Russian air strikes kill 19 in Ukraine
Russian air strikes on southeastern Ukraine killed at least 19 people overnight, officials said on Tuesday, hours after US President Donald Trump said he would shorten a deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to make peace.
Sixteen people were killed and dozens wounded when Russia bombed a prison in the front-line Zaporizhzhia region in an attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said was "deliberate".
"The Russians could not have been unaware that they were targeting civilians in that facility," he wrote on X. "And this was done after a completely clear position was voiced by the United States."
Separately, a missile strike on a hospital in the neighbouring Dnipropetrovsk region killed a 23-year-old pregnant woman and two others, Zelenskiy added. He said a total of 22 people had been killed over the past 24 hours.
Russia, which denied targeting civilians in Tuesday's attacks, has intensified airstrikes on Ukrainian towns and cities behind front lines of its full-scale invasion, now in its fourth year, as it gradually pushes ahead on the battlefield.
Russian forces hold around a fifth of Ukrainian territory. Trump, underscoring his frustration with Putin, said on Monday he would give 10 or 12 days for Russia to make progress towards ending the war.
The Kremlin said on Tuesday that it had "taken note" of Trump's statement. "The special military operation continues," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, employing the term that Moscow uses for its war effort in Ukraine.
'SCREAMING, MOANING'
Following Tuesday's attack on the prison, across the Dnipro River from Russian-occupied territory, injured inmates waded through rubble and broken glass. Bandaged and bloody, they sat stunned as guards yelled out a roll call.
Ukraine's justice ministry said the prison's dining hall had been destroyed and other parts of the facility damaged in a strike that involved four high-explosive bombs and also wounded 42 people.
It had originally said 17 people were killed but later revised its tally. "People were screaming, moaning," said prisoner Yaroslav Samarskiy, 54, recalling the aftermath of the strike. "Some dead, some alive, some without legs - half of them burned."
Separately, five people were killed on Tuesday morning in the northeastern Kharkiv region after a Russian strike on a humanitarian aid point in a front-line village, a senior police official said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Kashmir, Khan and echoes of betrayed promises
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. She can be reached at durdananajam1@ Listen to article August 5 has come to symbolise two distinct narratives in Pakistan. For supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) — which now represents an overwhelming majority of the population, thanks to the establishment's relentless and illogical rivalry with Imran Khan — it marks the second anniversary of their leader's incarceration. At the official level, however, the day is commemorated in solidarity with the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, whose semi-autonomous status and special rights were stripped following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A of the Indian constitution. Yet, one suspects that most Pakistanis are aware of the constitutional intricacies affecting Kashmiris. Given the mass exodus from Pakistan and the alarming rise in poverty, it's understandable why many would hesitate to wish the same fate upon Kashmiris — being absorbed into a nation deliberately kept broken and dysfunctional by its ruling elite. The condition of those living in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir is, perhaps, evidence enough of this grim reality. In 2018, PTI emerged as one of Pakistan's most popular political parties. By 2025, it has reclaimed that status. In the intervening years, PTI governed for three years before being pushed to the political margins through a familiar tactic: the formation of a united opposition. In Pakistan, political unity is rare and usually reserved for two occasions — when legislation serves personal or business interests; and when the ruling party must be ousted under the guise of national interest. Many analysts and PTI loyalists argue that Imran Khan should have declined the premiership in 2018. They believe that leveraging his popularity from the opposition benches could have secured him a sweeping mandate in subsequent elections — free from establishment strings. With legislative strength, he could have pursued bold reforms with full institutional backing. Instead, Khan opted for hybrid governance, believing he would be treated differently than his predecessors. Like most Pakistanis, he assumed that his unwavering loyalty to Pakistan would earn him institutional support. After all, no previous leader had prioritised national interest over personal gain. From 2014 to 2018, Khan relentlessly branded the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as "thieves", embedding this narrative deep into public consciousness. Despite reservations about his alliance with the establishment, many hoped Khan's government would be allowed to function independently, free from judicial interference. Over time, he cultivated an aura of indispensability. His trust in the establishment led him — and the public - to believe that the very "thieves" he helped remove would never return to power until held accountable. But like all constructs built on fragile assumptions, this belief crumbled under the weight of reality. By April 9, 2021, Khan's popularity had waned, largely due to the inevitable governance challenges arising from a hybrid and compromised system. Yet, overnight, he surged back to prominence when PTI was ousted and replaced by the very