Zelensky calls US as pilot killed in Russian attack
In Kyiv, families huddled in metro stations for shelter after air raid sirens rung out. Machine-gun fire and explosions were heard across the capital and in the western city of Lviv, where such attacks are less common. The governor of the Lviv region, bordering Poland, said the raid targeted critical infrastructure. Ukraine has now lost three F-16s since it began operating the U.S.-made jets last year. Kyiv has not revealed the size of its F-16 fleet, but they have become a central and heavily used part of Ukraine's defences.
The pilot flew the damaged jet away from a settlement but did not have time to eject before it crashed, the Ukrainian Air Force said. "The pilot used all of his onboard weapons and shot down seven air targets. While shooting down the last one, his aircraft was damaged and began to lose altitude," the Air Force said on Telegram.
The Ukrainian military said in total Russia launched 477 drones and 60 missiles of various types to Ukraine overnight. Ukrainian forces destroyed 211 of the drones and 38 missiles, it said, while 225 more drones were either lost due to electronic warfare or were decoys that carried no explosives. "Moscow will not stop as long as it has the capability to launch massive strikes," Zelensky said on X. He said Russia had launched around 114 missiles, 1,270 drones, and 1,100 glide bombs just in the past week. Russia's state-run RIA Novosti news agency said one person was killed by a Ukrainian drone in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region. Both Ukraine and Russia say they do not attack civilian targets.
Ukraine says recent attacks highlight the need for further support from Washington, which under President Donald Trump has not committed to new military aid for Ukraine. Trump said he was considering a Ukrainian request for more Patriot missile batteries after he met Zelensky at a NATO summit last Wednesday. "This war must be brought to an end - pressure on the aggressor is needed, and so is protection," Zelensky said in his X post on Sunday after the attack. "Ukraine needs to strengthen its air defence — the thing that best protects lives." He said Ukraine was ready to buy the American air defence systems and it counts on "leadership, political will, and the support of the United States, Europe, and all our partners."
Russia has launched large scale strikes on Ukrainian cities every few days in recent weeks, causing widespread damage, killing dozens of civilians and injuring hundreds more. During the latest barrage, explosions were heard in Kyiv, Lviv, Poltava, Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Cherkasy and the Ivano-Frankivsk regions, witnesses and regional governors said. The Ukrainian military said air strikes were recorded in six locations.
Eleven people, including two children, were injured in the central Cherkasy region, the governor Ihor Taburets said on Telegram. Three multi-storey buildings and a college were damaged in the attack, he said. One woman was injured in western Ivano-Frankivsk region. Rescuers evacuated residents from apartment blocks with charred walls and broken windows, images released by authorities in Cherkasy showed. Industrial facilities were hit in the southern Ukrainian Mykolaiv and central Dnipropetrovsk regions, officials said. Railway infrastructure was damaged in Poltava city in the centre of the country. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
20 hours ago
- Observer
Living in an era of online lies and fakes
With the emergence of various digital platforms, journalistic practices have undergone significant changes in recent years. While these changes have introduced innovative forms of communication, they have also created opportunities for disinformation, commonly referred to as 'fake news'. Defining fake news is a contentious issue, although most people recognise the common understanding of what it involves: reports that are deliberately fabricated, often malicious and politically motivated, disseminated on social media and sometimes produced for cash. Those 'fake news outlets', as we know, do not adhere to the editorial standards and processes that traditional news media employ to ensure the accuracy and credibility of information. It mimics the content and format of legitimate news media while intersecting with various types of misinformation. However, fabricated stories masquerading as serious journalism are unlikely to disappear, as they have become a lucrative avenue for some writers and a potential means to influence public opinion. We should anticipate their prevalence during any major event, as evidenced during the Covid-19 pandemic, when misinformation reached unprecedented levels. In wars and conflicts, such stories serve as a primary weapon. For example, as soon as you get out of bed and check your phone, a video appears showing what appears to be an air strike, accompanied by a post claiming that missiles have been launched. In moments like this, when tensions are high in the country where you live, it can evoke a sense of panic. In the recent military confrontations between Israel and Iran, as well as the conflicts between India and Pakistan, the most disturbing aspect was that the battles did not occur solely in the skies or on the ground. Instead, they unfolded on platforms such as WhatsApp, X, Telegram and Facebook, where footage from past conflicts was circulated as breaking news. Images and videos from Syria, Gaza and Yemen have been misrepresented in this manner, including deepfake videos that portray fabricated speeches by national leaders, which fuel warmongering, provocation, rumours and fears. A video claiming to show an explosion caused by a Pakistani counter-attack was found to be from an explosion at the main port of the Lebanese capital of Beirut in 2020. The so-called wannabe nationalists in different countries became their wholesalers! However, when news can spread across the globe in seconds, merely labelling its source does little to stem the flow of misinformation. Few users take the time to verify the origins of the information they share and mainstream media has been known to publish stories that lack accuracy. 