Russia injures two State Emergency Service press officers in Kyiv on Ukraine's Journalist Day
Source: Ihor Klymenko, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, on Telegram
Quote: "On Journalist Day, during the aftermath response to yet another attack, two press service employees from the Main Department of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Kyiv were injured: Pavlo Petrov, head of the communications unit, and his colleague Inna Zhelchyk.
Despite being injured himself, Pavlo saved his colleague."
Details: Klymenko reported that the press officers are receiving medical assistance.
Background: On the night of 5-6 June, Russian forces launched a combined drone and missile attack on Kyiv. As a result of the strikes, three employees of the State Emergency Service were killed. A total of 23 people were injured, including 14 emergency workers.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pentagon must heed Ukraine — cheap drones are the future of warfare
The battlefield in Ukraine must teach the Pentagon a valuable lesson: Small drones are the future of warfare. Yet the US military has been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into systems, from improved radar to laser weapons and missiles, that would be little use against the latest generation of attack drones appearing in Ukraine's skies. There may be a better way. Advertisement Critics complain the US Army is far behind the drone-warfare curve. Just last month a new manual of tactics for tank platoon commanders suggested using the tank's main gun to bring down incoming drones — and that in the event of a drone attack, a tank commander should sit out of the turret hatch and warn other tanks via hand signals. These are laughable instructions in the face of the Ukraine war's signature weapon, the first-person-view drone. Advertisement FPV drones are racing quadcopters converted into miniature guided missiles. These drones are agile and fly at high speeds. Even if it's spotted in time, hitting one with a tank gun would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. FPVs can destroy a tank in multiple hits, often giving the crew time to escape — but sitting outside the armor would be suicidal. FPVs, costing just a few hundred dollars each, have flooded Ukraine's battlefield, and their ability to hit targets 12 or more miles away from their operators has been a major contributor to the current stalemate. Advertisement Scout drones flown by both Ukraine and the invading Russians spot any moving vehicle, and FPVs attack it before it can advance. Supply vehicles are a favorite target; according to a recent estimate, two-thirds of FPV strikes are now on the roads rather than the front lines. Both sides now lie low and dig deep, hiding in trench systems protected by anti-drone netting. Kyiv aims to build 4 million drones this year — enough to target individual foot soldiers. Advertisement And now they can do it from ambush. Battery-powered FPVs can only fly for about 20 minutes. Operators 'perch and stare' to save juice, landing their drone on a building or on the ground where they can watch a road or track used by the enemy. When a target appears, the FPV lifts off and attacks. A compilation video from one Ukrainian drone unit shows a series of ambushes, all in the same location: Each time a Russian patrol comes past, an FPV takes off from behind them from no more than 10 yards away. The soldiers react, turning and raising their Kalashnikovs . . . too late. Other videos show the target's point of view. In one, Ukrainians are driving down a track at high speed in a buggy when a Russian FPV lifts off ahead of them. A desperate chase follows, with the Ukrainians shooting the drone out of the air before it can hit them. Many troops now carry shotguns to counter FPVs. Advertisement Small drones keep evolving. Some are now fitted with the sort of miniature solar panels backpackers use to keep their phones charged. These power the drone's camera and communications without draining the battery. The solar-powered drone can lurk in ambush for as long as the sun is up, and start again the next day. In a sense these drones are just the latest version of mine warfare — but these are mines that can find their way anywhere, relocate themselves and attack from a distance. The current generation must be controlled by a human operator, but we're already seeing AI-powered autonomous FPVs in Ukraine. Advertisement In another year the battlefield may be infested with smart, solar-powered killer drones. Where is the US military in this futuristic world of drone warfare? On July 10, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed an order to 'unleash US military drone dominance' and make procurement quicker and easier. Yet the US Army is only buying around 6,000 FPV-type drones in the current budget year. Ukraine uses that many every day, and Russia is catching up to that mark. Advertisement American plans to bring down attacking drones with missiles or lasers look impractical when ambushers can appear at such close range. The Ukrainians are already developing their solution: They're sending small bombers ahead of vehicles or troops to find waiting ambush drones and drop grenades on them. Soon to come is an AI-powered drone that can automatically detect ambushers on the ground. Sweeps by automated drones could keep the roads clear. Advertisement More important, though, Ukraine is leading by example, keeping up with drone warfare's rapid evolution as each development demands a countermeasure. The Pentagon has traditionally relied on big-money, high-tech solutions developed by American companies. But a willingness to embrace cheap technologies developed rapidly by friends and allies might save a lot of lives when US troops are featured in some future round of drone videos. David Hambling is the author of 'Swarm Troopers: How Small Drones Will Conquer the World.