Russia says it abandons moratorium on deploying short and medium-range missiles
The U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019. Russia has said since then it would not deploy such weapons provided that Washington did not do so. However, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signalled last December that Moscow would have to respond to what he called "destabilising actions" by the U.S. and NATO in the strategic sphere.
"Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of U.S.-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared," the ministry said in its statement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Russia doomsday missile launch fears grow amid warning invasion NATO states is 'realistic'
Vladimir Putin has shut the airspace where Russia carries out tests on multiple new missiles as fears grow over the use of a 'game-changing weapon' following a previous test Russian President Vladimir Putin has closed the airspace over the missile test site from which he launched his notorious new doomsday Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine last year. This week's closure happens as his former speechwriter predicts the Kremlin dictator will go to war against NATO in the Baltics. Airspace is now shut around the Kapustin Yar site when the nation carries out tests on multiple new missiles, but it is unclear if the current closure from 4 to 8 August is linked to another imminent Oreshnik launch. Putin has only used the 'game-changing weapon' once - in a 'test' launch in November 2024 against Ukrainian city Dnipro, without a live warhead. The Russians claim Oreshnik is unstoppable by current Western and Ukrainian defences. It comes after a lip reader revealed exactly what Donald Trump and Keir Starmer said to each other on the golf course. New tests are expected and Putin says Oreshnik is now 'up and running' in serial production, with the missile complex due to be supplied to his ally Belarus later this year. 'We have produced the first serial Oreshnik system,' said Putin on 1 August. 'The first serial missile. It has been delivered to the army.' An announcement on 4 August by the Russian foreign ministry that it was abandoning a moratorium on deploying medium- and short-range missiles may be linked to Oreshnik. 'The conditions for keeping the one-sided moratorium on deploying similar weapons are gone and the Russian Federation no longer feels tied to the self-imposed restrictions it agreed to before,' said the ministry. Russian ex-president Dmitry Medvedev said: 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps.' Putin claims targets would be incinerated, by Oreshnik missiles unleashing a temperature of 4,000C, almost as hot as the surface of the sun. Russian state media has said that an Oreshnik launch from Belarus could hit London in eight minutes. From its current test launch base in southern Russia, it would take around 20 minutes. Russia issued a NOTAM - notice to airmen - restricting airspace over Kapustin Yar in its southern Astrakhan region. The flight ban is due to stay in place until Friday - the day Trump's Ukraine deadline expires when the US president will likely have to respond to a Putin failure to engage with a ceasefire and peace moves. Airspace was similarly closed at Kapustin Yar in May but without an Oreshnik launch. Tests on multiple other missiles could be underway at Kapustin Yar. Separately, ex-Putin speechwriter Abbas Gallyamov said a Russian invasion of the Baltic states is now 'realistic'. He told We Can Explain media that Putin 'may tell himself that since it is not possible to solve the problem of Ukraine per se, it must be made part of a more global deal between Russia and the West. 'Or even between the Second and First Worlds. He may decide that this will allow him to avoid the feeling of defeat [in failing to grab the whole of Ukraine].' Opening this 'new front' would 'create huge problems for [Donald] Trump personally. Trump frequently says that the conflict in Ukraine was 'not my war', blaming predecessor Joe Biden for allowing it to start during his presidency. A Putin 'invasion' of the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - could 'no longer be described as 'not my war' which 'wouldn't have happened if I were president', said Gallyamov. New Russian aggression 'would be considered a personal failure' for Trump - who he accused of appeasing Putin - 'in the same way that Hitler's attack on Poland was considered a failure of [UK premier Neville] Chamberlain, which shamefully ended his previously quite respectable career.' Gallyamov said: 'Perhaps this is precisely why Trump has suddenly hardened his position. 'He feels that Putin, under pressure from 'patriotic' expectations, will soon be ready for a new adventure, and wants to stop him before it happens. 'The American leader is trying to show his Russian counterpart that he should not underestimate him. Like, I'm determined and if necessary, I can hit.'
