12 Ukrainian Soldiers Killed in Russian Strike on Army Training Unit
At least 12 Ukrainian service members were killed and more than 60 were injured in a Russian missile strike on the location of a Ukrainian army training unit Sunday, according to a statement from the Ukrainian Ground Forces.
The strike occurred at 12:50 p.m. the statement said, emphasizing that no formations or mass gatherings of personnel were being held at the time. An investigative commission was created to uncover the circumstances around the attack that led to such a loss in personnel, the statement said.
The training unit is located to the rear of the 1,000-kilometer active front line, where Russian reconnaissance and strike drones are able to strike.
Ukraine's forces suffer from manpower shortages and take extra precautions to avoid mass gatherings as the skies across the front line are saturated with Russian drones looking for targets.
'If it is established that the actions or inaction of officials led to the death or injury of servicemen, those responsible will be held strictly accountable,' the Ukrainian Ground Forces' statement said.
Northern pressure
Russia's Ministry of Defense said Sunday that it had taken control of the village of Oleksiivka in Ukraine's northern Sumy region.
Ukrainian authorities in Sumy ordered mandatory evacuations in 11 more settlements Saturday as Russian forces make steady gains in the area.
Speaking Saturday, Ukraine's top army chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, said that Russian forces were focusing their main offensive efforts on Pokrovsk, Toretsk and Lyman in the Donetsk region, as well as the Sumy border area.
The strikes come amid continuing uncertainty as to whether Kyiv diplomats will attend a new round of peace talks proposed by Moscow for early next week in Istanbul. Ukrainian officials have called on the Kremlin to provide a promised memorandum setting out its position on ending the more than three-year war before the meeting takes place.
Moscow previously said it would share its memorandum during the talks.
In his evening address Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on Moscow to stop 'playing with diplomacy' by withholding the document.
'At this point, we don't have any clear information about what the Russians are planning to do in Istanbul,' he said.
'Of course, everyone in the world wants diplomacy to work and a real ceasefire to happen. Everyone wants Russia to stop playing with diplomacy and end the war. Everyone wants serious peace, and Russia must agree to this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Trains and talks: Turkiye's dual track in Ukraine war
Since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's airspace has been closed and its roads have been unsafe for travel. Thus, trains have become the primary means of access. Over the past three years, numerous foreign leaders who have wanted to show their solidarity with Ukraine have taken trains to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in the capital Kyiv. The 10-hour overnight train journey that takes them from southeastern Poland to Kyiv has come to be known as 'iron diplomacy' and acts a symbol of commitment. Typically, the schedule and exact route of these train journeys are kept confidential and two alternate routes are always prepared — one for the actual train and another for a decoy 'ghost train' to mitigate the risk of an attack. This was a precaution particularly used during then-US President Joe Biden's trip last year. Among the latest officials to embark on this symbolic journey was Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who was accompanied by a delegation of journalists. The Turkish media became the first to be given access to the train, which was heavily guarded, with security personnel both on board and along the route. Typically, during these journeys, the curtains remain closed to minimize visibility for Russian drones. However, the curtains were left open during Fidan's journey — signaling Turkiye's weight in the war and the changing conditions on the ground. This iron diplomacy is more than just taking world leaders from Poland to Ukraine via rail, it is pivotal in maintaining international support for Ukraine. Each journey demonstrates that, despite the war, Ukraine remains connected to the world. It is also an essential platform for fostering diplomacy and maintaining global attention on the war. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. For Turkiye, these diplomatic efforts reflect a broader strategy. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. Dr. Sinem Cengiz Since the start of the war, Ankara has carefully positioned itself as an actor capable of engaging with both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among its latest attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the war is the so-called Istanbul process, which aims to bring the two sides together for peace talks. Two rounds of talks have been held under the Istanbul process, in May and June. Last month's meeting, which coincided with a visit by US President Donald Trump to the Gulf, did not result in a ceasefire but did achieve an agreement on a prisoner exchange. Monday's most recent round, chaired by Fidan and Turkiye's security establishment, also failed to secure a ceasefire. However, Fidan noted a 'more optimistic tone' as negotiations resumed. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. From the Istanbul process, Turkiye's broader goal is to convene a high-level summit between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Zelensky and Putin — a summit that could be a potential turning point in the war. With the Istanbul process, Turkiye has succeeded in bringing both parties together and it now aims to become the primary actor by creating a diplomatic space beyond the traditional US-Russia framework. Here, Ankara's role defies easy categorization. While some label it a mediator or negotiator, Turkiye more accurately acts as a facilitator. While a mediator, who enters the process to assist parties in search of a solution, is unfamiliar with the system or conflicting situation, the facilitator is part of the system where the wars arose. Turkiye is part of the geopolitical landscape impacted by the war — that is the Black Sea region. This region, historically vital to Turkiye's security and strategic interests, has become even more critical amid the ongoing Western-Russian rivalry. This proximity gives Ankara both the incentive and the leverage to remain engaged. Turkiye's motivation also stems from its desire to expand its influence on the international stage, safeguard regional stability and carve a role for itself in the postwar settlement. