Russian missile attack injures seven in Mykolaiv, Ukraine says
Two of the injured were hospitalised as a result of the late Saturday attack, Mykolaiv Governor Vitaliy Kim said on the Telegram messaging app.
Kim posted photos showing single residential buildings almost destroyed, with building debris spread around. He said 23 private homes, 12 apartment buildings and a post office were damaged.
Reuters could not independently verify the report. There was no immediate comment from Russia about the attack. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Moscow launched with a full-scale invasion on Ukraine in February 2022.
Ukraine's air force said on Telegram that Russia had launched 76 attack drones and seven missiles targeting Ukraine overnight, striking eight locations throughout Ukraine. Ukraine's air defence units destroyed 60 of the drones and one missile, it said.
In the early days of the war, the Mykolaiv region stood on the front lines, facing frequent artillery strikes and aerial attacks. Even after Russian forces were pushed back in late 2022, drones and missiles have remained a constant danger to communities.
In the front-line regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, at least three people were killed and more than 12 injured as a result of Russia's attacks over the 24 hours into Sunday morning, regional governors said.
Russia also launched a short-lived missile attack on Kyiv overnight, but there were no reports of injuries or damage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's odds of winning or losing his multitude of battles
In picking fights and waging wars on multiple fronts, President Trump should heed the advice of Britain's greatest sailor and naval hero Lord Horatio Nelson: Only a fool or a stupid ship's captain would ever fight a fort. While immobile, unlike ships, forts were better defended and protected. And forts were more easily reinforced, rearmed and resupplied by land than ships at sea, which then had to find suitable ports. Trump is not at sea except in the minds of his many critics, yet he has joined several simultaneous battles against forts. He has given Russia no more time beyond Monday's 10-day deadline to end the war in Ukraine. Former Russian President and Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev has threatened nuclear war if Trump is not careful. In that regard, Russia is a formidable fort armed with nuclear weapons equal to America's. Trump started a global trade war with his announcement Friday of new tariffs, having struck a deal with the European Union while still negotiating with China. He seems to have picked a fight with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over relieving extreme starvation in Gaza, after having turned a Nelsonian blind eye toward an estimated 61,000 Palestinian deaths. And he surely is at war at home against so-called woke law firms and universities and, remarkably, a more than significant part of his MAGA base over refusing to come clean about his relationship with the deceased sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Whether Trump will prevail or fail in all, some or none of these battles will largely determine his administration's future and will almost certainly impact congressional elections in 2026 and the presidential vote in 2028, for which he is legally prevented from running. For most mere mortals, bookies would set the odds of failing or losing at least one of these battles as very low. Running the deck, however, would recoup a fortune in bets. Yet Trump's history has reversed all the odds against him. This makes any seemingly rational bet to the contrary exceedingly dumb. In this ability to overcome setbacks that would crush most people, Trump made Bill Clinton's reign as the ' The Comeback Kid ' seem both short and trivial. Will that luck hold out? War with Russia will not happen. Putin, however, will not be impressed or moved by the threat to force negotiations by imposing new sanctions or deploying two American nuclear submarines that somehow will annoy or worry Russia sufficiently to abandon its efforts. At the moment, while the war in Ukraine will not be fought to the last Russian, there are no compelling facts or arguments to convince Putin he is losing or needs to withdraw his forces. Quite the contrary. Similarly, in Gaza, Netanyahu's actions will determine America's. The relationship with Israel has grown so close over the decades since the 1956 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars that the U.S. no longer tries or considers not giving Israel basically what it needs or demands. What could happen in these conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, as with the Houthis, is that the U.S. withdraws and the situation reverts back to the pre-war days. The global trade war is different. The administration asserts that tariffs will not raise inflation and will generate greater economic growth. This argument is the equivalent of the ship commanded by Nelson's dim witted captain. Other states will react. The World Trade Organization and its agreed upon principles will become cannon fodder. Even though imports comprise only about 11 percent of U.S. total GDP, the effects of tariffs will be much greater. Unlike Gaza and Ukraine, of which Trump can wash his hands, the economy is not something that can be discarded like a used tissue. Trump will have to do something to explain or cover up any misjudgments. The only way for that to happen comes from the Trump playbook: Call the bad data 'fake news,' dissemble and stall — or cling to the belief that tariffs are working, despite all the contradictory evidence. Ironically, Epstein may be the problem that simply will not disappear — the fort that ultimately wins. Trump is trapped by his promise to release all the Epstein files. Suppose there are none and nothing more to release? Or suppose the files contain truly damaging revelations about Trump or his circle? There may be no way out. One conclusion is clear: The fewer fights picked, the better. And the chances of winning many are not odds most people would accept. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Kremlin Warns Against ‘Nuclear Rhetoric' In Trump-Medvedev Feud
