Russians hit critical infrastructure in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast
Several explosions have occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast on the night of 26-27 January, with Russians targeting critical infrastructure. Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast Military Administration has reported that a fire has broken out as a result of the attack.
Source: Svitlana Onyshchuk, Head of Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast Military Administration, on Telegram
Quote: "A series of explosions were heard in Prykarpattia. The enemy attacked the oblast multiple times last night, using strike drones. Critical infrastructure facilities were targeted. A fire was recorded. Relevant services are working at the scene."
Details: Onyshchuk added that no reports of casualties were received as of 08:00.
Background: Earlier, media outlets reported that explosions occurred during the Russian drone attack in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. Ivano-Frankivsk Mayor Ruslan Martsinkiv mentioned that air defence systems were responding in the city.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Don Bacon, House GOP lawmaker critical of Trump's handling of Ukraine war, won't seek re-election: reports
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) will not seek re-election in his swing district in 2026 and instead retire from the House of Representatives, according to multiple reports. Bacon, who has served five terms in the lower chamber representing Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, is expected to make a formal announcement on Monday, Punchbowl News and the New York Times reported on Friday. Bacon's district went for Kamala Harris over President Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Getty Images The congressman's office and campaign would not confirm reports of his imminent retirement, but Bacon has shared several messages thanking him for his service on Capitol Hill on X. Bacon's district, which encompasses Nebraska's largest city, Omaha, went for former Vice President Kamala Harris over President Trump in the 2024 election. The district also voted for former President Joe Biden over Trump in the 2020 presidential contest. Bacon himself narrowly won re-election last year, defeating his Democratic opponent by less than 2 percentage points. His departure opens the door for Democrats to pick up a seat in the House, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans, after the 2026 midterm elections. Bacon, 61, has been an outspoken critic of Trump's approach to negotiations aimed at ending Russia's three-year-long war against Ukraine. Bacon has been critical of Trump's handling of the war in Ukraine. Ron Sachs/CNP / Earlier this year, he told The Post he felt Trump was taking 'a pro-Russian view' of the conflict and that the president has been 'a bit of an appeaser to Russia.' Bacon slammed Trump's 'moral ambiguity' last month after the president took aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin – calling him 'crazy' – for allowing a massive airstrike targeting Ukrainian civilians, but went on to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the same post. 'The first half of this message is perfect, the rest is dumb,' Bacon said at the time. 'Trump is attacking President Zelensky while Putin bombs Ukrainian cities and it is misguided.' 'Moral ambiguity while one nation invades another is hurting Trump's credibility. Putin is making a mockery of Trump, and Trump keeps attacking Zelensky.'
Indianapolis Star
11 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Migrant groups left shocked, scared over Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court's reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities. The court's June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump's plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents. The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. 'We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,' Platkin said on X. 'We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe.
Indianapolis Star
11 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Migrant groups left shocked, scared over Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court's reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities. The court's June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump's plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents. The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. 'We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,' Platkin said on X. 'We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe.
