WATCH Russian kamikaze UAV take out Ukrainian naval drone
Russian drone operators have published footage of a successful interception of a Ukrainian naval suicide drone during an attack on the Crimean Bridge on Tuesday. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has claimed responsibility for the attack.
Local news reported that air defenses destroyed three aerial drones over the bridge in the early hours of Tuesday, but added that normal traffic resumed later in the day.
In a video released by the Telegram channel Russian Airborne, a Ukrainian unmanned naval drone can be seen speeding across the water. The view from above closes in as the Russian first-person-view (FPV) aerial drone dives down on the Ukrainian suicide vessel.
In later footage, taken from a second UAV, the Lancet can be seen impacting and disabling the Ukrainian naval drone, after which it coasts to a stop.
The Russian Transport Ministry reported that while the bridge had to be closed twice over the course of the day, normal traffic had resumed as of Tuesday evening.
In a statement, the SBU has claimed it had detonated some 1,100 kg of explosives around some of the structure's underwater supports that had been placed there in advance.
According to local news sources, the more likely scenario was that Kiev attempted two waves of attacks with a combination of air, naval and undewater drones but was unable to inflict significant damage on the bridge.
The Defense Ministry in Moscow has not released an official statement on the incident.
Ukraine has repeatedly tried but failed to destroy the critical structure linking Crimea and mainland Russia since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. The bridge did sustain damage twice, in 2022 and 2023, in attacks that caused civilian casualties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
33 minutes ago
- Russia Today
NATO more powerful than Romans and Napoleon – bloc chief (VIDEO)
NATO is the 'most powerful alliance' in global history, Secretary General Mark Rutte has claimed, comparing the US-led bloc to the Roman Empire and Napoleon's army. Rutte urged member states to ramp up military spending to make NATO even 'more lethal' and better prepared to counter the alleged threat from Russia, which Moscow has long denied and ridiculed. 'NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. It's even more powerful than the Roman Empire, and more powerful than Napoleon's empire,' Rutte stated at a press conference ahead of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. 'But the defense alliance needs maintenance and needs investment.' He laid out priorities to strengthen NATO's military, insisting they are essential to deter potential future aggression. 'We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance… We need more resources, forces, and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat,' he added. Rutte claimed that Russia could attack NATO within several years and said the bloc would not be prepared to defend itself unless it moves beyond its long-held 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark. NATO Chief Mark Rutte says the NATO 'defensive alliance' is more powerful than both the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire.1. NATO is essentially the US, and a collection of vassal states that submit to Washington's hegemony 2. The Chief of NATO compares the organisation he… Rutte said he would present member states with a new 'defense investment plan' at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a threat to NATO, calling them 'nonsense' and accusing the West of stoking fear to justify more military spending. Moscow has also warned that the West's rearmament efforts risk escalating into a broader conflict in Europe. Russian officials have also drawn their own historical comparisons. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of trying to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia 'just like in the times of Napoleon and Hitler' through its proxy war in Ukraine. He said the only way to avoid a wider conflict is for the West to abandon its militaristic path. Rutte's imperial comparisons have sparked criticism on social media. Media analyst Michael William Lebron, known as Lionel, wrote: 'NATO's chief boasting they're 'more powerful than the Roman or Napoleonic Empires' sounds less like diplomacy and more like 1939 Berlin. This isn't defense – it's imperial arrogance... Dangerous rhetoric.' John Laughland, a historian and specialist in international affairs, pointed out on X that 'The Roman and Napoleonic empires were not alliances, they were states. Or is NATO now an empire?' 'NATO 'Chief' sounds like Uncle Adolf back in 1939,' Irish journalist Chay Bowes added. British journalist Afshin Rattansi also weighed in, saying it's no wonder non-NATO states view the bloc as 'a hyper-militarist threat' after it 'destroyed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so many others.' Rattansi called Rutte 'a puppet' of Washington and warned that NATO 'is a dangerous, hyper-militarist organization that is far from defensive.'
