Archive for the ‘Ukraine’ Category

Ukraine war: More than 220,000 Russian troops and mercenaries killed or injured since start of invasion, UK defence sec says – Sky News

By Deborah Haynes, Security and Defence Editor @haynesdeborah

Wednesday 29 March 2023 14:15, UK

More than 220,000 Russian troops and mercenaries have been killed or injured in Ukraine, according to the latest US assessment, Britain's defence secretary has revealed.

Ben Wallace also confirmed the first British tanks have arrived in Ukraine but said there is "still quite some considerable amounts of training to go" before Ukrainian forces are ready to use them in battle.

The UK has given 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine.

They are set to operate alongside German Marder infantry fighting vehicles within a brigade or a battlegroup that is being assembled to combine different weapons to punch through entrenched Russian lines.

"At the same time their (Ukrainian military) leadership needs to exercise and train in fighting at brigade or a battlegroup level - fight in the NATO manner or the western way," Mr Wallace said, speaking at a press conference with his Swedish counterpart in London.

"That's quite important. I can't speculate on when, where or how the [Ukrainian] offensive may happen but I think it is no secret that Ukraine is keen to start the process of rolling back Russian forces in the conflict."

Russia warns Sweden may become 'legitimate target' - follow live war updates

On a trip to London earlier this week, Ruslan Stefanchuk, the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, signalled that this moment would start soon.

"Of course, I cannot talk about any specifics regarding the counteroffensive," he said in an interview with Sky News.

"But I hope that already very soon, thanks to the help and support of our partners, Ukraine can make a substantial progress towards achieving this goal: to reach the borders of 1991 and restore our sovereignty on the temporarily occupied territories.

"And to restore peace, which so many dream about, and independence on the whole territory of Ukraine."

In February, British intelligence said Russia and its private military contractor forces had likely suffered between 175,000 to 200,000 casualties since the start of the invasion in February 2022.

They added this likely included between 40,000 and 60,000 killed.

As for Russia's prospects, the British defence secretary has now said President Vladimir Putin's troops were making "almost no progress whatsoever" and "suffering huge casualties".

"The Russian forces have some really significant and deep systemic problems at the moment in their efforts. The latest US assessments I have seen now put casualty figures over 220,0000 of dead or injured," Mr Wallace said.

Ukrainian forces have been attempting to repel a months-long push by Russian troops and Wagner mercenaries to capture the shattered city of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine.

While a brutal killing ground for the Russians, the battle is causing heavy casualties for the Ukrainian side as well.

Read moreRussian whose daughter drew anti-war picture flees after being sentencedOlympic chiefs provide pathway for Russian to compete at Paris 2024 games

Military commanders are simultaneously preparing to launch new counteroffensives elsewhere against Russian positions in the east and the south.

It looks set to be an even harder challenge than previous offensive operations by Ukraine in the northeastern Kharkiv region and Kherson city in the south.

Ukrainian troops will need to use tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and aircraft - all operating together - to punch through well-defended Russian lines and keep going to force without being outflanked.

"Ukraine has one goal: to restore our territorial integrity within the border when Ukraine became independent in 1991," the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament said.

"Today Ukraine is standing on the frontline of the battle for democracy, for freedom, for international principles. And this is our aim. This is our goal. And we can achieve it."

In May 2022, Ukraine collected hundreds of dead Russian soldiers and stored their bodies inside a refrigerated train in order to send them back to their families.

Ukraine's internal affairs minister Anton Garashenko said there were more than 250 dead soldiers piled on the train because Russia "is still not picking up the bodies".

Read more:
Ukraine war: More than 220,000 Russian troops and mercenaries killed or injured since start of invasion, UK defence sec says - Sky News

Ukraine calls Wimbledon’s decision to lift Russian and Belarusian players’ ban ‘immoral’ – Sky News

By Tom Gillespie, News reporter @TomGillespie1

Friday 31 March 2023 18:38, UK

Ukraine's foreign minister has branded Wimbledon's decision to allow Russian and Belarusian players to compete as "immoral".