Russia warned against 'nuclear rhetoric' on Monday after an online feud between President Donald Trump and Russian former President Dmitry Medvedev led to the U.S. deploying two nuclear submarines last week. 'Russia is very cautious about nuclear nonproliferation matters, and we believe everyone should be very careful about nuclear rhetoric,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in a call with reporters. 'On the whole, certainly, we absolutely wouldn't like to engage in such polemics, nor would we like to comment on that in any way,' Peskov said in response to a question about the deployment of the submarines. What began as an online war of words between Trump and Medvedev escalated into nuclear brinkmanship on Friday when Trump said he had ordered the two nuclear submarines into 'appropriate regions.' Tensions have been growing between the U.S. and Russia as Trump has grown frustrated with Moscow's unwillingness to agree to his terms to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Trump issued a 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate a peace deal with Ukraine in early July, to which Medvedev responded that Russia 'didn't care' in a July 15 post on X. Trump picked up the feud in a Truth Social on July 31: 'Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' Medvedev then made a veiled threat to use a Cold War-era Soviet nuclear capability known as 'The Dead Hand,' which allows Moscow to launch nuclear strikes even if humans who would usually issue the orders to do so had been killed in a first strike. Trump reacted to the 'highly provocative' statement with an order to deploy the submarines. 'I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Friday. The President later told the press that the deployment was to "protect our people." The Kremlin appeared to seek to calm the mood on Monday, however. 'There can be no winner in a nuclear war,' Peskov said. 'This is probably the key premise we rely on. We do not think there is talk of any escalation.' Together, the U.S. and Russia own more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, harboring nearly 90% of nuclear weapons across the globe. A single nuclear weapon in New York City could kill more than 580,000 people, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Trump has said that he would levy tariffs against Russia should they not broker a peace deal by the new Aug. 8 deadline.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Ukraine is now Trump's war
Donald Trump Russia War in UkraineFacebookTweetLink Follow Vladimir Putin started it. Joe Biden didn't stop it. But, no matter his efforts to the contrary, this is the week in which Russia's invasion of Ukraine becomes US President Donald Trump's war. The most powerful office in the world doesn't always invite choices. Trump is mandated to address the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II because the United States was involved, under his predecessor, as Ukraine's key ally and sponsor. Trump could have dropped the war entirely. But instead, he chose to impose the force of his personality, initially through the idea he could end it in 24 hours, or a revised deadline of 100 days. Then he tried to navigate its personalities, cozying up to the Russian president initially, echoing his narratives and then berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly in the Oval Office. He hit his NATO allies hard, demanding they pay more for Europe's defense, which they did. And then the hard slog of diplomacy sputtered into gear, ultimately yielding very little. But it is in the last fortnight that Trump's decisions – and realizations – have turned this into a problem he now owns. He has seen Putin does not want peace. He has seen Ukraine urgently needs arms, and he tried to help, albeit in a lackluster way. He made the remarkable choice of responding to the usually dismissed nuclear saber-rattling of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, with harder nuclear threats about positioning US nuclear submarines closer to Russia. The US went from pausing military aid to Ukraine to threatening nuclear force against Russia in less than a month. As this week ends, with Trump's shortened deadline for a peace deal coming into view, he must make perhaps the most consequential decision of the conflict yet. Does he impose penalties – secondary tariffs against Russia's energy customers – that really hurt? Does he accept the US and its allies might need to endure a little pain economically, to inflict pain? Imposing serious secondary sanctions on India and China could roil the global energy market. Trump posted Monday he would be increasing tariffs on India because it was selling Russian crude on at a profit, and he didn't 'care how many people are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' although he did not provide details as to the new measures. India has not made it publicly clear if it intends to stop buying Russian energy products. China is utterly dependent on Russian oil and gas and simply cannot afford to stop buying it. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh describes the riveting escape plan hatched by Ukrainian forces to save the life of an injured soldier pinned down by Russian attacks. To avoid another a 'TACO' moment – short for Trump Always Chickens Out – Trump will have to cause some discomfort and will likely feel some back. Or he can look for an off-ramp, if one is offered to his special envoy Steve Witkoff in an expected Moscow visit this week. Trump could perhaps accept a bilateral meeting with Putin as a sign of progress toward peace. But even this backing down would still mean he has left his indelible imprint on the war – that, in the words of former US Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Iraq, if the United States breaks it, they own it. Trump cannot have it both ways. It is in his nature to seek to be the fulcrum of all decisions, and the lightning rod of attention, on any given issue. Every turning point so far has been based around his personal choice and fancy. And with this comes a key lesson of the American presidency. Trump does not get to choose which problems are his, and which he can ignore. MAGA's America First platform may be about reducing Washington's global footprint, but it doesn't permit Trump to own solely his successes – and not his failures. Unless Trump reduces the footprint of American power globally to zero – incompatible with a presidential personality compelled to 'do' and agitate – there will always be some problems that are America's. He says he wants wars to stop. But that is not enough in itself. The wars have not all complied. Former US President Barack Obama inherited wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He ducked fast out of the former, and doubled down with a surge in the latter, which did not work. Afghanistan became Obama's war, even though it was a mess he had inherited. Trump in turn was passed that mess, and he handed his quick fix to Biden to execute, in the chaotic collapse of August 2021, widely paraded by Republicans as a Democrat failing. Trump faces the same problem of inheriting a crisis. He cannot wish or cajole the conflict to an end. The very battlefield deaths he mourns have sewn damage and grief afar, turning this into an existential war of survival for the Kremlin, and for the soul of Ukrainian society. Ukrainians want to live in peace, without nightly air raid sirens. Putin does not want peace, and instead his most recent maximalist demands amount to something tantamount to Ukrainian surrender. Ultimately, it is reflection of a harsh reality that this should be seen as Trump's war. It is the defining conflict of his presidency and of the post-9/11 era. Its outcome defines European security and Chinese belligerence over the next decade. China understands that and needs Russia to win. Europe understands that, and is arming itself so Russia does not see opportunity in the bloc's weakness. Whether Trump understands this and accepts discomforting, strident decisions with the consequences that follow, we will learn in the week ahead.
