Ukraine says it struck a Russian air base as Russia sent hundreds of drones into Ukraine
Ukraine's military General Staff said that Ukrainian forces had struck the Borisoglebsk air base in Russia's Voronezh region, describing it as the home base of Russia's Su-34, Su-35S and Su-30SM fighter jets.
Writing on Facebook, the General Staff said it hit a depot containing glide bombs, a training aircraft and 'possibly other aircraft.'
Russian officials did not immediately comment on the attack.
Such attacks on Russian air bases aim to dent Russia's military capability and demonstrate Ukraine's capability to hit high-value targets in Russia. Last month, Ukraine said it destroyed more than 40 Russian planes stationed at several airfields deep in Russia's territory in a surprise drone attack.
Russia fired 322 drones and decoys into Ukraine overnight into Saturday, Ukraine's air force said. Of these, 157 were shot down and 135 were lost, likely having been electronically jammed.
According to the air force, Ukraine's western Khmelnytskyi region was the main target of the attack. Regional Gov. Serhii Tyurin said Saturday that no damage, injuries or deaths had been reported.
Russia has been stepping up its long-range attacks on Ukraine. Waves of drones and missiles targeted Kyiv overnight into Friday in the largest aerial assault since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began. On Saturday, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the number of people killed in the assault had increased to two. A further 31 people were wounded.
The fresh wave of attacks came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday that he had a 'very important and productive' phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump.
The two leaders discussed how Ukrainian air defenses might be strengthened, possible joint weapons production between the U.S. and Ukraine, and broader U.S-led efforts to end the war with Russia, according to a statement by Zelenskyy.
Asked Friday night by reporters about the call, Trump said, 'We had a very good call, I think.'
When asked about finding a way to end the fighting, Trump said: 'I don't know. I can't tell you whether or not that's going to happen.'
The U.S. has paused some shipments of military aid to Ukraine, including crucial air defense missiles. Ukraine's main European backers are considering how they can help pick up the slack. Zelenskyy says plans are afoot to build up Ukraine's domestic arms industry, but scaling up will take time.
Russia's Defense Ministry said it shot down 94 Ukrainian drones overnight into Saturday, along with 45 further drones Saturday morning and early afternoon. No casualties were reported, but local officials in the Saratov region said 25 apartments were damaged by Ukrainian drones in the city of Engels.
Four Ukrainian drones were shot down while approaching Moscow on Saturday, according to Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin. Air traffic was briefly halted as a precaution at one of Moscow's airports, Sheremetyevo, Russia's aviation authority Rosaviatsiya said.
Morton writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
NATO Chief Weighs In on Military Conscription Across Europe
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Each European country will decide independently on whether to introduce military conscription, NATO's secretary-general has said, as the continent forges ahead with its rapid defense ramp up. Why It Matters NATO's European members, plus Canada, are in the middle of a massive defense push, reinvesting in their military after years of leaning heavily on the United States. America has tens of thousands of troops and a host of major bases in Europe, but President Donald Trump—a vociferous NATO skeptic—has demanded that alliance members commit to spending 5 percent of GDP on defense. Many had struggled to hit the 2 percent NATO target as Trump took office. But the alliance inked a pledge in June to reach Trump's figure of 5 percent, a huge leap in military spending for most NATO countries. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon What To Know It is "up to individual countries to decide" whether to put conscription in place, NATO chief Mark Rutte told The New York Times. "Some countries will do it," Rutte said, speaking shortly after the NATO summit in The Hague in late June. "Others will not do it, but it will mean, in general, paying good salaries for our men and women in uniform." Several NATO countries in Europe already have different models of conscription, the need felt much more keenly on the alliance's eastern flank, staring down Russia. The nations with conscription typically also emphasize making sure their societies are ready for war, including by issuing public guides on how to cope during conflict. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have stormed ahead in raising defense spending, all have conscription, as do several of the Nordic countries. Turkey and Greece also have conscription. Other countries, like the U.K., have militaries solely made up of volunteer professional soldiers. In Finland, which joined NATO shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, men must complete mandatory military service before heading into the reserve force. Finland shares hundreds of miles of border with Russia. Sweden, which also became a NATO member after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, reinstituted conscription in 2017. Conscripts train with the Swedish military, and are put into a wartime unit to join if the government activates mobilization or high alerts. In Norway, conscription is obligatory yet very selective, applying to men and women. Denmark recently changed its laws on conscription, meaning women must also present themselves to be assessed for military service as they turn 18. Women previously joined the military purely on a volunteer basis. Rutte said he was "particularly worried" about Europe's ability to roll out large amounts of military equipment. Russia is "on a war footing in every sense," Rutte said, adding: "The size of the military, what they're investing in, in their tanks, in air defense systems, in their artillery, in ammunition—it is amazing." Rutte said during the NATO summit that the alliance will invest in a "five-fold increase" in air defense capabilities, as well as "thousands more tanks and armored vehicles" and millions of artillery rounds. What People Are Saying NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said: "We simply lack the defense industrial base to produce the weapons we need to make sure that we can deter the Russians or the North Koreans or whoever to attack us."
