Russia fires over 100 drones at Ukraine as Kremlin dismisses transport chief after travel chaos
At least 10 civilians were killed and 38 injured, including three children, in Russian attacks over the previous 24 hours, Ukrainian officials said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump says he'll send new weapons to Ukraine
President Donald Trump said Monday he plans to send additional defensive weapons to Ukraine after his administration paused certain shipments last week. 'We're going to send some more weapons. We have to – they have to be able to defend themselves,' Trump said ahead of a dinner with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu. 'They're getting hit very hard. We're going to have to send more weapons,' Trump added. 'Defensive weapons, primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard.' The president's latest remarks come after a senior White House official told CNN last week the Trump administration was pausing some weapons shipments to Ukraine, including air defense missiles. The decision came after a review of military spending and American support to foreign countries that was signed off by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said at the time that the decision was made 'to put America's interests first.' Some US officials insinuated the review of aid to Ukraine was related in part to the Pentagon's push to focus on China and be prepared for potential future conflict in the Pacific – an issue prioritized by the Pentagon's policy chief, Elbridge Colby. 'The Department of Defense continues to provide the President with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end. At the same time, the Department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving US forces' readiness for Administration defense priorities,' Colby said in a statement at the time of the pause. Russia welcomed the halt in certain shipments to Ukraine, claiming – without providing any evidence – it was made because the US did not have enough weapons. The US has been the biggest single donor of military aid to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, supplying Ukraine with air defense systems, drones, rocket launchers, radars, tanks and anti-armor weapons, leading to concerns over dwindling US stockpiles. Trump previously halted all shipments of military aid to Ukraine in March following a heated Oval Office argument with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump resumed aid flows to Ukraine about a week later. The decision to send additional weapons also comes after Trump spoke separately last week with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky. He said afterward his talk with Putin was disappointing and there was 'no progress' towards a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Zelensky in recent weeks has been pleading with Western allies to bolster his nation's aerial defenses after intensifying Russian airborne attacks. Russia launched a record number of drones at Ukraine overnight on Friday, just hours after the Trump-Putin phone call. Trump later Friday said the US was considering Ukraine's request for more Patriot defense systems after a 'very good' phone call with Zelensky. The Ukrainian president said on Saturday that latest conversation with Trump was the best and 'most productive' he has had. Trump on Monday reaffirmed his displeasure with the Russian leader, saying: 'I'm not happy with President Putin at all.' CNN's Kaanita Iyer contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who's Running American Defense Policy?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Remember when the United States engaged in an act of war against a country of some 90 million people by sending its B-2 bombers into battle? No? Well, you can be forgiven for letting it slip your mind; after all, it was more than two weeks ago. Besides, you've probably been distracted by more recent news. The United States has halted some weapons shipments to Ukraine, despite the increased Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities as Moscow continues its campaign of mass murder. Fortunately, last Thursday Donald Trump got right on the horn to his friend in Russia, President Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, Putin apparently told Trump to pound sand. 'I didn't make any progress with him today at all,' Trump said to reporters before boarding Air Force One. Meanwhile, the president has decided to review AUKUS, the 2021 security pact between the United States, Australia, and Great Britain, a move that caught U.S. diplomats (and their colleagues in Canberra and London) off guard and has generated concern about the future of the arrangement. Technically, the president didn't decide to review it, but rather his handpicked secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, did. Well, it wasn't him, either; apparently, the review was ordered by someone you've likely never heard of: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, a career-long Beltway denizen who initiated the process on his own. But at least someone's keeping an eye on Asia: CNN is reporting, based on a Ukrainian intelligence report, that North Korea is planning to send as many as 30,000 more soldiers to assist Russia in its war of conquest. Of course, this is largely based on a single source, but Pyongyang has already sent at least 10,000 troops into the European battlefield over the past nine months, and things are going poorly for Russia's hapless conscripts, so perhaps a deal really is in the works to provide the Kremlin with another shipment