Russia conducts ‘retaliatory strikes' on Ukrainian airfield
Russian forces have conducted overnight strikes on a Ukrainian airfield in the western Rovno Region, the Defense Ministry in Moscow reported on Monday. The strikes are part of Moscow's retaliation for Ukrainian 'terrorist attacks' against Russian air forces, the statement said.
Last week, Ukrainian intelligence services claimed to have delivered a significant blow to Russian air power by bombing airfields deep inside the country with short-range first person view drones launched from concealed compartments in freight cars. Moscow has accused Kiev of seriously exaggerating the effect of the operation.
The Russian military has framed several of its recent operations as retaliation for the drone plot as well as the deadly derailment of a passenger train which occurred on the same day. Investigators have said forensic evidence unequivocally linked the incident to Kiev's broader efforts to sabotage transport infrastructure and demoralize the Russian public.
The latest retaliation strikes outlined on Monday also included the bombing of Ukrainian weapons plants, locations where Ukrainian kamikaze drones were being assembled, munition depots, and other military targets.
Earlier in the day, the ministry reported that overnight Russian air defense forces had intercepted 79 Ukrainian kamikaze drones, which Kiev launches daily against targets deep inside Russia. One such recent operation caused a major blackout in the border Kursk Region, according to local authorities.
Ukrainian media claimed that Russia used hypersonic air-launched Kinzhal rockets to strike the Dubno airfield, but Moscow did not specify the weapons involved. Kiev reportedly stations some Western-donated F-16 fighter jets in Rovno Region alongside its Soviet legacy warplanes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
NATO's spending hike math doesn't add up
NATO expects a military conflict with Russia within the next five years yet plans to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP only by 2035, a timeline that Russian Foreign Ministry official Vladislav Maslennikov pointed out as contradictory during a Valdai Discussion Club session on Friday. At a summit held in The Hague this week, members of the US-led bloc pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, citing what they described as the 'long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security.' US President Donald Trump, who has consistently pressed European allies to take on more of the defense burden, welcomed the deal as a 'monumental win.' Maslennikov, who heads up the ministry's Department for European Cooperation questioned how the bloc justifies a distant spending target while simultaneously anticipating a near-term confrontation. 'It's not just the logic that's flawed — the arithmetic doesn't add up either,' Maslennikov said. 'If the public is being told that Russia is expected to launch an attack by 2030, then why is the European Union only aiming to be fully prepared by 2035? It doesn't make much sense,' he argued. Another challenge NATO faces on defense policy is the lack of a unified stance among member states regarding dialogue with Russia, Maslennikov believes. While some EU nations see engagement as necessary, others advocate for cutting ties with Russia entirely. 'Some want to rule out any possibility of future dialogue with us, while others acknowledge that, sooner or later, constructive engagement will be necessary – after all, geography cannot be changed,' Maslennikov said. According to the diplomat, the so-called 'Russian threat' is a 'highly convenient construct for NATO.' Moscow believes reversing this narrative will be difficult and it has no intention of making the first move toward restoring constructive engagement. 'Much will depend on how our relationship with the United States evolves,' he stressed. Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed the rhetoric about the threat posed by Russia to NATO as an 'inconceivable lie' used by Western governments to justify tax increases and the diversion of public funds to the military-industrial complex. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last week, Putin warned that this kind of military posturing only escalates global tensions while diverting resources from social and economic needs.
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia's surprising role in the Israel-Iran conflict that you might not know about
During a recent visit to Turkmenistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with his counterparts and addressed students at the Institute of International Relations in Ashgabat. Among the central themes of his remarks was the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel – a confrontation that not only affects global geopolitics but also directly impacts the security dynamics of Central Asia. For Turkmenistan – which shares over 1,100km of border with Iran and has its capital just miles from that border – the growing tension poses serious risks. Beyond humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a wider war could awaken dormant radical networks and destabilize fragile domestic balances. These risks extend beyond Turkmenistan to other southern former Soviet republics that maintain close political and military ties with Russia. Against this backdrop, Lavrov's call for de-escalation and regional stability carried added weight. For Moscow, Iran is not just a partner – it's a pillar in the buffer zone securing Russia's southern flank. Instability in Tehran could ripple across Central Asia, threatening Russia's near-abroad. In January of this year, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement, institutionalizing bilateral ties and hinting at a future formal alliance. Tellingly, just days after Israeli airstrikes targeted Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi flew to Moscow, met with President Vladimir Putin, and held talks with Lavrov. He later described the visit as marked by 'complete mutual understanding' and emphasized Russia's support in an interview with the news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed. Russia, along with China and Pakistan, has since pushed a new UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and a pathway to political settlement. As Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia noted, the resolution aims to stop further escalation. Yet Moscow has been careful in its public rhetoric. At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin avoided inflammatory language toward Israel, instead stressing the need for a diplomatic solution acceptable to all sides. This cautious tone reflects Russia's balancing act: deepening ties with Tehran while maintaining working – and in some cases warm – relations with Israel, including in military and humanitarian channels. That dual posture allows Russia to position itself as a potential mediator, should either party seek a negotiated outcome. On June 13, as Israeli airstrikes intensified, Russia quickly condemned the attacks and voiced strong concern about violations of Iranian sovereignty. Putin went further, calling US behavior in the region 'unprovoked aggression.' Moscow's message was clear: it opposed outside military interventions – full stop. Days before Araghchi's trip, Putin publicly revealed that Russia had offered Iran expanded cooperation on air defense systems, an offer Tehran had not pursued. Far from a rebuke, it read as a nudge: if the strategic partnership is real, Iran needs to meet Russia halfway. Moscow remains open to closer defense collaboration, including integrating Iran's air defense into a broader regional security framework. In retrospect, had Tehran taken up the offer earlier, it might have been better prepared to repel the strikes. For Russia, security is measured not in rhetoric, but in results – and it expects its partners to act accordingly. Crucially, the 2025 strategic agreement between Moscow and Tehran does not entail mutual defense obligations. It is not the Russian equivalent of NATO's Article 5, nor does it mandate automatic military assistance. As Putin clarified, the pact reflects political trust and coordination – not a blank check for joint warfare. In fact, the treaty explicitly forbids either side from supporting a third party that launches aggression against the other. Russia has held to that standard – refusing to engage with perceived aggressors, while voicing diplomatic solidarity with Iran and condemning destabilizing actions by the US and Israel. In short, the architecture of the partnership is built on sovereign respect and strategic equilibrium – not entangling commitments. It centers on military-technical cooperation, coordinated diplomacy via BRICS and the SCO, and shared interest in regional stability. But it stops short of dragging Russia into wars that don't pose a direct threat to its national security. One development drew particular attention: just after Araghchi's Kremlin visit, US President Donald Trump abruptly called for a ceasefire and adopted a noticeably softer tone on Iran. With the exception of a few pointed posts on Truth Social, his messaging turned markedly more measured. Prior to his trip to Moscow, Araghchi emphasized in Istanbul that consultations with Russia were 'strategic and not ceremonial.' He made clear that Tehran viewed the partnership as a platform for sensitive security coordination – not just protocol. Whether by coincidence or not, the shift in US rhetoric suggests Moscow's influence may have quietly shaped the trajectory of events. Russia, after all, is one of the few actors with open channels to both Tehran and Tel Aviv. It's entirely plausible that the Kremlin served as a behind-the-scenes intermediary, securing at least a temporary pause in hostilities. Russia remains a calibrated but consequential player in the Middle East. Accusations that Moscow has failed to 'stand by' Iran are speculative and largely unfounded – both politically and legally. Russia offers solidarity, coordination, and leverage – not unconditional support for escalation. And in a region where words matter as much as missiles, a subtle shift in language from Washington – timed to quiet talks in the Kremlin – may say more than any press release. Diplomacy, after all, often moves where cameras don't.
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine in NATO would mean WWIII
Ukrainian accession to NATO would lead to an immediate all-out war with Russia and World War III, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has also cautioned against hastily admitting Ukraine into the EU. Budapest has long opposed Brussels' policies on the Ukraine conflict, including weapons deliveries and sanctions on Russia. It has also urged against integrating Ukraine into NATO and the EU. In a post on X on Saturday, Orban wrote that Ukrainian membership in NATO 'would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day.' He added that the 'EU's reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe.' The Hungarian prime minister described the EU leadership's approach as 'insanity,' vowing not to 'let them turn Europe into a battlefield. Orban's X post came after an interview with Hungarian media on Friday, in which he argued that the admission of Ukraine into the EU would ruin the entire bloc, including Hungary's economy. He previously outlined his concerns over cheap Ukrainian produce undercutting Hungarian farmers. He added that Ukraine's borders and population will remain fluid for as long as the conflict with Russia lasts, making EU membership untenable. On Thursday, Budapest vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev's accession talks. Under EU rules, unanimous approval from all 27 member states is required to initiate the process. According to a communique issued by the bloc, the issue is expected to be brought up again at the council's next meeting in October. Commenting on his country's stance earlier this week, Orban cited the results of a consultative vote in Hungary that ran from mid-April to June 20, which asked: 'Do you support Ukraine's European Union membership?' According to the prime minister, 95% of more than 2 million participants rejected Ukraine's EU aspirations. Earlier this month, Orban insisted that even though the Ukraine conflict is 'unwinnable… war-hungry politicians want us to believe that we must continue the war.' 'We do not want to die for Ukraine. We don't want our sons to come back in a coffin. We don't want an Afghanistan next door,' he said, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. He went on to criticize the increasing militarization of the EU, for which the European Council formally approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing mechanism last month. Moscow has long opposed Ukraine's bid to join NATO, but had until recently maintained a neutral stance regarding its EU ambitions. However, in light of the EU's 'rabid' militarization, senior Russian officials have recently expressed reservations regarding EU membership as well.
