Ukraine’s drone attack against Russian airfields was audacious and daring. But most of all, it was meticulously planned and flawlessly executed.

Kyiv struck where it could make a difference, damaging or destroying military aircraft that Moscow has been using to terrorize Ukrainian civilians with near daily aerial attacks.

The Ukrainian Security Service said 41 Russian aircraft were hit, including strategic bombers and surveillance planes, although it is unclear how many were taken completely out of action.

Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said the attack was “a stunning success for Ukraine’s special services.”

“If even half the total claim of 41 aircraft damaged/destroyed is confirmed, it will have a significant impact on the capacity of the Russian Long Range Aviation force to keep up its regular large-scale cruise missile salvos against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, whilst also maintaining their nuclear deterrence and signaling patrols against NATO and Japan,” he wrote in a note.

This is what we know about how the attack unfolded.

Striking from within Russia

The attacks targeted four airfields deep inside Russia, with the farthest one, the Belaya base in Irkutsk region, some 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles) from Ukraine’s border with Russia.

The other targets included the Olenya base near Murmansk in the Arctic Circle, more than 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) from Ukraine; the Diaghilev airbase in Ryazan Oblast, some 520 kilometers (320 miles) from Ukraine; and the Ivanovo air base, which is a base for Russian military transport aircraft, some 800 kilometers (500 miles) from the border.

A visual shared by the SBU, Ukraine’s security agency, also showed another base in the eastern Amur region as a target. It is not clear whether an attack on this base failed or was aborted.

It’s these huge distances from the border with Ukraine that likely made Russia complacent about protecting the sites.

Its most prized aircraft at the Belaya base were regularly parked in plain sight in the airfield, clearly visible in publicly available satellite images – including on Google Maps.

Moscow likely believed the distance itself was enough to keep the aircraft safe from Ukrainian attacks.

Russia maintains air superiority over Ukraine and while Kyiv’s allies have supplied Ukraine with some long-range missile systems, including US-made ATACMS and British-French Storm Shadows, neither has the range to strike this deep inside Russia.

Ukraine has been using drones against targets inside Russia, including in Moscow, but the low speed at which they travel makes them relatively easy for Russian air defenses to strike them.

This is where the audacity of the attack really played out: rather than trying to fly the drones all the way from the border, Ukraine managed to smuggle them right next to the sites it wanted to target and launched them from there.

Insufficient Russian defenses

Russia’s radar and air defenses at these bases were not prepared for such a low-altitude and sudden attack.

The only effective way to stop an attack like this is with heavy machine guns. Russia has been using these against Ukrainian sea drones in the Black Sea.

But these were either not available or not deployed quickly enough at the air bases targeted by Ukraine on Sunday – most likely because Russia simply didn’t foresee this type of attack.

Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed in a statement that the attacks – which it called “terror attacks” were launched from the vicinity of the airfields.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said 117 drones were used in the operation.

According to the SBU, the drones were smuggled into Russia by its operatives. At some point, likely while already in Russia, the drones were then hidden inside mobile wooden sheds.

These wooden cabins were then placed on trucks and driven to locations near the bases.

Ukraine did not disclose how exactly it managed to get the vehicles into the vicinity of high-profile military targets without detection, but reports in Russian media suggested it was relatively simple.

Baza and Astra, two Russian Telegram channels, both reported that the trucks were bought by a Ukrainian man who lived in Russia who then simply paid a quartet of drivers to get them where he needed them.

Neither Russian nor Ukrainian authorities commented on these reports, but the Russian state news agency RIA reported that authorities in the Irkutsk region were searching for a man who was suspected of being involved in the attack. His name matched the name reported by Baza and Astra.

The Ukrainian Security Service said the operatives involved in the operation were safely back in Ukraine by the time the attacks started. Zelensky said they worked across multiple Russian regions spanning three time zones.

“They would have likely setup an internet hub allowing the pilots to (control them) remotely, each rapidly deploying each FPV (first person view drones), hitting each target one by one.”

The source said the communication hub could be “a simple Russian cell phone” which is harder to track than other systems, such as Starlink that is used widely in Ukraine.

