logo
Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?

Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?

SBS Australia5 days ago
"Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef. Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know what I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing.' When United States President Donald Trump singled out Australia's ban on US beef imports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would never compromise on protecting farmers or biosecurity. "We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity. We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination. Indeed, we've made it a priority to strengthen biosecurity, because one of the things that makes Australian food and fibre the best in the world is a people everywhere, know that it stands for quality. It also stands for safety." Now, ahead of the tariff deadline on August 1, Australia's restrictions on US beef imports have been dropped. But the government says the timing of the decision is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Minister for Agriculture, Julie Collins, says a review into the US beef ban began in 2015 under the Coalition Government. "This decision has been purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department. Biosecurity risk assessment process is very robust and I have faith in the officials in my department to do this appropriately. These are experts in the field. Australia's biosecurity system is world-renowned for a reason and this assessment has now been completed." In 2019, Australia changed restrictions to allow beef imports from cattle traceably born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. In practice, however, the ongoing biosecurity rules meant that only a small amount of beef, largely shelf-stable products, were imported from the US. "We are assured that the supply chain and traceability and the safety of any food coming into Australia is safe. The US, of course, has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. Our farmers, are of course, are exporting already to the United States. We're exporting over four billion dollars' worth of beef to the United States presently and our farmers are a net beneficiary of our two-way trading system." So, why was the ban imposed in the first place? And should Australians be concerned about eating beef imported from the US? In 2003, Australia placed restrictions on the import of US beef in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Humans cannot contract mad cow disease, though in rare cases they can develop a variant which leads to dementia and premature death. However, the Australian food regulator deems US beef is low-risk. Trade Minister Don Farrell says the government would not compromise standards for trade. "We have not made any compromise and we certainly have not compromised Australia's strict biosecurity laws. This has been a process that's been underway for the last 10 years. It's now come to a completion and it's appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry. But at no stage do we risk our terrific biosecurity standards for any trade arrangement." One key concern remaining after 2019 was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. However, the government says the review has found that the US Department of Agriculture protocols for beef imported from Canada and Mexico now address Australia's biosecurity concerns. Mark Thomas, the Chair of the Western Beef Association, says it's unclear how effective the US tracking system is. "Well, we implement an NIL system, as they call it, so any animal that's born on your property has a electronic tag, and that same tag is scanned and transferred whenever that animal leaves your property, all the way through to sort of slaughter. So an animal that's been slaughtered, they can go back and work out where that animal has been over its lifetime. I am unsure how quickly America can get up to speed. However, it's taken many, many years for Australia to implement that system and make sure that it works efficiently." Despite government assurances, National Party leader David Littleproud is among critics calling for an independent examination into the matter. "The government has not provided or released the protocols on which the beef from the U.S could be imported into this country. Those are the legal requirements that an importer would have to meet to bring beef from the United States into Australia, that was from Mexico or Canada. The fact they haven't done that raises serious concerns to me around how this decision has been made and the timing of it. If it was well planned, the department would be able to provide me with