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. Dr. Sinem Cengiz So far, all efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated peace have failed. However, a glimmer of hope remains for a diplomatic breakthrough that could finally end the war. This is why both the US and the EU have placed their hopes in Turkiye, while Ankara, in turn, is relying heavily on its carefully managed relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. Although the West has often been uneasy about Turkiye's close ties with Russia, there is now growing recognition — both in Washington and across European capitals — of the value of having a partner that can maintain open lines of communication with the Kremlin. This shift is evident in Trump's cautious approach in order to avoid any problems with Turkiye and the EU's increasing emphasis on Ankara's role in ensuring regional security and acting as a diplomatic bridge between East and West. Despite its vocal support for Ukraine's NATO aspirations and its alignment with Western institutions, Turkiye has successfully compartmentalized its relationship with Russia. Turkiye relies on two main characteristics of a facilitator to achieve success: trust and persuasiveness. Ankara's continued trust-building with both Moscow and Kyiv makes it uniquely suited for the role of potential facilitator, while its style of personal diplomacy plays a significant role in its persuasiveness. If Turkiye can secure a breakthrough via the Istanbul process, it would be a game-changer not only for Ankara but also for Europe and Russia. Such an outcome would also confirm the words of veteran Turkish ambassador Ertugrul Apakan: 'Success might sometimes only be achieved after many failed attempts ... There is no single recipe for successful mediation, just as no conflict is the same as another.'
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
Al Arabiya
10 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Europe can sustain Ukraine's war effort without US, German general says
Europe is capable of sustaining Ukraine's resistance against Russia, even if the United States were to decide to completely halt its military support to Kyiv, the senior military official in charge of coordinating Germany's arms supplies told Reuters. Major General Christian Freuding said NATO's European members plus Canada had already exceeded the estimated $20 billion worth of US military aid provided last year to Kyiv. They accounted for around 60 percent of the total costs borne by the Western allies, he said. 'The war against Ukraine is raging on our continent, it is also being waged against the European security order. If the political will is there, then the means will also be there to largely compensate for the American support,' Freuding said in an interview. Ukraine continues to receive weapons deliveries approved by former US President Joe Biden. It is unclear, however, whether his successor Donald Trump will sign off on any new supplies - or allow third countries to purchase US weapons for Kyiv. Asked how long the Biden-approved deliveries will sustain Kyiv, Freuding said this depended on logistical processes as well as the speed at which Ukraine burns through arms and ammunition, but that the summer seemed a realistic estimate. 'How the American government handles further requests for military support for Ukraine is unclear at the moment. We can't say anything about that,' he added. 'In general, the US has a great interest in boosting its own defense industry. I make the cautious assumption that at least purchasing US defense goods, and delivering them to Ukraine, will be possible.' Russian rearmament Addressing the potential threat that Russia might pose beyond Ukraine, Freuding said Moscow had a clear plan to reconstitute and grow its military, and was expected to succeed in efforts to double its land forces to 1.5 million by 2026. 'They are recruiting significantly more personnel than they need as replacements for the war in Ukraine. They are producing surplus stocks of ammunition, in particular, which they are 'putting on store.'' Freuding said Russia was also ramping up its military infrastructure, especially in its western military district bordering new NATO member Finland. Any ceasefire in Ukraine could allow Russia to accelerate its rearmament efforts ahead of a possible large-scale attack on NATO territory, he said. The alliance currently believes this could occur from 2029. 'Of course, a ceasefire could change the threat situation,' Freuding said. Russia denies planning to attack NATO and says it is waging a 'special military operation' in Ukraine to protect its own security against what it casts as an aggressive, hostile West. Germany has provided a total of 38 billion euros ($43 billion) in military aid to Ukraine, including funds earmarked for the coming years, making it the second largest donor after the United States, the defense ministry in Berlin says. Freuding said he was not aware of the Trump administration having endorsed any US arms deliveries to Kyiv paid for by third countries. Still, making up for certain crucial parts of US military support to Ukraine would pose significant challenges to Europe. Listing capabilities that would be hard for Europeans to replace, Freuding cited US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data, air defense systems like Patriot and spare parts for US weapons. 'If we are capable of replacing specific (ISR) capabilities to a sufficient extent - we need to look into this when we definitely know the Americans won't provide this data anymore.' Ukraine uses US intelligence data to help its air defense, and analysts say also for targeting.
