Russian security chief reacts to German missile claims
Moscow has the means to respond to Berlin's decision to lift the range restrictions on Ukrainian strikes with missiles provided by Germany, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu has said.
Earlier this week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claimed that 'there are no longer any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine, neither from the British nor the French, nor from us, nor from the Americans.'
In a separate interview on Wednesday, Merz said deliveries of German Taurus missiles – which have a range of 500km and could potentially reach Moscow – to Kiev is 'in the realm of possible.'
Speaking at a conference on Thursday, Shoigu highlighted the inconsistency of Ukraine's Western backers regarding the use of long-range weapons.
The administration of former US President Joe Biden lifted the restrictions on long-range attacks last November, with the UK and France following suit shortly afterwards. Since then, the Russian military has repelled a number of strikes against its territory, which included US-supplied ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles.
Former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was reluctant to approve deep strikes into Russia or to supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles over fears of escalation.
'There are many statements. They are all different. First, they say that they had lifted it, then they say that they did not. Then they say that they did it long ago… So, did you lift it or not?' Shoigu said, adding: 'we can also lift limitations on some things. I will not expand on this, but we have our own restrictions that we can remove in response.'
The chancellor, who welcomed Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky in Berlin on Wednesday, also said Germany will help Kiev with the production of long-range weaponry inside Ukraine. According to the German Defense Ministry, a large part of the country's newly announced €5.2 billion ($5.6 billion) military aid for Ukraine will be allocated for the project.
High-ranking Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik stressed on Friday that any weapons production facilities in Ukraine are legitimate targets for the Russian military, and are subject to 'unequivocal destruction.'
Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large tasked with documenting Kiev's alleged war crimes, also said Berlin's recent moves show that they 'are not looking for peace, [but are] trying in every possible way to continue the Ukraine conflict, to continue the bloodshed' in order to distract the people from the problems in their own country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
39 minutes ago
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we're next': What Russian experts and politicians are saying about the US strikes
On June 22, the United States, acting in support of its closest ally Israel, launched airstrikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The full consequences of the operation – for Iran's nuclear program and for the broader balance of power in the Middle East – remain uncertain. But in Moscow, reactions were swift. Russian politicians and foreign policy experts have begun drawing conclusions, offering early forecasts and strategic interpretations of what may come next. In this special report, RT presents the view from Russia: a collection of sharp, often contrasting perspectives from analysts and officials on what Washington's latest military move means for the region – and for the world. The trap awaiting Trump is simple – but highly effective. If Iran responds by targeting American assets, the US will be pulled deeper into a military confrontation almost by default. If on the other hand, Tehran holds back or offers only a token response, Israel's leadership – backed by its neoconservative allies in Washington – will seize the moment to pressure the White House: now is the time to finish off a weakened regime and force a convenient replacement. Until that happens, they'll argue the job isn't done. Whether Trump is willing – or even able – to resist that pressure remains uncertain. Most likely, Iran will avoid hitting US targets directly in an effort to prevent a point-of-no-return escalation with American forces. Instead, it will likely intensify its strikes on Israel. Netanyahu, in turn, will double down on his efforts to convince Washington that regime change in Tehran is the only viable path forward – something Trump, at least for now, remains instinctively opposed to. Still, the momentum of military entanglement has a logic of its own, and it's rarely easy to resist. If Iran does nothing, it risks appearing weak – both at home and abroad. That makes a carefully calibrated response almost inevitable: one designed not to escalate the conflict, but to preserve domestic legitimacy and project resolve. Tehran is unlikely to go much further than that. Meanwhile, by continuing to build up its military presence, Washington sends a clear deterrent message – signaling both readiness and resolve in case Tehran miscalculates. Another option for Iran could be a dramatic symbolic move: withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step would be Tehran's way of declaring that Trump, by striking nuclear infrastructure, has effectively dismantled the global nonproliferation regime. The NPT was supposed to guarantee Iran's security; instead, it has delivered the opposite. Still, if Iran goes down that path, it risks damaging ties with Moscow and Beijing – neither of which wants to see a challenge to the existing nuclear order. The bigger question now is whether Iran will even consider returning to talks with Washington after this attack. Why negotiate when American promises no longer mean anything? Tehran urgently needs a mediator who can restrain Trump from further escalation – and right now, the only credible candidate is Moscow. Iran's foreign minister, [Abbas] Araghchi, is set to meet with President Putin on June 23. It's hard to imagine that a potential NPT withdrawal won't be on the table. If in the past an Iranian bomb was considered an existential threat to Israel, the calculus has now reversed: for Iran, nuclear capability is quickly becoming a question of survival. Let's state the obvious: Iraq, Libya – and now Iran – were bombed because they couldn't hit back. They either didn't have weapons of mass destruction or hadn't yet developed them. In some cases, they never even intended to. Meanwhile, the West doesn't touch the four countries that remain outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Why? Because unlike Iraq, Libya, and Iran, these states actually possess nuclear weapons. The message to so-called 'threshold' nations couldn't be clearer: if you don't want to be bombed by the West, arm yourself. Build deterrence. Go all the way – even to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's the grim conclusion many countries will draw. It's a dangerous lesson, and one that flies in the face of global security and the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet it's the West that keeps driving this logic. Iraq was invaded over a vial of powder. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was torn apart. Iran joined the NPT, worked with the IAEA, and didn't attack Israel – unlike Israel, which just struck Iran while staying outside the NPT and refusing to cooperate with nuclear watchdogs. This is more than hypocrisy; it's a catastrophic failure of US policy. Trump's administration has made a colossal mistake. The pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken on grotesque and dangerous proportions. Some still cling to the illusion that World War III might somehow pass us by. It won't. We are already in the thick of it. The US has carried out a bombing strike against Iran – our ally. Nothing stopped them. And if nothing stopped them from bombing Iran, then nothing will stop them from targeting us next. At some point, they may decide that Russia, like Iran, shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons – or find some other pretext to strike. Make no mistake: we are at war. The US can attack whether we advance or retreat. It's not about strategy – it's about will. Ukraine may not be Israel in the eyes of the West, but it plays a similar role. Israel didn't always exist; it was created and quickly became a proxy for the collective West – though some Israelis would argue the opposite, that the West is merely a proxy for Israel. Ukraine has followed the same trajectory. No wonder Zelensky isn't asking for Western support – he's demanding it, including nuclear arms. The model is clear. And just like Israel bombs Gaza with impunity, Kiev bombarded Donbass for years – albeit with fewer resources and less restraint from Moscow. Our appeals to the UN and calls for peace have become meaningless. If Iran falls, Russia is next. Trump, once again, is firmly in the grip of the neocons – just as he was during his first term. The MAGA project is over. There is no 'great America,' only standard-issue globalism in its place. Trump thinks he can strike once – like he did with Soleimani – and then walk it back. But there's no walking this back. He has triggered a world war he cannot control, let alone win. Now, everything hinges on Iran. If it stays on its feet and keeps fighting, it might still prevail. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Houthis have blocked traffic in the Red Sea. As new players enter the fray, the situation will evolve rapidly. China will try to stay out – for now. Until the first blow lands on them, too. But if Iran folds, it won't just lose itself – it will expose the rest of us. That includes Russia, now facing an existential choice. The question isn't whether to fight. Russia is already fighting. The question is how. The old methods are exhausted. That means we'll have to find a new way to fight – and fast. Judging by the remarks from Hegseth and General Cain at the press conference, the US appears to be signaling the end of its direct involvement – at least for now. Officially, Iran's nuclear program has been 'eliminated.' Whether that's actually true is beside the point. Even if Tehran manages to build a bomb six months from now, the narrative is set: the operation was targeted solely at nuclear infrastructure, with no strikes on military forces or civilians. A narrow, clean, and – according to Washington – decisively successful mission. The job is done, the curtain falls. That doesn't mean Washington is walking away. The US will continue to back Israel and retains the capacity to escalate if needed. But for the moment, the mood seems to be one of self-congratulatory closure. Of course, if they really wanted to go all in, they could've used a tactical nuclear weapon. That would've offered undeniable 'proof' of an Iranian bomb: if it explodes, it must have existed. And second, it would've allowed the administration to claim it had destroyed nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. Both assertions would've been technically accurate – if strategically absurd. None of it would've been factually false. Just morally and politically radioactive. Why did the US choose to strike Iran now, after years of restraint? The answer is simple: fear. For decades, Washington held back out of concern that any attack would trigger a wave of retaliatory terror attacks – possibly hundreds – carried out by sleeper cells tied to Iran and its allies like Hezbollah. The prevailing assumption was that Iran had quietly prepared networks across the US and Israel, ready to unleash chaos in response. But Israel's war in Lebanon dispelled that myth. The feared sleeper cells never materialized. Once that became clear, both Israel and the US realized they could strike Iran with minimal risk of serious blowback. And so, ironically, Iran's restraint – its perceived 'peacefulness' – has paved the way to war. There's a lesson in that for Russia: when the West senses both a willingness to negotiate and a refusal to submit, it responds not with diplomacy, but with force. That is the true face of Western imperialism. Trump has crossed a red line. We're now facing the real possibility of a major military confrontation. Iran could retaliate by striking US military installations across the Middle East, prompting Washington to respond in kind. That would mark the beginning of a drawn-out armed conflict – one the US may find increasingly difficult to contain. What we're witnessing looks very much like a victory for the so-called 'deep state'. Many had expected Trump to hold back, to avoid taking the bait. But he allowed himself to be pulled into a high-risk gamble whose consequences are impossible to predict. And politically, this may backfire. If the standoff with Iran sends oil prices soaring, the fallout could be severe. In the United States, gasoline prices are sacrosanct. Any administration that allows them to spiral out of control faces serious domestic repercussions. For Trump, this could turn into a serious vulnerability. So, what exactly did the US accomplish with its midnight strike on three targets in Iran? 1. Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appears to be intact – or at worst, only minimally damaged. 2. Uranium enrichment will continue. And let's just say it plainly now: so will Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. 3. Several countries are reportedly ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads directly. 4. Israel is under fire, explosions are echoing through its cities, and civilians are panicking. 5. The US is now entangled in yet another conflict, this one carrying the very real possibility of a ground war. 6. Iran's political leadership has not only survived – it may have grown stronger. 7. Even Iranians who opposed the regime are now rallying around it. 8. Donald Trump, the self-styled peace president, has just launched a new war. 9. The overwhelming majority of the international community is siding against the US and Israel. 10. At this rate, Trump can kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye – despite how absurdly compromised the award has become. So, congratulations, Mr. President. Truly a stellar start.