'In today's world, it is very easy to create, modify, fabricate and widely share various messages. The information environment is polluted in many ways. Even if the information itself is genuine, it might be used out of context and transformed into a tool for propaganda,' writes HiveMind in the Commons Library newsletter while defining disinformation. But what significant is that fact-checking by online users has been helpful in correcting people's misconceptions. As a result, individuals are changing their minds after encountering these debunks, even when the original misinformation aligned with their beliefs. Agencies like the International Fact-Checking Network have coordinated efforts among their accredited members in verifying the facts before the broadcast of the reports. News agencies such as Reuters, BBC and AFP Fact Check all actively took extra efforts to debunk those false claims. It is welcoming that Meta in early January, announced a controversial shift in its approach to disinformation, replacing independent fact-checkers on Facebook and Instagram with a Community Notes-style system. Still, a significant lack of media literacy persists, hindering the ability to evaluate the credibility of news sources. This underscores the urgent need for education focused on identifying fake news. After all, we all need to become more sophisticated consumers of news!
Observer
20 hours ago
- Observer
Western politics, media bias on US strikes in Iran
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a military operation called 'Midnight Hammer' against three nuclear facilities in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The US claimed the goal was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. These strikes were the first direct American attack in the recent Iran–Israel conflict, which began earlier that month when Israel carried out its own strikes. Many experts in international law said the American action was illegal. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is forbidden unless it is in self-defence after an armed attack or approved by the UN Security Council. In this case, Iran had not attacked the US, and there was no Security Council authorisation. As a result, the strike is widely considered a pre-emptive attack, which is not allowed under international law. Despite this, Western governments reacted with silence or support. Nato's Secretary-General Mark Rutte claimed the strike did not break international law. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said there was 'no reason to criticise' the US action. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Iran's nuclear programme a 'grave threat' and supported the strikes, even though the UK had no direct role. Only French President Emmanuel Macron said the strikes were illegal, but he still agreed with the idea that Iran's programme must be stopped. This is an example of the West applying double standards. When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Western leaders loudly defended international law and national sovereignty. But when the US ignores those same rules, many of these leaders remain silent. The law is treated as flexible depending on who is breaking it. This weakens the idea of justice and fairness in global politics. The Western media also showed bias. In the United States, newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post called the strikes 'necessary' and 'inevitable'. They focused more on technical damage than legal or moral questions. They repeated President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear programme was 'obliterated', even though later intelligence reports showed the damage only delayed the programme by a few months. CNN, another major US network, highlighted Nato's defence of the strike, but gave very little space to international law experts who disagreed. Most American media avoided discussing whether the action was legal. They mostly supported the US government's version of the story. In Europe, some outlets like the BBC and gave more attention to legal issues. They reported Macron's concerns and included intelligence that questioned US claims. But even they often accepted the wider Western view that Iran is a dangerous state and that stopping its nuclear development is justified - even if the method is illegal. There is another issue often forgotten in these reports: Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At the time of the strikes, the IAEA had not confirmed Iran was building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel has never joined the NPT and is believed to possess nuclear weapons. This important detail is almost never mentioned in Western coverage. The result is a picture that always shows Iran as a threat and Israel or the US as protectors. This is not balanced journalism. It helps to justify military actions and hides the legal and human consequences. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once said, 'If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must apply equally to all.' Today, that rule seems weak. Powerful countries are allowed to act outside the law, while weaker nations are judged more harshly. This harms the credibility of international law and may lead to more conflicts in the future. If the international community wants peace and justice, it must return to fairness. Law should not change based on politics. Media should question every government equally. And strikes like the one on Iran must be judged by the same rules we apply to others. Without this, the law becomes just another weapon for the strong.
