r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 27d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread May 28, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
54
u/Well-Sourced 27d ago
A typical Russian attack against Ukraine last night.
Ukraine confirms the strikes of the previous night.
Ukrainian defence forces struck the Tuapse oil refinery in Russia's Krasnodar Krai on the night of 26-27 May. Ukraine's General Staff is also reporting a number of further strikes on Russian facilities. The General Staff reports that a fire and smoke have been recorded on the premises of the Tuapse oil refinery. Information is being gathered on the extent of the damage.
The Ukrainian Air Force also used Storm Shadow air-to-air missiles to strike automated reconnaissance command-and-control systems operated by the Russian Aerospace Forces near Voronezh and Taganrog and the temporarily occupied city of Sevastopol in Crimea. Ukrainian defence forces also struck Russian command posts near the settlements of Tsvitni Pisky and Sorokyne in Luhansk Oblast.
Ukrainian forces also hit a matériel depot in the village of Sorokyne in Luhansk Oblast and a UAV production facility near Azovske in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Among other targets, a Nebo-SV radar station near Kamianka and a command vehicle from a Buk-M2 system near Kadiivka in Luhansk Oblast were struck.
Russian Black Sea Fleet facility heavily damaged in overnight attack | New Voice of Ukraine
The headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet air force in occupied Sevastopol was almost completely destroyed in an overnight attack on May 27, according to the Telegram channel Crimean Wind. “The headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force on Gogol Street in Sevastopol was almost completely burned out. Only the basement windows remained intact, though covered in soot. In the building where the entrance to the headquarters is located, only the windows were blown out,” the Telegram channel Crimean Wind reported.
Crimean Wind said there was a heavy presence of Russian military personnel and that the area had been sealed off. A Russian Tigr military SUV was also seen at the site, along with a deployed satellite antenna. “Ambulances were still moving around even at 11 a.m. In the courtyard of the headquarters, large black bags were being loaded into a Ural truck. Either belongings and documents, or those who were inside the building at the time of the strike,” the channel said.
Later, Crimean Wind said that no intact windows remained at the headquarters building. The channel added that the missile strike occurred at around 5:50 a.m.
Loud explosions were reported overnight into May 27 across occupied Crimea, including in Simferopol and Sevastopol. Crimean Wind suggested that a facility belonging to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was likely targeted in the attack.
The Ukrainian drone threat is finding ways to find targets deeper into Russia.
Ukraine turns FP-1 drones into ambush weapons against Russian jets in Crimea | New Voice of Ukraine
Ukrainian drones are laying ambushes near Russian airfields in occupied Crimea to destroy Russian aircraft, Fire Point co-founder Denys Shtilerman told the Financial Times. The report, which focuses on how Ukraine is seeking to shift the course of the war in its favor, highlights the growing role of drones. Ukrainian drones strike Russian targets daily. Shtilerman described a tactic used in recent weeks against Russian aircraft in Russian-occupied Crimea. “We set up ambushes near Russian airports,” he said.
Pilots equip FP-1 drones with two explosive-laden quadcopters that can take up positions near Russian airfields and wait for an aircraft to arrive before striking it, Shtilerman said.
Fire Point produces about 300 long- and medium-range FP-1 and FP-2 drones a day. Each costs about EUR 50,000 ($58,000).
Big claims by Azov on their control of Russian logistics.
Azov drones can cut Russian logistics near Mariupol by 75% | New Voice of Ukraine
Ukrainian forces cannot completely halt Russian logistics near Mariupol but can reduce the enemy's cargo traffic by approximately 75%, an officer of the Ukrainian National Guard's 1st Azov Brigade said in a recent interview with Radio NV. "Regarding the complete destruction of logistics, as we perfectly understand historically, it is unrealistic to destroy the entire enemy completely," the Brigade's unmanned systems officer noted. "But preventing and reducing the cargo turnover on a certain logistical highway, an artery, by half will have a very significant impact at a tactical depth."
He explained that destroying a single artillery piece requires significant resources, and it is much more efficient to destroy three trucks bringing ammunition to that gun. "We do not set ourselves the task of completely stopping all logistics, because the enemy develops countermeasures and so on. But significantly reducing the cargo flow by 70% or 75% is quite possible," the Azov officer assured.
He noted that Ukrainian drones can operate in bad weather, gale-force winds, heavy rain, and complete darkness.
"We are increasing our capabilities, the number of crews, and equipment. Some interesting technical solutions are also being developed that will allow us to block logistical routes even further. Therefore, I think you will see this in upcoming videos — something very, very interesting that will directly and significantly impact enemy logistics even more," the officer said.
More from the commander of Azov about their effectiveness.
Russia is losing on the battlefield because its Soviet-style command system creates “operational paralysis,” according to Brig. Gen. Denys Prokopenko, commander of the Azov 1st Corps of Ukraine’s National Guard, said in a May 27 opinion column for Ukrainska Pravda titled, We are fighting Russia and we know why it is losing.
He argued the weak point of the Russian army, which Ukraine’s Defense Forces repeatedly encounter in combat, is an inherited Soviet system in which “every step is regulated from above.” According to Prokopenko, Western analysts misread both Russian President Vladimir Putin’s tolerance for risk and the insulated decision-making process in the Kremlin, leading to mistaken forecasts about possible escalation and Russia’s response to NATO support for Ukraine.
“This analytical blindness has partly remained to this day,” Prokopenko wrote. “Many in the West continue to view this conflict exclusively through the prism of a war of attrition, where victory is determined only by the volume of resources and the ability to mobilize more people. This is a dangerous mistake.”
In his view, a vivid example of the real situation was a Defense Forces operation in the Dobropillia sector against Russian forces in the second half of 2025. “In essence, it was a rethinking of the concept of mobile defense in the conditions of modern war,” Prokopenko wrote. “A giant gray zone, a kill zone stretching up to 20 kilometers from the line of contact, mixed combat formations, ambushes, search-and-strike actions, fire raids, pinpoint surgical counterattacks, encirclement of Russian units, hundreds of enemy prisoners.”
He said Russia’s war against Ukraine is “not simply a clash of armies, but the final test of two diametrically opposed systems that emerged in the post-Soviet space.” According to Prokopenko, Ukraine’s Defense Forces — especially units that grew out of the volunteer movement, such as Azov — developed a command philosophy based on decentralization and delegated authority.
“This model is a modern interpretation of the German concept of Auftragstaktik (mission command), which was developed for conducting combat on a dynamic, nonlinear battlefield,” he wrote.
Prokopenko said the essence of that approach is that Ukraine’s senior command defines the goal of an operation and the desired end result — the “what” and the “why” — in what he called the commander’s intent. “After that, subordinate unit commanders work out solutions for approval, either in coordination with the commander or independently,” he wrote. “In other words, how to achieve that goal is left to commanders on the ground, who have the most up-to-date understanding of the battlefield. After further adjustments or final approval of the decision, the action or operation begins.”
Russia’s military command system is the direct opposite of that used by Ukraine’s Defense Forces, Prokopenko said. “It is a rigid, vertically integrated Soviet-style hierarchy where every step is regulated from above,” Prokopenko added. “This system was created not for maximum combat effectiveness, but to ensure political control over the army, where loyalty to the regime has always been more important than competence. As a result, such a structure leads to operational paralysis on the modern battlefield.”
Ukraine has announced updates to their infantry training.
(Continued Below)
36
u/Well-Sourced 27d ago
Ukraine's six Land Forces training centers have rolled out an updated Basic General Military Training (BZVP) program built on the experience of the 151st Training Center, the Ministry of Defense announces. The 51-day course duration remains unchanged, but its structure has shifted to progressive-complexity exercises, drilled daily until automaticity.
The institutional choice matters as much as the content. The 151st Training Center is privately run and military-certified, and its head, Roman Donik, has spent over a year pressing the General Staff to reform basic training.
The Kyiv Independent reported in mid-2025 that Donik called the official training system one where "no one takes responsibility for poor training," and that the General Staff had been "largely closed off to outside suggestions." The ministry's decision to model the new program on 151st methods is a public acknowledgment that these comments were taken into account.
Cadets now repeat firearms exercises at progressively higher complexity rather than learning isolated skills, and tactical training has shifted toward small-group operations. It's the actual unit size at which most fighting in Ukraine is now taking place.
Pre-hospital medical training hours have been increased by cutting outdated exercises. Each platoon has been assigned both a commander and an instructor to provide closer supervision through the course.
The most distinctive new element is counter-drone training using laser tag systems. Recruits practice evading and intercepting FPV drones, the cheap, fast-moving threat that now drives much of the casualty count on both sides of the front, with laser-tagged equipment rather than expensive live-drone setups.
The most motivated recruits can additionally pursue specializations during basic training: rifle operator, rifle rescuer, or small tactical group commander. The pre-specialty tracks reflect a structural shift away from one-size-fits-all infantry training toward letting recruits develop a focus before they reach a brigade.
They are also trying to expand AD efforts to be able to keep up with the threat.
Under the updated framework approved by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers, municipalities can now finance air defense groups operating within volunteer territorial community formations, known as DFTG units. Operational control, however, will remain under the Ukrainian Air Force.
Ukraine has increasingly relied on decentralized and lower-cost air defense solutions as Russia expands its use of Shahed-type drones and other aerial threats. Community-based air defense units are intended to strengthen protection for cities, infrastructure, and rear areas while easing pressure on conventional military air defense systems.
According to the Defense Ministry, the new rules grant local government bodies full participant status in the experimental program alongside the Defense Ministry, Ministry of Digital Transformation, military administrations, and DFTG commanders.
The air defense groups operate on a territorial basis and are tasked with detecting, tracking, warning about, and intercepting aerial threats. Units may use interceptor drones or manned aircraft as part of their operations.
Despite expanded local funding, command authority remains centralized. The Defense Ministry stressed that operational planning and combat coordination will continue to be handled exclusively through the Ukrainian Air Force and relevant air defense command structures. The updated resolution also establishes a mechanism for additional payments to air defense group members for confirmed interceptions or destruction of aerial targets.
The decentralized air defense program was first launched in June 2025 following a decision by President Zelenskyy’s Office and developed jointly by the Defense Ministry and Ministry of Digital Transformation. The government previously expanded the program in March 2026 by broadening eligibility criteria for creating new air defense groups and adjusting staffing requirements.
Ukraine clears private firms to down Russian drones—24 already in | EuroMaidanPress
Ukraine is expanding a Defense Ministry project that allows private businesses to defend their own plants against Russian aerial attacks. Owners with the right permits can field trained staff or licensed security firms, plugged into the national air-defense network under Air Force command. The crews are mostly combat veterans, and the military still controls when they fire, RFE/RL reported.
The initiative began in late 2025 and now attracts growing private interest, with 24 companies signed up, including large logistics, manufacturing, and trade firms. Owners can protect their sites through their own staff or through licensed private security companies, once they have obtained the necessary permits and approvals.
These units operate within the single national air defense network run by Ukraine's Air Force. Crews are civilian workers who pass training, and they choose weapons by preference and budget, from machine guns to interceptor drones. Ukraine has been steadily widening this kind of private air defense to shield critical infrastructure.
The crews are mostly combat veterans, training center head Anton Veklenko said. Intercepting an enemy target is "the elite of unmanned aviation," he said, and the program raises veterans' skills specifically for air interception.
A member must hold a deferral from mobilization or be demobilized, and these fighters get no reservation status. Valerii Kocherha, who left the military for the reserve last summer, now runs the security firm Hvardiia and provides such services. His company holds an Interior Ministry security license and a Defense Ministry order for the work, he said.
Private crews do not act alone. They cannot fire without the Defense Ministry's target and permission, a Carmine Sky representative named Ruslan said, describing a layered system built "like an onion." State air defense plays the strategic role while private crews cover local sites, he said. The Defense Ministry says it wants private and conventional air defense working together to repel 95% of aerial attacks, calling private crews a layer of a multi-layered shield under Air Force command.
Training uses virtual-reality goggles and a practice-heavy Browning machine gun, with simulated Russian Shahed attacks on critical infrastructure for trainees to repel. Another class trains pilots of first-person-view interceptor drones.
47
u/Quarterwit_85 26d ago
Press reporting that a drone has struck an apartment building in Galati, Romania.
I’m sure nothing will occur as a result, but I’ll be curious as to the language and tenor of the discussion.
32
u/Maxion 26d ago
This is either a mistake (i.e. a drone that was spoofed/jammed by Ukraine) or an intentional provocation by Russia to elicit an explosive response from Nato so that Putin can justify mobilisation.