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Russia reports new railway sabotage near Ukraine
An explosive device has damaged a railway track in Russia's Voronezh Region on Thursday morning, according to the Federal Security Service (FSB). The incident follows what Moscow said were two Ukrainian 'terrorist attacks' on railroad infrastructure earlier this week in the border Bryansk and Kursk Regions that killed seven people and injured more than 100. Earlier in the day, Voronezh Region Governor Aleksandr Gusev reported disruptions to rail traffic in the area, which he said prompted several trains to halt. He explained that the driver of one of the trains 'noticed minor damage to the track,' adding 'there were no injuries.' In a statement, the FSB said the railway was damaged by an explosion which occurred 'directly in front of an approaching train.' It added that 'the professional actions of the train driver and crew, who noticed the track damage and carried out emergency braking,' prevented any severe consequences. The FSB stopped short of assigning the blame for the incident, saying that an investigation is underway. It added, though, that there are 'sufficient grounds' to open a criminal case under terrorism-related charges. The incident comes as Ukraine has significantly ramped up its attacks on Russian territory, including drone raids and sabotage attempts. Following the recent deadly train sabotage in the two Russian border regions, President Vladimir Putin called Kiev's actions 'undoubtedly a terrorist act.' He described the sabotage an 'intentional strike on the [Russian] civilian population,' suggesting that they were aimed at derailing the direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul. Putin subsequently cast doubt on whether it would make sense for Russia to continue the talks, wondering, 'Who conducts negotiations with those who rely on terror – with terrorists?'
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
How the US deep state feeds the Ukraine war
The picture of Lindsey Graham, US Senator for South Carolina, and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, grinning into a camera in Brussels on June 2, is worth a thousand words. Graham is one of the most extreme hardcore warmongers in Washington DC, and the competition is pretty stiff. Ever since he first became a member of the US Congress over 30 years ago – once in, American politicians are rarely voted out – he has devoted his career to arguing vehemently for war. His remarks are often not just belligerent but also sadistic, such as when he recently posted that he hoped 'Greta could swim', meaning that he hoped her Gaza aid ship would be torpedoed. Joking about an attack on a civilian aid ship carrying a young female civilian activist is sick – and typical of Graham. Like his old friend, the late Senator John McCain, Lindsey Graham is obsessed with the idea of war with Russia. He has been pushing for this since at least 2014. In 2016 he told Ukrainian soldiers, 'Your fight is our fight.' Graham's presence in Brussels is therefore significant. Ever since von der Leyen's appointment in 2019, she has pushed herself forward as the principal public face of the Brussels institutions. Six years ago, she said she wanted to make the European Commission into a 'geopolitical' body – even though it has no role in foreign or military policy. Since then, she has done little else than parade on the international stage. She is among the most hawkish and anti-Russian European figures, absurdly claiming, like French Foreign Minister Bruno Lemaire, that EU sanctions have brought the Russian economy to its knees. The Graham-von der Leyen alliance is therefore a natural one – against Donald Trump. European politicians are often quite explicit in their view that Trump is now the enemy. The same goes for Lindsey Graham. In Kiev last week, Graham explicitly challenged Trump's authority to decide US foreign policy. He lambasted the very notion of negotiations with Russia – just as Zelensky did to Vance in the Oval office in February – and said that the president of the US is not the boss. 'In America, you have more than one person at the card table. We have three branches of government,' – meaning that the Senate would soon impose its own sanctions on Russia, whatever the executive does. Graham's budget bill from February is intended to spend even more money on the US military – as if that were possible – which means that he is marshalling the US deep state to fight back after initially reeling from the re-election of Trump. Meanwhile, the Europeans' determination to continue the war is existential. Their Russophobia, which goes back at least to the 2012 Russian presidential election, when Putin came back into the Kremlin, is extreme because their 'Europe' is defined by its hostility to Russia. Russia is 'the other Europe' which the EU does not want to be and which it defines itself against. Von der Leyen