Russian missile attack kills five in Ukraine's southeast
KYIV, June 27 (Reuters) - A Russian missile attack on Friday killed at least five people and wounded more than 20 in the industrial city of Samar in Ukraine's southeast, officials said, the second strike on the city in three days.
At least four of the wounded were in severe condition and were taken to hospital, regional governor Serhiy Lysak said on the Telegram messaging app.
Officials gave no immediate details on damage in the city, where an attack on an unidentified infrastructure facility on Tuesday killed two people.
Hundreds of kilometres to the south, in the Kherson region, authorities urged residents on Friday to prepare for extended periods without power after a Russian attack hit a key energy facility.
Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said on Telegram that "Russians decided to plunge the region into darkness".
In recent weeks Russia has stepped up attacks on Ukrainian cities, particularly its capital Kyiv, more than three years into the war that followed its full-scale invasion.
The Ukrainian air force said Russia had launched 363 long-range drones and eight missiles overnight into Friday, targeting a small western city of Starokostiantyniv, home to an important air base. There were no details on damage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Despite Trump cajoling Europe to pay up, Putin is the victor from this week's Nato summit
Nato leaders departed their summit in The Hague on Wednesday with relief. All, except for Spain, promised to spend what much more money on defence (though the concept of 'defence' is now being elasticated to includes things like another runway at Heathrow). Thirty-one of those leaders felt they had succeeded in placating the 32nd, or rather, the number one, Donald Trump. The Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, had written him a pre-summit letter about his great achievements in the baby language considered suitable. He also referred to him as 'Daddy '. I would call this fawning, or, in preferred Trump style, 'FAWNING!!!'. Nevertheless, Daddy seemed content. As he left, he announced that Nato 'is not a rip-off'; so that was good. But if you read the declaration which the Nato leaders published, you can see how markedly it differs from past ones. Three omissions stand out. The first concerns Ukraine. In the Nato declaration in 2022, the year of Putin's full-scale invasion, the leaders warned that 'War has returned to the European Continent.' They condemned Russia's 'war of aggression' and 'blatant violation of international law'. Their text spoke, in strikingly undiplomatic terms, of Russia's 'lies', 'cruelty' and the 'humanitarian catastrophe' caused. It offered 'full solidarity' with 'our close partner' Ukraine and vindicated its 'territorial integrity'. The 2022 declaration judged Russia to be 'the most significant and direct threat to peace in the Euro-Atlantic area.' Three years on, that war still rages. Yet this week's declaration says only this about Ukraine: 'Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies' defence spending.' That word 'sovereign' was included to placate pro-Russian Nato members (e.g. Hungary) who would not want Vladmir Putin to think they are helping Ukraine. The stuff about paying to Ukraine's defence industry is part of the fudge over extra spending. The collective endorsement of Ukraine is now distinctly un-ringing. Gone is the talk of European war being caused by Russia. All the declaration says is that Nato spending is going up because of 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security and the persistent threat of terrorism'. 'Long-term'? The day before the summit, 350 drones and 16 missiles attacked Ukraine and killed ten people in Kyiv. Such occurrences are almost daily. If I were Putin, I would feel well pleased by the muffling of Nato's rhetoric: another couple of years, he may think, and the words 'Russia' and 'Ukraine' can be excised from its communiques altogether. Another omission is the word 'nuclear'. In Cold War declarations, the range, level and balance of nuclear armaments between Nato and the Soviet Union were often discussed. Their importance was emphasised. In 1983, when the Soviet threat was high and Reagan and Thatcher were hitting back with cruise and Pershing deployment in Europe, the Nato declaration said, 'A sufficient level of both conventional and nuclear forces remains necessary for the credibility of deterrence.' With the word 'nuclear' now gone, what deters? The final three words absent from the latest declaration are 'The United States'. It is almost as if a major Vatican document did not mention His Holiness the Pope. There is a great big orange elephant in the room trumpeting uncontrollably but no one wants to talk about it. That is a dramatic change. This passage from the 1982 Nato declaration could stand for the alliance's whole doctrine and its key American dimension: 'The security and sovereignty of the European members of the Alliance remain guaranteed by their own defence, by the presence of North American forces on European territory and by the United States strategic nuclear commitment to Europe. The United States and Canada likewise depend for their own security upon the contribution of the European partners to the defence of the Alliance.' The reason the doctrine is not repeated today is, presumably, that it would not be believed. That 'credibility of deterrence' has weakened. Nato communiques often talk of member states' commitments being 'ironclad'. That adjective is repeated this year, but the iron looks rusty now. There is an additional reason: the current occupant of the White House may not believe it himself. Those