Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations has denounced Russia as a “terrorist state” during an emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly that came just hours after Ukrainian cities were struck by a wave of deadly missile strikes.

“Russia has proven once again that it is a terrorist state that must be deterred in the strongest possible ways,” said Ambassador Serhiy Kyslytsya.

The UN had scheduled the October 10 meeting to discuss a draft resolution condemning Russia’s recent annexation of four Ukrainian territories, a violation of international law.

But the session was soon dominated by Western condemnation of Russia’s decision to launch more than 80 missiles at Ukrainian cities in retaliation for what Moscow has called Kyiv’s “terrorist” actions, including a blast that damaged a key route for delivering supplies and reinforcements to Russian forces fighting in southern Ukraine.

The early morning strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and urban residential areas hit major cities across the country, including Kyiv, killing at least 14 people and injuring 97, according to Ukraine’s Interior Ministry.

They were the most punishing attacks launched by Russian forces in months and were seen as a major escalation of the war launched by Moscow in February.

Ahead of the UN meeting, U.S. President Joe Biden said the strikes demonstrated the “utter brutality” of the war initiated unprovoked by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The United States strongly condemns Russia’s missile strikes today across Ukraine, including in Kyiv. These attacks killed and injured civilians and destroyed targets with no military purpose. They once again demonstrate the utter brutality of Mr. Putin’s illegal war on the Ukrainian people,” Biden said in a statement.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the strikes as an “unacceptable escalation of the war” by Russia.

WATCH: Ukraine has reported dozens of missile strikes across its territory, including the capital, Kyiv, in a significant escalation of Russian attacks.

A spokesman for Guterres said in a statement ahead of the emergency UN meeting that the secretary-general was “deeply shocked by today’s large-scale missile attacks by the armed forces of the Russian Federation on cities across Ukraine that reportedly resulted in widespread damage to civilian areas and led to dozens of people being killed and injured.”

The 193-member UN General Assembly decided on October 10 to hold a public vote, rather than a secret ballot, on a draft resolution that would condemn Russia’s “illegal so-called referenda” held in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya regions, as well as Russia’s “attempted illegal annexation” of the territories.

Diplomats said the vote on the resolution would likely be held on October 12. The majority of countries, 107, voted in favor of holding a public vote, while 13 countries opposed, 39 abstained, and the remainder did not vote.

Russia vetoed a similar resolution in the 15-member Security Council in September.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a video call with members of Russia’s Security Council, said the October 10 strikes were retaliation for what he called Kyiv’s “terrorist” actions, including the October 8 blast that damaged the Crimea Bridge, a key rail and highway route for supplies and reinforcements for Russian forces fighting in southern Ukraine.

Putin said more such Russian strikes could be expected.

“Let there be no doubt,” Putin said. “If attempts at terrorist attacks continue, the response from Russia will be severe.”

Earlier, former Russian President and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said the strikes on Kyiv and other major cities were only “the first response” to the explosion on the Crimea Bridge that left a column of train cars burning and sent one section of the highway into the Kerch Strait.

Russia has said that the suspected truck bombing was an act of terrorism carried out by the Ukrainian special services. Ukraine has not taken credit for the incident.

Following Biden’s comments, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blamed the United States for holding up possible negotiations to end the war, which Moscow officially calls a “special military operation.”

“We repeat once again especially for the American side: The tasks that we set in Ukraine will be solved,” Zakharova wrote on the ministry’s website.

“Russia is open for diplomacy and the conditions are well known. The longer Washington encourages Kyiv’s bellicose mood and encourages rather than hinders the terrorist undertakings of Ukrainian saboteurs, the more difficult will be the search for diplomatic solutions.”

Kyiv, which has retaken large swaths of Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine’s south and east in recent weeks, has ruled out negotiations with Putin, saying that Russia is making unacceptable demands and that Putin’s actions have made talks impossible.

Ukraine was left reeling by the early morning strikes on October 10.

While Putin said his forces had launched “precision weapons” from the air, sea, and ground to target key energy and military command facilities in Ukraine, the strikes hit residential areas and critical infrastructure facilities alike.

Ukraine’s State Emergency Service said on the Telegram messaging app that four cities — Lviv, Poltava, Sumy, and Ternopil — had no electricity following the attacks and that electricity supplies had been partially disrupted in other parts of the country. In the east, passenger rail service was cut off between Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and Izyum — a city that was taken shortly after Russia’s unprovoked invasion in February but which Kyiv recently retook in a major counteroffensive.

Several explosions rocked the center of the capital, Kyiv, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in a video message filmed outside his presidential office that Russia had intentionally targeted the country’s energy infrastructure and timed the strikes to inflict the greatest number of human losses.

In his nightly evening address to the nation on October 10, Zelenskiy said from a damaged civilian area near a Kyiv university that “Ukraine cannot be intimidated. We united even more instead.”

