Ukrainian officials visit US amid strikes on Russia
KYIV: Senior Ukrainian officials visited Washington on Tuesday seeking US support against Russia, as Kyiv showed its ability to fight on by setting off an explosive device under a bridge that has become a symbol of the Kremlin's claims on Ukrainian territory. A day after talks in Istanbul that made little progress towards ending Russia's war in Ukraine, Kyiv launched what appeared to be one of its biggest waves of coordinated attacks of the conflict.
Ukraine's SBU security service said it had hit a road and rail bridge that links Russia and Crimea below the water level with explosives. The extent of any damage was not clear but there were no immediate signs of traffic disruption. The bridge is a flagship project for Russian President Vladimir Putin, built after he annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, in a precursor to the latest conflict.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones and shelling targeting the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region and the Kherson region in the south damaged electricity substations, leaving at least 700,000 people without power, Russia-installed officials said. Underlining the gulf between the two sides after more than three years of war, the Kremlin said work on trying to reach a peace settlement was extraordinarily complex and that it would be wrong to expect any imminent decisions.
Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, arrived in the United States along with Deputy Prime Minister Yuliia Svrydenko. Ukraine says Moscow is stalling the peace talks and Yermak signalled that he would press Ukrainian demands for tougher sanctions on Russia. "We will actively promote issues that are important for Ukraine. Our agenda is rather comprehensive," Yermak said after arriving in Washington. "We plan to talk about defence support and the situation on the battlefield, strengthening sanctions against Russia." Yermak said the officials would also discuss a deal that gives the US preferential access to new Ukrainian mineral projects and sets up an investment fund that could be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Kyiv appears determined to show US President Donald Trump that it can still fight on, despite the rising death toll and destruction in the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two.
Ukraine's attack on Russian-occupied territory in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions followed multiple Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure that have at times left millions of Ukrainians without power during the war.
"There is no electricity throughout the region," Yevgeny Balitsky, the Russian-installed governor of Zaporizhzhia, said. "The Ministry of Energy ... has been instructed to develop reserve sources of electricity as soon as possible. Healthcare facilities have been transferred to back up power supply sources."
The attack followed drone strikes at the weekend on Russian military airfields, some of which housed long-range nuclear-capable bombers. Ukraine's success in striking deep into Russia has prompted calls by some Russian military bloggers for a harsh response. A Russian artillery strike on the northeast Ukrainian city of Sumy on Tuesday killed three people and wounded 25, local officials said. "That's all one needs to know about the Russian wish to end this war," Zelensky said.
Moscow has responded to such accusations by saying Ukraine is not making a genuine effort to seek peace. At Monday's talks in Istanbul, Russia told Ukraine it would agree to end the war only if Kyiv gives up big new chunks of territory and accepts limits on the size of its army. Ukraine rejects the Russian conditions as tantamount to surrender. "The (peace) settlement theme is extremely complex, it consists of a large number of nuances...," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, adding that "it would be wrong to expect any immediate solutions and breakthroughs here".
Russia's state Investigative Committee accused Ukraine on Tuesday of carrying out "acts of terrorism" by blowing up two railway bridges in Russia over the weekend. The attacks were planned to target hundreds of civilians, the committee said. It said seven people were killed and 113 injured, including children, when two trains crashed in Russia's Kursk and Bryansk regions as a result of the attacks. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
9 hours ago
- Observer
Defence hike: Europe is making a big mistake
Leaving Brussels by train, the Audi factory is one of the first things you see. Made up of gray, rectangular buildings, the site was long one of Belgium's biggest car producers. Slick and productive, it was a fitting symbol for the capital of Europe. Early this year, however, it succumbed to the industrial crisis overtaking the continent and was unceremoniously shut down. Spots of graffiti are already visible on its once pristine walls. In recent months, the story of the Audi factory has become the story of Europe. Both are down on their luck, in danger of being swept away by the century's new geoeconomic tide. In Brussels, the response to the predicament has been equally in tune with the times — as part of a wider military revamp, ministers claim, the former car factory should be turned into a weapons producer. Such a relaunch, proponents say, would aid Europe's strategic autonomy and create 3,000 new jobs. Across Europe, policymakers are converging on the same strategy, hoping to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, increased military spending would make Europe safe from Russia and independent from America, at last securing its superpower status. On the other hand, it would revive Europe's ailing industrial sector, under pressure from Chinese competitors and rising energy costs. Pumping money into the military, so the argument goes, is the way to fight the twin crises of geopolitical vulnerability and economic malaise. These hopes are likely to prove delusive. Europe's militarisation push, suffering problems of both scale and efficiency, is unlikely to work on its own terms. But it carries a bigger danger than failure. By focusing on defence at the expense of all else, it risks taking the European Union not forward but backward. Rather than a major advance, breakneck rearmament could well amount to a historic mistake. Europe's new approach is usually given an older name: military Keynesianism. Originally, the concept referred to the tendency of mid-century governments to counteract economic downturns through increases in military spending — a combination supposedly first pioneered by the Nazis in the 1930s, then globalised by the Americans in the 1940s. More recently, the term has been applied to President Vladimir Putin's war economy in Russia. Yet it is far from clear whether Europe's current efforts warrant such a description. For one, the continent is simply undergoing a return to military spending levels before 1989. At its peak in the 1960s, for instance, German military expenditure reached just under 5 per cent of gross domestic product; Chancellor Friedrich Merz's target, announced last week, is 3.5 per cent. Such a restoration hardly qualifies as a great leap forward — certainly not matching the concept of the 'Zeitenwende", or 'turning point", that has been used to describe the change in approach. The public benefits of the strategy — the Keynesianism part — remain equally unclear. Though Germany has slightly eased its debt rules, European policymakers remain reluctant to run up budget deficits. More money for