of foreign cannon fodder. All of this raises an obvious question: Who's running America's foreign and defense policies? It's not the president, at least not on most issues. Trump's interest in foreign policy, as with so many other topics, is capricious and episodic at best. He flits away from losing issues, leaving them to others. He promised to end the war in Ukraine in a day, but after conceding that making peace is 'more difficult than people would have any idea,' the president has since shrugged and given up. It's not Marco Rubio—you may remember that he is technically the secretary of state, but he seems to have little power in this White House. It's not Hegseth, who can't seem to stop talking about 'lethality' and trans people long enough to deliver a real briefing that isn't just a fawning performance for Trump. (As bad as Hegseth can be, he seems almost restrained next to the State Department's spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, whose comments about Trump—she thanks God for him from her podium and says he is 'saving this country and the world'—have an unsettling Pyongyang-newsreader lilt to them.) It's not the national security adviser. That's also Rubio. Apparently, American defense policy is being run by Bridge Colby, and perhaps a few other guys somewhere in the greater Washington metropolitan area. Their influence is not always obvious. The order to halt shipments, for example, came from Hegseth, but the original idea was reportedly driven by Colby, who backed the moves because, according to NBC, he has 'long advocated scaling back the U.S. commitment in Ukraine and shifting weapons and resources to the Pacific region to counter China.' (Per the NBC reporting, an analysis from the Joint Staff showed that Colby is wrong to think of this as an either-or situation; the Ukrainians need weapons that the U.S. wouldn't even be using in a conflict in the Pacific.) In this administration, the principals are either incompetent or detached from most of the policy making, and so decisions are being made at lower levels without much guidance from above. In Trump's first term, this kind of dysfunction was a lucky break, because the people at those lower levels were mostly career professionals who at least knew how to keep the lights on. In Trump's second term, though, many of those professionals have been either silenced or outright replaced by loyalists and inexperienced appointees. Ironically, allowing various lower offices to fill the policy void empowers the unknown appointees whom MAGA world claims to hate in other administrations. The Trump White House's policy process—insofar as it can be called a 'process'—is the type found in many authoritarian states, where the top levels of government tackle the one or two big things the leader wants done and everything else tumbles down to other functionaries, who can then drive certain issues according to their own preferences (which seems to be what Colby is doing), or who will do just enough to stay under the boss's radar and out of trouble (which seems to be what most other Trump appointees are doing). In such a system, no one is really in charge except Trump—which means that on most days, and regarding many issues, no one is in charge. In Trump's current administration, irrational tariffs and brutal immigration enforcement are the two big ideas. Both have foreign-policy ramifications, but they are being pursued by Trump and his team primarily as domestic political issues. Everything else is on the periphery of the White House's vision: Pakistan and India, nuclear weapons, the Middle East (or nuclear weapons and the Middle East), the Ukraine war. All of these get Trump's temporary attention in the form of a quick evaluation of their utility to Trump personally, and then they're dumped back outside the door of the Oval Office. Even the Iran strike—one of the most important military actions taken by the United States in years—has apparently lost its luster for the president. Trump said that Iran's nuclear program was 'obliterated'; other parts of the U.S. defense and intelligence communities said they weren't sure; Israel thanked America; Trump moved on. This might be because the political advantage of the bombings never materialized: The American public disapproved of Trump's actions, and so the president is now looking for some other shiny object. Today, that trinket seems to be in Gaza. Over the weekend, Trump claimed that he has a 'good chance' of making a deal, perhaps in the coming week, with Hamas for the release of more hostages. This is foreign policy in the Trump era: Announce deals, push their resolution out a week or two, and hope they happen. If they don't—move on and declare success, regardless of any actual outcomes. No one in Trump's administration has any incentive to fix this, because serious changes would be admissions of failure. Repopulating the National Security Council with people who know what they're doing means admitting they were needed in the first place. Hegseth or top people resigning would admit the enormity of the mistake that Trump made in hiring them. Reining in policy freelancers and curtailing the power of lower-level policy makers (as Rubio has at least tried to do with regard to diplomacy) is to admit that senior leaders have lost control of their departments. This administration was never directed or staffed with any coherent foreign policy in mind beyond Trump's empty 'America First' sloganeering. Less than a year into his second term, it's clear that the goals of Trump's 2024 run for the presidency were, in order