Russia unleashes largest air assault yet with 500+ drones and missiles, says Ukraine
Russia fired over 500 drones and missiles at Ukraine overnight, its largest aerial attack since the war began, as being claimed by Ukraine, says an AP report. Ukraine's air force reported 537 weapons launched, including 477 drones and 60 missiles. Air defenses shot down 249 targets, while signal disruption likely disabled 226 others. Strikes hit western regions far from the frontline fighting, killing at least 10 civilians across Kherson, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Zaporizhzhia. In Lviv, drones ignited a major industrial fire and cut power. Tragically, a Ukrainian F-16 jet crashed during defense operations, killing its pilot. Poland and allies scrambled jets to protect their airspace as explosions echoed near their border.
The assault came despite Putin's Friday offer of new peace talks, a proposal Ukraine dismissed, given ongoing attacks. Russia claimed minor territorial gains, announcing control of Donetsk's Novoukrainka village after costly ground advances. Meanwhile, Moscow reported downing 12 Ukrainian drones overnight, with two people injured in Bryansk. The attack underscores Russia's evolving tactics: improved drone technology and concentrated barrages are increasingly overwhelming Ukraine's defenses. Civilian infrastructure suffered heavily, including a nine-story building reduced to rubble in Zaporizhzhia. Ukrainian officials confirmed that at least four separate regions faced simultaneous missile and drone waves.
Responding to battlefield pressures, President Zelenskyy withdrew Ukraine from the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning landmines.Lawmaker Roman Kostenko defended the move, saying, 'Russia isn't part of this treaty and uses mines indiscriminately against our people.'
The decision follows similar steps by Poland and Baltic states. Separately, Russia's spy chief revealed a phone call with CIA director William Burns, keeping rare communication channels open.
As Ukraine buries its dead and clears rubble, analysts warn Russia may intensify attacks before anticipated Western F-16 reinforcements arrive. The overnight barrage marks a grim escalation as the war nears its 29th month with no diplomatic breakthrough in sight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Axis of upheaval': How China, Russia ghosted Iran - when it mattered most
AI image for representation. It's been one week since American B-2 bombers dropped 30,000-pound bunker busters on three of Iran's nuclear sites, forcing Tehran and Tel Aviv into a shaky ceasefire under heavy pressure from US President Donald Trump . The conflict-brief but brutal-killed hundreds and raised the specter of regional war. Now, Iran is wounded, Israel remains defiant, and the US president claims victory. But in the background of this geopolitical drama, another story quietly unfolded: the vanishing act of Iran's supposed allies, China and Russia. For a decade, analysts and politicians warned of a rising anti-Western 'axis'-a tripartite bloc of Iran, China, and Russia. From drone deals to joint naval exercises, these powers appeared to be drawing closer. But when the missiles flew and Tehran came under fire, both Beijing and Moscow stayed out of the fight. Why it matters The muted response by China and Russia during Iran's confrontation with Israel and the US is more than a diplomatic snub-it's a reality check on the limits of authoritarian alliances. For years, the West has viewed the deepening ties between Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran as a looming threat: a potential counterweight to Nato, a challenge to the US-led global order, and a united front capable of coordinating economic and military pressure on democracies. The recent Israel-Iran conflict was the first major test of that axis under direct fire. And it failed. This matters because it reveals the underlying fragility of what some have called an 'Axis of upheaval.' The Iran-China-Russia alliance is not built on mutual defense or even shared values-but on strategic convenience and parallel grievances against the West. Their hesitation to back Iran militarily shows that: Beijing and Moscow are reluctant to jeopardize their broader economic and geopolitical interests-especially in Europe and with key Gulf states. Iran, while useful to both as a disruptor, is not worth the risk of direct confrontation with the US or deeper regional instability. In a global crisis, even 'no limits' partnerships have limits. For US policymakers, this moment offers a window of opportunity: to recalibrate deterrence strategies, test diplomatic openings, and stress-test China and Russia's willingness to stand by their rogue partner. For Iran, it may prompt a painful reassessment of who its real allies are-and how alone it might be the next time conflict erupts. How we got here: The shaky 'axis of upheaval' The idea of a cohesive anti-Western axis began gaining traction in early 2022, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the deepening of ties with Iran and China. Iran supplied drones and weapons to Russia; China increased trade and oil purchases from both nations. China and Russia saw value in Tehran as a thorn in the side of the West-useful for stoking unrest in the Middle East and distracting US resources. But their core interests have always diverged. China prioritized energy security and stability in the Middle East, essential for its Belt and Road Initiative and economic recovery. Russiaviewed Iran as a tool to distract the West from Ukraine-but not a partner worth defending militarily. Iran saw these ties as insurance against Western aggression-a bet that's now looking less wise. The big picture President Trump ordered the strike that demolished parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure using 'bunker-busting' bombs. Ayatollah Khamenei responded with fiery rhetoric. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo But the most telling reactions came not from Tehran-but from Beijing and Moscow. Rather than rally behind their partner: China issued carefully worded statements urging de-escalation, refraining from condemning Israel directly, and warning Tehran against actions-like closing the Strait of Hormuz-that could destabilize global trade. Chinese President Xi Jinping showed no hurry to react and took his own time before before calling for 'de-escalation.' Russia, preoccupied with its grinding war in Ukraine, limited its response to diplomatic overtures and vague promises of support, avoiding any concrete military assistance. These muted responses are a sharp contrast to the anti-Western solidarity these nations have projected over the past several years. What they're saying 'The Iranians are clearly very frightened,' Russian analyst Alexey Mukhin told reporters following a meeting between Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Christian Science Monitor report said. Despite promising 'support to the Iranian people,' Putin made no military or economic commitments. 'Iran is taking a significant amount of hitting ... but Russia and China have not stepped forward to beef up its defense,' Nader Habibi of Brandeis University's Crown Center for Middle East Studies told the CSM. Rosemary Kelanic of Defense Priorities added, 'Neither Russia nor China seem especially interested in sticking their necks out for Iran. I'm sure Iran has noticed that.' 'Even among authoritarian regimes, differences in values can limit cooperation,' wrote the Atlantic's Leon Aron. Transactional ties go only so far when missiles start flying. Zoom in: The limits of loyalty The disparity between Iran's needs and what China and Russia were willing to deliver highlights the fundamentally asymmetric nature of the relationship: China is Iran's economic lifeline, buying 90% of its oil. But Iran provides only 10% of China's oil imports. In a sign of caution, Beijing avoided arming Tehran and instead emphasized the Strait of Hormuz's importance to global commerce-a diplomatic nudge not to escalate. Russiahas gained significantly from Iranian military aid in Ukraine, including thousands of drones. Yet when the tables turned, it offered little in return. Even Su-35 fighter jets promised to Iran in 2023 remain undelivered. Even the trilateral naval exercises held by Iran, Russia, and China earlier this year look more symbolic than strategic in hindsight. What's next: Strategic ambiguity President Trump has hinted at reopening talks with Iran, suggesting that sanctions could be lifted if Tehran steps away from its nuclear ambitions. But those prospects remain uncertain, especially after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the US strikes a 'slap to America's face' and Trump replied that Iran 'got beat to hell'. Iran is still reeling from the destruction of its Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, parts of the sites are still operational, but their enrichment capabilities have been 'destroyed to an important degree'. For now, Tehran appears diplomatically cornered: The US has reasserted its dominance through military force and diplomacy. Israel has vowed to strike again if Iran restarts its nuclear program. China and Russia are urging calm but offering no meaningful deterrence to further Israeli or US strikes. Looking ahead For Iran, this is a strategic inflection point. With nuclear infrastructure damaged, popular unrest simmering, and its axis allies cautious at best, Tehran must decide whether to rebuild its deterrent or recalibrate its diplomacy. For the West, the takeaway is mixed. The Iran-China-Russia bloc is less formidable than feared. But it's also more unpredictable. Beijing may prefer restraint, but it could still help Iran quietly. Russia may be distracted by Ukraine, but not indefinitely. The axis may be cracked-but not yet broken. As the Atlantic put it, 'Anti-Americanism can bind an alliance together only so much'. And for now, at least, it's an axis that won't come when called.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
UK Export Of F-35 Parts To Israel Was Lawful, Court Rules
London: Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful, London's High Court ruled on Monday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, had taken legal action against Britain's Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The United Kingdom had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law, in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees, as the basis for its decision. But Britain decided to "carve out" F-35 licences, with the government saying suspending those licences would disrupt a global programme that supplies parts for the aircraft, with a knock-on impact on international security. Any such disruption would "undermine U.S. confidence in the UK and NATO", the Ministry of Defence said. Al-Haq argued at a hearing last month that the decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention. But the High Court dismissed the group's challenge in a written ruling.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