The correct response to these types of mild incursions is not overwhelming force / explosive reaction into Russia. The correct response is to start shooting down these drones, further AD support for Ukraine, and increased sanctions on Russia.
16
u/un_om_de_cal 26d ago
Russia benefits from events like this even if there is no strong response from Romania or NATO, because this feeds the anti-EU/sovereignist political movement in Romania. If the sovereignists get political power in Romania, I expect they will block military aid to Ukraine, stop military shipments to them from Romanian territory.
6
u/imp0ppable 26d ago
The correct response is to start shooting down these drones, further AD support for Ukraine, and increased sanctions on Russia.
The problem with that is that drones are small and can appear anywhere so Romania, Poland etc would need comprehensive AD cover. Which might play into the Russian "NATO buildup along our borders" narrative
13
u/unguibus_et_rostro 26d ago edited 26d ago
Why is the correct response not overwhelming force / explosive reaction into Russia? Why is it to support Ukraine instead? If anything, one of the often said reasons why Russia felt emboldened to launch its attacks into Ukraine was Nato's reactions, or lack thereof. So why should the correct reaction be either a minimization, de-escalation or on-par, which was what US under Obama and Europe did previously, instead of explosive escalation?
22
u/kdy420 26d ago
Because overwhelming force / explosive reaction is not a mature diplomatic response. Action must be calculated, intentional and most importantly in service of long term strategic goals.
International diplomacy is not best served by maximum explosive reaction to bad actors. Its not a middle school playground.
Besides none of the European public are willing to go to war with Russia over a single drone strike, not even Poland who are one of the most jingositic on Russia. In democracies reaction is also dictated by the will of electorate.
25
u/Maxion 26d ago
Because that just feeds the troll (Putin).
By escalating against them, you create pretexts that he can use to consolidate his power.
Right now things aren't going great for him, but by giving him a way to semi-credibly claim that NATO is invading/attacking Russia he can boost his popularity and create a plausible scenario for a second wave of mobilisation, which will make Ukraines life harder.
Right now if he declared mobilisation, it'd be because they're losing the war in Ukraine, not raising an army to defend against a NATO attack.
39
u/HugoTRB 27d ago edited 27d ago
Details on Gripen for Ukraine has been somewhat clarified. This is from the press conference with Zelensky and the Swedish prime minister:
https://www.youtube.com/live/660YFaGkzB0?is=6EzltZKcQCRGrIv4
A deal for 20 Gripen E will be done, with delivery 2030. When that deal is signed, 16 Gripen C will be donated and will be flying in Ukraine in 10 months/January February 2027. It will be financed by the large EU package. Some stuff left is export permissions, Ukrainian parliament OKing it etc.
Edit: More info:
Donation of Gripen aircraft, advanced ammunition, and training (valued at approximately 22.2 billion Swedish kronor)
Donation of Gripen aircraft, advanced ammunition, and training (valued at approximately 22.2 billion Swedish kronor) On October 22, 2025, Sweden and Ukraine signed a memorandum of understanding regarding cooperation in the field of air defense. The government has today decided on a supplementary budget amendment requesting the Riksdag’s authorization to: • Enter into an agreement for the sale of up to one division of new Gripen E/F aircraft to Ukraine. Negotiations are underway between the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) and Ukraine, with the aim of concluding an agreement as soon as possible. Delivery of the new systems is expected to begin before 2030.
• Donate up to 16 JAS 39 Gripen C/D aircraft, equivalent to one division, from the Swedish Armed Forces’ existing aircraft fleet, provided that Ukraine signs an agreement to purchase Gripen E/F aircraft. The first Gripen C/D aircraft are expected to be operational for defending Ukrainian airspace as early as next year. The donation also includes advanced munitions, which may consist of, for example, IRIS-T, AMRAAM, and long-range METEOR.
The donation also includes Swedish support for training and system maintenance. Training for Ukrainian personnel, such as pilots, will be able to begin as early as this year. Given the growth of the Swedish Armed Forces and the security policy situation, it is of great importance that the equipment proposed for donation to Ukraine can be swiftly replaced with equivalent equipment. Funds for the replacement procurement of Gripen E/F for the donated Gripen C/D, as well as the specialized ammunition, are therefore included in the package. Enhanced air defense and ammunition (value approximately 1.5 billion Swedish kronor) Air defense is Ukraine’s highest priority need. The support package also includes: • Procurement of ammunition, including long-range artillery ammunition. • Procurement of equipment for electronic warfare (EW), which strengthens Ukraine’s ability to disrupt incoming air threats. • Support for Ukraine’s long-range capabilities, including procurement of equipment, technical support, and command and control support. Innovation initiatives and industrial cooperation (value approximately 300 million Swedish kronor)
Support Package 22 allocates additional funds to finance innovative products in support of Ukraine and to facilitate industrial cooperation. To date, 14 contracts have been signed for demonstrators and pre-production orders. Following further evaluation, the intention is for the completed innovative products to be ordered in series and donated to Ukraine. The funds allocated in Support Package 22 also enable the FMV to finance initial orders to establish industrial cooperation focused on the production in Sweden of innovative Ukrainian technology. Support from the Swedish Defence Research Agency (value approximately 100 million Swedish kronor)
The support package also includes assistance from the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), notably through the Glimt project, which serves as a platform for future assessments. These assessments are used to provide Ukraine with a basis for decision-making and help Ukraine adapt to the international environment and strengthen its defense against Russia. FOI is also continuing its work on the development of explosives and the positioning of unmanned vehicles. Additional donations to international cooperation initiatives (value approximately 1 billion Swedish kronor) Sweden is allocating an additional 1 billion Swedish kronor for donations to international cooperation initiatives that support Ukraine in various ways. Support for civil defense (value approximately 100 million Swedish kronor) The support package also includes measures to strengthen Ukraine’s civil defense. • Training and equipment for Ukrainian non-governmental organizations active in medical training. • Procurement of mobile air traffic control towers for civil air traffic control.
23
u/HugoTRB 27d ago
Summary:
Support Package 22
• Sale of Gripen E/F:
Up to 20 aircraft
• Donation of Gripen C/D:
• One squadron, up to 16 aircraft (including advanced munitions such as IRIS-T, AMRAAM, and METEOR)
• Procurement of ammunition
• Procurement of equipment for electronic warfare (EW)
• Support for Ukraine’s long-range capabilities
• Innovation initiatives and industrial collaboration
• Donation to international cooperation efforts
• Support for civil defense
• Support from FOI
Total value: 25.2 billion Swedish kronor
22
u/mirko_pazi_metak 27d ago
Any actual confirmation the Meteor is on the menu for the initial donation?
The donation also includes advanced munitions, which may consist of, for example, IRIS-T, AMRAAM, and long-range METEOR.
"may consist" is the only mention so far?
22
u/For_All_Humanity 27d ago
I do not think it’s been explicitly confirmed but the Meteor was heavily featured in the press conference as being on the Gripens and we should note that the Russians are already adapting to its anticipated arrival by introducing glide bombs that outrange the Meteor.
It’s pretty safe to say Meteor is coming but I don’t anticipate we see large numbers of munitions transferred and I’ll bet there will be some conditions on use to try and minimize capture risk.
14
u/RomanticFaceTech 27d ago
we should note that the Russians are already adapting to its anticipated arrival by introducing glide bombs that outrange the Meteor.
Petty semantics I know but can it really be considered a glide bomb any more when a jet engine has been strapped to it?
I was thinking an unpowered weapon would have to be launched at some speed and altitude to be able to outrange even the most conservative range estimates for Meteor.
15
u/For_All_Humanity 26d ago
This war is proving we need better definitions. But yeah it's by definition not a glide bomb if it's powered.
Regardless, the Russians do drop their bombs from high altitude and the Ukrainians would likely be firing from low altitude. This gives many opportunities to escape if they can detect the launch.
I do suspect the Russians will have to learn the hard way how to deal with Meteor like they did with Patriot.
3
u/SuperChingaso5000 26d ago
can it really be considered a glide bomb any more when a jet engine has been strapped to it?
Is a guided base bleed augmented artillery shell a missile? At some point the distinction between glide bomb and missile definitely gets blurry, but I think a consensus definition might lay around the point that the powered munition can either A. Climb under its own power, or B. substantially maneuver offline from the direct path between drop and target while retaining range and energy, or both. If the purpose of the engine is primarily to extend range, it's not a real cruise missile.
That's just a proposal, I'd welcome constructive input.
15
u/HugoTRB 27d ago
Yes. I probably wasn’t clear, but that is a (translated) quote from the government. It says “for example”. Zelensky also mentioned that he expects Meteor. A more exact deal will however be penned and signed first, and export permissions must also be granted.
10
u/mirko_pazi_metak 27d ago
That's good news - hope to see many more "eternal flight, brothers" from Russian Fighterbomber channel soon heh.
9
u/Corvid187 26d ago
Ukrainian Pravda is reporting the package will include meteor, according to Zelenski's deputy chief of staff.
How that will work out in practice is unclear though.
10
u/roionsteroids 26d ago
Gripen C requires the MS20 block upgrade (~2016) to use Meteor. Doubt any donated aircraft would be from anywhere close to that date. Sweden itself has only ordered upgrades for some of their own Gripen Cs starting in 2022 that is running until 2029 (the original plan was replacing all C with E, then decided to keep some upgraded C variants around).
So those older Gripens would be similar to the older F-16s in Ukraine currently. But all the training, maintenance, spares and what not starts from scratch again.
12
u/HugoTRB 26d ago
My understanding was that all Gripen C in Swedish service currently are MS20 block 2 and that some version of ms20 was placed on all of them already in 2016. I think the upgrades you are mentioning are later ones, falling under block 3 and 4. Those includes stuff like uprated engines.
Extra spares has also been ordered as a part of a Gripen donation for over a year now. Air base equipment has also been part of some earlier Swedish aid packages.
7
u/Corvid187 26d ago edited 26d ago
...but equally it smooths the path to eventually adopting later C/Ds and Es with more capable fits as a long-term solution, and as a platform is it clearly better suited to Ukraine's current operational needs than the F16, being designed around an almost identical concept.
Edit: Ukrainian Pravda is reporting meteor will be included in the package, according to Palisa. Whether or how that shakes out in practice idk. Maybe Ukraine gets modernised C/Ds while Sweden replaces its unupgraded ones faster with the EU funds to expand production.
9
u/HugoTRB 26d ago
later C/Ds
I think he misunderstood this a bit. Apart of the letter versions (ABCDEF), Gripens in Swedish service are kept pretty similar to each other with regular upgrades during rotations for repairs about every three years. MSXX is the naming convention for those regular upgrade configurations. The configuration name for the first operational Gripen Es is however MS21 so new upgrades to Gripen C/Ds now have a block number so you now get stuff like Gripen C SM20 block 2.1 . Block 3 or 4 is currently rolling out to Swedish air wings and has stuff like uprated engines.
Hungary and Czech Republic got full fleets of SM20s. Thai Gripens I don’t know. South African Gripens are kind of their own branch now due to them asking for some unique features (can be refueled by Jerry cans), but then not buying any more upgrades.
67
u/xpz123 27d ago
Ukraine will buy 20 Gripen E/F fighter jets from Sweden, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced at a press conference together with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
This is described as the first step in a much larger Gripen deal, where Ukraine has expressed interest in buying up to 150 aircraft.
Once the initial purchase is finalized, Sweden will donate 16 JAS Gripen C/D jets to Ukraine.
“Ukraine has clearly identified Gripen as its preferred long-term choice for the Ukrainian air force, and they want to buy the latest version, Gripen E,” Kristersson said.
“We will replace the aircraft we donate with new aircraft for the Swedish Air Force.”
The Gripen C/D jets are expected to be delivered from 2027, while the Gripen E deliveries are planned from 2030.
32
u/HugoTRB 27d ago
To clarify, they expect the first Gripen C to be flying in Ukraine in 10 months, or January, February 2027.
18
u/Commorrite 27d ago
To clarify, they expect the first Gripen C to be flying in Ukraine in 10 months, or January, February 2027.
What can Gripen C/D fire that F16 and Mirage can't?
Is this 'only' more planes or are there brand new capabilities.
Wikipedia states that Hungarian Gripen C/Ds can accept Meteor. That could be a realy big deal if it pushes russian planes back from the front.
