At least 3 killed, 28 injured in passenger train derailment in Russia's Bryansk Oblast following bridge collapse, officials say
Editor's note: An earlier version of this report, citing Russian Telegram channels, noted that 4 people had been killed and another 44 injured. This is a developing story and is being updated.
At least 3 people are dead and another 28 injured after a train derailed in Russia's Bryansk Oblast overnight on May 31, following the collapse of an overhead road bridge, Russia's Emergency Situations Ministry claimed.
Photos and videos posted on social media appears to show damage sustained to the train after an impact with the bridge. Russian Telegram channel ASTRA reported that a total of 379 people were on board the train at the time of derailment, around 10:45 p.m. local time.
Preliminary reports suggest that explosions were heard in the Vygonichsky district of Bryansk Oblast ahead of the impact, and Moscow Railways, a subsidiary of state-run Russian Railways, claimed that the bridge collapsed due to the "unlawful interference in transport operations."
No further information was provided as to the cause of the bridge collapse, and the full extent of the damage was not immediately clear.
The Kyiv Independent cannot verify claims made by Russian authorities. Ukraine's military has not commented on the reported derailment.
The passenger train reportedly runs from the town of Klimovo in Bryansk Oblast to the Russian capital of Moscow.
Bryansk Oblast, located in Russia's far-west, borders Ukraine's Chernihiv and Sumy Oblast, and has been the target of various Ukrainian strikes.
Ukraine's intelligence agencies as well as Ukrainian partisan movements have previously been involved in sabotage attacks on Russian railways, disrupting the transport of military cargo toward the front line. There is no immediate indication either was involved in the train's derailment.
Read also: As 50,000 Russian troops amass, Ukraine's Sumy Oblast braces for potential large-scale offensive
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices surge on relief over OPEC+ output hike
Oil prices surged on Monday morning, after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies – known as OPEC+ – announced an increase to output for July that was in line with expectations. Brent crude futures (BZ=F) jumped 2.6% to $64.39 a barrel, at the time of writing, while West Texas Intermediate futures (CL=F) were up 3% at $62.63 a barrel. OPEC+ said in a statement on Saturday that its eight participating countries had agreed to increase output by 411,000 barrels per day. Jim Reid, a market strategist at Deutsche Bank, said: "An increase of this magnitude was flagged on the wires on Friday afternoon and there was some prospect of it being higher than this. He said that oil futures were higher on Monday morning "in a relief that the output increase wasn't higher." Read more: FTSE 100 LIVE: Markets slide as China accuses US of violating trade deal ING's head of commodities strategy, Warren Patterson, and commodities strategist Ewa Manthey said: "The latest increase is in line with our expectations. We're also assuming that OPEC+ will continue with these large supply hikes. "Rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine added further support to the market this morning. Ukraine carried out large-scale drone attacks on several Russian airfields, which comes ahead of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine this week. In addition, some US senators are pushing for harder sanctions against Russia, with a proposal to impose 500% tariffs on imports from countries that buy Russian oil. "While president Trump appears to be increasingly frustrated with president Putin, he's so far been reluctant to impose additional sanctions. Actions that successfully target Russian oil flows will change the outlook for the oil market drastically." Gold prices also jumped on Monday morning, as the latest escalation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and tariff concerns helped drive demand for the precious metal as a safe-haven investment. Gold futures (GC=F) were up 1.9% at $3,379.50 per ounce at the time of writing, while the spot gold price climbed 1.9% to $3,352.32 per ounce. Investors have been flocking to the yellow metal as it is considered to act as a hedge in times of political and economic uncertainty. On Friday evening, US president Donald Trump announced that tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium would be doubled to 50% on Wednesday. Deutsche Bank's Reid said: "It is really hard to keep up or predict what's going to happen on trade at the moment, and that's before we factor in the full ramifications from the court ruling last Thursday night, and then the subsequent brief stay of execution for them on appeal." Stocks: Create your watchlist and portfolio The US Court of International Trade last week ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he used an emergency law to issue global reciprocal tariffs on US trading partners. However, an appeals court then ruled that the tariffs could remain in place for now. "For now it seems likely that the tariff uncertainty will linger for a long time ahead even if we're still likely past the peak aggressiveness of US policy," said