Fresh strikes reported despite Putin's declared ceasefire
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
Ukrainian authorities early on Thursday reported fresh bombing raids despite a unilateral ceasefire announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which reportedly came into effect at midnight (2100 GMT Wednesday).
Russian aircraft dropped guided bombs multiple times over the northern Sumy region, the Ukrainian Air Force said on Telegram, warning of ongoing air activity in an easterly direction.
Meanwhile, drone alerts and attacks were also reported early Thursday in the Lipetsk region in western Russia, according to regional governor Igor Artamonov.
The information provided by both sides could not be independently verified.
A 72-hour unilateral ceasefire declared by Moscow came into effect just after midnight, according to Russian state news agency TASS.
Putin announced the ceasefire to coincide with Russia's annual Victory Day celebrations on May 9, which commemorate the end of World War II in Europe.
Ukraine has dismissed the move as symbolic and, along with the United States, continues to call for a minimum 30-day ceasefire.
"Our proposal for a halt to the strikes, for a ceasefire of at least 30 days, still stands," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in his nightly video address on Wednesday.
"But it is Russia that the world sees giving no answer – no response except for new strikes," he added.
Ukraine has been defending itself against a full-scale Russian invasion for more than three years.
A general view of a building damaged by a large-scale Russian drone attack in the city of Maryinka. Dmitry Yagodkin/TASS via ZUMA Press/dpa
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian military freight train blown up en route to Crimea, Ukraine's HUR claims
A Russian military train carrying fuel and food was blown up overnight on June 1 near Melitopol, according to Ukraine's military intelligence (HUR). "The Muscovites' key logistical artery on the occupied territory of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Crimea has been destroyed," HUR's statement said. The agency stopped short of claiming responsibility for blowing up the Russian train station in southern Zaporizhzhia Oblast, but said "the fight against the military logistics of the Russian occupiers continues." HUR's statement further noted heightened Russian searches and stricter checkpoints in the region as Russian forces seek to find those responsible. It was a bad night for Russian railways. A train derailed in Bryansk Oblast, which borders Ukraine to the North, after a road bridge collapsed, killing at least seven people and injuring 69 others. Preliminary reports suggest that explosions were heard in the Vygonichsky district of Bryansk Oblast ahead of the impact, and Moscow Railways, a subsidiary of state-run Russian Railways, claimed that the bridge collapsed due to the "unlawful interference in transport operations." No further information was provided as to the cause of the bridge collapse, and the full extent of the damage was not immediately clear. And the Ukrainian partisan group Atesh claimed to have sabotaged a railway in occupied Donetsk Oblast. Read also: As 50,000 Russian troops amass, Ukraine's Sumy Oblast braces for potential large-scale offensive We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian soldiers surrendered because 'abuse in units is worse than captivity,' Ukrainian paratroopers say
A group of Russian soldiers fighting in the Kursk direction surrendered to Ukrainian paratroopers because "abuse in units is worse than captivity," Ukraine's Airborne Assault Forces said in a video posted on social media on May 31. "In their units on the territory of the Russian Federation, they were subjected to inhumane treatment, psychological pressure and threats," the post reads. Russia's abuse of its own soldiers has been well documented throughout the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. An investigation by the Insider last July reported that Russia uses a systematic program of "gulag-style" abuse directed at its soldiers in Ukraine in order to "maintain order" and punish perceived offenders. According to the Insider, the patterns of abuse of Russian soldiers in Ukraine "borrow heavily from Soviet labor camp traditions." Russian units have employed "punishment squads" that seek out soldiers who are abusing alcohol, refuse orders, or are simply disliked, and then subject them to a variety of abuse, including beatings and "confinement pits." A report in Foreign Policy in 2023 detailed a decades-long system of "sadistic hazing" in the Russian army that included one soldier who had to have his legs and genitals amputated after he was forced to squat in the snow for several hours. The video released by Ukraine's Airborne Assault Forces shows at least eight Russian soldiers interviewed at an undisclosed location. One describes being sent to the front less than a month ago and being "blown up immediately," leaving just two men alive in his unit. Another said his unit was left to dig trenches and fend for themselves when they were spotted by a Ukrainian drone and "after that everything fell apart." "The prisoners were provided with the necessary medical and psychological assistance," the military said. Intercepted calls released by Ukraine's military intelligence (HUR) suggest numerous abuses by Russian commanders against their own troops, including one incident where one lost his temper and ordered his soldiers to shoot at their own comrades in a neighbouring unit. "F**k the 55th (an adjacent Russian unit), shoot them, that's the battalion commander's order, shoot them," a Russian commander can be heard saying in an audio published by HUR on April 5. The unidentified Russian commander appears frustrated at the adjacent Russian unit for not properly following an order and revealing their positions to Ukrainian troops. The Kyiv Independent couldn't independently verify the authenticity of the audio published by HUR. Read also: Russian military freight train blown up en route to Crimea, Ukraine's HUR claims We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will Starmer's military review match the threats we're told we face?
