Funeral held for three siblings killed in Russian strike on Zhytomyr Oblast
A funeral for three children killed in the Russian attack on 25 May has been held in Korostyshiv in Zhytomyr Oblast.
Source: Suspilne Zhytomyr
Details: The community said farewell to 17-year-old Roman Martyniuk, 12-year-old Tamara and 8-year-old Stanislav, three siblings from the same family, at the local community arts centre.
"This tragedy struck a large family with five children," said Yurii Denisovets, acting Mayor of Korostyshiv. "The two older children live separately and were not in the house at the time of the strike. The parents and three younger children were there. The children were killed.
The parents survived; the mother is in a serious condition but was successfully operated on yesterday, and we hope for her recovery. The father sustained less severe injuries and attended the funeral today. We all understand that this has taken a psychological toll on both parents."
All three children were pupils at Lyceum No 1 named after Gustaw Olizar, under Korostyshiv City Council.
A post on the lyceum's Facebook page reads: "Roman, Tamara, Stanislav – our lyceum pupils, our children – were killed as a result of this brutal war. Each of them had their lives, their dreams, their school days, favourite subjects and big plans for the future. But everything was cut short in one night. This is impossible to accept or understand."
Tamara and Stanislav, the two youngest, were also pupils at Korostyshiv Children's Music School.
"Just days ago, there was to have been a graduation ceremony at which these two pupils would have been honoured for their achievements," said Kateryna Horobchuk, acting head of Korostyshiv Children's Music School. "They were talented, able, and really wonderful – they were studying the domra [a Slavic string instrument – ed.] with their aunt.
We are all grieving and offer our deepest condolences to the family who lost three of their children."
Background: Russian forces launched a combined aerial attack on Ukraine on the night of 24-25 May, deploying 367 aerial weapons. Twelve people were killed and more than 60 injured in the onslaught.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. For all his controversies, Henry Kissinger, who would have turned 102 last month, was a master strategist. His vision of realpolitik—rooted in cold calculation, balance of power, and pragmatic diplomacy—helped shape global politics for decades. His legacy is instructive—and not just because Marco Rubio is the first person to serve simultaneously as secretary of State and national security advisor since Kissinger. President Donald Trump has stripped down and distorted the lessons of the late statesman into a crude, transactional, impulsive worldview that mistakes bluffing for strength and coercion for strategy. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger, where Washington is undermining its leverage, weakening alliances, and emboldening adversaries. Kissinger understood that power isn't just about threats—it's about credibility, relationships, and patience. Trump's transactional instincts betray an obsession with performative actions regardless of long-term costs. Kissinger believed that power stemmed from a combination of economic strength, diplomatic influence, national self-interests, and military deterrence—but most importantly, the perception of resolve and strategic consistency. Trump's version of power, however, is modeled on a shallow and superficial grasp of the bar takeover in Goodfellas—all chest-puffing bravado, but without the discipline, foresight, or grasp of power dynamics that true grand strategy requires. In repeatedly weakening the coalitions that sustain American influence, Trump has demonstrated that he fundamentally misunderstands the sources of American power. His public skepticism of our NATO treaty commitments, at least unless allies pay more, ignores the alliance's strategic value as a bulwark against Russian expansionism and source for democratic resilience. His efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into making concessions, while credulously accepting Russian President Vladimir Putin's lies and manipulations has not only undercut Kyiv's fight against Russian aggression but also signaled to Moscow that U.S. support for Europe is transactional and unreliable—a message Beijing appears to be taking away about Taiwan as well. Trump can oscillate between impatience with Putin, even threatening Russia with sanctions coordinated with Europe, and backtracking after Putin makes just a marginal counteroffer in bad faith. Trump can be quick in throwing his fellow European leaders under the bus. Why? For no other reason than being entranced by Putin's lies and flirtations. This is a sign of profound weakness, damaging to our nation's credibility, and, on the other side of the world, showing Chinese President Xi Jinping exactly who he's dealing with in Washington—a president prone to endless temper tantrums, whose mind can be changed in the last minute, sometimes with as little as a vague public statement, with no higher strategic thought than that. Similarly, Trump's erratic behavior toward key economic partners further reflects his shallow grasp of power dynamics. His repeated tariff threats against Canada—a cornerstone of North American economic might—and bizarre musings about Greenland reveal a mindset