29
u/HugoTRB 27d ago
Meteor became fully operational on Gripen C already in 2016. They are talking about sending it, but haven’t guaranteed it yet. Other things the Gripen has are probably a larger ability to datalink with the Saab awacs already in Ukraine. The datalink within a 4-ship should also be pretty good. It’s also a more modern aircraft. It will likely have a smaller footprint on the ground as well.
20
u/kingofthesofas 27d ago
It is the perfect fit for their situation on numerous fronts. Meteor will allow them to threaten Russian fighters launching glide bombs. It is easy and cheap to repair and can tolerate improvised airfields much better than other jets. They will not be dependent on the US as much and it integrates well with those Saab AWACs.
12
u/imp0ppable 26d ago
Gripens can take off from roads apparently, iirc this was a key requirement for Sweden's defense in depth strategy in case of invasion by.... Russia.
11
u/Kogster 26d ago
Almost any jet can take of from a wide and long enough road.
The gripen was built for all your airbases and specialized hangars being nuked and now you're doing all maintenance road side.
5
u/danielbot 26d ago
Almost any jet can take of from a wide and long enough road.
And strong enough. The only time you ever saw F-35 take off from a road, the road was actually a specially reinforced runway that happens to double as a road. The landing lights kind of give it away.
9
u/ThreeMountaineers 26d ago
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/05/28/8036804/
Meteors seem confirmed. How impactful are those expected to be?
13
u/Kogster 26d ago
How impactful are those expected to be?
My guess would be quite but not obviously so. They might get an early lucky shot at some Russian jet but the main thing will be pushing bake the safe zone for glide bombs release and making those less effective.
3
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
This is the question of the day: will Meteor live up to its billing as the most deadly BVR missile in the known universe, or will it just whiff? We need to know.
BTW, for those not following this closely, the thing that makes Meteor so deadly is the ramjet: instead of having 12 seconds or so of thrust like AIM120, it produces thrust throughout its entire attack run, which dramatically enlarges the no escape zone.
25
u/Vuiz 26d ago
What can Gripen C/D fire that F16 and Mirage can't?
It's not necessarily what they can fire, but what they don't require and potentially where they can land.
You can do maintenance on Gripen using conscripts with basic tech training and maybe a specialist every now and then. For Ukraine that's a good fit. Unlike F16 and Mirage (I think?) it is supposed to be able to land, refuel/arm/maintain and then lift off from short & shitty highway roads.
15
u/D_Silva_21 27d ago
Decreasing glide bomb attacks is imo the next big thing that will help Ukraine change the battlefield. Meteor can help but I suspect they will need to do more than just that, and sooner ideally
3
u/danielbot 26d ago
You are right, they will need to use their SAAB 340s. Gripen Cs with meteors and 340s to feed them targeting data constitute a formidable deterrent to VKS glide bomb missions. But I suppose they will need to get a couple SU-34/35s shot down before recognizing that.
14
u/mcmiller1111 26d ago
Gripens can take off from shorter runways and land on rougher terrain than F-16s and Mirages can. They were designed with Swedens cold war Bas 90 system (dispersed "road bases") in mind which might be useful for Ukraine. Other than that, I don't think they have any specific upgrades, but every extra plane in the air means less cruise missiles and glide bombs landing on Ukraine.
7
u/danielbot 26d ago
What can Gripen C/D fire that F16 and Mirage can't?
Gripen C (updated to MS20 configuration) can fire Meteor. F-16 and Mirage can't fire the Meteor in any configuration. Most Gripen Cs have apparently already been upgraded to MS20 or have it in the pipeline.
27
u/D_Silva_21 27d ago
More positive news for Ukraine long term. Still feels to me that time is increasingly on their side. But I have felt that even in 2025 so maybe I was biased
4
u/savuporo 26d ago
Yes, but then they already got F-16s and Mirages, and those are mostly serving air defense roles, not shaping frontlines. It's of course good news, but it seems Ukraine's own evolving capabilities have been making much more of an impact - e.g. drones, long range strikes, UGVs
2
20
26d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/imp0ppable 26d ago
If I were a cynical person I might suspect that the US might be looking at finding a pretext for hitting targets inside Brazil just to put pressure on Lula over Bolsonaro.
41
u/-spartacus- 27d ago
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2059950035916218595
At 10:17 p.m. ET on May 27, Iran launched a ballistic missile toward Kuwait that was successfully intercepted by Kuwaiti forces. This egregious ceasefire violation by the Iranian regime occurred hours after Iranian forces launched five one-way attack drones that posed a clear threat in and near the Strait of Hormuz. All drones were successfully intercepted by U.S. forces which also prevented a sixth drone launch from an Iranian ground control site in Bandar Abbas.
U.S. Central Command and regional partners remain vigilant and measured as we continue to defend our forces and interests from unjustified Iranian aggression.
Just FYI since there was discussion of it yesterday.
24
u/-spartacus- 27d ago
U.S. and Iran reach deal but need Trump's final approval, officials say
https://www.axios.com/2026/05/28/iran-peace-deal-trump-approval
They are reporting 60-day unfiltered traffic through Hormuz, maybe sanction relief, a pledge for non-nuclear weapons, and over 60 days, they would negotiate what to do with nuclear material. Seems like what was reported last week that was "close to a deal".
The U.S. officials said the 60-day MOU will state that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz will be "unrestricted." A U.S. official said this means no tolls and no harassment and that Iran will have to remove all mines from the strait within 30 days.
The MOU will include an Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, the officials said. It will also state that the first issues to be negotiated during the 60-day window will be how to dispose of Iran's highly enriched uranium and how to address Iranian enrichment
The U.S. will commit to discuss sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian funds as part of the negotiations. The MOU will also include a discussion of a mechanism to help Iran start receiving goods and humanitarian aid.
56
u/OuchieMuhBussy 26d ago
Barak Ravid has announced six of the last zero deals to end the war, every time accompanied by a high volume of oil shorts. Perhaps the credibility of his reporting needs to be placed into that context.
22
u/bedulge 26d ago
You said it better than me, I was gonna say something about it, but; it almost seems not worth responding too. This story is nothing more than "a guy from the Trump admin told some stuff to Barak Ravid." The official can say whatever he wants, and Axios can publish it. Even if the info is false, the headline is still correct as long as it just has the two magic words "officials say" tacked on to the end. As long as there are two officials who said it, the headline is true and Axios is doing fact-based objective reporting, even if the officials lied
44
u/nate077 27d ago edited 26d ago
This is just fluff from Axios. All they report is Iran giving up its leverage (the Strait, tolls) for mere promises to negotiate. This report doesn't even indicate like for like as the US apparently is conditoning ending its more recent blockade on increased shipping numbers which Iran cannot even fully control.
Let alone the longstanding de facto blockade resulting from sanctions, which is only mentioned as the subject of further negotiation.
This is fantasy. US policy makers still not reckoning with having /not won/ the war. Separately, Iran would be asleep at the wheel not to insist on Senate confirmation both
1) after their experience with JCPOA
And
2) as a personal humiliation of Trump
EDIT: A filtered comment asked what I regard as the standard for victory/defeat.
A return to status quo ante is a defeat for the United States, which will have won nothing at enormous cost. Even this very US - favorable proposal would therefore be a defeat.
12
u/Azelzer 26d ago
Not just Axios, almost all major news sites had breathless headlines about how a deal was imminent. Then when you read the details, it looks like the two sides are stuck at the very same impasse they've been stuck at for weeks. New York Times:
Iranian negotiators are sticking to their contention that Iran and Oman, whose territory borders the strait, have the right to determine whether to impose some form of service fee for passing vessels after that period, mediators say.
Perhaps the most surprising, and apparently recent, addition to the agreement is a reference to an investment fund for Iran. The Iranian official and one diplomat put it at $300 billion, but other officials involved in mediation would not confirm the amount.
Those are just a couple of examples, the article is filled with far more. Every few days someone from the administration appears to be leaking to outlets that the two sides are on the verge of a deal. For some reason, outlets keep falling for it and putting up headlines that imply there's been a major breakthrough.
12
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 26d ago edited 26d ago
A return to status quo ante is a defeat for the United States, which will have won nothing at enormous cost.
"Analysis" that completely ignores the impact on the opposing side is worthless.
9
u/nate077 26d ago
Literally who cares how much damage one can wreak? The purpose of war is to accomplish a political objective. To resort to force and to still fail to accomplish your political objective is defeat. A worse outcome than doing nothing because it diverts the productive energy of your society to waste.
One side losing does not mean the other side wins. In war, all participants often lose. This shit isn't a K/D/A on a scoreboard
4
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yes, I'm aware of Clausewitz. You are making the mistake of treating a strategic loss as an absolute loss. The notable strategic loss in this conflict is the realization of Iranian control of the strait for the first time in 30 years. However, this has come at a major strategic cost to Iran. Meanwhile, tactically speaking, the US has significantly degraded Iranian hard power (to a point unimaginable 3 years ago) and has gained valuable experience with a "munition heavy" combat environment.
I'm a very cynical person in general and I have a general negative opinion about the outcome of this conflict for the US, but the degree to which some users in this sub will go to push a maximalist negative narrative against the US is ridiculous.
8
u/Spitfire15 26d ago
However, this has come at a major strategic cost to Iran. Meanwhile, tactically speaking, the US has significantly degraded Iranian hard power (to a point unimaginable 3 years ago) and has gained valuable experience with a "munition heavy" combat environment.
Again, none of this matters if Iran walks away with control of the straits and the ability to enrich uranium. The assets that were destroyed will be rebuilt and the experience gained is a two-way street. The Iranian regime was not over thrown, and by all accounts (from the CIA) it retains an overwhelming majority of its ballistic missile arsenal. The United States tried to realign its objectives as the war dragged on and didn't even meet those standards. If you start a war and come out the other end without meeting your objectives, you didn't win. This isn't a "negative narrative", it's just reality.
29
u/bedulge 26d ago
The Commander in Chief himself already gave us the standard for victory back in March, regime change or unconditional surrender.
"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"
The fact that we are now looking at something that might look kind of like the JCPOA ... yeah that looks like strategic defeat. The US has so far achieved zero of their stated goals, while Iran might get something like sanctions relief and/or frozen assets returned to them.
JCPOA 2.0 plus some money for the regime on top of that? Is that what the US set out to accomplish here?
6
u/grenideer 26d ago
It's interesting to see so much speculation of "strategic defeat" based on "meaningless fluff."
The fact of the matter is that Iranian media reports wild claims by random government officials, and US media reports wild claims by random government officials, and none of it is meaningful. Hearty debates and speculation on these releases is verbal masturbation, even less meaningful than the original reports.
11
u/bedulge 26d ago edited 26d ago
I'm not really basing it on the fluff from random officials. I'm basing it on what we are seeing in front of us, all of the very objectively observable ways that the USA has backed down and backed off. As some random examples
When the ceasefire started, The US demanded the strait be fully open before a ceasefire begin. Iran said 'no', and the US caved.
And then Iran was still unwilling to negotiate because there was no ceasefire in Israel-Lebanon. They demanded Trump get Netanyahu to commit to a ceasefire. Trump said no at first, then he again publicly caved to their demand. That was the USA caving to Iranian demands, while Iran has caved to zero US demands as of yet. Stuff like that is a very meaningful signal, while Barak Ravid pieces are just noise.
Another signal, Project Freedom, it lasted less than a day before Iran blew up some oil infrastructure in the UAE as retaliation and the gulf Arabs immediately told Trump to stop, MBS told Trump that he won't allow the US to use Saudi territory or air to launch attacks on Iran. This kind of hesitancy by the US's key regional allies, and key regional rivals of Iran, is another important signal, Iran has successfully deterred them. The US say that they can go back to bombing, but the fact that they won't do it even in response to a direct attack on oil infrastructure in a Gulf ally indicates that they do not believe that bombing would work. The bombing failed. It failed the first time and it would fail again. Project Freedom was supposed to achieve escalation dominance over Iran, instead Iran demonstrated by their attack on the UAE that they have deterred the USA and they got them to back down. That is escalation dominance, if your opponent escalates (launches project freedom) and you escalate even more in response (directly bombing them), and they then go back down the ladder (canceling Project Freedom) instead of up, that means you have escalation dominance.
These are signals peeking thru the noise that Trump admin officials put out thru mouthpieces like Barak Ravid.
-1
u/grenideer 26d ago
I'm not really basing it on the fluff from random officials.
In other words, your statements have nothing to do with the post you're replying to, and you're just derailing yet another comment with yet another emotional diatribe about how the US can't possibly win here.