of importance, to keep Trump out of prison, to exact revenge on Trump's enemies, and to allow Trump and his allies to enrich themselves by every possible means. No one had to think much about who would defend America or conduct its diplomacy; Trump's appointees were apparently chosen largely for shock value and trolling efficacy rather than competence. The rest of the world's most powerful nations, however, are led by grown-ups and professionals. Some of them are enemies of the United States and are quite dangerous. Undersecretary Colby has had some bad ideas, but Americans had better hope that he and the handful of other guys trying to run things know what they're doing. Related: A crisis is no time for amateurs. The one-and-done doctrine Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Political violence usually gets worse before it gets better. Anne Applebaum: The U.S. is switching sides. The man who thinks Medicaid cuts won't cut Medicaid Take off the mask, ICE. Today's News More than 100 people, including at least 27 campers and counselors from Camp Mystic in Kerr County, are dead after flash flooding hit central Texas over the weekend. President Donald Trump announced tariffs on at least 14 countries effective August 1, unless they can broker trade deals with the U.S. A man who opened fire and injured several people near a Border Patrol building in McAllen, Texas, was killed after exchanging fire with law enforcement, according to officials. Dispatches Work in Progress: Annie Lowrey on why the Medicaid work requirement is a terrible idea. Explore all of our newsletters here. More From The Atlantic Alexandra Petri: A day in the life of the Gen Z worker Trump's only-okay economy Peter Wehner: Why Evangelicals turned their back on PEPFAR What Schwarzenegger knows about George Washington Evening Read I Fought Plastic. Plastic Won. By Annie Lowrey I used to love my Teflon pans. I crisped tofu, fried latkes, and reduced sauces to sticky glazes in them, marveling at how cleanup never took more than a swipe of a sponge. Then I started to worry that my skillets might kill me. The lining on the inside of a nonstick pan is made of plastic. When heated, it can release toxic fumes; when scratched, it can chip off, blending in with tasty bits of char and grains of pepper. 'Data indicates that there are no health effects from the incidental ingestion of nonstick coating flakes,' the company that produces Teflon says, noting that the government has deemed the cookware 'safe for consumer use' … I tossed my nonstick pans into the trash, over my husband's objections. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch (or skip). Murderbot (streaming on Apple TV+) is a quirky show that suggests that AI might be interested in something other than humanity, Emma Stefansky writes. Read. 'Lamentations,' a short story by Nicole Krauss. 'For as long as I'd known him, Harold had been gnawing at me! How many things did I hold against him? Why not his death, too?' Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Promises More Weapons for Ukraine and Criticizes Putin
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump said he'd ship more weapons to Ukraine, marking an apparent reversal after the Pentagon halted flows of some air-defense missiles and artillery shells to the country. Are Tourists Ruining Europe? How Locals Are Pushing Back Foreign Buyers Swoop on Cape Town Homes, Pricing Out Locals Trump's Gilded Design Style May Be Gaudy. But Don't Call it 'Rococo.' Denver City Hall Takes a Page From NASA In California, Pro-Housing 'Abundance' Fans Rewrite an Environmental Landmark 'We're going to send some more weapons,' Trump told reporters at the start of a dinner with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday evening. 'We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now.' Trump didn't specify what the US would provide except to say the armaments would be 'defense weapons primarily.' The president's comments will offer a measure of relief to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who spoke with Trump on Friday in an effort to get the halt lifted. Trump has also tried to broker peace in talks with Moscow, which have so far failed to end the war. Russia has been pounding Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with record numbers of drones and missiles. Trump lamented the thousands of people who have been killed and said he wasn't happy with President Vladimir Putin for keeping up attacks. 'I'm disappointed, frankly, that President Putin hasn't stopped,' Trump said. 'I'm not happy about it.' The Pentagon said last week the pause was necessary while the US reviews its stockpiles and weighs the need to save weapons for other threats. While stockpile numbers are classified, the weapons Ukraine needs most aren't urgently required elsewhere and there was no immediate need to deny the country weapons that were already on their way, they said. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Monday that Trump had told Zelenskiy in the Friday phone call he'd ordered a review of Pentagon munitions stockpiles after the US attack on Iran last month but didn't order the halt. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered the review when he took office. SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too 'Telecom Is the New Tequila': Behind the Celebrity Wireless Boom For Brazil's Criminals, Coffee Beans Are the Target Sperm Freezing Is a New Hot Market for Startups Pistachios Are Everywhere Right Now, Not Just in Dubai Chocolate ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