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
To tame Washington, we need a DOGE 2.0 — but done right this time
Elon Musk has repeatedly achieved the impossible, but not even he and his Department of Government Efficiency could tame Washington, DC, and its massive federal bureaucracy. Yet there's still hope — and the need has never been more urgent. The Senate parliamentarian gutted major cost savings at the heart of the Republican reconciliation bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday, so he must resume DOGE efforts immediately. Advertisement In Silicon Valley terms, DOGE had product-market fit; it just didn't have the right tech stack. This time, the White House must get the architecture right. Step 1 is understanding what went wrong. DOGE's failures stemmed from three fundamental flaws that doomed the effort from the start. The first was structural. Don Devine, who ran the Office of Personnel Management for President Ronald Reagan, warned that creating a new agency to shrink government never works — it only causes confusion, diffusion of responsibility and more bureaucracy. Advertisement It also ignores that in Washington, the coin of the realm is power. DOGE was a new agency made up out of thin air with zero inherent legal authority — and Cabinet secretaries naturally bristled at an outside third party meddling in their agencies. They wanted to control the change, and they possessed the legal authority to do so. Indeed, as secretaries were confirmed, they moved quickly to throw off DOGE's yoke. Advertisement By late February, Musk faced a revolt as top officials countermanded DOGE's 'five weekly accomplishments' order. An 'explosive' Cabinet meeting in early March ended with Trump telling Musk to make changes with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Musk's second problem was a legal one. Private-sector experience can't prepare anyone for the labyrinth of administrative law that liberal activists use to stymie progress. DOGE lacked a dedicated legal team within the Justice Department focused solely on its policy reforms and preventing unforced errors. For example, DOGE lowered NIH's cap on allowable research overhead from 69% to 15%, explaining that private foundations allow for zero such funding — but it made the cap retroactive, jeopardizing the reform in court. Advertisement The third sin was flash. Even as DOGE's publicity invited legal challenges, it increased the pressure to meet publicly proclaimed, wildly optimistic targets. DOGE's $1 trillion in promised cuts will strain to hit $150 billion. We had a saying in the White House during Trump's first term, and it proved true here: Whales that surface get harpooned. Musk acknowledged as much on X last week, admitting that his attention-getting antics 'lacked empathy.' Fortunately, the source code exists to reengineer the DOGE mission with bold, swift, high-impact moves. The White House must implement three critical components to make DOGE 2.0 work. First, empower Cabinet control: The White House should give Cabinet secretaries direction, then let them make reforms themselves. Trump must give each Cabinet member mandatory workforce reduction goals, the same way tech sales teams have strict quotas. Faced with a requirement, for example, to trim 25% within six months, agency heads will snap into action — and will feel personal responsibility for performance. The federal government works best when it functions as designed, with the president — not a third party — telling his Cabinet what to do. Advertisement Second, the White House must assemble a dedicated legal defense team within the Justice Department focused solely on reform policies, and get each agency's general counsel on board with the effort. These lawyers will catch pitfalls early — and will go the extra mile to defend policies they helped write. For example, these lawyers must aggressively demand injunction bonds to rein in activists' district-court lawfare. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Advertisement When the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions last week, it left activist judges a 'significant loophole' in the class-action realm. DOJ lawyers should head this off by demanding that plaintiffs pay injunction bonds — upfront money to cover costs should they lose. Finally, DOGE 2.0 must execute in Stealth Mode. Follow the example of the Obama administration, which initially pursued amnesty for undocumented aliens by relaxing enforcement via phone calls, without making a public announcement. This made it much harder for Congress to learn what was happening — or to attack it in court. Advertisement The same quiet execution model applies here: Trump must pursue smart, quiet rollouts, not splashy launches. This was the model my former boss John McEntee used to reform personnel in Trump's first term. He used the authorities inherent in the White House to hold the Cabinet accountable, placed dedicated lawyers in key positions of authority and operated off-the-record. It was a successful model and should be deployed again. Advertisement Watching Musk leave Washington in frustration brings to mind the Roman historian Livy. As the Republic collapsed, he lamented: 'We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.' America need not repeat Rome's fate — but only if we abandon failed approaches and embrace methods that actually work. The clock is ticking. Daniel Huff is a former White House lawyer in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and was a senior advisor to Project 2025.
