MOSCOW, June 29. /TASS/. Renewed US-Iran military exchanges following US strikes on Iran have placed the fragile Middle East ceasefire at risk; disagreements have emerged between Moscow and Washington over the status of the Ukraine-related understandings reached at the Anchorage summit; and the European Union has begun planning additional long-term financial assistance for Ukraine beyond 2027. These stories topped Monday’s newspaper headlines across Russia.

 

Vedomosti: Middle East ceasefire under strain as US-Iran tensions escalate again

In response to US military strikes on Iran, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) conducted a military operation in Kuwait and Bahrain in the early hours of June 28, according to an IRGC statement. Iranian forces fired ballistic missiles and drones against eight US military facilities at Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem Air Base and the US Fifth Fleet headquarters at Bahrain’s Salman Port. The IRGC blamed the United States for violating the ceasefire agreement and warned that any further American military provocations in the Persian Gulf would lead to a full suspension of diplomatic channels. Experts interviewed by Vedomosti believe that the recent escalation stems from Washington’s efforts to pressure and test Iran amid unresolved disagreements, while the fragile ceasefire framework makes further incidents likely and reduces the prospects for a lasting peace agreement.

The latest military escalation in the Middle East appeared to begin a day earlier following two US strikes against Iran. In the first attack, the US Air Force hit Iranian missile and drone storage facilities, as well as coastal radar sites, according to a statement posted by United States Central Command (CENTCOM) on X. A second strike that targeted Iranian military infrastructure followed several hours later.

The United States conducted an armed provocation in an attempt to pressure the Iranian leadership into making concessions in the ongoing US-Iran negotiations, according to Rajab Safarov, director general of the Center for the Study of Contemporary Iran. According to him, Tehran’s authorization for civilian vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz along an agreed route is one of the provisions of the US-Iran agreement. The Iran expert maintains that Washington is evidently seeking once again to test Iran’s ability to respond to military challenges, believing that the Islamic Republic emerged significantly weakened from the recent confrontation. However, Tehran continues to retain its military capabilities, he said.

A partial escalation in the Middle East is inevitable because the ceasefire memorandum has largely remains little more than a facade amid persistent contradictions, Pavel Koshkin, senior researcher at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies, agreed. The expert noted that the agreement is still undergoing a trial period, and therefore such incidents in the region are unlikely to disappear. "This does not mean that military action will resume. However, the increasingly belligerent rhetoric between Washington and Tehran pushes the prospects for a peace deal further away and raises the likelihood of a major escalation," the expert told Vedomosti.

 

Media: Washington distances itself from Alaska understandings on Ukraine

A full misunderstanding has arisen around the "understandings" on Ukraine reached by the presidents of Russia and the United States during their summit in Anchorage. American media reports indicate that Donald Trump, in talks with European leaders, signaled a willingness to step back from the "Alaska understandings," according to which Ukrainian armed forces were to withdraw from Donbass. At the same time, US officials maintain that no such agreements ever existed. Moscow describes this approach as "not very elegant," emphasizing that the United States is stepping back from proposals it itself put forward in Alaska and to which Russia had agreed, Kommersant writes.

Throughout this year, US officials have avoided using specific terminology when referring to the outcomes of the Alaska summit and now seem ready to abandon altogether the positions on which the two presidents had converged there. According to Axios, citing European sources, Donald Trump said during the recent G7 summit in Evian, France, that he was disappointed with Vladimir Putin and was prepared to re-evaluate the outcomes of the Alaska summit.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio made remarks implying that the participants in the Anchorage talks had reached no agreements whatsoever.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could not ignore the comments made by his American counterpart. He recalled that several days before the Alaska summit, US Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine Settlement Steven Witkoff visited Moscow and presented Vladimir Putin with US proposals. The Russian side promised to review them and provide a response at the meeting in Anchorage. According to Lavrov’s explanation, Vladimir Putin subsequently went through each point during the summit to clarify whether the Russian side had interpreted them correctly.

Moscow believes that Donald Trump’s position has been influenced by European countries and Kiev, which "managed to convince the US authorities that Ukraine has something to oppose Russia."

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs and chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, told Kommersant that the exchange between Lavrov and Rubio over whether agreements had been reached in Alaska or whether only proposals had been discussed is revealing in terms of the level of mutual understanding. "The task of Kiev and collective Brussels was to convince Trump that confidence in Ukraine’s inevitable defeat was mistaken. Ten months after Anchorage, they have succeeded in persuading him," he said.

"Europe’s jubilation after the G7 summit in Evian, claiming that ‘Trump is now with us,’ is premature. The American leader changes his mind easily, especially when an issue is not of vital importance. However, he does not change his views because of random gusts of wind, but rather in response to events as he interprets them," Lukyanov added.

According to Lukyanov, "the Russian side does not abandon the assumption that, unlike a completely hopeless Europe, Washington is capable of playing a constructive role. And this is the correct approach. But first, the White House must be brought back to the understanding that a military victory over Russia’s opponents is impossible."

 

Izvestia: Finland opens door to possible nuclear deployment near Russian border

The stationing of nuclear weapons in Finland could begin at air bases in Rovaniemi, located 147 km from the Russian border, experts told Izvestia. President Alexander Stubb has approved amendments allowing the transfer and stockpiling of nuclear weapons in the country. The Russian Embassy told Izvestia that it currently sees no direct signs of active preparations for such deployment. However, F-35A fighter jets capable of carrying US B61-12 nuclear bombs are expected to arrive at the base in the near future. Moreover, Helsinki is interested in participating in a nuclear deterrence program under France’s nuclear umbrella. Norway and Denmark have already joined the initiative.