Dmytro Kuleba urged the UK to deny the athletes visas to enter the country.

"Has Russia ceased its aggression or atrocities? No, it's just that Wimbledon decided to accommodate two accomplices in crime," said Mr Kuleba in a statement.

Russian and Belarusian players will be allowed to compete at Wimbledon in the summer after the All England Club reversed the ban it imposed last year.

Athletes from the two countries must sign declarations of neutrality and not express support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in order to compete.

Players who receive funding from the Russian or Belarusian states, including sponsorship from state-owned or controlled companies, will remain barred.

Around 30,000 Russians 'killed or wounded' in fight for Bakhmut - follow live war updates

The same conditions will apply for the other British grass-court tournaments including Queen's in west Kensington, London.

The move reverses the decision made by the All England Club and Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) 12 months ago. The two governing bodies were heavily penalised as a result, with Wimbledon stripped of its world ranking points, meaning Wimbledon was essentially rendered an exhibition event, with players unable to earn the ranking points they do at all other official tournaments.

Meanwhile, the Lawn Tennis Association was handed a seven-figure fine and threatened with losing its tournaments.

Ian Hewitt, chairman of the All England Club, said of the move to lift the ban: "We continue to condemn totally Russia's illegal invasion and our wholehearted support remains with the people of Ukraine.

"This was an incredibly difficult decision, not taken lightly or without a great deal of consideration for those who will be impacted. It is our view that, considering all factors, these are the most appropriate arrangements for the Championships for this year.

"We are thankful for the government's support as we and our fellow tennis stakeholder bodies have navigated this complex matter and agreed on conditions we believe are workable.

"If circumstances change materially between now and the commencement of the Championships, we will consider and respond accordingly."

The threat of further sanctions against the British game was undoubtedly a major factor in the U-turn, with an LTA statement saying: "The effect on British tennis of the LTA being expelled from the tours would be very damaging and far reaching for the game in our country.

"The impact would be felt by the millions of fans that follow the sport, the grass roots of the game, including coaches and venues which rely on the events for visibility and to bring new players into the game, and of course professional British players."

Both governing bodies reiterated their disappointment with tennis' reaction to last year's ban, and Wimbledon chief executive Sally Bolton said: "We absolutely stand by the decision that we took last year in the circumstances we found ourselves in."

The tournament organisers have also updated their conditions of entry to specifically bar Russian and Belarusian flags and symbols.

Read more:Russian espionage charges against US reporter are 'ridiculous'Moscow wants to trade food for weapons with North Korea, US says

Players and their support staff will not have to expressly condemn the Russian or Belarusian authorities but must declare they are not using the tournaments as a way of supporting those governments.

The prospect of a winner from one of the two countries at Wimbledon is fairly high, with Belarusian player Aryna Sabalenka a strong performer on grass, while Russian star Daniil Medvedev has won more matches than any other player on the men's tour so far this season.

The ATP and WTA welcomed the decision, saying in a joint statement: "We are pleased that all players will have an opportunity to compete at Wimbledon and LTA events this summer.

"It has taken a collaborative effort across the sport to arrive at a workable solution which protects the fairness of the game."

There has also now been a year of players from the two countries competing around the world under a neutral flag without any instances of overt support for the conflict.

Link:
Ukraine calls Wimbledon's decision to lift Russian and Belarusian players' ban 'immoral' - Sky News

The problem with how the West is supporting Ukraine – The Atlantic

For the past four months, people around the world have witnessed the macabre process of Russian forces making repeated assaults near the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut for only the tiniest of gains. By some counts, Russia has lost about five of its soldiers for every Ukrainian soldier lostto say nothing of massive equipment losses. Although in theory a country can win a war by using its military forces to make forward assaults against an enemys forces, thats just not a smart way to fight. Military technology long ago evolved to arm both sides in conflicts with extremely lethal weaponry, and any army that tries to approach this machinery head-on is likely to suffer major, and in some cases horrific, losses.

