&w=3840&q=100)
Kremlin warns against ‘nuclear rhetoric' as Trump escalates tensions
Russia urged caution on Monday after US President Donald Trump said he would deploy two nuclear submarines following an online row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.
Trump said he had ordered the deployment in response to what he alleged were highly provocative comments by Medvedev, saying the submarines would be positioned in 'appropriate regions'.
Trump did not say whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines.
He also did not elaborate on the locations, which are kept secret by the US military.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Russia is very attentive to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation. And we believe that everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, including from AFP, on Monday.
The row between Medvedev and Trump erupted against the backdrop of the US leader's ultimatum for Russia to end its military offensive in Ukraine or face fresh economic sanctions, including on its remaining trading partners.
Medvedev – one of Russia's most prominent anti-Western hawks – accused Trump of 'playing the ultimatum game' and said that Trump 'should remember' that Russia was a formidable force.
'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,' he said.
Medvedev, who has not posted on social media since the spat, is currently the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council.
He served one term as president from 2008 to 2012, effectively acting as a placeholder for Putin, who was able to circumvent constitutional term limits and de facto remain in power.
The chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday backed Trump's actions.
'The concept of peace through strength works,' Andriy Yermak wrote on social media.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'The moment American nuclear submarines appeared, one Russian drunk – who had just been threatening nuclear war on X – suddenly went silent.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
29 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Behind NATO's open door lies exclusion
In the folk tale of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, a poor man overhears the magical phrase 'Open Sesame,' which grants access to a hidden treasure cave. But when the thieves mark his house for revenge, a clever maid marks every home in the neighbourhood. Faced with universal ambiguity, the thieves are disoriented. No one stands out, so no one is attacked, and aggression loses its if global security worked the same way?.What if the principle of collective defense—'an attack on one is an attack on 'all'—wasn't confined to NATO and its carefully curated allies? Imagine a world where this promise extended beyond the transatlantic sphere to India, South Africa, Brazil, and Iran. A world where no State stood alone, and no country could be singled out for aggression. As in the tale, if everyone is protected, no one is targeted. Of course, we don't live in that claims to uphold an 'open-door policy,' but that door is closed mainly in practice. Strategic alignment, historical ties, and economic interests remain the unspoken prerequisites for entry. Despite their demographic and geopolitical weight, nations like India, Indonesia, and Brazil are barely part of the Ukraine's pursuit of NATO membership is less about democratic values and more about Western strategic risk management. Georgia's application has languished. Meanwhile, countries from the Global South are kept at arm's length. This raises a hard truth: NATO does not merely defend liberal values. It defends a specific geopolitical hierarchy born in the Cold War and sustained through exclusive club membership. Those who are not inside the cave are not only locked out of the treasure—they are left India–China India and China ever form a truly universal security alliance? It sounds ideal for two major powers to stabilise the region through cooperation. But geography and history stand in the way. As far back as the 4th century BCE, Indian strategist Chanakya observed that neighbouring states are natural rivals. That remains true today. India and China remain locked in long-standing border disputes. China's sustained support for Pakistan diplomatically, militarily, and economically keeps India off balance. In this climate, the idea of shared defence seems implausible. Still, the issue is not whether universal security would be easy. It is that exclusion makes conflict more likely. When security is treated as an exclusive club, it generates suspicion, rivalry, and competition. That is the world we inhabit logic of exclusion extends beyond military alliances. It shapes how history is written, how voices are remembered, and which regions are seen as India's historical narratives. Much English-language scholarship on modern India continues to prioritise the north. Dalit movements in Bihar or Maharashtra are often highlighted, while equally significant struggles in the Madras Presidency, Telangana, or Tamil Nadu receive little towering national figures like B R Ambedkar are often framed primarily through their engagements in the north. His speeches and political activity in Chennai (then Madras) or Mysuru are routinely overlooked. Similarly, post-independence leaders like C N Annadurai, who shaped Tamil politics and identity, receive cursory treatment in standard texts. It reflects how knowledge systems often mirror power structures, privileging certain regions, figures, and ideologies while marginalising Ali Baba, the maid disrupts the thieves' power by confusing their targeting mechanism. She doesn't confront them directly; she scrambles the logic of attack. That's the kind of strategy the world needs today. We must move toward a global order in which solidarity is not restricted to select allies, safety is not transactional, and strategic protection is not reserved for countries that fit a particular ideological or economic a vision would require new institutions, deeper South-South cooperation, and a fundamental shift in how security is imagined. But without it, global peace will remain fragile, subject to alliances that exclude and structures that privilege a few. Until then, NATO's open-door policy remains a convenient half-truth. The treasure cave of collective security still responds to a particular accent, speaking the correct password: Open Sesame..(The author writes about politics, material culture, and economic history).The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rwanda reached deal with US to take in up to 250 migrants, government says
By Daphne Psaledakis Rwanda reached deal with US to take in up to 250 migrants, government says WASHINGTON -The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to accept up to 250 migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, first reported by Reuters, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. "Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation," said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. "Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade." The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect basic human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. US TO PROVIDE GRANT TO RWANDA Rwanda will be paid by the United States in the form of a grant, the official said, adding that the grant letter was finalized in July. The official declined to say how much the grant was for. The U.S. and Rwanda could extend the agreement beyond 250 people by mutual consent, the official said, adding that those deported to Rwanda do not have to stay in the country and can leave anytime they choose. Kigali will only accept those whose prison terms are complete or who have no criminal case against them, as there is no agreement with Washington that would allow people to serve out their U.S. sentence in Rwanda, the official said. No child sex offenders will be accepted. The Trump administration has pressed other countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Western and regional leaders have praised President Paul Kagame for transforming Rwanda from the ruins of the 1994 genocide that killed more than 1 million people into a thriving economy. Rights groups have accused him of abuses and of supporting rebels in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, accusations that he denies. Rwanda has also engaged in peace talks led by the Trump administration to bring an end to fighting in eastern Congo. The two African nations signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement in Washington in June, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement to accept migrants deported from the U.S. is not the first such agreement Rwanda has reached. Kigali signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. reverses pledge to link disaster funds to Israel boycott stance
The Trump administration on Monday (August 4, 2025) reversed course on requiring U.S. cities and States to rebuke boycotts of Israeli companies in order to receive disaster funds, according to a statement, and deleted the earlier policy from its website. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security removed its statement that said States must certify they will not sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for the funding. Reuters reported on Monday that the language applied to at least $1.9 billion that states rely on to cover search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries and backup power systems, among other expenses, according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters. This is a shift for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has previously tried to penalise institutions that don't align with its views on Israel or antisemitism. Economic pressure on Israel The disaster funding requirement took aim at the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement designed to put economic pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. The campaign's supporters grew more vocal in 2023, after Hamas attacked southern Israel and Israel invaded Gaza in response. 'FEMA grants remain governed by existing law and policy and not political litmus tests,' said DHS Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement on Monday afternoon. DHS oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA in grant notices posted on Friday said states must follow its 'terms and conditions' to qualify for disaster preparation funding. Those conditions required that they not support what the agency called a 'discriminatory prohibited boycott,' a term defined as refusing to deal with 'companies doing business in or with Israel.' The new terms, posted later on Monday, do not include that language.
