Latest news with #RussianAggression
Arab News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Letter to the Editor: In response to Dr. Dania Khatib's column (July 10, 2025)
Ukraine stands for freedom of speech and independent media. However, it is with a bitter regret that we noted the recent publication of an op-ed by Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib, who suggested to the public several observations which we believe are inaccurate and risk misleading readers on fundamental issues. The publication itself and a range of narratives outlined therein require a response from the Ukrainian side. Ukraine profoundly appreciates our rich and consistently growing partnership with Saudi Arabia in line with the Kingdom's unwavering commitment, in particular, to international law, its rules and fundamental principles. In this context, it would be relevant to make several points thus dispelling Dr. Dania Khatib's publication through the prism of our bilateral partnership with undisputable facts to set the record straight. First of all, the Russian military aggression against Ukraine in no way can be considered as a legitimate deterrence. We believe that invading an independent state, partly occupying sovereign territories, killing peaceful civilians and destroying domestic economies represent a blatant and outrageous violation of the UN Charter's provisions and international law, which all the UN member states are obliged to respect. It would be appropriate to recall all the UN resolutions having been adopted since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and in the period 2022-2024. None of the 140 countries that unanimously deplored Russian violations ever talked of this so-called 'deterrence.' Secondly, it is vital for me to firmly reject the notion that Ukraine is 'destroyed' or on the verge of collapse, as well as the allegation that a sovereign state being subject to external pressures as a weaker part of the war leading to a hypothetical surrender. Despite the struggles posed against Ukraine, our state remains steadfast in its pursuit of a prosperous future. To demonstrate our resilience, it is useful to remember the crystal clear figures of our economic partnership with the Kingdom during the time of the full-scale aggression. When bilateral trade turnover grows by 17 percent, this speaks for itself not of a country being destroyed but a determined nation committed to resist. We have a joint ambition to develop partnership into the future, which is codified in the joint statement issued after the official visit of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to the Kingdom in March 2025. The reinvigoration of the Ukrainian-Saudi Joint Business Council of chambers of commerce and industry, as well as dynamic high-level exchanges between Ukrainian and Saudi companies, demonstrate the high pace of our cooperation. Moreover, we have retained our responsibility as a key food security guarantor in the world by widely supplying wheat and corn to the countries affected. All these facts do not describe the country in ruin. On the contrary, Ukraine is simultaneously implementing national priority interests and sympathetically meeting the dire needs of struggling countries. Far from the term 'destroyed,' Ukraine refused to fall a victim of Russian aggression but displayed incredible tenacity to defend its people and land. The final point is around criticism of weak and unreliable West. We want to make it clear: Ukraine stands against aggression with consistent support of our strategic partner the United States and the broad international coalition of the West. Their political support, economic and security assistance empowered Ukraine to withstand all brutalities of the war. The unity we have seen — politically, economically and militarily — is unprecedented and cannot be underestimated. Ukraine is confident in the West and grateful to all who extend us a hand of help in time of a challenge. Similarly, the humanitarian assistance of the Kingdom plays a pivotal role in protecting our civilians from the consequences of the Russian invasion. The bottom line is that, with all due respect, a contributing columnist may attempt to offer her fresh look on a complex set of issues; however, one principle must persist to be imperative: rock-solid facts, in my opinion, should not be misinterpreted and distorted in a way that undermines the foundations of international law, sovereign state vital national interests and much valuable partnerships across the globe that Ukraine treasures so much. Anatolii Petrenko Ambassador of Ukraine to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
CTV News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Russia launches another record drone attack on Ukraine, Ukrainian officials say
