Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (2 year anniversary)
ORYX ^ | Since February 24, 2022 and daily | ORYX

Posted on 02/24/2024 5:59:01 AM PST by SpeedyInTexas

This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here. Loitering munitions, drones used as unmanned bait, civilian vehicles and derelict equipment are not included in this list. All possible effort has gone into avoiding duplicate entries and discerning the status of equipment between captured or abandoned. Many of the entries listed as 'abandoned' will likely end up captured or destroyed. Similarly, some of the captured equipment might be destroyed if it can't be recovered. When a vehicle is captured and then lost in service with its new owners, it is only added as a loss of the original operator to avoid double listings. When the origin of a piece of equipment can't be established, it's not included in the list. The Soviet flag is used when the equipment in question was produced prior to 1991. This list is constantly updated as additional footage becomes available.

(Excerpt) Read more at oryxspioenkop.com ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 0killthisthread; 1637borders; 3daywar; agitprop; alfredeblitz; americalast; angrykeywordtroll; anotherputinfail; anydaynowukrainewins; assistantdemsonfr; attackoneurope; beaubothebsartist; beauzo; bidenswar; bobomaximus; breevingroom; byepif; byespeedy; cantbreev; cheesymaximus; crazyivan; dailydeathfap; dailypropaganda; deadthread; deathcult; deepinthespamforest; delusionalzeepers; demyanganul; dimwit; dualcitizenssuck; escalation; fishiemaximus; foreigntrolls; foreigntrollsonfr; formersovietofficers; freeploader; freeploadingspammer; gabbagabbahey; ghoulishdelight; gleefulnosegold; globohomo; goodriddance; hopium; irynazarutska; itsoveriwasright; jonboy; jonboyputinlover; keiththedimwit; kievstronk; liberalatpost7819; liedaboutleaving; melon; melonballsforever; melonlovesputin; melonlovesrussia; melonmemewarrior; melonmlrs; motherpif; muscovite; nato; omgputinputinputin; oyveygoyim; paidazovfans; paidazovtrolls; paidrussiantrolls; pancakemaximus; phdft; pifpouf; pifpuffs; planetzeep; polygamy; propagandareturns; put; putin; putinsfolly; putinstarted; putinswar; russia; russiandelusions; saintvolodymyr; siloviki; slaviccivilwar; slavictrolls; snufffilmsonfr; snufffilmtx; snuffpornforzeepers; snuffyfromtexas; spammyintexas; speedomaximus; speedycameback; speedyhadenough; speedyintroll; speedyisaliveandwell; speedyisdeadandfried; speedylied; stankazzintx; stankazztexicunt; staygonethistime; stenrynning; stinkstankstunkazz; stpetersburgtrolls; talkingtomypif; thisthreadisdead; tippecanoeandpiftoo; toldyouso; tothelastrussian; tothelastukrainian; ukraine; unhealthyobsession; usaidcheckbounced; usaidtrolls; vladtheimploder; warporn; wellbye; wildberry; yostanky; yurpstronk; zeepercirclejonk; zeepercreepers; zeeperdeathcult; zeeperhomeworld; zeeperloveazov; zeeperpr0n; zeepers; zeepersjustwannazeep; zeeperslovedeath; zeeperslovevindman; zeepersworshipdeath; zeepervictoryparade; zeepharder; zeepyintexas; zipadeedoodah; zot; zottedintexas; zottyintexas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 20,501-20,52020,521-20,54020,541-20,56020,561-20,562 next last
To: AdmSmith

Gott MIT Uns 😂


20,521 posted on 10/09/2025 10:17:52 AM PDT by blitz128
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20518 | View Replies]

To: PIF

“How Ken Paxton, a Rising MAGA Star, Got Rich as a Texas Politician”

“AUSTIN, Texas—Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton went from being a middle-class lawyer to a multimillionaire during his two decades on a public official’s salary, according to thousands of pages of previously unreported documents that shed new light on the personal finances of one of the Republican Party’s most-watched midterm candidates.

Paxton, who entered state government in 2003 with a modest income and few assets, by 2018 told a lender he had amassed a net worth of about $5.5 million, not including millions in assets he and his wife had previously moved into a blind trust.

The following year, Paxton reaped an additional $2.2 million gain—never previously disclosed—from his investment in a local company with a lucrative Texas state contract, according to the documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, which include Paxton’s tax returns and bank statements.

Paxton’s accumulation of wealth has become a key campaign issue as he vies to unseat U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in a hotly contested Republican primary set for March 3, 2026. The race is crucial to Republicans’ hopes to hold on to their Senate majority. Paxton is popular with the party’s base, but national GOP strategists fear his nomination could cost them in a general election.

Cornyn has cast suspicion on Paxton’s finances and highlighted the attorney general’s failures to fully disclose them. Paxton has sought to paint Cornyn as a Washington insider. U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt said Monday he is joining the Republican primary field as well.

Paxton, 62 years old, became a rising star in the MAGA world, winning support for his battles on issues such as abortion, border security and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

But allegations of corruption and other impropriety have surfaced repeatedly during Paxton’s career. The Republican-majority Texas House voted to impeach him in 2023 over allegations that he abused his office to aid a campaign donor, which he denied. The Texas Senate acquitted and returned him to office after a two-week trial. “

...

“The Paxtons now own at least 11 residential properties around the U.S. with an assessed value of $7.5 million.”