Reid. In addition, Trump on Friday accused China of violating its trade truce with the US. Trump said in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social: "The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US." On Monday, China responded by saying that the US had "severely violated" the terms of their recent trade truce. Reid said that the "surprisingly positive agreement between China and the US on tariffs on May 12th now seems a more distant memory." The pound gained against the dollar (GBPUSD=X) on Monday morning, rising 0.7% to $1.3547, helped by a weaker greenback. The US dollar index ( which measures the greenback against a basket of six currencies, was down 0.5% to 98.79 at the time of writing. On trade, Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "We're back in a situation of one step forward, two steps back, but there do appear to be expectations that more concessions will be struck. "Investors are getting used to aggressive statements being rolled back, so much so the TACO trade theory has rippled through Wall Street, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. But there's no guarantee that the US president won't follow through with more onerous restrictions, given he's stayed steadfast to his pledge to bring more manufacturing back to the US." Read more: Stocks to watch this week: Broadcom, Lululemon, British American Tobacco, Dr Martens and Rémy Cointreau In other currency moves, the pound was little changed against the euro (GBPEUR=X), trading at €1.186 at the time of writing. More broadly, the FTSE 100 (^FTSE) edged 0.1% higher to trade at 8,785 points. For more details on broader market movements check our live coverage here. Read more: UK house prices rise in May as higher wages, low unemployment boost market Odds of more Bank of England interest rate cuts fall as food inflation rises UK 'bargain' stocks that have outperformed the market long-termSign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How progressive critics paved the way for Trump's attack on judicial supremacy
One of the key axioms of politics in our, and any other, era is that nothing lasts forever. Today's seemingly new political arguments, almost certainly, will find their way into an opponent's arsenal. Evidence of that axiom is abundant. Where once Republicans were rapidly anti-Russia and anti-Putin, today they favor accommodation. Where once Democrats were suspicious of free trade, today they embrace it as part of their criticism of the president's protectionism. The most consequential of those inversions involves attitudes toward courts and judges. Where once progressive critics called the rule of law a myth and worked to expose the politics of law, today the president mobilizes that argument to accuse judges of being driven by partisan motivations. In the first Trump administration, as the president stacked the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary with MAGA-allied judges, progressives eagerly denounced those judges and what they labelled 'judicial supremacy.' They argued that the authority to interpret the Constitution was not lodged solely in the judicial branch. It was, they contended, also the work of the other branches, and the American people themselves, to say what the law is. Now, they are appalled when members of the Trump Administration take up those arguments and offer constitutional arguments of their own. Before saying more about the source of attacks on the courts and positions now being appropriated by the Trump administration, let me cite a few examples of its escalating critiques of judicial supremacy. On May 20, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered his own rendition of the powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case, and the administration's reluctance to 'facilitate' his return, Rubio insisted that he does not have to obey court orders when they touch on the foreign policy of the United States. 'There is,' Rubio said, 'a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge, and the judicial branch, cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy.' The Secretary of State insisted that 'No judge can tell how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I am under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch.' Rubio is not the only one in the administration to act as if they get to define what the Constitution means or what authority courts have. Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Federal District Judge James Boasberg, who, as NBC News noted 'is presiding over the case involving the administration's use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act to deport what officials claim are gang members to El Salvador' was 'trying to control our entire foreign policy,' and that under the Constitution, he 'cannot do it.' And then there is the recent insistence of White House staffer Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that the president has the right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some might call these comments unconstitutional or anti-constitutional, but I suspect they would say that they have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the judicial branch. That is the position of conservative allies of the