Ukraine strikes Crimean bridge, Russia launches deadly strike in Sumy
Social Sharing
Senior Ukrainian officials visited Washington on Tuesday seeking U.S. support against Russia, as Kyiv showed its ability to fight on by setting off an explosive device under a bridge that has become a symbol of the Kremlin's claims on Ukrainian territory.
A day after talks in Istanbul that made little progress toward ending the war, now in its fourth year, Ukraine's SBU security service said it had hit a road and rail bridge that links Russia and Crimea below the water level with explosives. The extent of any damage was not clear.
The bridge is a flagship project for Russian President Vladimir Putin, built after he annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, in a precursor to the latest conflict.
Kremlin accuses Ukraine of targeting civilians
Kyiv appears determined to show U.S. President Donald Trump that it can still fight on, despite the rising death toll and destruction in the deadliest conflict in Europe since the Second World War.
Ukrainian forces also targeted the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region and the Kherson region in the south with shelling, which damaged electricity substations, leaving at least 700,000 people without power, Russia-installed officials said.
WATCH | Ukraine says it hit Russia's Crimea bridge:
Ukraine says it hit bridge connecting Crimea to Russia
23 minutes ago
Duration 0:07
Ukraine's security service says it hit the Kerch Strait Bridge, an important route linking Russia and the Crimean Peninsula. Reuters verified the location of the video released by the security service by matching structural elements of the bridge in the video to satellite and file images, but was not able to independently verify the date.
The fresh attacks followed drone strikes over the weekend on Russian military airfields, some of which housed long-range nuclear-capable bombers.
Ukraine's success in striking deep into Russia has prompted calls by some Russian military bloggers for a harsh response.
Russia's state investigative committee accused Ukraine on Tuesday of carrying out "acts of terrorism" by blowing up two railway bridges in Russia over the weekend.
The attacks were planned to target hundreds of civilians, the committee said on Telegram. It said seven people were killed and 113 injured, including children, when two trains crashed in Russia's Kursk and Bryansk regions as a result of the attacks.
WATCH l Breaking down the weekend's audacious Ukraine attacks inside Russia:
Inside Ukraine's secret deep strike against Russian bombers | About That
15 hours ago
Duration 9:49
Ukrainian drones struck deep into enemy territory in Russia, with officials claiming the attack destroyed over 40 Russian warplanes. Andrew Chang explains how Ukraine is believed to have pulled off what it describes as its longest-range attack against Russia, and how it says it was able to do so undetected. Images provided by Getty Images, The Canadian Press and Reuters.
Ukraine officials look for support, Russian sanctions
Meanwhile, a Russian artillery strike in Sumy on Tuesday killed three people and wounded 25, local officials said. The northeastern city is home to more than 255,000 people and located just 30 kilometres from the Russian border.
"Eight of the wounded are in serious condition, and three of them are children," Ukraine's Health Ministry said in a statement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said at least one rocket fired from a multiple rocket launcher had failed to detonate and lodged itself in an apartment building.
At Monday's talks in Istanbul, Russia told Ukraine it would agree to end the war only if Kyiv gives up big new chunks of territory and accepts limits on the size of its army. Ukraine rejects the Russian conditions as tantamount to surrender.
"The [peace] settlement theme is extremely complex; it consists of a large number of nuances," said Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, adding "it would be wrong to expect any immediate solutions and breakthroughs here."
Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Zelenskyy, was set to visit the White House along with Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine's deputy prime minister. Ukraine says Moscow is stalling the peace talks and Yermak signalled that he would press Ukrainian demands for tougher sanctions on Russia.
"We will actively promote issues that are important for Ukraine. Our agenda is rather comprehensive," Yermak said via the Telegram app after arriving in Washington.
"We plan to talk about defence support and the situation on the battlefield, strengthening sanctions against Russia."