Just 11 properties around the US. No corruption there.

At least his wife will take 1/2 of the pot in the divorce.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/texas-ken-paxton-attorney-general-millionaire-a3be9c94?mod=hp_lead_pos10


20,522 posted on 10/09/2025 2:25:33 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas (Defeat the Pro-RuZZia wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20521 | View Replies]

To: SpeedyInTexas
And here comes our resident #NeverTrump from Texas, complete with a Karl Rove whiteboard filled with globalist talking points.
20,523 posted on 10/10/2025 2:44:23 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20522 | View Replies]

To: SpeedyInTexas

20,524 posted on 10/10/2025 2:47:17 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20523 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
BlueSky celebrated when this was done. Now they are crying


20,525 posted on 10/10/2025 2:52:29 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20518 | View Replies]

To: marcusmaximus
Lights out in Kiev


20,526 posted on 10/10/2025 3:14:50 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20525 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston

Where is FtrPilot? Where is glowing GDP numbers🤔

Russia slashes 2025 economic growth forecast to 1.5% from 2.5%(if Russia is reporting 1.5 then it must be much worse😂)

What happened to the “glorious” 5-6% GDP growth we heard from you repeatedly, must have got lost in the gas lines

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russia-slashes-2025-economic-growth-forecast-15-25-2025-08-27/


20,527 posted on 10/10/2025 3:52:47 AM PDT by blitz128
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20526 | View Replies]

To: LowIQ
🍈

Where is glowing GDP numbers

Where is are the glowing GDP numbers?

I fixed your fractured attempt at English, you simpleton.

20,528 posted on 10/10/2025 4:19:58 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20527 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin; BeauBo; blitz128
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 9, 2025

EU and NATO states continue to take steps to increase European defenses against covert and overt Russian attacks. The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted on October 9 in favor of a resolution condemning Russia's recent “escalatory actions” in violating Polish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Romanian airspace.[1] The resolution passed the parliament with 469 votes in favor, 97 against, and 38 abstentions. The parliament noted that Russia bears full and unequivocal responsibility for the actions in Polish, Estonian, and Romanian airspace. The European Parliament denounced Russia's deliberate drone incursions aimed at critical infrastructure in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The resolution did not mention the recent drone flights over the Munich Airport, but German officials recently attributed the incursions to Russia.[2] The resolution encouraged initiatives enabling EU states to take action against airspace violations, including by shooting down the threats, and welcomed the EU’s “drone wall” and Eastern Flank Watch initiatives.[3] The resolution called for the EU to “substantively” increase its defense and industrial cooperation with Ukraine, especially in the fields of drone technology and countermeasures. European parliament members advocated for sanctions against entities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) supplying dual-use goods and military items that are essential for Russia's production of drones and missiles, and called for punitive measures against all states enabling Russian actions, such as Belarus, North Korea, and Iran. The European Parliament stated that the range of Russia's sabotage and “hybrid” activities against the EU amounts to state-sponsored terrorism, “even if they fall below the threshold of an armed attack.” ISW assesses, however, that Russia has been increasingly engaging in covert and overt attacks against Europe and that Russia has entered “Phase 0” — the informational and psychological condition setting phase — of its campaign to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[4]

The Financial Times (FT) reported on October 9 that four NATO officials stated that NATO states are discussing more forceful responses to Russia's increasingly provocative actions.[5] Proposals reportedly include arming reconnaissance drones that collect intelligence on Russian military activity, reducing limits on pilots’ ability to shoot down Russian threats, and conducting NATO exercises at more remote and unguarded areas near the Russian border. Two NATO official sources told the FT that the talks aim to streamline rules of engagement among NATO states, as some require pilots to visually confirm threats before engaging, while others allow pilots to open fire based on radar data or perceived danger, given the direction or speed of the object. The officials stated that the talks aim to raise the costs for Russia and to clearly define countermeasures.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky added more details about Russia's use of its shadow fleet to conduct recent drone incursions into European airspace. Zelensky stated on October 9 that intelligence indicates that the Russian shadow fleet consists of more than 500 tankers and that Russian special services were on board the Russian Borocay tanker that French authorities stopped off the coast of France on September 30 and seized on October 1.[6] Maritime-focused news outlet Maritime Executive reported on September 23 that the Boracay was one of three Russian-linked vessels near the coordinated drone incursion that shut down the Copenhagen Airport on September 22.

The Kremlin continued its reflexive control campaign aimed at deterring the United States from selling Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, including by threatening to deploy Russian missiles to Cuba. Kremlin officials repeated on October 9 recent Kremlin narratives claiming that the United States would have to directly participate in future Ukrainian Tomahawk strikes.[7] First Deputy Chairperson of the Russian State Duma Defense Committee Alexei Zhuravlev also referenced Russia's recent military cooperation agreement with Cuba and implied that Russia can deploy missiles to Cuba close to the United States.[8] Zhuravlev's statements come against the backdrop of similar Russian claims on October 8 about Russia potentially supplying Iskander and Oreshnik ballistic missiles to Cuba in response to US provisions of Tomahawks to Ukraine.[9] The Kremlin is trying to invoke memories of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to threaten the United States. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is pursuing various multi-pronged information efforts to deter the United States from selling Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.[10]