administration. Adrian Vermeule, for example, Professor of Law at Harvard, argues that the law 'is to a large degree what the President and the agencies say it is.' And 'The President, as a key figure in the republic, has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a way that promotes the common good and effective governance.' This brings us back to the fact that arguments made with the goal of advancing one political program may be flipped and turned to another purpose. It was not so long ago that progressives chaffing under the rulings of the Roberts Court called for the same kind of diffusion of the authority to interpret the Constitution that we are now seeing from the Trump Administration. In September 2020, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie quoted with approval the following: ''The judiciary is not the sole guardian of our constitutional inheritance and interpretive authority under the Constitution has varied over time.'' In his own voice, he said: '(I)f protecting the right of the people to govern for themselves means curbing judicial power and the Supreme Court's claim to judicial supremacy, then Democrats should act without hesitation.' Twenty years earlier, two progressive constitutional law scholars reacted to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court's erosion of the Warren Court's pro-criminal defendant Miranda v. Arizona decision by calling for what they called 'shared constitutional experimentation.' As they put it, 'Because constitutional meaning is so wrapped up in broader questions of governance, constitutional interpretation should be a shared endeavor among (at the least) all the branches of the national, state, and local governments. Each branch brings to the process both a constitutional role and a set of institutional advantages….' A few years earlier, another law professor argued that 'competition and debate among the branches concerning important constitutional issues may well promote the kind of public dialogue that would lead to adoption of constructive constitutional approaches while enhancing respect for the fundamental values inherent in constitutionalism.' One final example is drawn from the work of two prominent, progressive constitutional law scholars, Yale's Robert Post and Reva Siegel. They observe that it would 'be a fundamental mistake to define constitutional law in ways that force nonjudicial actors regularly to choose between obeying constitutional law and fulfilling what they regard as their constitutional obligations.' Trump administration officials would likely agree. They might claim to be engaged in the very form of constitutional interpretation and dialogue that Bouie and others on the left have held out as a healthy and welcome. Or, perhaps more accurately, they may be owning the libs by cynically using their arguments to secure the administration's own political purposes. Whatever their motive, using the tools of progressive constitutional scholars, Trump and his colleagues are creating what Princeton's Kim Lane Scheppele labels a 'counter-constitution, an alternative constitutional reality proposed in place of a current constitution.' That is why, if the Constitution survives this moment, we should be cautious about calling for the dismantling of the courts' ultimate authority to advance the political cause of the moment. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall got it right when, more than two centuries ago, he wrote, 'It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.' All of this is a reminder that in a constitutional republic, officials, citizens, and commentators need to take a long view and think not just of what will advance their immediate interest. Prudence requires considering what things would look like if, and when, their opponents come to power. Patience and foresight are underappreciated, but indispensable virtues of constitutional government.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
This startup wants to take down military drones the old-fashioned way: shooting at them
Drones are increasingly part of modern warfare. The aircraft, often equipped with explosives, have been deployed by both sides in Russia's war on Ukraine. They've been part of recent skirmishes between India and Pakistan. And they've been used by Haitian government forces in the ongoing conflict with gangs around Port-au-Prince. And to take down drones before they do damage, armed forces around the world and their military contractors have developed technologies to jam or hack drone control signals, zap them with lasers, or fry them with microwaves. But in this literal arms race, where combat drone developers will inevitably try to come up with ways to make their devices impervious to each new attack, an Austin-based startup called Allen Control Systems argues that the best defense might be one that relies on basic ballistics. 