Trump and Zelenskyy to speak after Russia strikes Ukraine hospital following Trump-Putin call
Kyiv, Ukraine —
President Trump is speaking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Wednesday, sources familiar with the planned call said, after Russia launched a series of drone strikes that struck civilian areas overnight and damaged a hospital in
Ukraine
. That attack came just ours after a phone call between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In that call, the Russian leader refused to back a full
30-day ceasefire
. Mr. Trump
had said that Putin agreed
during the call to immediately halt attacks "on all energy and infrastructure" in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Wednesday, however, that Russia's attacks continued to hit his country's civilian and energy infrastructure, despite Putin's purported agreement with Mr. Trump. Zelenskyy said Moscow's refusal to halt all strikes on proved the need for increased pressure on Moscow to prevent Putin from prolonging the war.
"This confirms that we must continue to pressure Russia for the sake of peace," he said Tuesday night. "Only a real halt to Russia's attacks on civilian infrastructure can signal a genuine desire to end this war and bring peace closer."
The White House described the call between Mr. Trump and Putin as the first step in a "movement to peace" that it hopes will include a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea and eventually a full and lasting end to the fighting. But there was no indication that Putin has backed away from his conditions for a prospective peace deal, which are fiercely opposed by Kyiv.
According to the Russian government's readout of the leaders' phone call, Putin reiterated that for a full ceasefire, Moscow would require a complete cutoff of all military and intelligence support for Kyiv from the U.S. and its Western partners. Those terms were not mentioned by the White House on Tuesday.
"I do not believe that we should make any concessions in terms of assistance for Ukraine, but rather there should be an increase in assistance for Ukraine," Zelenskyy said Wednesday, reaction to the seemingly unchanged Russian demands.
Shortly after Mr. Trump and Putin wrapped up their lengthy phone call, air raid sirens sounded in Kyiv, followed by explosions as residents took shelter.
Despite efforts to repel the attack, several strikes hit civilian infrastructure, including a direct drone strike on a hospital in Sumy and attacks on cities in Donetsk region. Russian drones were also reported over Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Sumy, Chernihiv, Poltava, Kharkiv, Kirovohrad, Dnipropetrovsk, and Cherkasy regions.
Emergency services said the hospital in Sumy was damaged and that about 150 patients were evacuated, but they did not report any casualties. That drone strike was first reported by top Zelenskyy aide Andriy Yermak, who, in
a social media post
about six hours after Mr. Trump's call with Putin ended, said, "Russia is attacking civilian infrastructure and people right now," mentioning specifically the attack on the health facility.
Speaking Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused Ukraine of "countering our common (Russian-American) efforts" by attacking Russia's infrastructure. Peskov claimed Russia's military had taken action Tuesday to halt its own planned attack on Ukraine's energy infrastructure in the wake of the Trump-Putin call, including shooting down seven of its own drones.
He claimed Ukraine had time to do the same, reversing its own drone attack on Russia, but that it had chosen not to.
The Russian Defense Ministry said earlier Wednesday that its air defenses had intercepted 57 Ukrainian drones over the Azov Sea and several Russian regions — the border provinces of Kursk and Bryansk and the nearby regions of Oryol and Tula.
Separately, authorities in the Krasnodar region bordering the Crimean Peninsula, which was occupied and then unilaterally annexed by Russia in 2014 and remains under Moscow's control, reported that a drone attack there had started a fire at an oil depot.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East vulnerable to counterattack
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has at least 40,000 reasons to worry about the aftermath of Saturday's attack on Iran. That's the rough number of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, in bases from Bahrain to Syria and points in between. Not to mention U.S. citizens who live and work in the region. Commanders over the past two weeks have beefed up defenses and put troops on higher alert for attack, according to a senior Defense official. Those service members are vulnerable to counterattacks that could involve Iranian ballistic missiles, drones or terrorism after the United States joined Israel in its ongoing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran can strike 'all of them,' a U.S. Defense official said. Prime targets include Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the Pentagon's sprawling hub for warplanes in the Middle East. There are about 10,000 U.S. troops based there. The threat is real. Iran launched 13 ballistic missiles at U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2020. That attack, which wounded about 100 U.S. troops, followed the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani, leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, part of the country's hardline paramilitary Revolutionary Guard Corps. Trump hailed the June 21 attack as a "spectacular" success. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," Trump said in a live address, threatening further strikes if Tehran did not agree to U.S. terms. The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was likely spearheaded by the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bomb that can burrow deep into the earth before unleashing a huge explosion. More: How does a bunker-buster bomb work? A closer look at the GBU-57 This week, to bolster protection for Americans in the Middle East, the Pentagon has begun shifting more firepower to the region, including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group, which is days away from arriving. Those ships will join others capable of shooting down ballistic missiles. The added warplanes from the Nimitz and others in the region would be able to deliver a devastating response in Iran if they did attack U.S. troops, according to the U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Asked whether there were adequate protections in place to repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson pointed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's X post on June 16. Hegseth noted the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the region and that the protection of U.S. troops is 'our top priority.' On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 'maximum protection' measures were in place. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat on the committee, said he found Hegseth unconvincing. 'I was really disappointed that he failed to offer greater assurance that we have taken active measures to protect U.S. personnel, both military and civilian, in the event of a strike by the United States,' Blumenthal said in an interview. 'I asked specifically about drones and possibility of using them against American targets. I had no real comfort that there are adequate plans to stop or deflect such attacks.' Dispatching the Nimitz strike group is a good step, Blumenthal said. But he questioned the ships' ability to stop terrorist attacks or swarms of drones. Blumenthal also noted that Iran may have the ability to mount drone attacks from within the United States. He pointed to Ukraine's devastating drone attack on Russian warplanes deep inside its border. Israel, too, used drones smuggled into Iran as part of its attack. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 40,000 U.S. troops at risk after attack on Iran
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran.