A source briefed on the matter confirmed the attack was carried out via Russian telecommunications networks.

Once the trucks were in place and the drones ready to go, the cabin roofs opened and the drones flew towards their targets.

‘Brilliant operation’

They are seen heading towards the Belaya air base in the distance, where thick dark smoke is already billowing from a previous strike.

Another video from the same location shows the truck used to transport the drones on fire after what appears to be an explosion designed to self-destruct the truck.

Zelensky said on Sunday that the attack was in the making for one year, six months and nine days, and praised the security services for a “brilliant” operation.

Russian officials have downplayed the attack, saying strikes were repelled in the Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur regions but that “several pieces of aircraft” caught fire after attacks in the Murmansk and Irkutsk regions. It added that the fires had since been extinguished.

It said there were no casualties. But while Russian authorities tried to downplay the attack, several high-profile Russian military bloggers have been vocal in their criticism.

Rybar, a high-profile Russian military blog, said the attack caused a “tragic loss for the entire Russian air fleet” and was a result of “criminal negligence.”

Ukraine said it destroyed several TU-95 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers and one of Russia’s few remaining A-50 surveillance planes.

A source briefed on the matter said 27 Tu-95, four Tu-160, two Tu-22M3 and “probably” an A-50 were hit.

The Tu-22M3 is Russia’s long-range missile strike platform that can perform stand-off attacks, launching missiles from Russian airspace well behind the front lines to stay out of range of Ukrainian anti-aircraft fire.

Russia had 55 Tu-22M3 jets and 57 Tu-95s in its fleet at the beginning of the year, according to the “Military Balance 2025” report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.

The Tu-95 joined the Soviet Union air force in the 1950s, and Russia has modified them to launch cruise missiles like the Tu-22.

Bronk, the RUSI expert, said that replacing some of these aircraft would be very difficult for Russia because they have not been produced for decades.

So, Russia and Ukraine are still as far apart as ever, with the two warring countries unable to make a significant breakthrough in direct talks in Istanbul.

While there was agreement to exchange more prisoners, Moscow and Kyiv remain deeply divided over how to bring the costly and bitter Ukraine war to an end.

Russia has shown itself to be particularly uncompromising, handing Ukrainian negotiators a memorandum re-stating its maximalist, hardline terms which would essentially amount to a Ukrainian surrender.

Expectations were always low for a Kremlin compromise. But Moscow appears to have eliminated any hint of a readiness to soften its demands.

The Russian memorandum again calls on Ukraine to withdraw from four partially occupied regions that Russia has annexed but not captured: a territorial concession that Kyiv has repeatedly rejected.

It says Ukraine must accept strict limits on its armed forces, never join a military alliance, host foreign troops or aquire nuclear weapons. It would be Ukrainian demilitarization in its most hardline form, unpalatable to Ukraine and much of Europe, which sees the country as a barrier against further Russian expansion.

Other Russian demands include the restoration of full diplomatic and economic ties, specifically that no reparations will be demanded by either side and that all Western sanctions on Russia be lifted.

It is a Kremlin wish-list that, while familiar, speaks volumes about how Moscow continues to imagine the future of Ukraine as a subjugated state in the thrall of Russia, with no significant military of its own nor real independence.

This uncompromising position comes despite two important factors which may have given the Kremlin pause.

Firstly, Ukraine has developed the technical capability to strike deep inside Russia, despite its staggering disparity of territory and resources. The stunning drone strikes recently targeting Russian strategic bombers at bases thousands of miles from Ukraine is a powerful illustration of that. Ukraine, it seems, has some cards after all, and is using them effectively.

Secondly – and arguably more dangerously for Moscow – the Kremlin’s latest hardline demands come despite US President Donald Trump’s increasing frustrations with his own Ukraine peace efforts.

Trump has already expressed annoyance with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who he said had gone “absolutely MAD” after massive Russian strikes on Ukraine last week.

But now, Trump himself is under pressure as a cornerstone of his second term foreign policy – bringing a rapid end the Ukraine war – looks decidedly shaky.

