Ukraine loses French-supplied fighter jet
France pledged six of its 26 Mirage 2000 jets to Kiev as part of a multibillion-euro military aid program supporting Ukraine in its armed conflict with Russia. French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced the delivery of the first three jets in early February.
Ukrainian media reported the crash occurred in the Volyn Region in western Ukraine, far from the front line. Video circulating online appeared to show the pilot descending by parachute.
The Ukrainian military commended the pilot of the downed aircraft, saying he acted 'professionally' and safely ejected. Air Force public communications chief Yury Ignat said the unidentified pilot 'did everything to divert the aircraft to a safe place far from any settlement.'🇷🇺🇫🇷🇺🇦 First losses of French Mirage 2000 in Ukraine The fighter crashed due to engine failure. The French were delivering aircraft built in the 1980s to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which were modernized in the 2000s. pic.twitter.com/6reN9Hzzg4
'Such incidents are common all over the world,' Ignat added. 'The important thing is the pilot is alive and well.'
Ukraine has previously confirmed the loss of multiple US-made F-16 fighter jets in combat. While Kiev initially asserted that Western aircraft would provide a battlefield advantage, they have largely been used for intercepting Russian long-range missiles due to a shortage of air defense systems.
The Mirage 2000 models sent by France are older and were scheduled for retirement by 2029. France also trained Ukrainian pilots to operate them.
The Ukrainian military relies heavily on foreign aid to pay and equip its forces. Denis Shmigal, the former prime minister recently appointed defense minister in a government reshuffle, said this week the military would need at least $120 billion next year. He made the statement while addressing Ukrainian ambassadors, urging them to seek additional foreign support.
Following a meeting with international arms donors Monday in Germany, Shmigal said Kiev faces a $6 billion shortfall in weapons procurement.
Russia has condemned Western arms shipments, warning they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
40 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Trump says he will shorten Ukraine peace deadline
US President Donald Trump has warned he will reduce the time frame he had set for Moscow and Kiev to settle the Ukraine conflict. He had previously demanded the sides reach an agreement in 50 days, threatening to impose additional sanctions against Russia otherwise. The set of punitive measures announced by Washington would involve secondary sanctions, including tariffs on countries and entities doing business with Russia. Trump's initial deadline was due to expire in early September. 'I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him (Putin) to a lesser number, because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen,' Trump told journalists in Scotland ahead of a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The American leader claimed he had been close to reaching a ceasefire deal on Ukraine conflict with Russian President Vladimir Putin five times. 'I've spoken to President Putin a lot, I've gotten along with him very well,' he said, while accusing Moscow of launching strikes against Ukrainian cities and stating that he was 'very disappointed' with the Russian leadership. Moscow has stated throughout the conflict that it is open for dialogue and could start negotiations without preconditions, as long as the situation on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed during the talks. It also said Trump's new sanctions threats serve primarily 'as signals to continue war' for Ukraine and called on Washington to put pressure on Kiev instead. Any new sanctions, including the secondary ones, would not affect Russia's policy as Moscow would 'continue to move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path,' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in response to Trump's previous threats. The US president said earlier this week that he could potentially impose the announced sanctions before the previously declared deadline. DETAILS TO FOLLOW
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky thought he was killing it. He was
Ukrainians have had plenty of reasons to take to the streets: the cancellation of elections, forced mobilization, the refusal to demobilize soldiers who've been on the front lines for over three years, the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, corruption in the construction of fortifications, the state's failure to have the bodies of fallen soldiers returned, and – above all – the complete absence of a plan for ending the conflict with Russia. This list could go on. And yet, none of these issues has triggered large-scale protests. What we've seen instead are isolated outbursts: in towns and villages, women block draft officers from entering their neighborhoods; churchgoers physically defend their parishes; the wives and mothers of Ukrainian soldiers stage small rallies to draw attention to their plight. And yet, even in this atmosphere of fear and suppression, Vladimir Zelensky has managed to ignite a political crisis. The hasty passage of Bill No. 12414 – which stripped the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) of their independence – sparked a wave of demonstrations that haven't let up for days. It's the first major popular protest since the start of Russia's military operation, and it poses a serious challenge to Zelensky's grip on power. Rallies have broken out in Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Rovno, and Nikolayev. While officials have tried to frame them as spontaneous, local expressions of concern about anti-corruption institutions, the scope and coordination suggest otherwise. The message to Zelensky is simple: the pressure is just beginning. To understand why the anti-corruption issue struck such a nerve, we need to go back to the beginning. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) were established in 2015 with active backing from the United States – just a year after the coup in Kiev. At the time, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin openly stated that the idea for NABU came directly from then–Vice President Joe Biden. From the outset, these agencies functioned as tools of external oversight over the post-Maidan Ukrainian government. President Petro Poroshenko, who was still consolidating power and ideology, did not resist Washington's involvement. NABU's early targets included oligarchs like Igor Kolomoysky and Rinat Akhmetov, who controlled major media holdings. This suited Poroshenko, whose own business interests, notably, remained untouched. Over time, it became clear that Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party. A prime example is the Paul Manafort case. In 2016, The New York Times, citing NABU sources, published claims that Manafort – then campaign chairman for Donald Trump – had received undisclosed payments from Ukraine's Party of Regions under President Viktor Yanukovych. These claims prompted a US investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in the American election. In 2019, the Senate ultimately found no evidence – but the episode left a lasting impression. That same year, NABU played a role in deflecting scrutiny from the Burisma scandal – the energy company whose board included Joe Biden's son, Hunter. Over time, the link between these anti-corruption institutions and the US Democratic Party became apparent to many Ukrainians. And with Republicans now back in power in Washington, Zelensky appears to have decided it was time to free himself from external control. Zelensky likely assumed that the new American administration wouldn't go out of its way to defend the Democratic Party's proxies in Ukraine. Judging by Washington's muted response, that calculation may have been correct. What he failed to consider, however, was the level of domestic resistance to his growing concentration of power. Ukraine today is full of pressure points. Discontent is widespread – but scattered and disorganized. Zelensky's opponents simply lack the means to unseat him. Moreover, Zelensky remains the centerpiece of the West's anti-Russian strategy – a leader willing to accept any domestic cost in service of that agenda. Even policies that threaten the foundations of Ukrainian statehood are tolerated, so long as the broader project of an 'anti-Russia' continues. That's why the West has looked the other way with regards to forced mobilization, canceled elections, and the refusal to rotate exhausted troops at the front. For a while, this gave Zelensky free rein to act inside the country. But now the ground is shifting. A key sign: the growing frustration among those who spent years working within grant-funded structures aligned with the US Democratic Party. Leading this informal coalition is former president Petro Poroshenko. Under threat of criminal prosecution, Poroshenko has spent months quietly building a new political bloc. He has the money, the media, and the electoral base – fractured as it may be. For this group, Zelensky's move against the anti-corruption agencies – in effect, a move against external oversight – is the perfect pretext to reassert themselves and reclaim a measure of Western support. Zelensky is unlikely to use force against protests centered on NABU and SAPO. Doing so would only strengthen the narrative that he's drifting toward authoritarianism. That's precisely why the demonstrations over Bill No. 12414 are a safer platform for opposition than protests against illegal military draft raids or other abuses by Ukraine's Territorial Recruitment Centers. The rallies have already attracted political heavyweights – including the Klitschko brothers, longtime rivals of Zelensky, and the legislator Maryana Bezuhla. The latter actually voted for the bill, but showed up at the protest claiming to support the Armed Forces – or perhaps simply to spite Commander-in-Chief Aleksandr Syrsky, with whom she's long feuded. This kind of narrative hijacking is exactly what makes the protests dangerous for Zelensky. Like in 2013–2014, a movement that begins with one demand can quickly pick up steam – and new political slogans – until it snowballs into a full-blown crisis. The opposition is seizing its moment. Their goals may not fully align with Washington's, but they've succeeded in riding the wave – and that alone spells trouble for Zelensky. It's telling that Ukraine's Western partners haven't publicly condemned Zelensky. Still, pressure is clearly mounting – through media outlets, political messaging, and behind-the-scenes channels. This kind of restrained posture allows the West to maintain a façade of stability without toppling the political structure in Kiev. But a critical question remains: will the military join the protests? According to foreign media reports, commanders have been instructed to stay away. Nevertheless, a few servicemen have already been seen at the rallies. If their numbers grow, so too will the risks. Facing the threat of reduced military and financial support, Zelensky has backed down – at least for now. He submitted a new bill to the Rada that would restore the powers of NABU and SAPO. A vote is scheduled for July 31. It seems Europe has forced Zelensky to reverse course. If the law passes, the protesters may claim a symbolic victory. But it's far from over. Zelensky's team could still water down the bill or kick it into the long grass – and they have every reason to try. The main one: the looming loss of centralized control over the levers of power. Several red flags are already visible: The security services, who carried out raids on NABU, may now start questioning Zelensky's authority and the legitimacy of his directives. The Rada, already shaken by the original bill, could fracture further – eroding Zelensky's grip on the legislature. NABU itself, if empowered again, may go after members of Zelensky's inner circle – putting pressure on the business elite that had come to feel safe under his protection. In the end, Zelensky's show of resolve may have backed him into a corner. He's losing political capital at home. And while his government remains intact for now, the erosion of his authority has begun. This may only be the beginning.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US-EU trade deal a ‘fiasco'
The new EU-US trade agreement is an economic and political 'fiasco' that undermines the bloc's sovereignty, veteran right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen has said. The agreement, finalized by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump on Sunday, averted a full-blown trade war between Washington and Brussels. Under its terms, the EU will commit to increased imports of US energy and military equipment, while the US reduces its proposed 30% tariffs to a flat 15% on most European exports. Le Pen, a key member of France's National Rally party, the largest opposition group in the National Assembly, condemned the deal, calling it 'a political, economic and moral fiasco' for the EU. 'Politically, because the European Union, with 27 member states, obtained worse conditions than the United Kingdom,' she said, referring to the fact that the UK agreed to 10% tariffs – which was widely regarded as a bad deal. Le Pen also accused Brussels of accepting unequal terms on exporting American gas and weapons that she claimed no patriotic French government would have agreed to. 'This is an outright surrender for French industry and for our energy and military sovereignty.' She added that the deal sacrifices the interests of French farmers to benefit Germany's automotive industry, pointing to 'clauses forcing us to further open the single market to American agricultural products in exchange for reduced taxes on German automobile exports.' 'This globalization that denies and shatters sovereignty has been outdated for many years… The least that could be done is to acknowledge this stinging failure rather than asking the French, who will be its first victims, to rejoice in it.' Le Pen's criticism was echoed by former Belgian Prime Minister and MEP Guy Verhofstadt, who called the agreement 'scandalous' and 'a disaster,' which failed to secure any concessions from the American side. Trump described the agreement as 'probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade.' Von der Leyen said the deal brings 'certainty in uncertain times,' adding that a 15% rate 'is the best we could get.'