International reaction to the October 10 missile strikes was swift, with the United States, the European Union, and NATO condemning the strikes and the Group of Seven announcing it would hold emergency talks on October 11 that would be preceded by an address by Zelenskiy.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement that he had spoken with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to “reiterate U.S. support for Ukraine following the Kremlin’s horrific strikes.” Blinken said the United States would continue to provide “unwavering economic, humanitarian, and security assistance so Ukraine can defend itself and take care of its people.”

Photo Gallery:

Earlier, EU Foreign Affairs chief Josep Borrell also spoke with Kuleba after the attacks, which Borrell “condemned in the strongest possible terms.” The EU’s top diplomat also expressed his condolences for those who died in the strike and said those responsible would be held accountable.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said in a tweet after speaking with Kuleba that he “condemned Russia’s horrific and indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.”

Ukrainian President Zelenskiy said in his morning video address that the strikes were an act of terrorism.

“This morning is difficult. We are dealing with terrorists,” Zelenskiy said, noting the Russian military’s use of Iranian drones to carry out the strikes.

“They are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the face of the earth…destroy our people who are sleeping at home,” Zelenskiy said.

Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valeriy Zaluzhniy said on Twitter that Russia used drones to launch a total of 75 rockets on Ukraine, more than half of which he claimed were destroyed by Ukrainian air defenses.

With reporting by dpa, AP, and Reuters

The £130m Dragonfire programme is one of the most advanced weapons systems currently being tested by the British military.

The ‘death ray’ will be capable of firing bursts of high-energy light particles that can rip apart targets in the blink of an eye.

It’s set to be rolled out across the UK armed forces, fitted on Royal Navy warships, RAF jets, helicopters and in land-based air defence variants.

An impression of the laser weapon in action on a Type 26 frigate.

Development of Dragonfire is being led by a consortium of international defence firms and the Ministry of Defence.

The first batch of trials has now been completed, which tested the accuracy of a low-powered version of the laser against targets in the air and at sea – with the consortium behind the project saying Dragonfire passed with flying colours with ‘exceptionally high accuracy’.

The success has now paved the way for the next phase of the trials, which will see the UK tested its first high-power laser version.

The Dragonfire system which has now completed its first set of accuracy tests on targets in the air and at sea.

Chris Allam, managing director of defence firm MBDA UK, said: ‘The success of these trials is a key step in the development of sovereign laser directed energy weapons.

‘It is the culmination of a lot of hard work from both the industry and Dstl (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) teams, overcoming disruption due to Covid and technical challenges from the use of unique innovations in Dragonfire that are testing the very limits of what is physically possible in the laser weapons domain.’

Dragonfire was revealed in 2017, with the then-Second Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, Vice Admiral Jonathan Woodcock championing the system.

Addressing senior military figures and defence leaders during his 2017 Trafalgar Day speech, Vice Adm Woodcock said it had been hoped the first ‘capability demonstrator’ of the system would ‘fire in 2019’.

An impression of the laser system fitted on a Wildcat helicopter.

But delays hampered this plan, pushing back the planned rollout into the army and navy by the mid-2020s.

Speaking on Twitter today about the news of Dragonfire’s first tests, Sir Jonathan said: ‘Great to see but such a shame it’s not 2019, the date I set for it to be trialled at sea and the date signed up to by the consortium.’

The huge explosion on the Crimea bridge shortly before dawn on Saturday severely curtailed road and rail traffic along an important artery – both civilian and military – at a critical moment in Russia’s campaign in Ukraine.

At first sight, it was another embarrassment – even humiliation – for the Russian state, still reeling from battlefield setbacks in Kharkiv, Donetsk and, more recently, in Kherson in the south.

But by Monday the bridge attack had also become the Kremlin’s justification for a sudden blitz of missile attacks across Ukraine. By midday, according to Ukrainian authorities, some 80 missiles and rockets had been fired at infrastructure in a dozen cities – and Russian officials were promising more to come.

In the hours after the bridge explosion, Russian investigators fastened onto one explanation for the blast: It was a terrorist attack using a massive explosive charge hidden in a truck and then detonated as the vehicle crossed the bridge toward Crimea.

Russian President Vladimir Putin picked up the theme on Monday, saying Kyiv had “put itself on a par with the most odious terrorist groups,” which had prompted the subsequent “massive strike with precision-guided weapons on Ukrainian infrastructure – energy infrastructure, military command and communications.”

“It is simply impossible to leave the crimes of the Kyiv regime unanswered,” he said.

Putin went on: “In terms of the further act of terrorism on the territory of Russia, the Russian reply will be harsh and will be corresponding to the level of threat to the Russian Federation, have no doubt about it.”

The explosion, Moscow’s version of what happened and the absence of any Ukrainian acknowledgement for carrying it out, has set off a firestorm of theorizing about what caused it and who was responsible.

