Russia hits Ukraine with record 479-drone strike ahead of POW swap
Russia has launched 479 drones against Ukraine in the biggest overnight drone bombardment of the three-year war, according to the Ukrainian air force.
The air force said early on Monday that it had downed 460 drones as well as 19 missiles launched overnight.
Russia's continued to step up its drone and missile attacks on Ukraine, despite declaring, under pressure from United States President Donald Trump, that it is interested in pursuing peace talks. The record launch came just ahead of the start of a prisoner swap agreed at recent talks between the pair.
Of the hundreds of projectiles fired at numerous targets, only 10 reached their destination, Kyiv officials said. One person was reported injured.
Russia's escalation of aerial attacks has been matched by a renewed battlefield push in the eastern and northeastern parts of the roughly 1,000km (621-mile) front line in occupied parts of Ukraine.
The onslaught follows a secretive Ukrainian drone attack that damaged several Russian bombers parked at airbases deep inside the country in what was an embarrassment for the Kremlin and, according to Kyiv, a palpable hit on its ability to strike across the border with missiles.
Russia's Ministry of Defence said one target of Kyiv's strike was the Dubno airbase in Ukraine's Rivne region, which hosts tactical aviation aircraft.
The mayor of the western city of Rivne, Oleksandr Tretyak, said the overnight drone launch was 'the largest attack' on his region since the start of the war.
Late on Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy conceded that in some areas targeted by the Russian offensive, 'the situation is very difficult'. However, he provided no details.
Ukraine is shorthanded on the front line against its bigger enemy and needs further military support from its Western partners, especially air defences. However, uncertainty about the US policy has led to doubts about how much help Kyiv can count on.
Two recent rounds of direct peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul have yielded no breakthroughs beyond pledges to swap thousands of prisoners, including dead and seriously wounded soldiers.
Since the agreement, believed to concern an exchange of around 1,200 prisoners by each, was struck last week, the pair has accused one another of failing to meet their obligations.
However, the first batch of POWs was repatriated on Monday afternoon.
'Today's exchange has begun. It will be done in several stages in the coming days,' Zelenskyy said on the Telegram app. 'Among those we are bringing back now are the wounded, the severely wounded, and those under the age of 25,' he added.
The Russian defence ministry also said the first exchange had been carried out. It did not say how many prisoners had been swapped, but did note that the numbers on each side matched.
The Russian Defence Ministry said on Monday that its forces shot down 49 Ukrainian drones overnight over seven Russian regions.
Two drones hit a plant specialising in electronic warfare equipment in the Chuvashia region, located more than 600km (373 miles) east of Moscow, officials reported.
Since the beginning of the war in 2022, Russia has targeted both military and civilian areas of Ukraine with Shahed drones. The attacks have killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. However, Russia claims it attacks only military targets.
Alexander Gusev, head of Russia's Voronezh region, said 25 drones had been shot down there overnight, damaging a gas pipeline and sparking a small fire.
The general staff of the Ukrainian armed forces also claimed that its special operations troops struck two Russian jets stationed at the Savasleyka airfield in Russia's Novgorod region, located some 650km (404 miles) from the Ukrainian border.
