Lithuania demands explanation from Belarus over downed drone
In a diplomatic note, Lithuania expressed its "strong protest over the unlawful entry" of the unmanned aerial vehicle into Lithuanian airspace.
The authoritarian-ruled neighbouring country was asked to provide an explanation of last week's incident, the Foreign Ministry in Vilnius said on Thursday.
On July 10, a Russian-made drone from Belarus crashed in Lithuania near the border. It was a so-called Gerbera drone, which resembles the Shahed combat drones used by Russia in its war on Ukraine.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys said the incident was likely to be linked to an attack on Ukraine.
According to the Lithuanian military, the unmanned aerial vehicle was spotted outside the country's territory and crashed a few minutes after crossing the border.
The drone, which prompted Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas and Parliament Speaker Saulius Skvernelis to take precautionary measures and seek shelter, posed no danger to the population as it was not equipped with explosives, the military said.
Lithuanian investigators are now looking into the possible purpose of the drone, which was made of plywood and foam. Discussions are also under way about how to respond to the incident.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's 50-day Ukraine ultimatum is doomed to fail
President Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Ukraine war within 2 4 hours of returning to the White House. Now back in the White House, he finds himself hemmed in by the realities of great-power politics. Trump's self-confidence has collided with the entrenched dynamics of a grinding conflict. Frustrated, he has turned to familiar tools of coercion: threats, pressure tactics and a new flow of advanced weapons to Kyiv. Trump's latest initiative gives Moscow a 50-day deadline to end its war in Ukraine. He has threatened secondary sanctions on Russia's key trading partners and opened a fresh weapons pipeline to Kyiv, hoping this twin-pronged approach will force Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand. But like Trump's earlier attempts to employ brute pressure as a substitute for diplomacy, this initiative reflects impatience more than strategic clarity. Trump once believed that his personal rapport with Putin, coupled with a dealmaker's instinct, could bring about a ceasefire. But six months into his new term, his peace push lies in tatters. Russia continues to press its territorial ambitions, while Ukraine, bolstered by Western military support, shows little interest in making major concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump faces a deepening quagmire. The irony is unmistakable — the president who pledged to end America's entanglements in ' forever wars ' is now escalating U.S. involvement in one that is deflecting American attention away from more-pressing strategic challenges, including from China, which is seeking to supplant the U.S. as the world's foremost power. Trump's new Ukraine strategy bears an eerie resemblance to his Iran policy, when he tried to bomb Tehran into submission, only to end up entrenching animosities further and weakening U.S. leverage. There is no doubt that ending the war in Ukraine is in America's strategic interest. The conflict has absorbed vast U.S. resources, diverted diplomatic bandwidth and strained transatlantic cohesion. More importantly, the war has delayed Washington's ability to focus on the key Indo-Pacific region — the world's emerging economic and geopolitical nerve center. The pivot to the Indo-Pacific is not merely aspirational. A leaked memorandum titled 'Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance,' signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, identifies China as the Pentagon's 'sole pacing threat.' The Trump administration is seeking to reorient the U.S. military posture to prepare for a potential showdown in Asia over Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan. The war in Ukraine, by draining American attention, resources and capabilities, undermines this rebalancing. Seen from this angle, Trump is right to seek an end to the conflict. But his approach — escalating arms transfers while threatening punitive sanctions on countries that do business with Russia — is unlikely to yield peace. If anything, it risks prolonging the war by reinforcing the belief in Kyiv that Washington remains committed to a military solution. In fact, Trump's threat to impose harsh penalties on Russia's trading partners lacks credibility. Such sanctions would trigger a U.S. showdown with China, which trades nearly $250 billion annually with Russia, including major oil and gas imports. Sanctioning India could upend America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power. History offers little support for the notion that coercion alone can deliver durable peace. Military pressure may bring parties to the table, but diplomacy is what cements outcomes. The Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, and the Camp David Accords, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel, were both products of tough negotiations rather than deadlines and threats. Trump's maximalist tactics risk backfiring on multiple fronts. Sanctioning Russia's trading partners could alienate crucial 'swing' nations in the global contest with China. These states are already wary of U.S. unilateralism, and some of them could be pushed into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, punitive economic measures often fail to change state behavior, especially when national security interests are at stake, as is the case for Russia in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a flood of advanced new U.S. weapons to Ukraine may boost short-term battlefield performance but will do little to bridge the wider diplomatic impasse. Putin, faced with increased Western backing for Kyiv, is unlikely to scale back his goals. Instead, he may double down, calculating that time and attrition are on his side. The real path to peace in Ukraine lies not in deadlines or ultimatums, but in a forward-looking diplomatic initiative that recognizes the legitimate interests of all parties while seeking to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration made limited overtures in this direction, but Trump, who claims to be a great dealmaker, has an opportunity to go further. Instead of trying to impose peace through pressure alone, he must find ways to bring both sides to the table — with credible inducements and face-saving compromises. This will require working with international partners — not just NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and the United Arab Emirates that can serve as mediators. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. None of this is easy, but it is more likely to succeed than a strategy built on coercion and deadlines. Despite promising to end the war quickly, Trump now finds himself caught in the same bind as his predecessor. His failure to secure a ceasefire has deepened America's involvement in the war — the very entanglement he vowed to end. Unless he pivots toward a more diplomatic course, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will go the way of his 24-hour pledge: unmet and quietly shelved. Deadlines don't make peace. Diplomacy does.