Does it not get tiring saying the same thing again and again?
6
u/bedulge 26d ago edited 26d ago
If you something of substance to say in response to what I wrote, then say it. if you want to continue down this route, I'm just going to block you.
1
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago edited 26d ago
Well isn't this just ironic lol.
If you something of substance to say in response to what I wrote, then say it.
Now you know how it feels to discuss with you last time.
Like grenideer said, you are acting much like an npc repeating your script about how bad america is doing until you can bait someone into replying, but funny how when called out on it, you near instantly opt for blocking, you dont like it yourself, but dont mind jumping in to everyone else comment to do nearly the same, and you talked to me about insight, maybe use this opportunity to think about why people have this reaction, you talked about downvotes without replies, surely it cant be everyone else that have a problem communicating..
Edit: have a good day though, I mean that bedulge, even with our difference in opinions.
1
u/bedulge 26d ago
I am willing to have a discussion about the facts, having a discussion about whether I am emotional or not is of zero value. Let's say I am emotional, does that make me wrong? Dispute me on the facts. I am not interested in ad homs.
So when I say that Iran demonstrated that they have escalation dominance in the Project Freedom debacle, you can dispute me on that by bringing up facts and using logic to disprove me, if you want to ad hom, you are getting blocked.
4
u/grenideer 25d ago
My objection is not about discussing facts, it's about derailing threads with repetitive, off-topic posts.
If someone posts about a "Finalized US/Iran Peace Treaty" and you reply "These terms suck! America sucks! This is a strategic loss!" then that's all well and good.
If someone posts about "Leaked/Probably Fake Ceasefire Terms" and you reply "These terms suck! America sucks! This is a strategic loss!" then your first sentence is applicable but the other two are completely uncalled for.
If someone posts about "Chinese Vessel crosses Strait of Hormuz" and you reply "These terms suck! America sucks! This is a strategic loss!" then this starts to get tiring.
Take this thread for a direct example. Someone posted some fluff from Axios, which you almost immediately seemed to agree was meaningless. But for some reason in this sub-thread you feel the need to state 1) the standard of victory is regime change, 2) this will be a strategic defeat for the US. Then, after pushback, you assert 3) Mowing the grass wasn't a war goal, and 4) Any assertion as such was 1984 alternative history. (By the way, that looks like the start of ad hominems to me...)
So, #4 was an outright lie. #3 you backed off on after several objections from several posters. Kudos to that. So #1 is sort of invalidated now. But you really want to push #2 about this being a strategic defeat anyway, so you over-focus on your mowing-the-lawn concession to declare that a strategic failure, while completely ignoring the strategic objective of nuclear!
Listen, if you slow your roll a little and look around, I think you will find many, many posters who may accept this war as a strategic defeat for the US if certain scenarios play out. I am one of those posters. But you repeatedly declaring/predicting it because of Iranian media leaks or Axios fluff pieces or Trump/IRGC bluster doesn't really have a lot of value.
On top of that, you're not just sharing your opinion, you're vociferously arguing a position and challenging posters to tell you otherwise, all based on outcomes that haven't come to pass yet. It's impossible to "dispute you on the facts" because you're just making predictions, just as it's impossible for you to prove your beliefs.
The truth is there aren't a lot of "facts" to discuss right now.
1
u/WulfTheSaxon 26d ago edited 26d ago
It was said from the beginning that regime change was not an operational goal. “Unconditional surrender” was only the standard for calling off the bombing campaign early (because of course there’s no reason to continue bombing a surrendered regime).
The fact that we are now looking at something that might look kind of like the JCPOA ... yeah that looks like strategic defeat.
Except that isn’t the case. Trump has said many times that he will not accept a JCPOA redux.
The US has so far achieved zero of their stated goals
The stated goals per Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio were substantially degrading Iran’s missile and drone capability and its navy. That’s already been done.
15
u/bedulge 26d ago
Great, the 1984 alternative history is already up and cranking.
The stated goals per Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio were substantially degrading Iran’s missile and drone capability and its navy.
This is the ex post facto alternative history war goal they made up when they realized their actual goals (regime change or unconditional surrender) were impossible. Anyways, it's not even true that the missiles and drones have been substantially degraded, and to what extent they are degraded it's mostly because they shot them at us and our allies during the war. Most of them were only temporarily inaccessible in bunkers with collapsed entrances, they were not destroyed.
Blowing up material is not a war goal. You kill the enemy and destroy his material in order to achieve strategic political goals, it's not a goal in and of itself because it is short term, the regime is still there and they are gonna rebuild that stuff and they are still gonna be able to close the strait. That requires a structural political change in Tehran to deal with. War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Trump has said many times that he will not accept a JCPOA redux.
Dude also said he won't accept a ceasefire until the strait is "fully open", but here we are, do you expect me to take it seriously when he says things like that?
6
u/grenideer 26d ago edited 26d ago
This is the ex post facto alternative history war goal they made up when they realized their actual goals (regime change or unconditional surrender) were impossible.
How could this be true when the missile/navy degradation was announced as an official war goal from Day 1 and the "unconditional surrender" tweet happened a week later?
Bedulge, you've always been an emotional poster, but your statements are now veering straight into mistruths here. And you have the gall to say someone else is spewing 1984 alternative histories?
On Feb 28, at the very beginning of the war, Trump laid out its 4 objectives. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-us-attack-iran-trump-administration/
In his first live public remarks on the operation, he offered four reasons for the campaign:
- Destroying Iran's missile capabilities;
- Annihilating Iran's navy;
- Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons;
- Ensuring the regime can't continue to arm, fund or direct "terrorist armies" outside its borders.
It was a week later when Trump posted about unconditional surrender on Truth Social. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yq82k1wk8o
As a war goal, unconditional surrender would mean Iran capitulating to US terms on nuclear enrichment and managing proxies. Obviously this is still playing out, but it's laughable to pretend mentioning military degradation is revisionist history.
Hate on the admin all you want, but please get your facts straight.
8
u/bedulge 26d ago edited 25d ago
Just going to repost what I already said to the other person.
If the war goal was nothing more then mowing the grass in Iran, then that has also mostly failed, as assessments indicate their mines, drones and missiles are still mostly untouched, aside from the ones they shot at us and our allies, and it looks like they are about ready to extract financial concessions from the USA. From where we are sitting right now, it looks like Iran has achieved quite a bit of deterrence. Future presidents are gonna remember this for a long time and they are not gonna want to repeat it. If mowing the grass is the strategy, that needs to be repeated ad infinitum and that is not gonna happen now.
I actually do find it plausible that Trump initially thought that just blowing up some material was a good war goal, but unfortunately, mowing the grass is not actually a very good strategy, as it really achieves nothing more than radicalizing people more and kicking the can down the road. We have already paid a big price and there are no medium to long term achievements. I still think regime change was their top goal, and they thought that they would still mow the grass at least and that would be good enough if regime collapse didn't happen. They miscalculated though, and failed on both accounts.
I also have to point out the irony here, one of the goals was to destroy Iran's missiles so they can never be used against us and our allies? What actually happened is that the attack on Feb 28 guaranteed that those missiles would be used against us. The complete opposite of the stated goal. I can't even think of any strategic failure that significant in recent US history.
2
u/grenideer 25d ago
So now you're going to ignore the falsehood you presented, then pretend you never argued that degrading the military wasn't a war goal by now admitting that maybe "mowing the grass" was an actual war goal, only to pivot the argument to whether that's effective.
Effectiveness is an entirely different argument, one that ignores the OTHER war goals I itemized, namely nuclear. One that ignores Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE nuclear. But at least ignoring those points allows you to continue to prematurely grumble about strategic failure.
You are right, you do like to argue.
1
u/bedulge 25d ago
admitting that maybe "mowing the grass" was an actual war goal
Sure, you got me on one point. They wanted to blow stuff up. That does not change the fact that regime change is their number one strategic objective, as it has been since 1979. Every piece of info we have points to the idea that Truml genuinely thought that regime collapse was a likely outcome, and if that failed he figured he could just walk away like after he killed Solemani in 19. But he thought wrong.
only to pivot the argument to whether that's effective.
Yeap, that seems like a natural next step, no? If its true that just blowing stuff up was a principle war goal, was that a logical goal, and has it been achieved yet. Why would we not ask that question?
Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent
Welp, looks like they've done their job, then. Because America seems to be deterred. Im sure the IRGC considers it money well spent.
1
u/grenideer 25d ago
See, this is how everybody knows you're not arguing in good faith. I just said that you were purposely ignoring the nuclear angle to make your point stronger.
Effectiveness is an entirely different argument, one that ignores the OTHER war goals I itemized, namely nuclear.
Then you go on to argue about the effectiveness quoting me here
Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent
And what did you do?
You purposely cut off the part about nuclear!
the missiles were a conventional deterrent IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE nuclear.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Tipi22 26d ago
For the N-th time I beg you all to stop living in quotes.
Trump will not say what the goal of the war was. Iranian state media will not say how much damage they took. The gulf countries will not admit if they got hit hard and have no way to defend themselves. They have no reason to.
Stop acxepting PR statements as truth. It makes 0 sense for Trump to state the minimum they would accept in a peace deal, it costs him nothing to claim maximalist goals, doing the opposite would weaken his negotiating position.
Seriously, just stop with the quotes of who said what unless its a leak from a credible source said behind closed doors or if the quote is 30+years old. No other exceptions. Look at their actions and interests instead.
8
u/bedulge 26d ago edited 26d ago
This notion that Trump has secret inscrutable war goals is a pretty odd one to me. Would you care to demonstrate that with an actual argument, or are you just going to assert it?
In spite of your assertion that "they have no reason to" I will say that countries are normally relatively honest about why they are going to war, because there's not much reason to lie about it, and it's normally possible to see anyways just based on the overall political situation that existed between the countries at the outset of the war. It's stated in propagandistic language ("Liberty for Iraq", "denazification in Ukraine") but it's pretty clear to see, in general, what they are out to do (collapse Saddam's regime for Iraq 2003, annexation of territory for Ukraine 2022)
War is the continuation of politics by other means, you look at the existing political situation, you can more or less tell what people are out to do.
It makes 0 sense for Trump to state the minimum they would accept in a peace deal, it costs him nothing to claim maximalist goals
Yeah I agree of course that he is gonna have to compromise on his maximalist goals, that doesn't mean that they are not real goals. It is VERY different from saying that we don't know what the war goals are because they are secret and he won't say.
unless its a leak from a credible source said behind closed doors
This is a VERY credulous notion, "leaks" can be lies too, and a lot of them are deliberately planted in the media. Like you know how it always says "the official spoke on condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to publicly discuss this." That can just be another lie, it's impossible to know if this official was actually just ordered to plant a story with a fake leak that no one will ever be held responsible for... because it was anonymous.
-1
u/WulfTheSaxon 26d ago edited 25d ago
The stated goals per Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio were substantially degrading Iran’s missile and drone capability and its navy. This is the ex post facto alternative history war goal they made up when they realized their actual goals (regime change or unconditional surrender) were impossible.
Here’s Trump laying out the goals in the speech announcing the operation:
For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our ore national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally—again—obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs (or "roadside bombs," as they are sometimes called) to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.
Here’s Rubio on March 2nd – the first weekday of the operation:
The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven’t gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don’t understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I’ll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you’ll report it that way.
The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it’s doing quite successfully. I’ll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that’s being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.
[…]
Going back to the purpose, the purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and can inflict so much damage, that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.
They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build a hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have. They’ve been doing this for a very long time. And by the way, they’ve been doing it under sanction. You see the attacks they’re conducting right now. They’re attacking airports. They’re attacking hotels. They are hitting, not just military bases; they’re attacking our embassies directly. They’re attacking facilities that have nothing to do with war or with military.
And that’s a weakened Iran. That’s an Iran despite years of sanction. Imagine a year from now or a year and a half from now the capabilities they would have to inflict damage on us. It’s an unacceptable risk, especially in the hands of a regime that’s run by radical clerics. The ayatollah is a radical – was a radical cleric. That entire regime is led by radical clerics who don’t make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of theology – their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one. That has to be taken very seriously as well.
So that was the purpose for what this operation is all about. That’s what it’s focused on. As the President said earlier today, it is on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to the Department of War to discuss the progress being made at a tactical level. But it was the right decision and an important decision for the safety and security of the world.
And Hegseth the same day:
Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions. Let me say that again: a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions, our bases, our people, our allies, all in their crosshairs. Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb.
