Russian missile attack kills five in Ukraine's southeast
KYIV (Reuters) -A Russian missile attack on Friday killed at least five people and wounded more than 20 in the industrial city of Samar in Ukraine's southeast, officials said, the second strike on the city in three days.
At least four of the wounded were in severe condition and were taken to hospital, regional governor Serhiy Lysak said on the Telegram messaging app.
Officials gave no immediate details on damage in the city, where an attack on an unidentified infrastructure facility on Tuesday killed two people.
Hundreds of kilometres to the south, in the Kherson region, authorities urged residents on Friday to prepare for extended periods without power after a Russian attack hit a key energy facility.
Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said on Telegram that "Russians decided to plunge the region into darkness".
In recent weeks Russia has stepped up attacks on Ukrainian cities, particularly its capital Kyiv, more than three years into the war that followed its full-scale invasion.
The Ukrainian air force said Russia had launched 363 long-range drones and eight missiles overnight into Friday, targeting a small western city of Starokostiantyniv, home to an important air base. There were no details on damage.
(Reporting by Yuliia Dysa, writing by Olena Harmash, Editing by Aidan Lewis)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
22 minutes ago
- The Star
London climate week receives boost as Trump policies weigh on New York event
LONDON (Reuters) -London's climate week attracted record attendance, bolstered by the cloud hanging over its sister event in New York in September as the U.S. government turns its back on efforts to stop global warming and tightens entry requirements. The annual London Climate Action Week (LCAW), which ends on Sunday, more than doubled in size compared to the 2024 edition, hosting 700-plus events and more than 45,000 attendees. That was helped by the UK's more robust stance on climate action and support for visitors from developing countries, two dozen business, political and civil society sources told Reuters. "We have gone much bigger on LCAW this year - we are hosting several events and putting considerably more effort (in) than in the past. If we do send someone to New York, it will almost certainly just be an American citizen member of our team," said Alexis McGivern, Head of Stakeholder Engagement at Oxford Net Zero. Under President Donald Trump, the United States has left a global deal to lower climate-damaging carbon emissions, cut development aid, rowed back on environmental standards and moved to slash support for green technologies. By contrast, the British government was present across multiple events during LCAW, with energy secretary Ed Miliband saying he wanted Britain to be a "clean energy superpower" and to "get off the roller coaster of fossil fuel markets". 'YOU CAN TALK FRANKLY' Given the U.S. pushback, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, a U.N. Indigenous Peoples representative and climate change expert, said London offered more freedom to discuss climate change, diversity and human rights. "You can talk frankly with the government of the UK or any government here in London without being afraid of how you get treated, or targeted," she said. Philanthropists and private investors, too, are able to speak more openly without being targeted politically, or risking damaging business interests, she said. "This year the New York Climate Week is going to be very challenging," she said. "Not only to indigenous peoples, but even to governments. There are so many barriers that are making people say, let's act now in London." Among steps taken in London was a push by governments for indigenous peoples' land rights to be better protected and a plan to encourage companies to buy more carbon credits. Chief among the concerns about New York, particularly for civil society representatives, was whether they could even get in. TRAVEL BANS This month, the U.S. banned travellers from countries including Afghanistan, Congo Republic and Somalia - many exposed to rising extreme weather events and in need of the most help - and may yet add more. Ibrahim, whose home country Chad is also on the list, said she would travel using her diplomatic passport but was uncertain if she would be allowed in - a concern flagged by half a dozen other LCAW attendees. Helen Clarkson, CEO of Climate Group, which runs New York Climate Week, said she understood it would be harder for participants from certain countries to attend but that many businesses, governments and civil society were planning to come and were "super up for New York." " is shaping up similar to other years," she said. "This is a critical moment before COP." COP30 will take place in Brazil in November. (Reporting by Virginia Furness and Simon Jessop; Editing by Aidan Lewis)
Malaysia Sun
an hour ago
- Malaysia Sun
Russia and Malaysia to boost nuclear cooperation
Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and a Malaysian delegation have discussed steps to deepen ties during high-level talks in Moscow Russia and Malaysia have agreed to expand cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, state nuclear corporation Rosatom announced, following high-level talks in Moscow on Friday. The meeting was attended by Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev and Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof. The discussions focused on the use of Rosatom's Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) technologies, according to a Rosatom press release. "We value our collaboration and aim for a long-term strategic partnership based on mutual trust and shared objectives," Fadillah, who is also Malaysia's Energy Transition and Water Transformation Minister, stated at the meeting. Likhachev said Malaysia is interested in Russian floating nuclear power stations, following Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's visit to Russia last month. "We offered [Malaysia] the entire spectrum: large and small stations, both land-based and floating. For various reasons, the Malaysians are choosing floating nuclear power plants with a capacity of 100 MW each," he told Izvestia news outlet. "They can be created here in Russia and brought there fully operational." During their current visit, the Malaysian delegation toured the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant in St. Petersburg, one of Rosatom's largest facilities, to observe Russia's latest nuclear technologies and safety standards. They also visited the ATOM Pavilion at Moscow's VDNKh - the country's key nuclear science education hub, featuring more than 1,700 interactive exhibits. Fadillah called the experience "eye-opening," praising the pavilion as both a display of innovation and a center of historical awareness. "This visit reinforced my belief that technology, when guided by knowledge, values and responsibility, can be a powerful driver for a future that is sustainable, innovative and globally competitive," he wrote in a post on social media. During his 5-day visit, Fadillah also held a bilateral meeting in Moscow with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Overchuk. (
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