Kremlin officials continue to indicate that US-Russian relations are deteriorating to levels similar to those during the Biden administration. Zhuravlev claimed on October 9 that the West is unlikely to change its behavior and “embrace reconciliation” with Russia.[11] Zhuravlev claimed that Russia's relations with the Trump administration have returned to the level of those under former US President Joseph Biden. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on October 9 that Russian-US dialogue is experiencing a “serious pause.”[12] Peskov claimed that Russia has yet to receive a response from the United States to Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposal to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for one year past its expiration in February 2026.[13] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed on October 9 that US-Russian dialogue paused after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in New York City on September 25.[14]

Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi highlighted a Russian cognitive warfare effort to spread false information about future Ukrainian elections. Zaluzhnyi denied claims on October 8 that he supports holding elections in Ukraine during wartime or is preparing to run for president.[15] Zaluzhnyi stated that Russian propaganda is spreading false narratives and targeting the Ukrainian information space. Russia's informational efforts targeting Ukrainian media likely aim to split Ukrainian society.

Russian President Vladimir Putin implicitly admitted that Russian air defenders shot two missiles at an Azerbaijan Airlines civilian plane in December 2024. Putin met with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on October 9 and apologized that the plane crash “occurred in [Russian] skies” — continuing his refusal to take responsibility for downing the plane.[16] Putin claimed that the “first cause” of the plane crash was a Ukrainian drone. Putin claimed that the “second reason” for the crash was a Russian air defense system technical failure. Putin acknowledged that Russian forces launched two missiles and said that they did not hit the plane directly. Putin stated that the missiles exploded, “perhaps” self-detonating, near the aircraft. Putin claimed that the plane's pilot received instructions from Russian air traffic controllers to land in Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan, but decided to return to Baku and then flew to Kazakhstan. Putin correctly described air defense missile proximity fuses, which detonate upon reaching a certain distance from the target — implicitly acknowledging that Russian air defense missiles were the cause of the crash. Putin is trying to leverage technical jargon to cover the facts about what happened. Leaked transcripts of the conversation between the pilot and Russian air traffic controllers revealed that Russian authorities did not allow the plane to land in Russia even after the crew requested an emergency landing — refuting Putin's claim that Russian authorities offered Makhachkala as a landing site but that the pilot himself refused.[17]

Russian elites are reportedly expressing concerns over the Kremlin's years long efforts to nationalize assets. Reuters reported on October 8, citing unnamed sources, that the Russian Central Bank ruled that Russia violated the rights of minority shareholders by seizing some assets related to its war in Ukraine, including seizing assets from foreign companies and domestic Russian enterprises.[18] Three sources close to the Central Bank and Moscow Stock Exchange (MOEX) told Reuters that MOEX lodged an official complaint with the Central Bank over the Russian state's legal violations in the seizure of a majority stake in gold mining company Uzhuralzoloto Group of Companies (UGC). Sources told Reuters that there are signs of backlash within parts of the Russian elite, especially among market-friendly technocrats credited with saving the Russian economy from collapse amid ongoing Western sanctions. Reuters reported that Russian authorities have seized roughly $50 billion in assets, roughly two percent of Russia's GDP, since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Sources told Reuters that some business executives and Central Bank and Russian Ministry of Finance officials are privately questioning what they see as a move toward a “Soviet-style command structure” with the state increasingly mobilizing resources in order to achieve a military victory in Ukraine. Western sanctions have severely limited the financial and material resources available for Russia to fund its war in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has increasingly relied on nationalizing assets to secure resources for the war since 2022, while also consolidating state control over the business sector. The recent MOEX complaint and Central Bank ruling indicate that Russia's elite is growing resentful of the fiscal problems that such nationalization efforts are having on Russia's economy.

Russia is increasingly conducting Shahed-type drone strikes against frontline areas, but will likely continue to conduct less precise guided glide bomb strikes as well due to their larger payloads. Ukrainian outlet Kyiv Independent reported on October 8 that Ukrainian soldiers and experts noted that Russia is increasingly relying on Shahed-type drones to strike Ukrainian frontline positions.[19] Ukrainian soldiers reported that Russian forces actively conducted Geran-type drone strikes (a Russian variant of Iranian Shahed drones) against frontline areas near Kostyantynivka in September 2025 and have recently increased their Geran-type drone strikes closer to the front in northern Sumy Oblast, particularly targeting Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) and concentration areas 10 to 15 kilometers from the front. Ukrainian aviation expert Anatoliy Khrapchynskyi stated that Russia is increasingly employing Shahed-type drones near the frontline instead of KAB guided glide bombs, but stressed that Russia is not suffering from a KAB shortage. Khrapchynskyi noted that Shahed-type drones only have a 90-kilogram warhead — significantly smaller than the smallest KAB warhead at 250 kilograms — but that Shahed-type drone strikes are more precise. Khrapchynskyi also noted that Russia can produce a Shahed-type drone for about $20,000 to $50,000, whereas KAB costs about $25,000. Khrapchynskyi assessed that Russia is anticipating that Ukraine will be able to more effectively counter KAB strikes, which Russian forces launch from aircraft, particularly with the arrival of additional F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine.

