Latest news with #SecurityCouncilof
Al-Ahram Weekly
3 days ago
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
When nukes do the talking - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
Trump deployed two nuclear submarines last week in an escalation of the war of words between the US and Russia over Ukraine. Last Thursday, former president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, wrote on X that 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember two things: first Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. Second, each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' The next day US President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that 'based on the highly provocative statements of Dmitry Medvedev, I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences; I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Two days later, the Russian Interfax news agency reported that Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers in the Sea of Japan. It said diesel-electric submarines from the two countries were also involved, as well as a Chinese submarine rescue ship. The manoeuvres are part of the Maritime Interaction 2025 exercises that are scheduled to end this week. It is unlikely that these exercises are directly related to the statements made by Trump and Medvedev. However, the deployment of the two US nuclear submarines remains a noteworthy development, as they have long been among the most important deterrent tools in the United States armoury. This is due to their exceptional ability to travel in ocean waters undetected, their unlimited range thanks to nuclear propulsion, and their lethal firepower, whether through cruise missiles or nuclear missiles. The locations of these submarines are usually highly classified. Looking at the current deployment areas of the US Navy, the Sea of Japan appears to be devoid of US destroyers, according to USNI News produced by the US Naval Institute. This is due to the eastward movement of the USS Carl Vinson carrier and its escort group. The only remaining vessel is the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship, which is capable of carrying various types of helicopters as well as F-35B and Harrier jets belonging to the Marine Corps. Therefore, the submarines are likely to be present in the Sea of Japan to gather additional intelligence, at the very least, on the exercises being conducted by Russia and China. The operation requires coordination among destroyers, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters, and submarines. It is somewhat out of the ordinary and not entirely routine. In July, Reuters reported that 'Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine… and threatened sanctions on buyers of Russian exports unless Russia agrees a peace deal, a major policy shift brought on by frustration with Moscow's ongoing attacks on its neighbour.' A White House official said Trump was referring to 100 per cent tariffs on Russian goods as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that buy its exports. Eighty-five of the 100 US senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Trump the authority to impose 500 per cent tariffs on any country that helps Russia, but the Chamber's Republican leaders have been waiting for Trump to give them the go-ahead for a vote. Starting this month, US news outlets also reported that the US and NATO are developing a novel funding mechanism for transferring weapons to Ukraine, known by the acronym PURL (Priority Ukraine Requirements List). Despite this, Trump has been consistently leaving the door open to Russia by insisting on providing only defensive weapons, specifically the Patriot system, which remains one of the most sought-after systems by the Ukrainian leadership in their effort to defend Ukrainian airspace from the ongoing missile attacks on their cities. Trump also refuses to approve the transfer of long-range offensive weapons, particularly the JASSM and ATACMS missiles, which would allow the Ukrainian Army to strike deep into Russian territory with greater effectiveness and destructive impact compared to the limited effect of suicide drones. Undoubtedly, the new defensive systems will strengthen Ukraine's air-defence network, especially if the new mechanism succeeds in sustaining the logistical supply of missiles for the batteries. However, on the battlefield, they may not significantly alter many outcomes, particularly after the recent advances on multiple fronts in eastern Ukraine, which has turned into a brutal battleground between Russian and Ukrainian forces. The Russian military retains a greater ability to replenish its losses in both weaponry and personnel compared to the Ukrainian side. A Ukrainian spokesperson said that 'Russian forces have lost 50,000 personnel in the Toretsk direction in more than six months of fighting, of which more than 20,000 were killed in action.' According to the US-based Institute of War (ISW) last Sunday, 'geolocated footage published on August 2 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced north of Oleksandro-Kalynove (northwest of Toretsk).' The classical Chinese writer Sun Tzu once wrote that 'strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.' Although he wrote this in 500 BCE, it is an accurate description of the Ukrainian battlefield since the war began in 2022. The Ukrainians have mastered the art of finding tactical solutions, but they rely entirely on US and European weapons and supplies. This dependence has prevented them from developing an effective strategy to expel Russian forces. In contrast, the Russian side has had the upper hand in creating a comprehensive strategy to replenish its weapons stockpiles, maintain combat momentum, and bring about the attrition of the Western-supplied arsenals used by the Ukrainian Army. Nevertheless, Russian battlefield tactics do not guarantee rapid or decisive advances, which increases Russian losses in both personnel and equipment. Last weekend, Trump said his envoy Steve Witkoff would travel to Russia in the coming days as the president called for an end to the conflict in Ukraine, according CNN. The contours of Trump's strategy to end the war are becoming clearer, as he seeks to strike another deal with the Russian side, wielding the threat of sanctions rather than offensive weapons or direct harm. This shifts the ball into Moscow's court. Will it accept the terms of the American proposal, or choose to continue the war, especially given the absence of any battlefield deterrent preventing Russian forces from advancing in eastern Ukraine? The coming weeks may prove decisive in answering this question. * A version of this article appears in print in the 7 August, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Hindustan Times
03-08-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Who is Dmitry Medvedev? Ex-Russian president who made Trump position 2 nuclear submarines
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who is currently serving as deputy chair of the security council of the Russian Federation, is embroiled in a social media spat with United States President Donald Trump, prompting the latter to order the deployment of two nuclear submarines. Dmitry Medvedev's parents were university professors and he studied law.(File/AP) Responding to Trump's ultimatums to Russia for stopping the war in Ukraine, Medvedev said that such ultimatums could trigger a war between the US and Russia. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' he said in a post on X. Calling these remarks 'provocative', Trump said that he has ordered deployment of two nuclear submarines in case Medvedev's remarks are more than just 'inflammatory statements'. 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' he wrote on Truth Social. Who is Dmitry Medvedev Dmitry Medvedev served as the President of Russia from 2008-2012 with Vladimir Putin as his Prime Minister. He took the office after Putin was barred from standing again as he had already served two terms, according to the Russian law at the time. After 2012, Putin and Medvedev switched places and the latter served as the Prime Minister of Russia till 2020, after which he was replaced by Mikhail Mishustin. Medvedev took a new role at Russia's security council in 2020. Dmitry Medvedev's parents were university professors and he studied law. Before entering politics, he briefly worked in the private sector too. When Dmitry Medvedev became Russia' President, the West initially viewed him as someone who would work towards rebuilding ties with the United States. He also signed the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with President Barack Obama in 2009. Under Medvedev's presidency, Russia also saw a brief but impactful five-day war with its neighbour Georgia in 2008. Medvedev has been a champion of the war between Ukraine and Russia, which has been going on for over three years now. At several instances, Medvedev has warned of the risk of a nuclear "apocalypse". He has employed aggressive rhetoric against Ukraine ever since the war began, even calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a criminal, a drug addict, a louse, a rat and a freak. At one point, he also referred to Ukrainians as "cockroaches". Lately, Medvedev has managed to provoke a sharp reaction from the West as he has been engaged in an online war of words with US President Donald Trump. Medvedev accused Trump of playing the 'ultimatum game with Russia', which, he threatened, could lead to a direct war between Russia and the US. This escalated after Trump ordered deployment of 'two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions'. (With inputs from Reuters)
CNBC
01-08-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
Trump says he moved two nuclear submarines after Russia's Medvedev warns U.S.
