Russian diplomat claims West is using Romania as foothold for intervention, points to increase in NATO presence
Speaking to RIA Novosti, Lipayev said "It is obvious that the states of the so-called collective West are trying, without directly using their armed forces, to increasingly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, hoping to change its course by increasing the degree of escalation.
'The use of the territory of the alliance member states closest to Russia, including Romania, is considered one of the tools for such intervention. For this reason, the militarisation of Romania is in full swing."
Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of Western troops stationed in Romania, particularly personnel and assets from the US, UK, France, Poland, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, among others, as part of NATO's 'Enhanced Forward Presence' military doctrine, to contain Russia troops.
The diplomat noted that elements of the US missile defence system were deployed on the country's territory, military bases were being expanded, and the NATO contingent was increasing. The Mihai Kogalniceanu airbase is located less than 400 km from Sevastopol, he added.
'Since 2016, the American Aegis Ashore missile defence system has been deployed in the area of the village of Deveselu. Dozens of NATO military exercises are held annually.
'In fact, Romania is destined to play the role of a NATO outpost on its southeastern flank, which in the event of a global conflict could be used to launch a pre-emptive, disarming strike against Russia,' he noted.
Claiming that the Romanian leadership is assuaging its public with false promises of security under the auspices of NATO security and not informing them of the actual developments, the general public in the country has become increasingly opposed to any further involvement of Romania in the war.
UNI XC ANV GNK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
38 minutes ago
- United News of India
Maldivian President Muizzu affirms enduring strength of India-Maldives ties at state banquet
Male/New Delhi, July 25 (UNI) Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu today affirmed the enduring strength of Maldives-India relations, stating that the historic bond between both nations cannot be weakened. He made the remakes at a state banquet hosted by himself and First Lady Sajidha Mohamed in honour of Indian Prime Minister Modi, who is on a two-day state visit to the Maldives at the President's invitation. In his speech, the President said that while this year marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of official diplomatic relations between the Maldives and India, the relationship dates back centuries. While history bears witness to this, he noted that both countries have deep-rooted ties through trade and other cultural activities since long before official diplomatic relations were established. The President emphasised that India has always been an important partner in the Maldives' development journey, and noted that the relationship is strengthening, particularly in the fields of security, health, trade and education. He expressed confidence that India can play an important role in building a sustainable, inclusive and youth-driven economy in the Maldives. In his speech, the President also acknowledged Prime Minister Modi as the second longest-serving Prime Minister in India's history, describing it as a reflection of his dedication to national service. The banquet was attended by members of the visiting Indian delegation and senior officials of the Government of the Maldives. Earlier, during the joint press statement following their delegation level talks, President Muizzu underscored India's central role in the Maldives' development. Eight memoranda of understanding were signed during the official meetings, reflecting mutual commitment to broad collaboration across key sectors, including infrastructure, defence, education, health care, and economic development. Among the agreements, a USD 565 million line of credit was announced, an initiative President Muizzu described as essential for advancing critical national priorities. Targeted areas include sports, public housing, health services, education, and military infrastructure. India also offered a currency swap facility intended to help the Maldives navigate prevailing economic challenges. Discussions also reflected the durability of bilateral relations, as President Muizzu commended India's longstanding assistance, including its timely response during disasters and emergencies, which reinforced the partnership's humanitarian and strategic significance. Developmental projects featured prominently in the discussions, with President Muizzu highlighting the India-assisted Malé-Thilafushi bridge as a cornerstone of cooperative infrastructure and a forthcoming symbol of shared progress. Other initiatives noted included the construction of 3,300 housing units, extensive roadworks in Addu City, and the provision of 72 heavy vehicles to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF). Prime Minister Modi's state visit coincides with the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two nations. UNI RN
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘We are Indians, why must we prove it again?': Men quizzed by Gurgaon cops during verification drive
On July 16, Rabiul Khan (40) and his family sat down to have lunch at their home in the Badshahpur slum in Gurgaon's Sector 66 when the police showed up — and picked him up. 'They took my phone… I could only use it for a few seconds to tell my wife where I was… they checked all my ID proofs. I told them I am from Malda in West Bengal, but they said you are Bangladeshi,' said Khan. He was eventually released from a 'holding centre' at Sector 40 on the evening of July 23, where his wife, Chavi Bibi (39), had been waiting. Khan was among several men who were rounded up by the Gurgaon Police as part of a 'routine verification' drive to identify Bangladeshis and Rohingya living illegally in the city. The move sparked panic among the Bengali-speaking migrant community, prompting many to leave the city. Sitting on a bench under the shade of a tree near the Shamshan Ghat on Friday, Khan spoke about his ordeal. 'They demanded that I reveal the identities of my Bangladeshi neighbours. I was slapped twice…,' he alleged. 'I had my digital voter ID and PAN card on my phone, they checked them… but they did not let me go immediately,' said Khan. 'Our documents clearly show that we are Indian, yet they were still using force.' Khan said he was held at different centres for a week. 'At one of the centres, out of 130, only two were Hindus…' He has not gone back to work but has decided not to go home for now. Khan said he has been working in Gurgaon for the past nine years, doing odd jobs like walking dogs and washing cars in upscale housing societies. He said he was lucky he had a helpful landlord in Surender Jatav, who stood up for him and waited outside the detention centre. Jatav said, 'They are Hindustani (Indians), our own people… If they are guilty, investigate — we are with you (police).' Asked about the facilities inside the holding centre, Khan said, 'We were given the same two meals every day — a little bit of rice and dal. But the other facilities were good, we had a mattress and decent toilets.' His fellow slum resident, Anaraul Haque, 45, has been in Gurgaon since childhood. But he, too, was picked up by the police. 'They came last Wednesday after I had dropped my daughter off at her school at 8 am. The police had been asking about me… They hit me on the back twice and took me to their car along with two of my relatives,' he alleged. At the holding centre, he alleged that one of the policemen asked him if 'he was Bangladeshi, how many Muslims are in the area, and how long he had really been living in Gurgaon?'. Haque said he told them he was not a Bangladeshi and showed his documents, but the police allegedly said he was not cooperating and took him to Sohna. He said he was let go only after his panchayat office back home emailed some documents. Tejul Islam, who was questioned by a police team in Sector 26, said the officers were rude during their brief encounter. 'They said, 'Tell us now if you're Bangladeshi.' I showed them my documents… If we are Indian citizens, why are we being asked to prove it again after so many years of being accepted?' he said. Adam Ali, who was picked up from Chakkapur, said, 'They just picked me up, took my phone and left my family worried… I wasn't beaten, but I was treated with constant suspicion.' A Gurgaon Police spokesperson said all the alleged suspects were released from the holding centres by late Thursday night. 'There is no question of targeting any community… There have been no instances of violence or demands for bribes to force confessions. The documents requested are part of routine verification, and individuals are released as soon as their documents are authenticated by the local village authorities or the district magistrate.' On Friday, police said eight Bangladeshi nationals were detained and will be deported.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Third US Court Halts Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was "thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere." "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history," he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be "tailored to the States' purported financial injuries." Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," the judge wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is "enshrined in the Constitution," and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage." They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to "provide essential services" — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to "early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities." At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
