He died without revealing the truth about the Imposter Sister Lucy. Sister Lucy Truth will have a daily blog as to what is happening in Rome during this time of funeral and pre-conclave. Pray for us and support us in our goals. 

I remember distinctly the day Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope. Working for a diocese, I was in the middle of a meeting with an older woman and a deacon. They wanted to know if they could start a support group for families with members who were same-sex attracted. The woman’s son was a practicing homosexual, and she wanted to support him in his lifestyle (i.e., endorse sin). I was in the process…

Source

Jorge Bergoglio called to judgment at 88…

VATICAN ANNOUNCES:
‘POPE’ FRANCIS IS DEAD

LATEST UPDATE: 22-APR-2025 21:55 UTC

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Dec. 17, 1936 – Apr. 21, 2025)

After 4422 days, the reign of terror of the ‘humble Pope’ Francis has finally come to an end: The Argentinian Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio is dead.

The Chamberlain (Camerlengo) of the Apostolic Chamber, theAmerican ‘Cardinal’ Kevin Farrell, announced the death of the Argentinian apostate this morning at the Vatican (video direct link):

.

Subsequently, the director of the Vatican Press Office, Matteo Bruni, released the following statement:

At 9.47 this morning, His Eminence Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell, Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, announced with sorrow the death of Pope Francis, with these words:

“Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis.

This year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will observe Patriots’ Day on Monday, April 21, in honor of events that took place on April 19: the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy (Arlington). These are generally considered the beginning of the American Revolution, the first civil war, which resulted in the formation of these United States. But this year, the festivities are very special…

Source

Beijing’s ambassador to the US has urged yin and yang approach in Sino-American relations

China’s envoy to the US has urged Washington to avoid the mistakes that contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s and called for peaceful coexistence, while warning that Beijing is ready to retaliate amid the escalating trade war.

The tariff standoff with Beijing comes amid a broader US campaign targeting dozens of countries. While most of the elevated tariffs were paused for 90 days, China was excluded from the reprieve. The total tariff on Chinese goods has been hiked to 145%.

In response, Beijing imposed 125% tariffs on imports of American goods and restricted exports of minerals essential for high-tech manufacturing.

Speaking at a Traditional Chinese Medicine event in Washington on Saturday, Ambassador Xie Feng warned that the import duties could upend the global economy, drawing a parallel to the US tariff policies of 1930 that contributed to the Great Depression, according to the Chinese embassy’s website.

Referring to principles from traditional Chinese medicine, he said it’s important to tackle root causes rather than merely treating symptoms and called for joint efforts to expand the global economy instead of competing over existing resources.

“You can’t just treat a headache by just focusing on the head, or foot pain by only targeting the feet,” Xie said. “And you certainly shouldn’t prescribe medicine to others when you’re the one who’s sick.”

He cited US protectionist policies of the past – particularly the tariff-laden Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which is widely believed to have deepened the Great Depression. The act, aimed at protecting American agriculture and manufacturing with import duties of up to 75% on essentials such as car parts and wool, triggered a sharp decline in global trade that worsened the Great Depression.

“I believe many of you are familiar with how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act ultimately escalated the Great Depression,” the envoy said.

Citing philosophy, he pointed to the need for balancing the opposing forces of yin and yang and said that harmony should be the guiding principle in relations between the world’s two largest economies.

He said that the two nations should pursue “peaceful coexistence” rather than confrontation, and support each other’s success instead of falling into a lose-lose scenario.

Xie stated that China opposes the trade war and will respond with retaliation against any country that imposes tariffs on it.

Last week, US President Donald Trump said that talks were underway with Chinese officials, noting that Washington has “nice conversations going with China. It’s, like, really very good.”

The left-wing politicians have described the restriction as “collective punishment”

Israel has revoked entry visas for left-wing French lawmakers who supported the recognition of a Palestinian state.

The move comes shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron said recognition could take place at an international conference in June – a proposal condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a “huge reward for terrorism.”

The group of 27 politicians included members of France’s Ecologist and Communist parties, along with local officials and mayors. Among them were National Assembly deputies Francois Ruffin, Alexis Corbiere, and Julie Ozenne from the Ecologist party, Communist deputy Soumya Bourouaha, and Communist Senator Marianne Margate.

The politicians said on Sunday that they were invited by the French consulate in Jerusalem for a five-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, described as a mission to “strengthen international cooperation and the culture of peace.”

“For the first time, two days before our departure, the Israeli authorities canceled our entry visas that had been approved one month ago,” the lawmakers said in their statement, calling the decision “collective punishment.”

They described the visa ban as a “major rupture in diplomatic ties” and urged Macron to respond.

“Deliberately preventing elected officials and parliamentarians from traveling cannot be without consequences,” they added.

The group said their parties had for decades called for recognition of a Palestinian state.

Israel’s Interior Ministry defended the cancelation, citing a law that allows authorities to deny entry to individuals who “could act against the State of Israel.”