Russia's use of Shahed-type drones to strike frontline areas is likely enabling Russia to conduct precision strikes against targets for which KABs are not optimized. Russia is unlikely to cease its use of KABs despite their increased production costs due to the larger payload that allows Russia to destroy hardened targets that Shahed-type drones cannot. Russia's increased Shahed-type drone production is likely allowing Russia to increasingly strike frontline areas while also expanding its long-range strike campaign. Russia's frontline Shahed-type strikes, particularly those against Ukrainian GLOCs, are likely contributing to Russia's ability to generate some battlefield air interdiction (BAI) effects and enabling Russian advances as ISW has previously assessed.[20]

Russia continues to commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) reported on October 9 that it identified the commander of the Russian 121st Motorized Rifle Regiment (68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]), Andrey Syrotyuk, who ordered Russian forces to shoot three Ukrainian civilians at close range as they were evacuating Kupyansk on October 2.[21] The SBU reported that the Russian soldiers disguised themselves in civilian clothing — an act of perfidy, a war crime under the Geneva Convention to which Russia is a signatory. The execution of civilians very likely constitutes a violation of the international legal principle of distinction that requires that parties only target combatants and civilians directly participating in hostilities.[22] The SBU report coheres with ISW’s longstanding assessment that the Russian military command is endorsing and sometimes ordering war crimes on the battlefield.[23]

more + maps https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-9-2025/

20,529 posted on 10/10/2025 4:27:52 AM PDT by AdmSmith (GCTGATATGTCTATGATTACTCAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20509 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; blitz128
What have you done with FtrPilot?

Is it true he left because of your BlueSky links?

I count only four of you freaks left.

#Winning.

20,530 posted on 10/10/2025 4:39:03 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20529 | View Replies]

To: blitz128

“Russia slashes 2025 economic growth forecast”

The non-Defense sectors of the Russian economy have cumulatively contracted 5%, year to date. The crisis has already arrived for them, and is only likely to worsen, as long as the war and sanctions continue.

Joe Blogs on YouTube reported today (Russian Industry Collapsing):

“Russia’s biggest employers are now cutting hours, furloughing staff and even closing plants as the war economy slows down. From carmakers to railways, cement to coal — even state-linked firms are struggling with weak demand, sanctions and falling exports.” (I would add surging costs for capital, wages and imports)


20,531 posted on 10/10/2025 6:46:29 AM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20527 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston

Five including you😂🤡🍈


20,532 posted on 10/10/2025 6:53:03 AM PDT by blitz128
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20530 | View Replies]

To: dimwit
😂🤡🍈

Make that three, PIF appears to have gotten a clue.

Your BlueSky acceptance was a bridge too far.

20,533 posted on 10/10/2025 6:58:49 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20532 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

How can a KAB bomb cost more than a shaped drone, take a dumb bomb and attach a glide kit. One possible answer is that Russia has run out of its “unlimited” supply of Soviet era stocks and have to build new ones 😂

More GDP😂😂😂😂


20,534 posted on 10/10/2025 6:58:52 AM PDT by blitz128
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20529 | View Replies]

To: oof
Ramping up missile production: what does it take?

Experts told RS that ramping up missile production, in the way the Pentagon wants, could take years, and likely new weapons manufacturing facilities and infrastructure.

Ret. Col. Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told RS that, if the necessary funding was available, the U.S. defense industrial base could double the production of many missiles over about two years, merely by having existing weapons factories double-up on production shifts and workers.

However, production times would vary by missile type, and higher production rates would likely require new facilities that would take time to build, Cancian noted.

Defense writer Mike Fredenburg was a bit more pessimistic. “Even with a new contract firmly in place, I could easily see it taking four years or more to double production.”

"My gut is — to try to quadruple production? [It is] not going to happen — at least not quickly,” he said.

"We do need to replenish our missiles. We burnt through them,” he explained.

Indeed, Fredenburg estimated in August that Israel’s wars on Gaza and Iran, together with the U.S. campaign on Yemen’s Houthis earlier this year, consumed 33% of the U.S. stock of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and 17% of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), since 2023. The U.S. used a quarter of its THAAD missile interceptors during the Israel-Iran war alone. And the Guardian reported in July that the U.S. only had 25% of the Patriot missile interceptors it would need for the Pentagon’s military plans — having sent many to Ukraine, which still often lacks them.

But, the current defense industrial infrastructure is not well suited to take on the rapid missile production rates the Pentagon wants to pursue.

"We have a peacetime defense industrial base, and we've had that for decades…we're not really set up to quickly produce things,” Fredenburg said. “We don’t know how much more capacity they can squeeze out of existing facilities.”

Cost is another roadblock. The “Big Beautiful Bill” passed earlier this year allocated $25 billion over the next five years toward munitions funding; the Pentagon’s new missile production targets may well cost tens of billions more.

"This is a lot of money…many tens of billions of dollars, ultimately, to get to these kinds of [missile production] numbers” the Pentagon wants, Fredenburg told RS.

To his point, the price of individual missiles can be staggering. For example, in September, the Army awarded Lockheed Martin nearly $10 billion to make nearly 2,000 PAC-3 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile interceptors — putting the cost of just one missile interceptor at several million dollars. The SM-6 (Standard Missile-6), which the Pentagon also wants to ramp up, costs about $4.3 million each.

And it's not just about putting the missiles together but testing them and that can take months and cost hundreds of millions.

As a point, experts say less complicated munitions production like 155 millimeter shells, have already fallen behind.

“They've been trying to build-up 155 millimeter shell production, which is…relatively simple compared to missiles. And they've been having trouble doing that,” Fredenburg said. “What makes us think that they're going to be able to ramp this production up massively for much more sophisticated, more complex, more expensive weapon systems?”