Far more effective is to weaken your opponents forces before they get to the battlefield. You can limit what military infrastructure theyre able to build, make sure what they do build is substandard, hamper their ability to train troops to operate what they build, and hinder them from deploying their resources to the battlefield. These steps are doubly effective in that they save your own forces while degrading the other sides. Over the past two centuries, the powers that have emerged triumphant have been the ones that not only fought the enemy on the battlefield but also targeted its production and deployment systemsas the Union did by controlling the waters around the Confederacy during the Civil War and as the United States and Britain did from the air against Nazi Germany.

Eliot A. Cohen: The shortest path to peace

In light of such dynamics, the manner in which the West is supporting Ukraines war effort is deeply frustrating. Though NATO countries have a variety of systems that can target Russian forces deep behind their lines, recent aid has been overwhelmingly geared toward preparing Ukraine to make direct assaults against the Russian army. The most widely discussed forms of equipmentsuch as Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley armored personnel carriers, and even Archer long-range artilleryare not the kinds of systems that can disrupt or degrade Russian forces far behind the front lines.

In short, Ukraine is being made to fight the war the hard way, not the smart way.

Ukrainian forces have indeed been pushing back against Russia at the front. But when they have been able to create or obtain the right technology, they have also attacked Russian supply and troop-deployment chains. This approach to war was probably most evident last summer, when the Ukrainians, as soon as they gained access to HIMARS rocket launchers and other Western multiple-rocket-launcher systems, embarked on a highly effective campaign against Russian supply points from Kherson to the Donbas. They managed to wreck a logistics system that had been supplying the Russian armies with huge amounts of firepower daily.

Almost immediately the Russians had to move their large supply depots out of range of the Ukrainians new rocket launchers, keeping essential equipment much farther from the front. This has severely limited Russias operations. It can fire significantly fewer shells each day and apparently can concentrate fewer vehicles on the front. The area where the Russians can properly supply their forces for operations has shrunk.

This overall approach led the Ukrainians to one of their great successes last year: the liberation of the west bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson province. When faced with a large, relatively experienced Russian force around the city of Kherson, the Ukrainians tried two different tacks. One involved direct armed assaults against the Russian salient west of the river. These assaults achieved at best modest results. The Ukrainians were able at points to push the Russian front back a few miles, but they were never able to break the line for any major gain.

Yet, in the end, the Russian army withdrew from Kherson last fall. Why was that? Because the other tack had made its supply situation more and more tenuous: After a months-long Ukrainian campaign targeting Russian-held depots, bridges, and river crossings, Russian commanders decided that Kherson was not strategically valuable enough to be worth the effort to hold it. The attacks on Russian supplies and logistics, which sapped their ability to deploy and maintain forces, were what made the difference.

Eliot A. Cohen: Western aid to Ukraine is still not enough

The tanks and other assistance that Ukraine is currently receiving will help it attack the Russian army directlywhich appears likely in the next few months. Ukrainian troops are training for such an operation in many partner countries and in Ukraine itself. They might well end up breaking the Russian line and advancing into the gapthe Ukrainian military has proved extremely resourceful and determined so farbut any success will likely be at significant cost to Ukraines own forces.

Their task would be easier if their allies had given them a stronger capacity to attack Russians from a greater distance. They clearly want to do it. One of the most extraordinary abilities the Ukrainians have shown is developing homegrown long-range systems, often incorporating drones, to attack Russian forces many miles from the front. Yet these homegrown systems are limited. NATO states could have given Ukraine longer-range equipmentincluding a missile system known as ATACMS and advanced fixed-wing aircraftor made a massive effort to help the Ukrainians develop and improve their own ranged systems.

Unfortunately, NATO states, including the U.S., have been reluctant to provide the Ukrainians with missile systems with too long of a range, seemingly for fear of escalating tensions with Russia. Instead of allowing the Ukrainians to degrade Russian forces far from the front line, Ukraine is being prepared to attack that line. The Ukrainians fortitude and ingenuity up to this point suggest that they could indeed accomplish their taskbut its been made much harder than it needs to be.

