Kremlin staged drone attack on Putin's helicopter
A claim by the Russian Defence Ministry that Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin was "in the epicentre of a drone attack" has turned out to be a staged performance by the Kremlin.
Source: The Moscow Times, an independent Amsterdam-based news outlet
Details: Russian state media claimed earlier this week that when Putin visited Kursk Oblast for the first time since the hostilities began in the area, his helicopter came "under fire from Ukrainian drones". In reality, this was not a combat incident but a meticulously staged event.
Four sources within the government and the Kremlin told The Moscow Times that security officials promoted this shocking and "risky" episode in the media to convince Russians that their leader is not hiding behind others, but is also supposedly taking risks and making sacrifices.
Amid regular drone strikes, chaos at airports and mobile communication outages, this televised stunt was intended to portray Putin as someone who "shares the dangers" with the country and thus sends a message to the public – "war is war".
The Moscow Times reported that Putin had indeed visited Kursk Oblast, to which, according to the official narrative, he had travelled by helicopter. In fact, the oblast is frequently targeted by Ukrainian attacks. However, the sources said Putin's security had been ensured at the highest possible level.
"No one would ever allow such criminal negligence. Not even in a nightmare," said one official close to Putin's administration and familiar with his security system.
The Moscow Times reported that the "sensational claim" that Putin's helicopter had found itself "in the epicentre of a large-scale enemy drone attack" was disseminated by the Russian Defence Ministry via the state-run VGTRK television channel.
Kremlin-aligned reporters did not accompany Putin on this trip, nor did a professional filming crew. The footage was captured by other individuals, including a security officer, two informed sources told The Moscow Times.
Background: Earlier, Ukraine's Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security denied claims that Putin's helicopter came under attack from the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Russia's Kursk Oblast.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Asian shares slide as Russia-Ukraine conflict, OPEC+ output plan push oil prices higher
HONG KONG (AP) — Asian shares sank on Monday and oil prices jumped as trade tensions and the Russian-Ukraine conflict ratcheted up geopolitical uncertainty. Hong Kong's Hang Seng plunged more than 2% as Beijing and Washington traded harsh words over trade. U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he will double tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% layered on still more worries for investors. A report over the weekend that China's factory activity contracted in May, although the decline slowed from April as the country reached a deal with the U.S. to slash President Donald Trump's sky-high tariffs, further undermined market sentiment. Markets in mainland China were closed for a holiday. Oil prices rallied after OPEC+ decided on a modest increase in output beginning in July. It was the third monthly increase in a row. U.S. benchmark crude oil gained $1.60 to $62.39 per barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, was up $1.41 at $64.19 per barrel. Moscow pounded Ukraine with missiles and drones just hours before a new round of direct peace talks in Istanbul and a Ukrainian drone attack destroyed more than 40 Russian planes deep in Russia's territory, Ukraine's Security Service said on Sunday. Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped 2.2% to 22,778.45 as China and the U.S. accused each other of breaching their tariff agreement reached in Geneva last month. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 lost 1.6% to 37,356.97, while the Kospi in Seoul fell 0.4% to 2,686.17. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 retreated 0.2% to 8,416.00. On Friday, Wall Street closed its best month since 2023. The S&P 500 retreated less than 0.1% to end at 5,911.69 and the Dow industrials Jones Industrial Average edged 0.1% higher to 42,270.07. The Nasdaq composite fell 0.3% to 19,113.77. Gap weighed on the market even though the retailer reported stronger profit and revenue for the latest quarter than analysts expected. The company behind Banana Republic and Old Navy fell 20.2% after saying tariffs on imports from China and other countries could add up to $300 million to its costs this fiscal year. It has strategies set to mitigate up to half of that before it hits its profits. Hopes had largely been rising that the worst of such worries had passed, which in turn sent stocks rallying, after Trump paused his tariffs on both China and the European Union. A U.S. court then on Wednesday blocked many of Trump's sweeping tariffs. That all sent the S&P 500 in May to its first winning month in four and its best since November. But the tariffs remain in place while the White House appeals the ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the ultimate outcome is still uncertain. Friday's most influential losses came from several Big Tech stocks. Nvidia fell 2.9% to give back some of its gain from earlier in the week after it topped analysts' expectations for profit in the latest quarter. It was the single heaviest weight by far on the S&P 500. On the winning side of Wall Street was Ulta Beauty, which rose 11.8% after the retailer reported stronger sales and profit than analysts forecast. It also raised the top end of its forecasted range for revenue this fiscal year even though CEO Kecia Steelman called the operating environment 'fluid.' In the bond market, Treasury yields eased after a report showed that the measure of inflation that the Federal Reserve likes to use was slightly lower in April than economists expected. A separate report from the University of Michigan said that sentiment among U.S. consumers was better in May than economists expected. Sentiment improved in the back half of the month after Trump paused many of his tariffs on China. In currency trading early Monday, the U.S. dollar fell to 143.55 Japanese yen from 143.87 yen. The euro inched up to $1.1364 from $1.1351.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