The statement did not say how the planes were struck.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says California Governor Gavin Newsom should be arrested
NewsFeed Trump says California Governor Gavin Newsom should be arrested US 'Border Czar' Tom Homan should act on California Governor Gavin Newsom's dare to arrest him over the deportation protests in Los Angeles, Donald Trump said from the White House lawn.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is happening in Los Angeles is not law enforcement, it's occupation
The scenes unfolding in Los Angeles should alarm every American who values constitutional governance. Federal troops have been deployed to a major American city not in response to an insurrection or natural disaster, but to suppress protests against immigration enforcement operations. The whole of downtown Los Angeles has been declared an 'unlawful assembly area'. This represents a dangerous escalation that threatens the very foundations of the US democratic system. What began as routine raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on June 6 quickly spiralled into something far more ominous. Federal agents swept through Los Angeles, detaining 121 individuals from restaurants, stores and apartment buildings. The raids were conducted in broad daylight, with a calculated boldness that seemed designed to provoke. The community's response was swift. By the afternoon, protesters had gathered downtown, not as rioters but as a grieving community, holding signs and chanting 'Set them free!'. This was grief made public, anger given voice. But in today's America, even peaceful displays of grief and anger are not allowed when they go against the narrative set by those in power. The police responded with force. Tear gas canisters flew. Flash-bang grenades exploded. A peaceful demonstration transformed into a battlefield — not because protesters chose violence, but because the government did. US President Donald Trump decided to escalate further. He signed a memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatening to mobilise active-duty Marines if protests continued. The legality of these actions is questionable at best. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can only be deployed after a public proclamation calls for citizens to disperse. Such a proclamation has not been made, and Trump has not invoked the act. Governor Gavin Newsom, who has the power to decide on matters of security in the state of California, was not consulted; he was simply informed. There is no widespread rebellion threatening the authority of the United States. There are no enemy combatants in Los Angeles, just angry, grieving people demanding dignity for their communities. What we're witnessing is not the lawful execution of federal authority but improvisation masquerading as application of law, the slow erosion of constitutional order, replaced by declaration, spectacle, and muscle. If challenged in court, this deployment would likely be deemed illegal. But that may not matter – and that is the most chilling aspect of this crisis. We are fast moving towards a place where illegality no longer matters, where muscle has arrived with or without paperwork, and law is merely a facade. This moment cannot be understood in isolation. As scholar Aime Cesaire observed in his analysis of colonialism, violence in the periphery inevitably returns to the metropole. The tools of oppression developed abroad always find their way home. In the US, this has been a decades-long process. In 1996, a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act allowed the Pentagon to transfer surplus military-grade weaponry to local police departments. In the following three decades, the same weapons that were used for imperialist violence abroad were transferred to police departments to deploy in poor and marginalised communities. Then with the start of the 'war on terror', tactics to target and subjugate foreign populations were transferred at home to use against vulnerable communities. Congress passed sweeping laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling mass surveillance and intelligence gathering on US soil. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allowed for indefinite military detention of US citizens, while a Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project expanded the 'material support' doctrine to criminalise even peaceful engagement with blacklisted groups. Programmes like Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) turned schools and mosques into surveillance hubs, targeting Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. While outside the US government was pursuing a campaign of renditions, torture and illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay, at home, it was deploying lawfare against 'suspect' communities. The 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial introduced 'secret evidence' in a US criminal court for the first time, with an anonymous Israeli intelligence officer claiming he could 'smell Hamas' on defendants. Georgia's prosecution of Cop City protesters under 'terrorism' charges directly borrowed from this playbook, as did Tennessee's Bill HB 2348, which extends policing powers to suppress peaceful protests. After October 2023, the US government violated its own laws in order to participate directly in the genocide in Gaza, providing Israel with weapons and intelligence. The mass repression and erasure that Palestinians had suffered at the hands of their US-backed colonisers were transferred on American soil. The government launched an unprecedented attack on free speech and academic freedom, cracking down on students protesting the genocide and encouraging retribution against pro-Palestinian voices. We've seen tenure revoked, protesters surveilled, and dissent criminalised. Palestinians and their allies have endured a fourfold increase in harassment, doxing, and employment loss; they have also faced violent attacks and murder. All this started not under Trump, but under his 'Democratic' predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, who also increased the budget of police departments by $13bn and expanded ICE's powers. The pattern is clear: repressive measures developed to target foreign populations have become tools to suppress all dissent at home. What is happening in Los Angeles and other cities isn't about law enforcement; it's about power projection, about demonstrating that defiance will be met with overwhelming force and quashed. The legal framework matters less than the spectacle. When federal agents fire flash-bang grenades at protesters outside Home Depot stores, when ICE directors accuse mayors of siding with 'chaos and lawlessness', when FBI officials tweet about hunting down rock throwers, we're watching the construction of a narrative that justifies state violence. This is how soft coups unfold: not with tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, but through executive memos, press briefings, and military logistics disguised as public safety. The Insurrection Act becomes a dead letter not through repeal but through irrelevance. If this precedent stands, federal troops will become the standard response to resistance. Cities that don't vote for the president will face occupation. Protest will be redefined as rebellion. The next time people gather in the streets demanding justice, they will not face police officers but soldiers. When a president can deploy troops without following the law, and no one stops him, law loses its power. It becomes theatre, a facade for a system that has abandoned its own principles. At this time, we don't need just legal challenges, we need moral clarity. What's happening in Los Angeles is not law enforcement: it's occupation. What's being called an insurrection is actually resistance to injustice. What's being framed as public safety is actually political intimidation. American imperialism has created the infrastructure for exactly this moment. The tools of empire, tested on peoples in the Global South, are now being deployed against American cities. If we don't recognise this moment for what it is – a fundamental assault on constitutional governance – we will wake up in a country where imperial military force is the primary language of politics. The US Constitution is only as strong as our willingness to defend it. In Los Angeles, that defence begins now. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is the national guard at the heart of Trump's Los Angeles standoff?