that conflates economic leverage with diplomatic strategy. And in perhaps the one instance where a much tougher stance on trade would engender broader public and even allies and partners' support—China—Trump has made it remarkably clear that his actions are driven by his feelings rather than solid, long-term policy planning to bring jobs and industry back to the United States. A strategic approach would have consulted and coordinated with like-minded countries, especially in Europe and Japan, to put Beijing on notice about its beggar thy neighbors practices—such as overcapacities that erode others' industrial base. But instead he went on his own, slapping a 145 percent rate on Beijing, convinced that it would bring China to the table to make concessions, only to back down later—generating "TACO" ("Trump always chickens out") headlines that describe his tariff hammer as less mighty than he claims because, very narrowly and without regard to the larger national interest, it would hurt his own base. Taking America Off Center Perhaps where Dumb Kissinger rings most true is in Trump's inability to understand Kissinger's ultimate goal: that maintaining a stable balance of power was consistent with our interests. Kissinger knew that stability required a web of relationships where each great power balanced the others—and where Washington operated as the fulcrum around which the system pivoted. Trump's foreign policy, however, leans on disruption rather than order. Kissinger's diplomacy excelled because he understood the value of predictability—that rivals must understand the limits of your ambition and the consequences of crossing redlines. Trump, however, mistakes unpredictability for strength and chaos for leverage. His admiration for strong men mirrors a mafioso-style belief in dominance and intimidation, rather than the calculated balance Kissinger sought. The legacy of Dumb Kissinger diplomacy is a world less stable and certain of American leadership. By misunderstanding the foundations of power, Trump is squandering U.S. influence. By misapplying coercion without strategy, he is inflaming conflicts rather than resolving them. And by failing to understand the delicate balance that Kissinger worked to maintain, Trump is making America's rivals stronger and its allies more vulnerable. Kissinger's realpolitik may have had its flaws—often ruthless and always morally ambiguous— but it was grounded in a coherent understanding of power and diplomacy. Trump's misunderstanding of the lessons of this approach have resulted in a foreign policy that is simple, crude, and ineffective. Trump is showing what happens when realpolitik is reduced to mere transactionalism—and where spectacle outweighs strategy. So welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger—a world of bluster without balance, power without purpose, and chaos without control. Michael Schiffer served as assistant administrator for Asia at USAID in the Biden administration, senior advisor and counselor at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and prior to that, at the Department of Defense in the Obama administration. Anka Lee served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia at the Pentagon and led China policy and strategy at USAID in the Biden administration. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
What Trump Doesn't Understand About Putin
Russian leader Vladimir Putin looks increasingly cornered. The Ukrainians just staged a stunning drone attack on strategic bombers in far-flung Russian air bases. Putin's battered troops are struggling to gain significant territory in Ukraine, and the frontline has barely shifted in two years. His economy is a mixed bag, with inflation slowing growth and other danger signs flashing. President Donald Trump, who has long admired Putin's brash leadership style, is now questioning the Russian leader's sanity and urging him to 'STOP!' his attacks on Ukraine. And U.S. lawmakers are mulling a heavy new sanctions and tariffs package aimed at Moscow — the type one senator describes as 'bone-crushing.' Given all these challenges, why won't Putin abandon his goal of conquering Ukraine? I have been asking former U.S. officials versions of this question in recent days. Finally, I realized it's the wrong question — and the wrong way to think about this whole war. Putin will never abandon his ambition of conquering Ukraine, and convincing him to do so shouldn't be the aim of Ukraine's global supporters. Instead, the goal should be to make it impossible for Putin to fulfill that ambition. In simpler terms: You can't make Putin walk away from Ukraine; you have to put Ukraine out of his reach. Trump and some of his top aides do not seem to understand this about Putin. They've sent mixed signals about their views of Russia's strongman, with Trump acting as if the carrots of economic deals and Truth Social posts can sway him. With new sanctions on the table, many Russia watchers hope Trump will seize the moment to show Putin that even if he can't control his ambitions, he can make it too painful for Putin to achieve them. But those same analysts warned that new sanctions alone won't make Putin back down. Neither will continued military aid to Ukraine, nor tough-talking posts on social media. Showing Putin that he absolutely cannot subsume Ukraine will require all these tactics and more. It will also require patience. 