Ukraine strikes plunge Russian-held south into blackout, say officials
Officials said there was no effect on operations at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station — Europe's largest nuclear facility which was seized by Russia in the weeks after Moscow's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Russian officials running the plant said radiation levels were normal at the facility, which operates in shutdown mode and produces no power at the moment.
Russia-installed governors in the two regions said the Ukrainian attacks prompted authorities to introduce emergency measures and switch key sites to reserve power sources.
Power was knocked out to all parts of Zaporizhzhia under Russian control, Russia-installed Governor Yevgeny Belitsky wrote on Telegram.
'As a result of shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, high-voltage equipment was damaged in the northwestern part of the Zaporizhzhia region,' Belitsky wrote.
'There is no electricity throughout the region. The Energy Ministry of Zaporizhzhia region has been instructed to develop reserve sources of power. Health care sites have been transferred to reserve power sources.'
In adjacent Kherson region, farther west, Russia-appointed Governor Vladimir Saldo said debris from fallen drones had damaged two substations, knocking out power to more than 100,000 residents of 150 towns and villages in Russian-held areas. Emergency crews working to restore power quickly, he said.
For many long months in the winter, it was Ukrainian towns and villages that endured repeated electricity cuts as Russian attacks focused strikes on generating capacity.
Each side has repeatedly accused the other of launching attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and running the risk of a nuclear accident.
The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week in response to a Ukrainian complaint that it saw no sign that Russia was preparing to restart the Zaporizhzhia plant and connect it to the Russian grid.
The IAEA has stationed monitors permanently at Zaporizhzhia and Ukraine's other nuclear power stations. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
28 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
US pharma tariffs likely weeks away, sources say
WASHINGTON: The announcement by President Donald Trump's administration of the results of a probe into pharmaceutical imports and new sector-specific US tariffs likely remains weeks away, four official and industry sources said, later than initially promised as he focuses on other matters. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had said in April when the review of whether reliance on foreign drug production threatens US national security was launched that he anticipated that it would conclude between mid-May and mid-June. Global pharmaceutical companies are bracing for the outcome of the investigation, which will usher in sector-specific tariffs that Trump has said could start small and eventually rise to 250 per cent. The Republican president said as recently as last week that his plan relies on phased-in tariffs, giving drugmakers time to increase manufacturing in the United States as he pushes to alter what he says are global trade distortions in many industries. One government official in Europe and a source with knowledge of the White House process, as well as two sources at European drug firms familiar with the process, told Reuters that the report and tariffs announcement was not imminent and likely weeks away. These sources spoke on condition of anonymity. A White House spokesperson, asked about media reporting indicating that the results of the probe could be several weeks away, cautioned that such reports were pure speculation unless confirmed by the White House. The spokesperson declined to give further details about the timing of the pharma probe or one involving semiconductors. The investigation is examining pharmaceutical imports ranging from finished prescription drugs to active pharmaceutical ingredients, called APIs, and other raw materials, with the results to be disclosed in a Commerce Department report. Lutnick said last month the tariff plan that will be based on the report would be completed by the end of July. Lutnick then said on July 29 it would be two more weeks. The investigation was launched under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While the investigation is ongoing, the pharmaceutical sector has been exempted from the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States has reached bilateral trade deals with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the European Union that promised more favorable terms for their pharma exports than those expected to be levied on the sector globally. A European government official said that an announcement before the end of August appears unlikely but cautioned that the timeline could shift depending on other developments. A source at a European drugmaker said the Trump administration is focused on the US-Russia summit in Alaska on Friday and therefore no announcement is expected this week. The source familiar with the White House process said that announcement is unlikely to come this week given other priorities. That source and one other source said that they expect the Trump administration to announce the results of its national security investigation into semiconductors first, followed by the pharma announcement, putting it a few weeks away. The Section 232 provision authorizes the president to adjust imports - including imposing tariffs - if a category of goods is being imported into the United States in quantities that "threaten or impair the national security." Medical goods historically have been spared from trade wars due to the potential harm to patient access, and drugmakers have said tariffs could undercut other health policy goals outlined by the Trump administration, including lowering drug prices. US tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products would mark the latest in a series of sectoral tariffs announced by the administration, following metals and cars, that some economists have predicted will drive up costs for American consumers.