If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else would allow him to act. Shortly before 8 p.m. ET on June 21, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear program sites, including the difficult to penetrate Fordow enrichment facility. After days of deliberation, Trump decided that the only way to ensure Iran could not obtain nuclear weapons was through U.S. military action. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was strategically the right move and a just action. Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and this attack appears to have prevented that in the near term. However, there is another important question: Was the U.S. attack constitutional? Opinion: Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran. Did Congress approve Iran bombing? Can Trump legally strike without it? There has been much debate surrounding the question of whether the president can act militarily without Congress' approval. House members on both sides of the aisle have indicated they think the president needs congressional approval. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, posted on X immediately after Trump announced the strike. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, stated on X. It is true that the power to declare war belongs to Congress, but that fact is muddied by legislation governing the president's authority. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying American troops if a formal declaration of war has not already been declared. The resolution also requires that the president withdraw any forces deployed in a conflict within 60 days if Congress has not formally declared war. The law was intended as a constriction of presidents' authority to start a war. Yet, in practice it has done the opposite. Rather than using military action simply to respond to an imminent attack, presidents have read the statute as a license to act for 60 days without congressional approval. Another view: Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion There is a cautious balance in the war powers between the president and Congress. The president is the commander in chief, and the job requires him to deal with immediate threats. Congress is a slow moving body, and cannot possibly react to imminent national defense threats. Yet, war authority lies with Congress, and the president would need congressional approval to launch a massive ground war in a foreign nation, both practically and constitutionally. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, but it has passed resolutions authorizing force during more recent conflicts. Trump likely had authority to strike Iran Trump probably has the facts on his side in this instance. Iran has previously threatened to attack the United States, and it was rapidly approaching the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, according to Israeli intelligence. If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else, short of an actual invasion of the homeland, would allow for him to act. Iran has been attacking American ships through their proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. America has responded with air strikes against them. Striking against Iran directly is no different. History also is on Trump's side. President Barack Obama, to cite just one example, acted in the same way by ordering American military action in Libya. Other experts have pointed out that Iran's harboring of fugitives involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks opens up a different path for congressional approval. The president has the authority to act against nations harboring terrorists who were involved in the largest terror attacks ever launched on American soil. Trump's bombing of Iran is not out of line with the actions of past presidents, and it fits within the president's authority to act against imminent threats. While Trump would need congressional approval to launch a prolonged armed conflict against Iran, he has history and the facts on his side in this case. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are Latin American travelers still coming to the US for vacations?