Tensions with Western lawmakers have intensified in recent months amid mounting criticism of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Earlier in April, two British MPs were blocked from entering the country after being accused of planning to “spread hate speech.” Israeli authorities claimed the pair had misrepresented their purpose, while the UK Foreign Office described the decision as “unacceptable.”

Prior to that, an EU parliamentary delegation canceled a planned visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah after entry was denied to French MP Rima Hassan, Irish MP Lynn Boylan, and two EU staffers.

Israeli officials said the individuals had “consistently worked to promote boycotts against Israel in addition to numerous public statements both on social media and in media interviews.”

“The State of Israel is not obligated to allow the entry of any official from a foreign country, including members of parliament, if they work to boycott and undermine its legitimacy,” Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said at the time.

When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.

The Pope in his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)

The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.

What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).

The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.

With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.

It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story-based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. The Gosples do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions, we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did (cf Dei Verbum # 19)

Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.

So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps,  but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and record that the angel instructed the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner, but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.

In what follows I propose to address these differences and give possible resolutions. I am also aware, and expect to hear from some who consider any attempt to resolve these matters “simplistic.” You of course are free to propose other solutions and demonstrate how attempts at a resolution fall short. This is what comments are for. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
2. Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
3. Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
4. Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
5. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
6. Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.

So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.

In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.

In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.

The post Are There Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts? If so, can they be resolved? appeared first on Community in Mission.

Moscow has announced a surprise 30-hour ceasefire to mark Easter

This week in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen active combat at multiple locations along the front line, with the hostilities continuing in the border area between the two countries, while Moscow’s troops reported making new advances in Donbass.

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a temporary 30-hour pause in fighting with Ukraine, urging Kiev to adhere to the truce as well. The Easter ceasefire took effect at 18:00 Moscow time on Saturday and has lasted until midnight on April 21.

Ukraine’s reaction to the Easter ceasefire will clearly demonstrate whether Ukraine is actually willing and able to participate in the potential negotiations, Putin said. The president urged the country’s troops to stay on high alert and be ready to respond to any potential incidents, citing Kiev’s long history of broken promises and violated deals. 

“Our troops must be prepared to respond to any violations or provocations by the adversary, to any aggressive actions,” he stressed.

Ukraine produced a mixed reaction to the truce offer, with Vladimir Zelensky initially branding Moscow’s move an attempt to “play with human lives.” Later in the day, however, the Ukrainian leader offered a different take on the ceasefire, proposing to extend it beyond the 30-hour period if the truce holds.

“If Russia is now suddenly ready to really join the format of complete and unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine will act in a reciprocal way – as it will be from the Russian side. Silence in response to silence, strikes in response to strikes,” Zelensky said in a statement.

Both sides have accused the other of repeatedly breaking the truce. According to the Russian military, Kiev’s forces made 1,300 attacks in the less than 24 hours since the truce was declared. Zelensky claimed the Russian forces shelled Ukrainian positions more than 900 times, as well as launched some 46 “assault operations” during the period.

The truce ended as scheduled, with the Kremlin signaling some five hours before the deadline it had no plans to extend it with no additional orders concerning the matter issued by the Russian president.

On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry provided an update on the outcome of the truce, noting a certain lull in the hostilities during the period. However, around 4,900 violations have been recorded, with the Ukrainian forces launching some 3,300 short-range drones at Russian positions, conducting artillery strikes and staging six offensive operations, the military said.

Border warfare 

Over the week, the Russian military has continued its effort to destroy the remnants of the Ukrainian forces that invaded the country’s Kursk Region last year. The Ukrainian zone of control in the area has shrunk to a small strip of land along the border, roughly between the villages of Oleshnya and Guyevo, liberated last week. On Saturday, The Russian Defense Ministry said the troops have seized control of Oleshnya as well.

This week, the main events in the area unfolded in the vicinity of the village of Gornal and the adjacent Belogorsky Monastery. The village and the monastery sit atop of a large hill, with a vast network of chalk caves underneath, which effectively make the location a natural fortress.

According to Russian media reports, some 300 Ukrainian servicemen were holed up at the monastery, with Moscow’s forces attempting to negotiate their surrender or withdrawal in order to avoid inflicting more damage on the facility. The negotiations, however, have ultimately flopped, while the Ukrainian officer who maintained contact with the Russian forces was reportedly murdered by his fellow servicemen. 

The Russian troops stormed the monastery, with some 30 Ukrainian soldiers believed to be still hiding in the caves under it. Drone footage circulating online shows the monastery sustained considerable damage during the hostilities. 

According to the latest estimates by the Russian military estimates, Ukrainian forces suffered extremely heavy losses during the invasion of Kursk Region. More than 75,00 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and wounded in the area, with over 400 tanks, 335 infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), 307 armored personnel carriers (APC), and more than 2,700 other armored vehicles destroyed or captured.

Donbass push

The Russian military has reported making new gains in Donbass, advancing on the flanks of Pokrovsk (also known as Krasnoarmeysk), the largest city remaining under Ukrainian control in the southwest of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

This week, the Russian troops expanded their zone of control to the southwest of the city, liberating the village of Preobrazhenka. Moscow’s forces also seized control of Yelizavetovka. It has seen the most intensive combat over the past few weeks, with the small village repeatedly changing hands, according to media reports. 