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Nearly two million more casualties': The numbers that show Russia is years from victory
Donald Trump's message – or rather, the message he transmitted from Vladimir Putin – to Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on Monday was stark: accept the deal Russia is offering, because otherwise you'll lose the war. But if Moscow appears strong now, Ukraine and its European allies believe, it's partly because Trump's choices have made it stronger – namely, his decisions to curtail US military aid, interrupt intelligence sharing and, above all, accept Putin's insistence on a peace deal before a ceasefire. And in fact, Russia is far from battlefield supremacy. Just hours before the Oval Office discussions, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared it would take 4.4 years of fighting at current rates of advance for Russia to capture the remainder of territory it has 'annexed'. It would also, according to the MoD calculations based on Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties, cost Russia an additional 1.93m killed and wounded to achieve Putin's goals. That would be on top of the more than one million casualties it has already sustained. In other words, Russia could be headed for breaking points of its own. How long can Russia last? All of which raises the question, if Trump chose to throw his weight behind Ukraine, could he change the tide? Should the US president be asking not how much Ukraine must surrender, but how long Russia can last? Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, points to two potential Russian breaking points: the military and the economic. Predictions about when either will come has become something of a mug's game, he cautions. Nor should we underestimate Russia's capacity to keep going. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point: there are strains on the economy. There are strains on the military. A breaking point will come,' he says. 'Because Trump is in a hurry, Putin has the ability to sort of shift that sense of emergency, so that, all of a sudden, it feels like this sort of political breaking point for the West – whereas, if there was a little bit more strategic patience and consistency from the White House, the opposite would actually be true.' The British Defence Intelligence assessment about the Russian rate of advance is meant for public consumption rather than real strategic analysis. Applying the same crude logic to British military performance in the First World War, one might have said in early 1918 that the Allies were decades from victory. By the end of that year, Germany had suffered a devastating defeat, and arguing about rates of advance and attrition in the previous four years were not much use to German negotiators at armistice talks. 'The problem is, wars are not linear,' points out Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert in the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. Nor are they boxing matches to be decided on points. Nonetheless, Russia's advance is indeed painfully slow. Even a recent 10-mile infiltration near Dobropillia, while initially alarming for Ukraine, failed to achieve an operational breakthrough. It ended instead with hundreds of Russians being captured or killed. 'Limitless manpower is a myth' In the Oval Office, the US president led Zelensky over to an easel holding a large map of Ukraine showing the current line of control. The implication: to stop the conflict, the map will have to be redrawn. There was little progress on Monday, however, partly because Zelensky and his allies see that map in a very different way. Speaking after the talks Emmanuel Macron said that in the past 1,000 days of war Russian forces 'took less than one per cent' of Ukrainian territory. 'Those who are saying… 'The Ukrainians are lost. They will lose'. It's total fake news,' the French president said. As the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out, Russian forces are currently struggling to complete the encirclement or envelopment of Kupyansk despite 22 months of offensive operations. It took them 14 months to cover the 6.4 miles from the eastern to western outskirts of Toretsk, and 26 months to advance 6.8 miles from western Bakhmut to the western edge of Chasiv Yar. And yes, says Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and veteran watcher of the Russian military, it is true to say that Russia faces increasing risk as the war goes on. 