Nine killed after Russian drone strike in north-eastern Ukraine, officials say
Ukrainian officials said the attack happened on Saturday, just hours after Moscow and Kyiv held their first direct peace talks in years that failed to yield a ceasefire.
Seven people were also injured in the attack in Bilopillia, a town around six miles from the border with Russia, three of them seriously, according to local governor Oleh Hryhorov and Ukraine's national police.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the attack as 'deliberate killing of civilians' and said in a post on Telegram messaging app that 'Russians could scarcely not realise what kind of vehicle they were hitting'.
He lamented the missed opportunity from the peace talks on Friday, saying that 'Ukraine has long proposed this — a full and unconditional ceasefire in order to save lives'.
'Russia only retains the ability to continue killing,' Mr Zelensky added.
Spoke with @POTUS together with President Macron, Federal Chancellor Merz, Prime Ministers Starmer and Tusk. We discussed the meeting in Istanbul.
Ukraine is ready to take the fastest possible steps to bring real peace, and it is important that the world holds a strong stance.… pic.twitter.com/CG3pAnN5Ip
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) May 16, 2025
In Bilopillia, a period of mourning was declared through until Monday, with local community chief Yurii Zarko calling the day 'Black Saturday'.
The injured were taken to a hospital in Sumy, the regional capital.
The local media outlet Suspilne said the passengers on the bus were being evacuated from the town when the strike happened. Authorities are working to identify some of the victims, most of them elderly women.
Russia's defence ministry claimed its forces hit a military staging area in the Sumy region on Saturday morning, some 31 miles south-east of Bilopillia, without mentioning any other attacks there.
Russian and Ukrainian officials met on Friday in Istanbul in an attempt to reach a temporary ceasefire, but the talks ended after less than two hours without a breakthrough.
It was the first face-to-face dialogue between the two sides since the early weeks of Moscow's February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
While both sides agreed on a large prisoner swap, they remained far apart on key conditions for ending the fighting.
One such condition for Ukraine, backed by its Western allies, is a temporary ceasefire as a first step toward a peaceful settlement. The Kremlin has pushed back against such a truce, which remains elusive.
Mr Zelensky said he had discussed the outcome of the Istanbul talks with US President Donald Trump and the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and Poland.
In a post on X from a European leadership meeting in Albania on Friday, he urged 'tough sanctions' against Moscow if it rejects 'a full and unconditional ceasefire and an end to killings'.
Kyiv and Moscow agreed to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war each, according to the heads of both delegations, in what would be their biggest such swap.
The sides also discussed a ceasefire and a meeting between their heads of state, according to the chief Ukrainian delegate, Defence Minister Rustem Umerov.
Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to President Vladimir Putin, said both sides also agreed to provide each other with detailed ceasefire proposals, with Ukraine requesting the heads of state meeting, which Russia took under consideration.
The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, on Saturday held open the possibility of Mr Putin holding talks with Mr Zelensky, providing the agreed prisoner swap goes ahead and if Russian and Ukrainian delegations reached unspecified further 'agreements'.
Mr Peskov also told reporters that Moscow will present Ukraine with a list of conditions for a ceasefire but gave no timeframe, or say what needed to happen before Mr Zelensky and Mr Putin can meet.
In Tirana, Albania, Mr Zelensky met with leaders of 47 European countries to discuss security, defence and democratic standards against the backdrop of the war, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
'Pressure on Russia must be maintained until Russia is ready to end the war,' Mr Zelensky said on X.
Mr Macron in Tirana on Saturday accused Mr Putin of 'cynicism' and said that Russia has failed to 'respect' ceasefire proposals backed by the US and other Western nations.
Following a call on Friday between Mr Trump, Mr Zelensky, Mr Starmer, Mr Merz, Mr Tusk and Mr Macron, the French president reiterated that a European 'coalition of the willing' is ready to give Ukraine security guarantees and 'put pressure on Russia', something he said he expected Mr Trump would support.
'Faced with President Putin's cynicism, I believe that … in fact, I'm sure that President Trump, concerned about the credibility of the United States of America, will react,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
Scottish Sun
7 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Six members of Russian spy ring to have ‘too lenient' jail sentences reviewed
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SIX members of a Russian spy ring are to have their jail sentences reviewed for being too lenient, we can reveal. The Bulgarians — who lived and worked in the UK — plotted sex stings, and targeted Russian dissidents and journalists critical of President Vladimir Putin's war effort against Ukraine. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Russian Spy Vanya Gaberova was sentenced to eight years in jail Credit: Reuters 7 The operations was run out of a Great Yarmouth guesthouse Credit: PA The ring included lab worker Katrin Ivanova, 33, and beauty shop owner Vanya Gaberova, 30 — dubbed 'killer sexy brunettes' by cell leaders. Ivanova got nine years and eight months and Gaberova eight years. They were both found guilty in March of breaching the Official Secrets Act by conspiring to provide information useful to an enemy between August 2020 and February 2023. Ivanova also got a concurrent sentence of 15 months for forged ID documents. read more on russia BRAND OF EVIL Ukrainian PoW released in swap left with 'Glory to Russia' burned on his body All six got a total of more than 50 years last month. The Attorney General's Office has been asked to consider the sentences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The ULS scheme allows anyone to ask for a Crown Court sentence to be assessed by the Attorney General's office if they think it is too lenient. Law officers have 28 days from sentencing to make a decision. 7 Katrin Ivanova was sentenced to nine years and eight months Credit: Central News 7 Orlin Roussev ran the spy ring Credit: PA 7 Ivan Iliev Stoyanov was convicted of carrying out surveillance for Putin 7 Tihomir Ivanov Ivanchev was also jailed for his part in the spy ring Credit: PA 7 Biser Dzhambazov was convicted as part of the ring Credit: PA Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme - Sun Club.
