Russia preparing strategic reserves for conflicts beyond Ukraine, Ukraine warns
Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned on June 13 that Russia has begun preparing strategic military reserves, signaling plans for military operations that may extend beyond Ukraine.
"According to our intelligence, Russia has started to prepare strategic reserves, which indicates plans for combat operations not only in Ukraine," Sybiha said during the Globsec conference in Prague, calling for urgent diplomatic and economic pressure.
"Allies need full diplomatic mobilization to stop this war. This is not just a question for Ukraine. (Russian President Vladimir) Putin only understands strength, and right now it's crucial to apply sanctions in a timely manner, using them as economic weapons to pressure Russia," Sybiha said.
The comments come as Russia intensifies its military offensives and missile strikes across Ukraine, despite participating in two recent rounds of peace talks in Istanbul. The first talks were held on May 16, followed by a second meeting on June 2. While both rounds produced agreements on prisoner exchanges, they failed to secure a ceasefire.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a June 12 interview with Germany's Bild newspaper that Russia is using the talks to delay tougher U.S. sanctions, while continuing to escalate attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Russia also continues to issue nuclear threats to Western countries. Putin claimed on June 11 that Russia possesses the world's most advanced nuclear systems, with 95% of its strategic nuclear forces reportedly made up of modern equipment.
Putin emphasized the need to significantly strengthen Russia's ground forces. Russian defense spending has surged to 6.3% of GDP, the highest level since the Cold War, as Moscow continues to ramp up its military investment amid the ongoing war.
Read also: What Russia's 1 million casualties mean for Ukraine
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Mineral-rich Greenland says it doesn't want to become a great mining nation. Here's why
Greenland has little interest in harnessing its massive resource potential to become a top mining country. The world's largest island has been thrust into the geopolitical spotlight in recent months, with U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly saying that Washington should control the autonomous Danish territory — even refusing to rule out the use of military or economic force. Trump's pursuit of Greenland comes as mining executives describe the race for the Arctic island's largely untapped extractable resources as an "enormous opportunity." However, Greenland's harsh climate, remote landscape and lack of infrastructure have all been cited as barriers to the island's strategic potential. Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland's minister for business and mineral resources, told CNBC that exploiting some of the territory's highly prized minerals is "absolutely possible and viable," noting that several mining projects are already underway. "We do have projects underway that I think are very promising: graphite, gold, copper, nickel molybdenum and so on. Rare earths as well," Nathanielsen told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Friday. "But for Greenland, we are not necessarily interested in becoming a really great mining country. We just really want 5 or 10 active mines at any given time," Nathanielsen said. "We are a very small population so, for us, we don't need the entire country to be covered in mines. We are happy with managing a few and I think that is feasible," she added. Greenland has long pitched itself as a Western alternative to China's near monopoly on rare earth elements. Indeed, a 2023 survey by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) found that 25 of the 34 minerals recognized as critical raw materials by the European Commission were found in Greenland. These minerals include graphite, molybdenum and titanium, all of which are expected to play a key role in the pivot to more sustainable energy sources. Earlier this week, mining development firm Critical Metals Corporation announced it had received a letter of interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States for a loan worth up to $120 million to fund the firm's Tanbreez rare earths mine in southern Greenland. Notably, the funding package marked the Trump administration's first overseas investment in a mining project. Greenland authorities also recently approved a 30-year mining permit to a Danish-French mining group to exploit anorthosite, a rock rich in aluminum, at a site in western Greenland. Separately, Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Greenland-focused mining company Amaroq, described Greenland as "an amazing country" to operate in. "The geology is such that Greenland has traveled around the world through a geological time and gone everywhere — which means that it has an exposure to most mineral resources," Olafsson told CNBC's "Europe Early Edition" on Thursday. "It has a fantastic jurisdiction in relation to regulation. It is based on Nordic principles and law," he added. Asked how the prospect of the U.S. purchasing Greenland could impact the firm's operations and outlook, Olafsson said Greenland's destiny is for Greenlanders to choose. "In the end, I think Greenland will become most likely an independent state, supported by the Nordic countries and supported by the U.S., just like Iceland was," Olafsson said. Greenland's Nathanielsen said the territory has "very high" environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards, in part because of its previous issues with mining pollution. "I think the people of Greenland really support the mining industry, which is quite kind of rare when you look at other jurisdictions. But they do so because they have faith in us having a high environmental standard and taking care of local communities," Nathanielsen said. "And if we start to fold on that, we will also lose the people's support of this industry. For us it is really important. So, I think we have learned from the past," she added.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Voice of America's foreign language services are vital to global peace
