Australian former soldier killed by explosive device in Ukraine while working for aid organisation
An Australian aid worker who helped clear landmines in Ukraine has been killed in the war-ravaged country.
Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese confirmed the death of the man, a former Australian soldier, following media reports the charity worker died after an an improved explosive device went off in a building.
"I can confirm he wasn't a participant in the conflict, he was volunteering with a humanitarian organisation,' Mr Albanese said, adding the government was providing support for the man's family, but did not provide any specifics.
"Out of respect for the family's privacy and consistent with our obligations, there is a limit to what we can say publicly at this time.'
The fatal incident occurred in the Ukrainian city of Izyum, according to a report by the ABC, which cited an unidentified military source in Ukraine. The public broadcaster said the details of the death were yet to be formally verified.
The ABC reported the Australian man was working for the US-based Prevail Together.
The charity, which supports Ukrainian government agencies with landmine clearance, trauma medical care and humanitarian assistance, said in a statement that some team members were severely injured in an incident on May 6.
"We are still gathering information and working alongside military and police officials to uncover the details," the organisation said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Ukraine's spectacular attack: 21st-century tactics still require support from allies
Since Donald Trump scolded Volodymyr Zelenskyy with the words 'You don't have the cards right now,' Ukraine has been keener than ever to demonstrate that it has a few up its sleeve. On Sunday it showed its hand with an extraordinary, audacious drone attack on multiple bases deep inside Russia, which it says damaged 41 aircraft. Operation Spiderweb, which saw the smuggled drones released from their hiding places in wooden sheds and remotely piloted to their targets, was swiftly followed by another attack on Crimea's Kerch bridge using underwater explosives. Kyiv – often coy in such cases – was unusually swift to claim both incidents, but has not taken responsibility for two railway bridge attacks which Russia says led to the deaths of seven passengers at the weekend. There is obvious satisfaction in hitting Russian bombers and surveillance planes used against Ukrainian civilians, and Spiderweb's unexpected method will surely force Russia to think harder about defence. But the greater significance lies in its potential impact on domestic morale and international support. Ukraine has repeatedly surprised both its enemy and its allies throughout this war. Unexpected successes such as the Kursk incursion have changed the narrative at critical moments. Meticulously planned, and reportedly 18 months in the making, the latest operation must make Russia wonder what else may be on the way. It was also spectacular enough to make Mr Trump pay attention. The US president reportedly judged the attack to be 'badass'. But his cosy phone chats with Vladimir Putin appear to be locking in his tilt towards Moscow. On Wednesday he said that, in a 'good' conversation, Mr Putin had said he would have to respond. It did not appear to have occurred to the US president that discouraging retaliation might be desirable. He should be challenging Kremlin talking points instead of amplifying them. If Ukraine hoped to dispel the nuclear spectre which Russia has repeatedly summoned up, Mr Trump seems to be still in its thrall – with some of those around him talking up the threat again. The Center for Strategic and International Studies argued in a report this week that Russia's military performance has been notably poor in this war, with gains coming at a strikingly high cost in terms of both equipment and personnel – hitting an estimated million casualties this summer. But Russia still has many more cards. It continues to grind out its advance, and in late May it launched its largest drone and missile assault on Ukraine to date. Its war of attrition may look old-fashioned compared with Kyiv's innovations, but it still hurts. Meanwhile, talks in Istanbul have produced agreement on a prisoner exchange but no movement towards peace. There appears to be growing support in the US Senate for further sanctions on Russia, but Lindsey Graham is unlikely to move without Mr Trump's acquiescence, and there is little sign of progress in the House. Pete Hegseth did not attend the session on Ukraine at Thursday's gathering of defence ministers ahead of this month's Nato summit – a telling absence, though the Pentagon blamed scheduling issues. Kyiv needs and deserves increased support from Washington, but damage limitation looks like a more realistic aspiration. Ukraine continues to surprise, and to shift its approach as circumstances demand. Unfortunately, there is little sign of the US president, capricious as he is, changing course on this conflict.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Russia is about to suffer its millionth casualty. For Putin, that's a price worth paying