Even though Karen Aguayo lives in central Mexico – a short flight away from the United States – she has yet to visit, and has no plans to. The 35-year-old Mexican national was hoping to make her first trip to the U.S. this year to visit her uncle, and even has a visa to visit the country. However, given the political climate, it feels like too much of a gamble for her safety. She went to Italy instead. Under President Donald Trump's flurry of executive orders signed in January, the goal was to "strengthen national security," including cracking down on immigration, increasing scrutiny at our borders, and imposing a travel ban on numerous countries. Earlier this year, the president also ignited a trade war between the U.S. and China, Mexico, Europe and Canada when he announced a skyrocket in tariffs – a move that upset nationals. 'Don't know how we should behave': Is the US South LGBTQ friendly? Aguayo said she's worried about being denied entry at the airport, along with how she may be treated while in the U.S., such as possible anti-Mexican sentiment. "It's not only me, I believe that many people think the same. They'd rather feel welcome in other countries," said Aguayo, who posts videos about travel in Mexico on her YouTube channel La Karencita. "Now I'm in Europe because I feel that people are more open to make you feel welcome and safe; nothing happens here." Since Trump's inauguration it feels like conflict and policies within the U.S. have been constantly changing, Aguayo said. "Maybe this is not the time to go." A recent example that deters her from visiting is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that swept through the greater Los Angeles area in response to Trump's vow of 1 million annual deportations of undocumented immigrants. Subsequent days-long protests against ICE escalated into violence between law enforcement and demonstrators, resulting in the president deploying the U.S. National Guard. While some Latin Americans are moving forward with their trips to the U.S., others are holding back due to safety concerns, a potentially hostile atmosphere or disagreement over the volatile political landscape under the Trump administration. A slowdown from this group of travelers could have a lasting impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. has long been a popular destination for Latin Americans, with Mexico standing out as the second-largest demographic of visitor arrivals after Canada and contributing to an estimated $21 billion toward the American economy in 2018, according to the U.S. Travel Association. These travelers pausing their U.S. visits aren't swearing off the U.S. forever, but their hesitation shows the country's current political actions aren't going unnoticed. Latin American travelers conflicted over US travel Although some Latin American travelers are reconsidering visiting the U.S., many continue with their travel plans, especially Mexican nationals. Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) data between March 2024 and 2025 for Mexican arrivals to the U.S. showed a growth of 14.9% – comprising 26.7% of international visitors to the country, just slightly under Canadians. According to Expedia, many of the top U.S. destinations are still popular with Mexican travelers. For travel between May and June 30, lodging searches by Mexican nationals focused on cities like New York, Las Vegas, San Diego, Anaheim and Orlando. Emerging destinations showing increased interest include Charlotte, San Jose, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale and Fort Worth. For the same travel period, airfare to the U.S. from Mexico is averaging below $575, with fluctuations depending on the arrival state. In some parts of Latin America, travel to the U.S. is on the decline. Although data from the National Travel and Tourism Office's International Visitor Arrivals Program (ADIS) shows U.S. travel demand for 2025 remains strong in countries like Brazil and Argentina, overall visitor numbers from South and Central America have dropped. From this past March to last, South American arrivals decreased by around 6% and over 35% for the Central Americans. 'We are seeing varying trends in demand for US travel across Latin America," the online booking platform Skyscanner said in a statement. "What we do know is that since the pandemic travelers are more engaged with travel warnings and advisories and these will likely influence demand." 'Everything is changing so fast' Alan Estrada, a 44-year-old Mexican travel content creator who shares his journeys under Alan Around the World, frequently travels to the U.S. for work. He recently attended the opening of the new theme park Epic Universe in Orlando and was also in Washington, D.C., earlier this month for the World Pride Music Festival. In July, the Mexico City-based traveler will visit New York for an event with one of his sponsors. Most of Estrada's U.S. visits are for work reasons, and he said he doesn't have any upcoming leisure trips planned. This is not only due to tensions like the ICE riots, but also the potential for other U.S. issues to escalate, like involvement in the war between Israel and Iran. "I'm not saying I won't do it," he said about going to the U.S. for pleasure. It's just that now is not the right time, he said. Although he's never had any issues with immigration, border control or hostility from Americans, the U.S. political landscape is on Estrada's radar. "Everything is changing so fast and can escalate from one day to another really, really quickly," said Estrada. "So, we have to be informed and aware all the time." About half of Estrada's audience is Mexican and most others live throughout Latin America. Lately, he's noticed a majority of comments on his social media channels and website – where people can call or email for travel advice – are about visiting the U.S. "There are some people in the comments saying like, 'is it safe to go to the U.S.' or 'please don't go to the U.S.,' depending on the political views of my followers," he said. "I can feel the people kind of worry a little bit about what's happening right now." Estrada believes the rise in concern comes from a mix of being more "cautious," disagreeing with American politics, and not finding the high price of travel to the U.S. to be worth it. As many situations remain unresolved, these travelers' decision to visit the U.S. is in the air. "The thing that I would need to see is not seeing people protesting because I think that's one sign that everything is getting uncomfortable, and not seeing the president talking about immigrants, about changing the rules," Aguayo, of La Karencita, said. Although Aguayo has never been to the U.S., it's not a priority for her either. In the meantime, she's content traveling the rest of the world.
