Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know Ukraine's audacious drone strike
Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know Ukraine's audacious drone strike Ukraine unleashed more than a hundred drones smuggled deep into Russia in what it called its most damaging attack yet.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Donald Trump 'disappointed' with Vladimir Putin
President Donald Trump told reporters he was 'disappointed' with Russian President Vladimir Putin, referencing latest attacks on Ukraine.
Ukraine said the strikes on Russian strategic bombers had caused $7 billion in damage.
"It had an absolutely brilliant outcome," Zelenskyy said.
'It is impossible to restore these losses,' Rybar, a pro-Kremlin Telegram channel, said.
WASHINGTON − Ukraine destroyed dozens of enemy bombers using a horde of drones smuggled deep into Russia in a stunning attack Russian war bloggers are calling Moscow's Pearl Harbor. It was the most damaging Ukrainian attack on Russia in the three years since Moscow invaded.
Ukrainian intelligence said the coordinated strikes on June 1 took a $7 billion toll on Russia's military and demolished more than a third of Moscow's strategic cruise missile carriers, including planes cabable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the massive attack, which he said used 117 drones, his counntry's "longest-range operation."
More: War in Ukraine rages on as Putin's 3-day ceasefire nears: updates in maps
Russia's Pearl Harbor?
"It had an absolutely brilliant outcome," Zelenskyy said on Telegram. "Russia has had very tangible losses, and justifiably so."
With Ukraine set to meet Russia for U.S.-brokered peace talks the next day and amid aggressive Russian advances on the battlefield, the ambitious attack showed neither side is counting on a breakthrough in negotiations.
"We hope that the response will be the same as the US response to the attack on their Pearl Harbor or even tougher," Russian war blogger Roman Alekhin wrote on Telegram, comparing the Ukrainian strike to the 1941 Japanese raid on a US base in Hawaii.
'It is impossible to restore these losses,' Rybar, a pro-Kremlin Telegram channel, said.
Ukrainian "Spider's Web"
The operation – codenamed "Spider's Web" – was characteristic of the style of warfare Ukraine has made its brand as it attempts to undercut Russia's larger military – flooding the zone with cheap, deadly drones.
But the scope of this attack set a new precedent. The drones, strapped with explosives, were hidden inside the roofs of wooden sheds, which were dropped off by trucks at the outer edge of Russian military bases, a Ukrainian security official told Reuters.
The roofs then opened by remote control, unleashing the drones to swarm the military bases.
Ukraine's intelligence service said 41 Russian aircraft were hit at four air bases stretching from the Finnish border to Siberia. One targeted base, in the Irkutsk region, lies more than 2,600 miles from the frontlines, making it the farthest target Ukraine has hit during the conflict.
Russia's defense ministry acknowledged in Sunday Telegram messages that drones launched "from an area in close proximity to airfields resulted in several aircraft catching fire."
The operation came a day after Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Ukraine using 472 drones and seven missiles, according to Ukraine's air force – the most drones launched in one operation throughout the conflict.
Separately on Sunday, Ukraine struck two highway bridges in Russian regions close to its borders, killing seven people and injuring 69. One bridge collapsed on a train carrying nearly 400 passengers to Moscow, according to Russian investigators.
Three of the missiles and 372 drones were downed, the air force said.
Peace talks restart as Trump loses patience with Russia
Ukraine launched the operation a day before Ukraine and Russia will meet for U.S.-mediated negotiations in Istanbul, Turkey, to end the grinding conflict.
President Donald Trump has pressed both sides for a ceasefire. Earlier this year, his focus was trained on Ukraine, sparking tension with Zelensky that exploded into public view during a combative Oval Office meeting in late February.
But in recent weeks, Trump has grown more frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin's dug-in position in negotiations.
In his starkest criticism of Putin to date, Trump said Putin had "gone absolutely CRAZY" after Russia launched a barrage of drones and missiles into Ukrainian cities last weekend that killed a dozen people.
"I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!" Trump wrote in a May 25 Truth Social.