The Trump administration has hopefully just learned an important lesson: the strategic importance of Voice of America's foreign language services for U.S. national security. After Israel launched a full-scale war against Iran — presenting an immediate threat to American troops and vital national interests in the Middle East — Trump officials recalled back to work some VOA Persian Service journalists and broadcasters who had been put on paid administrative leave and threatened with termination. A few months before Israel's attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, Trump issued an executive order, at the suggestion of Elon Musk, to scale down the broadcasting services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media to the statutory minimum. Kari Lake, Trump's advisor at USAGM, may have wanted to save more of VOA's foreign language services and broadcasting jobs, but she faithfully carried out the president's orders by proposing to reduce staffing of some key foreign language services, including the Persian Service, to just a couple of web journalists for just a few countries. I managed the VOA Polish Service when it expanded its audience and contributed to bringing a peaceful end to Communism and Russian colonialism in Poland during the Reagan administration. I sent a message advising Lake that VOA cannot handle international emergencies with only a few journalists fluent in foreign languages. When the Communist regime in Poland declared martial law in 1981, VOA's Polish Service had 15 full-time employees. We increased our broadcasts from two-and-a-half to seven hours daily almost overnight by hiring temporary help and slowly growing our staff to 25 full-time positions. We did not start from nothing or just two broadcasters. At the same time, Radio Free Europe's Polish Service, also funded by U.S. tax dollars, had over 100 employees and many more hours of daily radio broadcasts to Poland. The two outlets helped to eliminate the Warsaw Pact's military threat to America and brought democracy to the region while avoiding war and violence. Few Americans know that one of the main reasons for starting the VOA Russian Service in 1947 (and Radio Liberty soon after that) was to convince the Russians that the U.S. did not want war and would never first use nuclear weapons against Russia. We needed a communication channel in case of an emergency as well as a tool for countering disinformation. Fortunately, when the latest war in the Middle East started, full-time VOA Persian Service employees were still on paid administrative leave. They could return to work immediately after the Israeli strikes in Iran. That would not have been possible, had they already lost their jobs, as they would have soon under the Trump administration's plan — and America would have been left without a critical strategic national security asset. With Musk out of the picture (at least for now), and with the growing crisis in the Middle East, it is time for Trump officials and members of Congress from both parties to work out a reasonable plan to save and reform Voice of America. However, I do not favor returning the Agency for Global Media to its previous state. Under the influence of Obama and Biden officials, it has become one of the most bloated bureaucracies in the federal government. USAGM's former leadership hired journalists who engaged in partisan news reporting, allowed a reporter to accompany Biden as his guest to an official ceremony and recruited a Russian freelancer, ignoring signs he was a Russian spy. They created a work environment in which several VOA journalists felt free to post on their social media accounts 'death to Israel' and 'f*ck Trump' memes. These partisan executives have already resigned or retired. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched an investigation into charges that former USAGM officials 'routinely and improperly utilized visa programs to employ poorly vetted foreign nationals, including from nations adverse to' the U.S. and awarded grants to entities 'despite major conflicts of interest.' But those journalists in VOA's foreign language services who did nothing wrong should not be punished for the sins of their former bosses. American citizens and permanent residents are more easily vetted and should always have priority in hiring over individuals residing abroad. Although he was appointed during the Biden administration, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz, who remains on paid leave, had taken steps to curb partisan excesses of some VOA English news service reporters while increasing support for the work of the best and most critical VOA foreign language services. Abramowitz, a former head of Freedom House, is the first VOA director in a long time who understands the crucial role of foreign language broadcasting. I have always believed that it isn't a bad idea to have a competent leader at VOA who is from the opposite party from the one in the White House. This could help prevent partisan bias, although such an arrangement is unlikely in the current political environment. While reducing the Voice of America to a few journalists is a wholly unworkable proposition, shrinking the USAGM bureaucracy to just a few people and combining its media operations to avoid duplication is an excellent idea that would save millions of dollars — which then can be used for broadcasts to Iran, China, Tibet, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries. Partisan reporting at Voice of America primarily occurred in the VOA English newsroom rather than in the foreign language services. VOA English newsroom reporters and editors were the ones who, at first, did not report that Biden's performance at his pre-election debate with Trump was in any way diminished. Some VOA English reporters refused to call Hamas 'terrorists' after the Oct. 7, 2023 