those details. They have not. I think the prudent way forward is to have an independent scientific panel review the department's decision and the protocols when they came out." Along with concerns about the spread of disease, there are also concerns about differing US regulations around the use of hormones and antibiotics on cattle. While some cattle in the US are given approved natural or synthetic hormones to help them grow, the US Food and Drug Administration regulates these, and experts say they are in extremely low levels. US beef, according to both Australian and US officials, is safe to eat, but is it better than Australian beef? Evangeline Mantzioris is the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia. She says the diet of an animal impacts the nutritional value of the meat. "What it comes down to is the type of feed that the animals are given. So in the US they tend to be grain-fed whilst here in Australia, they tend to be grass-fed, and that produces differences in the way that the body of the cow handles it and in the way that they make and lay down fat in their body. The other thing that might make a slight difference is also the genetics of the cows. So assuming it's the same breed of cow, we expect grain-fed to lead to more fat in the meat compared to grass-fed." Studies show that grass-fed beef can be 30 to 75 per cent lower in fat than grain-fed. Grass-fed is also reported to have higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 fats, up to five times more antioxidants, and slightly higher protein, with some studies also indicating lower cholesterol. So, for consumers, choosing between local and imported beef will mostly come down to personal preference rather than health concerns. Dr Mantzioris says while the differences aren't major, grass-fed beef is the best option. "So if we combine all of those different components of the beef that we've looked at, overall grass fed beef, which is what we have in Australia, is the healthier option." But what about Australian farmers? When Australia lifted the ban, Donald Trump wrote on social media that the US was now going to sell 'so much beef' to Australia. Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world. And while Australians are some of the highest per capita consumers of beef products, our relatively small population means we have a lot left to export. Mark Thomas says he isn't too worried about competing with U-S products. "Well, I suppose, from a from a cattle perspective's point of view, our only concern would be if we thought that US beef was going to compete with our own product here in Australia, and I don't believe that that is going to do so based on the price of cattle in the US over a longer period of time and considering their cattle numbers compared to what we have here in Australia." In fact, US cattle stocks have been in decline for two decades. The United States is the second largest importer of beef globally and cattle stocks in the country are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. The US Department of Agriculture says beef prices have increased by 8 per cent since the start of 2025, with one kilogram of beef costing around AU$30.. Mark Thomas says with beef shortages in the United States, it's unlikely the Australian market is going to be flooded with imported US beef. "Well, currently, there's a lot of Australian beef going into the US market, purely because they need it. At the moment, cattle prices in the US are just quoting a heavy steer close to $5 whereas that same animal in Australia is only going for $2.50 so how can they purchase an animal for $5 a kilo? Process it, send it to the other side of the world and expect to compete with the product that we have here?" While beef prices have been increasing in the United States, Australian beef exports broke an all-time monthly record in June. And the biggest buyer was, that's right, the United States. In New York, Stew Leonard Junior is the CEO of a grocery chain. He says he gets grass-fed beef from Australia and plans on splitting the tariff cost with his supplier. "We are a huge meat purchaser, and it's mainly the US. So you know, there could be some, that's one of our trains going by up there, okay, for the kids right there, they love that. But one of the things we don't get a lot from Australia, the only thing we do get is our grass-fed beef. They sell beautiful grass- fed beef in Australia. That's being tariffed a little bit. We're splitting that tariff with our supplier. We don't really buy beef from Canada or Mexico or Argentina."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Do class actions really deliver justice?
Do class actions really deliver justice?