Russia Today
21 hours ago
- Russia Today
Western use of interest from Russia's frozen assets is theft – top banker to RT
The use of the interest generated by Russian assets frozen in the West amounts to theft, Andrey Kostin, the CEO of major Russian lender VTB, told RT on Saturday on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Kostin condemned the actions of the West, the EU in particular, in regard to Russian assets as 'dangerous' games that could eventually be used by others against them. Western countries froze an estimated $300 billion worth of Russian sovereign funds following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Some $213 billion of the assets are held by the Belgium-based settlement house Euroclear. 'It is a very dangerous thing to play such games. You start against one – tomorrow someone will use it against you,' Kostin warned. The use of proceeds from the assets, which have been repeatedly funneled for procurement of military aid for Ukraine, is grossly illegal and amounts to theft, Kostin noted. While various parties in the West have repeatedly mulled the possibility of seizing the assets themselves, they have failed to find a legal mechanism to do so because there is none, he added. 'This is theft. They are using interest now, but interest is the same money of the owner as the principal debt,' he stressed. Moscow has repeatedly condemned the freezing of its assets and has hinted at possible retaliatory measures against Western investments and property in Russia. Last October, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov warned that Moscow would retaliate in kind and start using the interest generated by the assets of 'unfriendly' countries and organizations held in Russia for its own needs. Kostin has long been skeptical about the prospects of Russia ever seeing its frozen assets again. Late last year, he suggested that the funds will never be returned under the pretext of Ukraine's purported 'reconstruction.' 'In the West, they say, let's pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine from the reserves. And they will draw up such a bill that even the reserves will not be enough,' Kostin said at the time.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Trump believes only negotiated agreement can resolve Russia-Ukraine conflict
US President Donald Trump believes a negotiated agreement between Russia and Ukraine is the only viable path to ending the conflict between the two countries, according to State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce. Trump's efforts to mediate a truce between Russia and Ukraine contributed to the countries restarting direct negotiations in Türkiye last month – talks that Kiev abandoned in 2022 to focus on its military efforts. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that while Moscow is not seeking an unconditional surrender, Kiev must acknowledge the 'realities on the ground,' and that its negotiating position worsens with each passing day. In a press briefing on Friday, Bruce was asked whether those remarks mean that Moscow is not serious about the talks, and how Washington would respond. 'As I've mentioned before, during negotiations, things sometimes progress, things change. That's the whole point of negotiations and conversations: You signal how long you're generally willing to wait, but you also know if someone is serious,' she said, noting, 'At the same time, we've heard some very blunt comments by President Trump about President Putin.' That's where we've landed at this point in comments from both the president and secretary of state – that the only way this is going to end is for the two parties to meet and come to a conclusion and a decision, and some kind of an agreement. She added that while the US remains Ukraine's 'biggest supporter,' the process of peace negotiations is complex and constantly evolving. 'We are clearly making our presence and our care about the situation known... but this is not about reacting to a single quote or online statement,' she said. Asked about Putin's assertion that Russia now holds a 'strategic advantage' in the conflict, Bruce declined to comment on potential punitive measures or sanctions, reiterating: 'We're not going to listen to what [Russia] says – we're going to watch what they do.' 'Only the president can make the decision about how to proceed. Only he knows all the elements about what's important and how we're going to make a difference,' she said. 'As I term it… there is one guiding hand to the choices that we make. And that would include Russia, Ukraine, and every conflict he's trying to stop.' The spokeswoman added that direct engagement between Moscow and Washington continues behind the scenes, involving 'months now of dealing with the parties directly,' and argued that Trump, as 'the most powerful leader in the world right now,' is better positioned than the public or press to assess the situation.