Experts say that the Pentagon’s intentions to double or quadruple missile production will likely remain aspirational — unless they are matched with substantive contracts to actually support the process.

“All we're saying so far is that we want to urge the defense industrial base to make these new capabilities, build new factories, get new weapons, equipment,” Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis said on his Deep Dive podcast. “You need a lot more than just ‘we should,’ or, we ‘urge you to,’ if you really want anything to happen.”

Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, told RS that while increasing missile production was important for U.S. military readiness, what the Pentagon is asking for is a “reach.”

“It is not clear that contractors can meet [the Pentagon’s] targets, especially without additional federal funding to expand production and some way to find and train more workers,” she explained.

How did we get here?

The U.S. stockpile is low because the Pentagon has burnt through many of its munitions in ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Israel — at a rate faster than it can replace them.

“We've been involved with the Ukraine war since 2022. And we've known what kind of, and how many [American munitions] are being used over there," said Fredenburg.

Not everyone agrees that Washington was carefully balancing its missions, one of them being to maintain national readiness. Some worry that the lessons haven’t been fully learned.

“In recent years, the United States has wasted a ton of missiles and air defense interceptors on conflicts that are not in its vital interests. This includes those in the Middle East and in Ukraine,” Kavanagh told RS. “Speeding up munition production so that the United States can send those munitions abroad or expend them in conflicts that do not have implications for vital U.S. interests is a waste of resources.”

“As the U.S. supply of advanced munitions becomes larger, it will always be tempting for American leaders to squander some portion in wars of choice,” Kavanagh concluded. “This is a risk of the new effort to build missile stockpiles.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web


Top photo credit: The USS Carney fires an SM-2 missile during a live-fire exercise as part of Formidable Shield 19 in the Atlantic Ocean, May 17, 2019. The ship recently thwarted missiles coming allegedly from Houthi sources in Yemen headed for Israel, according to the DOD. (Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Fred Gray IV)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Top photo credit: Japan’s LDP leader Sanae Takaichi (Govt. of Japan) Chinese President Xi Jinping Alan Santos/PR/Roman Kubanskiy (Wikimedia Commons)

First female Japan PM takes hawkish position on China, Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

On October 4, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan chose Sanae Takaichi — who is expected to reflect a more determined stand in defense of Taiwan — as its president, and the Diet is expected to elect her as prime minister next Wednesday.

During her successful campaign for the leadership, Takaichi repeated her long-held positions regarding security policy: the need for Japan to assume greater responsibility for its own security by building up its defense capabilities; continued strengthening of the U.S.-Japan alliance; deepening U.S.-Japan-South Korea and U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral relations as well as the Quad (U.S.-Japan-Australia-India cooperation) to counter China; and realization of the late Prime Minister Shinzō Abe’s vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific.”

But what about her views regarding Taiwan?

In her recent contribution to the Hudson Institute’s discussion on the future of Japanese foreign policy, Takaichi largely reflected Japanese mainstream thinking. She emphasized that “peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait” are of “the utmost importance to the international community, including Japan,” “unilateral changes to the status quo through force or coercion must never occur,” and “Taiwan is an extremely important partner and a valued friend for Japan, sharing fundamental values and maintaining close economic ties and people-to-people exchanges.”

She also insisted that “issues concerning Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through dialogue,” affirmed the 1972 Japan-China Joint Communique, and expressed her wish “to engage in solid and candid dialogue with Chinese leaders.”

But in other statements, Takaichi has been much more forward-leaning regarding Japan’s involvement in the defense of Taiwan. For example, when she first ran for the LDP presidency in September 2021, Takaichi stated that a Taiwan crisis would be a threat to Japan and that the possibility that Japan’s Self-Defense Force would be deployed is high.

She also declared that Japan and the U.S. would need to closely coordinate their response, including exercising the right of collective self-defense. During her second run for the LDP’s top post in September 2024, Takaichi suggested that a scenario in which China imposed a maritime blockade on Taiwan could qualify as a “crisis that threatens the nation’s existence.” Under such a scenario, according to legislation passed in 2015, Tokyo could use force even before a direct military attack on Japanese territory.

In a speech in Taiwan itself just last April, Takaichi noted the importance of both Japan and Taiwan strengthening their respective defense capabilities but added that neither can defend itself alone. Therefore, she stressed the need to deepen mutual cooperation among the United States, Taiwan, and Japan, and potentially the Philippines, Australia, and EU nations.

In two policy briefs recently published by the Quincy Institute, Michael Swaine articulates a view that runs counter to Takaichi’s and the perspectives of much of the mainstream Japanese foreign and security policy community. Swaine argued that Taiwan is not a vital U.S. security interest and that Washington should therefore avoid a catastrophic war with China over the Taiwan issue.

To promote peace and stability in the Taiwan strait, he argues, the U.S. should move to a policy of strategic clarity whereby Washington would declare that it would not directly fight China to defend Taiwan but rather simply work to strengthen Taiwan’s own military capabilities and take other political, economic, and diplomatic measures to deter China without direct U.S. military intervention.

Although such a policy shift, if implemented prudently as outlined by Swaine, would ultimately serve Japan’s national interest, Japan under Takaichi’s leadership is likely to oppose this change.

Japanese misgivings about Swaine’s proposal will center around two points. First, Japanese policymakers will insist that Taiwan is indeed a critical interest because if China were to unify Taiwan with the mainland through military force, it would be able to use the island as a strategic asset to threaten Japanese sea lanes and even Japanese territory, especially Okinawa.

