At least 15 injured in Russian attack targeting energy infrastructure in Ukraine
KYIV, Ukraine -- Russia pounded four Ukrainian cities overnight into Wednesday, injuring at least 15 people in an attack that mostly targeted energy infrastructure, officials said.
The latest bombardment in Russia's escalating aerial campaign against civilian areas came ahead of a Sept. 2 deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal in the three-year war, under the threat of possible severe Washington sanctions if it doesn't.
No date has yet been publicly set for a possible third round of direct peace talks between delegations from Russia and Ukraine. Two previous rounds delivered no progress apart from prisoner swaps.
Russia launched 400 Shahed and decoy drones, as well as one ballistic missile, during the night, the Ukrainian air force said. The strikes targeted northeastern Kharkiv, which is Ukraine's second-largest city, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's hometown of Kryvyi Rih in central Ukraine, Vinnytsia in the west and Odesa in the south.
'Russia does not change its strategy,' Zelenskyy said. 'To effectively counter this terror, we need a systemic strengthening of defense: more air defense, more interceptors, and more resolve so that Russia feels our response.'
Trump on Monday pledged to deliver more weapons to Ukraine, including vital Patriot air defense systems, and threatened to slap additional sanctions on Russia. It was Trump's toughest stance toward Russian President Vladimir Putin since he returned to the White House nearly six months ago.
But some U.S. lawmakers and European government officials expressed misgivings that the 50-day deadline handed Putin the opportunity to capture more Ukrainian territory before any settlement to end the fighting.
Other U.S. ultimatums to Putin in recent months have failed to persuade the Russian leader to stop his invasion of neighboring Ukraine. Tens of thousands of soldiers have been killed in the war, many of them along the more than 1,000-kilometre (620-mile) front line, and Russian barrages of cities have killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, the United Nations says.
The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said Tuesday that 'Putin holds a theory of victory that posits that Russia can achieve its war aims by continuing to make creeping gains on the battlefield indefinitely and outlasting Western support for Ukraine and Ukraine's ability to defend itself.'
Trump said the U.S. is providing additional weapons for Ukraine but European countries are paying for them. While Ukraine and European officials were relieved at the U.S. commitment after months of hesitation, some hoped Washington might shoulder some of the cost.
'We welcome President Trump's announcement to send more weapons to Ukraine, although we would like to see the U.S share the burden,' European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Tuesday. 'If we pay for these weapons, it's our support.'
In Brussels on Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed that the European Union set aside 100 billion euros (US$116 billion) in aid for Ukraine as part of the bloc's long-term budget.
The proposed sum, which requires approval by the 27 EU member nations and the European Parliament, is to help Ukraine's war-battered economy as the country strives for EU membership. The money won't be spent on military support.
By Illia Novikov
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
a few seconds ago
- Toronto Sun
HAWORTH: Why do Democrats hate Black people in D.C.?
Military personnel arrive and depart at the District of Columbia National Guard Headquarters as President Donald Trump implements his order to use federal law enforcement and the National Guard to expel homeless people and rid the nation's capital of violent crime, in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Crime on the streets of Washington, D.C., has become practically apocalyptic, to the point that President Donald Trump has been forced to take control of the city's law enforcement operations and deploy National Guard troops to return order. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account 'This is liberation day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back,' Trump declared. And, of course, the left-wing response was to either deny that crime in our nation's capital even exists — which is only true in the wealthy elitist bubbles in which they reside — or accuse Trump of racism. 'As D.C. the National Guard arrived at their headquarters Tuesday, for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into neighborhoods represented an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action,' wrote Matt Brown in an article titled 'Trump's rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime' for the Associated Press. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. There's just one problem: Why does nobody give a damn about the Black victims of crimes? Let's dispense with the theatrics. Yes, the perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes in D.C. are Black: a statistical reality that many reject as racist on its face. Except, the same is true of the victims of these violent crimes! Critics may howl that this language — let alone action — is just old-fashioned coded racism, but why do they simultaneously ignore that Black people are disproportionately victimized alongside being overrepresented in crime data? So why isn't Trump's federal takeover of D.C.'s law enforcement under a real 'public safety emergency' being correctly viewed as a non-racist liberation of the majority-Black victims of this crime spree, regardless of the racial makeup of the perpetrators? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Well, it's simple. They don't give a damn about Black people, and they certainly don't give a damn about racism. After all, the most race-obsessed among us are the professional racists that make up the American left, for whom our value as human beings can be determined solely by our skin color, sexuality, religion, nationality or our gender (real or imaginary). Joe Biden's comment that African American voters who even considered voting for Donald Trump 'ain't Black' wasn't a gaffe. It was official Democratic Party policy! All while they remain race-obsessed because such tribalism provides a reliable fountain of power. The Black Lives Matter riots that exploded across the nation in 2020 were not in response to supposed systemic racism, but the American left's lack of power. The same is true of the response to Trump's enforcement of the law. Who cares that fewer innocent Black residents of Washington, D.C., will be victimized by crime, they say, when the price is a dilution of Democratic Party power. The brutal reality is obvious: Democrats only care about their beloved so-called 'people of colour' because they think they are a foolish collection of sure-thing voters who can be manipulated through a perpetual state of victimhood. How wrong they are. Ian Haworth is a political commentator RECOMMENDED VIDEO Toronto Blue Jays Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Columnists Sunshine Girls