Down a discreet road, on the fringes of a quiet home counties commuter town, is a set of grey buildings worth many hundreds of millions of pounds. In one, behind a secure fence, a handful of workers are on shift this weekend, making Storm Shadow missiles by hand. Each one is worth hundreds of thousands, the product of months of work, made of myriad components. Storm Shadows, like mini-aircraft, have been flying in the skies above Ukraine with a range of 250km (155 miles), part of the UK's backing of President Volodymyr Zelensky's efforts to try to keep Russia's Vladimir Putin at bay. The factory is calm and quiet - a world away from the fire and fury of the conflict on the edge of Europe. We've been allowed to see the missiles up close because the government is warming up for a big moment on Monday, when the prime minister will unveil a major review of the military, the strategic defence review. Sir Keir Starmer has already said we are living in a "new, dangerous era", with a malevolent Russia and its friends hungry to disrupt and damage the West - while the White House is less eager to cough up to defend Europe. So will this review meet the risk that politicians tell us we face? We have gone through many years in which defence has been a lower priority for politicians and the public, largely because peace has prevailed in the UK. Since the end of the Cold War, a former minister says, "we've been going round the world making sure we are reassuring allies, and there have been some very nasty wars in the Middle East". But, at the same time, the proportion of cash spent on defence has shrunk, and the ability of the military to fight "peer-on-peer" wars has decreased. There are well known worries about stockpiles, a lack of munitions, and weapons being decommissioned that haven't yet been replaced. We now have a smaller armed forces - one that is "hollowed out", in the words of the current Defence Secretary John Healey, who we'll talk to on this week's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. Yet now, the government certainly confronts a more alarming picture - and there is a concerted focus on trying to address it. With conflict on the edge of Europe in Ukraine, a former minister says, "if you are going to credibly deter Russia, you need to persuade them, actually, if they mess around with Nato, they lose". And that's before you consider that Donald Trump is a lot less willing than his predecessor to pay for other countries' defence, and China's "imminent" threat to Taiwan highlighted by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth overnight. So what will next week's review suggest for the here and now, as well as the long term future? First, a caveat. The report is not published in full until Monday; it will be important to examine what it recommends. But the broad outline seems pretty clear: expect it to underline the importance of nuclear weapons and the UK's commitment to Nato, the Western defence alliance. There will be an emphasis on modernising the forces, not least because the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of drones and adapting existing kit quickly to lethal effect. We have clues from the announcements ministers have already made about technology and protecting the country from cyber attacks. The review, and ministers' messaging alongside it, will stress a greater need, in their view, for the public to play a part in protecting the country. A government source says "it's about making sure we think more about national resilience", and a "whole society approach" towards threats. That is expected to include announcements about British industry creating more defence kit, expanding the cadet forces, and bolstering the number of men and women in the military reserves. There have been suggestions of a new civilian force - a new "Home Guard" - to protect infrastructure such as power plants, airports and telecommunications hubs. As another source says, "there is a lot of talk about resilience, a push across the whole of society, the kind we have only done twice in our history, in World War One and World War Two". This is "not telling everyone they need to go out and build an Anderson shelter," jokes a former minister, but No 10 does want to usher in a new way of thinking among ordinary people geared towards keeping the country safe. Whether any of these potential recommendations will change much is up for debate, though. While government sources claim it will be "transformative" and hail a "bold new vision", others are playing down its likely impact. A former Conservative defence minister suggests ministers have "massively overegged" what the review will really promise, and "we'll get a lot of things that sound great, but not many things that actually get moving". A source involved in discussion around the review explained: "What will change? Substantively not much - there is a rhetorical change towards Nato and Europe, but it's not a major change in terms of capability - it's all pretty marginal." The Ministry of Defence's permanent secretary David Williams has already said in public that it won't be until the autumn that we'll get specific details about exactly what is going to be ordered, spent and when. The PM has already sped up his plans to spend 2.5% of the size of Britain's economy on defence by 2027, rather than the initial timescale of 2029. UK Defence Secretary John Healey said on Saturday there was "no doubt" UK defence spending would rise to 3% of GDP by 2034 at the latest. All that doesn't make the problems go away. The first is that after inflation and public sector pay rises, insiders question if 2.5% is enough to meet current defence plans - let alone the government's increasing ambition. Existing, expensive plans will remain - such as recapitalising the army, investing in nuclear, carrying on with the Aukus submarine deal with America and Australia, and the global combat air programme to build a next-generation fighter jet - which will gobble up billions of pounds now and for years to come. Second, the chancellor doesn't want to change her self imposed rules on borrowing and spending again, so as we talked about last week, money is tight in government. Defence is already a relative winner in the review of government spending that's coming down the tracks. Third, the PM faces a political dilemma - a pound on defence is a pound that doesn't go on health or welfare, and you won't find huge numbers of Labour MPs who stood for Parliament with the goal of giving more to the military, while trying to reduce benefit payments. Defence has long been one of the PM's big signals to the party and country that he is different to his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. His version of Labour is comfortable appearing in front of Union Jacks, posing with soldiers or clambering in and out of submarines, though not all of his colleagues are. And fourth, fundamentally there is a political question about whether a promise of big cash coming in the 2030s matches increasingly urgent rhetoric about the dangers we face which other allies are using to speed up defence spending more dramatically. At the end of June, Nato allies will gather for a major summit in The Hague. Nato's secretary general Mark Rutte has already made abundantly clear he wants the UK and its allies to be spending at least 3% on defence as soon as possible. The US, the country with the biggest cheque book, wants countries to aim for as much as 5% and if it's to be less, to stop claiming that pensions, health care for veterans or other costs, can be counted as defence spending. I'm told the summit could set a new target for Nato allies to spend 3.5% on defence either by 2032 or by 2035. If that happens, the UK could seem to be lagging behind. As a senior figure warns, for some Nato members, spending 3.5% of GDP on defence is a already a "done deal" - but the UK is still "hopping around". Almost before the ink is dry on the defence review, the government's critics may be able to warn it falls short. Perhaps then, the government's approach is as far as it is currently financially or politically possible to go. But with the PM warning defence should be the "central organising principle" of government - the first thought in the morning and the last at night - threats to our security might evolve faster than politics. This week there will be fierce scrutiny of whether we're really keeping up. Numbers are down - but Starmer will still struggle to win on immigration The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them? The real problem facing Britain's shrinking military Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
