Russia says it will repair bombers damaged by Ukraine's drones
"The equipment in question, as was also stated by representatives of the Ministry of Defence, was not destroyed but damaged. It will be restored," Ryabkov said.
The United States assesses that Ukraine's drone attack over the weekend hit as many as 20 Russian warplanes, destroying around 10 of them, two U.S. officials told Reuters, a figure that is about half the number estimated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told U.S. President Donald Trump in a telephone conversation on Wednesday that Moscow would have to respond to the June 1 attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump may travel to China to meet Xi in 'not-too-distant future'
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he may visit China soon for a landmark trip to address simmering trade and security tensions between the superpower rivals. "President Xi has invited me to China, and we'll probably be doing that in the not-too-distant future," Trump told reporters in the White House's Oval Office. "A little bit out, but not too distant. And I've been invited by a lot of people, and we'll make those decisions pretty soon." Trump and Xi's aides have discussed a potential meeting between the leaders during a trip by the U.S. president to Asia later this year, Reuters has reported, citing two people familiar with the plans. While plans for a meeting have not been finalized, discussions on both sides of the Pacific have included a possible Trump stopover around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea or talks on the sidelines of the October 30-November 1 event, the people said. Another possible trip would be for a September 3 Beijing ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two, which Russian President Vladimir Putin also plans to attend. Meetings between Trump and Xi or Putin would be the first face-to-face encounters between the men since Trump's inauguration on January 20 for his second term in office. The White House and the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry have declined to comment on the Reuters report. Trump made the comment about meeting Xi during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a key Pacific ally who Trump said he had nudged away from China. "The country was maybe tilting toward China for a period of time, but we un-tilted it very, very quickly," Trump said. Trump added: "I don't mind if he gets along with China because we're getting along with China very well." Marcos, who took office in 2022, has for years sought U.S. support as his country's maritime disputes worsen with China. Manila has sought to avoid direct confrontation with its larger neighbor, which claims most of the South China Sea as its own territory. The U.S. and the Philippines have a seven-decade-old collective defense treaty, potentially implicating Washington in a clash between China and the Philippines. Washington sees Beijing as its key strategic rival globally. Upon taking office, Trump launched a tit-for-tat tariff war with China that has upended global trade and supply chains. Other points of friction between the countries include China's support for Russia, the illicit opioid trade, China's growing pressure on Taiwan and exit bans on some American residents. In recent weeks, Trump has sought to lower tensions, describing his personal relations with Xi as healthy. Trump has sought to impose tariffs on virtually all foreign goods, including both China and U.S. allies in Asia like the Philippines. He says this will stimulate domestic manufacturing, but critics say many consumer goods will become more expensive for Americans. The president has called for a universal base tariff rate of 10% on goods imported from all countries, with higher rates for some. Imports from China have the highest tariff rate of 55%. Trump has set a deadline of August 12 for the U.S. and China to reach a durable tariff agreement.
The National
25 minutes ago
- The National
‘No breach' by UK Government of human rights on Russia probe
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger. The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith (below), after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts. In a judgment published yesterday, the court ruled that the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free elections. The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.' There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest. 'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said. 'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.' The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee. The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023. Following the judgment, Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate. And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested. 'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.' READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations. 'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.' A UK Government spokesman said: 'We note today's judgment, which found no violation. 'We are committed to safeguarding our electoral processes, which is why we recently announced tougher new rules on political donations to protect our elections from the growing danger of foreign interference. 'These changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing loopholes that would allow foreign donors to influence elections. 'More broadly, national security is our first responsibility, and we have taken action to harden and sharpen our approach to threats – whether standing with Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion, placing Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and working with allies to monitor and counter Russian submarines and ships in UK waters.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What surging cost of borrowing means for Rachel Reeves' tax plans
A bit of a shocker has emerged on the public finances, and it is unambiguously bad news. Britain borrowed some £20.7bn last month – the second-highest June figure since records began in 1993 and behind only the panicky pandemic year of 2020. It was £6.6bn higher than in June 2024, and as much as £16.4bn of the total was accounted for by debt interest. Worse than any of that, it was higher than City expectations. The gilts market was further discomfited. Pressure on the public finances is plainly not easing… Why is government borrowing so high? Inflation, is the short answer. It was up again last month and is likely to edge higher in the coming months thanks to a bump up in energy costs. About a quarter of UK debt is index-linked to prices, which means that any uptick in official inflation feeds directly through to the public finances. And domestic pressures on public spending remain acute. Britain's government pays more to borrow funds than most comparable advanced economies thanks to Brexit, Trump's trade wars, Covid recovery, and longer-term weakness in investment and productivity. What can Rachel Reeves do about it? Keep her job is one thing. During the welfare bill rebellion fiasco earlier this month, the rumour she might be sacked or quit pushed gilt yields higher, which in turn meant that raising new money would be even more costly. Yields subsided, but stability at the Treasury is a valuable asset in itself; markets fully expect another tough Budget, as does everyone. Given setbacks in social security spending and disappointing growth, she'll probably need to raise another £20bn to be on the safe side, to deal with future shocks and meet her own her 'iron clad' fiscal rules. What are her options? Mainly new taxes, and that includes sin taxes such as on gambling, sugar in food, or petrol and diesel. She might also tighten up tax breaks on pension savings, extend the freeze in income tax thresholds, and target capital gains (again). She might also ask the Bank of England not to pay so much interest on the deposits commercial banks keep with it; that might sort most of it out, but she'll still need to look again at aspects of public spending. There seems less hope that the two-child benefit cap will be lifted. What about her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules? The person Reeves would have to negotiate with is Rachel Reeves, so it's possible she could persuade herself to tweak the rules again; but as she pointed out at the recent Mansion House dinner, rules about borrowing merely reflect the reality of market sentiment. If the market can tolerate another adjustment, it might happen – but probably not at the moment. Will the Bank of England still cut interest rates in August? Yes. The weight of expectations is too heavy and the Bank still judges that, a year to 18 months out, inflation will subside back toward the target rate of 2 per cent (absent any nasty surprises). So interest rates will be down to 4 per cent next month; after that, we may have a bit of a wait because service sector and wage inflation remain stubbornly elevated. Does any of this matter politically? Labour desperately needs to win a reputation for economic competence, and the image of a government not in control of spending and debt would dump the party out of office for another generation. A Tory or Reform government on the back of chaos would be a nailed-on certainty for the next election, whenever it comes. However, an immediate major crash, such as was seen after the 2022 Truss mini budget, the collapse of Sterling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, or the 1976 IMF crisis, doesn't seem likely. It's more of a long, thankless and politically bruising slog for the next few years to get the public finances on a sustainable basis. Contrary to some predictions, Reeves may have to have longer in her 'dream job' than even she might wish for.