The Kerch bridge is about 150 miles from the nearest Ukrainian positions, and well beyond the range of weapons provided by the West. But Ukrainian drones were reported to have approached the area in the summer, setting off air defense measures.

Some analysts unconvinced by the truck bomb narrative suggested a missile or missiles fired by drones may have been responsible, or that an underwater sabotage team had fixed charges to the bridge’s support structure.

Images and video from the scene were inconclusive. As the truck identified by the Russians crosses the bridge and begins to ascend to its highest point, it is engulfed in a massive explosion.

The Russian Investigative Committee, charged with finding out what caused the explosion, quickly identified the vehicle. Surveillance video emerged of the truck, with its distinct scarlet cab, at a checkpoint before it enters the bridge. It receives a cursory inspection; the driver – in a short-sleeve shirt – is seen briefly closing the truck’s rear doors.

But it’s unclear how a truck bomb would have caused two separate spans of the westbound lanes to collapse into the Kerch Strait. Additionally, the force of such a blast would have mostly gone upwards and outwards. Some analysts note that the way the spans collapsed imply the force of the blast came from below.

Chris Cobb-Smith, an analyst with the research group Forensic Architecture, is skeptical about the truck narrative. “It’s possible to blow a bridge by using explosives on the span but it takes a huge amount and needs ‘tamping’ – a huge weight of ballast on the charge to ensure the blast goes downwards,” he told CNN.

“I don’t believe a truck bomb could have caused this level of damage. This would have entailed a suicide bomber driver, unheard of in the context of this conflict.”

Cobb-Smith, a British army veteran, is also skeptical of a special forces operation. “There are accurate weapon systems that could achieve the aim of destroying the bridge without risking individuals.”

But he cautions: “To solve this I believe we need analysis of the bits of the bridge currently underwater. I still think this would have been easily achieved by a precision munition.”

On Sunday, the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, doubled down on the truck explanation.

Face-to-face with Putin in a well-choreographed exchange, Bastrykin said the truck had been in Bulgaria before traveling through Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia and into Russia. (It would have also had to cross Turkey.)

“It was possible to identify suspects from among those who could prepare a terrorist attack, and people who operate on the territory of the Russian Federation,” Bastrykin said, referring to “citizens of foreign countries who helped prepare for this terrorist attack.”

The investigators reached an “unequivocal conclusion – this is a terrorist attack that was being prepared by the Ukrainian special services,” Bastrykin said.

A stern-faced Putin responded: “I see.” Notably, the president went on to say: “There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack aimed at destroying the critical civilian infrastructure of the Russian Federation,” carried out by the special services of Ukraine.

On one level, the “act of terror” narrative would at least excuse the Russian military from having to explain why its multi-layered defenses around the bridge failed, despite Ukraine’s public assertions that it was a legitimate target. On another, it provides – through Moscow’s prism – the justification for the massive escalation of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Ukrainian intelligence claims those attacks were planned days before the Kerch explosion. Its defense intelligence agency said Monday that Russian military units had “received instructions from the Kremlin to prepare massive missile strikes on the civilian infrastructure of Ukraine on October 2 and 3.”

If it wasn’t the truck, what might have caused such an explosion? Cobb-Smith says a surface vessel of any sort should and would have been detected.

Some analysts have suggested that the explosion could have come from beneath the bridge; others think satellite images indicate the impact was from above and came from the north.

Ultimately, according to Cobb-Smith and other experts, there is insufficient video evidence to confirm what happened at Kerch.

There is no doubt that the Ukrainians have seen Kerch as a legitimate, even necessary, target.

Back in June Dmytro Marchenko, a Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Major General in the south of the country, said the Kerch bridge was the “number one target.”

Marchenko told Radio Liberty: “This is no secret to their military or our military. Neither for their civilians nor for our civilians. This will be the number one target to hit. It’s as if the main gut tightening reserves just have to be cut off. As soon as this intestine is cut off, they will begin to panic.”

But Ukrainian officials have been tight-lipped about Saturday’s explosion, welcoming the crippling of the bridge (somewhat prematurely given that limited road and rail traffic resumed within 24 hours) without acknowledging involvement.

They took the same approach with the sinking of the Russian battleship Moskva. It was weeks before any official acknowledgement emerged.

Some Ukrainian officials put the Kerch explosion down to an internal power struggle between Russia’s Security Service and Defense Ministry, without offering any evidence.

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to President Zelensky’s chief of staff, said Saturday that “the logistics of the detonation, the synchronization with the fuel echelon [the rail wagons carrying fuel], the volume of the destroyed road surface – all this clearly points to the Russian trail.”

The cause of the Kerch blast, and its perpetrator, remain open questions. They may do for some time to come. But there is no doubt that the conflict in Ukraine has moved to yet another level, with Russia now embarked on a relentless assault against Ukraine’s power and communications networks, and Ukrainian officials swearing revenge for every missile.