political actors the establishment had long vilified. The irony was not lost on the public. The next day, Pakistanis across the country — and in diaspora communities in the US and the UK — took to the streets. Their protest wasn't just about PTI's removal; it was a collective mourning of the collapse of trust in the establishment and the erosion of democratic values. When Shahbaz Sharif was appointed Prime Minister, he was facing indictment in a multi-million-dollar financial fraud case. Instead of facing justice, he was greeted with rose petals - a stark reminder of the selective accountability that plagues Pakistan's political system. By April 10, 2021, Imran Khan stood alone as the only credible figure in Pakistan's political landscape — for an vast majority of the population. As predicted, Khan remained the most popular leader in 2024 and won the elections with a resounding mandate. Had he trusted the democratic process instead of relying on power brokers, the trajectory might have been different. His two-year resistance to unconstitutional interventions and the public's shattered trust in the military have plunged the country into a state of collective frustration. The illegitimacy of the PDM 2.0 government is evident to all — except those who engineered it. The people stand with Khan because they see in him a reflection of their own victimhood at the hands of a power structure that, though designed to serve the nation, has become its greatest adversary. Today, the pressing question is: Can Imran Khan survive the ruthless persecution of his party and the inhumane conditions of his imprisonment? History offers a sobering pattern. Pakistan's most popular leaders — those who believed in the power of the people — Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto — all met unnatural ends. Khan's defiance of absolute power and his rivals' surrender to it have set the tone for Pakistan's future. The king stands naked. No matter how desperately he tries to cloak himself, the people see through the hypocrisy, illegitimacy and usurpation of power. August 5 stands as a testament to the resilience of people who refuse to be silenced. In commemorating this day, Pakistanis are not just mourning losses — they are reclaiming their right to choose, to question, and to hope.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
The trade brawl
Listen to article India and the United States seem to have hit an unending argument over tariffs. The brinkmanship, however, is on the part of White House as President Trump has honed an attitude of pushing his allies and adversaries to the wall as he goes on to negotiate new trade concessions. Trump's new-found irksomeness with Russia, after a brief episode of cordiality, is at the crux of policymaking as the White House incumbent wants to penalise every state that indulges in profitable business with Moscow. Trump's decision to slap 50% tariffs on imports from Delhi, doubled from 25%, as a penalty for oil imports from Russia is likely to dip their bilateralism to lowest ebbs. India is also being blamed for fuelling the war in Ukraine, and for outsourcing Russian oil to destinations in Europe. In a rejoinder, Delhi says that its purchases from Russia have helped stabilise oil prices by easing the pressure on supplies from other regions. Trump's new contention, nonetheless, is that India should offer "zero tariff" for US goods import into India, and this is literally an unworkable equation. Thus, the standoff is graduating into one of the biggest trade brawls at a time when the US administration has not been able to settle down with China, Canada and major European partners over tariffs and concessions. Pakistan, apparently, was smart enough to get away with 19% tariffs — a rolled-down equation in adverse circumstances. This singling out of India is likely to have an impact in strategic terms with the US, as Delhi has no choice but to stick to its oil imports from Russia that account for one-third of its consumption. Will this jeopardise the special relationship Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi were eager to strike in South Asia in terms of containing China is anybody's guess. India would be better advised to value regionalism, and open new vistas of cooperation with Beijing as well as Islamabad. There is a lot in geo-economics to share, and India's attitude of segregation is costing connectivity and prosperity in the region.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan — between Beijing and Washington
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article Something unexpected happened after Indian Operation Sindoor and Pakistan's agile response through Operation Bunyan Marsus. The four-day skirmish left India red-faced despite its massive media onslaught, projecting the outcome as victory. President Trump took credit for the ceasefire, duly acknowledged by Pakistan, while an egotistic India still refuses to accept foreign interlocution. Then, on August 1, 2025, President Trump slapped a punitive 25% tariffs on India, letting Pakistan off with a relatively benign 19%. Earlier Trump had feted out Field Marshal Asim in the White House. He announced a massive trade deal with Pakistan on July 30. Cumulatively, the cited developments bring Pakistan back into relevance, and business with the West Plus, re-hyphenate it with India, debunk the massive Indian propaganda to paint Pakistan as 'Terroristan', and open new vistas for Islamabad. However, this closeness with the US again, to some analysts, is at the cost of Pak-China friendship. First Islamabad and Beijing. Two statements on August 1 — one from Foreign Office and the other from ISPR — clearly articulated the special nature of Pak-China friendship in context. Foreign Office spokesperson emphatically highlighted the decades-old