Ukraine ‘strikes Russian airfields destroying nuke bombers' in huge drone blitz as footage shows aircraft up in flames
TWO major Russian airbases holding nuclear warplanes have reportedly been blitzed in a targeted drone strike - landing a huge blow to Putin's war.
A Ukrainian Security official told Reuters that the SBU conducted a large drone attack on over 40 Russian military aircraft.
3
3
3
The source did not specify where the drone attack took place, but Ukrainian media said that Olenya airbase - home to Russia's Tu-95 strategic bombers - had been targeted.
The second base under fire is understood to be the Belaya nuclear airbase in eastern Siberia's Irkutsk region - some 2,900 miles from Ukraine.
Extraordinary footage showed smoked billowing from mad Vlad's bases as Russian troops watched on in horror.
Ukraine's Pravda Gerashchenko Telegram channel said: 'A special operation "Web" is being conducted to demilitarise Russia.
'The [SBU] report the destruction of Russian bomber aircraft behind enemy lines."
They added: 'In particular, the destruction of more than 40 aircraft, including A-50, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3.'
Local residents reported hearing explosions as swathes of Ukrainian UAVs struck Putin's bases.
Both airfields are miles from the bloody frontline, but were still "under drone attack" by Ukrainian forces.
The attack is believed to have been launched from within Russia, possibly from inside trucks driving nearby their targets.
It marks one of the bleakest days of the war for Russian President Vladimir Putin who is continuing to relentlessly blitz Ukraine.
Ukraine's SBU secret service was reportedly conducting a large-scale special operation to destroy Russian bombers.
Local media in Ukraine claimed more than 40 of bloodthirsty Putin's aircraft had been hit.
This included the infamous Tu-95, as well as the Tu-22M3, and A-50 strategic bombers.
A report said the driver of the truck that released the drones "may not have known" that his vehicle was full of the Ukrainian UAVs.
According to Baza media, the driver has since been detained.
Local media said: "A truck stopped at a gas station at the entrance to the city.
"Drones started flying out of the back of the truck and then attacked various objects."
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tough talk won't be sufficient to defend Britain from her enemies
SIR – Nothing sums up the failings of this Government better than the Prime Minister's grandiose statements on the necessity of effective defence, accompanied by a refusal to pledge the necessary budget. Even the absurdity of the promise to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence in nine years' time – a figure plainly inadequate now, never mind in 2034 – was rendered the more so for being hastily qualified as an 'ambition'. In the meantime, the eternal truth remains: compromise on defence, and nothing else is secure. Philip J Ashe Garforth, West Yorkshire SIR – Thank goodness our enemies will wait until 2034 before attacking us. Nicholas Block Sturminster Newton, Dorset SIR – The PM has pledged to build 12 new attack submarines – one every 18 months. This will require a significant improvement on past performance. The Astute programme began in 1986, almost 40 years ago, and the seventh and final boat in the class is not due to be delivered until 2026, seven years after being laid down. By then the first, HMS Astute, will have been in service for 16 years. Astute was laid down in 2001, and since then build delays and cost overruns have been lamentable. Considering that we previously had experience of building several classes of such submarines for far less cost and in less time, this is not encouraging. Neil Russell Portsmouth, Hampshire SIR –There's no point in planning to build 12 new attack submarines unless the Navy has a credible strategy to recruit a sufficient number of officers to command them. In the past 10 years, only half the number required to sustain the submarine force have passed the gruelling command qualification course, creating a vicious circle of decline, which will soon be unrecoverable. The extent of the problem was illustrated last year, when the Navy was ridiculed for having advertised on LinkedIn to find a retired rear-admiral to lead the submarine service. Rear Admiral Philip Mathias (retd) Southsea, Hampshire SIR – One wonders whether, as a nation, we are willing to pay the price financially, politically and culturally, as we did during the Cold War, when the threat felt real and collective resilience was part of the national psyche. At recent VE Day events, we were reminded of a time when Britain understood the value of shared sacrifice and national preparedness. Defence is not merely a line in the budget; it is a reflection of our willingness to protect what we hold dear, and our capacity to act together with resolve when history demands it. John O'Brien Ukraine holds firm SIR – Ukraine's audacious and meticulously planned attack on military aviation assets across Russia has astounded the world (report, June 2). That the operation