There are powerful levers to pull if Trump chooses, like increasing US military aid or imposing tough new sanctions, such as those overwhelmingly supported in the US Senate. One of the key backers of a cross-party senate bill that aims to impose “crippling” new measures on Moscow, Senator Richard Blumenthal, accused Russia of “mocking peace efforts” at the Istanbul talks and in a carefully worded post on X accused the Kremlin of “playing Trump and America for fools.”

It is unclear at the moment how the mercurial US president will react, or what – if anything – he will do.

But the outcome of the Ukraine war, specifically the brokering of peace deal to end it, has become inextricably linked with the current administration in the White House.

The fact that Putin has once again dug in his heels and presented an uncompromising response to calls for peace, may now force Trump to act.

Around 13% of Mexicans likely turned out to vote in the country’s first-ever judicial election, Mexico’s INE electoral authority said on Monday, as the government hailed a successful process while analysts said the low turnout could undermine an already controversial reform.

President Claudia Sheinbaum estimated that some 13 million of around 100 million eligible voters cast ballots on Sunday to elect some 2,600 judges and magistrates, including all nine Supreme Court justices.

Counting is set to conclude on June 15, but INE officials estimated the turnout at between 12.57% and 13.32% using a calculation based on several samples taken across the country.

Sheinbaum called the process a “complete success,” citing a free vote and a frugal campaign at a morning press conference.

“Everything can be perfected. We will draw conclusions from yesterday to make improvements for 2027,” she said, pointing to another vote in two years that is scheduled to fill over 1,000 more judicial positions.

Interior Minister Rosa Icela Rodriguez said that “the voting took place in a climate of peace and tranquility across the length and breadth of the country.”

“Yesterday’s turnout at the polls met expectations,” she said. “It was an innovative process that generated interest among the participants.”

Voting in Mexico is not mandatory and there is no minimum turnout required to legitimize an election. Pollsters had warned of poor turnout over boycott calls by the opposition and the complexity of voting for a large number of candidates.

Questionable credentials

Goldman Sachs’ chief Latin America economist, Alberto Ramos, said in a note that the low turnout took away from the process’ legitimacy, and that the pre-selection process and logistical organization were “fraught with controversy.”

“The vast majority of the roughly 3,400 candidates were largely unknown, many have limited legal experience and some questionable credentials for the seats they are seeking,” he said.

Bradesco analyst Rodolfo Ramos said he thought the turnout was surprisingly low, “considering Sheinbaum’s high approval rating and the fact that the majority of Mexicans were in favor of directly voting for judges.”

Sheinbaum, who inherited the judicial election project from her predecessor and mentor, former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has backed the vote as a way to democratize justice and root out corruption and nepotism.

However, critics say it could remove checks and balances on the executive power and allow for organized crime groups to wield greater influence by running their own candidates.

The run-up to the vote had been dominated by a scandal over some of the candidates, including a convicted drug smuggler and a former lawyer of drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

Late on Sunday, Mexico’s Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Electoral Crimes said it had received 23 reports of possible electoral crimes related to the elections of nearly 900 positions at the federal-level judiciary.

Peru’s decision to shrink its archeological park home to the famous Nazca Lines by around 42% — an area roughly the size of 1,400 soccer fields — has sparked alarm among conservationists, archaeologists and environmental advocates.

Critics say the rollback paves the way for informal mining and weakens decades of cultural and ecological protection, while the government says the adjustment reflects updated scientific studies and does not compromise the UNESCO World Heritage status or the site’s core protections.

“The reduction not only removes protections — it does so precisely where extractive activity is expanding,” said Mariano Castro, Peru’s former vice minister of the environment, adding that the decision could cause “very serious risks and cumulative damage,” as it excludes zones with active or pending mining claims.

Castro added that safeguards for archaeological heritage during the formalization of artisanal mining are already limited.

“This is made worse by the ministry of culture’s failure to consider the cumulative impact of dozens or even hundreds of mining operations on sensitive archaeological zones,” he said.