Read more here:
The problem with how the West is supporting Ukraine - The Atlantic

Russia’s tank force is better than Ukraine’s, but mistakes tip scales – Business Insider

A Russian T-72 tank is loaded on a truck by Ukrainian soldiers outside the town of Izyum on September 24, 2022. Photo by ANATOLII STEPANOV/AFP via Getty Images

With several models of tanks to choose from, a large supply of armored vehicles, and an undeniable numbers advantage, Russia's fleet of tanks should ostensibly be decimating Ukraine's on the battlefield.

Instead, the struggling superpower has racked up error after error more than a year into the war, resulting in staggering equipment and battle losses as Ukraine attempts to even the playing field ahead of an influx of Western tanks expected to arrive in the coming months.

While the current state of the conflict a brutal stalemate in Bakhmut has not been defined by tank warfare, earlier in the war tank battles captured international attention, including when Ukraine used abandoned Russian tanks to shore up its counteroffensive in Kharkiv last year, and during Russia's failed siege of Vuhledar earlier this year, which was the site of the largest tank battle yet.

The armored vehicles' great strength on the battlefield is three-fold, according to Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine Corps colonel and a senior advisor with the Center for Strategic International Studies security program. Tanks provide mobility, firepower, and protection, Cancian told Insider, offering soldiers the luxury of moving and shooting at the same time.

But when it comes to tanks, practicality is only part of the equation. One of their key capabilities, according to Jeffrey Edmonds, a Russia expert at the Center for Naval Analyses and former US Army armor officer, is the psychological impact they have on the enemy, known as the "shock effect."

Symbolic or not, tank warfare remains a vital aspect of the ongoing war for both sides with Russia reportedly returning to storage to restock its depleted supply and Ukraine continuing its crusade for further aid.

Throughout the war, Russia has primarily relied on four different models of tanks: T-64s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s, with T-72s making up the bulk of their fleet thanks to years of Soviet-era production and more modern updates to the vehicles.

While each tank type has its own distinct style, Cancian and Edmonds told Insider that the vehicles are part of a similar lineage, with each generation of tank representing an updated version of the last.

As a general rule of thumb, "the newer the tank, the more capable it is," Cancian said of Russia's fleet.

But there are exceptions to the rule, the military experts said. The Russians relied on the T-72 so heavily during the Cold War that countless updates and refurbishments rendered the model's capabilities comparable or even superior to that of its direct successor, the T-80, which is generally considered less successful and reliable than the T-72 or the T-90, the latter of which is thought to be Russia's most advanced tank, Edmonds and Cancian said.

Russia's tank design is the product of lessons learned in World War II, according to Edmonds, and as a result, the vehicles tend to be smaller and lighter than Western tanks, as well as lower to the ground, which makes them harder to hit, but also less powerful in a matchup against a heavily-armored, NATO-sized vehicle.

Not accounting for wartime losses, Russia is believed to have started the conflict with an army fleet of about 3,000 tanks, according to several reports citing the International Institute for Strategic Studies nearly double the number of Ukraine's estimated 1,500-strong pre-war fleet.

Even with thousands of tanks on the battlefield, however, diversity among the vehicles has been slim, with Ukraine relying exclusively on its collection of T-64s and T-72s, the same types of tanks that Russia is using.

Enemies forced to face one another using near identical tanks is a result of the countries' shared Soviet history. When the war started, both sides were armed primarily with the same Soviet equipment. But even with the overlap, Cancian and Edmonds said the Russian versions of these tanks, in particular the T-72s, are likely more advanced than their Ukrainian counterparts, given years of updates that Ukraine never had reason to make.

On paper, Russia undoubtedly has the better specs. But the battlefield tells another story.

"The lethality of the system depends on much more than the system itself," Edmonds said of tanks. "It depends on the crew, but it also depends on how it fits into the battlefield and how it integrates with other components of combat power."

Not only has the Russian military been struggling to properly utilize its tanks, but it has also had one hell of a time trying to maintain them.

Stunning February updates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Oryx, an open-source intelligence analysis platform, estimated that Russia has lost about half of its operational tank fleet more than 1,500 tanks since the war began. The staggering losses reportedly hit Russia's store of T-72s and T-80s especially hard, with IISS suggesting the country's supply has been depleted by two-thirds, according to reports.

