Ukraine avenges death of one-year-old in 'human safari' by Russian forces
The Ukrainian army has said they 'avenged' the slaughter of a toddler who was executed by Vladimir Putin's troops.
One-year-old Dmytryk was killed in an alleged game of 'human safari' by Russian drone pilots in the Kherson region.
The boy, just 14 months old, had been playing in the yard of his home when the UAV crashed, piercing his heart with shrapnel on July 9.
Dmytryk had been playing with his grandmother, Halyna, 64, when he was killed.
She recalled: 'I just jumped out and ran at full speed… I was sitting nearby, not far away, [seven or ten feet] from him. I heard the wind whistling, and then I heard a loud bang.
'When I turned my head, it was flying straight towards us. I was sitting here and heard the noise, turned my head, and saw it flying. I quickly jumped out of there. My husband picked him up – but he was already dead.'
Ukrainian senior military official Oleksandr Prokudin said the boy, raised by his father and grandmother, was killed by Russia – mercilessly and deliberately.
Now, Ukraine has said they 'avenged' his death, killing the drone operators who attacked the small village of Pravdyne where the tot lived.
This attack with a Molniya drone had been launched from Hola Prystan, a Russian-occupied settlement.
'The location of the Russian war criminals' unit was also identified – a five-story non-residential building,' a statement from the general staff in Ukraine said.
Five FPV drones were launched through the windows of the floor where the Russian personnel had been located, they said.
'After that, no further launches of Russian drones were observed from the building. Our soldiers will avenge every Russian bast**d who came here to spread death,' they added.
Residents near the frontline often face 'human safari' hunts by Putin's forces. Volodymyr Zelensky's top aide, Andriy Yermak, said: 'This wasn't an accident. This was a manhunt.
'The operator watched a child playing through his drone camera, and he attacked in cold blood.'
The attack came in the same week as the Russians hit a maternity hospital and a hospice for terminally ill orphans.
In new weekend attacks, the Russians hit and damaged a hospital and kindergarten in Sloviansk with an Iranian-designed Shahed drone. More Trending
Today, Donald Trump said he would punish Russia with tariffs if there is no deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days.
The US president announced it during an Oval Office meeting with Nato secretary General Mark Rutte.
'We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days,' Trump said.
He did not provide specifics on how the tariffs would be implemented.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Russian rouble, stock market gain after Trump's statement on Russia
MOSCOW, July 14 (Reuters) - The Russian rouble reversed losses against the dollar and rose against China's yuan after U.S. President Donald Trump warned he would impose "very severe tariffs" on Russia if no deal on a peaceful settlement is made in 50 days. As of 1605 GMT, the rouble was 0.2% weaker at 78.10 per U.S. dollar after hitting 78.75 during the day, according to LSEG data based on over-the-counter quotes. The rouble is up about 45% against the dollar since the start of the year. Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine on Monday and threatened to hit buyers of Russian exports with sanctions, expressing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin due to the lack of progress in ending the war in Ukraine. "Trump performed below market expectations," said analyst Artyom Nikolayev from Invest Era. "He gave 50 days during which the Russian leadership can come up with something and extend the negotiation track. Moreover, Trump likes to postpone and extend such deadlines." Against the Chinese yuan, the most traded foreign currency in Russia, the rouble strengthened 0.8% to 10.87 after weakening by over 1% on Friday. The Russian stock market rose 2.7% after Trump's statement, according to the Moscow Stock Exchange.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump's hazy Ukraine arms announcement marks a tonal U-turn
For those looking for details, Donald Trump's rambling half-hour press conference in the Oval Office with the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, offered only a handful of clues. The US will sell weapons to Ukraine, the president said, with other Nato countries paying the bill – but otherwise specifics were scant. No sums of money were mentioned – making it hard to calibrate how much of a difference the proposed weapon supply would make to Kyiv. Details were light on what munitions would be supplied though Trump mentioned complete Patriot missile systems and Rutte added there would be 'missiles and ammunition' too. It is hard to know precisely what amount of military purchases would make a difference and perhaps force Vladimir Putin to consider calling for a ceasefire. But in the crudest sense, any package worth more than $10bn would certainly send a signal to Moscow, when considered in the light of the $67bn previously given by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, to Ukraine over nearly three years. There was one specific threat to Moscow. Trump did promise to levy a 100% tariff on Russia if Putin did not agree a deal to halt the fighting within 50 days, although the president's previous record on levying and dropping tariffs has been so confusing that it cannot be presumed what will come to pass if Russia does not comply. But make no mistake, tonally, Trump's statements on Monday amount to a significant moment. Although the president did not sound annoyed or angry with Putin when he said 'we're very unhappy – I am – with Russia', there was a clear measure of exasperation with his Russian counterpart. The US president came to office convinced he could do a deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, in discussions that at first seemed to involve Ukraine as an afterthought. But, as Trump made clear, conversations with the Russian leader have slowly led him to conclude Putin has so far not been serious. In this, Ukraine's most influential lobbyist may have been Melania Trump, the president's Slovenian-born wife. 