Almost two centuries ago, the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz cautioned against the temptation to 'shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.' One milestone betrays the sheer scale of the butchery in Ukraine: by the end of June, Russian forces will, in all probability, have suffered their millionth casualty in this war. When Vladimir Putin sent some 200,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine in February 2022, he expected to seize Kyiv by the third day of a lightning offensive. Today, his troops remain hundreds of miles from the capital, while the number of Russian dead and wounded has grown to nearly five times the size of that initial invasion force. 'Overall, a high of 250,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, with over 950,000 total Russian casualties,' notes a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, DC. Those numbers conjure an image of Putin casting the entirety of his first invading army into a furnace, then gathering another and doing the same – over and over again. On an average day in April, about 1,200 Russians were killed or wounded on Ukraine's battlefields, where killer drones and heavy artillery have together created the most lethal expanse of territory on Earth. If this casualty rate is sustained, the CSIS study concludes, 'Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025.' By way of comparison, the combined death toll in every Soviet or Russian conflict since 1945 – from the invasion of Hungary in 1956 to the Second Chechen war in 1999, including the Afghanistan campaign of 1979-89 – came to less than 50,000. Putin has sacrificed about five times that number in the space of three years and four months in Ukraine. Having been thrown back from Kyiv, Putin is now waging what the CSIS calls a 'grinding contest of attrition', in which Russia loses 'vast quantities' of men and materiel for 'mere metres of ground'. Since January 2024, Putin has captured about 1 per cent of Ukraine at the cost of between 800 and 1,600 Russian casualties per day. By comparison, 179 British military personnel were killed during six years of combat operations in Iraq. Yet Putin's frame of reference is almost certainly not the conflicts since 1945. He is steeped in the history of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War – the Soviet Union's epic struggle against Hitler's invasion between 1941 and 1945. That titanic confrontation claimed the lives of at least 24 million Soviet or Russian citizens, amounting to 12 per cent of the entire population of the Soviet Empire. The Battle of Stalingrad alone, lasting less than six months, killed almost 675,000 Russians. The siege of Leningrad – the city of Putin's birth – was even more deadly. His parents lived through those harrowing years from 1941 to 1944; his father fought in the city's defence, while his elder brother was among the children who died of hunger and privation. In total, over 1 million Russians gave their lives to save Leningrad from the Nazis. If that is your perspective, then 250,000 dead and a million casualties in Ukraine become far more acceptable. Putin will doubtless see these figures as just a fraction of the cost of preserving his home city from Hitler. And that is not even to consider earlier episodes of suffering. The Russian civil war that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 claimed some 10 million lives, mainly from starvation, while Stalin's Great Purge, between 1936 and 1938, is estimated to have claimed between 700,000 and 1.2 million. If, like Putin, your historical memory is dominated by events before 1945, then you take a different view of a million Russian casualties in Ukraine. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign is designed to ensure that the Russian people think like their leader. Not even the prospect of Putin soon having sacrificed a million of their sons in the country's bloodiest war in 80 years appears to be stirring popular discontent. In March, polling by the Levada Center, a Russian independent, nongovernmental research organisation, found that a 'majority of respondents support the actions of the Russian military and believe that the special military operation is progressing successfully.' For Western policy-makers, by contrast, Putin's cold indifference to suffering presents a strategic dilemma. Effective deterrence depends on an adversary believing that any act of aggression will incur an overwhelming and unacceptable cost. But what constitutes an unacceptable cost in Putin's eyes? Given that a million Russian casualties in the crucible of Ukraine seem to leave him unmoved, sustaining effective deterrence becomes far more difficult. Hence the continued importance of nuclear weapons – perhaps the only price even Putin would be unwilling to pay. Meanwhile, his dogged assault on Ukraine has forced his neighbour to defend itself with ever greater force, vindicating the bleak words of Clausewitz: 'If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent towards extremes.' Russia's extreme violence has killed between 60,000 and 100,000 Ukrainians, according to the CSIS, inflicting around 400,000 casualties in total – an astonishing toll reminiscent of the pre-war era. Given that Ukraine's population is less than a third of Russia's, the target of the invasion has endured a heavier toll per capita – a butcher's bill greater even than that of its aggressor. Ukrainian soldiers on the front line know better than anyone that the prospect of a million Russian casualties will not deter Putin. The only counterweight is still greater force.
BreakingNews.ie
3 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Trump says it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia ‘fight for a while'
President Donald Trump has said that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. In an Oval Office meeting with German chancellor Friedrich Merz, Mr Trump likened the war in Ukraine — which Russia invaded in early 2022 — to a fight between two young children who hated each other. Advertisement 'Sometimes you're better off letting them a fight for a while and then pulling them apart,' Mr Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian president Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday. The US president still left the threat of sanctions on the table. He said sanctions could be imposed for both Ukraine and Russia. 'When I see the moment where it's not going to stop … we'll be very, very tough,' Mr Trump said. Advertisement
