was complete. While a full-scale conflict did not erupt, Egyptians remained wary that the mega dam could restrict the flow of the Nile, which provides 90 percent of the country's total water supply. In a White House meeting on July 14, Trump appeared to side with Egypt, claiming that it would be 'pretty incredible' if its water source were to be taken away. He said that the U.S is 'going to have that solved very quickly.' President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Trump ally, said in a social media statement that the country appreciates Trump's 'keenness on reaching a just agreement' and supports the president's global 'vision of establishing just peace, security, and stability.' Ethiopian officials and experts warned that Trump's remarks risked aggravating the situation and undermining Ethiopia's right to utilize its natural resources. And any progress, they argued, is mainly attributable to ongoing multilateral negotiations, not Trump's intervention. Serbia and Kosovo At an Oval Office press conference on June 27, Trump declared that Serbia and Kosovo were on the brink of war – until, he said, his administration was 'able to stop it' by again threatening trade sanctions. Trump said he had a 'friend in Serbia' who alerted him that 'we're going to go to war again' with Kosovo, without providing further details. Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani said on July 10 that Trump prevented a potential escalation 'from Serbia.' Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić denied the claims of warmongering and said on July 12 that a conflict with Kosovo 'does not even occur to us.' After the breakup of Yugoslavia, tensions between the two nations peaked between 1998 and 1999 when the countries were at war, which ended with NATO intervention. Friction has persisted since Kosovo declared independence in 2008. Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo On June 27, foreign ministers of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo flew to Washington, D.C., to sign a controversial peace deal brokered by the U.S. to end fighting in eastern DRC. The agreement also allows for U.S. investment in eastern DRC's critical mineral reserves, including gold, copper, and lithium. Flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from both nations in the Oval Office, Trump called the peace treaty 'a glorious triumph.' Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi, however, claimed the 'diplomatic success' as his own. Foreign policy experts said the agreement is significant but part of a broader picture of broken contracts between the countries. A week earlier, Trump teed up the treaty he said he and Rubio arranged in a bid to put an end to the decades-long war between the two nations. 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this,' he wrote on Truth Social on June 20. In his meandering post, Trump also noted that he wouldn't be awarded the prize for 'stopping' wars between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, and for 'doing' the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia / Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!,' he said.
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky knows from bitter experience not to trust promises on security
Just like the summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin a few days previously, Monday's extended meetings between the US, Ukrainian and European leaders ended with all concerned claiming success – but major questions remain over what exactly was agreed. Sir Keir Starmer came away from the talks claiming there had been 'real progress' towards peace in Ukraine, with 'two material outcomes': the prospect of a direct meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, and of security guarantees to protect Ukraine. But on both of these issues, it is unclear how these outcomes match up with what Russia thinks is happening next. The notion of 'security guarantees' has caused deep confusion and extensive speculation since Trump envoy Steven Witkoff floated the idea of 'NATO-like' backing for Ukraine on Sunday. The fact that this would represent a stunning reversal of not just NATO but also US policy, combined with Witkoff's track record of a poor grasp of the key issues and misunderstanding what he has been told by the Russian side, should have set alarm bells ringing despite the excitable media reaction. Any realistic protection for Ukraine would thwart Putin's ambition to address what he calls 'the root causes of the crisis' – namely Ukraine's existence as a sovereign, independent nation able to determine its own future. And sure enough, Monday's meetings ended with no public clarity on what kind of backing for Ukraine was under discussion, making it impossible to tell if this amounts to meaningful protection or something that can be comfortably ignored by Moscow. Trump's comment that Russian acceptance of security guarantees for Ukraine was 'one of the key points that we need to consider' at the White House meetings could even be read as suggesting that no plans had yet been proposed, let alone endorsed by the Russian side. Possible support to Ukraine covers a vast range of different options, from promises on paper up to the physical presence of Western troops there in order to deter further Russian aggression. The former could prove as worthless as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia committed to respecting Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and borders, and to not using military force against it. In return Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. The latter – putting soldiers on the ground – has until now been consistently ruled out by the United States, and by European states without American backing. Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy has referred to promises of arms purchases from the United States as part of a security package, although this just as much resembles part of a bidding war for Trump's favours in which Zelenskyy is competing with Putin. The confusion also extends to the prospect of any possible meeting between Putin and Zelensky. Despite Trump interrupting the meetings to keep the European leaders hanging for 40 minutes while he checked in with Putin, the pattern was repeated of the US and Russian sides coming out with completely different versions of what was agreed on any given issue. Trump promised a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, while Russia did not agree that this had been agreed. This too is unsurprising. Zelensky has always said he is ready to meet Putin; Putin, on the other hand, maintains that Zelensky is not a legitimate leader, and therefore declines to recognise him as a negotiating partner. In any case, it is far from clear that a meeting of this kind would make it any easier to end the war, given the complete incompatibility of the two sides' objectives – Ukraine's destruction, or its survival. For the leaders of five European states, of NATO and of the European Commission to be extracted from their schedules at zero notice and delivered across the Atlantic in a last-ditch effort to avoid disaster at the hands of Trump was an extraordinary spectacle. It suggested these leaders do genuinely believe that the future of Ukraine is vital to the future of Europe. But whether this dramatic intervention will be followed up with meaningful steps to enforce any possible peace settlement remains to be seen. Talk continues of a European 'coalition of the willing' to support peace in Ukraine. But the limits of European capacity to intervene were rammed home painfully in February, when Keir Starmer and others concluded that this would be impossible without US support. The requirement for action rather than words led to a painful realisation of the difference between a coalition of the willing and a coalition of the able. And despite firm advocacy for a ceasefire from the Europeans on Monday, Trump did not budge from Putin's position that the fighting must continue during negotiations on a settlement. Trump's determination to follow the Russian line showed through in his claim that he has "ended six wars without a ceasefire", which flatly contradicts his claims at the time the United States was attempting to bring about ceasefires between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or Thailand and Cambodia. Rightly or wrongly, Putin still assesses that he can gain more by fighting on than by agreeing a ceasefire. And that brings up another key issue where it is not clear what, if anything, has been agreed: the "land swaps", Trumpspeak for Ukraine giving up territory and people in the Donbas region that Russia has been unable to conquer militarily, in exchange for saying that it will not attack further on other parts of the front line. Trump coming face to face with Putin triggered another reversal of his views on Ukraine, and a return to looking to Zelenskyy alone to end the war – in effect blaming the victim for resisting rather than the aggressor for attacking. European leaders intervened in an attempt to head off any US attempt to impose disastrous terms on Ukraine on behalf of Russia. The European effort was a carefully choreographed massaging of Trump's ego, in an attempt to compete with Putin's hypnotic hold. One after another, the Europeans repeated Trump's words back to him and praised him as the only person capable of breaking the deadlock and ending the war. The fact that it is Putin, not Trump, that can end the war at a moment's notice, and that the ceasefire they were arguing for was long treated as the worst-case outcome and a sellout to Moscow, were carefully overlooked. But the danger remains that Trump and those around him are seduced by Russia's framing of the war and by Putin's manipulation, leading Trump to grasp at the belief that 'he wants to make a deal with me'. Treating Russian territorial gains as an inevitable outcome is a Kremlin talking point, strongly endorsed by Trump. And describing Russian agreement to security guarantees for Ukraine as a major concession by Moscow is an extraordinary demonstration of mental capture. The United States has never previously sought or needed permission to protect its allies and partners against invasion. Volodymyr Zelensky ended the day appearing calm and confident, saying that 'no unacceptable decisions were made'. But still, the fundamentals of what has been agreed between Trump and Putin remain murky, and the risk remains of Trump concluding once again that the only obstacle to peace is Ukraine's inconvenient insistence on defending itself. European leaders have done their best to bring the situation back from the brink of disaster – but the coming days will show whether it was enough.