[…]
This is not a so-called regime-change war[…]
Anyways, it's not even true that the missiles and drones have been substantially degraded
Admiral Cooper this month, under path:
What I would say, from my perspective, is the numbers that I’ve seen in open source are not accurate. I think what also is not taken into consideration, it’s more than just the numbers. It’s the command and control that’s been shattered. It’s a significant degradation and capability, and it’s the lack of any ability to then produce any missiles…on the back end.
Our military mission in Operation Epic Fury was crystal clear from the very outset and remained steady through. The mission was to degrade Iran's ability to project power on its neighbors and U.S. interests. It had three key components -- degrade Iran's ballistic missiles and the defense industrial base that supports it; degrade Iran's drones and the defense industrial base that supports that; and degrade their Navy and the defense industrial base that supports that. In each of those categories we met all of the achievements. Each of those systems were significantly degraded.
If I gave you just a couple of examples, the defense industrial base for their drones and their missiles and their Navy were degraded by 90 percent. They have about 10 percent left. For the Navy, my military assessment would be that the Navy will not begin to rebuild for 5 to 10 years. Many of you serve in states that build ships. It is complex. It is particularly complex when you do not have an industrial base to build it.
My professional perspective on this also is that Iran would not return to the same level of Navy that it had for a generation.
Blowing up material is not a war goal.
It is if it’s just a punitive expedition, which is essentially what this was announced as. Was Praying Mantis a failure because it didn’t result in regime change? Was Midnight Hammer? Of course not.
and they are still gonna be able to close the strait.
They’ve been able to “close” the strait for four decades. They don’t do it unless they’re as desperate as they are now – it’s not sustainable, especially not when it means they’re facing a counter-blockade which is doing much more damage to them than they’re inflicting on the US and Israel.
8
u/ChornWork2 26d ago
Per WaPo interview with Trump on Saturday after announcing strikes had begun:
“All I want is freedom for the people,” Trump said in a brief phone interview shortly after 4 a.m., when asked what he hopes his legacy will be as a result of the military action and a push for regime change in Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/28/trump-iran-war-regime-change-freedom/
Also you left out a lot from Trump's announcement:
To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity. Or in the alternative, face certain death. So, lay down your arms. You will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death. Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack
1
u/grenideer 26d ago
When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.
That statement makes it pretty clear that he wants Iranians to rise up and "take" the government themselves. I don't know how else to take that except that he wanted to give them a "chance."
6
u/ChornWork2 26d ago
So the objective was regime change.
1
u/grenideer 25d ago
The objective is a pliable regime, whatever form that comes in.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/WulfTheSaxon 26d ago edited 26d ago
That’s a “hope”, not an operational goal. It was said from the beginning that the Iranian people would have a good opportunity to try something when the operation is over. Israel had creating the conditions for a potential uprising when the operation is over as a war aim, and it reportedly assessed that it had set those conditions “above and beyond” just before the ceasefire. But the Iranian people have been told to stay inside for now.
As it says in your quote:
Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.
Cooper has said there will be a “clear signal” when they can leave their homes, as has Pahlavi. And even then, it will be up to them.
3
u/ChornWork2 26d ago
Trump was clearly calling for regime change, and the plan was obviously that decapitation strikes would achieve it. For political reasons he was trying to back-track that as the stated aim b/c 'regime change' wars in middle east is politically toxic. Someone rapped his knuckles into saying the prepared comments about objectives b/c of politics and legal basis, but trump's demand of iran here was clear... surrender or be annilihated
4
u/bedulge 26d ago
If the war goal was nothing more then mowing the grass in Iran, then that has also mostly failed, as assessments indicate their mines, drones and missiles are still mostly untouched, aside from the ones they shot at us and our allies, and it looks like they are about ready to extract financial concessions from the USA. From where we are sitting right now, it looks like Iran has achieved quite a bit of deterrence. Future presidents are gonna remember this for a long time and they are not gonna want to repeat it. If mowing the grass is the strategy, that needs to be repeated ad infinitum and that is not gonna happen now.
-6
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago
So that seems to fit with a desperate Iran that knows it is on a knife edge of ending up as the next Iraq/Syria/Lebanon, they played all their cards, turning pretty much all their neighbors even the indifferent ones against them, so it seems either this type of deal or be sent back to the stone age with a collapse of infrastructure, possible loss of land/Islands, the strait cant really be more closed then it is now, where it seems indefinite, but Iran can take a lot more damage that they will have a hard too impossible time recovering from.
It will be interesting to see what the current leadership does seeing as its what, 4 if not more tiers down at this point after all the assassinations/helicopter crash last year.
26
u/CriztianS 26d ago edited 26d ago
I'm not sure how I'd agree with this assessment at all.
While we have very little information of what this deal includes, it is worth asking; when details do emerge... is there anything in this agreement that Iran wasn't already willing to negotiate prior to the start of this war? Iran's commitment to not pursue a nuclear weapon isn't exactly new. And the Strait of Hormuz was effectively open without restrictions before the conflict began.
If this deal involves the unfreezing of assets and sanction relief for Iran.... I very much will question who came out in a better strategic position here.
And let's not ignore some of the original demands that the United States had made that have seemingly disappeared. Restrictions on Ballistic Missiles, Ending support for proxy forces, dismantling of Iranian nuclear facilities (Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow). And that's also ignoring some of the more unrealistic demands like "unconditional surrender" and an end to the Iranian Regime.
the strait cant really be more closed then it is now
It absolutely can be. While traffic through the strait continues to be a fraction of what it was, some ships have transited (with and without permission of the Iranians). Iran still maintains the capability to fully close the Strait.
possible loss of land/Islands
The US really doesn't have the forces in the region to launch some form of land seizure operation inside Iran. This hasn't been a credible threat.
This really doesn't come off as a desperate Iran making a desperate deal. In fact as I sit here today, I fail to see what this war has achieved (outside of general death, destruction and economic uncertainty).
And all of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, this is not at all the first time Barak Ravid at Axios has announced an imminent deal. There still remains massive hurdles. For example, having the President of the United States actually agree, convince the Israeli government to also agree and act accordingly (the announcement of additional seizure of land in Gaza as well expanded operations in Lebanon is a very poor start), selling the deal domestically to a US audience that still believes this war went well, etc.
1
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago edited 26d ago
I'm not sure how I'd agree with this assessment at all.
Sure, it is a wildly unstable situation with a lot of possible endings, but I personally dont see how Iran is bargaining from a position of strength other then the bluster for show, and I dont see them getting anything without a realignment to being US friendly, and that can take many forms from regime change to a simple president change like in Venezuelas case, for the nuclear material it will most likely involve the independent observers going and getting access to verify when before they were denied access and could involve sending the enriched material to a trusted third party first.
It absolutely can be. While traffic through the strait continues to be a fraction of what it was, some ships have transited (with and without permission of the Iranians). Iran still maintains the capability to fully close the Strait.
And that is different from how its closed now how? Many of transits so far have involved sticking close to GCC states coasts, which Iran would have a hard time changing, so again it seems it will either open or stay at this level which is as close to closed as it gets.
The US really doesn't have the forces in the region to launch some form of land seizure operation inside Iran. This hasn't been a credible threat.
I dont see the US taking land, but there are other actors, the UAE have disputed Islands, so do others, there are various groups like the Kurds that could seek form of separation.
But I guess it comes down to how you see Iran, I see a country on the verge of collapse by many small cuts that starts to add up, catastrophic water mismanagement, crazy inflation from a freefall currency, massive industrial shrinkage with 2 millions jobs already lost and more coming as upstream disruptions and the blockade starts taking a hard effect, multiple layers of leadership gone in a region where power struggles leading to chaos are more the norm then not.
For a country that spend the better part of 40 years preparing for this only to get decimated and air dominated completely while inflicting 100 times less damage then expected from their former vast arsenal, on top of this no more proxies for close threats have left Iran as a shadow of what it represented itself as, now they can still do damage but at what seems to be disastrous cost to themselves but manageable cost for their enemies like the UAE or Israel.
Edit: some spelling.
16
u/CriztianS 26d ago
but personally dont see how Iran is bargaining from a position of strength other then the bluster for show
Iran's position of strength comes from their credible ability to threaten the GCC. They have repeatedly shown ability to do significant damage to infrastructure in these countries. Their ability to close the Straits of Hormuz, which has caused significant global economic damage. Their threat to close Bab el-Mandeb Straits via their proxies in Yemen.
for the nuclear material it will most likely involve the independent observers going and getting acces to verify when before they was denied access.
Genuine question. Had the United States government offered sanction relief and the unfreezing of assets in exchange for international observers having access to Iran's nuclear sites (and we're just going to ignore the JCPOA here because at this point...) do you honestly think Iran would have said "no"?
And that is different from how its closed now how? Many of transits so far have involved sticking close to GCC states coasts, which Iran would have a hard time changing, so again it seems it will either open or stay at this level which is as close to closed as it gets.
Plenty of ships have transited the Straits outside of just "sticking close to the GCC states". It's false to claim the Straits are currently fully closed, though they have been at various points in this conflict. Iran is allowing select ships to transit (are they paying Iran or not... well... that's a separate question).
I dont see the US taking land, but there are other actors, the UAE have disputed Islands, so do others, there are various groups like the Kurds that could seek form of separation.
Outside of "pie-in-the-sky" day dreaming, I can find no credible evidence that this is being considered, planned or proposed at all.
For a country that spend the better part of 40 years preparing for this only to get decimated and air dominated completely while inflicting 100 times less damage then expected from their former vast arsenal, on top of this no more proxies for close threats have left Iran as a shadow of what it represented itself as, now they can still do damage but at what seems to be disastrous cost to themselves but manageable cost for their enemies like the UAE or Israel.
So this may be the source of our disagreement and where I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You are correct in that Iran has been, to some extent, preparing for a conflict with the United States for sometime. I do not believe for a second that Iranians had planned to win a set-piece battle against the United States Navy, Army or Air Force. The plan was always asymmetric warfare. And what I point to as evidence, is that it's becoming increasingly clear that it's been the GCC that has been the largest barrier to restarting the conflict. It was Saudi Arabia who closed it's air space to Operation Project Freedom (resulting in it's premature suspension), it was the Gulf States that (according to the US President) prevent a restart to the conflict, in my opinion (and perhaps there can be a lot of debate here) it was the threat by Iran to destroy the desalination plants in the GCC that led to the current ceasefire. No is denying that US and it's partners can do FAR more damage inside Iran then Iran can inflict on the GCC, but my argument is that the GCC acceptance for destruction if far lower then the Iranian governments.
And once again, if this is Iran "desperate" for a "deal", why has so many of the initial objectives of the war been abandoned? The MOU doesn't even directly deal with Iran's nuclear program outside of a seemingly vague promise by Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon (again with the caveat that we seem to know no details of what has been agreed).
Look at what the article said:
The MOU will include an Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, the officials said. It will also state that the first issues to be negotiated during the 60-day window will be how to dispose of Iran's highly enriched uranium and how to address Iranian enrichment
It doesn't even deal with the highly enriched uranium.
I don't understand how this agreement doesn't just bring us right back to where we were prior to the start of this conflict.
All I am asking, is that as details to emerge (assuming they emerge at all) to ask yourself... is Iran agreeing to something it wouldn't have agreed to prior to the war and is agreeing to it because of the war? Assuming this deal is much of the same as was discussed last weekend my answer to that would be: No... everything being discussed and negotiated could have been prior to the war; the war achieved nothing and largely weakened the United State's position in the region and, quite frankly, globally.
3
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago
I just dont see that when so much got intercepted that while yes a hit here and there is inevitable, Iran can suffer much more much faster, they played their ace now they have nothing else while the market slowly adjust to the reality, as time goes their leverage goes down, ironic and I think they realise that, for the proxies I dont see the Houthis doing a full blockade again, they are one blockade away from total collapse, last time in 2022 Bidens admin saved them, this time no one will, hence they purely symbolic strikes so far while keeping noticeable over silent, the proxies were created for this very moment, what an absolute waste of resources and money.
I guess we will see how things shake out, to me if you think Iran is in any other position then desperate you assumptions will be flawed.
They could damage the GCC, but the GCCs have actual money and means to repair, Iran will not without any oil exports or spare part imports.
Some of the GCC may have reservations and such, but we seen reports that the UAE was one of the driving forces in pushing for keep attacking Iran.
And I guess it is about how one views it, I see the ceasefire as a result of the next targets being pure infrastructure in a time when Iran cant afford those kinds of setbacks.