Second, they will argue that the adoption of such a policy would weaken deterrence and dramatically increase the possibility that China will resort to force to unify Taiwan with the mainland. Indeed, concerns about the weakening of deterrence prompted Shinzō Abe after his retirement as prime minister to ask Washington to adopt a policy of strategic clarity in the opposite direction; namely, that the U.S. should clearly state that it would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan.

Although these two objections may seem compelling at first glance, they are ultimately unpersuasive.

First, the argument that Beijing’s control over Taiwan poses a critical threat to Japan’s security and national survival inflates the Chinese threat. Although Beijing has long held that the recovery of Taiwan, which China lost after its defeat in the 1895 Sino-Japanese war, is a core interest of China, it does not necessarily follow that Beijing will use Taiwan as a stepping stone to seize Japanese territory such as Okinawa.

Anti-China hawks in Japan emphasize how some Chinese commentators have highlighted the Ryūkyū Kingdom’s status as a tributary state during the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Ryūkyū Kingdom was indeed a political entity with close trade and political relations with China before Japan dismantled the kingdom and incorporated its territory into Japan as Okinawa Prefecture, but it is farfetched to claim that China therefore has the strategic intention to seize the Okinawan islands after unifying Taiwan with mainland China. Chinese officials have never suggested they had such a goal.

China’s strategic interest in Okinawa stems not from a desire to take that territory, but rather its concern that Okinawa has become an important base for U.S. military operations to intervene in a Taiwan conflict. If Taiwan became a less contentious military issue between China and the United States, the Chinese military threat to Japanese territory would abate.

One exception might be Japanese fears of Chinese claims over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. But compared to Taiwan, China’s irredentist claims over these small uninhabited islands is much weaker. Rather than seizing these islands by force, China’s intentions are focused on getting Japan to recognize the existence of a territorial dispute.

Given that China’s interest in these maritime features pales in comparison to its commitment to China-Taiwan unification, it is far from clear that China intends to risk a military conflict with Japan (and possibly the United States) to seize the islands by force.

As a consequence, Japanese defense capabilities should be more than sufficient to deter China. To be sure, if Taiwan came under Chinese control, the Chinese navy could more easily access the Pacific Ocean because it would not confront the choke points along the Ryūkyū Island chain. But given China’s interest in international trade, it is hard to imagine Beijing threatening Japan’s sea lanes beyond its claims to Taiwan. Although such a Chinese action might occur under conditions of war, it is very hard to conceive of what would generate such a war, other than the Taiwan issue.

Second, the argument that Washington moving away from directly defending Taiwan would invite a Chinese attack on Taiwan reflects an incomplete understanding of how deterrence works and can fail.

Certainly, if the U.S. had both the will and military capability to inflict unacceptable punishment on China or to deny its ability to seize or compel Taiwan by military force or coercion, then China might be deterred from attacking Taiwan. But given China’s commitment to unifying Taiwan with the mainland, Beijing will inevitably respond to U.S. upgrades in military deterrence by strengthening its own capabilities to increase the costs and risks of American military intervention.

In an arms race between China and the United States, Beijing has the advantage of geographic proximity, a primary focus on the Taiwan issue, and few political constraints on the allocation of resources to pursue its irredentist aims regarding Taiwan. Although the United States will certainly need the support of allies like Japan to balance against the buildup of Chinese military capabilities, even under Takaichi’s hawkish leadership, Japan is unlikely to have the political will and the economic capacity to make up for the long-term disadvantages that Washington faces in its military competition with Beijing in the regional theater relevant in a Taiwan conflict.

With the ongoing military competition and the increase in military exercises in the region, the danger of some kind of military accident that could escalate into an actual conflict neither side wants is rising.

In short, an overemphasis on military deterrence could ignite an inadvertent war. For deterrence to be effective, it is important to reassure the target country — China — that its vital interests are not being threatened. China has repeatedly stated that the eventual “reunification” of China and Taiwan, as well as the prevention of Taiwan’s independence, are core interests.

From China’s perspective, Washington and its allies, including Japan, are encouraging pro-independence forces in Taiwan and undermining the understandings that formed the basis of normalization between China and both Japan and the U.S.

In 1972, Japan declared that it “fully understands and respects” the People’s Republic of China’s stance that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.” In 1979, the United States acknowledged “the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.” If Takaichi were to enhance Tokyo’s security engagement with Taiwan, as well as encourage Washington to buttress military deterrence and bolster its defense ties with Taiwan, Beijing is likely to escalate its coercive actions around Taiwan as well as accelerate its military buildup.

This negative action-reaction spiral could eventually drive the Chinese leadership into a corner and lead them to conclude that the possibility of peaceful unification has disappeared and that the use of military force is the only viable option.

Even under President Xi Jinping, China prefers peaceful unification; but it has long reserved the option of military force to prevent Taiwan from moving toward formal independence. A certain level of deterrence is indeed necessary to persuade China not to use force against Taiwan. Swaine has argued that a strengthening of Taiwan’s own defense capabilities and the negative impact a Taiwan war would have on the Chinese economy (and China’s overall reputation if it were to attack Taiwan) would contribute to deterrence by making the military option unattractive to China.