'I go home and I tell the first lady: 'I spoke with Vladimir today, we had a wonderful conversation,'' Trump said. 'And she said: 'Oh really? Another city was just hit'' – prodding him gently to reconsider his warmth to the Russian leader, at least on this retelling. Four times, Trump said, he thought he reached an agreement with Putin but he reiterated that immediate Russian bombing of Kyiv and other big cities had led him to reconsider. 'And then the deal wouldn't happen because bombs would be thrown out that night and you'd say we're not making any deals,' he said. For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this is a moment of vindication. At the end of February, the Ukrainian president was essentially kicked out of the White House, after an ugly televised row. Weapons shipments to Ukraine were halted, intelligence sharing stopped, and though both were resumed the relationship seemed fragile. Less than a fortnight ago, weapons shipments were briefly halted again. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Instead Zelenskyy adopted a more cautious tone, expressing the hope in the spring that Trump would gradually come to realise that Putin was insincere. Over the past few days, it is the conclusion that Trump has come to reach. While for the moment the lack of detail may not be enough to force the Kremlin into suing for peace, the change in tone (and Europe's willingness to pay the bills) means that Ukraine's most important ally remains willing to support it in its fight for survival.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Asylum costs set to take up fifth of UK's shrunken aid budget, watchdog warns
Some £1.8 billion of the projected £8.9 billion budget for overseas assistance could be spent on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain in 2027-28, a report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) says. Despite the June spending review suggesting a reduction in such costs over the next three years, they are still on course to absorb a 'significant portion' of total aid funding, according to the watchdog. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced plans to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament after the National Audit Office said accommodation costs could hit £15.3 billion over a 10-year period. But progress in bringing down aid spending on so-called in-donor refugee costs remains 'slow', the ICAI said. International OECD rules allow governments to use their aid budgets to cover some of the costs of helping people claiming asylum in the first year of entering a country, such as housing and food. According to ICAI calculations, asylum costs are expected to take up £2.2 billion of total UK official development assistance (ODA) funding for 2026-27, £1.8 billion the following year and £1.5 billion by 2028-29. The Government slashed Britain's aid budget earlier this year from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in order to pay for increased defence spending. Total ODA spending is now expected to fall from £10 billion in 2026-27 to £8.9 billion the following year before increasing slightly to £9.4 billion in 2028-29. This means a fifth of the total aid spend in 2027-28 is expected to go towards asylum costs, before dipping to around a sixth in 2028-29. ICAI commissioner Harold Freeman, who led the new report, acknowledged the Government had already taken some steps to address 'flaws in the system' but said further changes would be likely to be needed. He said: 'The UK's development programme is at a turning point, with budget reductions coming against a backdrop of increasing global conflicts, climate threats and rising humanitarian needs. 'At the same time, UK asylum costs are likely to continue to absorb a significant proportion of our aid funding. 'The Government has already taken steps to address some of the flaws in the system for managing aid identified by past ICAI work. 'But further changes will likely be needed to maximise the impact and value for money of the remaining development budget.' The Government has been contacted for comment. Last year, the watchdog raised 'value for money' concerns after some 28% – or £4.3 billion – of all UK aid in 2023 was spent on hosting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain under the previous Conservative government. The amount of ODA spending on in-house refugee costs has risen dramatically since 2020, in part due to visa schemes for Afghan and Ukrainian people but largely linked to lengthy stays in so-called asylum hotels, the ICAI said. In response to its latest report, the Tories said the 'eye-watering cost' of housing asylum seekers was 'utterly indefensible, particularly when so many people are struggling to get by'. Shadow Home Office minister Katie Lam said: 'This broken system rewards delay and indecision, while the British taxpayer foots the bill. 'Those who have no right to stay here should not be languishing in hotels; they should be detained and deported within days – not years. 'We need a migration system that is firm, fair, and fast. 'Over the past 12 months, Keir Starmer has systematically dismantled every deterrent, while his joke of a migrant deal agreed with France last week will do nothing to stem the flow of migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel.' The One campaign, which aims to reduce poverty in Africa, said the report confirmed that UK aid had been 'stretched to breaking point'. Executive director Adrian Lovett said: 'While it's right that refugees are housed in safe accommodation, paying for this from the diminished international aid budget means there will be even less support for the world's most vulnerable people at a time of growing global need.' Mr Lovett added: 'The UK is at its best when it delivers a strong and growing aid budget, but also uses its political and diplomatic muscle to help create the conditions for sustainable solutions. 'We look to ministers to be creative and ambitious on both fronts in the months and years ahead.'