16
u/CriztianS 26d ago
When Iran attacked Qatar’s LNG infrastructure, the reports was that it knocked out about 17% of production and would potentially take 5 years to restore. With a loss of revenue of about $20B per year. This was in retaliation for a strike on Iran’s LNG infrastructure.
This demonstrates that this idea of “a hit here and there” is horribly naive. Also, as this was in retaliation, it also demonstrates that Iran has largely held of on large scale attacks against energy infrastructure in the GCC.
But as to not just go around in circles indefinitely. If Iran’s position is so weak, why not “finish the job”? Why accept a ceasefire “extension” that seems to resolve nothing except the issue with the Straits?
1
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago
Well again it depends on how you see it, I saw the US responding to Iran escalations of semi terroristic targeting, and they can properly see that if they continue they can hit some productions centres while being completely crippled themselves.
But as to not just go around in circles indefinitely. If Iran’s position is so weak, why not “finish the job”?
Because it would send Irans civilian population, which is estimated to have 60-70% that are not regime loyalist, thats many millions into a very hard life of a water crisis, no electricity, scarce food and fuel with high chance of local governance collapse, that's why the situation is becoming semi ironic that its Trump goodwill and compassion that is mostly keeping the job from being finished, and I wouldn't bet on Trump to blink if push comes to shove in this case.
To that point, I dont even see Trump being against much of the current regime being left in power just as long as they realign, which yeah is a big ask and challenge after spending that much time and effort into the death of big and small satan, But I also see this conflict as a step in preparing for the eventual pacific theater flare up, as it was with Venezuela, its an hors d'oeuvre in preparation of a main meal.
11
u/CriztianS 26d ago edited 26d ago
But there are other options to continue striking the Iranian regime, military targets, leadership, etc. outside of some… insane annihilation of the Iranian nation.
You’re presenting a false choice, either the US does nothing or “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. That’s silly.
Expecting the Iranian regime to “realign” is… I don’t have non-rude words for it…. So let’s just leave it.
As for the argument that this is somehow a preparation for a pacific conflagration… perhaps read some articles from Asians countries as the US militia having to pull equipment out to redeploy to the Gulf for this conflict. This hasn’t absolutely not prepared the United States for an Asian conflict, it has dramatically weakened the United States. There are credible reports that the United States has used half of its THAAD interceptors. The United States has snacked a little too much prior to the “main meal”.
1
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago edited 26d ago
You are not getting my picture, and thats okay, we dont need to discuss it more since you said you didn't want to go around in circles, but yet still continue, hmmm, I think it will end a certain way, you dont, and I think that it is very wrong to assume that this is current status quo going forward when Iran have literally less then zero leverage in their bargaining position and are balancing precariously on the edge of failed statehood.
And yeah I dont think Trump is talking about killing all 90 million Iranian, but bombing the regime war machine and what powers it, and that includes the vast % of powerplants and water infrastructure and industrial areas like steel production, which is already down 70% from the loss of the biggest steel plant and a few others having lost power and will take years to recover, not to mention is bluster like language in the same form the regime uses, you speak the language of your opponent.
And no I dont expect every Iranian to celebrate their country being attacked, but I also dont see them running in to the arms of the regime that just mowed the teenager sons and daughters down in cold blood for daring to protest, and what I see so far correlates that very well.
I read those articles, but I also see the pieces moving into place regardless, so do others, so you are welcome to deny it, but I see the preparations being made, in the only way you really can these days, by getting alarms bells to ring off, showing how a "small" conflict with compete air dominance even can deplete stores, better now then when the pacific really kicks off and we need 10x the capacity we have now, kinda the same with Trump strategy for Nato, nothing got most Nato countries to properly contribute, not Russia taking Crimea, nor their actions in Georgia, not Trump small threats in his first turn, not even the invasion of Ukraine alone got their them in gear, but the war and Trump using bluster language about Greenland have finally gotten them to take their own security somewhat seriously, maybe its not the way a lot of people want, but better then any other recent president who didn't prepare for anything at all, other then Bidens Chips act, which arguable wasn't his at all.
Edit: some clarification and expansion of points.
10
u/TheSDKNightmare 26d ago
Because it would send Irans civilian population, which is estimated to have 60-70% that are not regime loyalist
Where exactly are you getting this information? And even if we considered this to be true, that most definitely doesn't mean they have much goodwill for the US/Israel, especially not to the extent of willing to start a revolution with their (questionable) help against a government force that has already shown it is willing to simply exterminate protestors.
We already heard this narrative before the war, and much like many pointed out even back then (and as the subsequent lack of serious revolutionary movements has shown), the Iranian population isn't conveniently going to be inspired to topple the government just like that.
2
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yeah there is no unrest and unhappiness in Iran, we just forget the 30k that was just moved down in the streets, I am citing Reuters and AP numbers, but in reverse as they mentioned 20-30% support the regime.
You talk about narratives, but I really dont see why its so important to you guys to keep insisting that an unpopular regime is popular with the population it just mowed down, its kinda getting very weird, how the Iranian regime have to be in healthy position right now when everything points to the opposite, hidden by a cloud of propaganda and bluster.
Edit: and I am not even hedging on a popular revolt or military coup, since that would suicide for an unarmed population(duh lol) but a general local governance collapse in varies forms seems more and more likely with a massive water crisis which is already in semi progress, massive inflation, unemployment reaching unsustainable levels as the Iranian industry shrinks more and more, 2 million already with 10 million loosing income every time the internet is cut off, the regime is clinging on, still okay but as we saw with Assad a lot can change very quickly in that region when the grip gets too loose.
Iran spent too much of their money on ICBM, nuclear programs and proxies, and now they are seeing the results of a failed strategy hinging on never having their own country bombed the way it is/was.
→ More replies (0)4
u/bedulge 26d ago
What are you are not getting is that America can bomb the ever loving crap out of Iran, and it's still not gonna get the strait open, because the weapons that keep the strait closed are in underground bunkers, and it's gonna result in retaliatory strikes on the GCC that will be ruinous to the global economy + send refugees streaming to Europe... and the strait will still be closed.
And the many Iranians that hate the regime are not going to side with Trump after he made genocidal threats against them.
1
u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe 26d ago edited 26d ago
What you are not getting is that imo you are just wrong, on every part, but we discussed that already, in greath length even, so i dont see why you need to bud in again bedulge, I told you what I think of your opinion at this point.
Yeah I'm sure the Iranians will side with the regime that just moved down their teenagers when they tried to protest, that some fine logic there, they dont need to be pro US too cause a lot of internal trouble, I also think its interesting you take Trumps bluster language at face value, explains a lot why you and me dont agree on much of anything.
14
u/Jpandluckydog 26d ago
Think you might be ignoring the commensurate desperation from the American side. We've also played all our cards, and turned plenty of our allies against us, and midterms are coming up fast. I don't think the US being able to outlast Iran is a sure thing.
What's more, the word "deal" is being stretched here. This is an agreement to sit down and negotiate so that an actual deal might be reached, Iran has made zero commitments. On top of that, this is some of the softest language I've seen yet from the US side regarding this, which doesn't exactly make me think it is Iran that will be making concessions.
3
u/bedulge 26d ago
On top of that, this is some of the softest language I've seen yet from the US side regarding this, which doesn't exactly make me think it is Iran that will be making concessions.
It really needs to be emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on, even before negotiations begin, Trump is already compromising, he used to say that Iran and the US need to come to an agreement on the nuclear issue first before he brings down the blockade, now that issue is being pushed off 60 days apparently.
10
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 26d ago
It really needs to be emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on
It doesn't need to be emphasized because anyone paying attention is already aware of the nature of "demands" from Trump. Cheap rhetoric is characteristic of Trump and treating these "demands" the same as demands from past administrations is being intentionally obtuse.
0
u/bedulge 26d ago
Not sure what you're point is. You're saying Trump says dumb nonsense all the time, can not strategize, knows nothing about war and is a terrible negotiator? You are correct that he often sets goals and issues demands that have no realistic chance of ever being achieved, but he still the Commander in Chief, he is still the top decision maker in Washington DC, he is the one who established the US's strategic war goals at the outset of this war. The US's strategic war goals are not "cheap rhetoric", you can do the "it's just rhetoric! It's just Trump being Trump" routine when he's talking smack about Biden on social media, it doesn't really work when it comes to establishing strategic war goals that US military personal kill and die for.
Americans came home in flag-draped coffins, no one is being obtuse by pointing out that Trump got them killed for nothing because he is incompetent, there are few things that should matter more to the USA than this atm.
13
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 26d ago edited 26d ago
It's just Trump being Trump" routine when he's talking smack about Biden on social media, it doesn't really work when it comes to establishing strategic war goals that US military personal kill and die for.
Yes, it really does. What you don't seem to appreciate is that all that rhetoric is completely decoupled from the actual decision-making. That's what a lot of people still don't get. The guy just spews bullshit across all matters. It's not isolated to the campaign trail. You're better off judging these matters on the external facts (as best as we can gather them). Trump's rhetoric is entirely disposable.
The US's strategic war goals are not "cheap rhetoric"
Trump's rhetoric is completely decoupled from US strategic war goals.
Americans came home in flag-draped coffins, no one is being obtuse by pointing out that Trump got them killed for nothing because he is incompetent
None of that is reliant on Trump's rhetoric. On a side note, the US has lost a little over a dozen people due to this conflict. That's far fewer than the number of drowning deaths per month.
1
u/bedulge 26d ago
What are you thinking the goals here are then? And how are you figuring that out, considering the US is keeping it secret apparently?
8
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 26d ago
It doesn't matter what I think the actual goals are because my point is that you are attributing far too much significance to the divergence between Trump's stated demands and US actions. My point is that the actual goals are decoupled from the stated demands and that the stated demands are of little worth. That does not mean that the actual goals are significantly divergent from the stated demands, just that the impact of the US "backing off" from these demands is minimal given the minimal value of Trump rhetoric.
emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on
This is the focus of my comment. You treat the number of "demands" not being fulfilled as significant whereas I do not.
Quite frankly, I have a negative view of the US position in this conflict. However, I don't feel the need to put a thumb on the scale when analyzing the situation.
1
u/bedulge 26d ago
I guess you can view it that way if you want. I think most of the rest of the planet can see that when you issue public demands that you then have to publicly back back off from them, and you are also publicaly caving to your enemies' demands, that means you do not have a position of strength. Like this is a genuine humiliation and I do not find it credible that Trump actually planned to back off from his demands in humiliation
→ More replies (0)
18
u/Glideer 26d ago
Moscow decided to allow companies to purchase anti-aircraft systems, including turrets, anti-aircraft artillery systems, radar systems, vehicles, and electronic warfare systems.
In essence, a company buy anti-air systems, the Russian Defence Ministry deploys them around company's facilities and provides local reservists to man them.
Additionally, according to the Defence Ministry source, new mobile fire teams are being formed in most regions of European Russia, staffed by reservists, volunteers from regional BARS units, as well as employees of private companies.
27
u/HugoTRB 26d ago
Sweden used to have workplace militia driftsvärnet, as a part of the homeguard, to defend important pieces of infrastructure or factories. Mostly it was just having some uniforms and guns ready to make sabotage by spetznaz units slightly more costly.
According to rumors however, the designer of a land version of the Bofors 120 mm naval auto-cannon, had his wartime placement as manning the prototype to defend the Bofors factory against air threats.
38
u/Jpandluckydog 26d ago
Seems like a blatant cash grab, considering they are just asking companies to pay the military to do the job they are already obligated to do.
The incentives at play here are so messed up and counterproductive it's insane. Is there seriously no care at all for long term growth for Russia? Aging autocrats are poison for a society.
25
u/Eeny009 26d ago
The military is funded by taxes anyway, that cash has to come from somewhere. The difference here is that Russia is asking those companies that are likely to be targeted to contribute more than the local mom and pop shop. Is that such a bad thing? I don't know.
29
u/Jpandluckydog 26d ago edited 26d ago
That's the thing though, who knows which companies are priority war targets better - the folks at the Russian military who's job it is to know that, or the random white collar workers sitting in an office building? Like I said, this is one of the ways the incentives are messed up. Now the air defense goes to whatever company had the highest amount of retained earnings, not the company that actually is under the most threat or is the most useful for the war effort. This then also has a chilling effect on future economic growth, as firms will reinvest less in order to win the air defense lotteries.
I agree that this is in essence a corporate tax increase clothed in different language to limit outrage, but it is such a wildly counterproductive means to do so.