Sean "Diddy" Combs is being tried in a New York courtroom for racketeering and sexual trafficking. Could that daily drama vanish instantly if President Donald Trump pardoned the embattled rapper? "Yes, it could," says Brian Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, who focuses on legal issues and the presidency. According to Kalt, Trump — who appears to be in the middle of a pardoning spree — would be within his presidential rights to extend a preemptive pardon to fellow New Yorker Combs, who has been described by witnesses so far as violent and abusive. "These are federal charges (against Combs), so that's the main limit. The matter has be federal, it has to be criminal vs. civil, and related to something that's already been done," says Kalt. "But the person doesn't have to even be charged yet, or convicted. The Supreme Court has said preemptive pardons are OK." Trump weighed in on the possibility Friday, May 30, in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." 'Nobody's asked': President Trump doesn't rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs Typically, one of the last gestures from an outgoing president is a pardon. In President Joe Biden's final days in office, he famously pardoned his son, Hunter, convicted of federal gun felonies and federal tax charges. At the end of Trump's first term, he granted clemency to political allies such as Roger Stone, found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related offenses. But pardons can take place during a president's term, says Kalt. The right was established in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which among other things gives the president "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Kalt says the power to pardon is derived from the British monarch's historic right and stems from a recognition that criminal law was often too harsh, and it was important to have a safety valve. "The president was the best person to be that safety valve because of his political accountability," he says. But that's where things get murky, he adds, noting that Republican lawmakers "don't appear willing to hold the president accountable" for granting pardons, meaning they aren't costing him in terms of political capital. In contrast, President Gerald Ford's controversial pardoning of disgraced President Richard Nixon was perceived so negatively "that it probably cost Ford re-election in 1976," Kalt says. In just over 100 days since taking office, Trump has issued pardons to a broad range of personalities. They include Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," who were convicted in 2022 of swindling $36 million from Atlanta banks and being tax evaders, and rapper NBA YoungBoy, who in 2024 was sentenced to two years in prison for weapons possession. He also pardoned former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of wire fraud and extortion, and Jan. 6 participant and "Bob's Burgers" actor Jay Johnston. The reason many presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms is precisely to avoid political fallout, says Kalt. In that sense, Trump's brash approach suggests he has no concerns about such ramifications. "I don't agree with these pardons on their merits, but the fact that he did them when he is politically accountable as opposed to slinking out the door does add some legitimacy to them in that sense," he says. "With pardons, you don't need Congress, you wave your magic wand and it happens. You can see the appeal for a president, particularly one like Trump." One can also see the appeal for those such as Combs, whose ordeal could end instantly should Trump's pardon "wand" wave his way. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will Trump pardon Diddy? Trial could end, experts say
Business of Fashion
an hour ago
- Business of Fashion
Explainer: How Retailers Can Fight a New Wave of Cyberattacks
Last week, Victoria's Secret went dark. On May 28, the lingerie giant shut down its website following a 'security incident,' the company said in a statement. (It did not confirm what caused the disruption). While the site was only down for two days, it likely cost Victoria's Secret millions in sales, adding another hurdle to its ongoing turnaround plan under new leader Hillary Super. The company's stock dropped as much as 8 percent the day it closed its site. It was just the latest technological dustup in a wave of cyberattacks on some of fashion's biggest brands and retailers. Bloomberg reported that in January hackers accessed some of Dior's customer data, then in April, UK-based high street retailer Marks & Spencer was forced to stop taking online orders after a security breach and in May, Harrods briefly restricted website access after hackers attempted to break into its systems. For years, the threat of security breaches — where individuals and organisations hack systems to access customer data such as contact information and credit card details — have haunted companies across industries, from Target to MGM Resorts. The frequency of these attacks is only growing: In 2024, the number of individuals and groups targeting companies' systems that cybersecurity consultancy S-RM engaged with across 600 incidents grew 96 percent year over year. These attacks can be extremely detrimental to a company's bottom line: Marks & Spencer still hasn't reopened its e-commerce operations, and doesn't expect to do so until July. The incident will likely end up costing the company as much as £300 million ($404 million) in lost profits. But the impact can be even further-reaching. Many cyber criminals require companies to pay multi-million dollar ransoms to regain access to their networks and even once the attack is over, retailers must work to avoid sustaining lasting reputational damage. The recent uptick in activity puts an extra burden on retailers to tighten existing cybersecurity processes or invest in additional tools that could chip away at profits. 