ABC News

time2 hours ago

  • ABC News

Do class actions really deliver justice?

Sam Hawley: On average, there's a class action launched in Australia every week. But do they really help bring justice to groups of Australians exposed to wrongdoing? Today, Anne Connolly on her Four Corners investigation into the class action traps leaving victims short-changed and lawyers richer. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Anne, in Australia, class actions have become pretty common, haven't they? It's a really important way to address injustices in this country. Anne Connolly: Well, yes, that's what class actions are designed to do. And I mean, when there were some really major catastrophes, such as the Victorian bushfires, the Queensland floods, class actions were taken to get some money back for those people. News report: Property owners around Horsham in Victoria have banded together to bring the first class action arising from the Black Saturday bushfires. Anne Connolly: Same with the pelvic mesh issue against Johnson & Johnson. News report: The federal court found Johnson & Johnson had been negligent and driven by commercial interest and ordered them to pay compensation. Anne Connolly: There's many, and they're very varied. Sam Hawley: Yeah, and you found during your Four Corners investigation, this is a billion dollar industry, but it's not always in favour of the individual victims. So to explain this further, why don't we look at a recent case, Anne, a legal fight between more than 8,000 Australian taxi drivers and Uber. Anne Connolly: Well, I mean, I think most people remember when Uber entered the market, obviously the taxi industry was absolutely decimated. They just couldn't compete any longer. One of the taxi owners I spoke to is a man called Stephen Lacaze. He said he had a licence in Queensland, which was at the time valued at about half a million dollars. It went to being virtually worthless once Uber came along. Stephen Lacaze, taxi owner: Oh, it was devastating. People virtually went into shock. Anne Connolly: So when Maurice Blackburn, which is one of the biggest class action firms in Australia, came along and proposed a class action, he was very keen to sign up. Stephen Lacaze, taxi owner: We were friendless. And here comes Maurice Blackburn with their Bradman-like batting averages, and their 'we fight for fair' banner, and we're there with bells on. Sam Hawley: OK, so Stephen was keen to fight this. Maurice Blackburn lawyers take it on, and they get a third party, a litigation funder, to pay the costs. Just explain how that works. Anne Connolly: Yeah, so what happens is Maurice Blackburn doesn't want to go this alone. So what they do is they engage somebody called a litigation funder. And litigation funders, they pay the lawyers' fees, they support them, and if they lose, they pay all of the costs, so there is some risk. But in return for taking that risk, they want a percentage of any payout that they win. So in this case, with Maurice Blackburn, they had a partnership with an offshore firm called Harbour Litigation Funding, which is actually registered in the Cayman Islands. It's a tax haven, and there's quite a few litigation funders in tax havens. Under this deal, they said, we want 30% of the proceeds. And Stephen signed up for that, as did most of the taxi drivers. Stephen said he did that because he thought they were going to get a payout worth billions because that's how much they'd lost. Sam Hawley: So in this case, Maurice Blackburn, the law firm, ends up settling this class action. So just tell me what happens then. Are the taxi drivers elated about this? Anne Connolly: Well, the night before the trial was due to start in March last year, Maurice Blackburn brokered a deal with Uber. That would be that Uber would pay $272 million in compensation. Now, once Harbour took its commission, that came out at $81.5 million. Maurice Blackburn took its legal costs, which came to $39 million. It means that the drivers were left with just over half the payout. Now, we don't know what individual taxi drivers will get. Stephen Lacaze believes he'll get about $20,000 once all of these fees and commissions come out of his payment, which he says is nowhere near what he lost. Sam Hawley: What did Maurice Blackburn have to say about that? Anne Connolly: They said the federal court had approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, and Harbour, the funder, said that the case was long-running and there were significant risks. Sam Hawley: Hmm, OK. So, Anne, that's the case of the taxi drivers against Uber, and we're going to talk about another really concerning case in a moment. But before we do, let's just look at the system more deeply. The worry here is that the whole class action system is set up to make profits for the law firms and the funders, but not deliver the justice to the victims, right? Anne Connolly: Well, there's some people who are concerned about that. I mean, the lawyers and the funders will say, without us, people would get nothing. The problem is that what's happening now is most people think a class action begins with a group of victims, but that's not really the case anymore. Now everything has changed because litigation funders have now entered the Australian market. So what happens is, it's the law firms and the litigation funders getting together and seeing, what are these issues that we could launch a class action on so that they can make money and then they can sign up the group members? So the concern is, are they really seeking justice for people or are they actually just finding a business opportunity so that they can make as much profit as they possibly can? Sam Hawley: Anne, let's now look at another case where the victims are left with, in comparison, petty change. Just tell me about Minnie McDonald. Anne Connolly: So Minnie McDonald is a woman in her 90s. She lives in Alice Springs and she was approached by Shine lawyers to become what's called the lead plaintiff in a class action in the Northern Territory for stolen wages of Indigenous workers who worked on cattle stations and missions for little or no money. Minnie McDonald, lead plaintiff: No shoes, get up in the morning, go to work. Come back afternoon, cold. Anne Connolly: So this case relates to the treatment of people like Minnie who, along with a lot of other... ..thousands of other Aboriginal men, women and children worked for little or no pay between the 1930s and the 1970s. Look, I just think, you know, one of the things I want to say about this is if ever there was a class action needed, perhaps it was in this particular case. I mean, there's questions about why the governments didn't just actually pay people what they deserved instead of being forced to court and forced to pay out compensation. But in any case, what Shine says and what the litigation funder says is we were doing our very best to get right a particular historical injustice. Sam Hawley: So the law firm Shine takes on this class action along with the litigation funder, Litigation Lending Services, and Minnie becomes the lead plaintiff. But the thing is, Anne, we know with legal cases, there's a lot of paperwork and Minnie had to sign a lot of that and she can't read or write. Anne Connolly: That's right, she can't read or write. So Minnie had her granddaughter Elizabeth to help her. However, Elizabeth does say, you know, it was complicated. It was difficult to understand at times. So Minnie did sign one document which said that Shine's costs had increased by $10 million and she signed off on that. I asked her about it and I asked her granddaughter if they remembered it. They didn't. I asked Shine, did they check that Minnie had the capacity to understand the complex legal and financial issues around class actions? They said being unable to read or write is no indication of intelligence and that they had an Indigenous barrister who helped to cross these cultural barriers and explain the process to them. Sam Hawley: So tell me what ended up happening with the case. Anne Connolly: So there were two class actions in WA and the NT and they both settled. So they didn't go to court. In Western Australia, there was a settlement for $180 million. In the Northern Territory, it was $200 million. Which sounds, you know, really positive. But what has to come out of that are the legal costs and the commission for the litigation funder. So they're not going to end up with that much. They'll end up with at least $10,000 and some will end up with more than that. Minnie McDonald, lead plaintiff: So somebody might... get a car and just take me for a picnic somewhere, you know, have a feed. But... I didn't get enough. Anne Connolly: You didn't get enough to buy a car? Minnie McDonald, lead plaintiff: Yeah, yeah. Nothing. Not enough. Anne Connolly: On the other hand, what's happened is Shine Lawyers is going to get about $30 million for its work. And the funder, Litigation Lending Services, they will take a commission of about $57 million. Sam Hawley: And you've had a really good look, haven't you, also, at the amount the law firm Shine was actually charging. Anne Connolly: Well, that's very interesting because Shine was roundly criticised in both WA and Northern Territory courts by the judges there. In one instance, Shine was charging for law clerks, charging them out at $375 an hour, even though many of them were unqualified uni students. They hired at least a dozen barristers that cost almost $3.5 million. One of those barristers charges almost $5,000 an hour. So, you know, the legal costs are the things that's really interesting. Sam Hawley: All right. So, Anne, the law firms and the funds are making a lot of money from these class actions in many cases. They do argue, as you mentioned, that they're actually giving people a chance to have these cases heard. What has Shine told you? Anne Connolly: Well, Shine said we were the only ones who were willing to take this on. We have given Aboriginal workers a chance to tell their stories. They've received compensation and they're being acknowledged for the historical injustices that they've suffered. And they said that these cases require experienced and well-resourced lawyers. And Litigation Lending Services, they said that they're proud of their involvement and that their commission was lower than the standard market rates because they wanted to reflect the social justice nature of these claims. Sam Hawley: And you spoke to the head of the Association of Litigation Funders. So this is a group that represents the firms that financially back these class actions, the funds. Its head is John Walker. So what's he had to say? Anne Connolly: Well, he said, look, you know, this is a market. This is a financial market that they operate in. They're trying to get some justice for people, but at the same time they're trying to make a profit and they don't shy away from that. John Walker, Association of Litigation Funders : We underwrite the project. We'll pay everybody if we lose, but in return, if we win, then we get a share of the recovery. We don't see it as gambling. We see it as investing. It's a market, and I don't step away from that. Anne Connolly: He essentially says, look, what we're doing is we're trying to correct the bad behaviour. Even if these class members are not getting enormous sums, it's sending a message to the big end of town that you can't operate in this way any longer. John Walker, Association of Litigation Funders : I'm absolutely proud of what's happened with class actions in Australia. They're absolutely essential to create accountability in respect of the big companies and governments. Sam Hawley: But, Anne, it does sound like a system that's not really working as it should. That is for the everyday people who need it. Anne Connolly: Well, I think what happens is a lot of people look at a class action sum and they believe that the sum that's been publicised is what people are getting. They don't realise that up to half of it can disappear in fees and commissions. The other point being the only class actions that actually get funded and get run are those that turn a profit. So when you're talking about others that might be very worthy, they won't get up if the bottom line doesn't look good. I think the problem arises when you're talking about people who have really suffered, such as these Aboriginal workers in the stolen wages cases who thought that they were going to get some proper compensation and what they're getting is simply a fraction of what they really deserve. And when they do see litigation funders and lawyers walking away with tens of millions of dollars, it makes it difficult for them to understand and sometimes it can feel like they've been exploited all over again. Sam Hawley: Anne Connolly is an investigative reporter with the ABC. You can see her Four Corners report on ABC TV tonight at 8.30pm or you can catch it on iView. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