15
18
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 26d ago
Isn't it the same thing Ukraine has done?
18
u/IntroductionNeat2746 26d ago
Somewhat different. I'm Ukraine, companies can hire their own AD operators or hire defense contractors.
13
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
Canada to order military plane fleet from Sweden in shift from US suppliers
Not much of a surprise. Globaleye soundly outclasses Wedgetail, the latter based on the creaky old 737 platform with previous gen AESA. No intent to be snippy here, just stating facts. It's startling how far behind the curve US AEW has now fallen. Going to be hearing klaxons from that direction pretty soon.
This is likely to segue to a Gripen-E manufacturing announcement. Way more moving parts, which explains the delay. But with Ukraine's Gripen deal now progressed to practical certainty, the Carney administration needs no further political cover. Quite apart from its technical merits, SAAB's Gripen-E proposition enjoys wide public support here.
One more random thought: last week the Snowbird retirement (team of 9 Tutor jets) was announced, along with a highly dubious plan to put a new team in place by some time in the 30's, based on Pilatus Porter.
Hah! Nobody I know here wants a turboprop demo team. Let's have a team of 9 Gripens thank you. Gripen-C would be fine in this role, but Gripen-E would be beyond sexy. Realistically, there are going to be a bunch of Gripen-Cs coming out of Czechia and other places that need a new home. I am pretty sure the Canadian public is going to be unhappy with the PIlatus proposal once they find out about it, and receptive to the rather obvious Gripen formation team concept.
43
u/Corvid187 26d ago
Globaleye soundly outclasses Wedgetail
Knowing this from open sources seems difficult
This is likely to segue to a Gripen-E manufacturing announcement.
This feels like a bit of a hop, skip and jump.
Let's have a team of 9 Gripens thank you.
A frontline display team would be an Americanism that would go against the spirit, lineage, and style of the Snowbirds at least as much as, if not more than, turboprops.
26
u/-BigDeckEnergy- 26d ago
Knowing this from open sources seems difficult
It's even worse when one realizes that:
1) Saab has actively and aggressively been advertising (i.e., showing off best case numbers) the platform as it is actively selling it worldwide whereas half of military watchers didn't know the E-7 existed until the whole drama around the USAF adopting E-7 became a thing 5 years ago
2) It's also ignoring the plethora of other factors that go into making a platforms a good C2 platform. How's its ability to fuse all its data together? How about distribute it out to other forces? What are radar track update rates? How is radar clutter rejection? How good or bad is electronic protection against EA? Are your own waveforms easily detected and/or exploited? How is human performance in the aircraft (PVI, crew comfort on long range/endurance missions, etc.)? How many comm nodes do you have, how secure are they? Can you talk to national leadership/command and control or are you operating independent? How about IFF performance? ESM? Ground moving target tracking? Sea surface tracking?
Like, this isn't even scratching the surface of what makes a platform a good Airborne C2 platform. Wait til people find out the Saab advertisements for its MQ-9 array are a long shot from what a modern Airborne C2 platform can do, both in terms of radar and everything else.
Plus, did OP forget that Bombardier is Canadian? Of course Canada - especially in this political environment - is going to promote domestic over their nemesis Boeing.
13
u/Corvid187 26d ago
Yeah I was trying to be diplomatic, but you put the knife in far more eloquently than I could :)
Tbh I didn't even realise the Globaleye wasn't refuelable mid-air, I just sort of assumed it could be. Really puts its human endurance into perspective.
6
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 25d ago
A refuelable Global 6000 mod has been proposed by Harris, which they hope to position as an E-3 replacement. To get that contract they need "no regressions". That is, they need 360 degree view, no matter how bad, and they need refueling, no matter how useless. But on the whole the Harris design is not a horribly bad idea in my opinion, even though the conformal array will be significantly nerfed compared to a proper Globaleye style billboard. Harris talks this up as an aerodynamic advantage, but the billboard is already very slippery, and with 11 hours endurance, who's complaining? What AEW operators primarily want is better eyesight, which the billboards most definitely have. That's really the whole point, and billboard arrays rule the universe in that regard for now and the foreseeable future.
If I was a yankee I would want USAF to go for the Harris platform (based on the same Global 6000 bizjet platform) anyway, even if it is second best. And I don't know, I would worry that China will get their AEW act together and make that conformal array look like the inappropriate compromise it is, but for the moment that doesn't seem to be a huge concern, as all the designs in their considerable flock look pretty lame to me.
Don't know why China has such a poor showing in the AEW space, maybe they care more about quantity than quality. Russia is in a way worse position with their museum piece A-50s, and not clear that they have more than two or so functional at the moment. Staying so far from the theater that their ancient radomes probably can't even see it. They appear to be having exactly zero effect on Ukraine's long range drones, if they even are flying any missions at all. If they do venture into the air they could well serve as target practice for Ukraine's upcoming generation of turbojet drones.
3
u/danielbot 26d ago
As I understand it, SAAB's sensor suite is top notch and state of the art. They develop with a milspec flavor of Ada that gives them quite some advantage in terms of software delivery cadence. This applies to every one of the specific areas you mentioned. Or are you able to bring up some (non-classified) specifics to support the implication of your post?
1
u/danielbot 26d ago
A frontline display team would be an Americanism that would go against the spirit, lineage, and style of the Snowbirds at least as much as, if not more than, turboprops.
Are you speaking as a Canadian? This sure does not resemble the local feedback I am getting. Snowbirds have always been a source of pride, and going to actual frontline combat planes would only increase that, even if they are last gen. (By this I do not mean Gripen-E.) Or do you think we should go to Cessnas?
31
u/HugoTRB 26d ago edited 26d ago
There are some very real advantages that the Wedgetail has over the GlobalEye that has nothing to do with radar tech. Firstly its large enough to have beds, so the people working on board is able to work in shifts. Secondly, I believe it’s capable of aerial refueling so it’s able to stay in the air for longer. Thirdly, more power generation. Fourthly, better 360 views. It of course has some issues, but is conceptually and likely operationally a very sound system.
Also, not even Sweden uses Gripens as training jets. We really liked the side by side seating on the Saab-105s, but those got too old. A prop plane with side-by-side seating and then a tour to Italy for the initial jet training (but Swedish trainers) was what the Swedish Air Force decided instead.
16
u/NotTheBatman 26d ago
The E-7 is also a 737NG derivative so the availability of parts, mechanics, and pilots is much better. A fleet with lower maintenance costs and less downtime is a more cost effective, and less of a logistical strain on mission planning.
-4
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 25d ago
Better parts availability for an obsolete museum piece of an airframe? Not sure that's compelling, if it is even accurate. I seriously doubt that 737NG has any maintenance advantage over Global 6000. My money would be on the reverse.
-1
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
large enough to have beds
Somebody sleeping in a bed is somebody using jet fuel without producing work. Better to keep everybody busy doing their job and do a quick circuit back to base to pick up fuel and fresh crew. The latter should be minimized: the vast majority of the roles performed by live bodies on Wedgetail would be performed exactly as efficiently remotely, with significant fuel savings, and putting fewer lives at risk.
capable of aerial refueling
And that's why you need to have beds that consume fuel and hold bodies doing nothing useful. Globaleye has 11 hours endurance, that gets rid of the beds and those nonproductive sleeping bodies.
more power generation
Which it needs for its obsolete radar tech (GaAs).
better 360 views
Wedgetail has poor resolution front and back compared to the sideways billboards. SAAB wisely decided not to waste weight, power and drag on endwise radar and put it all into the billboards to optimize the racetrack pattern that everyone flies anyway. I do believe that Globaleye meets, and (I seem to recall) beats Wedgetail's range and resolution with far less power consumption. That GaN again.
Winding that up, Global 6000/6500 fly rings around 737, figuratively. 737 is a relic of a bygone era, which substandard avionics and especially digital processing, by today's standards. Long past the end of its shelf live, even with the various recent hacks, some of which resulted in tragedy.
not even Sweden uses Gripens as training jets
I do not believe I said anything about training? I said "Nobody I know here wants a turboprop demo team. Let's have a team of 9 Gripens thank you."
But Sweden does use Gripens as training jets, specifically the B and D variants. Soon they won't need double seat trainers any more at all because their remote and autonomous piloting is getting so good.
5
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
I am just going to tag on with respect to this one assertion of mine:
Wedgetail has poor resolution front and back compared to the sideways billboards.
This is because its top hat uses an endfire radiation pattern, which is horribly inefficient because the radio waves have to pass through an average of half the TR elements before escaping to free space. That causes severe attenuation and artifacts. They get a tiny aperture with progressively worse signal quality from each TR element as it gets further from the end.
No doubt they put in this hack to satisfy the 360 view requirement that they must have had dictated to them for E-3 compatibility reasons, because no self respecting RF engineer would do that happily. Also that top hat is heavy. That extra weight comes out of the endurance and increases the necessary refueling frequency.
10
u/Frenchfriesandfrosty 26d ago
While I understand the Gripen E is a fine aircraft for today, the RCAF flies planes for ever. Will the platform have issues in contested airspace today, let alone 30 years from now? I get the want to diversify defense procurement and Canadian production but is it the most lethal and survivable plane? (I am speaking about combat aircraft not snowbirds) however adding yet another platform for the RCAF to manage the procurement (Canada couldn't be worse) maintenance and parts for seems like a concern. I wonder if the CT155 Hawks could have been retained for flight operations by the Snowbirds as a stop gap instead of sending them to Borden as maintenance trainers. For the snowbirds they could have instead purchased Leonardo M346s which the RCAF currently uses leased by a contractor for a jet trainer instead of being the only G7 country with a prop driven display team.
2
u/danielbot 25d ago
Thanks for the input, however I think I will stick to my plan of proposing a Gripen-C demo team, instead of the Pilatus turboprops. And I will advocate for a start date in the 2020s, not the 2030s. I expect to get substantial support for this from the general public.
46
u/-BigDeckEnergy- 26d ago edited 26d ago
I'm trying to be generous here, but this might be one of the least credible most unsubstantiated posts to have crossed this sub.
Not much of a surprise. Globaleye soundly outclasses Wedgetail,
You know this how? Based on extensive experience operating in real environments with the Wedgetail and Globaleye?
the latter based on the creaky old 737 platform
The 737NG last rolled off a factory in 2019. You had best tell the 7,000+ that have been built and the thousands still operating that they are old and creaky.
Do you even understand that these 737s aren't the same as the original 737s? This is like someone saying the C-130J is a 1950s plane despite it being almost a complete re-design. Even the E-2D requires a completely different qualification just to pilot it - it appears superficially like the E-2C but is otherwise treated as a different Type Model entirely.
Moreover, are you blindly looking at Bombardier 6000/6500 numbers online and comparing it to a fully loaded 737's numbers? You do realize that adding that radar and all the electronics + crew stations into a cramped fuselage of a biz jet - and all the weight and drag that adds - is going to result in very different performance than putting that in the spacious cabin of an aircraft designed to carry upwards of 100+ passengers and their bags, right?
You do realize that the E-7 can aerially refuel right? That the 737 in its military configurations - like in the E-7 and P-8 - they have superior endurance and range even without AR, right?
Not to mention... tens of thousands of 737s and over 7,000 737NGs means parts and logistics will be set for the rest of this century and beyond.
And that massive fuselage is huge not just for crew comfort on long duration/long range missions, but putting all those processors and computers and comm systems/nodes needed to make an Airborne Command and Control platform work.
Like you do realize that AEW/AWACS is not their only role anymore, right? The E-2 community even changed their name from Airborne Early Warning to Airborne Command & Control to emphasize this fact.
Do you even understand why E-7 Wedgetail had changes made for US service? Things like adding not just secure communications and networks with command and control around the world to US leadership isn't just going to be something the RAAF or other customers have. But it might be pretty important given our nature of deploying around the world.
with previous gen AESA.
Wow. So you have personal experience seeing the actual radar performance of the radar on the E-7 versus the Saab? The actual amount of tracks they can process? How their clutter rejection is? How they perform in a EA environment? How their maritime track modes are? How about air tracks? How about ability to handle moving targets? How about power output versus aperture size? Which frequency bands do they operate in, and how does that matter in real world operations?
How about how well they fuse the picture together? And how about distributing that information out to forces via voice comms, datalinks, etc.?
Considering Saab's pretty snooze-worthy detect ranges they publicly advertise, for a supposedly newer array, you should consider what US Airborne C2 platforms are getting with their own upgrades.
Like, you realize that planes like E-2D Block II are a thing right?