But for deterrence to work without the negative risks outlined above, China must be convinced to be patient about unification. Essential to nurturing such patience is the promotion of cross-strait dialogue, the stabilization and improvement of U.S.-China and Japan-China relations, and U.S. and Japanese restraint regarding security ties with Taiwan.

Swaine’s proposal would be in Japan’s national interest because such a policy shift, if properly handled, has the potential to reduce the danger of war while preserving Taiwan’s security. Moreover, if Washington were to intervene in such a conflict by using its military assets in Japan against Chinese forces or the Chinese homeland, Beijing is likely to use its formidable missile capabilities to strike U.S. military bases throughout the Japanese archipelago, not just those located in Okinawa, and perhaps even Self-Defense Force bases that could support U.S. military intervention.

The conflict could rapidly escalate and endanger the lives and livelihood of Japanese civilians.

In proclaiming that “Japan is back,” Sanae Takaichi seeks to revive her nation’s economy, improve the livelihood of all Japanese, promote Japan’s security, and enhance its diplomatic influence. The best way for her to achieve these aspirations is to work with the United States in pursuing a strategy of peace along the lines recommended by Swaine, and not by aggravating the Taiwan issue and escalating tensions with China.



keep readingShow less
Top image credit: French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz meet, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine May 10, 2025. REUTERS/Gleb Garanich

Europe's center is crumbling as nationalism surges

Europe

Support for mainstream political parties in Europe is crumbling against a rising tide of nationalism as voters increasingly want their governments to prioritize domestic issues.

This might not be enough to end the war in Ukraine, which will cost Europe $50 billion it can ill afford in 2026. But we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the uniparty in Europe.

On October 6, France lost a fourth prime minister in little over a year with the unexpected resignation of Sebastien Lecornu.

The country’s problem is not new. With national debt at 114% of GDP a succession of prime ministers have fallen at the altar of trying to impose deeply unpopular budgetary cuts. One way out, which at the moment seems unlikely, is for President Macron to resign before his term expires in 2027. But polls suggest that the National Rally of Marine le Pen would stand a good chance of winning should fresh presidential elections be held.

The National Rally has seen a stunning surge in popularity over the past year — garnering 31.5% of parliamentary votes in 2024 — by focussing on local economic concerns and tapping into dissatisfaction with traditional political parties.

And there’s the rub. This pro-war internationalism of the mainstream in Europe is crumbling in the face of rising nationalism, in which citizens want their governments to focus on domestic issues, not foreign adventurism. As it stands, France will need to double its yearly defense spending to €100 billion by 2030 if it is to stay on course to hit the 5% of GDP target. It simply doesn’t have the money and any government that tries to obtain it through taxes or cuts will fall.

We are seeing the same in Britain. Given burgeoning government debt, bond yields in the UK are now consistently the highest among G7 nations. Britain seems unlikely to face a debt crisis as some fear. But as in France, the nationalist Reform Party in Britain is turning the political tide. It is now surging ahead of the incumbent Labour Party in opinion polls, with 35% share of the vote, from the eight main parties.

Mid-term elections are seldom a reliable bell-weather of electoral success. And yet, when it came to office in July 2024, the Labour Party amassed a seemingly unassailable majority of 152 seats in Parliament. Just 15 months later, it now looks beatable.

There is an increasingly widespread view that Keir Starmer’s government is not performing well on the issues that matter, on the economy, the cost of living and immigration. Yet Labour continues to pump $6 billion each year into the war effort in Ukraine and has committed, gradually, to hit 5% of GDP in defense spending by 2035. The latter would increase government spending by $80 billion per year, money which manifestly the country cannot afford without increasing taxes or cutting services to ordinary people. This continued fiscal pressure will simply funnel more votes to the Reform Party, increasing the chance that it comes to power in 2029.

While Germany does not face as severe a debt crunch as either Britain or France, it is deindustrializing in the face of high energy prices accelerated by the war in Ukraine and decisions to cut off Russian energy supplies. There, the nationalist Alternative für Deutschland is also on the rise and some fear it could compete for victory at the next Federal election in 2029.

In Czechia, the populist Andrej Babis is trying to form a coalition having won parliamentary elections with 35% of the vote. Among other things, he has vowed to scrap the Czech ammunition initiative which has supplied Ukraine with 3.5 million artillery shells since 2022 and criticized the previous centrist government for giving “Czech mothers nothing and Ukrainians everything.” That country appears to be shifting gradually towards the position of Slovakia and Hungary that want to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.

All across Europe, the mainstream appears to be falling out of favor. Part of the reason for that is a sense that all the traditional parties form a so-called uniparty in which the needs of big business and internationalism come before the needs of ordinary people. Liberals deride this notion, yet the concept appears to be gaining traction with ordinary people who increasingly want their governments to tackle issues that matter to them and to their children.

It is precisely this wave of disenfranchisement that swept Donald Trump to power in 2016 and 2024.

This shifting political arithmetic in Europe will ultimately seal the fate of the war in Ukraine, although not necessarily in the short term.

With no signs that the major powers in Europe want to get behind a negotiated end to the war, Ukraine is already signalling that it will need an additional $49 billion in Western financial support in 2026 to balance the books. With, at best, a fraction of that coming from the United States under President Trump, that leaves Europe largely on the hook for a cost that European governments can ill afford, either economically or politically.