'The question is not how much territory is Russia gaining per day. The only question that's actually being tested in the fighting in 2024 and 2025 is which proposition is more likely to be true: is Russia able to sustain its offensive effort and eventually put Ukraine in an untenable position? Or is Ukrainian defence more viable and more likely to exhaust Russian offensive potential, if not this year then next?' he says. 'This is what both parties are looking at to try to inform their decision on the questions of how much time they have and whether they can hope to attain a better and different outcome.' At the moment, Kofman says, time seems to favour Russia. Ukraine is not facing either imminent defeat or a collapse of the front line that would force it to sign a humiliating surrender, but the Russians are accelerating. Year-on-year, their pace of advance has picked up in 2025 compared to 2024. And while Ukraine has serious problems with manpower, Russia still has a steady supply of men to replace battlefield losses, which, according to Britain's Defence Intelligence, currently stand at 1,060,000, including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. The recent Russian infiltration at Dobropillia shows that Ukraine's drone units, despite their remarkable effectiveness, cannot stabilise the front alone in the absence of sufficient infantry. For now, however, the Russians are struggling to translate their dominance in infantry into decisive advantage. 'Russia's vulnerability is simply that they are far too slow and they don't have the force quality, nor do they employ the tactics, to achieve a major breakthrough. So their overall approach is deeply inefficient and costly in terms of manpower,' says Kofman. 'The political leadership doesn't care about this, but Russia does not have limitless manpower either – that's a myth. It also does not have limitless time. That's another myth.' Russia 'on the verge of recession' There are other constraints on Russia too, Kofman argues. 'The reality is that the war is a significant strain on the Russian economy. Despite outwardly projecting the ability and willingness to keep fighting for many more years, if the war enters 2026 and Russia doesn't appear to be winning decisively on the battlefield, it is eminently unclear that they, too, will not run into significant sustainability problems that could force them to a much weaker negotiating position,' he says. That explains why Putin may be keen to seal a deal now: he feels comparatively strong, but knows the moment of apparent dominance may not last. For two years, Russia's economy appeared to defy gravity, turning massive military spending into rapid GDP growth despite Western sanctions. But the sugar high appears to be over. And the signs of the comedown are everywhere. In June, Maxim Reznikov, the minister of economic development of the Russian Federation, warned the St Petersburg economic forum that the country was 'on the verge of recession'. The following month, the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, the country's second largest steel producer, reported a 21.1 per cent collapse in profits and a sharp drop in output that it attributed to high interest rates and a general slowdown in the Russian economy. Indeed, at the end of July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cut its 2025 growth estimate for Russia to 0.9 per cent, down from an initial 1.5 per cent forecast it made in April. Even that was a dramatic drop from the 4.3 per cent growth the IMF estimated in 2024. And inflation has prompted the ministries of agriculture and of trade and industry to draft a law for price caps on vegetables, poultry and dairy products, according to a report in Kommersant, a Russian business daily, earlier this month. 'The economy is an interesting thing because there's an objective standpoint to it, which is, frankly, that they do have considerable fiscal and monetary headroom, and they remain very good at managing the economy, albeit at increasing cost,' says Greene. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point.' 'If you remember back to January, the very last thing the Biden administration did was to impose some new sanctions, somewhat unexpectedly, on the Russians. And that sent Russian markets into a tailspin for two or three weeks. If the West were interested in manufacturing those sorts of moments of unpredictability, then it would bring some very real risks, including near-term risks, for the Russian economy.' 'They're playing with fire' None of these factors mean Russia is facing imminent collapse, says Ian Bond, deputy director for the London-based Centre for European Reform. There is no sign that the casualty rate or the economic strains of the war have created any kind of serious domestic political challenge to Putin so far. 'But Russia is strong until it's not. It looks mighty, and then mental fatigue sets in, and things fall apart quite quickly,' he says. 'Is that going to happen this time? We simply don't know,' Bond adds. But, he argues, it is a reason for Europe and Ukraine to resist acquiescing to a bad deal – like surrendering Donbas – that would leave them much more vulnerable. These are the considerations that Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders will be weighing up as Trump shepherds them into more negotiations in the coming weeks. In the final analysis, 'war is very much an uncertain business, and even though some things may be in Russia's favour, there's a great deal of uncertainty', says Kofman. 'And keep in mind the external factors: at the end of the day, much for Russia depends on things, like the price of oil, that they can neither predict nor control. The longer things go on, the more they're playing with fire.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia says talks on Ukraine's security without Moscow are a 'road to nowhere'