In this photo provided by the Ukrainian Emergency Service, firefighters put out the fire following a Russian attack in Kyiv region, Ukraine, Wednesday, July 9, 2025. (Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP) KYIV, Ukraine — Russia fired a record 728 Shahed and decoy drones at Ukraine overnight, as well as 13 missiles, the Ukrainian air force said Wednesday, in the latest escalation after mounting Russian aerial and ground attacks in the more than three-year war. The city of Lutsk, which lies in Ukraine's northwest along the border with Poland and Belarus, was the hardest hit, though 10 other regions were also struck, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Lutsk is home to airfields used by the Ukrainian army. Cargo planes and fighter jets routinely fly over the city. Western regions of Ukraine are a crucial logistical backbone in the war, as airfields and depots there receive vital foreign military aid before forwarding it to other parts of the country. Russian long-range attacks have increasingly sought to disrupt those supply corridors. Russia has recently tried to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses by launching massive aerial assaults, including adding more decoy drones to its attacks. Russia launched its previous largest aerial assault late in the night of July 4 into the following day, with the biggest prior to that occurring less than a week earlier. Russia's bigger army has also launched a new drive to punch through parts of the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where short-handed Ukrainian forces are under heavy strain. U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he's 'not happy' with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hasn't budged from his ceasefire and peace demands since Trump took office in January and began to push for a settlement. Trump said Monday that the U.S. would have to send more weapons to Ukraine, just days after Washington paused critical weapons deliveries to Kyiv amid uncertainty over the U.S. administration's commitment to Ukraine's defense. Zelenskyy said that the Kremlin was 'making a point' with the overnight attack on western parts of Ukraine, as U.S.-led peace efforts flounder. He urged Ukraine's partners to impose stricter sanctions on Russian oil and those who help finance the Kremlin's war by buying it. 'Everyone who wants peace must act,' Zelenskyy said. The Ukrainian leader was due to meet Pope Leo XIV on Wednesday during a visit to Italy. Two people were wounded in the Kyiv region during the overnight barrage, officials said, as emergency crews continued to assess the damage. Poland scrambled its fighter jets and put its armed forces on the highest level of alert in response to Russia's attack, the Polish Armed Forces Operational Command wrote in an X post. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Tuesday that Russia could pose a credible security threat to the European Union by the end of the decade. She called for defense industries in Europe and Ukraine to be ramped up within five years. Ukraine's air defenses shot down 296 drones and seven missiles during the overnight attack, while 415 more drones were lost from radars or jammed, an air force statement said. Ukrainian interceptor drones, developed to counter Russia's Shahed drones, are increasingly effective, Zelenskyy said, noting that many targets were intercepted and that domestic production of anti-aircraft drones is being scaled up in partnership with some Western countries. Western military analysts say Russia is boosting its drone manufacturing and could soon be capable of launching 1,000 drones a night at Ukraine. Ukraine has also built up its own offensive drone threat, reaching deep into Russia with some spectacular long-range strikes. Russia's Defense Ministry said Wednesday that air defenses downed 86 Ukrainian drones over six Russian regions overnight, including the Moscow region. Flights were temporarily suspended at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport and the international airport of Kaluga, south of Moscow. The governor of Russia's Kursk border region, Alexander Khinshtein, said that a Ukrainian drone attack on the region's capital city just before midnight killed three people and wounded seven others, including a 5-year-old boy. ___ Illia Novikov, The Associated Press
CNN
08-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump's sudden shift on weapons for Ukraine takes the war back to square one
For a fleeting moment, Ukraine's conflict may have come full circle. In the past 48 hours, US President Donald Trump has perhaps said his most forcefully direct words yet on arming Ukraine. And in the same period, the Kremlin have given their blankest indication to this White House that they are not interested in a realistic, negotiated settlement to the war. Let us start with Trump's comments on arming Ukraine, a reversion to a basic bedrock of US foreign policy for decades – opposing Russian aggression. 'We're going to send some more weapons,' the president said Monday of Ukraine. 'We have to – they have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard.' Behind him, his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nodded, despite this contradiction of the administration's announcement days earlier of military shipments being stopped. What did Trump actually mean? He was short on detail. A Pentagon spokesman later said that 'at President Trump's direction, the Department of Defense is sending additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure the killing stops.' The about-face came days after Volodymyr Zelensky's call with Trump on Friday, in which the Ukrainian leader said the two men spoke of joint weapons production, and air defense. Zelensky urgently needs more Patriot interceptor missiles, which are the only way of taking down Russian ballistic missiles, and which only the US can authorize trade in. Trump spoke a day earlier with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has offered to buy