the military will strain already tight budgets, taking away from social programmes, infrastructural development and public utilities. Instead of military Keynesianism, a better comparison for Europe's defence bonanza is the Reaganism of the 1980s, in which increased military spending and social retrenchment went hand in hand. There are more problems with the remilitarisation push. For one, many former industrial sectors will acquire a vested interest in war-making abroad — hardly as reliable a source of profit as consumers buying cars. And more money for the military doesn't necessarily mean better results, either. As the economist Adam Tooze notes, Europeans collectively lavish ample sums on their 'zombie armies' and receive strikingly little in return, both in terms of manpower and material. No European company, for example, ranks in the top 10 defence companies by turnover. Then there is the quintessentially European problem with coordination. With tanks and hardware already expensive, the costs of continental rearmament will be multiplied by the union's decentralised decision-making, in which nations separately vie for contracts. Glimpses of such inefficiency are visible in the stalling efforts at shell production for the war in Ukraine. On top of this muddle, the first payouts of Europe's splurge are likely to go to American producers while European factories get up and running. In a telling irony, the initial beneficiaries of the potlatch will be not European but American. These logistical constraints should be weighed alongside the cultural limits to remilitarisation in Europe. In response to calls for renewed mobilisation, for example, one German podcaster spoke for many: 'I'd rather be alive than dead.' Even so, European policymakers are determined to sell rearmament as a condition for the continent's entry into the 21st century. Last week's Nato summit, at which almost all members pledged to raise military spending in the next decade to 5 per cent of GDP produced a pageant of such views. The number of wars around the world, with a fresh one recently threatened in Iran, supposedly underlines the need for Europe to be a fighting continent once more. This strategy, officials claim, combines military independence with commercial revival. Neither of these outcomes is likely. On its current course, Europe is headed for neither military Keynesianism with a social dividend nor a defence strategy suitable for an aspiring superpower. Rather, it risks getting the worst of both worlds: a meager economic recovery without long-term prospects for growth, and sumptuous payouts to a defence sector that would not allow Europe to match its peers. A quick journey to Brussels, where the Audi factory still stands empty, should suffice to convince visitors of this truth.
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
The connection: Supply chains and geopolitics
Over the decades, the supply chains have become a highly integrated web of interconnections driven by globalization. However, the global supply chain landscape is experiencing constant reorientation and stress in recent years due to the increasing strain of disruptions. The key events that have impacted the supply chain from all fronts are the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Palestine war, China-US Trade War 1, and Trade War 2, which was initiated by sweeping tariffs introduced by the trump administration in his current second term. Now, the US bombing of three of Iran's nuclear facilities, and the retaliatory response of Iran bombing the US air base in Doha, Qatar, has put the entire Middle East and the world in a state of heightened uncertainty and could trigger a significant disruption of supply chains and a probable spike in oil prices. Energy analysts fear a specter of panic buying in the international energy market if the situation escalates further. To get a perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is the world's most strategic and critical chokepoint, a narrow stretch of water with Iran to the north and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman to the south linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It is a vital vein for the passage of Oil and gas shipments. The Strait of Hormuz is critical as 20% of the world's oil and a third of liquefied petroleum Gas (LNG) pass through this narrow strait. The Strait handles 20.3 million barrels of oil daily, making it crucial for global trade and supply. The Middle East region is experiencing protracted uncertainty that could affect the global energy markets. The recent US attack on key Iranian enrichment facilities to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions could affect the movement of ships in this region. The Strait of Hormuz is also a primary export route of Qatari LNG, with a fifth of the global LNG supply passing through this strait last year. This handout natural-colour image acquired with MODIS on NASA's Terra satellite taken on February 5, 2025 shows the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. — AFP If Iran stops the movement of ships through this Strait, it would be economic suicide for the world. While they have not done it, they are taking actions to interfere with energy shipments by jamming the GPS signals of tankers in this region. According to maritime intelligence reports, 23% of the region's vessels, approximately 1600 ships, have experienced signal jamming. Many shipping giants have temporarily issued standby instructions to their vessels or rerouted them in anticipation and fear of further geopolitical escalations. The closure or any restrictions to this trade route will have far-reaching implications for the world. It could also strain diplomatic relationships, increase energy prices, sharply raise inflationary pressures, and cause shipment delays. Over the years, the US has been worried about the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz and has gradually reduced its dependency on Middle East oil. It has grown to become one of the world's largest oil-producing nations. Now, the US imports only 10-11% of its oil requirement from Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. However, 84% of Hormuz's shipped oil goes to Asia. The strait is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes only 2 miles across. A blockade could halt 20% of global oil instantly. Businesses exploring diversifying logistic pathways face significant operational, economic, and geopolitical hurdles. The Strait of Hormuz remains irreplaceable for bulk shipments; it is, in fact, the most viable option for global trade shipments. Given the geopolitical escalations, trade wars, regional instability, and unpredictability of political decisions, the Strait of Hormuz is more than a strategic trade gateway; it has become a geopolitical weapon, magnifying its significance for sustainable international trade and global supply chains.
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
Zelensky calls US as pilot killed in Russian attack
KYIV: A Ukrainian F-16 fighter pilot died in a crash while repelling a Russian air attack that involved hundreds of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, authorities said on Sunday, as Moscow intensifies night-time air barrages in the fourth year of war. President Volodymyr Zelensky called for more support from Washington and Western allies to bolster Ukraine's air defences after the attack, which damaged homes and infrastructure across the country and injured at least 12 people, according to local authorities. 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