"The conventional wisdom is that the Russians aren't following their own doctrine," Cancian said. "They have not been using their tanks as part of a combined team."

A key part of effective tank warfare is using the vehicles in tandem with infantry, air support, artillery, and engineers a tactic known as combined arms, according to Cancian and Edmonds.

In one of the earliest displays of dysfunction, the Russians sent a convoy of unprotected tanks straight into an ambush in Bucha just weeks into the war. Then, earlier this year, the Russians repeated the very same mistake in Vuhledar, leading to the loss of more than 100 tanks, several of which were seen smoking and blazing in the Ukrainian snow.

Had the Russians practiced combined arms, they might have sent an infantry team ahead of the tanks to clear the terrain for incoming vehicles and scout possible attack points. But that type of cohesion takes training, and lots of it, Cancian and Edmonds said, a particular struggle among the Russians, who receive most of their training on the job.

"They clearly came into this with a lower level of tactical training than we thought," Edmonds said of the Russian military.

Cohesion among Russian soldiers is unlikely to improve as Russia sustains more than 220,000 casualties, a top UK defense official said this week, citing US intelligence. That number represents a stunning figure that has undoubtedly exacerbated already-existent personnel problems within the military.

Not only do the Russians have too few people to provide proper infantry support, the army seems to be running out of people to operate the remaining tanks. In Vuhledar earlier this year, Ukrainian troops said they captured a Russian medic who was forced to drive a tank, despite his medical background.

Russia's repeated mistakes have been costly, forcing the country to rely on older tanks they've since pulled from storage, including T-62s, T-55s, and T-54s, some of which date as far back as the 1940s.

These decade-old replacements are slower and lack the fire control of modern tanks, Edmonds said; they are generally less effective than their updated counterparts, though still have the capacity to be lethal.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has contributed to Russia's depleted supply, having captured several advanced T-72s ,T-80s, and even some T-90s from the enemy, though the country has also lost between 450-700 tanks itself, according to reports citing the IISS. The Ukrainian military seems to be better at operating their tanks on a tactical level, Edmonds said, citing the army's greater flexibility and initiative.

Following months of pleading from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine finally secured the promise of a long-desired tank haul from several Western countries earlier this year.

The US has pledged to send Ukraine 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks in the coming months; the UK is preparing 14 Challenger 2 tanks to send; Germany promised 14 Leopard 2 tanks; and several other European countries have also pledged to send tanks from their fleet of German-made Leopard 2s.

It's a hefty haul of Western tanks which boast better armor and fire control than the Russian T-72s, Cancian said. All three Western tank models are larger than most Russian tanks and are "quite survivable" thanks to their advanced armor, according to Edmonds.

"Those three tanks are all essentially equivalent," Cancian said, though he gave the slight edge to the American-made Abrams tanks, which have been upgraded more often than the Leopards and Challengers.

It's still unclear when the Western tanks will arrive or what role they will ultimately play in Ukraine's future offensives. Tank usage in the conflict has been minimal in recent weeks as the battle of Bakhmut an ongoing slog of attrition rages on.

"This stalemated frontline where we are right now, this is not a good environment for tanks," Cancian said. "Tanks need to break into the open."

The incoming vehicles could help shake up the current state of the war, according to Edmonds.

"Tanks were designed precisely for that," he told Insider. "To be brought in to make something staticvery fluid."

The much anticipated Ukrainian spring or summer offensive will likely be an attempt to break into the open and upset the Russians' lines, Edmonds said, a goal that would be aided by a fleet of tanks.

But the number of incoming Western tanks less than 150 is unlikely to change the tides of war. Cancian predicted that the tanks will be enough for the Ukrainians to execute "one good" attack as part of their counteroffensive.

"You just have a numbers problem. Even if they're really good, which they are, the numbers are just too small to fundamentally change tank warfare," he said.

The Russians, despite their flailing tank usage thus far, are believed to have thousands of old tanks still in storage to which they can return even, and especially, if they continue to sustain significant equipment losses.