That will weigh ever heavily on the shoulders of the mainstream across the continent who try to justify the cost of an unwinnable war to increasingly sceptical voters. France will not likely be in a position to double its financial contributions to Ukraine at a time it is trying to force through €44 billion in spending cuts. Britain is unlikely to increase its funding having already been forced to backtrack on attempts to cut welfare benefits over the past year. Where will the money come from?

The European Commission has so far been unable to extend a $140 billion credit facility to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets in Belgium that would allow that country in theory to continue fighting through 2027. Belgium, which houses Euroclear where the monies are held, has long opposed this move and the French, already in strife politically, are also sceptical.

Nevertheless, if Macron clings to power, and with Starmer and German Chancellor Frederich Merz relatively safe in their roles for at least another three years, it’s likely the major European powers will continue to back a continuance of war, despite its unaffordable cost, and will search for ways to make the finances work. This will have continued heartbreaking consequences for Ukraine itself.

But, it also seems obvious that the traditional parties in France, Germany and Britain will bear a painful political cost. Macron and Merz both recently decried the assault on European democracy, with the German chancellor claiming "our liberal way of life is under attack, from both outside and within."

But that is not the point. Democracy functions specifically to evict governments who aren’t delivering what their voters want. What we are starting to witness in Europe today is a natural and inevitable shift from internationalism to nationalism. Europe is simply coming to the party a few years after the United States.

keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Brian G. Rhodes via shutterstock.com

US gov't admits F-35 is a failure

Military Industrial Complex

Nearly a quarter century after the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter Program into the F-35, the government finally admitted the jet will never live up to Lockheed’s ambitious promises — used to sell the $2 trillion boondoggle to nearly 20 countries around the world.

The Government Accountability Office released a report last month detailing the ongoing challenges the program faces. The first paragraph of the highlights page includes this sentence:

“The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”

The casual reader will be forgiven for possibly glossing over the passage because of its anodyne wording. But the statement is a profound admission that the F-35 will never meet the capability goals set for the program. “Reduce the scope of Block 4” means that program officials are forgoing planned combat capabilities for the jets.

Block 4 is the term to describe ongoing design work for the program. It began in 2019 and was termed as the program’s “modernization” phase. In reality, Block 4 is just a continuation of the program’s initial development process. Officials were unable to complete the F-35’s basic design within the program’s initial budget and schedule. Rather than making that embarrassing admission and requesting more time and money from Congress, Pentagon officials claimed the initial development process was complete (it was not) and they were moving on to “modernization.” What they really did was simply reclassify initial development work with a fancy rebrand.

So, when program officials say they plan to “reduce the scope of Block 4,” they are saying the F-35 will not have all the combat capabilities that were supposed to be a part of the original design.

This is a remarkable development. The American people have been paying a premium for more than two decades to develop and build the most sophisticated strike fighter jet in history. Pentagon officials, politicians, and defense industry executives have been saying for years that the United States needed the F-35 and all its planned capabilities to maintain a qualitive technological advantage over potential rivals. The combat capabilities at the top of the “scope” of Block 4 included some related to electronic warfare, weapons, communication, and navigation according to the GAO. These top-level capabilities were the ones for which the American people supposedly needed to pay a premium.

By admitting that the program cannot deliver the jets that were promised is really an admission that the entire project is a failure. The implications of that could be profound beyond the money that has been wasted throughout the past quarter century. There are 19 countries that either already are, or will shortly, operate F-35s after buying them from the United States. Several countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy have been a part of the program well before Lockheed Martin won the contract to develop the F-35. These countries have invested heavily in the program with the expectation that they would receive the most combat capable aircraft in history. All have seen their costs rise throughout the years and now they find out that the jets will never live up to the hype.

So, in addition to being a military disaster, the F-35 many also prove to be a foreign relations disaster as well. F-35 boosters in the United States sold the jet to the leaders of these countries with elaborate pitches of the combat capabilities they planned to deliver. There were also promises made early in the process about the program’s affordability, which seem comical today. The next time an American attempts to sell a “transformative” weapon abroad, they shouldn’t be terribly surprised if a potential customer expresses skepticism. F-35 customers have paid a fortune above the quoted price, receiving only a fraction of what was promised. The United States may find a shrinking market for weapons exports in the years ahead.This should be a moment of deep reflection for the entire national security establishment. The F-35 was never going to live up to expectations because its very concept was deeply flawed. Trying to build one jet that could serve as a multi-role aircraft to meet the needs of just a single military branch is a highly risky proposition. When you try to build a single jet to meet the multi-role needs of at least 15 separate militaries, while also being a global jobs program and political patronage scheme, you get a $2 trillion albatross.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.


20,535 posted on 10/10/2025 7:07:04 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20534 | View Replies]

To: three
😂🤡🍈


20,536 posted on 10/10/2025 7:09:50 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20533 | View Replies]

To: russia
🍈


20,537 posted on 10/10/2025 7:15:05 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20536 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

Note that Hamas negotiates with President Trump while Putin lies to Trump’s face in Alaska and refuses to end his genocidal wars of choice.


20,538 posted on 10/10/2025 7:50:12 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20531 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston

Impressive wall of text. How many times did you vote for LaRouche?


20,539 posted on 10/10/2025 7:51:08 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20537 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Hush, Neocon


20,540 posted on 10/10/2025 8:13:37 AM PDT by JonPreston ( ✌ ☮️ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20539 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 20,501-20,52020,521-20,54020,541-20,56020,561-20,562 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson