Russia has blamed “British specialists” for helping Ukraine execute a deadly missile strike on a munitions factory.

Kyiv said it had struck one of Russia’s “most important military factories” on Tuesday, known as the Kremniy El plant, using British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles.

The site is the second-largest microelectronics manufacturer in Russia.

According to Russian authorities, at least seven civilians were killed and 42 injured in what it called a “terrorist missile attack”.

The Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters: “It is obvious that the launch of these missiles was impossible without British specialists.

“We are aware of this, we know it well, and we naturally take it into account.

“In order to prevent such barbaric actions by the Kyiv regime from continuing, the special military operation is being conducted.”

Russia’s foreign ministry also claimed the attack was premeditated.

It said: “Western states bear full responsibility for the consequences of this strike, which resulted in civilian casualties.

“Britain has gone beyond the norms of international law and is ready… to take the conflict to a fundamentally new level.”

But Ukrainians rejected that analysis, saying the strike targeted the facility itself not civilian infrastructure.

A UK official also told Ukrainian outlet, the Kyiv Independent, that Britain’s support for Kyiv reflects the country’s “clear right of self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks”.

“We are clear that the equipment provided by the UK is intended for the defence of Ukraine. Ukraine has the right of self-defence,” the official said.

They also made it clear they do not “comment on operational details” when asked about Russia’s claim of direct UK involvement in that operation.

The UK has been sending missiles to Ukraine since May 2023 for use against Russia-occupied territories.

The criticism from Russia comes as Vladimir Putin continues to fight his war of attrition over Ukrainian land.

He already holds a fifth of the neighbouring European country but continues to push for more territory, even as the US attempts to negotiate new peace deals – efforts torpedoed by Putin’s refusal to compromise on his maximalist war aims.

Russia has consistently criticised the UK and other Ukrainian allies throughout the four-year war, even falsely blaming Britain for starting the war.

It’s worth remembering there is an international arrest warrant out for Putin himself for the alleged abduction of Ukrainian children.

You might already know that a person’s grip strength correlates strongly with their overall health, ageing status, strength, bone density, cognitive ability, sleep, and more.

A new paper published in JAMA Network Open, which involved over 5,000 women aged 63-99, looked at how both grip strength and a “sit-to-stand” chair rise correlated to mortality.

After eight years of follow-up, they found that women who did well in both tests were less likely to die in the years after the first tests.

The grip strength test was measured in kilograms. The more pressure you apply to an object – like a tool called a hand dynamometer – when you squeeze it, the higher that kilogram figure is.

For every seven extra kilograms in the grip test, participants had a 12% lower mortality risk on average.

The unassisted sit-to-stand chair raises involved getting up from a seated position in a chair to standing without assistance, eg, leaning on something or pushing against an object, as quickly as possible.

They tracked participants’ speed in seconds for five unassisted sit-to-stand chair raises.

“When it came to chair stands, moving from the slowest time to the fastest time in 6-second increments, researchers saw a 4% lower mortality rate,” the University of Buffalo, whose researchers were involved in the study, said.

“If you don’t have enough muscle strength to get up, it is going to be hard to do aerobic activities, such as walking, which is the most commonly reported recreational activity in U.S. adults ages 65 and older,” the study’s lead author, Dr Michael LaMonte, told the University of Buffalo.

“Muscular strength, in many ways, enables one to move their body from one point to another, particularly when moving against gravity… When we [can] no longer get out of the chair and move around, we are in trouble.”

Interestingly, the benefits of greater strength seemed to hold even when participants didn’t meet exercise guidelines for 150 minutes a week.

“We also showed that differences in body size did not explain the muscular strength relationship with death,” Dr LaMonte said. “When we scaled the strength measures to body weight and even to lean body mass, there remained significantly lower mortality.”

The research suggests that maintaining strength as we age is key to better health outcomes.

“Healthy ageing probably is best pursued through adequate amounts of both aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities,” the researcher said.

You don’t need to pump iron daily to reap the benefits, Dr LaMonte suggested: “Even using soup cans or books as a form of resistance provides stimulus to skeletal muscles and could be used by individuals for whom other options are not feasible”.

Expert comment provided by Dr Sophie Bostock, founder of The Sleep Scientist.

Want to hear something a little depressing? The average adult only gets three night’s good sleep a week, research from the Mental Health Foundation found.

In fact, 14% of those asked said they don’t get enough sleep to function normally on any day of the week.