The area in question forms part of a UNESCO-recognized World Heritage Site, home to the Nazca Lines — massive geoglyphs etched into the desert thousands of years ago — and one of Peru’s most fragile desert ecosystems.

UNESCO told The Associated Press it hasn’t been notified by Peruvian authorities of any changes to the boundaries of the World Heritage site, which are crucial for its protection. The organization will request more information from the authorities.

Peruvian environmental lawyer César Ipenza, who has closely followed the decision, said the resolution has already been approved and that it reduces the Nazca zone by more than 1,000 hectares.

“This is a weakening of both environmental and cultural protections,” Ipenza said. “The state should be upholding its commitments under international agreements, not yielding to private interests.”

Ipenza and others say the rollback reflects a pattern of regulatory concessions to mostly informal gold miners.

“There’s an alliance between the current government and informal mining sectors,” he said. “The legal framework continues to be relaxed to benefit them.”

Peru’s ministry of culture, which decided on May 30 to reduce the Nazca reserve from about 5,600 square kilometers to roughly 3,200 square kilometers, declined to answer specific questions from the AP. Instead, it sent a press release saying the adjustment was based on updated archaeological studies and does not affect the UNESCO World Heritage designation or its buffer zone.

The ministry said it remains committed to preserving the site’s cultural heritage through regulated management.

A day after the May 30 decision, Peru’s Minister of Culture Fabricio Valencia acknowledged that illegal mining exists within the reserve.

“Unfortunately, informal mining is an activity present in this area, but the measure we have taken does not mean it will be encouraged, nor that the likelihood of any harm from informal mining will increase. That will not happen,” Valencia said on RPP, one of Peru’s largest radio programs.

When asked for more details about the presence of illegal activity in the reserve, Valencia said, “there are some mining deposits, but I don’t have exact information on what type of mineral is there.”

Castro, the former vice minister, warned the move could violate Peru’s own laws.

“It contravenes Article 5(h) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Law, which mandates the protection of archaeological and historical heritage,” he said.

Ipenza said the government is enabling illegality under the guise of technical adjustments.

“It is shameful to forget our ancestors and our heritage, and to disguise decisions that pave the way for sectors seeking to impose illegality, such as illegal and informal mining,” he said. “This decision benefits those groups and harms all Peruvians.”

The far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) is leaving the Netherlands’ government, toppling the governing coalition, its leader Geert Wilders said on Tuesday.

Wilders, who is not himself part of government, presented the cabinet with an ultimatum last week to strengthen its asylum policy.

“No signature for our asylum plans,” he posted on X on Tuesday. “PVV is leaving the coalition.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Palestinians on their way to receive aid from a distribution site in southern Gaza have come under fire for a third consecutive day, with nearly 30 people killed and dozens wounded, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health and Nasser hospital.

The ministry said Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinians as they made their way to the distribution site in Tel al-Sultan in Rafah early Tuesday.

The Israeli military said its forces opened fire multiple times after identifying “several suspects moving toward them, deviating from the designated access routes.”

“The troops carried out warning fire, and after the suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near a few individual suspects who advanced toward the troops,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement, which also said they are looking into reports of casualties.

At least 27 people were killed and dozens injured, according to the Palestinian health ministry and the director of Nasser hospital in Gaza.

The firing occurred west of Rafah in the area surrounding the Al-Alam roundabout, according to paramedics from the Palestine Red Crescent Society, near the same location as shooting incidents the last two days.

Early Tuesday morning, a Facebook page which the controversial US- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has used to publicize information about the opening of distribution sites said one location would be open in southern Gaza and warned residents to adhere to a designated corridor starting at 5 a.m.

“The IDF will be in the area to secure the safe passage,” the statement said.

The incident marks the third day in a row that people have been killed on their way to the GHF distribution point west of Rafah while attempting to secure food as famine conditions worsen in Gaza following an 11-week blockade by Israel.

Three Palestinians were shot dead and dozens wounded as they were on their way to access aid from the site on Monday morning, Palestinian and hospital authorities said. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that Israeli forces fired warning shots approximately a kilometer from the aid distribution site and that it was looking into the details of the incident.

On Sunday, dozens of Palestinians were shot dead by the Israeli military in the same area, according to Palestinian officials and eyewitnesses. Israel’s military denied that its troops fired “within or near” the aid distribution site.

Palestinian officials said 31 people had been killed and scores wounded in Sunday’s incident. An Israeli military source acknowledged that Israeli forces fired toward individuals about one kilometer (1093 yards) away before the aid site opened.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Growing up in Brazil, neuroscientist Danielle Beckman always dreamed of moving to the US for work. So, in 2017, when Beckman got the opportunity to work at the California National Primate Research Center at UC Davis, she jumped on it.

“I was so excited,” she recalled. “Coming to the US was always the dream. It was always the place to be, where there’s the biggest investment in science.”

But months into President Donald Trump’s second term, as his administration wages an unprecedented war on the country’s top universities and research institutions, Beckman no longer sees the US as a welcome home for her or her research, which focuses on how viral infections like Covid-19 affect the brain.

Beckman is part of a growing wave of academics, scientists and researchers leaving the US in what many are warning could be the biggest brain drain the country has seen in decades.

But America’s loss could be the rest of the world’s gain.

As the Trump administration freezes and slashes billions of dollars in research funding, meddles with curricula, and threatens international students’ ability to study in the US, governments, universities and research institutions in Canada, Europe and Asia are racing to attract fleeing talent.

The European Union pledged €500 million ($562 million) over the next three years “to make Europe a magnet for researchers.”

A university in Marseille, France, is wooing persecuted academics under a new program called a “Safe Place for Science.” Canada’s largest health research organization is investing 30 million Canadian dollars ($21.8 million) to attract 100 scientists early in their careers from the US and elsewhere. The Research Council of Norway launched a 100 million kroner ($9.8 million) fund to lure new researchers. The president of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University recently told a crowd at a higher education summit the school is identifying “superstar” US researchers and making them offers as soon as the next day.

The Australian Academy of Science also launched a new talent program to recruit disillusioned US-based scientists and lure Australians back home.

“We know these individuals are highly trained, talented, and have much to offer,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of the academy, noting the program has received “encouraging interest” so far.

“It’s vitally important that science can continue without ideological interference,” Arabia said.

The US could lose its scientific edge

The US has long been a powerhouse when it comes to research and development, attracting talent from far afield with its big budgets, high salaries and swanky labs.

Since the 1960s, US government expenditure in research and development (R&D) has more than doubled from $58 billion in 1961 to almost $160 billion in 2024 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), according to federal data. When incorporating R&D funding from the private sector, that number balloons to more than an estimated $900 billion in 2023.

The US’s enormous investment in R&D has led to an outsized influence on the world stage. The US has racked up more than 400 Nobel Prizes, more than double the amount of the next country, the United Kingdom. More than a third of the US’s prizes were won by immigrants.

“We have been respected worldwide for decades because we have trained succeeding generations of researchers who are pushing into new territories,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University.

But Trump’s second term has upended the relationship between higher education and the federal government.

Trump’s gutting of federal health and science agencies has led to sweeping job losses and funding cuts, including at the National Institutes of Health, which funds nearly $50 billion in medical research each year at universities, hospitals and scientific institutions.

Between the end of February and the beginning of April, the administration cancelled almost 700 NIH grants totaling $1.8 billion, according to an analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Trump administration has proposed reducing the NIH’s budget in 2026 by 40%.

The National Science Foundation has also slashed nearly $1.4 billion worth of grants. On Wednesday, 16 US states sued the Trump administration over the NSF cuts, which they argue will impede “groundbreaking scientific research” and “(jeopardize) national security, the economy and public health.”

Trump has also targeted elite universities and is in the middle of a legal battle with Harvard University over its refusal to bow to his administration’s directives to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, resulting in billions in frozen federal funding. That battle significantly escalated this month when Trump banned Harvard’s ability to enroll international students – a decision swiftly halted by a federal judge hours after Harvard filed suit.

This week, the White House directed federal agencies to cancel all remaining contracts with Harvard.

