Zelensky visits Berlin as he seeks more support for Ukraine
Germany has been the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States.
Mr Merz said on Monday that Germany and other major allies are no longer imposing any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine as it fights to repel Russia's full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022.
The new German leader has plunged into diplomatic efforts to try to secure a ceasefire and keep Western support for Ukraine intact since becoming Germany's leader three weeks ago.
Meanwhile, fighting has continued along the roughly 620-mile front line, and both sides have conducted deep strikes. Russia launched its biggest drone attack of the war against Ukraine on Sunday.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has stepped up diplomatic efforts to bring about a ceasefire (Lehtikuva via AP)
Russian air defences downed 296 Ukrainian drones over 13 Russian regions late on Tuesday and early on Wednesday, Russia's defence ministry said.
Moscow mayor Sergei Sobyanin said that air defences shot down 33 drones heading toward the capital.
Andrei Vorobyov, the governor of the Moscow region, said that 42 drones were downed. He said that drone fragments damaged three residential buildings in the village of Troitskoye, but no-one was hurt.
Moscow airports delayed or diverted hundreds of flights.
Overnight, Russian forces launched an attack on Ukraine using five Iskander ballistic missiles, one guided air-launched missile and 88 drones, Ukraine's Air Force said.
Air defence units shot down 34 drones, and 37 others were jammed.
Ukraine's railway infrastructure and equipment in the Kharkiv, Donetsk and Sumy regions also came under fire overnight and Wednesday morning, Ukraine's state railway company Ukrzaliznytsia said.
No casualties were reported.
In the Kharkiv region, railway traffic was temporarily suspended so that police and emergency workers could clear debris from a downed drone that landed on the tracks.
In Sloviansk in the Donetsk region, the attack shattered windows at the station building, and drone debris slightly damaged a train car.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
My son will lose fight with Trump, Elon Musk's father tells Russia
Elon Musk will lose his fight with Donald Trump and made a 'mistake' by challenging him, his father has said. Speaking at a political conference in Moscow, Errol Musk claimed his billionaire son was suffering 'PTSD from the White House' and blamed his row with the US president on 'stress'. 'Trump will prevail – he's the president, he was elected as the president. So, you know, Elon made a mistake, I think. But he is tired, he is stressed,' he told Russian media. Last week, Elon Musk and Mr Trump traded insults after the Tesla chief executive denounced the president's sweeping new tax and spending Bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. He also called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – US government intelligence documents on Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile billionaire. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. Errol Musk told Izvestia, a Russian daily newspaper: 'You know they have been under a lot of stress for five months – you know – give them a break. 'They are very tired and stressed, so you can expect something like this.' Despite the pair's war of words, Mr Musk said he still believed his son's relationship with the president could be mended, describing the row as 'just a small thing' that would 'be over tomorrow'. He made the comments during an appearance at Future Forum 2050, a conference attended by Kremlin heavyweights and led by Alexander Dugin, a Russian ultra-nationalist philosopher often described as Vladimir Putin's 'brain'. Errol Musk was also pictured sitting next to Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister. At one point he praised Putin as a 'very stable and pleasant man' and blamed Western media for projecting 'nonsense' about Russia. It came as Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump's former chief strategist, claimed that in April Elon Musk had a physical altercation with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, down the corridor from the Oval Office. Mr Bannon said: 'President Trump heard about it and said: 'This is too much',' according to The Washington Post. A source told the newspaper that concerns were also raised over Mr Musk's alleged drug use. Mr Musk, the world's richest man, helped bankroll Mr Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. He was then hired to head the new Department of Government Efficiency, controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. The tech entrepreneur stepped back from the role late last month, capping a turbulent 130-day stint in the administration. On Saturday, the US president said his relationship with Mr Musk was over, and warned there would be 'serious consequences' if he switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates. Delighting in the row, Russian MPs have offered political asylum to the South African-born businessman. Last week, Dmitry Novikov, the deputy chairman of the state Duma committee on international affairs, said Moscow would welcome him to the country 'if he needs it'. Senior Putin allies have also mockingly offered to help mediate between the two men. 'We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment. Don't fight, guys!' Dmitry Medvedev, a security official, said, referring to Mr Musk's satellite internet network.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
These are Britain's options for tactical nuclear weapons. We must choose, and act
As the dust begins to settle on the Strategic Defence Review, Lord Robertson's interview with the Telegraph 's Roland Oliphant answered a number of important issues. However his lordship danced around the critical and pressing issue of re-introducing a tactical nuclear capability to our national deterrent. This is vital against the background of continuous nuclear threats against the UK and Europe from President Putin and the gangsters who advise him. The need to show military strength to Moscow could not be more pressing. The re-introduction of a tactical nuclear capability would impact Putin's decision-making far more than a few hundred tanks or half a dozen capital ships, but it is not quite so straight forward as strapping a nuclear bomb to a jet or on the end of a cruise missile. If the UK sticks with our closest ally, probably still the US, we will most likely purchase some F-35A runway stealth jets to go alongside our existing jumpjet F-35Bs. The Bs have the advantage of being able to operate from our carriers, but their vertical thrust equipment means that they lack range and cannot carry larger weapons in their internal bays. The F-35A is also the only 5th generation stealth jet that is certified to carry nuclear weapons – specifically the American B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. This can be carried by German jets, will soon be certified on Italian ones, and would most likely be our tactical option also. But this may not be a credible enough option to effectively deter Putin. Though the F-35 is paraded as the stealthiest thing in the sky it is not actually invisible to radar and it might be shot down before it could get above its target to drop its B61-12s. This brings up the need to be able to knock out Russian air defences in order to make our tactical nukes (or other air power) effective. Air defence is nowadays hugely important and has been possibly the defining issue in the Ukraine war. In my day, you became an air