Until now, Finland had remained virtually the only NATO country with such a strict domestic prohibition. The removal of this ban, however, does not mean that nuclear weapons will appear in the country immediately.

"At the current stage, there are no external indications of deliberate preparations of Finnish infrastructure for the deployment of nuclear weapons here," the Russian Embassy in Finland told Izvestia. "Nevertheless, even the theoretical possibility of their appearance significantly impacts security in the Baltic-Arctic region, and Moscow will have to take this into account," the Embassy added.

"If such a decision is ultimately made, the first locations for [nuclear weapons] deployment could be air bases included in the list of agreed areas under the Finnish-US defense cooperation agreement. However, this remains unlikely at this stage," Nikita Lipunov, junior researcher at MGIMO University’s Institute for International Studies, told Izvestia.

Nevertheless, the deployment of nuclear warheads on Finnish territory remains unlikely, according to experts interviewed by Izvestia. At a minimum, this is because there is no such thing as "NATO nuclear weapons" as such.

"We are not talking about NATO nuclear weapons, but American nuclear weapons. The United States is currently the only NATO country that possesses tactical nuclear weapons in their classical understanding, and these are stored in Europe," military expert Ilya Kramnik told Izvestia. "But I do not think they will be relocated to Finland. That would be quite dangerous: the country directly borders Russia, and any potential storage facility would be under direct threat. It could be among the earliest targets to be struck," he added.

 

Izvestia: EU weighs new long-term funding for Ukraine after current aid expires

Brussels has begun planning new financial assistance for Kiev that would be disbursed after 2027, head of the European Parliament’s delegation for cooperation with Ukraine Pekka Toveri told Izvestia. The current European loan package worth €90 bln is scheduled to run through the end of next year. At the same time, according to Toveri, Kiev already requires additional support amounting to €30-45 bln, with the G7 and NATO currently searching for these funds. However, not all countries are prepared to embark on new financial commitments to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

"Discussions and planning for the future are already underway to ensure that there are no gaps in support after 2027," Toveri said in response to a question regarding a new loan package for Kiev.

Ukraine has already received the first tranche under the €90 bln loan program for 2026-2027. Payments totaling €3.2 bln are intended to cover the budget deficit, while the next transfer of €6 bln, earmarked for drone production, has been postponed. It is evident that approval of the tranches has been proceeding with difficulty. It is known that two-thirds of the €90 bln package is intended for military purposes, while €30 bln is allocated for macro-financial assistance. At the same time, most of the funds will ultimately return to the European Union, since Kiev, under the terms of the arrangement, is required to procure weapons primarily from European suppliers.

Kiev receives the bulk of its financing through the European Union. Today, supporting Ukraine and weakening Russia constitute strategic objectives for the EU, Natalya Eremina, professor at St. Petersburg State University, told Izvestia. Therefore, funding allocations are likely to continue through the redistribution of resources, making a new EU loan package for Kiev highly plausible.

Should the European Commission put forward a new initiative to finance Ukraine, the likelihood of its eventual approval is fairly high, albeit with the customary delays, Yegor Sergeyev, senior researcher at MGIMO University’s Institute for International Studies, told Izvestia.

"The EU does not consider the existence of such instruments to be particularly burdensome. Funds are raised on financial markets rather than directly from member states’ budgets, while the EU’s common budget merely serves as a backstop. At the same time, Ukraine itself is expected to repay these loans in the future," he explained.

 

Vedomosti: Trump administration seeks to sharply restrict asylum access in the US

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller announced on June 26 that the administration is planning to halt acceptance of foreign nationals seeking political asylum in the United States, C-SPAN reported. According to Miller, the White House has developed mechanisms to redirect asylum seekers to third countries. Experts interviewed by Vedomosti believe that while the Trump administration is unlikely to abolish asylum entirely, it is pursuing a broad strategy to sharply restrict both legal and illegal immigration, aided by recent court decisions and expanded third-country deportation arrangements, though many of these measures face legal and humanitarian obstacles.

Miller’s statement about the United States completely closing its doors should be interpreted as political rhetoric rather than as a literal abolition of the asylum institution, Anton Imennov, senior partner at the Pen & Paper law firm, said. The administration is aiming to impose maximum restrictions on both illegal and legal immigration, head of the US socio-political studies group at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) Alexandra Voytolovskaya told Vedomosti.

However, the administration’s influence on this issue has increased in light of recent Supreme Court decisions and the active development of a model of deportation to third countries that have agreements with the United States, Imennov said. "The assumption is that asylum seekers will be safe in those countries. Although a significant number of these arrangements raise questions. For example, in the case of deportations to South Sudan," he said.

Human rights advocates are challenging the legality of introducing an automatic denial for all asylum seekers, partner at the NSP law firm Ilya Rachkov noted. However, the White House relies on the argument that US authorities have the right to temporarily suspend or restrict the admission of asylum seekers under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants the president authority to issue executive orders suspending or restricting the entry of any foreign nationals, the lawyer explains.

According to Imennov, Ukrainian citizens are among the most vulnerable groups in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Their status remains valid through October 19, 2026, and the court’s position makes any extension politically contingent, the lawyer noted.

TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews