Kyiv endures bombardment as Russia steps up targeting of Ukrainian cities

Rescuers work at the site of a building damaged by a Russian missile strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine March 25, 2024. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 26 March 2024
Follow

Kyiv endures bombardment as Russia steps up targeting of Ukrainian cities

  • Seven people were injured in the strike on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko said

KYIV: Russia launched missiles against Kyiv for the third time in five days Monday, part of an apparent escalation of aerial bombardment of Ukrainian cities as the war stretches into its third year with the front line largely stationary.

Seven people were injured in the strike on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko said.

Russia fired two ballistic missiles at Kyiv from occupied Crimea in the daylight attack, but both were intercepted above the city, said Serhii Popko, head of the Kyiv City Military Administration.

The Pecherskyi district was the hardest hit. Missile debris damaged homes in two districts and a gym in another district, Ukraine’s National Police said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy renewed his appeal for Western partners to provide more air defense systems to protect against the unrelenting attacks.

“We never tire of repeating that Ukraine needs more air defense,” he said. “This is security for our cities and saved human lives.”

The attack came three days after a concert hall attack in Russia killed more than 130 people. Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to tie the attack to Ukraine, even though an affiliate of the Islamic State group claimed responsibility.

Putin could use the Moscow attack to shore up support for the war and as a pretext to escalate attacks on Ukraine, analysts said.


US judge rejects Trump administration’s halt of wind energy permits

Updated 58 min 15 sec ago
Follow

US judge rejects Trump administration’s halt of wind energy permits

  • 17 Democratic-led states challenged the suspension
  • Offshore wind group supports ruling for economic and energy priorities

BOSTON: A federal judge on Monday struck down an order by US President Donald Trump’s administration to halt all federal approvals for new wind energy projects, saying that agencies’ efforts to implement his directive were unlawful and arbitrary.
Agencies including the US Departments of the Interior and Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency have been implementing a directive to halt all new approvals needed for both onshore and offshore wind projects pending a review of leasing and permitting practices.
Siding with a group of 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, US District Judge Patti Saris in Boston said those agencies had failed to provide reasoned explanations for the actions they took to carry out the directive Trump issued on his first day back in office on January 20.
They could not lawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act indefinitely decline to review applications for permits, added Saris, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose state led the legal challenge, called the ruling “a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis” in a social media post.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that Trump through his order had “unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”
Trump has sought to boost government support for fossil fuels and maximize output in the United States, the world’s top oil and gas producer, after campaigning for the presidency on the refrain of “drill, baby, drill.”
The states, led by New York, sued in May, after the Interior Department ordered Norway’s Equinor to halt construction on its Empire Wind offshore wind project off the coast of New York.
While the administration allowed work on Empire Wind to resume, the states say the broader pause on permitting and leasing continues to have harmful economic effects.
The states said the agencies implementing Trump’s order never said why they were abruptly changing longstanding policy supporting wind energy development.
Saris agreed, saying the policy “constitutes a change of course from decades of agencies issuing (or denying) permits related to wind energy projects.”
The defendants “candidly concede that the sole factor they considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the President’s direction to do so,” Saris wrote.
An offshore wind energy trade group welcomed the ruling.
“Overturning the unlawful blanket halt to offshore wind permitting activities is needed to achieve our nation’s energy and economic priorities of bringing more power online quickly, improving grid reliability, and driving billions of new American steel manufacturing and shipbuilding investments,” Oceantic Network CEO Liz Burdock said in a statement.