Trump said days later in the Oval Office that he was "very disappointed" that "people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
Royal letters, famous golfers and rehearsed pitches: The tips and tricks to a successful Trump meeting
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer came carrying a signed letter from the king. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa brought along two golf champs. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney repeatedly practiced his elevator pitch ahead of his Oval Office meeting On Thursday, it's German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's turn to meet with President Donald Trump. Ahead of his first White House visit, the German press has offered some unsolicited advice: lean into their shared affinity for golf. Numerous foreign leaders have invested heavily in the choreography of a face-to-face with the U.S. president. The meetings, which U.S. officials have downplayed as 'just another world leader coming to visit,' come with huge stakes at home and abroad for those leaders. How to handle a mercurial American president prone to ambushing his guests requires unique preparation. 'How to survive your Trump meeting,' as an American lobbyist who advises foreign governments calls it, has become a cottage industry for lobbyists, consultants and national security experts in Washington. That's according to interviews with a dozen government officials, diplomats and advisers. Most of these officials were granted anonymity to speak openly about how foreign governments manage Trump. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team prepared assiduously, hearing from key Republicans on Capitol Hill what amounted to a 'Trump 101' crash course on how to engage with the president, according to three congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the matter. That now infamous meeting went off the rails anyway — exponentially increasing the anxiety of other world leaders about taking part in Trump's newest reality show, an unscripted Oval Office get-to-know-you session featuring several Cabinet officials and playing out live before the White House press corps and broadcast instantly around the world. The Zelenskyy meeting 'was a real 'oh shit' moment for other leaders,' said one senior U.S. congressional aide familiar with the planning that went into that meeting. 'They saw this public gauntlet they'd have to run. How do I avoid the Dumpster fire Zelenskyy fell into?' Managing Trump is nothing new for foreign leaders who saw how the U.S. president operated during his first term. But the efforts to coddle a lifelong public performer, who can shift quickly from charming to contentious, have intensified since Trump took office for the second time in January, noticeably more confident and far less restrained in his approach to the job. 'What Zelenskyy went through was a huge lesson learned for other world leaders. Without a doubt, everyone's been studying that really closely,' said another American who engages with the Ukrainian government on how to manage U.S. ties. Japan's new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, the second head of state invited to the White House after Trump's inauguration, prepared for his early February visit by studying graphics showing Japan as the top foreign investor in the U.S. and brainstorming with aides about what demands Trump might make, Ishiba's aides said at the time. When asked by reporters during his Oval Office sit-down what he thought of the president, Ishiba said, through a translator, that Trump's television career made him 'intimidating' but that he was 'powerful' and 'sincere' in person. Carney, whose condemnations of Trump's bullying '51st State' rhetoric propelled his Liberal coalition to an unlikely electoral victory this spring, spoke with several official and informal advisers in the run-up to his post-election White House visit in early May. One person who spoke with the prime minister, granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation, said they counseled him to distill his message into a couple clear phrases and repeat them as needed. 'With Trump, you want to make sure there is one core sentence, even two to three core sentences you are going to find a way to get out no matter what,' the person who advised Carney continued. 'And you don't need to talk that much. Let him speak.' Carney followed the advice, emphasizing that Canada was 'not for sale' but that the two countries were 'stronger when they work together.' It proved effective in lowering the temperature: Trump complimented Carney's initial statement and, shortly after the prime minister left the White House, described the conversation as a 'great meeting' with 'no tension.' The person said they gave the same advice to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre before his White House visit in late April.'The reason the Zelenskyy meeting went so badly was Zelenskyy was trying to spar like an equal,' they said. 'That is not allowed in the meeting.' The risk of entering Trump's lion's den can be worth the reward for world leaders. Trump pared back his musings of acquiring Canada as a 51st state after the meeting with Carney. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who traveled to Mar-a-Lago in late March just to play a round of golf with Trump, later convinced the U.S. president to reverse a decision on building icebreakers and purchase those ships from Finland. South Africa's Ramaphosa, who similarly tried to connect with Trump over golf by bringing South African golfers Retief Goosen and Ernie Els with him to the White House, received a harsher treatment. Trump, eager to highlight unfounded allegations about a 'genocide' targeting South Africa's white farmers, turned down the lights and played on a television wheeled into the Oval an unsourced video of what he said were gravesites. Forced into a defensive posture, Ramaphosa expressed uncertainty about the scenes depicted but did not directly criticize Trump, even as he tried to dispel the notion that a genocide was occuring. However awkward his meeting, the South African leader, unlike Zelenskyy months earlier, managed to avoid a bigger blow-up. Brian Clow, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top adviser during Trump's first term and the early days of the ongoing trade war, revealed the blueprint for dealing with the president. 'Even if Trump says some outrageous things, you've got to choose if you're going to interject or disagree — because it may be counterproductive in the long term if you get into too much of a back and forth.' Translation: don't get Zelenskyy-ed. Clow's next piece of advice: vibes matter. 'You've got to prepare for the overall tone and approach that you want to take,' Clow said. 'That can be just as important as the policy issues.' He suggested calling up the White House in advance, Clow said: 'Scope out how conversations might go, what could come up. That can actually influence how the meeting itself goes.' But preparation can only go so far with a U.S. president famous for unpredictability, Clow said. In March, Trump raised an obscure 1908 border treaty with Trudeau as he mused about erasing the border between the two countries. Trudeau was forced to deflect ian the moment. The big takeaway: 'Tread carefully,' Clow advised anybody who walks into the Oval Office. 'This is Trump's show, and you've got to let him do his thing.'