CBC
a minute ago
- CBC
Did Putin blink in talks with Trump in Alaska? Some experts say it's highly unlikely
Social Sharing There was one overriding question that came out the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska late Friday that was tough to answer: Did Russian President Vladimir Putin blink at all? As U.S. President Donald Trump burned up the phone lines Saturday in talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, the rather vague notions that lingered following the short, ambiguous news conference involving the two leaders solidified into a firm "no." Trump went into the high-stakes meeting saying he'd be very upset if Russia did not agree to — or propose — a ceasefire. He came out saying there's no deal until there's a deal and that the the two leaders made progress toward peace. The U.S. president appears to have abandoned the notion of a preliminary ceasefire altogether in favour of some sort of comprehensive peace settlement. That has been one of Moscow's key demands all along. "There was no mention of the term ceasefire," said Michael Carpenter, a former U.S. ambassador and permanent representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. "There was obviously no agreement. I wasn't expecting there to be an agreement because, frankly, all along I've been saying that the fundamentals don't align here — namely that Russia wants the subjugation of Ukraine, and President Zelenskyy is not going to allow for the capitulation of his country." European leaders have favoured the notion of a ceasefire and even a reinforcement of Ukraine with some sort of Western troop presence that would discourage Russia from renewing the war at some point in the future. Carpenter, speaking on CBC Radio's The House on Saturday morning, said it's pretty clear that Putin stuck by all of his war aims and demands, including no membership for Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, no Western troops in the country and a cap on the size of the Ukrainian military. "And there was really no way that President Trump could square that with what he's heard from European leaders and President Zelenskyy," Carpenter said. Trump said on the way home from Alaska that one of the next steps will be for a three-way summit involving himself, Zelenskyy and Putin. He laid the groundwork for that by inviting Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday for preliminary talks. 'A ceasefire in Ukraine must be more than a pause' Experts across the defence and foreign policy spectrums agree that external monitors and international security guarantees for Ukraine are the only way a ceasefire — or even a full-fledged peace settlement — between Russia and Ukraine would have a chance of success. And there was no indication from Putin on Friday that he was prepared to accept anything like that. Benjamin Jensen, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said Moscow has historically used ceasefires more as a way to position forces on the battlefield than as a way to seek long-term peace. WATCH | Navigating Putin's maximalist war goals won't be easy: Putin's maximalist war goals in Ukraine 14 hours ago "To give the agreement teeth, negotiators should define clear, automatic sanctions triggers that would take effect immediately if Russia violates the ceasefire, ensuring that any breach carries predictable and escalating costs," Jensen said in an assessment written ahead of the Alaska summit. "Finally, even under a truce, NATO and Western states must maintain robust commitments to Ukraine's defence capacity through training, equipping, and ensuring interoperability across allied forces so that Moscow understands renewed aggression will meet immediate and credible resistance." Following Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the launching of a proxy war in Ukraine's two eastern oblasts (provinces), the two sides, with the help of European nations, struck agreements — known as the Minsk accords — to end the fighting. "Past failures like Minsk illustrate that vague buffer zones and unarmed monitors do not stop hostilities," Jensen said. "A ceasefire in Ukraine must be more than a pause. It needs enforcement across the land, sea, air, cyber, and space domains backed by sanctions and robust defence commitments." In March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed a peacekeeping force made up of several NATO countries, including Canada, but it appears to be on the back burner for the moment. Many issues hang in the balance Starmer's call was met with a warm response in Ottawa, where just prior to the federal election, then-defence minister Bill Blair stated the government was "ready and able" to contribute troops should there be a ceasefire. Canada's top military commander said this week in an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House that planning for such a force is well advanced. But Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan said critical issues are still hanging in the balance. What kind of force? How heavily armed should it be? Other questions such as whether coalition troops simply monitor or have the authority to enforce the ceasefire also need to be settled, if and when there's a cessation of hostilities. "There's a lot of unknown at the moment, but one thing is for sure is that they will need a requirement for training and development for Ukrainian forces to assume their own security," Carignan said. "We are already there in terms of support for Ukraine. So this will continue, but the rest is currently under development." Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. had troops conducting military and security force training in Ukraine prior to the full Russian invasion in February 2022. Those forces were withdrawn with the onset of major fighting. Last spring, the Canadian military's operations commander, Lt.-Gen. Steve Boivin, said in an interview with CBC News that personnel shortages could handicap a peacekeeping commitment, depending on the kind of commitment the federal government envisions. The military has struggled to recruit, train and retain members for the last several years. Senior Canadian defence officials have acknowledged that they are short 12,722 personnel — both regular and reserve forces. Carignan was asked whether Canada has the capacity to be able to conduct a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. "It depends, again, what the demands are, where we could contribute," she said while underlining that, in the end, it's a decision for Prime Minister Mark Carney and his cabinet to make.