“The president is more interested in giving that taxpayer money to trade schools and programs and state schools where they are promoting American values, but most importantly, educating the next generation based on skills that we need in our economy and our society: apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News this week.

“We need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University.”

‘I don’t feel so welcome’

Foreign institutions have already jumped on the chance to welcome Harvard students now caught in legal limbo. On Monday, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said it will accept any Harvard students that wish to transfer, as well as prospective students with a current offer from Harvard.

“I see this as the most significant crisis that universities are facing since World War Two,” Wong said. “We are seeing a complete reset of this collaborative relationship between the federal government and leading research institutions.”

Once the beacon of scientific research, the US has now become an increasingly hostile place to study, teach, and do research. Three quarters of US scientists surveyed by the journal Nature in March said they were considering leaving because of the Trump administration’s policies.

Some have already jumped ship. Yale professors Jason Stanley, Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder, preeminent fascism scholars, announced in March they were leaving for the University of Toronto across the border in Canada because of Trump’s affronts to academic freedom.

Beckman, the Brazilian neuroscientist, said her lab has seen $2.5 million in grant funding cancelled in recent months. On top of these funding woes, Beckman said the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants, and shifting attitudes towards foreigners in the US, has also pushed her to look for work elsewhere.

“It’s the first time since I moved here that I don’t feel so welcome anymore,” she said.

As the US research ecosystem responds to shrinking budgets and intrusions on academic freedom, early-career scientists are going to be hardest hit, Wong said. But younger researchers are also more mobile, and institutions around the world are welcoming them with open arms.

“What we are losing is this whole cadre of highly productive, young, energetic, well-trained, knowledgeable, advanced researchers who are primed to take off,” Wong said.

Other countries have long deprioritized investment in scientific research as the US absorbed the R&D needs of the world, Wong said. But that trend is shifting.

R&D spending in China has surged in recent decades, and the country is close to narrowing the gap with the US. China spent more than $780 billion on R&D in 2023, according to OECD data. The European Union is also spending more on R&D. R&D investment in the bloc has increased from about $336 billion in 2007 to $504 billion in 2023, according to the OECD.

For a couple of months, Beckman said she considered stepping away from her Covid-19 research, which has become increasingly politicized under the Trump administration.

But then she started getting interviews at institutions in other countries.

“There is interest in virology everywhere in the world except the US right now.”

Athletes, coaches and officials are among 22 people killed in a road accident in northern Nigeria as they returned from the country’s National Sports Festival on Saturday, local authorities have said.

Others were left “seriously injured” by the accident, according to a statement issued by Kano’s government office. The majority of the victims were young, it added.

“It is with a deeply saddened heart that I received the tragic news of the unfortunate incident which claimed the lives of 22 innocent citizens and left several others injured,” Abba Kabir Yusuf, governor of Kano State, said in the statement.

“On behalf of the government and the good people of Kano State, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the families of the deceased. We mourn with you and share in your grief,” he continued.

The accident was a “lone road crash that might have occurred as a result of fatigue and excessive speed,” Nigeria’s Federal Road Safety Corps said in a statement. The crash occurred at 12:30 a.m. local time Saturday (7:30 p.m. Friday ET), the statement said.

The athletes killed in the crash were returning home after “representing their state with distinction,” Nigeria’s National Sports Commission (NSC) said in a statement posted to Instagram. The commission said it was “deeply heartbroken” by the “tragic road accident.”

The victims “carried the hope of a brighter future for our nation through their passion and commitment to excellence in sports,” NSC chairperson Mallam Dikko said. “It is our duty to ensure such heroes are never forgotten.”

Sports clubs including Kano Pillars, Kano’s local soccer team, and the Nigeria Tennis Federation have also posted their condolences online.

Nigeria’s 22nd National Sports Festival was held in Ogun State in the southwest of the country, according to the NSC. After 11 days of events, the competition held its closing ceremony on Thursday, the NSC said.

Monday will be a day of mourning for “the good people of Kano to pray and sympathize with the families of the victims,” its governor announced.