At least nine dead in drone strikes after U.S. and Ukraine sign minerals deal
A Ukrainian drone attack left at least seven persons dead and a Russian strike on Odesa killed two persons on Thursday (May 1, 2025), officials said, just hours after Kyiv and Washington signed a long-anticipated agreement granting U.S. access to Ukraine's mineral resources — a move that could enable continued military aid to Ukraine.
The attack in the partially occupied Kherson region of southern Ukraine, which struck a market in the town of Oleshky, killed seven and wounded more than 20 people, Moscow-appointed Gov. Vladimir Saldo said.
"At the time of the attack, there were many people in the market,' Mr. Saldo wrote on Telegram. After the first wave of strikes, he said, Ukraine sent further drones to 'finish off' any survivors.
Meanwhile, a Russian drone strike on the Black Sea port city of Odesa early Thursday killed two persons and injured 15 others, Ukrainian emergency services said.
Regional Gov. Oleh Kiper said the barrage struck apartment buildings, private homes, a supermarket and a school.
Videos shared by Kiper on Telegram showed a high-rise building with a severely damaged facade, a shattered storefront and firefighters battling flames.
A drone struck and ignited a fire at a petrol station in the center of Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, according to Mayor Ihor Terekhov.
The Ukrainian air force reported that Russia sent 170 exploding drones and decoys into five Ukrainian regions in the latest wave of attacks overnight into Thursday. It said 74 of them were intercepted and another 68 were lost. Russia also launched five ballistic missiles.
Following the attacks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia had ignored a U.S. proposal for a full and unconditional ceasefire for more than 50 days.
'There were also our proposals — at the very least, to refrain from striking civilian infrastructure and to establish lasting silence in the sky, at sea, and on land,' he said. "Russia has responded to all this with new shelling and new assaults.'
Russia's Defense Ministry said Thursday that air defenses shot down eight Ukrainian drones overnight.
The U.S. and Ukraine on Wednesday signed an agreement granting American access to Ukraine's vast mineral resources, finalizing a deal months in the making that could enable continued military aid to Kyiv amid concerns that President Donald Trump might scale back support in ongoing peace negotiations with Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday declared a unilateral 72-hour ceasefire next week in Ukraine to mark Victory Day in World War II as the U.S. presses for a deal to end the 3-year-old war.
The Kremlin said the truce to mark Russia's defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 — the country's biggest secular holiday — will run from the start of May 8 and last through the end of May 10.
Ukraine, which has previously agreed to U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, dismissed Putin's move. In response, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called for an immediate ceasefire lasting 'at least 30 days.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
'I called the military in Minneapolis': Trump takes swipe at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz; calls him 'dumb and low-IQ individual'
US president Donald Trump and Minnestna Governor Tim Walz US President Donald Trump on Tuesday took a swipe at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over 2020 protests following the murder of George Floyd and called him "a low IQ individual and a dumb person. " While talking to reporters, Trump said, "I called in the military in Minneapolis, but it was seven days. I waited for this guy — the same guy who ran for vice president, who's a very dumb person. He's a low-IQ individual like many Democrats are." He also said that he will never forget in Minnesota, and Minneapolis, which was burning down. "It was gonna burn to the ground, and he wouldn't call the guard. And I waited for a long time, and I called the guard, and I saved it.' The president shared his experience over his visit to Fort Bragg and said that he was with the Generals and they're explaining the different maneuvers, and the love they have for the us Army and the military is beautiful. Earlier, he went to Fort Bragg to mark the upcoming celebration of the US Army's birthday, and delivered a stern speech on military strength and immigration protests 'I want to say a few words about the situation in Los Angeles, California,' Trump said earlier, referring to the deployment of over 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to confront protesters following federal immigration raids. 'The police in LA, who are very good, but they weren't aggressive, like our soldiers. Our soldiers really were aggressive.' Trump also launched attacks on political opponents, including California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, accusing them of failing to control unrest. 'They're incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists,' Trump claimed. 'They're engaged in this wilful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders," he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
Protests erupt across US as Trump says nationwide ICE raids are on the way
Protests against immigration raids are spreading across the US after starting in Los Angeles, with demonstrators opposing ICE operations and President Trump's tough enforcement plans. read more Trump stumbled as he made his way up the stairs of Air Force One on Sunday. AFP Protests against immigration raids that began in Los Angeles have now spread to other cities across the US, including Seattle, Austin, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Demonstrators are marching with anti-ICE signs, blocking roads and gathering outside federal buildings. While most protests have been peaceful, some have turned tense, with police using chemical sprays and making arrests. President Donald Trump has said the tough immigration measures used in Los Angeles will be carried out nationwide, as massive protests and legal battles continue in the state of California. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Yes,' Trump said when asked if Americans should expect similar ICE operations elsewhere. 'We're moving murderers out of our country who were put here by Biden. We're not going to let them stay… I can inform the rest of the country that if they [riot], they will be met with equal or greater force.' Activists are planning more and even larger demonstrations in the coming days, with 'No Kings' events across the country on Saturday to coincide with Trump's planned military parade through Washington. The Trump administration said it would continue its programme of raids and deportations despite the protests. 'ICE will continue to enforce the law,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on Tuesday on social media.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
LA riots: Is Trump taking a political and personal revenge on California?