The Star
20 hours ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy, European leaders to speak to Trump ahead of Putin summit
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy attend a meeting on the sidelines of NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo BRUSSELS/LONDON/KYIV (Reuters) -Europe and Ukraine's leaders will speak to U.S. President Donald Trump at a virtual meeting on Wednesday ahead of his summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin, as they try to drive home the perils of selling out Kyiv's interests in pursuit of a ceasefire. Trump hosts Putin, a pariah in the West since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, at talks in Alaska on Friday that the U.S. president has said will serve as a "feel-out" meeting in his efforts to end the Russo-Ukraine war. Trump agreed last week to the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021, abruptly shifting course after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the U.S. peace imitative. Trump said his envoy had made "great progress" at talks in Moscow. The U.S. president says both Kyiv and Moscow will have to cede land to end the war. Russian troops have already occupied almost a fifth of Ukraine. The unpredictability of how the summit will play out has fuelled European fears that the U.S. and Russian leaders could take far-reaching decisions and even seek to coerce Ukraine into an unfavourable deal. "We are focusing now to ensure that it does not happen - engaging with U.S. partners and staying coordinated and united on the European side. Still a lot of time until Friday," said one senior official from eastern Europe. Trump's administration tempered expectations on Tuesday for major progress toward a ceasefire, calling his meeting with Putin in Alaska a "listening exercise." The video conference among Trump, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and the leaders of Germany, Finland, France, Britain, Italy, Poland and the European Union is expected to take place at 1200 GMT (1400 CET), a German government spokesperson said. NATO's secretary general will also attend the conference hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Ukraine hopes the meeting will serve - at least partially - as a European counterweight to the summit in Alaska. European leaders, who are wary of provoking Trump's ire, have repeatedly emphasised that they welcome his peace efforts, while underlining that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine's participation. Half a dozen senior European officials told Reuters that they see a risk of a deal being struck that is unfavourable for Europe and Ukraine's security. They said European unity would be vital if that happened. A source familiar with internal U.S. deliberations said it could not be ruled out that Trump would seek a deal directly with Putin without involving Ukraine or Europe. But the source voiced doubt about that, saying it could cause problems with Kyiv and the EU. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday the summit will be a "listening exercise" for Trump to hear what it will take to get to a deal. After the call, Trump and Vice President JD Vance were expected to speak to European leaders at a separate online meeting at 1300 GMT (1500 CET), the German spokesperson said. That will be followed at 1430 GMT by an online meeting of the "coalition of the willing", a group of countries working on plans to support Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. MOUNTING BATTLEFIELD PRESSURE A Gallup poll released last week found that 69% of Ukrainians favour a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also show Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means crushing concessions. Ahead of the calls, Zelenskiy said it would be impossible for Kyiv to agree to a deal that would require it to withdraw its troops from the eastern Donbas region, a large swathe of which is already occupied by Russia. That, he told reporters on Tuesday, would deprive Ukraine of a vast defensive network in the region, easing the way for Russia to mount a new push deeper into Ukraine in the future. Territorial issues, he added, could only be discussed once a ceasefire has been put in place and Ukraine has received security guarantees. Moscow's troops have recently ramped up pressure on the battlefield, tightening their stranglehold on the cities of Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka in eastern Ukraine. (Additional reporting by Sarah Marsh in Berlin and Steve Holland in Washington; editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Malay Mail
21 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Make or break in Alaska: Why the Trump-Putin summit could redefine the rules of peace — Phar Kim Beng