"The Russians, like the Soviets, never threw anything away," Cancian said.

But the promise of incoming Western tanks sets the stage for possible additional equipment assistance to Ukraine in the future, Edmonds said.

"The longer this war goes on, the more effective this type of support will be," he said.

Loading...

Read more:
Russia's tank force is better than Ukraine's, but mistakes tip scales - Business Insider

Ukraine demands emergency UN meeting over Putin nuclear plan – The Associated Press

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) Ukraines government on Sunday called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to counter the Kremlins nuclear blackmail after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed plans to station tactical atomic weapons in Belarus.

One Ukrainian official said Russia took Belarus as a nuclear hostage.

Further heightening tensions, an explosion deep inside Russia wounded three people Sunday. Russian authorities blamed a Ukrainian drone for the blast, which damaged residential buildings in a town just 175 kilometers (110 miles) south of Moscow.

Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the Wests increasing military support for Ukraine. Putin announced the plan in a TV interview that aired Saturday, saying it was triggered by a U.K. decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States. He noted that Washington has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews, he said.

Ukraines Foreign Ministry condemned the move in a statement Sunday and demanded an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

Ukraine expects effective action to counter the Kremlins nuclear blackmail by the U.K., China, the U.S. and France, the statement read, saying these countries have a special responsibility regarding nuclear aggression.

The world must be united against someone who endangers the future of human civilization, the statement said.

Ukraine has not commented on Sundays explosion inside Russia. It left a crater about 15 meters (50 feet) in diameter and five meters deep (16 feet), according to media reports.

Russian state-run news agency Tass reported authorities identified the drone as a Ukrainian Tu-141. The Soviet-era drone was reintroduced in Ukraine in 2014, and has a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).

The explosion took place in the town of Kireyevsk in the Tula region, about 300 kilometers (180 miles) from the border with Ukraine. Russias Defense Ministry said the drone crashed after an electronic jamming system disabled its navigation.

Similar drone attacks have been common during the war, although Ukraine hardly ever acknowledges responsibility. On Monday, Russia said Ukrainian drones attacked civilian facilities in the town of Dzhankoi in Russia-annexed Crimea. Ukraines military said several Russian cruise missiles were destroyed, but did not specifically claim responsibility.

In December, the Russian military reported several Ukrainian drone attacks on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry said the drones were shot down, but acknowledged that their debris damaged some aircraft and killed several servicemen.

Also, Russian authorities have reported attacks by small drones in the Bryansk and Belgorod regions on the border with Ukraine.

On Saturday, Putin argued that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has long asked to have nuclear weapons in his country again to counter NATO. Belarus shares borders with three NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Poland and Russia used Belarusian territory as a staging ground to send troops into neighboring Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

Both Lukashenkos support of the war and Putins plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus has been denounced by the Belarusian opposition.

Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraines National Security and Defense Council, tweeted Sunday that Putins announcement was a step towards internal destabilization of Belarus that maximized the level of negative perception and public rejection of Russia and Putin in Belarusian society. The Kremlin, Danilov added, took Belarus as a nuclear hostage.

Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for use on the battlefield and have a short range and a low yield compared with much more powerful nuclear warheads fitted to long-range missiles. Russia plans to maintain control over the ones it sends to Belarus, and construction of storage facilities for them will be completed by July 1, Putin said.

Russia has stored its tactical nuclear weapons at dedicated depots on its territory, and moving part of the arsenal to a storage facility in Belarus would up the ante in the Ukrainian conflict by placing them closer to Russian aircraft and missiles already stationed there.

The U.S. said it would monitor the implications of Putins announcement. So far, Washington hasnt seen any indications Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon, National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said.

In Germany, the foreign ministry called it a further attempt at nuclear intimidation, German news agency dpa reported late Saturday. The ministry went on to say that the comparison drawn by President Putin to NATOs nuclear participation is misleading and cannot be used to justify the step announced by Russia.

___

Kirsten Grieshaber contributed to this report from Berlin.

Visit link:
Ukraine demands emergency UN meeting over Putin nuclear plan - The Associated Press