Putin unleashes huge onslaught of 500 missiles & drones in night of hell for Ukraine as Nato warplanes scrambled
VLADIMIR Putin has unleashed another night of hell over Ukraine with a 500 missile and drone onslaught.
Nato was forced to scramble its warplanes after the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk was hit in an apocalyptic blast which turned the skies a crimson red overnight.
2
2
The city was attacked by Putin's forces with cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones simultaneously.
Four Kinzhal and seven Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles were also fired at Ukraine.
Putin ordered his Tu-95 strategic bombers and MiG aircraft to carry out the heinous air assaults.
It was the most powerful blitz on the city since the start of the war back in 2022.
Ukraine claimed to have downed 475 out of 537 aerial targets.
Poland's operational command quickly announced that Nato fighter jets were scrambled because of the intensity of the Russian onslaught.
They said in a statement: "Due to the attack by the Russian Federation carrying out strikes on objects located in the territory of Ukraine, Polish and allied aviation has begun operating in our airspace.
"The Operational Commander of the [armed forces] has activated all available forces and resources at his disposal.
"The on-duty fighter pairs have been scrambled, and the ground-based air defence and radar reconnaissance systems have reached the highest state of readiness.
"The steps taken are aimed at ensuring security in the areas bordering the threatened areas."
Putin also mounted attacks across much of Ukraine in what is reported to be one of the heaviest bombardments of the three year conflict so far.
A missile strike on Zaporizhzhia left an industrial facility on fire.
Mykolaiv and Donetsk region were also both badly hit.
The Russians targeted Lviv in western Ukraine as well.
Mayor Andriy Sadovyi said Russian forces attempted to strike critical infrastructure, but no civilians or residential buildings were damaged.
A Ukrainian F-16 supersonic fighter supplied by the West was shot down with the loss of a 'hero' pilot amid a desperate operation to counter 500-plus strikes by Vladimir Putin's forces.
Pilot Lt-Col Maksym Ustimenko, born in 1993, shot down seven air targets using all his weapons before he was hit.
'The pilot used the entire complex of on-board weapons, and shot down seven air targets,' said the Ukrainian air force.
'During the last exercise, his plane was damaged and began to lose altitude.
'Maksym Ustimenko did everything possible, took the plane away from a settlement, but did not have time to eject...
'He died like a Hero!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer says he lost grip on Labour welfare revolt due to focus on foreign affairs
Keir Starmer has said he did not get a grip on the Labour rebellion over disability benefits earlier because he was focused on foreign affairs. The prime minister acknowledged he had not got it right, and said he would have wanted to make the concessions earlier. 'I'd have liked to get to a better position with colleagues sooner than we did,' Starmer said in an interview with the Sunday Times. 'I'm putting this as context rather than an excuse. 'I was heavily focused on what was happening with Nato and the Middle East all weekend. From the moment I got back from the G7, I went straight into a Cobra meeting. My full attention really bore down on this on Thursday. At that point, we were able to move relatively quickly.' He insisted there had been 'a lot of outreach' over the bill to backbench MPs but acknowledged more should have been done. 'Would I rather have been able to get to a constructive package with colleagues earlier? Yeah, I would. [But] I believe in the world we live in, not the world we want to live in,' he said. It is Starmer's third admission of having taken the wrong course in recent days, indicating he may be moving to try to reset his premiership. He gave an interview to the Observer saying he 'deeply regrets' having used the phrase 'island of strangers' about immigration and that he made the wrong choice in having originally appointed former civil servant Sue Gray to be his shortlived chief of staff. Starmer will be attempting this week to draw a line under the welfare rebellion, with whips working to persuade Labour MPs to back the bill with new concessions on Tuesday. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, offered the changes at midnight last Thursday, which would protect all existing claimants of personal independence payment (Pip) and raise the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, dozens of Labour MPs remain unconvinced, with No 10 facing a battle over the next 48 hours to minimise the size of the revolt. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said he is confident the government will win the vote on Tuesday, telling Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that the changes 'have put us in a much better position'. 'As a result of the changes, it means anyone watching this morning who's in receipt of personal independence payments now has the peace of mind of knowing that their situation is protected,' he said. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion One of the original leading rebels, Louise Haigh, a former transport secretary, said she would now vote in favour, as long as the details confirmed the changes promised by Kendall. But she said Starmer should now reset the government's relationship with the public and backbenchers. She told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme it was welcome that Starmer has 'acknowledged that mistakes have been made and that things need to change'. 'I think this is a moment and an opportunity to reset the government's relationship with the British public and to move forward, to adopt a different approach to our economic policy and our political strategy,' she said. 'And I think that has been accepted from within government and a lot of people, both in the parliamentary Labour party, but crucially, the country will really welcome that.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Farage dubbed ‘wolf in Wall Street clothing' over cabinet plan
Nigel Farage 's Reform UK is attempting to attract business leaders by promising them ministerial positions if the party wins the next general election. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer criticised Mr Farage's proposal, labelling him a "wolf in Wall Street clothing" who "has no idea what he's talking about". A recent poll indicated Reform UK could become Britain's largest party, potentially enabling Mr Farage to form a minority government with 271 MPs. The same poll suggested a significant decline in Labour's popularity, potentially reducing their seats from 403 to 178. Proposals to appoint non-elected business leaders as ministers, potentially through peerages, have been controversial in the past due to concerns about democratic accountability.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Is surveillance by private operators legal in the UK?
The surveillance industry operates in the shadows. For a big enough fee, former members of the special forces, intelligence agencies and police forces conduct sophisticated operations for multinationals, oligarchs and global law firms. Jealous spouses and insurance companies can hire investigators to snoop for a few hundred pounds. Some of the methods used seem intrusive, even unethical – but are they unlawful? Surveillance operatives working for UK state agencies – the National Crime Agency, say, or MI5 – have specific laws governing what they can and cannot legally do. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, introduced by Tony Blair's government in 2000, is among the main ones. These statutes set out how surveillance should be authorised and carried out, and provide for independent oversight in some cases. There is, though, no equivalent for operatives in the private sector. In other words, hired spies can follow you, gather information on you, and pass what they find on to their clients – all perfectly legally. The private intelligence industry has no dedicated regulator and there is no single surveillance law. That does not mean there is no legislation operatives have to be mindful of. Like anyone else, they cannot break into houses, hack, trespass or blag private information. Elsewhere the legal position is grey. What distinguishes surveillance from stalking, for example? Repeated behaviour that causes distress could amount to harassment – but maybe not if an operative maintains there is a legitimate purpose to following a target. To stay within the UK's data protection legislation, surveillance operatives must have a legitimate purpose for gathering personal information without consent. They must hold it safely and delete it once they are finished with it. Some surveillance could amount to misuse of private information, potentially in breach of the Human Rights Act. There could be a public interest justification – when the purpose is, say, to expose corruption. Such a defence looks harder to make if the client is an authoritarian state or a multinational corporation. Of course, targets can only take steps to check whether the methods used against them are legitimate if they discover the surveillance. Occasionally, surveillance is 'overt' – the target is supposed to know they are being watched, perhaps to intimidate them. Usually, these operations are covert, sometimes using skills acquired in some of the world's best military and espionage training programmes. If all goes to plan, the target never finds out. And even if the client makes use of the information, the identities of the operatives are seldom revealed. On the infrequent occasions that targets of surveillance not only rumble the operation but identify who carried it out, they have sometimes brought civil legal claims. This typically requires years of civil litigation at great personal expense. Even the richest claimants tend to settle. Several of the companies that advertise their services offer to place trackers on targets' vehicles. This would seem to be legal provided it is done in compliance with data protection and other laws. The animal welfare campaigner Wendy Valentine's 2011 harassment claim against Bernard Matthews and the private investigator she said attached a tracker to her car ended when the turkey-farming corporation paid her £17,000 in a settlement. Until more cases come to judgment, surveillance operators and their targets will not know who has the law on their side.
