Russia says the West is involved in Ukraine's attacks on civilian targets
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday that the West was involved, both directly and indirectly, in Ukrainian 'terrorist attacks' against civilian targets in Russia.
US President Donald Trump's Ukraine envoy said the risk of escalation from the war in Ukraine was 'going way up' after Ukrainian forces used drones to strike nuclear-capable bombers at several airbases deep inside Russia.
Russia's State Investigative Committee on Tuesday accused Ukraine of carrying out 'acts of terrorism' by blowing up two railway bridges in Russia over the weekend. The blowing up of a highway bridge over a passenger train in Bryansk left at least seven people dead and dozens injured, including two children.
Asked if Russia thought the West was involved in the attacks over recent days, Zakharova said the West supplied weapons, gave target coordinates, refused to condemn such attacks and actively incited such attacks.
'These are several areas that prove the fact of the involvement, both direct and indirect, and the guilt of the West for the terrorist attacks that are taking place against civilians and civilian infrastructure facilities by the Kyiv regime,' Zakharova said.
Ukraine has not commented on the weekend bridge attacks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Iran could again enrich uranium 'in matter of months': IAEA chief
WASHINGTON: UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi says Iran likely will be able to begin to produce enriched uranium 'in a matter of months,' despite damage to several nuclear facilities from US and Israeli attacks, CBS News said Saturday. Israel launched a bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites on June 13, saying it was aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — an ambition the Islamic republic has consistently denied. The United States subsequently bombed three key facilities used for Tehran's atomic program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the extent of the damage to the nuclear sites is 'serious,' but the details are unknown. US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back 'decades.' But Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said 'some is still standing.' 'They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that,' Grossi said Friday, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday. Another key question is whether Iran was able to relocate some or all of its estimated 408.6-kilo (900-pound) stockpile of highly enriched uranium before the attacks. The uranium in question is enriched to 60 percent — above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. Grossi admitted to CBS: 'We don't know where this material could be.' 'So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification,' he said in the interview. For now, Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and Tehran rejected Grossi's request for a visit to the damaged sites, especially Fordo, the main uranium enrichment facility. 'We need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened,' Grossi said. In a separate interview with Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures' program, Trump said he did not think the stockpile had been moved. 'It's a very hard thing to do plus we didn't give much notice,' he said, according to excerpts of the interview. 'They didn't move anything.' US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday underscored Washington's support for 'the IAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran,' commending Grossi and his agency for their 'dedication and professionalism.' The full Grossi interview will air on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan' on Sunday.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
G7 agrees to exempt US multinationals from global minimum tax
OTTAWA: The Group of Seven nations said Saturday they have agreed to exempt US multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries — a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see US companies benefit from a 'side-by-side' solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to 'recently proposed changes to the US international tax system' included in Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could 'provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward,' it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticized by Trump, includes two 'pillars,' the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 percent. The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the US companies from that tax — or not. The G7 said it looked forward to 'expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all.' On Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signaled that a 'joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests' was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to 'to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill' — Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a 'revenge tax,' allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on US businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States.
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Missile exchanges may have ended — but questions remain
As befits 21st century diplomacy, US President Donald Trump announced a complete and total ceasefire between Iran and Israel on social media, congratulating 'everyone' for this, especially himself. After regrettable violations within the first few hours of the truce, which needlessly caused more loss of life, the deal to end this 12-day war seems to be holding. It is probably the first good news for the region in months, as both sworn enemies have given way to pressure exerted by Washington and are holding fire, at least for now. Until the ceasefire was agreed there was a danger the region might become embroiled in a long war of attrition. Now that the missile and drone exchanges have ended, one inevitable question is whether this costly affair could have been prevented — not just as a hypothetical exercise, but as a lesson in how to avoid another military confrontation between two of the most powerful militaries in the region. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results, without inflicting death, destruction, and psychological scars on both combatants? The build-up to these 12 days of hostilities began more than a quarter of the century ago, and some might argue as far back as 1979 when the Iranian revolution rather artificially marked Israel, for its close relations with both the toppled shah and the US, as an enemy. History will look back at this deep enmity and might struggle to find objective reasons for it. Initially this hostility served the revolution as a tool for consolidating its hold on power at home and suppressing opposition. In turn, it also helped to propel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power as Israel's defender against the Iranian threat, both conventional and potentially nuclear. Time will possibly reveal how close Iran was to assembling a nuclear bomb, and most analysts agree that the US decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal in 2018, during Trump's first term, removed the shackles from Iran's uranium enrichment program, bringing it closer to weapons grade. It is hardly believable that the Tehran regime should have invested such huge resources only for civilian use. It is also the case that in forming and leading the so-called axis of resistance, Iran, through its proxies in the region, posed a threat to stability sufficient to eventually merit a response. Ultimately, despite being a source of major disruption, even a lethal one in the case of Hamas, and to a lesser extent Hezbollah, it could not match Israel's military capabilities, especially when the latter was backed by the US and other allies. On this occasion, Netanyahu managed also to lure Trump to act against his instincts and use military force. For the US leader the dilemma was between maintaining his posture as a president who brings an end to wars, and the temptation to deliver an almost risk-free strike against Iran's main nuclear sites after Israel's air force had eliminated the country's air defense capabilities. Could diplomacy have achieved the same, or even better, results? Yossi Mekelberg The latter then gained the upper hand, enabling Trump, in a matter of days, to potentially inflict a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program, especially in Fordow, where it is believed more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent was stored, and then lean on both sides to stop the hostilities. When both violated the ceasefire, Trump was furious, telling the media in no uncertain terms that 'we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what ... they're doing.' Yet, his criticism of Israel was far more robust, including a demand that Netanyahu order its pilots to return from another mission immediately. Allowing Iran a symbolic attack on US military bases in Qatar without any loss of life permitted an act of theater that allowed Tehran to save face after weeks of humiliation during which it lost many of its military chiefs and top scientists, exposing the level of Israel's penetration to nearly every government department, scientific institution, and military command. Nevertheless, Israel's vulnerability was also exposed by its failure to sufficiently protect its civilian population, revealing a severe shortage of adequate shelters as their enemy hit hospitals, the main international airport, and even oil refineries in Haifa. What emerged quickly was the difference between the open-ended conflict that Israel embarked on and Washington's priorities. Israel had many far-reaching objectives beyond Iran's nuclear program, including degrading its conventional military power, and instigating regime change. For Trump, however, it was simply about setting back the nuclear program and returning to the negotiating table. The war with Iran gave Netanyahu a new lease of life. A man who had barely talked to the Israeli media or mixed with people in public, especially since Oct. 7, suddenly could not stop himself from doing both, including visiting sites that were hit by Iranian missiles. But 21 months after the massacre, incapable and unwilling to take responsibility, he still has not visited the communities that were destroyed there. Yet the destruction caused by Iran gave him much-needed justification to continue the war before Trump put a stop to the conflict, and the photo-ops were exactly what he needed considering his high level of disapproval among voters. After this brief bout of fighting, Netanyahu's Likud party is doing slightly better in the polls, which might tempt him to call a snap election, but in the meantime, he will have to convince Israel's voters that the outcome of this war justified the unprecedented terrifying 12 days that they endured. Can he, together with Trump, also translate military achievements into a diplomatic success, one that ensures both that future uranium enrichment is limited to what is needed for civil use, and that Tehran ceases its meddling in the affairs of other countries? This remains an open question, but the next task for Israel's prime minister is to explain to the electorate why the war in Gaza is still raging and 50 hostages are still in captivity.