attack. By law, VOA cannot duplicate the work of private media, and there is no major English-speaking foreign country that threatened the U.S. or lacks a free press. Voice of America does not require a large team of journalists to prepare news reports in English that duplicate the work of CNN, The New York Times or Fox News. A small team producing a roundup of American news from multiple sources without ideological censorship is more than sufficient. What VOA needs are foreign language services that use the best technology to deliver uncensored news otherwise unavailable from private outlets to countries that may pose a threat to America's security and to international peace. Congress and the Trump administration should preserve VOA to help prevent the U.S. from becoming entangled in foreign wars. Ted Lipien was Voice of America's Polish service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and VOA's acting associate director. He served from 2020 to 2021 as the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
NATO's call to arms: Time to muscle up ‘at the speed of fear'
LONDON — NATO chief Mark Rutte visited Britain this month and had a bracing message for his hosts, along with other nations in the alliance: Start bulking up militarily, he said, or 'you had better learn to speak Russian.' Vladimir Putin isn't about to invade England. But don't forget that, shortly before invading Ukraine in 2022, he did casually threaten then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson with a missile strike that 'would only take a minute.' Europe, a top British defense strategist told me, needs to re-arm 'at the speed of fear.' With a handful of exceptions, most of NATO's European leaders have gotten the memo that Russia, far from being depleted by the bloodbath in Ukraine, is now a country remade, reoriented and revved up for a state of permanent warfare. A much greater share of overall Russian economic activity, more than 7 percent of gross domestic product, is now earmarked for defense than in any of the alliance's 32 member states. That is likely to continue even if the guns fall silent in Ukraine, which they probably won't any time soon. 'As the army eats through Soviet legacy equipment, Putin is determined to replenish stockpiles — and equip his military with the most modern [equipment] informed by wartime innovation,' Alexandra Prokopenko of Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin wrote recently in the Financial Times. 'This will take several years, keeping the performance-enhancing drug of high military expenditure in the Russian economic system.' The growing dread in Europe arising from Moscow's threat has been compounded by the parallel fear inspired by President Donald Trump's contempt for Washington's NATO allies, and his apparent indifference to their security. That is the backdrop as NATO prepares for its annual summit next week at The Hague, where it is expected to adopt an annual spending goal of 5 percent of GDP on defense and related infrastructure — a target most of member states will struggle over years to meet. About one-third of the alliance's members don't even hit the current minimum of 2 percent; some that do, including France and Britain, are grappling with severely squeezed public finances. Rutte's prescription is that the alliance should be prepared to defend its own territory from Russian aggression within five years, including by boosting its air and missile defense by 400 percent. Others across the continent think the timeline is even shorter. Don't imagine that Putin would launch a massive invasion of a European NATO state like the unsuccessful one of Ukraine three years ago. To achieve his aim — unmasking the alliance as a paper tiger — he wouldn't need to. It would be enough to take a bite out of one of the three tiny Balts — Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia — and bet that Washington wouldn't respond with boots on the ground or a sustained missile air assault. With Trump in the White House, that's a bet Putin might be willing to make. For the Russian leader, the West is an implacable forever-foe obstructing his neoimperial dream. He's not giving up or backing down; to the contrary, he sees opportunity in Trump's disregard for Europe. The intensifying peril for Europe is not only to fortify its own defenses but simultaneously to bear the burden of keeping Ukraine in the fight for its sovereignty and survival as Washington disengages. In Ukraine, my British strategist source told me, Europe must seek 'escalation dominance,' meaning arming Kyiv at a pace that might double Russian casualties, forcing Putin to reassess the war's cost-benefit calculus. That's an ambitious goal given Russia's resilience. One measure of Putin's callousness is that he is untroubled by his forces' average daily toll of at least 1,200 deaths and injuries in Ukraine over the past year, for territorial gains the size of Rhode Island. The question is whether the continent's major powers — their economies anemic, their leaders facing ascendant right-wing parties, their aging populations frustrated by ineffectual governments — can rise to the occasion. Amid that haze of challenges, will Europe's main leaders leverage the crisis they face in Russia's threat, and fundamentally reorder their nations' priorities? Doing so would require asking voters to sacrifice some of their comforts — and real political courage. 'That this threat is now clear gives Europeans the chance to go beyond meetings in gilded palaces, and to convince people they face an existential choice,' Gerald Knaus, founding chairman of the European Stability Initiative, a think tank, told me. 'We need a clear narrative to make the case for a modern arsenal of democracy.' That is the concern that prompted Rutte's call to arms. Britons, like other Europeans, can maintain their generous public health care and other social services, he said, and ignore his recommendation that alliance members devote 5 percent of their economies to defense. But in that case, start studying the Cyrillic alphabet.