100,000 march in Melbourne and Sydney to protest Israel's bombardment of Gaza
100,000 march in Melbourne and Sydney to protest Israel's bombardment of Gaza

The Age

time2 hours ago

  • The Age

100,000 march in Melbourne and Sydney to protest Israel's bombardment of Gaza

As the crowd approached the police line, organiser Mohammad Sharab called on protesters to 'prove to the world that this is not a movement that will clash with police' and told them to stay back or sit down. 'We are sitting here for Palestine … peacefully,' he said. 'We need to calm down, show everybody who we are. We have women, children, vulnerable people. We are responsible people. 'They are holding their guns, their weapons, against people who are protesting peacefully. Shame on Victoria Police, shame.' One woman wearing a keffiyeh approached the police line to say 'keep our children safe' and another protester told the heavily armed officers the police blockade was a 'waste of taxpayer dollars'. Protest marshals formed a line to keep distance between the police and protesters. Demonstrators chanted 'Free Palestine' and 'Not a target'. 'Thank you for blocking the bridge. You did our job for us!' one masked protester shouted at the police. Standing on the bridge a few metres from the police line, Kevin Bracken said he had attended most protests and all had been peaceful. 'It's right over the top, isn't it?' he said. 'It's sending the message, who runs Victoria? They couldn't stop it in NSW, but the politicians here are puppet masters. This is about what's happening in Gaza. This is about starving children.' After the larger protest dispersed about 3pm, a small spin-off group stopped traffic and started burning an Australian flag and spray-painting 'Abolish Australia' on Spencer Street. When asked whether they represented the broader protest movement, one person in a grey hoodie and black mask shook her head and walked away. 'We're just concerned citizens,' said another. 'No group.' They chanted 'Too many coppers, not enough justice' and 'Free Palestine' before police arrived and the crowd of fewer than one dozen people dispersed. Earlier in the day, former Greens candidate for Wills Samantha Ratnam addressed the crowd to roaring applause and clanging pots, a symbol of food shortages in Gaza. She said Labor was feeling pressure amid rising calls for Israeli sanctions and greater scrutiny on contracts for military parts. 'The more they minimise us ... the more and more they're being overwhelmed [by the] community telling them they're on the wrong side of history,' she said. Rally organiser Mohammad Sharab said the protests were about peace and humanity, criticising the media and politicians for calling the protesters 'extremists'. 'We stand for justice ... We are not ashamed of it. For those who call us extremist and antisemitic for standing against genocide, these extreme comments make you the extremist. That's my message to [Premier] Jacinta Allan,' he said. Palestinian activist Basil El Ghattis held up pictures of children aged from six months to 17 years old, suffering severe malnutrition from the aid blockade in Gaza. 'The starvation of Palestinians today is a page out of the colonial playbook,' he said. 'We must hold our government to account.' Earlier, a Victoria Police spokeswoman said the force repeatedly engaged with Melbourne protest organisers to persuade them not to gather on the King Street Bridge, but rally plans had not changed. She said officers would have a visible presence in the city on Sunday, with additional police brought in from outside metropolitan Melbourne. Police confirmed there were no arrests, but they were following up a report that an egg was thrown at a person during the protest Organisers from the Free Palestine Coalition said the police decision to bring in hundreds of additional officers was a waste of resources for a peaceful protest. 'Gaza is suffering from an ongoing forced man-made famine and ongoing bombing of civilians,' the coalition said. 'This is exactly why organisers are holding the protest to King Street Bridge ... to let the good people of the city of Melbourne know that there are atrocities happening in Gaza, and that we as a community have an opportunity to change the status quo, and bring about change.' Loading The Israeli government has denied claims of genocide and starvation in Gaza, claiming the war is an act of self-defence. Premier Jacinta Allan warned protesters there would be consequences for anyone who caused chaos in the CBD. 'There are strong operational arrangements in place for today. Those are in place to support people's safety,' she said at a press conference on Sunday morning before the protest. 'Anyone who breaks the law, anyone who compromises community safety will be dealt with swiftly by Victoria Police.' Opposition Leader Brad Battin said it was vital that rallies had to receive a permit to go-ahead and police were given powers to 'move on' protesters, to avoid circumstances where major roads were closed. '[The state government] hasn't brought the legislation in to ensure we've got registration of protests here in our state … to keep the community moving and keep the community safe,' he said. Last week, Police Chief Commissioner, Mike Bush, ruled out introducing protest permits in Victoria, saying they had not been a game-changer in other states. On Sunday, Battin urged the chief commissioner to reconsider, suggesting a stance against protest permits was the wrong message for Victoria. 'The chief commissioner has been here for a short period of time, not for all 92 of these protests that have happened in the city ... But the reality is, the legislation lies with the government.' The Victorian government last year announced it would criminalise face masks at protests and the use of glue, rope, chains and other devices that cause disruptions, but it is yet to bring the bill to parliament.

