logo
Putin says Russia's hypersonic missile has entered service and will be deployed in Belarus

Putin says Russia's hypersonic missile has entered service and will be deployed in Belarus

CNN2 days ago
Russia
War in Ukraine
FacebookTweetLink
President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Russia has started production of its newest hypersonic missiles and reaffirmed its plans to deploy them to ally Belarus later this year.
Sitting alongside Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko on Valaam Island near St. Petersburg, Putin said the military already has selected deployment sites in Belarus for the Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile.
'Preparatory work is ongoing, and most likely we will be done with it before the year's end,' Putin said, adding that the first series of Oreshniks and their systems have been produced and entered military service.
Russia first used the Oreshnik, which is Russian for 'hazelnut tree,' against Ukraine in November, when it fired the experimental weapon at a factory in Dnipro that built missiles when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.
Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack.
He warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's NATO allies who allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia.
Russia's missile forces chief has declared that Oreshnik, which can carry conventional or nuclear warheads, has a range allowing it to reach all of Europe.
Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,400 miles). Such weapons were banned under a Soviet-era treaty that Washington and Moscow abandoned in 2019.
Last fall, Putin and Lukashenko signed a treaty giving Moscow's security guarantees to Belarus, including the possible use of Russian nuclear weapons to help repel any aggression. The pact follows the Kremlin's revision of its nuclear doctrine, which for the first time placed Belarus under the Russian nuclear umbrella amid tensions with the West over the conflict in Ukraine.
Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus with an iron hand for over 30 years and has relied on Kremlin subsidies and support, allowed Russia to use his country's territory to send troops into Ukraine in 2022 and to host some of its tactical nuclear weapons. Russia hasn't disclosed how many such weapons were deployed, but Lukashenko said in December that his country currently has several dozen.
The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, which has a 1,084-kilometer (673-mile) border with Ukraine, would allow Russian aircraft and missiles to reach potential targets there more easily and quickly if Moscow decides to use them. It also extends Russia's capability to target several NATO allies in Eastern and Central Europe.
The revamped nuclear doctrine that Putin signed last fall formally lowered the threshold for Russia's use of its nuclear weapons. The document says Moscow could use nuclear weapons 'in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction' against Russia or its allies, as well as 'in the event of aggression' against Russia and Belarus with conventional weapons that threaten 'their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Memo: Putin and Netanyahu vex Trump on the world stage
The Memo: Putin and Netanyahu vex Trump on the world stage

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The Memo: Putin and Netanyahu vex Trump on the world stage