Patriots from the US to supply to Ukraine. Enough is afoot to have led Zelensky to declare on Saturday his Trump call was 'the best conversation we have had during this whole time, the most productive.' Trump's failure to provide details may be strategic, or a by-product of his occasional disdain for them. But while he may sound briefly a little more like his predecessor, Joe Biden, in terms of arming Ukraine, herein lies one stark difference. Biden publicly announced in agonizing detail every capability he gave Kyiv, perhaps hoping the transparency would avoid a sudden unexpected escalation with Moscow. Instead, Biden ended up with an excruciating public debate with Kyiv about every new system, and arms shipment, during which every seemingly impossible demand – from HIMARS rockets, to tanks, to F-16 fighter jets, to strikes inside Russia by ATACMs – was eventually acceded to. The plain, open ladder of American escalation was laid bare to the Kremlin. Trump perhaps seeks to avoid that by saying less. But after barely six months in office, Trump finds himself back where Biden always was, after trying almost everything else – cosying up to then criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, falling out and making up with Zelensky, and spurning before eventually backing Europe. But the timing of his latest conversion, however enduring, reveals the desperation of this moment in the conflict. The most recent, record Russian use of drones to attack Kyiv exposed possibly critical shortcomings in the capital's air defenses. They would only have worsened without being resupplied, at a time when Ukraine has reported 160,000 Russian troops are massing to the north and east of the frontlines. The months ahead will be unpredictable and critical for Kyiv, even with renewed US military support. Trump's reversal may have stopped panic edging towards the risk of collapse. Why the shift? Trump has always tried playing nice with Putin. Patient diplomacy, gentle words, and even last week's brief pause in military aid – a Kremlin demand for a deal – still did nothing to change Putin's position. The Kremlin does not want peace. And so Trump has learned slowly, rejecting the travails of recent history, that Russia is an opponent. The end of the US' longest war in Afghanistan, in which Biden withdrew fast in the wake of a hasty deal signed by Trump with the Taliban, led to scenes that haunted Trump's predecessor and remain a potent stick with which Republicans beat Democrats. The repetition of a similar rout of American allies in Ukraine, or Eastern Europe, would be an indelible stain on the Republican or MAGA record. That is not imminent, or even that likely for now. But the seeds of it lie perhaps in any success for Putin's planned aggression in the coming months. Meanwhile, after six months of toying with the ideas of diplomacy, the Kremlin is back where it started too: willing to accept a peace only if it is surrender by another name. Its recent goal has been achieved: it has flattered the White House's belief that it could talk out an end to the war, and taken enough time in talks that Russia's summer offensive is now adequately manned, and the ground below these troops hard. As recently as Monday, Putin's top diplomat was repeating Russia's most maximalist set of demands. Sergey Lavrov told a Hungarian newspaper that the 'underlying causes' of the war must be eliminated, and gave a long, expansive list of impossibles, including the 'demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, lifting sanctions on Russia, rescinding all lawsuits against Russia, and returning the illegally seized Western-based assets.' He added to that a requirement that Ukraine pledge to never join NATO, and also that occupied Ukrainian territory be recognized as Russian, including parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson that Moscow hasn't even seized yet. It was a dizzying echo of Russia's demands when it engaged in diplomacy for the first time in Istanbul, in the opening weeks of the war, as its soldiers shot civilians dead in the suburbs of Kyiv. Putin's rationale for rejecting real diplomacy is simple. He has sold this war (falsely) as an existential clash between Russia and its traditional values, and a liberal, expansionist and aggressive NATO. It is a binary moment in Russian history, his narrative insists. To entertain a short, albeit deceptive ceasefire on American terms would contradict the urgency of that false story, and risk undermining the skimpy morale of his troops, whose lives his commanders often fritter away in brutal, frontal assaults. Putin can mollify Trump with talk of his desire for peace. But he cannot let slip the façade of the motherland being under assault. His retreat back to type has been shorter and easier than Trump's. But still the Kremlin sees the enemy where it always has been, and where it always needs to be, for its war of choice to continue ending the lives of so many Russian men early. And so, for a brief moment, Putin and Trump find themselves back where Russia and the US were in 2022. Moscow has tens of thousands more troops reportedly amassed to invade Ukraine yet again. Diplomacy seems pointless. Washington needs to help defend Ukraine or risk global embarrassment – the demise of its military hegemony. And Ukraine is still there, in the middle, watching both powers on either side vacillate and spin, yet holding on.