strategic partnership with Beijing, notwithstanding Islamabad's relations with other countries. And perhaps for the first time, GHQ celebrated the 98th founding anniversary of China's People's Liberation Army on August 1 with a dignified ceremony attended by high-ranking Chinese officials. Chinese Ambassador Jiang Zaidong was the chief guest. The Middle Kingdom conducts its foreign relations in a very matured, measured and deliberate manner. One remembers being part of a delegation led by the Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Committee, wherein bilateral exercise between both air forces was being discussed. When Pakistan had to remove the US-supplied F-16s from the planned manoeuvres at some later hours, the Chinese Defence Minister, Mr Lee Quang Li was extremely conciliatory to address the embarrassment. Chinese relations do not come with geo-strategic caveats. They ostensibly believe in 'harmony' and are sensitive to other nations' imperatives and compulsions. So, any closeness with the US is not, will not and should not come at the cost of Pak-China bilateralism, brotherhood and benevolence. Second, the conduct of the Pak-US relations. Since partnership against communism in the US-led SEATO, CENTO, GWOT, Islamabad has traditionally remained closer to the US, providing back-channel support to the 1971 Sino-US détente. Pakistan's military benefited particularly from the US hardware, doctrine and training. Our cantonments in Kharian, Multan and Gujranwala got infrastructure support from Washington. However, from geo-strategic partnership, Pakistan was later relegated to relative obscurity by Trump 1.0 and Biden Administrations, thanks partly to the pervasive Indian influence traditionally on the US policy apparatus. Trump 2.0 is more transactional, upending the traditional US geo-strategic construct and hence the punitive tariffs on India, and favour with Pakistan. Pakistan has, reportedly, the fourth largest hydrocarbon reserves along its coast. It must have been the size of these reserves that sparked President Trump's comment on X/Truth Social — "We are in the process of choosing the oil company that will lead this Partnership. Who knows, maybe they'll [Pakistan] be selling Oil to India one day." This is an unsettling discovery for Pakistan/region and good business for the US energy giant ExxonMobil that 'might' bid for and undertake offshore drilling. Any US company doing exploration would automatically ensure security of the operation. The growing Pak-US counterterrorism cooperation and mutual alignment over Afghanistan are also likely to cement bilateral ties, with China benefitting from a secure regional environment. Under the last PTI government, ExxonMobil, then undertaking offshore exploration, was not allowed access to an additional area in Kekra field. Pakistan 'expects' ExxonMobil to come back as negotiations move forward. More recently, Pakistan also inked an agreement to import US crude with first shipment expected in October. While earlier, Washington had refused to export LNG to Pakistan, given joint ventures between the US and Indian companies, implying Islamabad to go through New Delhi. Today the US Exim Bank is interested in providing capital to the stalled Reko Diq copper and gold mining project. American companies are mulling joint ventures with Pakistani firms to tap Pakistan's mineral sector, with an estimated potential of $ 8trillion. And GB, KP and Balochistan have substantial deposits of rare earths. Additionally, Pakistan's bitcoin policy also interests Trump personally. All this fits his economic outlook. Third, Pakistan's delicate diplomatic balancing. In a meeting with the Afghan acting Ambassador in Islamabad last year, Ambassador Sardar Ahmed Shakeeb mentioned that IEA leadership was very impressed with the way Pakistan handled its relations with America. As per an Indian analyst, Biswanath Bhattacharya, Islamabad has perfected 'balancing contradictions so deftly that even gravity seems to look on in admiration'. Despite being tethered economically and strategically to China, Islamabad is able to carve an advantage from a transactional, mercurial and unpredictable Trump White House, under the overall environment of Sino-US hostility. From being a vanguard nation in the Chinese BRI through CPEC, Pakistan not only secured a deal for American oil investment, but it also earned public endorsement from President Trump. In the last fiscal year, Pakistan's exports to the US stood at $6 billion, against $2.4 billion worth of imports. The ensuing surplus of $3.7 billion was worrying for President Trump. However, Pakistan under the new 19% tariff is still at relative advantage, compared to India's 25%, Bangladesh's 20%, Iraq's 35%, Vietnam's 20% and 19% for Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. Pakistan, in trade negotiations, secured duty-free access to over 4,100 American products. Avoiding bloc politics, Pakistan's diplomatic work endears it today to the world powers — China, the US and Russia — increasingly through its geo-strategic relevance, and gutsy and matured dealings with a bellicose and arrogant India. Islamabad's foreign service understands that 'survival and prosperity depend on cultivating relationships with all major players'. It has been able to balance the dictates of BRI/CPEC through increasing cooperation with the US on Afghanistan, counterterrorism, and now, potentially on minerals, oil and gas. The oil deal marks a watershed in exploiting Pakistan's untapped hydrocarbons with American money and technology. These "fourth largest" reserves would catapult Pakistan from energy import to export, rewriting the region's geo-economics. Mr Bhattacharya admires "Pakistan's astonishing ability to dance on the diplomatic tightrope — undaunted, unbowed, and, for now, undefeated".