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Switzerland scrambles after Trump makes it Europe's biggest loser
For more than 200 years, Switzerland's approach to foreign policy has been to stay neutral. Yet when it comes to Donald Trump, a man who demands loyalty, neutrality doesn't get you much. The peace-loving Alpine nation has found itself at the forefront of Trump's erratic trade war, with exports such as Swiss chocolate and watches now subject to US tariffs of 39pc. 'Basically, we are all shocked,' says Jan Atteslander from Economiesuisse, a business lobby organisation representing 100,000 businesses in the country. 'We are one of the most open economic partners of the US. We have no tariff and non-tariff barriers for US goods or services. We are number six for foreign direct [investment] in the US. 'In this context, to find early on Friday, at 3am, that you are among the four countries that have – by way out now – the highest import tariffs in the US across the board, it's really a shock.' The outcome could hardly be worse: Only Syria, Laos and Myanmar face steeper rates than Switzerland of up to 41pc. Even Taliban-run Afghanistan was handed a more favourable deal of 15pc. To add insult to injury, the announcement came on Switzerland's National Day. 'There are two days in the year – one is Christmas, and the other one is Aug 1 – where normal people are on holiday,' shrugs Atteslander. The tariff shock has left Bern scrambling. Karin Keller-Sutter, the Swiss president, and Guy Parmelin, the economy minister, are flying to the US on Tuesday for crisis talks. It comes after a disastrous last-ditch call between the Swiss leader and Trump late on Thursday. The unexpected tariff blow has unleashed anger and soul-searching in Switzerland, with the tabloid Blick declaring it the country's greatest defeat since a battle against France in 1515, which ushered in its policy of international neutrality. 'We're joining the Canadians in protest against the US,' says Nikolay Markov, an economist at Pictet Asset Management in Geneva. He argues that the Swiss shouldn't have been caught flat-footed. 'It shouldn't be surprising because Switzerland has a significant trade surplus with the US. That's one of the reasons why Switzerland is on the monitoring watch list of the US treasury,' he says. Switzerland sold £28.8bn more goods to the US last year than it bought, with £47.6bn-worth of items heading to America. Exports range from luxury watches to precision instruments such as pneumatic screwdrivers and micrometres to medicines and Nespresso pods. Its trade surplus with the world's largest economy grew by 56.1pc from 2023. Trump initially subjected Switzerland to import duties of 31pc on 'liberation day' on April 2. Most goods exports, apart from pharmaceuticals and gold, will be subject to the new tariff from Thursday unless Keller-Sutter can strike a better deal. The US president has demanded that Swiss drugmakers lower their prices, an issue that may well come up in negotiations. Swiss business leaders and politicians are, for now trying to keep cool heads, hoping that this will be another example of the phenomenon that traders refer to as 'Taco': Trump always chickens out. While the president likes to announce large headline rates, he tends to use them as a bludgeon to negotiate better deals rather than following through. The stakes are high. Markov says he initially expected tariffs to shave 0.2pc of the Swiss economy's growth. 'Now it's 1.8pc, so it implies no growth for Switzerland in the coming year. It really changes the economic outlook – potentially materially,' he says. Such a knock to growth would plunge Switzerland into a technical recession and leave many workers unemployed. Chocolatiers are among those bracing for the impact. 'It's quite a shock because with tariffs at that level, it will be hard to serve the US market,' says Roger Wehrli. He is the Bern-based chief executive of Chocosuisse and Biscosuisse, trade bodies representing chocolatiers and confectionery makers. 'Combined with the exchange rate changes, this leads to an increase of costs in certain US markets by around 55pc compared to the beginning of the year,' he says. He warns that Switzerland being singled out leaves it particularly vulnerable. 'The UK has only a tariff of 10pc, the European Union 15pc. So our companies will have a comparative disadvantage. This leads to the conclusion that if this tariff remains, a lot of companies will pull out of the US market,' Wehrli says. The 39pc rate is beyond even the worst-case scenarios companies had planned for, Wehrli says. He also fears the wider damage to the Swiss economy. 'When we look at this economy in general, we export around 15pc to the United States. I'm very much concerned. It will pose severe challenges to the labour market.' Atteslander at trade body Economiesuisse says: 'There are thousands of jobs at risk, but I can't really tell if it is really going to happen or not.' For now, companies like Swatch are temporarily able to rely on all of the stock they rushed into the US in the first half of the year. The watchmaker has enough sitting in US warehouses to last it for at least three to six months, according to its chief executive. Knife maker Victorinox, another Swiss brand, meanwhile, said it was looking to make its operations more efficient through automation and 'collaborative solutions with our distribution partners'. 'This is not the first big challenge these export companies have faced over the last 15 to 20 years,' says Atteslander. If 39pc tariffs do remain in place, companies could explore workarounds. One unlikely benefactor of Trump's trade offensive could be Slovenia, according to Markov, the economist in Geneva. 'Slovenia is a major trading partner and is part of the European Union and the eurozone, so they're subject to 15pc tariffs. Switzerland could, to some extent, bypass the 39pc tariffs by exporting to Slovenia for re-exports to the US.' Swiss pharmaceuticals have already invested billions into production facilities in the small central European nation. Other industries could follow. Ultimately, though, Swiss leaders will be hoping to avoid all that. The federal council – the country's governing cabinet – on Monday said Switzerland was prepared to make a 'more attractive offer' to Trump in an effort to negotiate lower tariffs.