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Macron will enjoy his royal welcome. But the Franco-British relationship remains a love-hate affair
Britain and France are so close that there's a saying in Wimereux, a seafront resort on the north French coast, that if you can see England it's going to rain, and if you can't, it's because it's already raining. Despite – or perhaps because of – that geographical proximity, Europe's two nuclear powers have historically been adversaries as often as friends, and frequently a bit of both. While France lacks a feral press to sustain public contempt for the tribal enemy with the unique talent of the British tabloids, that enduring love-hate relationship is the indelible backdrop to this week's state visit to the UK by President Emmanuel Macron. Even if solidarity and fortitude in the face of Russian aggression and American unreliability is the flavour of the week, the relationship remains an enduring mix of friendship, rivalry, mutual admiration and suspicion. Tellingly, this is the first state visit by a European leader in the nine years since the British people, in their infinite wisdom, voted to leave the European Union. Keir Starmer's cautious effort to repair some of the economic and political damage from that act of self-harm has faced French obstruction on any matter related to closer economic ties, including the totemic issue of fishing rights. As long as Starmer sticks to his red lines of no return to the EU's single market or customs union, and no free movement of people between the continent and Britain, he will face dogged resistance from Paris against any attempt to soften the consequences of Brexit. Both leaders have domestic problems. Macron is a lame duck who cannot seek re-election in 2027 and does not have a parliamentary majority. He regained the power to dissolve the National Assembly this week, but to do so again after last year's fiasco would be a recidivistic suicide. Starmer has only been in office a year and enjoys a giant majority. But he failed last week to force through welfare reforms after a revolt in his Labour party, leaving him with a budget hole and an authority crisis. Both men are constrained by the rise of far-right populist parties that are exploiting public discontent over immigration and identity issues. All the warmth of a royal welcome at Windsor Castle, a horse-drawn carriage parade and a stroll through the restored nature reserve in Windsor Great Park will not move the French president to ease his opposition to any EU special treatment for the UK, despite its strategic importance to Europe in this new age of geopolitical turbulence. In French minds, this is about defending the club that the UK quit, preserving the EU and its prized single market from unravelling and – though Macron would not say this publicly – ensuring that the UK's gamble on prospering outside the union is not successful. It is important to be able to point to British economic losses 'pour encourager les autres', as Voltaire might have said. There will be lots of togetherness on defence at Thursday's political summit, and plenty of talk in Macron's ceremonial address to parliament of the two countries standing together to uphold a rules-based international order (are you listening, Donald?), to support Ukraine (are you listening, Vladimir and Donald?) and to strengthen Europe's defences within Nato (ditto). The UK and France have Europe's most robust armies and strategic cultures, yet both are so hemmed in by debt and welfare costs that they will struggle to meet the Nato pledge they agreed last month to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, of which 3.5% will be devoted to core military outlays. Starmer and Macron will jointly chair a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing' created to give security guarantees to Ukraine, held symbolically at Nato's maritime headquarters in Northwood, outside London. It sends a message of European determination to stand by Ukraine at a time when the US is winding down military support as Russia steps up its war of aggression. US disengagement from European security will be a crucial, if largely unspoken sub-theme to the Franco-British rapprochement on strategic affairs. It's worth paying particularly close attention to what both leaders say about the scope of their nuclear deterrence and the degree to which they consider their vital interests to extend beyond national borders to the rest of Europe. Nuclear doctrine moves by millimetres. Given increasing uncertainty over the reliability of the US nuclear guarantee for Europe in the Trump era, it will be interesting to see whether Starmer and Macron go beyond what a previous generation of British and French leaders declared in 1995, when the then prime minister John Major said: 'The president [Jacques Chirac] and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.' Successive French leaders, while maintaining a degree of strategic ambiguity, have cautiously extended that nuclear doctrine to make clear that France's vital interests reach beyond its borders and 'have a European dimension'. In the light of Trump's equivocation, Macron recently proposed a strategic dialogue with willing European partners on this issue. Ideally, Starmer and Macron would develop the Major-Chirac formula to include an explicit mention of the vital interests of European allies. More likely, they might jointly offer consultations with European partners on nuclear deterrence. That would be another step towards a European defence identity within Nato. Paul Taylor is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre
CTV News
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Ukraine and five other countries leaving Canada-led treaty that banned landmines
In this file photo, children play near a landmine warning and a Buddhist shrine in New Village Border, Cambodia, March 10, 2005, along the Thai border. (AP Photo/David Longstreath) Ukraine and five other European countries are leaving an international treaty that bans the production and use of landmines. Nearly 30 years ago, Canada played an integral part in the creation of what's known as the Ottawa Treaty, which is starting to unravel in the face of Russian aggression. 'Right now, Ukraine is becoming, without a doubt, the most corrupted part of the world in terms of the number of landmines being planted, certainly by Russia and by Ukraine itself,' former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy said in an interview with 'And I think if these other Baltic countries continue on their borders, you're going to have what will clearly be an area of huge risk to civilians for the next half-century.' Axworthy took a leading role in creating the treaty while serving as Canada's top diplomat under former prime minister Jean Chretien between 1996 and 2000. The treaty was signed in Ottawa in 1997, a year after Axworthy publicly challenged the world to ban the weapons, which can remain dormant and deadly for decades and have been shown to disproportionately maim and kill civilians. 'The thing about landmines is it's not just a risk in the immediate term – a landmine's sitting around for 75, 80, 100 years,' Axworthy, now 85, said from Ottawa. This year, Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all announced plans to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, becoming the first signatories to do so. All six nations share borders with Russian territory. While Russian use of landmines in Ukraine has been widespread, Ukraine has responded by planting landmines of its own – despite ratifying the treaty in 2005. Axworthy fears the recent withdrawals could put the Ottawa Treaty and other international arms control measures at risk. 'I think Zelenskyy's decision to actually withdraw from the treaty is a serious one,' Axworthy said. 'I'm afraid that could be a catalyst for further resignations.' Lloyd Axworthy Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy looks on before being presented with the 30th Pearson Peace Medal during a ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Wednesday, May 24, 2017. (Fred Chartrand/THE CANADIAN PRESS) Although more than 160 countries have adopted the Ottawa Treaty, about three dozen never signed it, including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, Iran and both North and South Korea. 'At the time, we came very close to having Bill Clinton sign the treaty, but he got pushback by the Pentagon,' Axworthy recalled. 'But in so doing, they made a very clear commitment that the United States would continue to honour 90 per cent of the standards in the treaty, and also continue to be a major supporter of demining and aid to victims.' The U.S. stance shifted in 2024, when the Biden administration authorized the transfer of landmines to Ukraine in response to Russian use. Since then, the dismantling of USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) under the Trump administration has hobbled demining efforts overseas. Recent landmine use has also been documented in Myanmar, Iran and North Korea. Germany, Japan, Norway, Canada and others have spent millions on efforts to clear landmines from affected countries, but in heavily contaminated places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Cambodia, civilians are still losing their lives and limbs, years after wars have ended. Advocacy group Mines Action Canada describes landmines as 'indiscriminate weapons from the 1900s.' 'In this century, landmines are a weapon of choice for those like Russia and ISIS who want to terrorize civilians or a weapon of desperation for non-state actors with no other options,' executive director Erin Hunt said in a written statement. 'The moves by Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will put the citizens at increased risk of death or injury for decades to come because it is impossible to use an indiscriminate weapon responsibly.' Mines Action Canada is a member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. Widely considered a major diplomatic achievement for Canada, the Ottawa Treaty is officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. While Axworthy would like to see renewed leadership from Ottawa, he says government support for landmine work has waned over the past decade. 'I've been told in the meetings I've been holding … that right now there's no particular interest,' Axworthy said. 'One senior diplomat told me that to be effective, it has to have a political champion, and I don't think there's anybody, right now.'