Two foreign leaders have become more vexing to President Trump than he expected: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Each of them has complicated the political calculus for Trump on the world stage, owing not only to the suffering each of them has imposed on Ukrainians and Palestinians, respectively, but also to their reluctance to change course. The president's shift in attitude has been starkest in relation to Putin, who has resisted Trump's urging to bring down the curtain on the war in Ukraine. Russia started the war by invading its neighbor in February 2022. On Friday, Trump announced he had ordered two nuclear submarines to unspecified 'appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative statements' from Moscow. The backstory to that move lies in Trump's declaration earlier in the week, during a trip to Scotland, that he was tightening his deadline for Russia to work toward a ceasefire. The president said he was bringing the time frame down to '10 or 12 days.' Moscow responded with a shoulder shrug, however. A Kremlin spokesperson said the nation had developed 'a certain immunity' to such threats. The sequence of events — and the general tone toward Putin — is a massive difference from late February, when Trump and Vice President Vance berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office for his supposed ingratitude over American assistance. Several times earlier in the year, Trump appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war. In April, he said of Zelensky: 'When you start a war, you've got to know that you can win the war, right? You don't start a war against somebody that's 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.' The reason for the recent change in tone is straightforward. Trump wants to bring the war in Ukraine to an end and Putin is not playing ball. Trump has seemed especially irritated about Putin's propensity to have constructive or even friendly phone conversations with the president — only for Russia to launch ferocious bombardments against Ukrainian cities hours later. 'We get a lot of bulls‑‑‑ thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump said in early July. 'He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' One reason for Trump's ire, presumably, is that Putin's recalcitrance places the president in a tough political spot. During last year's presidential campaign, he promised he would be able to bring the war in Ukraine to an end 'within 24 hours.' That promise has proved hollow, and no breakthrough seems close at hand. On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that Trump will shrug off his long skepticism about U.S. aid to Ukraine entirely. That leaves the president in a kind of uncomfortable limbo, neither ending the war nor shifting the tide in Ukraine's favor. The specifics are very different with Netanyahu. But in that case, too, there are reasons for political discomfort on Trump's part. Trump's relationship with Netanyahu is in some ways even more turbulent than with Putin. The president is extremely pro-Israeli in his overall outlook. In his first term, he moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and came up with a 'peace plan' so aligned with Israeli priorities that it was dismissed out of hand even by the comparatively moderate Palestinian Authority. But Trump also fell out with Netanyahu after the Israeli prime minister recognized former President Biden's victory in the 2020 election. His annoyance then led him to air a complaint that the Israeli prime minister had allegedly backed out of what had been originally conceived as a joint operation to kill the head of Iran's Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani. The U.S. went ahead alone, killing Soleimani in January 2020. 'Bibi Netanyahu let us down,' Trump said in late 2023. Trump's actual policies have remained staunchly pro-Israeli in the first six months of his second term, but his tone has pitched in wildly different directions. He nudged the Israelis toward a ceasefire even before he took office — but seemed fairly unbothered when they broke it off in March, blocking all aid from getting into Gaza for more than two months. Trump has talked up the idea of moving the Palestinians out of Gaza, even suggesting transforming one of the most benighted places on earth into some kind of coastal resort. But he also broke early this week with Netanyahu's insistence that there is no starvation in Gaza. Trump averred that he had seen footage of children who 'look very hungry,' adding 'you can't fake that.' On Friday, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and the U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visited an aid distribution site in Gaza run by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Witkoff said part of the purpose was to 'help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza.' Back at home, there have been signs that the traditionally staunch support Israel has received from the right is beginning to fray, further complicating the picture for Trump. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) recently became the first prominent Republican to call what Israel is doing in Gaza a 'genocide.' Influential commentators within Trump's base, from Tucker Carlson to podcasters like Theo Von and Joe Rogan, have become more inclined to criticize Israeli policies and their effects. But none of that guarantees that the Israeli prime minister will shift. Among the counterweights are Netanyahu's repeated assertions that the war aim is not only the release of all hostages held by Hamas but 'total victory'; his desire to keep together his governing coalition, which includes extremely hard-line figures from minor parties; and his presumed interest in continuing to delay his long-running corruption trial. Trump could play hardball with Netanyahu more easily than with Putin, given the massive aid the U.S. gives to Israel. But whether he has the urge to do so is widely open to question. For the moment, it seems likely that the Russian and Israeli leaders will cloud Trump's political outlook for some time to come.

OPEC+ Countries Agree to Boost Oil Production: What to Know
OPEC+ Countries Agree to Boost Oil Production: What to Know

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

OPEC+ Countries Agree to Boost Oil Production: What to Know

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. Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) on Sunday announced plans to increase oil production by over half a million barrels per day for September as concerns over supply disruptions persist. The eight members of OPEC+ held a virtual meeting in response to U.S. pressure on some nations—such as India—to halt all Russian oil purchases in an additional move aimed at pressuring Moscow to end its ongoing conflict in Ukraine. However, OPEC+ said it would increase output due to a healthy economy and low oil inventory, with oil prices remaining at a higher level even as output has increased from members. Newsweek reached out to the White House and Department of Energy (DOE) by email on Sunday outside of normal business hours for comment. Why It Matters President Donald Trump in last year's presidential campaign promised to tackle a number of major targets, including an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and lowering prices for Americans amid high inflation. Russian President Vladimir Putin's resistance to diplomatic efforts has frustrated Trump and forced the U.S. to seek more creative means to try and achieve an end to the war that began in February 2022. What To Know The U.S. has looked at imposing tariffs on Russia and convincing countries that still purchase Russian oil to switch to other sources. Some feared that these actions could drive up gas prices for Americans, as well. However, those fears appear to have been averted as OPEC+ agreed to increase production, providing a healthy alternative to Russian oil. OPEC+ includes Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman. It remains unclear how this could impact Russia's other sales and negotiations. OPEC+ has made voluntary production cuts since November 2023, with plans to phase those cuts out by September 2026, but the announcement means that the countries will increase output for the second time this year—following July's announcement of a similar increase in August—and effectively ending the program early. Prices have remained at the higher rate of around $70 a barrel for Brent crude despite the increased output, however, raising some doubts as to what impact the increased output might have on gas prices. An Austrian soldier stands outside of the building headquarters of OPEC (Organization of The Petroleum Exporting Countries) in Vienna, Austria on May 28. An Austrian soldier stands outside of the building headquarters of OPEC (Organization of The Petroleum Exporting Countries) in Vienna, Austria on May 28. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump last week wrote on Truth Social, in part: "We have just concluded a Deal with the Country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves. We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership. Who knows, maybe they'll be selling Oil to India some day!" Mark Temnycky, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank's Eurasia Center, previously told Newsweek: "If the U.S. follows with new restrictions or tariffs, Americans could see higher energy prices, especially at the gas pump and in sectors tied closely to fuel, like transportation and manufacturing." He added: "These cost increases may filter down to everyday goods as companies adjust for rising input expenses. In addition, inflation will be a concern for many American consumers and policymakers." What Happens Next? The members will meet again in September for further discussions and adjustments to production. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