Yermak said the officials would also discuss a deal that gives the U.S. preferential access to new Ukrainian mineral projects and sets up an investment fund that could be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
31 minutes ago
- Canada Standard
Economic Watch: Doubled U.S. steel, aluminum tariffs spark criticism, trade war concerns across globe
As the largest supplier of U.S. steel, Canada has called the additional levies "unlawful and unjustified," and vowed to fight. BEIJING, June 5 (Xinhua) -- Government leaders, businesspeople, and analysts have voiced concerns and criticisms over the recent U.S. tariff hikes on imported steel and aluminum, warning that the measures would not only harm the interests of U.S. trade partners, but also fuel a global trade war and deal a blow to the world economy. The United States started to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25 percent to 50 percent starting from Wednesday, according to an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. The European Commission criticized the new U.S. tariff measures, warning that the move could prompt swift European retaliation. "The EU is prepared to impose countermeasures, including in response to the latest U.S. tariff increase," the commission's spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The U.S. action undermines the EU's ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated agreement with the United States, according to the statement. As the largest supplier of U.S. steel, Canada has called the additional levies "unlawful and unjustified," and vowed to fight. "Canada's new government is engaged in intensive and live negotiations to have these and other tariffs removed as part of a new economic and security partnership with the United States," the Prime Minister's office said in a statement Tuesday. "We are in intensive negotiations with the Americans, and, in parallel, preparing reprisals if those negotiations do not succeed," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Wednesday. Unifor, a Canadian general trade union, called on Carney to retaliate immediately and urged Canada to pause exports of critical minerals to the United States. Hundreds of Canadian steelworkers have lost their jobs since initial tariffs took effect, said Unifor, warning that layoffs in the auto and aerospace industries could also occur. "This isn't trade policy, it's a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers," said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers National Director for Canada, in a statement. Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line, and Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers, added Warren. Calling the impact of the initial 25 percent tariffs "devastating," after it resulted in job losses and a drop in shipments to the United States, Catherine Cobden, CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said a 50 percent tariff will lead to a "dramatic acceleration" of those trends. "At a 50 percent tariff, we basically consider the U.S. market closed -- completely closed, door slammed shut, if you will -- to Canadian steel," she said. "We can't ship at 50 percent. Perhaps we can stockpile for a few days, but obviously we can't keep producing if one of our major markets is shuttered." Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said: "With the 50 percent tariff, not only is American steel going to be less internationally competitive but so are the multitude of American industries that depend on steel as a necessary input." The new rate on imported steel will almost certainly enlarge the profits of domestic steel companies while U.S. manufacturers and American households will pay dearly for the bonanza to steel barons, wrote Hufbauer in an opinion piece on Monday. The tariffs make it more expensive for domestic auto manufacturers to produce here, and "it's an economically inconsistent, illiterate policy that seems to be hiding under the national security justifications," said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. "They've never given any justification why 25 percent is the right number, let alone why 50 percent is," Winegarden was quoted by a report on According to Felix Tintelnot, a professor of economics at Duke University, no business leader should make massive upfront investments in heavy industry if they don't believe that the same policy will last for a few years. Jeremy Flack, CEO of Flack Global Metals, a U.S.-based steel trader and manufacturer, said the tariffs have led to a pause of orders and reduced demand for steel. "We are not getting any orders. Volumes starting from February have begun to decline," Flack said.
National Observer
44 minutes ago
- National Observer
Clean energy project cancellations top $14 billion so far in 2025
This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration Businesses have cancelled or delayed more than $14 billion of investments in US clean energy projects so far this year, reflecting their uncertainty and pessimism over federal support amid President Donald Trump's climate policy retreat, industry analysts reported Thursday. The sector still is showing resilience—at least $4.2 billion in new renewable energy, grid, electric vehicle and battery projects were announced over the same time period, from January through April, according to the tracking report by the nonprofit group Environmental Entrepreneurs, or E2, and its research partner, Atlas Public Policy. Some 10,000 jobs are expected to be created by these newly announced projects—including an electric truck assembly plant that the Jeff Bezos-backed startup Slate Auto said it would site in Warsaw, Indiana. That's equal to the estimated number of job losses from all the clean energy projects that have been abandoned so far this year. Nevertheless, it's a sharp reversal of trends E2 tracked in the sector over the previous three years, when $127.7 billion in new clean energy project announcements outpaced cancellations at a rate of nearly 50-to-1. Officials at E2, a nonpartisan group of clean energy business leaders and investors, said it was an ominous sign as the Senate prepares to take up Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' the House-passed tax and spending cut package that would eliminate most of the clean energy tax credits Congress passed in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. 