was kept secret for 18 months was itself an extraordinary achievement. Withholding the information from Donald Trump was a wise decision for two reasons: he might have sought to dissuade President Zelensky from going through with the plan; and operational security would have been placed at unnecessary risk. Mr Zelensky has proved himself to be a worthy, courageous and charismatic leader of a beleaguered yet defiant nation, which has held Russia at bay for more than three brutal years. The will of Ukraine's people to fight for their survival, and resist the illegal subjugation of their sovereign nation, remains strong and unyielding. Ukraine deserves all the support that its allies can provide – and Donald Trump must now acknowledge that he is indeed being 'tapped along' by Vladimir Putin. David Platts Newark, Nottinghamshire Rebuilding Gaza SIR – Since the October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas, Israel has had to defend itself, leading to charges of committing genocide; intentionally targeting civilians, schools, and hospitals; starving Gazans; and violating prisoners' rights. Whether one believes that Israel is guilty of these charges or that it has every right to do what's necessary to protect its citizens, many crucial questions remain. At some point, there will be a lasting ceasefire. Which countries will risk the lives of their soldiers to serve as peacekeepers? Which will finance the rebuilding of Gaza? How many years of rebuilding will it take to bring Gazans to the same level of existence they had on October 6 2023? Will Gazans ever be permitted to work inside Israel, as many did before the war began? I don't pretend to have any of these answers, but with America getting diplomatically and militarily closer to multiple countries in the region, it's incumbent on Donald Trump's administration to formulate an acceptable framework among Israel, its neighbouring countries, and global powers in Europe and Asia to end the suffering of Gazans. Paul L Newman Merion Station, Pennsylvania, USA Hare loss SIR – We have a thriving hare population (Letters, June 2), but hare coursers know this and visit frequently to practise their illegal sport. The police show no interest in apprehending them, even when the hare coursers have their vehicle stuck in a ditch and don't need chasing. Jonathan Yardley Wolverhampton Brown beer mix SIR – Your feature (May 31) on the demise of the term 'bitter' in favour of 'amber ales' reminded me of my time as a student in the Clarks company town of Street in Somerset in the early 1970s. As it was Quaker-dominated, finding a pub, let alone a decent ale, was a challenge. Instead, the tipple of choice for myself and my fellow students was a 'brown split'. This was created by mixing a half of the local keg beer (generally the ubiquitous Watney's Red Barrel) with a bottle of brown ale, ideally one from Newcastle. This satisfied my needs until the welcome arrival of real ales later in the decade. Geoff Pringle Long Sutton, Somerset Conservative betrayal SIR – The Conservative Party is dead. The only ones who haven't realised it yet are the party itself and the dwindling loyalists clinging to the wreckage. They're staggering around like political zombies – no soul, no direction, no credibility, kept alive only by inertia and blind tribal loyalty. The Conservatives have betrayed their voters on every major issue: immigration, national sovereignty, economic stability and freedom of speech. They promised conservative values and delivered managed decline, globalist appeasement and spineless governance. Their base is abandoning them in droves – and rightly so. The public have had enough of the lies, the empty slogans and the broken promises. What's left is a hollowed-out shell of a party that exists only to cling to power, not to serve the nation. It's time to stop pretending that reform can come from within. The only path forward is to tear down the failed establishment – and that means rejecting both the Conservatives and Labour. Anyone who wants to see real change in Britain needs to vote for Reform UK, and help drive a stake through the heart of this walking corpse once and for all. HMRC incompetence SIR – Being a UK resident, I had to complete an Irish form for the recovery of tax from the Irish Commissioners. This form has to be countersigned by HMRC. On August 23 2024, I sent the form with a covering letter to HMRC for its endorsement. I heard nothing, and sent a chaser letter in November, and still heard nothing. Last week, nine months later, I received a letter from HMRC with the form duly endorsed. Unfortunately, it was not the original form, but a copy. Its letter says that the 'copy has been authorised by one of our officers' and 'if Ireland does not accept this, please fill in and send us a new form'. Words fail me. Anne Preece Caldy, Wirral Duke as chancellor SIR – Prince Philip held the office of Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (Letters, June 2) with great dignity and distinction from 1976 to 2011. I can think of no better person to fill the current vacancy