and others want to use the war against Russia to federalise Europe and create a single state. Meanwhile, Trump's Russia policy is based on sidelining Europe. When he first announced talks with the Russians, EU leaders demanded a seat at the table. They failed. US-Russia talks took place outside Europe – in Riyadh – while the Russia-Ukraine talks the EU vehemently opposed are taking place without the EU, in Istanbul. Let us not forget how furiously EU leaders opposed talking to Russia. When Viktor Orban travelled to Kiev and Moscow last July, Ursula von der Leyen denounced Orban's 'appeasement'. The EU's then chief diplomat said in an official statement that the EU 'excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin.' The French foreign minister said in February that if Sergey Lavrov telephoned him he would not answer the call. Now these very same people claim they want to 'force' the Russians to come and talk! EU policy on Russia is now in ruins. That is why, like Graham, they are determined to stop Trump. Their attempts have been ever more desperate and ridiculous. On May 12, Kaja Kallas and other EU leaders said Russia 'must agree' to a ceasefire before any talks. Three days later, those talks started anyway. Britain also tried to scupper them by saying it was 'unacceptable' for Russia to demand recognition of the 'annexed' regions, which is odd considering Britain is not a participant. European credibility is therefore at zero. In March, the British prime minister had said that the plans to send British and French troops to Ukraine had entered 'the operational phase.' They were ready, he claimed, to protect Ukraine's security by directly entering the war zone. By April, these plans had been dropped. On May 10, European leaders threatened Russia with 'massive sanctions' if it did not agree to a ceasefire immediately. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire and yet there have been no more 'massive sanctions.' A 17th package of sanctions was indeed announced on May 14, but it was so weak that Hungary and Slovakia, who oppose the EU's overall policy, let it pass. In any case, the 17th package clearly had nothing to do with the ultimatum because such sanctions take a long time to prepare. Instead, that is what Lindsey Graham was in Brussels to discuss. The EU and the UK have thus sidelined themselves with their meaningless braggadocio. They cannot operate without the Americans. But which Americans? The claim that the White House did not know about the recent Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airfields might well be true: the US deep state, embodied by people like Graham, is clearly trying to undermine the executive. Both Lindsey Graham and former CIA director Mike Pompeo were in Ukraine just days before the attack. The political goal of the drone attack was obviously to scupper the talks scheduled for the following day in Istanbul, or to provoke Russia into a massive response and drag the US into the war. Even if the attack does not succeed in these goals, it clearly sets the tone for the future Ukrainian insurgency which, American and European officials hope, will turn that country into an 'Afghanistan' for Russia. The US deep state is in for the long game. So are the Europeans. On May 9, 'Europe Day', European leaders confirmed their intention to set up a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression, to prosecute Russia for invading in February 2022. Western European states are already the primary financers of the International Criminal Court, whose prosecutor is British. The ICC indicted Russian leaders, including Putin, in 2023 and 2024, on various very surprising charges. (Ursula von der Leyen continued to lie about '20,000 abducted children,' the day after the Ukrainians gave the Russians a list of 339 missing children.) Now the Europeans intend to open a new front in their 'lawfare' against Russia. Such a Special Tribunal, if it comes into existence, will tear the heart out of any peace agreement – just as Ukraine's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2014 and 2015 rendered the Minsk agreement of February 2015 null and void. With one side of its mouth, Ukraine asked the ICC to prosecute Russian officials and Donbass 'terrorists'; with the other side, it agreed at Minsk that the Donbass insurgency was an internal Ukrainian problem and ruled out any prosecution or punishment (Article 5 of the February 2015 Minsk agreement). It is not possible to agree a peace agreement with a country and at the same time to set up a Special Tribunal whose sole purpose is to criminalize it. So the creation of this Tribunal, which will presumably remain in existence for over a decade like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, is nothing but a Euro-American institutional time bomb designed to blow up in the future any agreement which the two sides might reach in the short term. The future of 'Europe' depends on that.
