Connect with us

Published

on

Two people are reported to have been killed in Poland near the Ukrainian border by a Russian missile.

It didn’t take long for talk of Article 5 to surface – the part of the North Atlantic Treaty that binds all NATO members to protect the country that has been attacked.

But going straight for Article 5 skips a number of important steps that must be taken.

What is the next step?

General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander of UK Joint Forces Command, told Sky News: “All eyes will now be on the site of the explosion, and experts in the technology will be looking for the missile debris and other debris to identify what it was that killed these two poor souls.

“And then when they’ve identified what it was, they can start to investigate how it got there and what was behind it.

“And really only when that is clearer – and clear, in my view – should the North Atlantic Council and NATO members take a definitive position on this.

“Because, to do so beforehand would imply they were prepared to decide on something really significant in the absence of actually knowing the facts.”

‘Crisis situation’ as NATO responds – follow live reaction

General Sir Richard said many of these facts will probably be established in daylight – it was late when the explosion happened – and he added that bits of the missile can be found and radar tracks through the sky can also be examined.

Lord Richard Dannatt, former chief of the general staff, explained to Sky News the importance of this stage, saying: “If we take – or anybody takes – decisions on poor information then we’re bound to make poor decisions.”

So what happens while the investigation is under way?

Lord Dannatt said that one of the most important things at this stage is that the countries involved keep talking, saying: “The open channels and back channels should be being worked vigorously at the present moment to find out not just what happened but why it happened.”

At the same time, the other vital thing is what Lord Dannatt and General Sir Richard described as “cool heads and facts”.

Lord Dannatt said: “Establishing what has happened is really important and then cool heads are needed to analyse what our response should be.

“At this stage, we should be very, very cautious.”

General Sir Richard added: “We need to know what happened, what the intent was behind it and then people should take a view on it.

“I think an international junior school football match whirring up the rhetoric around this is deeply unhelpful.”

Read more:
Russian missile’ kills two in Poland
Missile strike on Poland may be an attempt to test NATO

What is likely to have happened?

Lord Dannatt said there are two possibilities – a Russian error or the Russians testing NATO’s response.

He said: “Modern technology is pretty accurate, so it’s quite difficult to explain a way that this might have been an accident.

“If it wasn’t an accident and it was a test of the West’s response, that’s something that has got to be thought through very, very carefully.

“Cool heads are required to make sure this appalling war does not get escalated as a result of miscalculation.”

General Sir Richard said: “We should recognise it’s probably unlikely Russia would choose to target a random grain silo in a village with a population of just 400 to start a war with NATO.

“But if Russia has decided to do that, then this world of ours is taking a turn that no one could have imagined even a month ago.

“It’s far more likely that a missile has gone rogue – it has malfunctioned or been deflected – and ended up in Poland with tragic consequences.”

What is Article 5 and why are we even talking about it?

Article 5 is perhaps the best-known part of the North Atlantic Treaty – the collective defence principle that means an attack against one member is considered an attack on all.

It was not invoked when Russia invaded Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a NATO member. But Poland is a NATO member, so anything that is found to have been an attack on Poland could possibly reach the stage of Article 5.

So does that mean the UK and other NATO countries have to go to war now?

Hold your horses and breathe. We’ve already talked about the need for an investigation. But even then, before Article 5 comes Article 4.

Article 4 says: “The parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”

Late on Tuesday night, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu told Sky News that the alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, will chair an emergency meeting of the 30 member states in Brussels on Wednesday.

Reuters news agency reported that this meeting is at the request of Poland on the basis of Article 4.

The report cited two European diplomats, one of whom said the alliance would act cautiously and needed time to verify exactly what had happened.

It’s not clear what form this stage will take or how long it might last.

Any country can invoke Article 4 and NATO’s own website says that all decisions are made by consensus.

Article 4 does not always have to lead to NATO entering a conflict.

Has Article 4 been invoked before?

Since NATO was created in 1949, Article 4 has been invoked seven times and you’ll see below that all-out war is not the default option:
• On 24 February 2022, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia requested to hold consultations under Article 4 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine
• On 26 July 2015, Turkey made the same request following terror attacks and to inform allies of the measures it was taking
• On 3 March 2014, Poland invoked it as tensions increased in Ukraine as a result of Russia’s aggressive actions
• In 2012, Turkey invoked it twice – once in June after one of its fighter jets was shot down by Syrian air defence and in October when five Turkish civilians were killed by Syrian shelling. In November, NATO agreed to Turkey’s request for the deployment of Patriot missiles as a defensive measure
• On 10 February 2002, Turkey invoked the article as a result of the armed conflict in neighbouring Iraq. NATO agreed a package of defensive measures and conducted Operation Display Deterrence

Continue Reading

World

Trump could meet Putin as early as next week to discuss Ukraine ceasefire – White House official

Published

on

By

Trump could meet Putin as early as next week to discuss Ukraine ceasefire - White House official

Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.

They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.

It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.

Ukraine war latest

Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”

He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”

However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”

Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”

Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war

Seven hours is a long time in US politics.

At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.

At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.

There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.

It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.

Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?

Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?

The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.

Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.

On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.

More tariffs ‘could happen’

Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.

Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.

India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.

Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
Image:
Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters

It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.

In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.

He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy

‘The war must end’

Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.

He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”

Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”

He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.

Continue Reading

World

Government ministers among eight killed in Ghana helicopter crash

Published

on

By

Government ministers among eight killed in Ghana helicopter crash

Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.

The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.

Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.

The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.

Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.

Read more from Sky News:
Birmingham Airport runway shut after ‘aircraft incident’
Five soldiers injured in shooting at US Army base

State media said the aircraft was a Z-9 helicopter, which is often used for transport and medical evacuation.

It was one of the worst air disasters in Ghana in more than a decade.

A service helicopter crashed off the coast in May 2014 and killed at least three people.

And in 2012 a cargo plane overran the runway in Accra and crashed into a bus full of passengers, killing at least 10 people.

Continue Reading

World

The new space race? NASA accelerates plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon

Published

on

By

The new space race? NASA accelerates plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon

NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.

In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASA staff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.

Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.

He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.

“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.

Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters

A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.

But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.

When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”

Why use a nuclear reactor?

Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.

This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.

Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.

An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
Image:
An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA

“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.

Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.

To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.

But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.

“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.

So, what’s the catch?

While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.

“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.

“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay

Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.

NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.

Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.

Is this the new space race?

Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).

The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.

“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.

Read more:
Permission granted for first-of-its-kind British rocket launch
Astronauts arrive at International Space Station

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.

“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.

“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.

“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”

Continue Reading

Trending