AUGUST 13 — On August 15, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. The announcement alone has injected new urgency — and uncertainty — into a conflict that has not only ravaged Ukraine but also strained the very principles of the international order. What makes this meeting 'make or break' is not just the prospect of peace but the terms under which it might be achieved. According to credible reports, Russia's conditions would 'lock in' its occupation of territories seized since the February 2022 invasion. The Kremlin's proposal reportedly demands Ukraine's withdrawal from areas in Luhansk and Donetsk that Kyiv still controls. In other words, Russia is seeking a settlement that formalises its control over large swathes of the Donbas in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. For Ukraine, this is a diplomatic nightmare. Not only would it mean ceding sovereign territory, but it would also set a precedent for rewarding military aggression. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it clear that no Ukrainian leader can legally or morally sign away territory. He has warned that surrendering these areas would hand Moscow a ready-made springboard for future offensives, rather than guaranteeing lasting peace. What is particularly alarming is Ukraine's exclusion from the Alaska meeting. This is no trivial oversight. It signals the possibility of deals being cut over Ukraine's fate without Ukrainian participation — violating the basic principle of 'no peace about Ukraine without Ukraine.' If this summit produces an agreement in which Kyiv is not a party, the legitimacy of the outcome will be fatally compromised. The risks extend far beyond Ukraine. The international system, particularly since the end of the Second World War, has been anchored in the principle that borders cannot be altered by force. This norm is not merely an idealistic slogan; it has been a practical bulwark against the chaos of unrestrained territorial conquest. Should the Alaska summit produce an agreement that legitimises Russia's occupation, it will send a dangerous message to other revisionist powers: force works, and obdurate patience pays. Exactly the values that go against the principle of non-aggression espoused by Asean. Putin's strategy is transparent. By continuing to consolidate his territorial gains while dangling the prospect of peace, he maximises Russia's leverage. The Kremlin's other reported demands — such as a pledge to halt Nato's eastward expansion — are designed to lock Ukraine into a security grey zone, too weak to defend itself and too isolated to deter future aggression. For Trump, the optics of brokering peace with Putin could be politically advantageous. He has hinted at 'land swaps' that, in his words, could benefit both sides. Yet, history warns us that peace purchased at the expense of sovereignty rarely holds. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is the most infamous example of a settlement that emboldened, rather than restrained, an aggressor. Then, as now, the desire to halt war in the short term risked planting the seeds for greater conflict later. The Alaska summit could also have far-reaching implications for Europe's security architecture. Nato, already tested by the war in Ukraine, will have to contend with the prospect of a member state — the United States — participating in an agreement that might weaken the alliance's deterrence posture. Russian traditional nesting dolls, known as Matryoshkas, with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump are placed on a shelf during a demonstration at a gift shop in central Moscow, Russia August 12, 2025. — Reuters pic For any genuine peace framework to emerge from Alaska, several non-negotiable elements must be present. First, Ukraine must be at the table. Peace cannot be imposed on a sovereign state by external powers, however influential. Second, any deal must come with robust, enforceable security guarantees, ideally backed by a coalition of states, to prevent a repeat of Russia's February 2022 invasion. Third, humanitarian issues — such as the return of abducted Ukrainian children — must be prioritised and resolved immediately. Fourth, an international monitoring mechanism must be established to oversee the implementation of any ceasefire and ensure compliance by both sides. Without these elements, any agreement will be little more than a temporary truce dressed up as a settlement. The stakes are not just territorial; they are about whether the post-Cold War security order can survive intact. Since 1945, the prohibition on territorial conquest has been one of the few near-universal norms in international relations. Breaking it in Ukraine will not just embolden Russia — it will encourage similar tactics in other regions where borders are contested, from the East to the South China Sea to the Caucasus. At the same time, dismissing the summit outright would be a mistake. The alternative — continued bloodshed, displacement, and economic destruction — remains intolerable. The Alaska summit is a rare opportunity. Used wisely, it could open a path to genuine reconciliation. Mishandled, it could mark the moment the rules-based order began to unravel in earnest, with which East Asia cannot but feel the future impacts too, including Asean. The world will be watching, not just for the handshake but for what it truly represents: peace at the expense of principle — or peace forged through principle. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