Muscat Daily
a day ago
- Muscat Daily
How Middle East instability could influence African nations
Berlin, Germany – European analysts worry conflict in the Middle East could be a destabilising factor in already volatile regions of the African continent. 'If the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates further, there is a risk that the various interconnected wars around the Red Sea could also expand,' Hendrik Maihack, of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), told DW. He says the greatest danger would be to the Horn of Africa, a region 'currently in its deepest crisis in nearly 30 years'. 'Iran cooperates with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who in turn also collaborate with the Al-Shabab militia in Somalia,' Maihack says, adding such interconnected alliances are the reason Germany and Europe must look beyond the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. With conflicts across Africa 'rather increasing than decreasing' – there could be consequences for Europe. 'Where foreign policy attention and resources for humanitarian and development cooperation diminish, many African countries fear falling further out of the spotlight of Western support,' Maihack says. Guido Lanfranchi from the Clingendael Institute for International Relations in the Netherlands told DW the cooperation between the military Houthi group, supported by Iran, and the Al-Shabab militias in Somalia has intensified. 'Maintaining these connections appears to be in the interest of both groups,' the conflict analyst says, but adds it is uncertain to what extent Iran can continue supporting the Houthis. Strategic importance The Horn of Africa and Red Sea regions, which include Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia are geo-strategically important to both Iran and Israel, Lanfranchi says, with Iran recently supplying weapons to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). 'Israel maintains close relations with Ethiopia, and in the last few months alone there have been several meetings at ministerial level between the two sides,' Lanfranchi says. While Israel's role in Sudan is not entirely clear, Lanfranchi says Israel had relations with both the SAF and the RSF (Rapid Support Forces) factions before the Sudanese civil war broke out in April 2023. But according to Romane Dideberg of the London-based think tank Chatham House, Iran and Israel's limited economic and diplomatic overall footprint in Africa so far means the fallout from the Iran-Israel conflict is currently 'mainly indirect geopolitical effects'. 'Both countries have invested very little in Africa and don't really have an Africa strategy like similar players in the region,' she told DW. These effects include potential disruption to trade, increased market instability, rising oil prices, and growing economic pressure. Neverthelss, Dideberg says, energy prices could still skyrocket, and with international political and military attention now focused elsewhere, 'security gaps' on the continent could emerge. Other Middle East players, however, have vested interested in certain African nations. 'Qatar has played a very active role in mediating in various African countries in recent years and most recently played a leading role in the regional mediation efforts between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo,' Dideberg tells DW. But following an Iranian attack on a United States airbase in Qatar, further threats to Qatar could now follow: 'So if they are attacked directly, that could diminish their role. They provided this quiet diplomacy and support in the background, while all other diplomatic channels failed.' Qatar managed to bring Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi, President of the DRC, to the negotiating table in early 2025, after the two leaders avoided each other for months amid escalating violence in the eastern DRC bordering Rwanda. In West Africa, Iran has invested in the Sahel countries, says Ulf Laessing of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) in Mali. Iran has tried to provide an alternative to European partners, such as France. 'For example, an agreement was concluded with Niger, which is officially about energy cooperation,' Laessing told DW. Despite alleged military deals in exchange for access to resources, Laessing says the Israel-Iran conflict has taken away Iran's capacity to be a player in West Africa. Military-ruled Sahel countries ruled could therefore receive less support, such as for drone purchases, than previously hoped. DW