India must watch out as the world's security architecture shudders and shifts
Gift this article The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. Born in 1949 soon after World War II, the original raison d'être of Nato was containment of the Soviet Union and its role as a hedge against the remilitarization of Germany. Once West Germany joined in 1955, the second objective was dropped. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Germany was reunited in 1990 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Nato's purpose was lost for nearly two decades. With Vladimir Putin's rise in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century and particularly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Nato members found common cause again, and the alliance regained some of its mojo. The Ukrainian conflict that began in 2022 united Nato again. Finland and Sweden, which had remained outside for seven decades, have joined the alliance since. Also Read: Geopolitics: Brace for a global shake-up now that Trump has rattled Nato Beginning with Donald Trump's first US presidency in 2017 and continuing into his second one now, Washington has been indifferent towards Ukraine and shown an unexplained sympathy for Russia's position. President Trump has also publicly declared his ambivalence towards Article 5 of Nato, its 'collective defense" clause that states that an attack against any member requires all members to come to its aid. Whether Trump's disposition is just a threat aimed at making European members increase their contributions to Nato remains unclear. Nato is resourced through the direct and indirect national contributions of its members. Nato's common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes. National contributions, the largest component of Nato funding, include the forces and capabilities held by each member country that can be provided to Nato for deterrence and defence activities and military operations. Direct funds enable Nato to maintain its capabilities and run the entirety of the organization and its military commands. Nato has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding the Nato headquarters), military budget (funding the Nato Command Structure) and the Nato Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities). For 2025, its direct funds amount to about $5.4 billion, of which the US contributes about 16% (an identical amount is contributed by Germany). If all 30 European countries were to do it, annual defence spending would double from $380 billion today to about $750 billion. The latter number is just a bit lower than the current US defence spending and comparable to China's unofficial level. The summit ended with a firm commitment from Nato allies to spend 5% of GDP, up from today's 2% floor. Whether or not America officially quits Nato, even if it psychologically 'checks out,' the security architecture of Europe would change dramatically without an assured American backstop. At the same time, there are tensions among European Nato members, with Hungary publicly supporting Russia and Turkey playing a nuanced ménage-à-trois game. The new nationalist president of Poland is also likely to hold a more matrix-determined position than his predecessor. Also Read: Nato's endgame on Ukraine will need regime change in Moscow While there are other multi-country strategic groupings like the Quad, made up of the US, India, Japan and Australia, and Aukus, made up of Australia, the US and UK, no other multi-country alliance has shown the commitment and staying power of Nato (till Trump came along). Even traditional alliances have become more situation-dependent in recent times. China has generally supported Pakistan and Russia has supported India since Cold War times. At the same time, China has supported Russia on the Ukraine War. During the recent Operation Sindoor, both Russia and the US were ambivalent in their support of India. Turkey, while pursuing its own calculus, has held positions that are inimical to Indian interests in recent years. Even more recently, Iran must have been surprised that Russia did not come to its defence more publicly during its 12-day conflict with Israel. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Sweden set to join NATO after Turkey backs off Alert to the possibility that a US commitment to their security is no longer reliable (and that the US may even turn hostile), countries from Japan and South Korea to Germany are re-arming themselves. In addition to nuclear-equipped France and the UK, Nato's nuclear sharing arrangements extend to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Beyond Nato, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promulgated in 1969, with 191 current members, is likely to lose some members over the coming years. India is entering a phase where it will have to become far more self-reliant, even as it partners with Russia, the US and others on a context-specific basis. When India purchases defence systems, it will have to insist on technology transfers, source-code access and the interoperability of these platforms with locally developed missile systems. P.S: 'If you have one true friend, then you have more than your share," said clergyman Thomas Fuller. The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan's Mint columns at Topics You May Be Interested In