President Donald Trump on Friday said that he ordered two nuclear submarines "to be positioned in the appropriate regions" in response to warnings made to the United States by top Russian official Dmitry Medvedev earlier this week. "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump said in a Truth Social post. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Medvedev, in a post on X on Monday, wrote, "Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things." "1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war," Medvedev wrote. "Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!" Medvedev added, referring to former President Joe Biden. This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Hindustan Times
31-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Russian ex-president Medvedev's 'ultimatum game' remark sparks Trump's ire
In his latest message for India after imposing 25 percent tariffs on his "good friend," US President Donald Trump has also issued a warning to Russia. The Republican's social media post comes days after former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned of a war if Trump kept "playing the ultimatum game." The Republican's social media post comes days after former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned of a war if Trump kept "playing the ultimatum.(AP/Reuters) "I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World," said Trump on Truth Social. "Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!" he added. What did Medvedev say? Taking to X two days ago, the Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation warned the US and Donald Trump against playing the "ultimatum game." His remarks came after Trump warned Russia of more sanctions if it did not stop the war in Ukraine and sign a ceasefire deal within the next 10 to 12 days. On his official account, Medvedev accused Trump of playing a game and warned the US of two things - 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. "Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!" the former Russian leader added.
Express Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Water — not a bargaining chip
Listen to article In international diplomacy, some agreements are too foundational to tamper with. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, is one such rare pillar of stability between Pakistan and India. It has stood wars, diplomatic tensions and political changes. Now, however, with an alarming twist, India has unilaterally "held it in abeyance", an expression of elasticity with potentially disastrous results. This is not just a bureaucratic manoeuvre. It is an affront to legal norms, a threat to regional peace, and most gravely, a dangerous suggestion that water, the source of life, is now a bargaining chip. Water is not optional for Pakistan. With more than 80% of its agricultural output relying on the Indus River system, and with already dwindling per capita water availability, any disruption to this flow is an existential threat. The provinces of Punjab and Sindh, which form the country's breadbasket, would face drought, economic paralysis and civil unrest. The consequences would not be limited to economic losses as it would increase inequalities, fuel provincial tensions and make an already unstable situation in the political arena much more complex. The legal basis of the Indian claim of the treaty being in abeyance is weak and the first in history. There is no provision in the IWT allowing a suspension and anyway what due process has been adopted by India in its regard under the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. Under Article 57 of the Convention, a treaty may be suspended only by mutual consent or within the framework of the treaty itself and neither of these applies here. Article 60 does allow for suspension if a material breach occurs which India has no proof of. In essence, India has invented a legal grey area to justify a political decision. It is a breach not only of treaty obligations but of the basic principles of international law. To turn water into a pressure tactic is to reduce a humanitarian and ecological concern into a geopolitical lever. And once that precedent is set, it becomes dangerously difficult to undo. If water is fair game in power politics, what comes next? This is why the global community cannot afford to stay neutral. South Asia is already one of the most water-stressed regions. Climate change is causing shrinking glaciers and monsoons slackening, and has been speeding the dearth of platforms. The IWT despite all its shortcomings was a paradigm of collaboration on common resources. Such an undermining not only destabilises Pakistan, but also sends the signal to other riparian basins in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia that a unilateral weaponisation of water security is possible. Pakistan must act, but not recklessly. Although there is nothing wrong with citing India's shift as a possible casus belli, it has to first make all the diplomatic attempts. That involves appealing to the Security Council of the UN under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that specifically provides the possibility of interfering when there is a threat of peace. Water, especially when controlled by one nuclear power over another, constitutes exactly that kind of threat. The P5 states must be reminded of their 1998 commitment to intervene if South Asia's stability is at risk. That moment is now. This is not merely about sovereignty or national pride. It is about redefining what should be off-limits in conflict. Civilian water access cannot be a pawn in strategic calculus. Pakistan's response must reinforce this principle, legally and morally. Because if this treaty falls, the damage will go far beyond the Indus Basin — it will corrode the very idea of principled diplomacy. Water sustains life; it should never be used to choke it. The IWT is not a perfect document, but it is a symbol of what diplomacy can achieve even between enemies. To treat it as a bargaining chip is to abandon that legacy and to gamble with peace itself.