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Britain is lowering the voting age to 16. It's getting a mixed reaction
LONDON — There has been a mixed reaction in Britain to the government's announcement that it will lower the voting age from 18 to 16 before the next national election. The Labor Party administration says it's part of a package of changes to strengthen British democracy and help restore trust in politics. The opposition says it's a power-grab by the left. Experts say it's complicated, with mixed evidence about how lowering the voting age affects democracy and election outcomes. Britain's voting age last fell in 1969, when the U.K. became one of the first major democracies to lower it from 21 to 18. Many other countries, including the United States, followed suit within a few years. Now the government says it will lower the threshold to 16 by the time the next general election is held, likely in 2029. That will bring the whole country into line with Scotland and Wales, which have semiautonomous governments and already let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in local and regional elections. A handful of other countries currently have a voting age of 16, including Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. A few European Union countries, including Belgium, Germany and Malta, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections to the European Parliament. Supporters argue that 16-year-olds in Britain can work and pay taxes, so should be allowed to vote. 'If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on,' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said. Pro-democracy organizations welcomed the lower age, and a move toward automatic voter registration, saying it would help increase voting rates. Turnout in the 2024 election was 59.7%, the lowest level in more than two decades. The age change is part of a package of electoral reforms that includes tightening campaign financing rules and broadening the range of documents that can be used as identification at polling stations. Supporters argue it will increase democratic participation by getting teenagers into the habit of voting at a time when most are still in school. 'Younger people who are in full-time education and often still live at home can make for better, more engaged first-time voters compared with 18- to 20-year-olds, who often experience their first election in a highly transitory phase of their lives,' Christine Huebner, a social scientist at the University of Sheffield who has studied youth voting, wrote in The Guardian. Opponents argue that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be given the vote because in most ways they are not considered adults. 'Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?' Conservative lawmaker Paul Holmes asked Thursday in the House of Commons. Mark Goodwin, a senior lecturer in politics at Coventry University, agreed the move could seem paradoxical, because 'socially, if anything, we're moving in the opposite direction.' 'Increasingly the age of majority, the age at which you become a fully capable and responsible adult, is moving more towards 18,' he said. The government's political opponents on the right argue that Labor hopes to benefit from 1.5 million new potential young voters who generally lean to the left. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right party Reform UK, said Labor was trying to 'rig the system.' Conservative former foreign secretary James Cleverly said the government had cynically announced the change because it is 'tanking in the polls.' Experts say enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds is unlikely to dramatically change election results, because they are a relatively small group with diverse views. And it's far from clear that Labor will reap most of the benefits of a bigger youth vote. U.K. politics, long dominated by Labor and the Conservatives, is becoming increasingly fragmented. Polling suggests younger voters lean left, but they are split among several parties including Labor, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Farage's embrace of TikTok has built his brand with youth, and Reform has some support among young men. Goodwin said that in many parts of the world, 'young people are abandoning the center-left in droves. 'And in many cases, they're lending their support to parties of the populist right, or challenger parties, outsider parties, independents, more alternative parties,' he said. 'If it is a cynical ploy to get more Labor votes, there's certainly an element of risk about where those votes would ultimately be cast.' Lawless writes for the Associated Press.
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
Oil prices rise after EU new sanctions on Russia
Crude oil futures rose on Friday while gasoil futures jumped to a 17-month high as investors weighed new European Union sanctions against Russia. Brent crude futures climbed 89 cents, or 1.3%, to $70.41 a barrel. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures gained 96 cents, or 1.4%, to $68.50. The premium on low-sulphur gasoil futures to Brent crude was up $3.50 at $27.27, the almost 15% increase lifting the spread to its highest since February 2024. The EU reached an agreement on an 18th sanctions package against Russia over its war in Ukraine, which includes measures aimed at dealing further blows to Russia's oil and energy industries. Its latest sanctions package will lower the G7's price cap for buying Russian crude oil to $47.6 a barrel, diplomats told Reuters. The EU will also no longer import any petroleum products made from Russian crude, though the ban will not apply to imports from Norway, Britain, the U.S., Canada and Switzerland, EU diplomats said. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also said on X that the EU has designated the largest Rosneft oil refinery in India as part of the measures. Higher gasoil futures could be driven by an EU ban on fuel imports derived from Russian crude, UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo said, as well as low inventories in northwest Europe. The EU and UK have imported about 196,000 barrels per day of refined fuel from India so far this year, the majority of which was diesel, gasoil and jet fuel, according to data from analytics business Kpler. Europe produces less diesel and jet fuel than it consumes, making it reliant on imports from other regions. "This shows the market fears the loss of diesel supply into Europe, as India had been a source of barrels," said Rystad Energy's vice president of oil markets, Janiv Shah. Investors were considering the potential impact of the price cap change and vessel designations on crude markets. Investors are awaiting news from the U.S. on possible further sanctions after President Donald Trump this week threatened sanctions on buyers of Russian exports unless Moscow agrees a peace deal in 50 days. "Ultimately, it is now a matter of waiting for possible major changes in U.S. sanctions and tariff policy," Commerzbank analysts said in a note. The U.S. has not backed Europe on the latest sanctions package, leaving the EU with limited power to enforce the measures. "We expect limited impact from the lower price cap and tanker sanctions; landed prices for diesel in Europe could increase somewhat due to larger logistics issues to get products into Europe, but we think enforcement challenges limit the impact on flows," said BNP Paribas analyst Aldo Spanjer. Prices could also have received support after Reuters reported that a restart of Iraq's Kurdish oil exports is not imminent despite Iraq's federal government saying on Thursday that shipments would resume immediately.