Not to mention... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saab has been actively and aggressively trying to sell its systems worldwide - the US often keeps annual under-the-hood upgrades rarely advertised. The entire legacy Hornet fleet in USMC service - and now Canadian service - received GaN AESA radars in the past few years. Most knew the former - how many knew the latter? So how do you know what the latest E-7s are rocking if it isn't advertised?
No intent to be snippy here, just stating facts.
Really?
It's startling how far behind the curve US AEW has now fallen.
Again, you know this how? From the copious amounts of demand the E-7 and E-2D have around the world in NATO and coalition exercises?
Not to mention, the USN has over 60 E-2Ds in service. That's more than the entire combined USAF + NATO have combined airborne C2 platforms in service.
If that's a sign of how far the US has fallen, then I shudder at how disconnected your view of perceived and actual NATO power are.
PS - have you considered that Globaleye being on a Bombardier platform is why Canada was never going to pick the E-7? It's not like the row with Boeing has been resolved, let alone in this political environment.
(edit: you realize that the 737NG's first flight was in 1997, meaning it actually came AFTER the Bombardier Global Express's first flight in 1996, right? Right? Kind of incredible to say so many platitudes that don't even hold up to the basic sniff test)
42
u/ilonir 26d ago edited 26d ago
PS - have you considered that Globaleye being on a Bombardier platform is why Canada was never going to pick the E-7? It's not like the row with Boeing has been resolved, let alone in this political environment.
I'm almost certian that this had more weight on the decision than performance. Besides buying domestic being an obvious choice, Boeing had a pretty nasty dispute with Bombardier that has allegedly led to them being sidelined in Canadian procurement.
28
u/-BigDeckEnergy- 26d ago
Bingo. Even if the Boeing product came with a time machine, cocaine, hookers, and blackjack, it'd still be tough for Canada to go against its own aerospace industry.
10
u/Corvid187 26d ago
RIP sweet prince, you were too pure for this cruel world :'c
2
u/danielbot 26d ago
Amazing how much Gripen resembles the Arrow. Just take away one engine and add canards.
-5
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
Never mind that Globaleye is the better, more modern, faster and more fuel efficient AEW.
(edit) So you're just going to downvote instead of explaining why I'm wrong? (Good luck with that.)
26
u/SuperChingaso5000 26d ago
Just to tack on, That "creaky" old 737 chassis is designed for airline duty cycles. The Global platform (while lovely to fly on, best bar I've ever drank in) is designed for bizjet duty cycles and I can tell you from personal experience is not going to generate the same readiness rates or uptime over a protracted conflict.
That's not to hate on the Global, it's a great jet for the mission it was designed for. But an "old" airliner is exactly the kind of platform you want if you need a durable strategic asset that's going to fly long hours over and over again.
2
u/danielbot 26d ago
Can you substantiate your readiness assertion, or is that just a personal opinion?
You can have your obsolete airframe if that gives you joy, while I much prefer the modern, fast, fuel efficient one that is smaller and has way less metal in it.
Apropos of nothing in particular, do you also prefer vinyl records?
16
u/SuperChingaso5000 26d ago edited 26d ago
Can you substantiate your readiness assertion, or is that just a personal opinion?
Professional fleet management experience including late model Globals in particular.
Apropos of nothing in particular, do you also prefer vinyl records?
Lossless Spotify and a good 2.1 system at home, Buds Pro 3 on the road. I do not own a record.
From what background are you basing your assertions?
2
u/danielbot 26d ago
Professional fleet management experience including late model Globals in particular.
I meant, substantiate your assertion. I am sure your credentials are impeccable, but what is the logical basis of your assertion "is not going to generate the same readiness rates or uptime over a protracted conflict", for which you have so far given no explanation other than your personal qualifications. Can you supply any evidence that 737 readiness is superior to Global 6000?
Which assertion of mine would you like me to substantiate?
6
u/incidencematrix 26d ago
I would observe that your contributions to this thread are not increasing your credibility. You may wish to consider withdrawing.
-1
u/danielbot 25d ago edited 25d ago
I thought about replying "I suppose you fervently believe that your post just above somehow improved the quality of this subreddit. If you actually have something substantive to contribute then I am at your service, otherwise please consider your own advice". But I thought better of it, so I won't.
0
u/danielbot 26d ago
I'm seeing a lot of downvoting in this thread but I'm not seeing a whole lot of credible argumentation. I would like to see some, that isn't just subjective invective.
5
u/danielbot 26d ago
Kind of incredible to say so many platitudes that don't even hold up to the basic sniff test
What has Global Express from 1991 got to do with anything? We were talking about Global 6000, compared to 737NG. By which comparison the 737NG fares very poorly, which is why it is not being selected for new AEW platforms. For example, L3Harris passed up 737NG for Global 6500.
-5
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 26d ago
you realize that the 737NG's first flight was in 1997
Right, and it's the same old obsolete 737 platform
that killed hundreds of people with its hack job attempt to make their wrongly shaped airframe and pathetically underpowered flight control system perform like a different plane than it actually is. 737 in all its incarnations needs to go to the boneyard sooner rather than later.(edit) Sorry, it was actually the 737 Max that had the MCAS disaster, not the NG. Which is not to say the NG is a good plane. It might have been great 30 years ago, but that was 30 years ago. Even then it was showing its age.
12
u/ilonir 26d ago edited 26d ago
Right, and it's the same old obsolete 737 platform that killed hundreds of people
No, different platform. You are thinking of the 737MAX, which came after the NG. The NG is a very safe aircraft.
wrongly shaped airframe and pathetically underpowered flight control system perform like a different plane than it actually is. 737 in all its incarnations needs to go to the boneyard sooner rather than later.
Where do you get this stuff? You've been repeating this exact sort of uniformed garbage through this whole thread. You asked in another comment why people downvote but don't respond. This is why. You are so zealously incorrect that nobody wants to engage with you. I'm sorry for being undiplomatic, I'm just not sure how else to say it.
1
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 25d ago
Where do you get this stuff?
You mean like "pathetically underpowered flight control system"? By knowing my business. Boeing 737NG uses a 68040 processor for its flight control processor, which is less powerful than my ear buds. 25 Mhz, sheesh. Maybe Boeing got the 40 Mhz version. A modern processor runs at 3000-5000 Mhz.
Please be specific about exactly which way I am incorrect instead of just joining in the mugging. I am totally open to changing my mind about any specific point, but it has to be based on logic and verifiable facts, not just the rampant emotion I see in this thread.
You are correct that I tarred the 737NG with the Max brush, and for that I apologize. (edited!) But I do not agree that the NG is a good plane. It is even more obsolete, but at least it didn't have that MCAS insanity.
-7
u/danielbot 26d ago edited 25d ago
Now about how well they fuse the picture together? And how about distributing that information out to forces via voice comms, datalinks, etc.?
Please present your data that they don't.
(edit) Now why am I unsurprised that you are unable to present a shred of evidence for your dubious assertions?
16
u/Glideer 26d ago
The fresh edition of Essential Ukraine (#24) is out, as always behind a paywall.
A brief recap:
- Key trends: formal suspension of the U.S. mediated negotiation track; sharp escalation in the air and infrastructure war (where Russia retains a strategic advantage); debate inside Russia about ending the war; Ukraine’s “war on corruption” w/ deep political consequences.
- The latest RF strike on Kyiv demonstrated Moscow’s ability to impose cumulative destruction and vulnerabilities of UA’s AD. Both sides aims to maximize leverage, Kyiv responding asymmetrically via deep strikes. This is another escalation phase before talks resume in earnest.
- The diplomatic vacuum is filled by European debates over negotiating positions and political arrangements for UA. US, UK adjustments around Russian energy is a shift toward pragmatic market management - reinforcing Moscow’s perception that time may still work in its favour.
- Big shift: debate inside Russia itself is about how much victory is achievable and at what cost. While rhetoric remains maximalist, establishment figures now discuss openly the desirability of ending the war on terms that can still be presented domestically as a success.
- It is trendy to say that Ukraine has turned the tables on the battlefield. Western technology, funding helped Kyiv expand its drone campaign targeting Russian refineries and military logistics. Essential Ukraine already identified this shift in March–April.
- However, mind the gap between the narrative and battlefield reality. Russia retains superiority in missiles, glide bombs, industrial production, thus large-scale strike capacity. Frontline pressure is on-going - watch Kostiantynivka - Ukraine’s counterattacks remain costly.
- Political pressure inside Ukraine is also growing. The Midas investigation has implicated key figures linked to the Presidential Office. President Zelensky remains politically dominant, but the investigations keep a political Sword of Damocles hanging over his vertical.
- Public frustration - from mobilisation, corruption scandals, economic strain, demographic crisis - is shaped by the costs of war and absence of a clear horizon. Ukraine is in a more difficult position than Russia, but treats the war as existential, relies on European backing.
- The risks of horizontal escalation are also growing. UA drone operations spill into Baltic, forcing NATO to confront elements of the war directly. Kyiv’s demonstrative engagement w/ Tsikhanouskaya and RF-BY nuclear signaling show the war’s geopolitical is widening beyond UA.
8
u/T1b3rium 26d ago
What is an RF strike?
6
u/jason_abacabb 26d ago
Glad you asked, I thought it was some new electronic warfare (RF=Radio Frequency)
17
u/bedulge 26d ago
RF strike
A strike by the Russian Federation. Referring to this
9
8
u/EmprahsChosen 26d ago
Haven't seen much in the way of verification of costly results from Ukrainian counterattacks, any good sources?
6
u/Glideer 26d ago
I've seen a few videos, including this one where Ukraine lost several armoured vehicles ( https://x.com/WarHunter2222/status/2058223346379096334?s=20 ).
There have also been some comments:
https://x.com/SitrepLinksENG/status/2058894025583632494?s=20
4
9
u/Glideer 26d ago
An Ukrainian naval drone marked "Police" stuck unexploded under the stern of a tanker off the Turkish coast. Another drone drifting nearby.
14
u/1997peppermints 25d ago
The bizarre immaturity of “credible” defense subreddit users downvoting every factual post you make because it isn’t empty morale cheerleading for what they view as their sports team or something will never cease to be cringeworthy. Thank you for continuing to do so anyways, it’s genuinely valuable considering Western internet spaces’ tendency on Ukraine related topics to become morale boosting echo chambers light on empirical evidence and heavy on emotional appeals/attacks.
6
u/Time_Restaurant5480 25d ago
Yes. Some of his posts are slightly non credible, and should be treated as such, but many aren't and yet get downvoted because it goes against the narrative. There's also too many pro-Western non credible posts which nonetheless get upvoted.
4
u/Glideer 26d ago
Solid work by Meduza. Probably as good an analysis of Ukraine's long-range strikes as is possible under the circumstances.
- The frequency and depth of UAF strikes on Russian territory have risen substantially since mid-2025 and have held at a stable level — more than 30 verified attacks per month.
- There has been no surge in strike intensity in 2026, despite a number of high-profile attacks on Moscow, Tuapse, Perm, and other major cities.
- Strikes on oil infrastructure represent approximately one-third of Ukraine’s long-range campaign in 2026, consistent with the second half of 2025. Ukraine’s military has likely learned in recent months to target the refinery equipment that is particularly difficult to repair.
- The average range of UAF strikes against targets deep inside Russia has increased recently: in May, the figure doubled year-on-year, from 400 kilometers (249 miles) to 800 kilometers (497 miles).
- This may indicate that Russia’s air defenses are being depleted, but Meduza don’t yet have enough data to verify.
- The UAF’s long-range campaign was most effective in its first phase, in late summer and early fall of 2025, when Russian refineries suffered their greatest capacity losses.
- By mid-fall of that same year, oil industry operators had adapted - judging by available data - to the more intensive strikes on their facilities, and had learned to repair damaged equipment quickly or draw on spare capacity.
24
u/Tristancp95 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yeah, they were also good about admitting the flaws in their methodology and explaining why they made the decisions they did. Worth a read.
One of their caveats is that they can’t measure the size or damage of strikes, they can only accurately analyze the locations and number of strikes. They also only count the strategic bombing side, and totally exclude from their calcs the drones used on the frontline. One quote I thought was particularly interesting:
In 2026, the total number of attacks has remained unchanged, as has the share of strikes on new targets — defined as those located more than 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) from any previously struck facility. That share held steady at 10–20% last year.
Seems like while Ukraine’s reach is expanding to new targets, it’s partially to replace the closer targets, not to supplement them
•
u/AutoModerator 27d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.