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who won the first NYC Democratic mayoral primary debate?
Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo won Wednesday night's Democratic mayoral primary debate — because his opponents' relentless attacks did more to elevate him than drag him down, a Post panel of veteran campaign strategists said. The thrice-elected Democrat took some gut punches, but there was no knockout blow or major blunder on his part, the political analysts on both sides of the aisle said. 'I tuned in to see a mayoral debate, not a debate about Andrew Cuomo,' quipped campaign strategist Ken Frydman of the nine-person debate moderated by NBC 4 NY and Politico. Advertisement 8 Democratic mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo shakes hands with fellow candidate Zohran Mamdani behind Whitney Tilson at the beginning of the NYC Democratic mayoral primary debate on June 4, 2025. via REUTERS 'By making Andrew the debate, they elevated him,' said Frydman. Because Cuomo was constantly under fire, he got more air time to respond to each jab and by default dominated the more than two hour debate, the political experts said. Advertisement 'Everyone tried to land a punch on Andrew Cuomo, but failed,' said campaign strategist O' Brien 'OB' Murray. 'The first 20 minutes gave Cuomo the center stage, literally and figuratively,' he said, referring to the ex-gov's position in the middle of the group of candidates standing on the dais at 30 Rockefeller Center. 'He handled the attacks and was able to deflect. They actually gave him more airtime than they should have,' Murray said. 8 Former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks during his spot at the democratic debate. via REUTERS Advertisement Republican campaign strategist Bill O'Reilly said the verbal pummeling Cuomo received from most of his eight primary rivals does not alter his status as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. 'It was Andrew Cuomo vs. the Lilliputians, and the Lilliputians fell short. That's the bottom line,' O'Reilly said. 'Someone needed to trip up the former governor to slow his momentum, but it was clear from the jump that wouldn't happen. Cuomo hasn't lost a step since leaving Albany, and the field lacked the skill to crack him.' Cuomo also counter-attacked, taking shots at his biggest threats in the polls — 33-year-old Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, a state Assembly member from Queens, and City Comptroller Brad Lander. Advertisement 8 Andrew Cuomo and Adrienne Adams hug onstage after the debate. via REUTERS 8 The nine NYC Democratic mayoral candidates Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Jessica Ramos, Zellnor Myrie, Andrew Cuomo, Whitney Tilson, Zohran Mamdani, Michael Blake and Scott Stringer. POOL/AFP via Getty Images The former governor delivered the best line when he said' '[President] Trump would go through Mamdani like a knife through butter,' O'Reilly noted. Frydman said the candidates and moderators did force Cuomo to squirm to defend his record as governor, including his controversial nursing home policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and his approval of the unpopular 2019 bail reforms. They also tried to make him answer for the spate of sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him — that he denied, but that forced his resignation in 2021. Some of the other candidates had 'break out moments' — including former Bronx Assemblyman Michael Blake, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Mamdani, said political advisor Yvette Buckner. 'That will have voters wanting to learn more about them, their policies and their candidacy,' she said. Advertisement Frydman, too, said Adams' performance 'moved the needle' for her campaign, which has been slow to gain momentum despite support from state Attorney General Letitia James. 'She introduced herself to Democratic voters well enough on substance to move up in ranked-choice voting,' he said. But Cuomo's comfortable lead over second place Mamdani in recent polls should hold, Frydman said. O'Reilly agreed, but said Mamdani remains Cuomo's 'greatest threat' for the nomination in the June 24 primary. Advertisement 8 Brad Lander and Michael Blake shake hands after participating in the debate. via REUTERS 8 Jessica Ramos is spotted leaving the NYC Democratic Mayoral Debate at NBC Studios at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in NY on June 4, 2025. Christopher Sadowski Two of the panelists agreed that Lander is competent, but his persona didn't translate on TV. 'He oozes insincerity in a car-salesman-type way,' O'Reilly said. Advertisement But he said Brooklyn state Sen. Zellnor Myrie's sincerity came across 'easily,' calling him a rising star in the Democratic Party. 8 NY Gov. Kathy Hochul leaves NBC Studios after the debate. Christopher Sadowski 8 Zellnor Myrie talks to reporters after leaving the debate stage. Christopher Sadowski Murray concurred, saying Lander has a 'stage presence for radio and a delivery for print. He confirmed why he has his wife and daughter on videos, instead of himself.' Advertisement Another candidate, former City Comptroller Scott Stringer who previously ran for mayor in 2021, didn't break through, the panelists said. 'Stringer was Stringer — flat and after a second run for mayor still didn't connect to voters,' Murray said. All but two of the Democratic contenders will debate again on June 12, save for Blake and state Sen. Jessica Ramos, who failed to meet the campaign funding threshold. Nine days of early voting will precede the primary, beginning on June 14.