California became President Trump's formidable adversary, fiercely challenging his administration's policies on immigration, funding and federal power through a wave of proactive legal actions read more 'We are all just prisoners here Of our own device' The above lines from the lyrics of the classic rock song Hotel California by The Eagles couldn't be truer now with the streets of the city displaying a violent political divide . California emerged as a significant adversary to President Donald Trump due to a confluence of factors including his administration's perceived overreach of federal power, its policies on immigration and funding and California's proactive legal challenges. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The relationship between Trump and California was consistently strained, with recent events indicating a deepening animosity. It has taken a turn for worse. Escalation of tensions and federal intervention The conflict between the Trump administration and California intensified dramatically, reaching a new low point. Several reports from the US indicated that the White House was aiming to severely reduce federal funding to California particularly targeting state universities. Protests erupted in Los Angeles following efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to make arrests leading President Trump to declare the federalisation of National Guard members and their deployment to Los Angeles, a move that California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opposed. The deployment of the National Guard by a president without the governor's request was described as a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was previously deployed to Los Angeles in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict, but the destruction at that time was far more extensive than the scattered violence reported in Los Angeles. Some analysts say Trump's order appear disproportionate. National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests related to the murder of George Floyd at the request of Governor Tim Walz. In all these cases, governors made the decision to deploy the National Guard. A US president had not done so on their own since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson federalised the Alabama National Guard from Governor George Wallace to safeguard civil rights marchers attempting to go from Selma to Montgomery. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Johnson's action followed demonstrations by local law enforcement of violent attacks on peaceful marchers, whereas the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department possessed ample experience and personnel to manage the weekend's protests. The Washington Post quoted Elizabeth Goitein, a Brennan Center for Justice scholar specialising in presidential emergency powers, as saying that Trump's order was not backed by legal authority. The use of the military to suppress civil unrest is usually seen as an absolute last resort by any administration. Political motivations and centralisation of power Is Trump intentionally provoking a confrontation with California? There are critics saying that the president viewed stringent immigration enforcement as politically advantageous and sought to leverage the dispute to expand the federal government's authority over states. Trump has used funding as a political tool, giving credence to criticism that he thought could cut off funds to states for reasons of political retaliation or personal animosity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A White House spokesperson said decisions regarding potential cuts were not yet final but justified them by saying that no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country. Some of these attempts to coerce states were likely illegal and would face successful court challenges, while others fell into grey areas or were plainly legal, where officials exercised legal but improper or unwise powers. This approach marked a significant departure from traditional American conservative defences of states' rights, which historically advocated for local prerogatives against an overreaching federal government, even though these arguments were sometimes used to defend racist policies. Kristi Noem, the current secretary of Homeland Security, had previously expressed opposition to the federalisation of the National Guard last year when she was Governor of South Dakota. Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, had indicated his willingness to arrest Governor Newsom, an idea Trump publicly supported. California's legal counteroffensive California mounted a significant legal challenge against the Trump administration, engaging in numerous court battles. US District Judge Myong J Joun, during a March hearing in Boston, questioned attorneys representing a coalition of states about the potential losses they would incur if he did not immediately intervene to block federal funding cuts to teacher training programmes nationwide. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD California Deputy Attorney General Laura Faer responded that the situation was dire and that programmes across the state faced potential closure, dissolution and termination. Judge Joun promptly issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the cuts as arbitrary and capricious, which was a victory for the states. However, less than a month later, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the states had failed to refute the administration's claim that it would be unlikely to recover the funds if they were disbursed during litigation. This was a setback for California but not the end of the dispute over teacher training and it represented one of many ongoing legal battles in a broader legal war waged by California and its allies against the Trump administration. California vs Trump: Two cases a week Media reports say that during President Trump's first 100 days in office in his second term, California challenged the administration in court, on average, more than twice a week. The state had filed 15 lawsuits against the administration, almost all alongside other states and had submitted briefs supporting other litigants suing the federal government in at least 18 additional cases. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Attorneys in California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office were working at an intense pace to prepare and file complex legal arguments opposing Trump's policies on various issues, including immigration, the economy, tariffs, LGBTQ+ rights, federal employee layoffs, government oversight, the allocation of federal funding to states and localities, the limits of presidential executive authority and the budgetary tactics of his former advisor Elon Musk. California had achieved victories that had slowed Trump's agenda and could potentially block some of his policies permanently. The state had secured multiple temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against Trump policy measures including a widespread freeze of trillions of dollars in federal funding already allocated by Congress to the states and a Trump executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for US-born children of certain immigrants. California suffered some losses too California also experienced losses in court, with some judges allowing administration policies to take effect while the state continued to argue for their eventual reversal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Higher courts had overturned a couple of restraining orders sought by the state and granted by district court judges, including the one concerning teacher preparation grants and another that had halted Trump's mass firing of federal probationary employees. Additionally, the state was denied an emergency order to block Musk's extensive control over the federal budget. California and its allies also secured early wins with their second lawsuit, challenging an Office of Management and Budget memo that froze trillions of dollars in federal funding pending a Trump administration review of whether the spending aligned with the president's agenda. California also obtained a court order preventing employees from Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data, although that order had since been modified to allow one specific Doge employee access. Furthermore, California won a permanent injunction to block substantial cuts to National Institutes of Health funding for research institutions nationwide, though the administration had indicated it would appeal this ruling. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Judges were reviewing briefings from California and the Trump administration in several other lawsuits, including the state's claims that emergency relief was necessary and the administration's claims that the lawsuits lacked merit. These cases included challenges to mass firings at the Department of Education, billions in cuts to health and education funding, a Trump executive order requiring voters to show proof of citizenship and restricting mail ballots and Trump's widespread tariffs against foreign trading partners. California's most recent lawsuit challenged the Trump administration's threat to revoke federal funding from schools with diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. California-Trump battle in nutshell California played a leading role in extensive litigation resisting the Trump administration during his first term, which involved approximately 120 lawsuits over four years. In the second Trump presidency, the White House and supporters of the president sharply criticised the latest lawsuits, asserting that California liberals were harming their constituents by disrespecting the will of voters who elected Trump.