defence officer – a 'cloud-puncher' – if no other path was open. Today the air defence officers are the first pick. Air defences, even modern and powerful Russian ones such as the S-400, can be suppressed: we have seen Israel do this against Iran's S-300s before bombing some of Iran's nuclear research establishments this and last year. Recent Ukrainian attacks, most especially the strike last week on the Russian military air base at Bryansk show that Russian AD is not as water-tight as the Kremlin would have us believe. Nonetheless it might be a big ask to get F-35s almost on top of their target in order to deliver a free-falling gravity bomb like the B61-12. The other option possibly available to the UK is to do what the French have done: rather than a free-falling nuke, France has the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMPA) supersonic cruise missile, which can be released from its carrying jet hundreds of miles from the target. The ASMPA is supersonic, making it harder to knock down than a normal subsonic cruise missile. Our missile making capability is joint with France and Europe anyway, so if we went down this route we could partner with the French, who already know what they're doing in this area. Our existing subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile is actually French too – the warhead is the only British part. It has been put to good use against Russia in Ukrainian hands, though it appears to need help – either US defence-suppression technology or special forces operations against Russian defence radars – to be fully effective. It could be argued that it is now Monsieur Macron and France who are our closest allies, as President Trump seems to shun us 'pathetic' Europeans. This could be a viable way forward. Even I, a soldier, can recognise that reintroducing a tactical nuclear air delivered capability is not an insignificant task. It is complicated by our current lack of any AWACS radar planes and other specialist defence-suppression equipment. Nonetheless we have been in the nuclear deterrence game almost since the beginning and our Atomic Weapons Establishment can at least furnish us with the key: the actual warhead. We might alternatively make a beginning by developing a home-grown nuclear tip for our stock of US-made, submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise weapons: the Tomahawk was originally developed to deliver nukes, so we know it can do that job. One thing I am sure of is the need. As a former commander of the UK and Nato's chemical and nuclear defence forces, I know the overwhelming impact that tactical nuclear weapons can have on the battlefield, and the huge advantage they give to an aggressor against somebody who does not possess these weapons. We must be ready to deal with the Russian bear. Putin will not be deterred by 12 more submarines in the ocean in the next decade, and Dad's Army covering the White Cliffs perhaps sooner – useful and vital as these things will be. As Uncle Sam backs away from the fight, the prospect of the UK joining France in fielding a tactical capability which could cripple a Russian army in the field would likely get Putin talking peace quicker than most other threats. For 80 years there has been nuclear equilibrium in Europe, but this has become unbalanced. It is the major metric in Putin's decision making, psychologically if not physically. It isn't very important which tactical nuclear option we choose – F-35A, a French style standoff weapon, or Tomahawk. What is important is that we choose at least one and get it into service.
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
NATO chief to call for four-fold increase in Europe's air defense spending
LONDON — Washington's European allies must make a 'quantum leap' in military spending to deter Russia, the head of NATO is expected to say Monday, calling for a 400% increase in the continent's air and missile defense budget. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's comments are set to be among the strongest yet from the organization as it attempts to improve the continent's insufficient defenses against Russi a while also avoiding the political ire of President Donald Trump. 'The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defense,' Rutte is expected to say in a speech to the London-based think tank Chatham House, in remarks released beforehand by the alliance. 'The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defense plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.' Trump's clear signaling that he would like to at least significantly reduce decades of American military support for Europe has sent its nations scrambling to beef up their own arms industries. The American president's suggestion that NATO allies should up their minimum defense spend from 2% to 5% of GDP was once seen as outlandish; but last month Rutte too backed this idea and said he expected it to be adopted at NATO's June 24-25 summit. On Monday he will make a similarly ambitious call, according to NATO's pre-released remarks. He will ask for a '400% increase in air and missile defense' and add that 'militaries also need thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support.' 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' he will say. 'We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' Rutte's comments would come against the backdrop of European powers vowing to spend more on their military budgets, having relied for decades upon America's protection first against the Soviet Union and now Putin's revanchist Kremlin. NATO's constituents must also maintain a balancing act when it comes to Ukraine — which is not a member. Kyiv's allies want to support a neighbor it sees as a bulwark against Russian aggression, while keeping onside a White House increasingly sympathetic to Moscow's worldview. Trump has previously described his 'very, very good relationship' with Putin, a man considered a pariah by former President Joe Biden and other Western leaders. Many officials and analysts in Europe acknowledge that Trump is right to demand that wealthy nations such as Germany be able to look after themselves without Washington's help. However many of these same commentators have expressed their horror at the tactics used by Trump, who has suggested that the United States would not protect underpaying allies, and openly inviting Russia to 'do whatever the hell' it wants to them. That risks shattering the central premise of NATO: Article 5 of its founding charter — an 'all-for-one and one-for-all' mutual defense promise suggesting that if one ally is attacked, the rest would come to its aid. The scenario the founders had in mind was that the U.S. would join the fight if Russia decided to launch an act of aggression against a smaller European country. In practice however, the only time it has been used in the real world was the other way round, when the alliance lent Washington symbolic defensive help after 9/11. Previous American presidents have always seen this as a good trade off: America underwrites European security, and in return has a huge influence over political, diplomatic and even cultural happenings on the continent and beyond. The soft power return on investment was always seen as a profitable one. However, Trump has repeatedly questioned this logic, not only undermining the promise behind Article 5 but using hostile language against those historically considered Western brethren. The realization among European allies that Washington is no longer committed to its mutual defense has sparked a drive to push up defense budgets and revive the long-since dormant arms industry on the continent.