'That's why you do these missions, like Ukraine taking out some of their strategic bombers. That hurts. It's expensive,' said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former U.S. intelligence official. 'Can we impose enough costs that he eventually says, 'I cannot do this indefinitely?'' I'm not the first person to posit that Putin will never change his belief that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Putin's own writings make clear that he's convinced Kyiv must be under Russia's thumb if Moscow wants to achieve new heights on the global stage. Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested Putin's view is 'theological.' One analyst has argued that the West's best strategy on the war may require waiting until Putin dies. A White House official, in response to a request for comment from the administration, told me Trump 'has always been tough on Putin.' The official, whom was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues, added: 'This president's foreign policy is unique in that he can be tough on our adversaries, but he is simultaneously able to look anyone in the eye to try to deliver peace.' But many of Trump's words and actions indicate that he has limited appreciation for how hard-core Putin is about pursuing Ukraine. During the campaign, Trump declared numerous times that he could end the war in his first 24 hours back in office — a claim that he now says was in jest but which nonetheless cast Putin as easy to persuade. In the months since, the president has seemed bewildered that Putin isn't easing up on Ukraine. Trump recently said, with a tone of surprise, that the Russian leader has gone 'absolutely CRAZY.' Trump also seems frustrated with Putin's lack of seriousness in ceasefire talks. The tough talk from Trump is striking given his past efforts to win Putin over. But his methods are not always consistent. Trump came across as passive in a social media post Wednesday after speaking to Putin, saying the Russian made it clear he'd have to retaliate against the Ukraine drone strikes. 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,' Trump wrote, not saying if he'd urged Putin to avoid escalation. Comments and moves by others in the administration also suggest a lack of clarity about the Kremlin boss, who first invaded Ukraine more than a decade ago. Vice President JD Vance's dismissal of Ukrainian concerns that Putin will not uphold a peace deal — most famously in that awkward Oval Office meeting in February with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — indicates that he doesn't fully grasp the depth of Putin's desires. It also likely boosted Russian confidence that its efforts to drive wedges between Washington and its allies, including Ukraine and the European Union, are working. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that the United States may simply walk away from trying to resolve the crisis didn't exactly help Kyiv, either. It suggests the U.S. lacks patience and that the Russians should forge ahead in seeking a decisive edge in the war. And if there's one thing Putin believes he has on his side, it's time. What exactly is Putin's breaking point, or the point at which he'll give up on taking over Ukraine? 'This kind of stuff — it's very hard to quantify. It's the psychology of one man,' Eddie Fishman, a former State Department official who dealt with Russia sanctions, told me. Some of these Russia specialists said Putin is likely aware of the concept of 'TACO Trump' — the 'Trump Always Chickens Out' notion that's swept Wall Street and other realms. Trump's policy inconsistency and his frequent backtracking, such as on tariffs, may suggest to Putin that the U.S. president will try to drive a hard bargain but ultimately cave, giving Moscow wiggle room. The sanctions bill is a test of sorts for Trump and whether he truly understands Putin's mindset. It has garnered support from the majority of U.S. senators and includes harsh provisions aimed at choking off Russia's last major source of income: its energy exports. The legislation would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian oil, gas, uranium and other materials. It's questionable whether the 500 percent figure will survive talks between the White House and Capitol Hill. The tariffs would land on major U.S. trading partners in Europe, China and India and wreak havoc on the global economy. Still, whatever version of the bill survives could deal a major blow to Russia. If Trump signs the bill, the Kremlin should worry because it will mean he's not afraid to escalate things with Moscow. But if he signs the bill and then delays, waives or otherwise doesn't enforce the sanctions and tariffs involved, Putin will believe Trump is backing down yet again and that he can take advantage of the American leader's capriciousness. If Trump also fails to take other meaningful steps to help Ukraine, especially on the military aid front, it could further boost Putin's confidence that he and his troops can ultimately overpower Kyiv. Of course, the Kremlin chief could still agree to peace talks — he already has, in a way, though he tends to send powerless underlings to the sessions in his place. Those motions seem to be about buying time with Trump, a self-styled dealmaking expert who is eager for a compromise. Even if Putin agrees to a sustained ceasefire or other type of pause