
Russia pulls out of treaty prohibiting short and medium-range nuclear missiles and issues warning to the West
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev - now deputy head of the country's powerful Security Council - blamed NATO nations for forcing Moscow 's hand.
In a fiery post on X, he wrote: 'The Russian foreign ministry's statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy.
'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps'.
Medvedev, who has been exchanging barbs online with US President Donald Trump, gave no details about what those steps entailed.
But his warning comes just days after Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' in response to Russian threats.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, eliminated an entire class of ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km.
The US withdrew from the deal in 2019, accusing Russia of breaching its terms - a charge Moscow vehemently denied. Since then, Russia had pledged not to deploy such weapons unless Washington did so first.
The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era European missile crisis, when the US and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent in the 1980s.
Such weapons are seen as particularly destabilising because they take less time to reach targets, compared with intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning.
But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signalled last December that Moscow would abandon the moratorium if 'destabilising actions' by the US and NATO continued.
Lavrov told Russia's state news agency RIA Novosti in December that Moscow's unilateral moratorium on the deployment of such missiles was 'practically no longer viable and will have to be abandoned'.
'The United States arrogantly ignored warnings from Russia and China and, in practice, moved on to deploying weapons of this class in various regions of the world,' he told the news agency.
In a statement yesterday, Russia's Foreign Ministry confirmed it no longer considered itself bound by the ban, citing NATO's growing military presence in Europe and Asia-Pacific.
It specifically cited US plans to deploy medium-range Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year.
'Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared,' the statement said.
According to its statement, the West is openly stationing short-and medium-range missiles in various parts of the world, while Russia's initiatives on the issue have seen no reciprocity.
In its first public reaction to Trump's comments on the repositioning of US submarines, the Kremlin on Monday said it was not looking to get into a public spat with the US president.
'In this case, it is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that's the first thing,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
'But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,' he said.
'Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric,' he added.
It comes as Russia's missile forces chief declared that the new Oreshnik intermediate-range missile, which Russia first used against Ukraine in November, has a range to reach all of Europe. Oreshnik can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.
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.
The Russian leader has 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.
But as Russia escalates its nuclear rhetoric, Ukraine continues to face relentless attacks.
The move comes amid a deadly wave of missile strikes pounding Ukraine overnight, with one railway worker killed and four others injured after Russian forces targeted a key rail hub in Lozova.
The strike on Lozova - described by the city's mayor as 'the most massive attack since the beginning of the war' - injured two children and damaged residential areas.
Elsewhere, two more people were wounded in a Russian drone attack on Zaporizhzhia , while Ukraine's air defences reported shooting down 29 Iranian-made Shahed drones overnight.
The developments come as a deadline set by Trump for Russia to take 'steps to end the war' looms, with his envoy Steve Whitkoff set to visit Moscow this week for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Netherlands rules out recognising Palestinian state for now
AMSTERDAM, Aug 7 (Reuters) - The Dutch government on Thursday ruled out recognising a Palestinian state for now despite growing public concern over Gaza but said Israel's actions in the war-ravaged territory were eroding its own security. The Netherlands' stance is in contrast to that of some NATO allies, most notably France which has said it will recognise Palestinian statehood in September. Britain has said it will also do so unless Israel takes steps to relieve suffering in Gaza, where starvation is spreading, and agrees a ceasefire. "The Netherlands is not planning to recognise a Palestinian state at this time," Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp told an emergency parliamentary debate on Gaza after lawmakers were recalled from their summer vacation. Veldkamp also rejected calls to halt arms imports from Israel, saying the Netherlands prioritised domestic and EU procurement before sourcing from third countries. However, he said the Netherlands had already taken "significant steps" including travel bans on two Israeli ministers, adding: "This war has ceased to be a just war and is now leading to the erosion of Israel's own security and identity." Outside the parliament building in The Hague, around 250 pro-Palestinian protesters demanded stronger Dutch action. Local media reported chants and banners calling for an immediate ceasefire and increased humanitarian aid.


Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump just may pull off his own Nixon-goes-to-China coup
President Donald Trump is on the cusp of a diplomatic breakthrough to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine. After his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow on August 6, Trump expressed optimism about a trilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to facilitate a ceasefire. Trump's grand bargain announcement is his trademark, but will it succeed? The early signals suggest that Trump faces an uphill struggle. Although Russia claimed that Witkoff's visit was 'constructive,' even Trump was forced to admit that it produced no major breakthroughs. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov expressed openness to a Putin-Trump bilateral meeting but did not endorse Witkoff's proposal to include Zelensky in the discussions. While Russia refrained from large-scale drone and missile strikes on Kyiv this week, its summer offensive is firmly underway. Russian troops are incrementally advancing in northeastern Sumy and on the Donetsk battlegrounds of Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka. The best-case near-term scenario remains a temporary aerial ceasefire. Yet even this de-escalation could play into Russia's hands. In recent days, Ukrainian drones have disrupted air travel in Moscow, ignited a fire around Volgograd railway station and damaged a key oil refinery in Krasnodar Krai. A respite of the economic disruptions caused from these strikes would be beneficial for Russia as it mitigates the consequences of US secondary tariffs and sanctions. Despite these long odds and the possibility of near-term public humiliations, Trump remains devoted to ending the Ukraine war. There are many reasons for his unswerving focus on Ukraine. Trump's rhetoric frames his commitment in humanitarian terms as he wants to stop the senseless killing of thousands of young people every week. Trump also wants to end a war that believes his predecessor Joe Biden enabled and cement his legacy as a peace president. Aside from these sentimental and egoistic reasons, Trump also has a geostrategic rationale for ending the war in Ukraine. The Trump administration wants to redirect its focus on winning the spiralling geopolitical confrontation against China. It sees peace in Europe as a prerequisite for that reorientation and regards Russia as a potentially useful partner in the US's containment efforts against China. Due in part to the US's diverted focus, Trump has been forced to tread carefully in his trade war with China. Trump has eased export restrictions on technologically sophisticated US chips to China and exercised uncharacteristic efforts to avoid provoking Beijing. The cancellation of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-Te's transit through New York underscored Trump's focus on avoiding a repeat of the tariff-induced escalations of the early spring. Trump's closest allies have tried to spin these concessions as shows of strength against China. AI advisor David Sacks argues that easing export restrictions will make China more dependent on US chips and blunt its competitive edge. Nonetheless, the perception lingers that Trump is trying to appease China and appears more eager than President Xi Jinping to have an in-person meeting on a comprehensive trade deal. The Trump administration is convinced that ending the Ukraine war will give the US the bandwidth to pursue a more confrontational stance towards China. Secretary of State Marco Rubio depicted the Ukraine conflict as a US-Russia proxy war and Under Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby believes that this proxy war is undermining US efforts to thwart Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region. Getting Europe to purchase US weapons for Ukraine frees up financial capacity to tackle the Chinese threat and ending the Ukraine war will allow US defence-industrial supply chains to follow suit. As the US sharpens its decade-and-a-half-long defensive pivot to Asia, Trump sees Russia as a potential long-term partner. The case for a 'reverse Kissinger' courtship of Russia based on Moscow's latent frustrations with economic overdependence on China and the surrender of great power status that accompanies to it. While Russia hails its no-limits partnership with China in multilateral forums, it chafes at Beijing's efforts to capitalise on its diminished influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The Kremlin is attuned to Trump's vision and actively seeks to exploit it. Russian Direct Investment Fund chief Kirill Dmitriev's proposals for Arctic cooperation with the US and enticing promotions of Russian rare earth metals align with Trump's world-view. The geo-strategic vision that underpins Trump's pursuit of peace in Ukraine is not without its logical fallacies. While most Russians still see themselves as European, Russian foreign policy is firmly enmeshed with the collective non-West. This makes diluting Russia's partnership with China and courting the US a difficult proposition. The perception that Trump is willing to reward Russian aggression in Ukraine could embolden China, even if US containment efforts towards Beijing intensify after a peace deal.


The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on gambling: a public reckoning with the dark side of this highly profitable industry is overdue
No one should be surprised that the highly profitable UK gambling industry is intensifying its lobbying efforts, with a view to avoiding both higher taxation and stricter regulation of its activities, including advertising. Establishing a presence, and a voice, in parliament is what the leaders of growing business sectors do, and have done at least since the 18th century, when the brewing interest began to shift from a loose grouping of MPs with family links to breweries, into a national campaign. In the five years since Michael Dugher, a former Labour MP and shadow culture secretary, became chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council, the £11.5bn-a-year industry has seen off a Tory white paper that threatened to curb its advertising, and resisted pressure for the higher taxation that many expected last year. Now, with Rachel Reeves reviewing gambling taxes in advance of the autumn budget, and amid growing calls for ministers to be more active in addressing gambling harms, including addiction, the organisation and its supporters are making fresh efforts to influence MPs in their favour. This week, Gordon Brown threw his weight behind demands for higher taxes to be levied on an 'undertaxed' sector, and for the money to be used to meet the roughly £3bn cost of ditching rules that restrict some benefits to a family's first two children. This is the case also made by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank, and both it and the former prime minister are right to stress the urgency of child poverty-reducing measures. The linkage between highly profitable gambling businesses, some of which are based offshore, and grim levels of deprivation, is powerful in part because high street gambling premises, including adult gaming centres packed with slot machines, are concentrated in poor areas. But calls for change are not confined to the political left. The cross-party, pro-market Social Market Foundation also thinks the industry should make a bigger contribution. Like the IPPR, it pinpoints the remote gaming duty levied on online casinos, with an identical recommendation that this should jump from 21% to 50%. Currently, this tax accounts for £1.2bn of the £3.6bn in gambling duties overall (including the national lottery), and the thinktanks are right that targeting this form of gambling would be far more beneficial than the harmonisation of rates that has also been discussed. Just as alcohol, spirits and beer are taxed differently, sports betting and gambling should continue to be recognised as distinct activities. Simplifying the tax system, which is a motive for harmonisation, cannot be regarded as the most important thing, when gambling affects so many lives in troubling ways. Taxes aside, the campaign being led by Labour's Andy Burnham in Manchester, and Dawn Butler in London, for councils to have more say over the opening of new gambling premises, is overdue but no less welcome for that. Ministers should change the law so that local politicians have more power over planning in this highly sensitive area. Used as they are to betting shops on high streets, and football shirts emblazoned with gambling sponsors' logos, many voters are probably unaware that regulation in the UK is strikingly lax, compared with other countries. That is all the more reason for politicians to turn down lobbyists' invitations, and focus instead on the need for a public reckoning with this highly profitable industry's harms.