But what is good sleep to begin with, and how can we improve ours?

HuffPost UK spoke to sleep expert Dr Sophie Bostock about what great sleep looks like, how to tell if you’re not well-rested, the mistakes too many of us make, and how to make it better.

A “normal” sleep range for healthy adults is anywhere from seven to nine hours a night.

But Dr Bostock said counting the hours isn’t the only way to tell if you’re sleeping well.

“The best measure of how well you’re sleeping is how you feel during the day,” she explained.

“For most adults, healthy sleep means around 7-9 hours of sleep, at a similar time each night, falling asleep within about 15–30 minutes, and waking up feeling reasonably refreshed.

“Good sleepers aren’t perfect sleepers. Brief awakenings during the night are normal – the key is whether your sleep leaves you feeling capable and alert during the day.”

Tiredness is such a common complaint among adults that it can be hard to tell when you’re truly poorly-rested.

But Dr Bostock told me there are signs.

“If you answer yes to two or more of the [below statements I’d suggest you’d benefit from more, or better quality sleep,” she said:

• Do you lie in at weekends or rest days?

• Do you press the snooze button multiple times?

• Do you rely on sugar or caffeine to get you through the day?

• Do you find yourself dozing off during the day in long meetings, on trains, or on the sofa?

• Do you struggle to concentrate or feel irritable for no reason?

The two most common sleep mistakes Dr Bostock sees are from “either ends of the ‘sleep worry’ spectrum,” she said.

The first issue is “not prioritising sleep enough,” or “treating sleep as optional – squeezing it around work, screens and social commitments”.

That can wear on your body and mind fast.

And in the other extreme, some people struggle with “worrying about sleep too much – trying too hard to sleep, which can trigger the stress response and keep the brain alert”.

Some sleep experts have warned against “orthosomnia,” an obsession with sleep that can paradoxically keep you up at night.

Luckily, Dr Bostock said that getting better sleep is usually easier than most of us imagine.

“Sleep thrives on consistency,” she said.

“The most powerful habits are surprisingly simple: keep your wake-up time fairly consistent, get out into natural light during the day, and build a short wind-down buffer before bed.

“Protecting a dark, cool, quiet sleep environment can also make a big difference – even something as simple as a sleep mask can help support deeper rest.”

Downing Street has admitted that Keir Starmer did not speak to Peter Mandelson directly before appointing him to be US ambassador.

The prime minister is facing intense scrutiny over the decision to give the former Labour peer such a senior role, despite his well-known friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Times reported overnight that Starmer delegated the vetting of Mandelson to two personal friends of the peer.

The prime minister was also warned by his national security adviser Jonathan Powell that the vetting process seemed “weirdly rushed”, while the head of the Foreign Office Sir Philip Barton also raised concerns.

When asked by reporters if it’s true the prime minister did not speak to Mandelson directly before giving him the job, Starmer’s spokesperson said: “The full process at the time of the appointment was followed.

“There is no requirement for a formal interview with the prime minister as part of that process.

“The prime minister received advice on options surrounding the appointment, as well as due diligence advice in the usual way.

“As you know the due diligence noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

“Questions were then put to Mandelson by advisers in No.10.”

The representative added: “Peter Mandelson responded, but it’s clear that there are lessons to be learnt from this and shortcomings in that process have been highlighted.”

He said: “A number of reforms have been brought in and the prime minister is determined to see those through.”

Pressed over why Starmer did not interview Mandelson, he said: “The full process that was in place at the time was followed.

“You’ve heard from the prime minister yesterday when he reiterated his apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing Peter Mandelson.”

Starmer said on Thursday: “It was my mistake and I take responsibility in relation to it.”

Asked if the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was involved in interviewing Mandelson, the spokesperson said: “Im not going to comment ahead of any future releases and clearly there’s also some document which we have alluded to already which are part of the police investigation.”

The Times reported that Starmer instructed McSweeney, a personal friend to Mandelson, to ask him just three questions about his connections to Epstein.

McSweeney allegedly did not express any views about Mandelson’s responses.

His replies were then reportedly assessed by No.10′s then-director of communications, Matthew Doyle, who was also a personal friend to Mandelson.

Doyle reportedly said he was “satisfied” with the peer’s answers.

The government released its first tranche of documents related to the vetting around the peer’s appointment this week.

Some information is being withheld while Scotland Yard carries out its own probe into Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office.

Mandelson denies all allegations of wrongdoing.