'From a business perspective, it's nothing if not unfair [to the companies impacted by it],' said Simeon Siegel, managing director and senior analyst of retail and e-commerce at BMO Capital Markets. In the event of a cyber attack, companies have 'to balance short term fixes, while ensuring they don't have [long-term] implications,' he added. BoF breaks down what leaves fashion businesses vulnerable to cyberattacks and how they can protect themselves. How does this happen? Cyberattacks are typically orchestrated by groups that find and exploit a company's technological shortcomings. The culprit can often be difficult to trace, because even when law enforcement tracks them down, individuals can splinter into other smaller organisations. Criminals can also act individually by finding hacking tools on the dark web, said Christian Beckner, vice president of retail technology and cybersecurity at NRF. The tactics range in their level of sophistication. One of the common ways hackers infiltrate a company's systems is through 'phishing' — the dreaded emails where, posing as a company executive, they encourage employees to click a link that, if opened, can give them access to an organisation's entire data network. They can also use employee voice impersonation tools to target a company's customer service call centres, Beckner said. 'If one employee accidentally clicks a link in an email, it may not matter how protected and up-to-date your technology is,' Siegel said. 'Human error can supersede the most advanced technology.' Cyberattackers will target any industry with high transaction volumes, making fashion an appealing target. Plus, because most retail giants operate their e-commerce storefronts on years-old custom platforms that are likely outdated, they are particularly vulnerable, said Juan Pellerano-Rendón, chief marketing officer at e-commerce software start-up Swap. 'A lot of times these larger conglomerates have IT teams, and they're updating their website regularly, but security might not always be at the top of their list,' Pellerano-Rendón added. Retailers that operate with thin margins have historically been slower to invest in cybersecurity over tools like a website redesign that can immediately drive revenue, said Sam Rubin, senior vice president of consulting and threat intelligence for Unit 42 at cybersecurity firm Palo Alto Networks. 'You could spend several million dollars on cybersecurity and feel safer and be safer, but what's going to show up on your P&L is greater operating expenses without a necessarily highly visible tangible benefit,' Rubin said. 'Sometimes that does get neglected in favor of driving top line growth in business.' How should retailers respond? When a company is hacked, they often have no choice but to shut down services until they can find the culprit and boot them out of their network. Preventing an initial cyberattack can be a near impossible task as cyber criminals' tools become more advanced and accessible. Many retailers have increased cybersecurity measures in recent years, specifically around payment processing, Beckner said. Customers' financial information wasn't compromised in many of the recent attacks, which is the scariest violation for many customers and therefore a natural priority for companies to prevent. To lower the risk of repeat offenses, retailers have to 'assess where there might be existing vulnerabilities in your IT systems and services, and patch and upgrade those where they existed,' Beckner added, including adding multi-step authentications for company log-ins and conducting additional training for employees across the organisation. The latest run of cybersecurity hiccups could also push major retailers to make big personnel changes such as hiring heads of security (if they don't have them already), according to Pellerano-Rendón. They might also consider using more e-commerce services from software giants like Shopify that routinely update their software, making it more difficult to infiltrate, he added. Companies can institute drills where they work with third party firms to simulate an attack to better assess the strength of their existing systems and what additional processes they need to implement, said Steve Ross, director of cybersecurity, Americas at S-RM. In the aftermath of an attack, retailers also must do damage control in order to make sure their customers feel safe buying from them again. Shoppers today are aware that technology violations occur and are outside of a company's control, 'and not necessarily that Victoria's Secret or Marks & Spencer has betrayed their trust in any way,' Pellerano-Rendón said. Still, retailers need to tell customers whose personal information may have been compromised exactly which steps they've taken to protect their data down the line. 'It really comes down to making sure you're communicating … and having that plan in place to quickly bounce back,' Beckner said.
