City levelled to the ground: soldiers post photos showing Vovchansk in Kharkiv Oblast
Soldiers from the 34th Separate Motorised Infantry Battalion Vovkodavy (part of the 57th Separate Motorised Infantry Brigade) have posted photos from the town of Vovchansk in Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian offensive began exactly one year ago.
Source: The Vovkodavy Battalion
Quote: "The battalion was initially deployed in the village of Tykhe. This is on the eastern outskirts of Vovchansk.
We stopped the enemy and even carried out offensive operations. Then the decision was made to redeploy us to the city of Vovchansk itself. And from that moment on, we have been in Vovchansk for over 10 months.
During this time, we have not lost our positions, and the battalion is holding its defensive area. Next was a large-scale operation to liberate the Aggregate Plant in Vovchansk. After liberating the plant, we conducted a mop-up operation, and it also came under our responsibility."
Details: Soldiers said that within a year, the city had been practically levelled to the ground – the difficult conditions of urban combat had become almost impossible, and they had to hold their defences amongst the ruins.
Quote: "All that's left of the houses are bricks and concrete debris. Underneath them are tunnels. It's a war conducted in tunnels. We're in tunnels, and the occupiers are in tunnels. We see enemy movement; the infantry comes out and shoots them. That's the whole tactic. It's simple and complicated at the same time."
Details: Soldiers noted that no equipment was entering the city and artillery fire was limited.
In these conditions, the infantry is coming to the fore.
The Russians are conducting daily assaults. "Vovchansk has become a meat grinder for the Russians, into which they constantly throw new cannon fodder," the soldiers write.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nato jets scrambled as Russia launches 'biggest drone bombardment' of Ukraine
Poland scrambled fighter jets early on Monday in response to a wave of Russian airstrikes on western Ukraine. The Operational Command of the Polish armed forces confirmed allied aircraft had been activated to ensure the safety of the country's airspace. "The steps taken are aimed at ensuring security in the regions bordering the areas at risk," the Command said on X. All of Ukraine was under air raid alerts as of 3am BST on Monday after the Ukrainian Air Force warned of Russian missile and drone attacks. Ukraine's air force said 479 Russian drones were launched in the war's biggest overnight drone bombardment. Apart from drones, 20 missiles of various types were fired at different parts of Ukraine, according to the air force, which said the barrage targeted mainly central and western areas of Ukraine. Ukraine's air defences destroyed 277 drones and 19 missiles in mid-flight, an air force statement said, claiming that only 10 drones or missiles hit their target. Officials said one person was injured. It comes as Moscow launched what officials have described as one of the largest assaults on Ukraine's second-largest city, Kharkiv, over the weekend — killing four people, injuring nearly 60, and marking a significant escalation in the conflict Kharkiv's Mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said 48 drones — two missiles and four glide bombs — had been used against the city on Friday night, while more glide bombs were reportedly dropped on Saturday. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha has urged allies to increase pressure on Moscow and to take "more steps to strengthen Ukraine" in response to Russia's latest attacks. Poland—a Nato member and one of Ukraine's staunchest allies—plays a key role in coordinating and channeling Western military aid to Kyiv. Its heightened alert status underscores the escalating regional security risks as the war enters its third year. On Monday, a Ukrainian drone strike, among the deepest into Russia in more than three years of the war, forced a temporary suspension of production at an electronics company in the Volga river region of Chuvashia, the head of the region said. The strike, some 1,300 km (800 miles) from the border with Ukraine, caused no casualties, Chuvashia Governor Oleg Nikolayev said in a statement on the Telegram messaging app. But "the responsible decision was made to temporarily suspend production to ensure the safety of employees" of the VNIIR enterprise where the drones fell, Nikolayev said. It was not immediately clear whether the drones caused any damage. Nikolayev said that another drone fell onto some fields in the area of the capital of the region, Cheboksary. Ukraine's military said in a Telegram statement on Monday that "at least two drones" hit the VNIIR facility that specialises in manufacturing navigation equipment used in attack drones, guided aerial bombs and high-precision weapons. The Ukrainian military said the drone attack sparked a large-scale fire at the VNIIR plant, although reports could not independently verified. The Russian defence ministry - which reports only how many drones were destroyed not how many Ukraine launched - said on Telegram that its units downed two drones over Chuvashia. In total, it said, air defence systems destroyed 49 Ukrainian drones overnight over Russia. Kyiv has often said that its attacks inside Russia are aimed at destroying infrastructure key to Moscow's war efforts and are in response to the continued Russian strikes on Ukraine.
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns Show Caption Hide Caption See how Los Angeles protests intensified over one weekend What started as a small protest over immigration raids on Friday ballooned into large demonstrations throughout the weekend. Here's what happened. President Donald Trump is sending the military into American streets in provocative ways, with a deployment to quell protests and a massive military parade, projecting power and celebrating troops while raising alarms among critics. Trump has long talked about wielding the military more aggressively for domestic purposes. He clashed with military leaders who resisted some of his requests during his first administration. Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday. 'I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority,' said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president. Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a 'dictator.' Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order. Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as 'lawless' and said, 'President Trump believes in law and order.' "If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office. In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback. After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats – signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as 'dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional.' Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as 'scary.' Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports. With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider. During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who 'we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism. 'I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants.' Mulling the Insurrection Act Some Legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment. 'It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically. Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say. 'The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad… something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it,' said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects 'a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs,' Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said. 'If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties,' Goitein added. 'It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself.' Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King. Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences. 'It could be corrosive,' Banks said. Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted. 'Can't you just shoot them' Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as 'probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief.' During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd – an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police – Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote. 'Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something,' Trump said, according to Esper. 'I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction,' Esper wrote. 'I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome.' Esper wrote that Trump eventually 'backed down.' His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military. Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were 'not what the United States does – it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do,' according to Esper. The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade." 'There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it,' Bolton said. Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force." "It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change."
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. "A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them," Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. "That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable." California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about "the scope of the Marines' mission and duties." Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to "restore order" and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, "did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment." The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States," but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries. "It was heading in the wrong direction," Trump said Monday. "It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess." On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
