My name is Thomas Givesneff. I'm a journalist at the New York Times. I served in the Marine Corps as an Infantryman. When it comes to reporting on the front line, I think nothing is more important than talking to the people involved, hearing their stories and being able to connect that with people thousands of miles away. Anything that can make something like this more personal, I think, is well worth the risk. New York Times subscribers make it possible for us to keep doing this vital coverage. If you'd like to subscribe, you can do that at nytimes. Com/subscribe.

From the New York Times, it's The Headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Tuesday, August 27th. Here's what we're covering. Could you tell us what you know about this latest attack in terms of the scale of it and what was hit?

Yeah. Over the past 24 hours, Russia unleashed what is, by all estimates, one of the largest missile and drone bombardments of the war. The Russians fired cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, drones from inside Russia, from the Black Sea, from Crimea, at targets across Ukraine.

Times reporter Mark Santora has been covering Russia's latest barrage of attacks against Ukraine. He says the bombardment sent Ukrainians scrambling for shelter in Kyiv's subway system and in basements across the country, as Russia took specific aim at Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

In In these Russian bombardments of the Ukrainian energy grid, they've gone after basically everything that can generate power. Thermopower plants, they've gone after the substations that bring that power across the country, they've gone after hydroelectric plants. Obviously, we don't know the Kremlin's thinking behind each and every move they do. But we do know broadly that by going after the energy infrastructure, they're not just making life miserable for millions of Ukrainians, but they're hoping to do serious damage to the economy, for instance, to the industries that make the Ukrainian arms industry work, to a number of things. These Russian attacks at their core are basically aimed at bringing down the Ukrainian state's ability to function. In the immediate aftermath of these attacks, you saw Ukraine raise a point they've raised many times. The only way to really stop and thwart these attacks, they say, is to go after these Russian warplanes and bombers at the bases before they take off. They call it going after the archer rather than the arrow, because if you try and shoot down on 100 arrows, inevitably, some get through. But if you take out the archer, you don't have the arrow.

So that's their argument. So far, the Biden administration, while allowing Ukraine to use some of its Western-supplied weaponry in the cross-border attack into Russia is not allowing Ukraine to use long-range strike weapons to hit Russian air bases far from the front. Concerned, they say that Moscow might view the use of Western weapons to target Russian air bases as an escalation of sorts. So it remains to be seen if this latest wave of attacks will shift the Biden administration's thinking at this moment.

Federal prosecutors are trying to resurrect the classified documents case against Donald Trump after a judge dismissed it last month. Trump was charged with illegally holding on to national security materials after left the White House, and with obstructing the government's efforts to get them back. The case was brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the attorney general to investigate the former President. But Judge Aaleen Canon, who was put on the bench by Trump, threw the case out, saying Smith was appointed to his job illegally. She ruled his appointment should have been confirmed by the Senate. Her decision was a major legal victory for Trump and stunned many experts. It flew in the face of previous court decisions about special prosecutors going back to the Watergate era. Now, Smith's team has filed a brief arguing the case shouldn't have been thrown out. They point to four statutes. They say, Give the attorney general the authority to name special counsels. The prosecution is also arguing that Judge Cannon's decision could call into question hundreds of appointments and could, quote, jeopardize the long-standing operation of the Justice Department. The filing is just the beginning of a legal battle that's likely to stretch well beyond the election and may end up at the Supreme Court.

The deal was we keep the same rules. Now all of a sudden, they want to make a change in the rules because she can't answer questions.

Why does it- Donald Trump and Kamala Harris's campaigns are squabbling over the details of their upcoming presidential debate. The two are set to face off on September 10th in a 90-minute debate hosted by ABC. It will be the first time they've ever debated each other, and right now, no other debates are scheduled, meaning it could be voters' only chance to see the candidates side by side before the election. But yesterday, Trump suggested maybe he won't show up.

I think ABC really should be shut out. I'd much rather do it on NBC. I'd much rather do it on CBS, frankly.

The former president has claimed that ABC's anchors and executives are biased against him. He He said his first choice would be to debate on Fox News. The Harris campaign is also lobbying to change a detail of the debate. It wants both candidates to have their mics on the whole time. No muting. Previously, when Joe Biden was the Democratic candidate, his team pushed hard for candidates to be muted when it's not their turn, arguing that Trump couldn't be trusted not to talk over Biden. But the Harris campaign has now changed course, hoping that an unmuted Trump will play to her favor. Harris had a standout moment in 2020 when Mike Pence interrupted her in a debate, and she shot back with an icy, I'm speaking. This year, the presidential debate in June between Biden and Trump was the most watched event of the race so far, with more than 51 million Americans watching live. In court in Oregon yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission and the two largest supermarket chains in the US squared off in a fight over a potential merger that could have huge consequences for both shoppers and grocery store workers. Kroger, which owns brands like Ralph's and Harris Teeter, has been trying to complete the biggest supermarket takeover in American history by acquiring Albertsons, which owns Safeway and Vons.

But the FTC is stepping in to try and block that merger, and the grocery chains are pushing back.

I think the reason this deal is getting so much attention is the fact that this is groceries. This is the stuff people really rely on. It is a case that fundamentally, in the way the government is framing it, is about whether it will get harder for Americans to feed their family companies.

Danielle Kay is a business reporter at the Times. She says the FTC is arguing that the merger could drive up prices, lead to stores closing in some neighborhoods, and mean lower wages and less bargaining power for the store's seven 100,000 workers.

While the FTC is saying this will reduce competition in a lot of markets across the country, the companies are saying, No, actually, this is pro-competitive. We need this deal in order to compete with the even bigger players. Without this deal, actually, prices will keep going up. I think the key part of their argument is portraying traditional supermarkets like Kroger and Albertsons as the underdog as we see Amazon, Walmart, Costco, these major retailers get more and more of an inroad into grocery. These major players are the bigger culprits here, and we need to compete against them.

Finally, for guys whose party trick is playing Wonderwall on the acoustic guitar in the corner, today is a big day.

Today is going to be the day that they're going to throw it back to you.

The British band Oasis has announced a reunion tour that some people never thought would happen. The band hit it big in the '90s, selling tens of millions of albums with its anthems, Champagne Supernova and Wonderwall, which became inescapable and still is in some places. But things came crashing back down to Earth, largely because the brothers who led the band, Liam and Noel Gallagher, could not get along. Their very public feud was one of the biggest in music history There was even an unofficial 14-minute recording released of them fighting while a journalist tries to interview them.

I'm talking about our band there. That's what I'm talking about. No, you're not. You're asking me. You're asking me what I'm about.

You ask me to cry. The band split in 2009 when Noel said quote, I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer. They've continued to insult each other publicly over the years and weren't even on speaking terms at points.

Not caught up with him over Christmas for about 15 years. He goes to see me, mom, and then we share my mom. I'll have her next Christmas.

But they've now reconciled at least long enough for the comeback tour next summer, which will include shows in Britain and Ireland, and they've hinted at plans to play beyond Europe, too. Those are the headlines. Today on The Daily, fake emails, Roger Stone and Iran. A look at the first major cyber attack of the 2024 presidential race. You can listen on the Times audio app or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Tracy Mumford. We'll be back tomorrow.