Moscow mayor says air defence units downed two drones overnight
June 24 (Reuters) - Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said early on Tuesday that Russian air defences had downed two Ukrainian drones heading for the city overnight.
Sobyanin, writing on the Telegram messaging app, said specialists were examining the debris of at least one drone downed after midnight.
The mayor said a third drone targeting the capital had been repelled earlier in the evening.
Russia's defence ministry reported that air defence units had destroyed nine drones in a 90-minute period before midnight, including nine over the border regions of Kursk and Bryansk.
Ukraine has launched drone attacks on a wide range of targets in recent months, some a long distance from the Ukrainian border.
In one attack this month, dubbed "Operation Spider's Web," Ukrainian drones targeted long-range military aircraft at a number of Russian bases.
In recent months, Russia has stepped up mass drone attacks against Ukrainian cities. Waves of Russian drones and missiles swarming in and around Kyiv killed 10 people overnight on Sunday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
I thought I knew what Keir Starmer believed – now, it's anyone's guess
Harriet Harman once described a politician's waking nightmare. As social security secretary in the New Labour government, she was delivering her first speech to the party conference in October 1997. 'All these unfamiliar words started coming up on the autocue. I couldn't go back to my notes, and just had to carry on. I realised that Gordon Brown had made the changes to delete all my references to spending plans.' Something similar happened to Keir Starmer in May, as he read a speech on immigration from the prompter in Downing Street. He told Tom Baldwin, his biographer, in an interview published on Friday, that when the unfamiliar phrase 'an island of strangers' scrolled up on the glass screens, he just read it out. 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of [Enoch] Powell,' he told Baldwin. 'I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either.' Starmer had arrived back from a three-day trip to Ukraine the night before, and learned that morning that his former home in Kentish Town had been firebombed in the small hours. His sister-in-law was living there and called the fire brigade: no one was hurt, but Starmer was 'really shaken up'. He said, 'It's fair to say I wasn't in the best state to make a big speech,' and that he almost cancelled it. Baldwin wrote: 'Emphasising he is not using the firebomb attack as an excuse and doesn't blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes, Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and 'held it up to the light a bit more'.' Now, a month and a half later, he said: 'That particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' Both parts of his confession to Baldwin were unwise in the extreme. It was unwise to admit that he doesn't always read his speeches before he delivers them – or that he doesn't always read them 'properly', which is the same thing. The pressures on a prime minister's time are intense, and any prime minister has to rely on speechwriters they can trust to produce most of the words that have to be pumped out. But a politician should never admit that their words are not their own, or blame their speechwriters while insisting that they are not blaming them. Especially not one, such as Starmer, who already has a reputation for being the puppet of Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who saw him as the figurehead for his bid to take the Labour Party back from the Corbynites five years ago. But this confession was particularly unwise because it suggests that Starmer's critics were right to detect the echo of Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in the prime minister's words. The message of the speech was entirely different. Powell complained that the effect of immigration was that the existing population 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. Starmer's speechwriters, by contrast, were making the point that 'fair rules' hold a country together. 'In a diverse nation like ours – and I celebrate that – these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The sentiment is worthy and uncontroversial, even if the phrasing is a bit poetic. But the meaning was completely clear in the next paragraph: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse … you're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' I don't know who would actually disagree with that – apart from Enoch Powell, who didn't want any immigration at all. Some of Starmer's critics have also seized on his comment – in the foreword to the immigration white paper, so he presumably did hold these words 'up to the light' – that the 'damage done to our country' by the Conservative 'experiment in open borders' is 'incalculable'. But again, it is hard to disagree: the writer of Starmer's foreword is not saying that immigration is damaging, but that quadrupling it when you promised to reduce it is. Even those who think the UK can easily absorb a net immigration of 906,000 in a 12-month period have to accept that the Tory failure to control immigration has, as the foreword's author said, opened a wound in 'trust in politics'. So Starmer should have defended 'his' words to Baldwin. The message was the right message: that there should be fair rules for immigration, and that immigration has been too high. Now we just do not know what the prime minister thinks. Is the real Starmer the liberal lefty human rights lawyer who implied to Baldwin that he thinks that any attempt to control immigration is Powellism? Or is it the man reading McSweeney's words off the autocue, saying, as he did just before he got to the 'island of strangers' paragraph: 'I know, on a day like today, people who like politics will try to make this all about politics, about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.' What does he believe in? I thought I knew, but now that he has given that self-pitying interview to his biographer, I am not so sure.
