Putin's War Machine Dealt a Double Blow by Kyiv
Ukrainian drones struck two major facilities supplying Russia's military on Monday, dealing a double blow to President Vladimir Putin's war machine.
The facilities struck in early morning attacks were a plant in the Chuvash Republic, which produces navigation systems for Russian drones and missiles, and a gunpowder factory in Kazan, according to local reports.
Newsweek has reached out to the Kremlin for comment by email.
Kyiv's efforts to target Russian military facilities will impact Putin's war effort in Ukraine. Efforts led by Washington to bring an end to the conflict are faltering, and both sides have launched large-scale attacks in recent weeks.
On Monday morning, local media reported that Ukrainian drones struck a facility producing electrical equipment for Putin's military, located some 900 kilometers from the Ukrainian border in the Russian city of Cheboksary in the Republic of Chuvashia.
The head of the republic, Oleg Nikolaev, confirmed the attack. He said in a post on his Telegram channel that the facility suspended operations after it was struck by two drones.
No casualties were reported, he said.
The ASTRA Telegram channel, a project run by independent Russian journalists, published a video that appears to show the aftermath of the strike on the facility.
"Several explosions have rocked Cheboksary in the Chuvash Republic. Thick black smoke is visible over the city," the channel said.
Local residents reportedly saw at least two drones over the city before at least six explosions were heard and black smoke observed. Air defense systems were activated.
Ukrainian news outlet Focus said a second facility—"a gunpowder factory"—was struck in Kazan, a city in southwest Russia.
Local residents reported seeing a thick plume of black smoke.
Meanwhile on Sunday, Ukrainian forces reportedly struck a chemical plant in Tula Oblast. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), an American think tank, said Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation Head, Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko, "who often reports on successful Ukrainian drone strikes against Russia," implied on Sunday that Kyiv's military had struck the Azot chemical plant.
"Kovalenko stated that the plant produces explosives for artillery shells, bombs, and missiles," the ISW said.
The head of the Chuvash Republic, Oleg Nikolaev, said on his Telegram channel on Monday: "This morning, attempts to use drones from Ukraine were recorded in the Chuvash Republic...A responsible decision was made to temporarily suspend production to ensure the safety of employees."
Moscow and Kviv will continue to launch strikes on each other's territory, with the war in Ukraine showing few signs of a peace deal in the near future.
Related Articles
Putin Approves Military Plans Through to 2050Most Russians No Longer See US as Enemy Nation: PollZelensky Addresses 'Complicated' Aftermath of Oval Office Blowup With TrumpRussian Troops Advance Into Another Ukraine Region: Moscow
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia's lead negotiator in Istanbul claims Russia's terms at 2022 talks with Ukraine were "softer"
Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation at recent peace talks in Istanbul, has said that if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms in 2022, its terms would have been less harsh. Source: Medinsky in an interview with RT, the Russian state-controlled international news television network, as quoted by Russian media Details: Medinsky claimed that if Ukraine had been ready and "if it had been making its own decisions", a peace agreement could have been signed as early as 28 February 2022 and would have had "softer" terms than in 2025. After all, the pseudo-historian claimed, "all they wanted was for Ukraine not to join NATO and to say no to the deployment of foreign military bases on its territory". There had also been discussions about making Russian an official language in Ukraine, recognising the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and officially recognising Crimea as Russian, because, in Medinsky's fantasies, "that was the most democratically held referendum imaginable". Medinsky said that after the Russian delegation presented the draft treaty in 2022, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "kept silent for two weeks" and met with representatives from the UK and the US during that time. The Russians were then told "Our foreign partners are opposed to us entering into the agreement – which we had already agreed on," Medinsky claims. Background: After the second round of talks on 2 June, Russian state news agencies published the text of Russia's "memorandum of settlement" with proposals for a ceasefire. In the memorandum, Russia has demanded the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson oblasts. It also calls for Ukraine's neutrality, a ban on the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of Ukraine, and its rejection of nuclear weapons. The New York Times reported, citing sources and the relevant draft agreements, that in April 2022, Russia effectively disrupted peace talks with Ukraine by inserting a clause in the draft agreement stating that it would have the right to veto the international community's response in the event of a repeat attack on Ukraine. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