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Snowflake solicitors are destroying a once proud profession
Britain's legal profession – once a byword for rigour, intellect and integrity – now finds itself the latest battleground in the war against excellence. A cohort of aspiring solicitors has taken to petitioning for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) to be made easier. Their complaint? The exams are 'too hard, disproportionately challenging ', and, of course, 'biased towards certain backgrounds and learning styles '. In other words: 'We didn't do well, and it must be someone else's fault.' There could hardly be a more telling parable of our times. The snowflake sensibility – once confined to undergraduate common rooms and the wilder fringes of social media – has now infected even the corridors of legal ambition. The future custodians of our justice system are not asking for a level playing field; they are asking for the pitch to be tilted until everyone scores. The argument, if we can call it that, is that maintaining high standards will inevitably restrict 'diversity' in the profession. And here we are again, at the familiar intersection where merit collides with identity politics – and where the latter is expected to triumph, no matter the cost. This isn't about widening opportunity. It is about lowering the bar. Having sat more than a dozen legal exams across three jurisdictions – from the halls of Cambridge to the benches of the Sorbonne, and ultimately the famously exacting New York bar – I speak from a place of experience. These were not fun. I lost a stone in weight during one set of particularly punishing exams. They were not 'inclusive'. They were not designed to reflect my personal learning style. They were difficult. That was the point. And when I passed them, I felt a precious sense of achievement and readiness for the real world of legal practice. And therein lies a truth we are fast forgetting: standards are not meant to flatter us, they are meant to test us. The whole premise of a professional exam is that it provides an independent measure of competence. It is meant to be hard. It is meant to discriminate: not on the basis of race or class, but on the basis of skill, preparation and effort. That is not injustice. That is fairness. If I'm paying a lawyer, a doctor, or a pilot for their services, I do not want someone who merely feels entitled to the role. I want someone who has earned their place. Their colour, class or creed do not matter to me. What matters, and should matters, is their calibre. And if that view now makes me unfashionable, then so be it. But the consequences of this race to the bottom go far beyond a few disgruntled exam-takers. Undermining legal standards risks hollowing out one of the UK's most formidable exports: our legal profession itself. English law is the governing framework of choice for international commerce precisely because it has been shaped by a world-class profession. A profession forged through rigour, not rhetoric. Flooding it with underprepared entrants – however well-meaning or well-intentioned – will not promote equity. It will diminish excellence. And it is the very people supposedly being helped who will suffer most, entering a crowded profession where oversupply drives down wages and erodes prestige. Here, then, is the central paradox: in the name of inclusion, we exclude the very mechanisms that uplift. Hard work. Discipline. Ambition. Standards. The old virtues are being recast as vices: elitism, snobbery, oppression. And all to appease a cultural mood that seems to confuse equal opportunity with equal outcomes. But Britain cannot afford this decline. Not in a century where the likes of China, India, and the United States are training their brightest and best to surpass us. While they chase excellence, we chase excuses. This is not compassion. It is cowardice, disguised in the language of empathy. It is not progress, it is entropy. And unless we reclaim the idea that standards matter – that excellence should be earned, and that challenge is a feature, not a flaw, of a functioning society – then we will become a country incapable of producing not just good lawyers, but good professionals of any kind.