Globe and Mail
31 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Obstacles to peace remain, regardless of Trump's impatience to broker a settlement
A dud, followed by a date. The dud was the nearly three-hour meeting between two combative presidents seeking to convince each other, and the world, that they want peace in Ukraine. The date is the Monday meeting now scheduled between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And while there was no swift agreement at the Alaska summit, there's the potential for a second date — a possible additional meeting between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin — which might wipe away the notion the session at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson was anti-climatical. Trump says no summit deal with Putin over Ukraine war, but talks were 'very productive' Zelensky to meet Trump on Monday after U.S.-Russia summit failed to secure ceasefire What emerged early Saturday was the sentiment, shared by the Russian and American presidents but not by the Ukrainians and European leaders, that, as Mr. Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, 'the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' That revealed a clear advantage to Mr. Putin and a clear rebuke to Mr. Zelensky. One of the other few discernible signals emerging from the session that began with a red-carpet greeting and military flyover salute was yet another split between Mr. Trump and longtime American allies. The leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Poland, the European Union, and the European Council issued a threat to increase economic pressure on Russia 'as long as the killing in Ukraine continues,' adding, 'We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace.' Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovile Sakaliene accused Mr. Putin of 'more gaslighting and veiled threats.' All this, especially the prospect of further meetings, gives 21st century meaning to the 20th century term 'shuttle diplomacy,' the effort that Henry Kissinger pioneered more than a half-century ago when — like the old Eastern Airlines air travel in the northeast corridor of the United States between Washington and New York, itself a metaphor from the way a needle carries yarn in a weaving loom — the American envoy shuttled between Middle East capitals in his effort to end hostilities growing out of the Yom Kippur War. And like the Kissinger episode — starring a figure known for dark intrigue and quiet, informal assurances made, warped, broken, and reshaped — what is occurring on the surface in the effort to bring the Ukraine combat to a close almost certainly represents only a fraction of what is occurring in hushed meetings, back-channel communications, and fevered private negotiations. Shribman: Trump and Putin in Alaska is a study in contrasts But amid all the confidences and code, the clearest indications may have come from the master of obfuscation himself, Mr. Putin. It came at the end of what appeared to be — continual warning: surface appearances in moments like these almost always obscure real developments, though not necessarily progress — a bland meet-and-greet in a faraway venue that, over the decades, has been controlled by both countries. It does not require the tools and cynical eye of the veteran Kremlinologist to understand the meaning behind this Putin remark: 'We are convinced that in order to make the settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the root causes of the conflict.' It is a contemporary example of the phrase ('riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma') that Winston Churchill employed to describe Russia's unpredictable, often inscrutable, conduct in the early years of the Second World War. The riddle/mystery/enigma quote is often employed by journalists and historians examining Russia. But what is almost never quoted from that Churchill broadcast from London on Oct. 1, 1939, are the dozen words that follow, a more prosaic but continually relevant insight from Great Britain's wartime leader: 'But perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.' In Mr. Putin's reckoning, Russian national interest is both historical (the role of Ukraine in various incarnations of Russia, including the Soviet Union) and geopolitical (the desire of Kyiv for association with the European Union and NATO and to stand separate from Moscow). There remain many obstacles to peace and transforming the world order, regardless of Mr. Trump's lightning-fast experience in transforming American domestic life and his impatience to broker a settlement as part of his thinly veiled attempt to win a Nobel Peace Prize. One is a vital part of the 'historic life-interests of Russia' that Churchill went on to set out in his 'enigma' remarks 86 years ago: control of, or at least the establishment of, a sphere of influence within the broad plain of Eastern Europe. Opinion: Trump meets like-minded Putin, while the West watches Another is the notion, seldom expressed but widely acknowledged, that Putin understands that the very act of continuing the fighting is an element of his leverage. And a third is Ukraine's reluctance — in a way an historic life-interest of its own — to swap land for peace. Relinquishing what Ukrainian military personnel have fought and died to hold onto, and what more than 13,580 civilians have died for, according to the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, would be harsh medicine and not a cure in Kyiv. On the other hand — more obscurantism from the master — Mr. Putin is the only principal in these negotiations who knows fully the cost of the nearly three-and-a-half-year war against Ukraine in terms of military casualties, economic distress and public support in Russia. It is, of course, conceivable there might be a surprise. Mr. Trump loves surprises. Perhaps he will broker a deal — he loves deals, too — for Kyiv to trade Ukrainian membership in the European Union (but not NATO) for minor geographical losses that will save face for Mr. Putin and save deaths for Ukrainians. Maybe something else is in the works. Who knows? The smart betting is that right now the troika of Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky don't know either — but that the Ukrainian, as the American president put it in his contentious February Oval Office meeting, doesn't hold the strongest cards. The wisdom in cases like these often comes from the Chicago sportswriter and satirist Ring Lardner (1885-1933). As he put it in his short story 'The Constant Jay,' published in The New Yorker exactly a century ago, 'The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong — but that's the way to bet.'