than the present Duke of Edinburgh. Derek Wellman Lincoln Put wild camping on a sustainable footing SIR – Ben East (Features, June 2) gives a useful summary of the dilemma facing the Government as to how to handle the demand for more wild camping provision in England. Living in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, we often see tents in pleasant spots, usually owned by young campers, who are probably of limited means. However, there is good provision locally of regulated sites in nice locations, and I'd oppose any moves by the Government to introduce wild camping rights in this area similar to those enjoyed in Scotland. Perhaps a compromise would be to make more wild camping areas available in selected National Parks and AONBs, for a maximum of six tents, to be controlled by permits issued by the local ranger office. Owners of any private land used would be entitled to an annual fee to be paid by the taxpayer. This is not an ideal solution, but at least when arriving at your favourite Lake District tarn, you would be unlikely to find too many other campers. Ian Graham Carlisle, Cumbria Benefits for foreign staff working in the NHS SIR – While it may be statistically true that 'benefits claims by households with at least one foreign national have doubled to nearly £1 billion a month' (report, May 31), your article did not consider the advantages that many of these foreigners bring to this country. I was in an NHS hospital last week with a family member who received fantastic care from a consultant from Hong Kong, a doctor from eastern Europe, nurses from the Philippines, care workers from Portugal and Nigeria, and a porter from Portugal. Most such workers pay more in tax than they claim in benefits. I do not begrudge them claiming child benefit if they have children, or similar benefits that others in this country are able to claim. Philip Thomas Pudsey, West Yorkshire SIR – The news that foreign nationals are being paid nearly £1 billion a month in benefits is truly shocking, but hardly surprising given that illegal migrants continue to arrive in increasing numbers, safe in the knowledge that once they have landed on our shores and entered the asylum system, there is very little chance of them being returned to their country of origin or elsewhere. There is absolutely no deterrent. A string of absurd decisions by immigration tribunals has allowed claimants leave to remain in the UK on the basis of increasingly ludicrous evidence. This is not what the British public voted for, and their growing anger and frustration with this situation is understandable.
New European
an hour ago
- New European
Britain enters a new nuclear age
Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Ukrainian strikes cut power to Russian-held areas, officials say
June 3 (Reuters) - Ukrainian shelling and drone attacks triggered power cuts over swathes of Russian-controlled territory in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions in the south of Ukraine, Russia-installed officials said early on Tuesday. Officials said there was no effect on operations at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station - Europe's largest nuclear facility which was seized by Russia in the weeks after Moscow's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russian officials running the plant said radiation levels were normal at the facility, which operates in shutdown mode and produces no power at the moment. Russia-installed governors in the two regions said the Ukrainian attacks prompted authorities to introduce emergency measures and switch key sites to reserve power sources. Power was knocked out to all parts of Zaporizhzhia under Russian control, Russia-installed Governor Yevgeny Belitsky wrote on Telegram. "As a result of shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, high-voltage equipment was damaged in the northwestern part of the Zaporizhzhia region," Belitsky wrote. "There is no electricity throughout the region. The Energy Ministry of Zaporizhzhia region has been instructed to develop reserve sources of power. Health care sites have been transferred to reserve power sources." In adjacent Kherson region, farther west, Russia-appointed Governor Vladimir Saldo said debris from fallen drones had damaged two substations, knocking out power to more than 100,000 residents of 150 towns and villages in Russian-held areas. Emergency crews working to restore power quickly, he said. For many long months in the winter, it was Ukrainian towns and villages that endured repeated electricity cuts as Russian attacks focused strikes on generating capacity. Each side has repeatedly accused the other of launching attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and running the risk of a nuclear accident. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week in response to a Ukrainian complaint that it saw no sign that Russia was preparing to restart the Zaporizhzhia plant and connect it to the Russian grid. The IAEA has stationed monitors permanently at Zaporizhzhia and Ukraine's other nuclear power stations.