'We had the idea that we would use a cheap bullet to basically shoot these drones out of the sky,' says ACS President Steve Simoni, because 'the drones of the future would be impervious to these [other] attacks.' ACS has developed a robotic gun system called Bullfrog that uses AI and computer vision to detect drones and precisely fire at them. It's inspired by the human-controlled Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) guns that the U.S. military already mounts on vehicles and ships. The Bullfrog is based around existing gun technology and uses ordinary bullets, like the standard NATO 7.62x51mm round, which makes it easy and cost-effective to load. But while the existing guns have troops use a joystick to aim the gun and fire at targets, humans often aren't fast enough to take down a quick-moving drone, let alone a swarm of them. 'A human using a joystick isn't good enough to do that,' says Simoni, who started his career as a naval officer before cofounding Bbot, a restaurant software and robotics startup acquired by Doordash. 'So we basically redesigned that existing system from the ground up using a bunch of novel techniques in AI.' The Bullfrog uses a set of cameras to detect and precisely locate drones, letting it fire what Simoni calls 'a very precise sniper shot' at the fast-moving aircraft. Traditionally, attack drones have generally emphasized speed, flying quickly at targets like truck convoys to attack—generally moving predictably enough for the AI to easily target. But even if attackers adapt to have drones move more erratically, Simoni says ACS should still be able to fire more quickly than they can evade. 'Bullets travel very fast,' he says. 'From the time we see it to [the time we] shoot, there's not many places a drone can really move in that time period.' The system, which ACS successfully demonstrated in a U.S. Army test earlier this year, where it took down all of seven target drones, still typically relies on a human in the loop. That is, when a vehicle is being attacked by drones, someone will look at a screen showing the incoming aircraft and select specific targets. But the AI and its cameras do the actual tracking and ballistics calculations necessary to accurately fire the gun and eliminate the drones. Variants may also be able to handle scenarios where there's a bigger swarm of drones than humans can practically target, but humans would still set the 'rules of engagement,' like defining a field of view where the AI is allowed to target oncoming drones or specific safety requirements, Simoni says. In general, ACS's software also lets users define areas where they don't want bullets to be aimed for safety's sake. In demonstrations and tests, the company often fires at off-the-shelf drones from normal retail stores, or specific target drones provided by the military, which naturally restricts outside drones on its bases. As new drones evolve, ACS can also make virtual models of them, giving the AI practice recognizing and firing at them in a simulated environment. Using technology like Unreal Engine, the video game development tool, the company can create renderings of the drones in a variety of weather conditions and scenery, all without needing to fire any actual bullets or destroy any physical drones. The same approach can also teach the AI to distinguish other types of flying things, like birds and planes. And while Russian and Ukrainian forces have already begun to circumvent drone jamming technology by replacing radio communications with long, thin fiber optic cables, and microwave attacks can be disrupted by adding conductive material to the right places on the drone, Simoni believes it's just not physically feasible to build a drone that can reliably withstand bullets and still be light enough to nimbly fly. 'There's not enough armor you could put on a drone to stop a bullet like that,' he says. An effectively armored drone would simply be too heavy. The gun systems, on the other hand, are designed to be lightweight at about 200 pounds, and easy to bolt onto existing military vehicles and connect to vehicle power sources. Simoni says he envisions the system will be practical for both the U.S. and allies with smaller vehicles, where the guns can be mounted on a truck bed. And while they can be used as 'last lines of defense' for stationary targets like bases or power stations, Simoni says the Bullfrog is currently most practical for vehicles, thanks to its current range of about a kilometer. 'That's a little too close for comfort for a base,' he says. 'They want to probably engage the drones further out if they could.' The technology also isn't ideal for civilian use cases like protecting stadiums and events, where bullets aren't the safest technology to stop errant drones, Simoni says. Alternatives like net guns might be a better solution there, he suggests. ACS's systems are slated for more military testing this year, demonstrating compatibility with a variety of military vehicles, with an eye toward battlefield deployment in early 2026. The company in March announced a $30 million Series A led by Craft Ventures along with existing investors Inspired Capital and Rally Ventures. Without revealing exact potential pricing, the company predicts its technology can lower the 'cost per kill' to just a few dollars per drone. Simoni says the company aims to help the military prepare for a future where machines, not humans, do the bulk of fighting. 'The future of conventional warfare is mostly going to be robots shooting at other robots,' he says. 'It is far too dangerous to be out there, so I don't think there's going to be a lot of human engagement.'