As United States President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on immigrants and protesters in Los Angeles, it has deployed 2,000 members of the national guard to aid its efforts. Trump authorised the deployment after the protests began on Friday following Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests of 44 people in the city for violating immigration laws. California Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, former Vice President Kamala Harris and many other senior leaders of the Democratic Party have criticised Trump's deployment. They've described the national guard's use against protesters as a provocation aimed at further inflaming tensions already roiling the country's second largest city. But what is the national guard, and why is its deployment such a political flashpoint? The national guard is a branch of the US military that can perform state and federal functions. This means the guard is largely used to respond to state-level emergencies but can also be federalised. The president can also deploy national guard soldiers to overseas missions. The guard's origins trace back to 1636 when it started as citizen-soldier militias in Massachusetts, which is now a US state but was then a British colony. The national guard became an organised force after the passage of the Militia Act of 1903. The two world wars solidified its status as an organised branch of the US military. An air national guard was established in 1947 to complement a territorial force. The national guard had 431,291 members as of 2023, the latest data released by the US Department of Defense. That included the army national guard, which consists of 326,317 soldiers, and the air national guard, which has 104,974 members. Many members of the guard serve part time while working civilian jobs or attending college. All members recruited into the guard have to undergo basic training. After this, they attend drills at regular intervals. Typically, drills take place one weekend each month. Every year, members attend a two-week training. Typically, if a US state is experiencing an emergency that requires a national guard deployment as a response, the state's governor may deploy its forces stationed in the state. However, presidents can also federalise the national guard from a state, but typically, this requires a governor's approval to do so. The guard is deployed in cases of natural disasters or severe weather, civil unrest, war or when election assistance is needed. In 2005, for instance, about 50,000 national guard soldiers were deployed after Hurricane Katrina hit multiple southern US states. In January, Newsom deployed the national guard as wildfires ravaged several areas of Los Angeles. In recent years, plainclothes national guard soldiers have staffed polling places during elections. During the current protests, however, Trump deployed the guard in Los Angeles without Newsom's approval. Robert Cohen, professor of history and social studies at New York University, told Al Jazeera that Trump's decision to deploy the national guard without getting Newsom on board was 'wrong, but typical of the way Trump's partisanship pollutes almost all of his major decisions'. In 1957, President Dwight D Eisenhower federalised the Arkansas national guard to desegregate public schools after the US Supreme Court's Brown v Board of Education ruling, which established that racial segregation in public schools is illegal. In 1992, California Governor Pete Wilson and President George HW Bush, both Republicans, deployed the national guard to quell riots in Los Angeles. Protests, looting, assaults and arson broke out after four police officers who were filmed beating Rodney King, an African American man, for 15 minutes were acquitted of charges of excessive force. An act called the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prevents the national guard and other branches of the US military from being used in civilian law enforcement. Presidents may circumvent this by invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act, which gives the US president the power to deploy the military to suppress an insurrection. In 1965, President Lyndon B Johnson invoked the act and deployed the guard to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama. He did this without taking Alabama Governor George Wallace, a known segregationist, on board. Before Saturday, this was the last time a US president had deployed the national guard without the approval of the state's governor. On Saturday, instead of using the Insurrection Act, Trump invoked a similar federal law, called the Title 10 authority, to deploy the California national guard without Newsom's approval.