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Rod Stewart says Britain should ‘give Farage a chance'
Sir Rod Stewart has called on Britain to 'give Nigel Farage a chance' as he revealed how close he came to pulling out of his Glastonbury appearance. The 80-year-old singer backed the Reform UK leader ahead of appearing in the festival's afternoon legends slot on Sunday, 23 years after he headlined the Pyramid Stage. Advertisement 'I've read about (Sir Keir) Starmer cutting off the fishing in Scotland and giving it back to the EU. That hasn't made him popular,' he told The Times. 'We're fed up with the Tories. We've got to give Farage a chance. He's coming across well. Nigel? What options have we got? Rod Stewart has called on Britain to give Reform UK leader Nigel Farage a chance (PA) 'Starmer's all about getting us out of Brexit and I don't know how he's going to do that. Still, the country will survive. It could be worse. We could be in the Gaza Strip.' Admitting his wealth ensures 'a lot of it doesn't really touch me', he insisted he is not out of touch and expressed his support for Ukraine – criticising US president Donald Trump and vice president JD Vance for their treatment of Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskiy on his visit to the White House – and Gaza. Advertisement 'It's depressing, what's going on in the Gaza Strip,' he said. 'Netanyahu doesn't realise that this is what happened to his people under the Nazis: total annihilation. And Trump is going to turn the Gaza Strip into Miami?' Stewart said a prolonged bout of flu, which forced him to cancel five shows in the US, nearly forced him to withdraw from a Glastonbury appearance he described to ITV as his 'World Cup final'. 'This time last week I was thinking of cancelling,' he told The Sun, crediting his wife Penny Lancaster with nursing him back to health. 'I have had Influenza A. It's been so terrible. It's the worst thing anyone could possibly have, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Advertisement 'Apart from (Vladimir) Putin. I'd wish it on him.' Stewart told The Sun he had negotiated an extra quarter of an hour on top of the allotted 75 minutes for his set. He confirmed he will be joined at Glastonbury by former Faces bandmate Ronnie Wood, Simply Red's Mick Hucknall and Lulu, as well as performing the song Powderfinger by Saturday headliner Neil Young.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Britain's spies spent 20 years hunting a Russian double agent at the heart of MI6 in extraordinary global operation - and they could STILL be spying for Putin
British spies spent up to 20 years hunting a senior officer at the heart of MI6 over fears he was a Russian double agent in an extraordinary global operation. Operation Wedlock, run by MI5, saw a team of up to 35 surveillance, planning and desk officers travelling globally in a bid to catch the alleged mole, the Guardian has reported. The 'highly unusual' investigation, believed to have began in the mid-to-late 1990s before concluding in 2015, came following a tip-off from the CIA about an alleged spy. Fears had been raised that a British intelligence official could be working in London and relaying confidential information to Russia. In one particularly dangerous instance, an entire surveillance team reportedly travelled to the Middle East for more than a week, with officers sheltering in a CIA safe house. It is understood that such trip could have violated international law as the undercover officers had travelled to the country without the permission or knowledge of its own government. According to The Guardian, agents were warned that if detained, they were 'on their own' and would not receive assistance. But despite their best efforts, the specialist intelligence agency never obtained any 'conclusive proof' of a mole, meaning that there is a possibility the double agent could still be spying for Russia today. One source told the publication: '[We were told] the target was a Russian spy … The US believed he was leaking information to the Russians. He was suspect 1A. The job was taken more seriously than any other [MI5] was involved in. Wedlock eclipsed them all.' Meanwhile, another source spoke of fears amid the the organisation that they had 'another Philby on our hands', a reference to notorious MI6 double agent Kim Philby. The former Cambridge student was recruited by the Soviet Union in 1963 and eventually forced to flee to Moscow. They added that the surveillance team, based in Wandsworth, south London and working under the name of a fake security business, believed that the man was being assisted by two other individuals, also based in London. Due to the sensitivity of the probe, the officer in charge was also allegedly briefed about the task during a church. Describing the operation as 'highly unusual', the source added it was 'the longest in recent memory and probably the most expensive'. MI5's technical operations team, known as A1 at the time, are said to have broken into the alleged spy's home and planted listening and video devices. Meanwhile, an MI5 car, fitted with a camera inside of a tissue box, was also reportedly set up outside of the target's property. Vladimir Putin was running Russia's secret intelligence service, t he FSB, at one point during the lengthy investigation. In May, 'The Spy in the Archive', a new biography of Vasily Mitrokhin by Gordon Corera, was released. The former KGB agent, who defected to Britain in 1992, provided MI6 with a significant archive of KGB documents, alongside revealing Soviet espionage activities and operations However the close source warned that the success of the operation was insignificant due to a lack of evidence, with there still a strong possibility that the double agent could be at large. They added: 'MI5 never got the conclusive proof it was looking for. They said that if it was not him, then potentially MI6 "still has a mole to find"'. A Whitehall source declined to comment. In January 1963, infamous double agent Philby confessed to MI6 officer Nicholas Elliott that he had been working for the Russians since the 1930s. However, he lied about breaking off contact in 1946 and claimed fellow Cambridge spy Anthony Blunt would never work for the Russians. Philby, who died in 1988, told Mr Elliott at the time: 'Here's the scoop, as it were. I have had this particular moment in mind for 28 years almost, that conclusive proof would come out.' He then said he had a choice 'between suicide and prosecution', adding: 'This is not in any sense blackmail, but a statement of the alternatives before me.' He admitted betraying Konstantin Volkov, a KGB officer who tried to defect to the West, bringing with him details of traitors operating in British intelligence and the Foreign Office. This would have led to Philby's exposure. Instead, as a result of Philby's intervention, he was abducted by the Russians in Istanbul and executed. First falling under suspicion after fellow Cambridge spies, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess, fled to Russia in 1951, he initially managed to dodge MI5 interrogators who said he was an 'enigma'. He described his life in MI6 as a time of 'controlled schizophrenia', adding: 'I really did feel a tremendous loyalty to MI6, I was treated very, very well in it and I made some really marvellous friends there. But the over-ruling inspiration was the other side.' In May, 'The Spy in the Archive', a new biography of Vasily Mitrokhin by Gordon Corera, was released. The former KGB agent, who defected to Britain in 1992, provided MI6 with a significant archive of KGB documents, alongside revealing Soviet espionage activities and operations. Meanwhile in April, the British public were granted access for the first time to see the suitcases and passport of one of the members of the notorious Cambridge Spy ring at the National Archives. British diplomat and Soviet double agent Guy Burgess defected to Russia on May 25, 1951, leaving behind two briefcases at a private member's club in Pall Mall. Burgess left strict instructions with staff at the Reform Club that the leather cases, one locked and another stuffed with letters, papers and photographs, should be left for Anthony Blunt, a fellow Soviet spy who was able to dispose of any incriminating papers before handing over the briefcases to MI5 when the defection emerged. Now, in an exhibition that explores MI5's 115-year history running until September 28, amateur sleuths can see a key piece of spy history as Burgess' briefcase is displayed.