By Dmitry Antonov and Mark Trevelyan MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russia said on Wednesday attempts to resolve security issues relating to Ukraine without Moscow's participation were a "road to nowhere," sounding a warning to the West as it scrambles to work out guarantees for Kyiv's future protection. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov particularly criticised the role of European leaders who met U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House on Monday to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine that could help end the three-and-a-half-year-old war. "We cannot agree with the fact that now it is proposed to resolve questions of security, collective security, without the Russian Federation. This will not work," Lavrov told a joint press conference after meeting Jordan's foreign minister. U.S. and European military planners have begun exploring post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine, U.S. officials and sources told Reuters on Tuesday. Lavrov said such discussions without Russia were pointless. "I am sure that in the West and above all in the United States they understand perfectly well that seriously discussing security issues without the Russian Federation is a utopia, it's a road to nowhere." NATO military leaders holding a video conference on Wednesday had a "great, candid discussion" on the results of recent talks on Ukraine, the chair of the alliance's military committee said. "Priority continues to be a just, credible and durable peace," Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone wrote in a post on X. A Western official told Reuters that a small group of military leaders continued discussions in Washington on security guarantees shortly after the bigger virtual meeting. After Polish officials said that an object that crashed in a cornfield in eastern Poland overnight was likely a Russian drone, Poland accused Russia of provoking NATO countries just as efforts to find an end to the war were intensifying. "Once again, we are dealing with a provocation by the Russian Federation, with a Russian drone. We are dealing in a crucial moment, when discussions about peace (in Ukraine) are under way," Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said. Lavrov's comments highlighted Moscow's demand for Western governments to directly engage with it on questions of security concerning Ukraine and Europe, something it says they have so far refused to do. Moscow this week also restated its rejection of "any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine." 'CLUMSY' EUROPEANS Lavrov accused the European leaders who met Trump and Zelenskiy of carrying out "a fairly aggressive escalation of the situation, rather clumsy and, in general, unethical attempts to change the position of the Trump administration and the president of the United States personally ... We did not hear any constructive ideas from the Europeans there." Trump said on Monday the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war there. He subsequently said he had ruled out putting U.S. troops in Ukraine, but the U.S. might provide air support as part of a deal to end the hostilities. Zelenskiy's chief of staff, speaking after a meeting of national security advisers from Western countries and NATO, said work was proceeding on the military component of the guarantees. "Our teams, above all the military, have already begun active work on the military component of security guarantees," chief of staff Andriy Yermak wrote on social media. Yermak said Ukraine was also working on a plan with its allies on how to proceed "in case the Russian side continues to prolong the war and disrupt agreements on bilateral and trilateral formats of leaders' meetings." Lavrov said Russia was in favour of "truly reliable" guarantees for Ukraine and suggested these could be modelled on a draft accord that was discussed between the warring parties in Istanbul in 2022, in the early weeks of the war. Under the draft discussed then, Ukraine would have received security guarantees from a group of countries including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - China, Russia, the United States, Britain, and France. At the time, Kyiv rejected that proposal on the grounds that Moscow would have held effective veto power over any military response to come to its aid. Solve the daily Crossword