Yelizavetovka is located by a strategic road running through Pokrovsk deeper into Donbass. The route has been actively used by the Ukrainian troops for supply, albeit its importance somewhat dwindled as of late due to the proximity of the frontline and the destruction of multiple road bridges in Pokrovsk and its satellite city of Mirnograd. 

The Russian military also made new gains further to the east, liberating the villages of Kalinovo and Valentinovka. The development suggests that Moscow has achieved a tighter grip on the city of Toretsk (also known as Dzerzhinsk), as well as opens way for the potential advance further to the north towards the city of Konstantinovka, a major Ukrainian logistics hub located some 10km to the northwest of Toretsk. 

Geran-2 drones

The past week has seen the Russian military conducting massive strikes on Ukraine’s military industry, stockpiles and other rear facilities. Moscow extensively used Geran-2 (Geranium-2) kamikaze drones during the strikes, with dozens of such UAVs striking targets in Ukraine.

The delta-wing drones have been playing an increasingly important role during the conflict, becoming a key supplement for long-range missile strikes, as well as commonly substituting such sophisticated munitions. 

A large swarm of Geran-2 drones attacked military and industrial facilities in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr (formerly Dnepropetrovsk) on Thursday. The drones made it through anti-aircraft defenses, with over 20 blast reported from the city. Footage circulating online shows its nighttime skyline brightly lit by multiple explosions and fires sparked by the drones. 

A video taken in Sumy this week shows Geran-2 drones striking a staging area where multiple Ukrainian military trucks were parked. The vehicles were destroyed by the drones with a thick plume of smoke emitting from the location. Footage itself was reportedly taken by a new upgraded surveillance version of Geran-2. While some of the drones of the type were previously fitted with cameras, the new variant appears to be a full-fledged surveillance UAV packed with high-resolution adjustable optics, given the quality of the video. 

Geran’s smaller cousin, Gerbera, has apparently received an upgrade as well. The small drones have been widely used alongside their larger counterparts, serving as decoys to uncover anti-aircraft positions and exhaust their ammunition and carrying no explosives on board

Now, however, the drones of the type were apparently turned into full-fledged kamikaze UAVs. A fresh video that emerged online this week, features a Gerbera packed with a warhead and a camera chasing a Ukrainian Buk-M1 anti-aircraft system. The vehicle appears to be converted into a so-called FrankenSAM system, given it carries US-made RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles rather than its native munitions.

The anti-aircraft system sustained a hit into its rear, seemingly catching fire. While the extent of the damage was not immediately clear, the FrankenSAM was likely rendered inoperable wit hits radar pelted by fragments of the drone. 

Hunt for Ukrainian artillery 

The Russian military has continued its effort to hunt down Ukrainian long-range mobile artillery, with multiple pieces destroyed over the week. Several fresh videos feature the Lancet-family drones, which has been playing an increasingly important role during the campaign and become a key short-to-medium range tool in Russia’s arsenal.

A surveillance drone video released by the Russian Defense Ministry shows a Lancet drone taking out a Polish-made AHS Krab 155mm self-propelled howitzer in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region. The artillery piece was caught outside its hiding spot, appearing to be a covered dugout. The howitzer appeared to sustain a perforating hit that ignited its ammo stock and destroyed the vehicle.

Another video circulating online features Lancet strikes on an extremely rare Swedish-supplied Archer 155mm self-propelled artillery system, as well as a strike on Ukrainian home-grown Bogdana 155mm wheeled howitzer, largely analogous to French-made Caesar vehicles. While the video, said to be taken in the south of the DPR does not show the result of the strike on the Archer, it appears to confirm the destruction of the other piece. 

A dramatic compilation of FPV drone strikes, said to be taken in the south of the DPR as well, showcases an intense hunt for a Caesar howitzer. The vehicle was discovered in a wooded strip at a concealed position, but survived the initial hit and its crew attempted to drive away. The vehicle ended up stuck in the open and was hit by another drone, with the strike apparently sparking fire on board.

The crew quenched the blaze, with apparent extinguisher marks captured by the third FPV drone that approached the howitzer when an old Soviet-era ATS-59G artillery tractor arrived to tow the Caesar away. While the unarmored tractor is hardly suitable for battlefield recovery, it managed to survive the first hit and the next drone witnessed the two vehicles attached to one another. The howitzer and the tractor were targeted by several other FPVs, ultimately catching fire and ending up destroyed.

The Russian military has also managed to find and destroy a US-supplied HIMARS multiple rocket launcher, that was tracked down to its hiding position to the west of the city of Kramatorsk. Surveillance drone footage shows the launcher and a soft support vehicle traveling to the hideout, where the high-value asset was hit by a ballistic missile fired by an Iskander-M system.

The strike caused the detonation of the launcher’s ammo stock, with distinctive white smoke trails left by burning solid rocket fuel observed by the drone. At least eight Ukrainian servicemen have been reportedly killed by the strike and the resulting secondary detonation.