in the fighting, Russia analysts I spoke to believe he'll use the downtime to regroup and eventually make another move against Kyiv. One Trump tactic unlikely to work on Putin is promising him economic deals, should he come to terms with Ukraine. To be fair, Putin himself has raised this prospect in a bid to get sanctions relief from Trump, who largely sees the world through a business lens. The reality is that the Russian economy has been transformed since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is now heavily fueled by the war itself. There are signs that this cannot go on forever, but it has continued longer than many Western officials and analysts predicted. Putin is also likely aware that even if Trump were to lift all U.S. sanctions on Russia, American businesses are unlikely to jump into the Russian market anytime soon. There are too many risks, including the possibility that a future U.S. president could reimpose the sanctions. Besides, European sanctions are likely to remain in place. 'Given sanctions and export controls that need to be lifted, not to mention the reputational risk and the operating environment in Russia, it's hard to see that Western companies would be rushing to go back to that market,' Randi Levinas, a former chief operating officer of the now-dissolved U.S.-Russia Business Council, told me. Putin is in a corner. But while everyone is watching him, he's still got his eye on Ukraine — all of Ukraine.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nato set to approve new military purchases as part of a defence spending hike
Nato defence ministers are set to approve purchasing targets for stocking up on weapons and military equipment to better defend Europe, the Arctic and the North Atlantic, as part of a US push to ramp up security spending. The 'capability targets' lay out goals for each of the 32 nations to purchase priority equipment such as air defence systems, long-range missiles, artillery, ammunition, drones and 'strategic enablers' such as air-to-air refuelling, heavy air transport and logistics. Each nation's plan is classified, so details are scarce. 'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said. 'All these investments have to be financed,' he told reporters before chairing the meeting at Nato's Brussels headquarters. US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts will meet on June 24-25 to agree to new defence investment goals. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said that 'to be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags. You got to be more than conferences. You need to keep combat ready capabilities'. Spurred on by their own security concerns, European allies and Canada have already been ramping up military spending, including arms and ammunition purchases, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At the same time, some allies balk at US demands to invest 5% of their gross domestic product in defence – 3.5% on core military spending and 1.5% on the roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports needed to deploy armies more quickly – when they have already struggled to grow their budgets to 2% of GDP. The new targets are assigned by Nato based on a blueprint agreed upon in 2023 – the military organisation's biggest planning shake-up since the Cold War — to defend its territory from an attack by Russia or another major adversary. Under those plans, Nato would aim to have up to 300,000 troops ready to move to its eastern flank within 30 days, although experts suggest the allies would struggle to muster those kinds of numbers. The member countries are assigned roles in defending Nato territory across three major zones – the high north and Atlantic area, a zone north of the Alps, and another in southern Europe. Nato planners believe that the targets must be met within five to 10 years, given the speed at which Russia is building its armed forces now, and which would accelerate were any peace agreement reached to end its war on Ukraine. Some fear Russia might be ready to strike at a Nato country even sooner, especially if Western sanctions are eased and Europe has not prepared. 'Are we going to gather here again and say 'OK, we failed a bit', and then maybe we start learning Russian?' Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovile Sakaliene said. Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jonson also warned that while Russia is bogged down in Ukraine right now, things could quickly change. 'We also know after an armistice or a peace agreement, of course, Russia is going to allocate more forces closer to our vicinity. Therefore, it's extremely important that the alliance use these couple of years now when Russia is still limited by its force posture in and around Ukraine,' Mr Jonson said. If the targets are respected, the member countries will need to spend at least 3% of GDP on defence. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said his country calculates in the medium term that 'we should spend 3.5% at least on defence, which in the Netherlands means an additional 16 to 19 billion euro (£13-16 billion) addition to our current budget.' The Netherlands is likely to buy more tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and long-range missile systems, including US-made Patriots that can target aircraft, cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles.