anxious leaders in The Hague probably thought, 'Best not to ask'. So the question naturally follows, 'What is Nato for?' It must be for something, since 31 of its 32 nations are committing to spend much more money on it: but what? Who is the enemy? How great is the threat? What is the posture? There is now a radical disjunction between the imminence of the Russian threat perceived by roughly half of the Nato allies – including Baltics, Nordics, Poland and (rather more tentatively) Britain – and the sort of denial or reluctance visible in southern or Balkan countries and, above all, in elements of the American administration. In Britain, most of us have spent most of our lives believing or half-believing that we are under the American nuclear umbrella. I say 'half-believing' because we cannot be certain what would happen if Armageddon loomed, but we have at least believed that the size and seriousness of US nuclear capacity have deterred our common enemies from trying on anything too dangerous. I probably do still believe that. President Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear sites – though in no sense a Nato action – shows he is on the side of the West against the maniacs. But it could be that 'Daddy' regards Israel as a sort of Prodigal Son whom he will indulge, while for Nato he is more like an absent father who resents having to see his kids. We confront the contradiction that the man who tells us to contribute much more money and acts as if he is the boss may be the one least likely to stick around. He is also the friendliest towards our greatest immediate foe. Mr Trump has been absolutely consistent in refusing the underlying Nato approach, which is that Putin is completely in the wrong because he is trying to change the borders of Europe by force. Trump will criticise Putin sometimes. Yes, he has gone too far ('What the hell happened to him?'), he will say. That he should not have attacked at all, he will never, ever say. So it becomes very hard to imagine circumstances in which Trump's finger would press the button to save Europe – or even Britain, for whom he has a soft spot – from Putin. Hence our inglorious but not completely foolish playing for time in The Hague. Perhaps Mr Trump will eventually see more sense, or just calm down – and anyway power will have drained away from him in not much more than three years' time, or even, perhaps, after the mid-terms next year. In these trying circumstances, we should feel sympathetic to Sir Keir Starmer's efforts to take the defence and security of Britain more seriously. So it was marginally good news this week that we shall buy 12 dual-capable F-35A bombers from the United States, thus improving our nuclear capacity. When you consider, however, that they will be American and under American custody and command, and that we are not buying more bombers than before, but simply different ones (switching from B models to A models), you – and Vladimir Putin - may be underwhelmed. On VE Day 1945, Churchill said, 'Our enemy lies prostrate before us.' Eighty years on, we risk it being the other way round.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rising poverty in conflict zones ‘causes a billion people to go hungry'
Extreme poverty is accelerating in 39 countries affected by war and conflict, leaving more than a billion people to go hungry, according to the World Bank. Civil wars and confrontations between nations, mostly in Africa, have set back economic growth and reduced the incomes of more than a billion people, 'driving up extreme poverty faster than anywhere else', the Washington-based body said. Underscoring the breadth of conflicts beyond the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza wars, it said the 39 developing economies classified as being in fragile and conflict-affected situations are plagued by instability and weak institutions, 'hindering their ability to attain the robust, sustained economic growth needed for development'. In its first assessment of conflict zones since the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020, the World Bank urged western governments to step up support for war-torn countries to end the conflicts and rebuild vital institutions. Since 2020 the level of national income per head of population has shrunk by an average of 1.8% a year in the affected countries, while it has expanded by 2.9% in other developing economies, the report found. The World Bank, which lends to poor nations to promote stable economic growth, said acute hunger was increasing and development goals set by the United Nations were now 'further out of reach'. The report said: 'This year, 421 million people are struggling on less than $3 a day in economies afflicted by conflict or instability – more than in the rest of the world combined. That number is projected to rise to 435 million, or nearly 60% of the world's extreme poor, by 2030.' The number of deaths in wars and conflicts across the world was stable before the 2008 banking crisis, which forced many developing countries to cut back welfare and education programmes to pay for rising debt payments. The report said the average number of such fatalities was about 50,000 between 2000 and 2004 and even lower between 2005 and 2008, but then there was an increase to more than 150,000 in 2014. Since the pandemic the number of deaths in conflict has averaged 200,000, reaching more than 300,000 in 2022. 'For the last three years, the world's attention has been on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and this focus has now intensified,' said Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group's chief economist. 'Yet more than 70% of people suffering from conflict and instability are Africans. Untreated, these conditions become chronic. Half of the countries facing conflict or instability today have been in such conditions for 15 years or more. Misery on this scale is inevitably contagious.' He said of the 39 economies currently classified as facing conflict or instability, 21 are in active conflict. Several major donors to investment programmes across the developing world have reduced their funding in recent years, including the UK and the US. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Some philanthropic organisations, including the Bill Gates Foundation, have said they cannot increase funding to fill gaps left by governments, leaving many countries to scramble for funds to pay loan interest payments. According to the report, the extreme-poverty rate has fallen to 6% on average across all developing world countries. However, in economies facing conflict or instability the rate is nearly 40%. The 39 countries have a rate of national income per head of $1,500 (£1,282) a year, 'which has barely budged since 2010 – even as GDP per capita has more than doubled to an average of $6,900 in other developing economies,' the report said. Joining the army of local militia can also be an attractive option for young men and women. In 2022, the latest year for which such data was available, more than 270 million people were of working age in these economies, yet fewer than half were employed. 'The global community must pay greater attention to the plight of these economies,' said M Ayhan Kose, the World Bank Group's deputy chief economist. 'Jumpstarting growth and development here will not be easy, but it can be done – and it has been done before. With targeted policies and stronger international support, policymakers can prevent conflict, strengthen governance, accelerate growth, and create jobs.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Russia accelerates missile production with China's help
Russia is speeding up missile production for its war in Ukraine and a possible future conflict with Nato with the help of China. Moscow is reportedly using Chinese companies and Russian intermediaries to dodge Western sanctions on manufacturing equipment for missiles. It is building up stockpiles that would last for two years if the current pace of strikes against Ukraine was maintained, according to an investigation by the Kyiv Independent newspaper. This suggests Vladimir Putin is preparing for a long war in Ukraine, despite peace negotiations with Donald Trump, and making contingency plans in a case of a wider war with the West. Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) officials told the Kyiv Independent that Russia was not just ramping up production to replace missiles used in the war. 'According to our data, Russia is building up a stockpile of missiles of various types,' said a senior HUR official. 'They are preparing for a long war.' The Institute for the Study of War, a think tank, also warned that Russia was preparing for 'a protracted war in Ukraine and a potential expanded future conflict with Nato'. Last year, Russia produced nearly three times more Iskander-M ballistic missiles – 700 compared with 250 –than in 2023, said the London-based Rusi think tank. Despite intensified missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, Russia is not using all the missiles it is producing, which suggests a stockpile is being built up. HUR believes Russia has reserves of about 600 Iskander-M ballistic missiles and another 300 Iskander-K cruise missiles – enough for two years of fighting. Russia's state-owned Votkinsk plant produces ballistic and cruise missiles, such as the Iskander weapons used in air strikes against Ukrainian cities. It also manufactures intercontinental ballistic missiles able to deliver nuclear warheads across the planet. These include the Yars and Bulava, designed to reach the US, and potentially the Oreshnik, which, it is claimed, can hit anywhere in Europe. The Votkinsk plant is blacklisted by the US and its allies, which forbid the sale of any materials, machinery or microelectronics used in missiles to Russia. But the missile hub has hired 2,500 extra workers, built new facilities and significantly increased production since the Ukraine war began in 2022. The Kremlin used private Russian intermediaries to source the specialised equipment from companies in China, Belarus and Taiwan. Those countries have not joined the international sanctions against Russia, and China and Belarus are close allies of Moscow. On Thursday, China's foreign ministry denied supplying arms to Russia after Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary general, accused Beijing of supporting Moscow's war effort. The Kyiv Independent used satellite imagery and analysed the plant's internal business operations to inform its investigation. South Korean intelligence has warned that Pyongyang is continuing to supply arms to Russia and may deploy more troops in July or August to fight in a possible large-scale assault against Ukraine. North Korea is believed to be receiving technical advice on satellite launches and missile guidance systems in return for sending artillery ammunition and missiles to Russia, MPs in Seoul were told. The Ukrainians are also attempting to ramp up domestic production of weapons as they steel themselves for a prolonged conflict. Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, has claimed that his country's industry has a capacity worth about $35 billion (£25.4 billion), but his government only has the funds to use about half. He is appealing to Western allies to pump funds directly into Ukraine's defence industry rather than donating supplies made in their own countries.