Russian, Chinese navies hold drills in Sea of Japan
Russian, Chinese navies hold drills in Sea of Japan

The Advertiser

time4 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

Russian, Chinese navies hold drills in Sea of Japan

The Russian and Chinese navies are carrying out artillery and anti-submarine drills in the Sea of Japan as part of scheduled joint exercises, the Russian Pacific Fleet says. The drills are taking place two days after US President Donald Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. However, they were scheduled well before Trump's action. Interfax news agency quoted the Pacific Fleet as saying Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers. 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 exercises titled "Maritime Interaction-2025" which are scheduled to end on Tuesday. Interfax said Russian and Chinese sailors would conduct artillery firing, practise anti-submarine and air defence missions, and improve joint search and rescue operations at sea. Russia and China, which signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership shortly before Russia went to war in Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular military exercises to rehearse co-ordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries. Trump said his submarine order on Friday was made in response to what he called "highly provocative" remarks by Russia's Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. It is extremely rare for either country to discuss the deployment and location of its nuclear submarines. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension with Moscow as he grows frustrated at the lack of progress towards ending the Ukraine war. The Russian and Chinese navies are carrying out artillery and anti-submarine drills in the Sea of Japan as part of scheduled joint exercises, the Russian Pacific Fleet says. The drills are taking place two days after US President Donald Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. However, they were scheduled well before Trump's action. Interfax news agency quoted the Pacific Fleet as saying Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers. 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 exercises titled "Maritime Interaction-2025" which are scheduled to end on Tuesday. Interfax said Russian and Chinese sailors would conduct artillery firing, practise anti-submarine and air defence missions, and improve joint search and rescue operations at sea. Russia and China, which signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership shortly before Russia went to war in Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular military exercises to rehearse co-ordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries. Trump said his submarine order on Friday was made in response to what he called "highly provocative" remarks by Russia's Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. It is extremely rare for either country to discuss the deployment and location of its nuclear submarines. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension with Moscow as he grows frustrated at the lack of progress towards ending the Ukraine war. The Russian and Chinese navies are carrying out artillery and anti-submarine drills in the Sea of Japan as part of scheduled joint exercises, the Russian Pacific Fleet says. The drills are taking place two days after US President Donald Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. However, they were scheduled well before Trump's action. Interfax news agency quoted the Pacific Fleet as saying Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers. 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 exercises titled "Maritime Interaction-2025" which are scheduled to end on Tuesday. Interfax said Russian and Chinese sailors would conduct artillery firing, practise anti-submarine and air defence missions, and improve joint search and rescue operations at sea. Russia and China, which signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership shortly before Russia went to war in Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular military exercises to rehearse co-ordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries. Trump said his submarine order on Friday was made in response to what he called "highly provocative" remarks by Russia's Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. It is extremely rare for either country to discuss the deployment and location of its nuclear submarines. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension with Moscow as he grows frustrated at the lack of progress towards ending the Ukraine war. The Russian and Chinese navies are carrying out artillery and anti-submarine drills in the Sea of Japan as part of scheduled joint exercises, the Russian Pacific Fleet says. The drills are taking place two days after US President Donald Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. However, they were scheduled well before Trump's action. Interfax news agency quoted the Pacific Fleet as saying Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers. 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 exercises titled "Maritime Interaction-2025" which are scheduled to end on Tuesday. Interfax said Russian and Chinese sailors would conduct artillery firing, practise anti-submarine and air defence missions, and improve joint search and rescue operations at sea. Russia and China, which signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership shortly before Russia went to war in Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular military exercises to rehearse co-ordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries. Trump said his submarine order on Friday was made in response to what he called "highly provocative" remarks by Russia's Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. It is extremely rare for either country to discuss the deployment and location of its nuclear submarines. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension with Moscow as he grows frustrated at the lack of progress towards ending the Ukraine war.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store