'If the tax plan passed by the House last week becomes law, expect to see construction and investments stopping in states across the country as more projects and jobs are cancelled,' said Michael Timberlake, communications director for E2. 'Businesses are now counting on Congress to come to its senses and stop this costly attack on an industry that is essential to meeting America's growing energy demand and that's driving unprecedented economic growth in every part of the country.' The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the report. The biggest of the cancellations that E2 tracked came in April. The United Auto Workers announced that Stellantis would not go forward with a $3.2 billion battery plant it planned to add to a giant shuttered assembly facility it is reopening in Belvidere, Illinois. And global energy giant RWE announced it was shuttering its US offshore wind operations 'for the time being' due to 'the political environment' in the United States. RWE had invested $1.1 billion to develop wind projects offshore of New York, Louisiana and California. While E2 tracks public announcements of new projects and cancellations, other efforts at tracking what's happening in the clean energy sector provide a more detailed picture—and in some senses, a more optimistic one. The Clean Investment Monitor, a project of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the consulting firm Rhodium Group, tracks actual capital spending in the quarter of all projects that have broken ground, and also includes investment in decarbonization projects at energy and industrial plants as well as consumer spending—for example, on EVs, rooftop solar and efficiency upgrades. For the first quarter of 2025, Clean Investment Monitor reported $67.3 billion in spending, a 6.9 percent increase from the same period in 2024. However, it was a 3.8 percent falloff from the previous quarter, and the second consecutive quarterly decline after an unbroken record of quarterly expansion that began in 2021. Retail purchases of clean energy technology by households and businesses clearly were the driving force in investment in early 2025, the Clean Investment Monitor reported. Its analysis, like that of E2, noted the cancellation of a number of big clean energy projects over the quarter. And it warned of the headwinds for the clean energy supply chain, not only due to uncertain federal policy but the escalation of tariffs and broader macroeconomic pressures. The American Clean Power Association (ACPA), which tracks utility-scale electricity projects, also put out its first quarter report Thursday, showing that developers installed 7.4 gigawatts of solar, wind and storage capacity, marking the second-strongest start to a year on record. (The strongest start on record was 2024, when 8 gigawatts came on line.) That brings total utility-scale clean power capacity to more than 320 gigawatts, which the association estimates is enough to power nearly 80 million US homes. Of course, that electricity is not only powering homes but also businesses, where power demand is rising sharply due to data centers. It was a record-setting quarter for battery storage capacity, which surpassed 30 gigawatts, a 65 percent increase from last year. Indiana quadrupled its energy storage capacity in just one quarter, with the help of a big system owned by the energy company AES that opened in April at the site of a former coal power plant. Texas continued to lead the nation in both utility-scale solar and land-based wind capacity, with its total clean energy portfolio reaching more than 80 gigawatts, a 20 percent increase from a year ago, ACPA said. In all, eight of the top 10 states for clean power additions in the quarter voted Republican in the 2024 presidential election. The association also saw continuing growth in the project development pipeline, with a 12 percent year-over-year increase in projects under construction or in the advanced stages of development. If all are built, it would add up to $328 billion in investment, said the group's CEO, Jason Grumet. 'Clean power is shovel-ready at scale,' he said, while echoing E2's concerns about the retreat from federal support for the sector in Washington. 'With unprecedented demand growth for electricity, we must send consistent investment signals across the energy sector,' Grumet said. 'The greatest threat to a reliable energy system is an unreliable political system.'
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
With Trump's budget bill looming, here's how U.S. foreign withholding tax works
Canadian investors may not be aware that when they earn income from a foreign investment, they may also be effectively paying a withholding tax to a foreign country. As countries cannot collect taxes from non-residents directly, most will hold back part of the income a foreign investor receives from a company incorporated in that country. 'It's just the simple way to make sure the government gets their tax,' says Karl Dennis, partner and national leader of the U.S. corporate tax team for KPMG in Canada. Now, a provision in U.S. tax legislation passed by the House of Representatives threatens to raise taxes on investors in Canada and in other countries that impose taxes, such as a digital services tax, that the U.S. deems unfair to U.S. corporations. Under section 899 of U.S. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, Canadians who hold U.S. securities or invest in U.S. companies through Canadian investment funds could see the rate of U.S. foreign withholding tax on dividends they receive rise significantly. At this point, cross-border tax experts have different interpretations of just how much the increase would be. Some understand the bill as increasing the rate of U.S. foreign withholding tax by a maximum of 20 percentage points, either to 35 per cent from the 15 per cent rate available under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, or to 50 per cent from the 30 per cent statutory foreign withholding tax rate when a taxpayer is ineligible for the treaty rate. Others interpret the ceiling as 50 per cent, or a maximum of 20 percentage points above the statutory rate of 30 per cent, starting from the treaty rate of 15 per cent, where applicable. Tax experts say they're monitoring the progress of the bill and suggest the provision could be revised before its possible enactment. John Natale, head of tax, retirement and estate planning services, wealth, at Manulife Investment Management, says investors should speak with their financial advisors or tax advisors rather than sell U.S. investments solely because of the proposed legislation. 'Sometimes, people are eager or panic,' Mr. Natale says. Here's a brief overview of how U.S. withholding tax currently affects Canadian investors based on the types of investments and where those investments are held. (The tax implications for U.S. citizens who live in Canada aren't addressed in this article, as those investors would be treated differently.) Under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, the U.S. imposes a withholding tax of 15 per cent on dividends paid from U.S. companies to Canadian investors, which is half the default rate of 30 per cent under U.S. tax law. To access the reduced treaty rate, a Canadian investor holding U.S. investments in a non-registered account needs to complete a U.S. W-8BEN form. The withholding tax applies to dividends but, in general, not to interest from bonds or savings accounts, or to capital gains realized on the sale of U.S. investments. (One exception is real estate: Canadians pay U.S. taxes on interest earned from U.S. rental property and on capital gains from selling U.S. real estate.) In a non-registered, taxable account, a Canadian investing directly in U.S. companies is subject to U.S. withholding tax on the dividends they receive. When a Canadian invests in a Canadian mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that invests in U.S. equities, the fund itself is the taxable entity in terms of U.S. withholding tax. The fund then distributes the foreign dividend income to the unitholder and reports the amount of foreign withholding tax. For example, a Canadian investor who is allocated $100 in U.S. dividends would receive $85, with the financial institution remitting $15 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The financial institution would then issue a tax slip – either a T3 or a T5 – reporting $100 in foreign dividends and $15 of foreign tax paid. The investor would then report the $100 dividend on their income tax return and claim a foreign tax credit for $15. Under the proposed U.S. tax bill, the withholding rate would increase by five percentage points for every year the foreign country continues to charge an 'unfair' tax. (Cross-border experts have different interpretations on whether the increases would max out at 35 per cent or 50 per cent, where a treaty rate of 15 per cent is available.) Josée Baillargeon, director of taxation policy at the Securities and Investment Management Association, says it's unclear whether any additional taxes imposed under section 899 above the treaty rate would be eligible for a foreign tax credit or a deduction from income in Canada. 'We're currently seeking clarification on this matter from the Canada Revenue Agency,' Ms. Baillargeon said in a statement sent by e-mail. The U.S. doesn't recognize the tax-deferred status of Canadian registered plans that aren't retirement accounts, such as the tax-free savings account (TFSA), the registered education savings plan (RESP), the registered disability savings plan (RDSP) and the first-home savings account (FHSA). That means Canadians who invest in U.S. companies or hold Canadian mutual funds and ETFs that invest in U.S. equities held in TFSAs and RESPs are subject to U.S. foreign withholding tax on dividends, just as they would be if they held those investments in a taxable account. However, as these plans are tax-sheltered accounts in Canada, the Canadian investor doesn't receive a tax slip reporting the foreign dividends and foreign withholding tax, nor can they claim the foreign tax credit in Canada to offset the withholding tax. That means the 15 per cent U.S. withholding tax is a net cost to the investor that can't be recovered. The U.S. does recognize RRSPs, RRIFs, life income retirement accounts (LIRAs) and life income funds (LIFs) as retirement accounts and tax-deferred accounts. That means Canadians who invest in U.S. companies, or who hold ETFs listed on a U.S. exchange that invest in U.S. equities, are exempt from U.S. withholding tax on the dividends they receive. Adam Seliski, partner, international tax and transaction services with EY Canada, says it's unclear whether retirement accounts would continue to have access to their exempt status if section 899 were enacted. 'That's something we're monitoring very closely,' Mr. Seliski says. Even under current rules, the retirement account exemption isn't available for Canadian investors who hold Canadian mutual funds and ETFs that invest in U.S. equities. Canadian U.S. equity funds held in retirement accounts are subject to U.S. withholding tax, and investors don't have access to a foreign tax credit to offset, representing a drag on fund performance. While there may be an advantage to holding a U.S. investment directly in a registered retirement account in terms of avoiding U.S. foreign withholding tax, Canadian investors who own U.S. assets must also consider annual Canadian foreign reporting obligations, U.S. estate tax implications, and the cost of currency conversion.