Beyond Trump's trade deals, consolation for the little guy and other commentary
Beyond Trump's trade deals, consolation for the little guy and other commentary

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

Beyond Trump's trade deals, consolation for the little guy and other commentary

Business desk: Beyond Trump's Trade Deals 'Dealmaker-In-Chief' Donald Trump has been 'positively monomaniacal' about trade lately, marvels Freddy Gray at The Spectator. His 'real coup' is the 'new framework arrangement with the European Union,' which is 'not simply a major breakthrough in and of itself,' but also 'a useful piece of leverage in the even bigger tariff struggle with China' — because it pulls 'Europe more towards a western trading orbit and less towards the east.' Trump then slammed India for 'buying up Russian oil and gas,' and pivoted sharply by praising a new deal with Pakistan, 'including an arrangement to invest in Pakistani oil.' Advertisement Meanwhile, his enthusiasm for Pakistan — 'an extension of China's empire' — may be part of a plan to 'ring loud alarm bells' in Beijing. From the right: Consolation for the Little Guy 'For all the political criticism they take, the federal courts keep delivering good outcomes more often than not,' cheers The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board. In 2016, the Labor Department 'imposed hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines' on a fourth-generation farm, Sun Valley Orchards — first requesting penalties and then approving them itself, thus 'serving as prosecutor, judge and jury.' Advertisement But an appeals court just ruled the proceedings 'should properly be enforced in federal court' — the proper venues for federal agencies to impose fines. Sun Valley has since gone out of business,' but at least its owners 'have the consolation of a ruling that will vindicate the rights of other farmers and small businesses under the boot heel of the bureaucracy.' Libertarian: Get Honest About Gov't Spending 'What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?' asks Veronique de Rugy at Reason. 'I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does.' Advertisement Yet 'all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for' but keep going 'will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both' by our children and grandchildren. 'Growing the economy' can be 'part of the solution,' but it won't be enough, and 'raising taxes on the rich will fall short too,' since higher tax rates 'do not automatically translate to more tax revenue.' 'It's long past time' we 'ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.' Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Liberal: Hey, Dems — End the #Resistance Advertisement 'Nonstop Democratic fulminations in Trump's second term have been notably unsuccessful in resuscitating the party's toxic brand,' sighs the Liberal Patriot's Ruy Teixeira. Tellingly, 'voters, despite their negative views of Trump's performance on key issues, still prefer Republicans to Democrats.' Also, 'voters neither like nor trust' Dems, and thus don't see them as 'an obvious choice over their opponents.' Yet 'many Democratic politicians persist in reading — loudly — from the #Resistance script.' Why? The '#Resistance trope is what advantages individual Democratic politicians within the party because it generates adulation from activists, media coverage, and gushers of donations.' And taking back the House in 2026 will only 'convince #Resistance aficionados that nothing really needs to change.' Hello, President JD Vance. Health beat: Big Pharma Wins, Patients Lose 'In May, Dr. Vinay Prasad joined the Food & Drug Administration as the top regulator for vaccines,' yet he 'apparently knew the games too well,' gripes Alex Berensen at his Substack: After last week's attacks from Trump's allies, Prasad resigned: 'He was targeted because he posed a direct threat to Big Pharma profits.' Advertisement Just last month, he told Sarepta Therapeutics 'it needed to halt shipments of its gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD.' 'Sarepta has never shown its drugs actually benefit patients.' The company won the right to a drug trial in 2016; 'nine years later, Sarepta still hasn't completed those trials.' Yet 'that hasn't stopped it from selling the drug — for up to $1.5 million per year.' Advertisement 'Big Pharma scalped Prasad for his honesty.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store