Russia batters Ukraine with more than 700 drones, the largest barrage of the war; kills at least two
Russia has recently sought to overwhelm Ukraine's air defenses by launching major attacks that include increasing numbers of decoy drones. The most recent one appeared aimed at disrupting Ukraine's vital supply of Western weapons.
Lutsk, a city that's home to airfields used by the Ukrainian army, was the hardest hit, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It lies near the border with Poland in western Ukraine, a region that is a crucial hub for receiving foreign military aid.
The attack comes at a time of increased uncertainty over the supply of crucial American weapons and as U.S.-led peace efforts have stalled. Zelenskyy said that the Kremlin was 'making a point' with its barrage.
The Russian Defense Ministry said its forces took aim at Ukrainian air bases and that 'all the designated targets have been hit.' Meanwhile, Ukraine fired drones into Russia overnight, killing three people in the Kursk border region, including a 5-year-old boy, the local governor said.
The Russian attack, which included 728 drones and 13 missiles, had the largest number of drones fired in a single night in the war. On Friday, Russia fired 550 drones, less than a week after it launched 477, both the largest at the time, officials said.
Beyond Lutsk, 10 regions were struck. One person was killed in the Khmelnytskyi region, and two wounded in the Kyiv region, officials said.
Poland, a member of NATO, scrambled its fighter jets and put its armed forces on the highest level of alert in response to the attack, the Polish Armed Forces Operational Command wrote in an X post.
Russia's bigger army has also launched a new drive to punch through parts of the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where short-handed Ukrainian forces are under heavy strain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
Emma recalls the day Trump asked for a date
Washington: Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson has joked about Donald Trump "stalking" her after the now-US president called her to ask her on a date the very same day her divorce was finalised. The 66-year-old British actress said she could have "changed the course of American history," had she accepted his offer. Speaking at the Locarno Film Festival in Switzerland on August 8, where she received the Leopard Club Award for her career achievements, Thompson recounted the surprising call she got from Trump while filming the 1998 dramedy 'Primary Colors'. Thompson said she was in her trailer when the phone rang, and answering, she heard him say, "Hello, this is Donald Trump." 'I thought it was a joke and asked, 'How can I help you? Maybe he needed directions from someone,'' Thompson told The Telegraph. Donald Trump then invited her, saying, 'I'd love you to come and stay at one of my beautiful places. Maybe we could have dinner.' Her response was, 'Well, that's very sweet. Thank you so much. I'll get back to you.' Thompson said, 'I realised that on that day, my divorce decree had come through. And I bet he's got people looking for suitable people he could take out on his arm. You know, a nice divorcee, that's what he was looking for.' She added, 'And he found the number in my trailer. I mean, that's stalking.'
Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Nvidia, AMD to pay 15% of China chip sale revenues to US, official says
NYT News Service Nvidia and AMD have agreed to give the US government 15% of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips like Nvidia's H20 that are used for artificial intelligence applications, a US official told Reuters on Sunday. US President Donald Trump's administration halted sales of H20 chips to China in April, but Nvidia last month announced the US said that it would allow the company to resume sales and it hoped to start deliveries soon. Another US official said on Friday that the Commerce Department had begun issuing licenses for the sale of H20 chips to China. When asked if Nvidia had agreed to pay 15% of revenues to the US, a Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement, "We follow rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets." The spokesperson added: "While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide." AMD did not respond to a request for comment on the news, which was first reported by the Financial Times earlier on Sunday. The U.S. Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to a request for comment. China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. China represents a significant market for both companies. Nvidia generated $17 billion in revenue from China in the fiscal year ending January 26, representing 13% of total sales. AMD reported $6.2 billion in China revenue for 2024, accounting for 24% of total revenue. The Financial Times said the chipmakers agreed to the arrangement as a condition for obtaining the export licences for their semiconductors, including AMD's MI308 chips. The report said the Trump administration had yet to determine how to use the money. "It's wild," said Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at Center for New American Security, an independent think tank in Washington, D.C. "Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn't be doing it to begin with, or it's not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?" US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said last month the planned resumption of sales of the AI chips was part of U.S. negotiations with China to get rare earths and described the H20 as Nvidia's "fourth-best chip" in an interview with CNBC. Lutnick said it was in U.S. interests to have Chinese companies using American technology, even if the most advanced was prohibited from export, so they continued to use an American "tech stack." The US official said the Trump administration did not feel the sale of H20 and equivalent chips was compromising US national security. The official did not know when the agreement would be implemented or exactly how, but said the administration would be in compliance with the law. Alasdair Phillips-Robins, who served as an adviser at the Commerce Department during former President Joe Biden's administration, criticized the move. "If this reporting is accurate, it suggests the administration is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury," Phillips-Robins said. Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. 3 years on, Akasa's next challenge: Staying in the air against IndiGo's dominance Jane Street blow pushes Indian quants to ancient Greek idea to thrive Berlin to Bharuch: The Borosil journey after the China hit in Europe FIIs are exiting while retail investors stay put. Will a costly market make them pay? Stock Radar: TVS Motor breaks out from 1-month consolidation to hit fresh high; time to buy or book profits? FMCG sector: Both a consumption & tactical play; 7 stocks that have an upside potential of up to 30% F&O Radar| Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty for Theta decay benefits within index range These large- and mid-cap stocks may give more than 25% return in 1 year, according to analysts
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
How Trump's executive order could reshape college admissions and campus diversity across the US
The Trump administration recently issued an executive order requiring universities to publicly disclose detailed information about the race, test scores, and grade point averages of all applicants. This move intensifies an already heated national debate over college admissions, meritocracy, and campus diversity. According to The New York Times , the new data disclosure rules aim to increase transparency but could also shift admissions practices in ways that affect student diversity across the country's most selective institutions. A century-long debate over admissions For more than a century, colleges have grappled with the question of how to admit students fairly. The controversy touches on fundamental issues such as equal opportunity, racial justice, and the definition of merit. Traditionally, many colleges have used holistic admissions processes that consider applicants' life experiences, including race and socio-economic background, to build diverse and inclusive campuses. However, conservative groups argue that such subjective criteria can lead to unfair advantages for certain groups and discrimination against others, particularly white and Asian students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Secret Lives of the Romanovs — the Last Rulers of Imperial Russia! Learn More Undo Supreme Court ruling and new federal requirements In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that considering race in admissions decisions was unconstitutional. This ruling forced universities to overhaul their admissions policies to comply with the new legal framework. Building on that decision, the Trump administration's executive order now requires colleges to report applicant data to a federal database called the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasised that this data will help the public see whether colleges admit students based on merit or race, stating, according to The New York Times, it 'will enable the American public to assess whether schools are passing over the most qualified students in favor of others based on their race.' The pressure to prioritise test scores According to The New York Times , experts warn that this focus on quantitative measures like test scores and grade point averages could unintentionally favour wealthier students who often have access to better preparation and resources from an early age. James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, told The New York Times , 'I think the incentives that this creates are a big deal. It is creating pressure on colleges to focus on higher G.P.A.s and higher test scores.' The history and impact of standardised testing The use of standardised test scores in admissions has a complex history. In the early 20th century, colleges prioritised intangible qualities such as character, leadership, and athletic ability. These factors sometimes served as barriers for certain groups, including Jewish students. After World War II, as the United States faced global competition, universities shifted focus towards academic metrics like the SAT. However, this shift has been challenged by civil rights advocates seeking more inclusive admissions policies. Income and racial disparities in test scores Research highlighted by The New York Times shows significant disparities in test scores tied to family income. For example, students from affluent households are seven times more likely to score at least 1300 on the SAT compared to those from low-income families. Among the high school class of 2024, just 1% of Black students and 2% of Hispanic students scored between 1400 and 1600, the highest SAT range. By contrast, 7% of white students and 27% of Asian students reached that score bracket. Admissions beyond test scores Given these disparities, very few elite colleges admit students solely based on test scores today. They also consider legacy status, special talents, and economic adversity to create a more balanced student body. Boston University professor Anthony Abraham Jack told The New York Times that the new order could push admissions towards a 'quota system for wealthy and white students.' He cautioned, 'If your class is too brown, too poor, then somehow you rigged the system.' Jack stressed the importance of context in evaluating applicants, telling The New York Times , 'If you have a student who gets a 5 in A.P. calculus, that doesn't give you a relative understanding of how good they are. What if they're the only young woman in the entire state to get a 5 in A.P. calc? That tells you how amazing that person is.' What this means for students As the admissions landscape shifts, students and families may find it harder or easier to understand what it takes to gain entry into selective colleges. The Trump administration's push for more standardised, data-driven admissions decisions may narrow the path for many, especially students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds. The debate continues as universities strive to balance fairness, diversity, and academic excellence in an evolving legal and political environment. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
