Russia strikes Ukrainian drone production facilities
Russian forces have launched a combined strike targeting Ukrainian drone and radar manufacturing facilities, as well as munitions depots and equipment storage sites, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said in its daily briefing on Tuesday.
The list of targets also reportedly included drone storage facilities and launch sites, as well as positions of Ukrainian troops and foreign mercenaries. A total of 142 locations were hit as part of the operation, which involved both missile strikes and drone attacks, the ministry said, without specifying the exact targets.
The strikes came two days after a Ukrainian attack on military airfields in five Russian regions across the country, including Siberia and the Far East. Ukrainian media have described the strikes as part of a 'historic' operation dubbed 'Spiderweb,' claiming they caused significant damage to Russian 'strategic aviation.'
The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed the attacks but said that three of them were successfully repelled without causing damage or casualties, while two resulted in several aircraft catching fire. The ministry did not officially confirm the loss of any aircraft.
The statement came as Russian forces continued their offensive operations along the entire front line. Russian troops have maintained the initiative on the battlefield for several months.
Over the past 24 hours, the Russian military took control of the village of Andreevka in Sumy Region, according to the briefing. Ukrainian forces reportedly lost over 1,500 soldiers across various parts of the front, along with around two dozen artillery pieces.
In late May, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Moscow's intention to create a 'security buffer zone' along the border, following the successful repulsion of a Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Region. He first floated the idea last year, stating it was intended to protect civilians from Kiev's long-range strikes.
Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of carrying out attacks on civilians, organizing sabotage operations, and plotting assassinations of senior officials, journalists, and public figures. Recent acts of railway sabotage in Russia's Bryansk and Kursk regions were 'terrorist attacks' planned by Ukraine to cause maximum civilian casualties, the Russian Investigative Committee said on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that there is no value in trying to reach a peace deal with Moscow if powerful countries do not put pressure on Russia, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump's recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, the Russian and American leaders held a 75-minute call to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Trump described the conversation as 'good,' but noted that it would not lead to 'immediate peace' after Putin had told him 'very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on [Russian] airfields.' Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases across five regions on Sunday, ranging from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev claimed to have destroyed or damaged some 40 aircraft, including long-range bombers. Moscow has denied both the numbers and the extent of the damage. Writing on X on Wednesday, several hours after Trump disclosed the content of his conversation with Putin, Zelensky claimed that 'many have spoken with Russia at various levels. But none of these talks have brought a reliable peace, or even stopped the war.' The Ukrainian leader criticized 'those who still hesitate to increase pressure' on Russia and suggested that if 'the powerful do not stop Putin, it means they share responsibility with him,' apparently referring to Trump and the fact that he has yet to impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Zelensky's post comes after the New York Times reported, citing sources, that Trump regularly describes the Ukrainian leader as a 'bad guy' who is pushing the world closer to a nuclear conflict. Advisers told the outlet that while Trump has grown 'exasperated' with both Moscow and Kiev, he 'reserves special animosity' for Zelensky. Meanwhile, Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for Trump's efforts to end the conflict and have reiterated Moscow's openness to negotiations. However, Russia has insisted that a final peace deal with Kiev would have to take into account the realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict, such as Kiev's efforts to join NATO, the spread of neo-Nazism within the country, and the infringement of the rights of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO more powerful than Romans and Napoleon – bloc chief (VIDEO)
NATO is the 'most powerful alliance' in global history, Secretary General Mark Rutte has claimed, comparing the US-led bloc to the Roman Empire and Napoleon's army. Rutte urged member states to ramp up military spending to make NATO even 'more lethal' and better prepared to counter the alleged threat from Russia, which Moscow has long denied and ridiculed. 'NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. It's even more powerful than the Roman Empire, and more powerful than Napoleon's empire,' Rutte stated at a press conference ahead of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. 'But the defense alliance needs maintenance and needs investment.' He laid out priorities to strengthen NATO's military, insisting they are essential to deter potential future aggression. 'We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance… We need more resources, forces, and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat,' he added. Rutte claimed that Russia could attack NATO within several years and said the bloc would not be prepared to defend itself unless it moves beyond its long-held 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark. NATO Chief Mark Rutte says the NATO 'defensive alliance' is more powerful than both the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire.1. NATO is essentially the US, and a collection of vassal states that submit to Washington's hegemony 2. The Chief of NATO compares the organisation he… Rutte said he would present member states with a new 'defense investment plan' at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a threat to NATO, calling them 'nonsense' and accusing the West of stoking fear to justify more military spending. Moscow has also warned that the West's rearmament efforts risk escalating into a broader conflict in Europe. Russian officials have also drawn their own historical comparisons. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of trying to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia 'just like in the times of Napoleon and Hitler' through its proxy war in Ukraine. He said the only way to avoid a wider conflict is for the West to abandon its militaristic path. Rutte's imperial comparisons have sparked criticism on social media. Media analyst Michael William Lebron, known as Lionel, wrote: 'NATO's chief boasting they're 'more powerful than the Roman or Napoleonic Empires' sounds less like diplomacy and more like 1939 Berlin. This isn't defense – it's imperial arrogance... Dangerous rhetoric.' John Laughland, a historian and specialist in international affairs, pointed out on X that 'The Roman and Napoleonic empires were not alliances, they were states. Or is NATO now an empire?' 'NATO 'Chief' sounds like Uncle Adolf back in 1939,' Irish journalist Chay Bowes added. British journalist Afshin Rattansi also weighed in, saying it's no wonder non-NATO states view the bloc as 'a hyper-militarist threat' after it 'destroyed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so many others.' Rattansi called Rutte 'a puppet' of Washington and warned that NATO 'is a dangerous, hyper-militarist organization that is far from defensive.'
