Taliban successfully eradicates poppy cultivation: Report

Toor Khan (right) razing a poppy field to the ground along with fellow Taliban members. (Photo Credit BBC)
The Cradle | June 8, 2023
The Taliban government of Afghanistan has carried out “truly unprecedented reductions in poppy cultivation” in 2023, according to a new analysis published by Alcis, a UK-based geographic information services firm specializing in geospatial data collection, statistical analysis and visualization.
The poppy reduction followed a ban on drugs in Afghanistan issued in April 2022 by Taliban leader Mullah Haibatullah, only seven months after the Islamic movement took power following the August 2021 US military withdrawal from the country.
Alcis reports that an effective ban on poppy cultivation is in place and that opium production in 2023 will be negligible compared to 2022. High resolution imagery analyzed by the firm shows that in the province of Helmand, poppy cultivation was reduced from 120,000 hectares in 2022 to less than 1,000 hectares in 2023. This amounts to the largest reduction in poppy cultivation ever recorded in the country, including after the Taliban banned poppy production in 2000, one year before losing power following the 2001 US invasion.
As a result, wheat cultivation now dominates provinces in the south and southwest, where some 80% of Afghanistan’s total poppy crop had previously been grown.
The Taliban announced the ban on poppy cultivation in April 2022, but allowed the harvest of the poppy crop planted in the fall of 2021, fearing that banning or destroying it so close to the harvest season and after farmers had invested considerable time and resources in their poppy fields would provoke widespread unrest.
The Taliban then banned the planting of new poppy crops moving forward and destroyed any poppy fields planted after that time in violation of the ban.
Over the course of the summer of 2022, the Taliban also targeted the methamphetamine industry by destroying the ephedra crop and ephedrine labs across the country.
These findings were confirmed by journalists from the BBC, who traveled to Afghanistan this month while embedded with Taliban members destroying remaining poppy fields with sticks.
The BBC noted that the loss of supply of Afghan heroin may lead to increases in the “synthetic drugs, which can be far more nasty than opium,” among US and European drug users.
The BBC noted further that “opium was also grown freely in areas controlled by the US-backed former Afghan regime, something the BBC witnessed prior to the Taliban takeover in 2021.”
Indeed, the heroin trade has played a role in the conflicts plaguing the war-torn country since the 1970s.
In the late 1970s and in the 1980s, the CIA relied on Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) and its Afghan mujahideen clients to wage war against the Soviet-backed Afghan government, and against Soviet forces which occupied the country in support of the government.
According to historian Alfred McCoy, the ISI, and mujahideen soon became key players in the burgeoning cross-border opium traffic.
McCoy writes that “The CIA looked the other way while Afghanistan’s opium production grew from about 100 tonnes annually in the 1970s to 2,000 tonnes by 1991. In 1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer. By 1984, it supplied a staggering 60% of the US market and 80% of the European.”
McCoy writes further that, “Caravans carrying CIA arms into that region for the resistance often returned to Pakistan loaded down with opium – sometimes, reported the New York Times, ‘with the assent of Pakistani or American intelligence officers who supported the resistance.’”
As reporting from journalist Gary Webb showed, the CIA was transporting weapons by plane to its proxy army in Nicaragua, the Contras, while the planes returned to the US loaded with cocaine, during this same period. Declassified US government documents later acknowledged that US officials relied on the drug trade to fund arms purchases for the Contras.
The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was followed by years of chaos as warlords competed for control of the country. In 1996, the Taliban came to power and imposed a measure of order on the country. In 2000, the Islamic movement banned poppy production.
However, US forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and quickly toppled the Taliban. Poppy cultivation and the heroin trade flourished.
In 2004, Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, reported that opium cultivation increased by two-thirds that year and had spread to all 32 provinces, “making narcotics the main engine of economic growth” in the country.
In 2010, a growing Taliban insurgency prompted President Obama to launch his Afghan surge, which sent an additional 17,000 US troops to the country. The surge was launched at Marja, a remote market town in Helmand province.
Alfred McCoy writes that, “As waves of helicopters descended on its outskirts spitting up clouds of dust, hundreds of marines sprinted through fields of sprouting opium poppies toward the village’s mud-walled compounds. Though their targets were the local Taliban guerrillas, the marines were, in fact, occupying one of the capitals of the global heroin trade.”
McCoy noted further that the US-backed “Afghan army seemed to be losing a war that was now driven – in ways that eluded most observers – by a battle for control of the country’s opium profits. In Helmand province, both Taliban rebels and provincial officials are locked in a struggle for control of the lucrative drug traffic.”
As Simon Spedding of the University of South Australia observed, “The simple facts are that opium production was high under the US-influenced government of Afghanistan of the 1970s, decreased 10-fold by 2001 under the Taliban, and then increased 30-fold and more under the US to the same level as in the 1970s … These are facts, whereas the idea that the CIA runs opium from Afghanistan would be a conspiracy theory—unless, you thought about the United Nations statistics or happened to have been to Afghanistan.”
EU fears ‘pro-Russian’ votes in key states – Politico
RT | June 8, 2023
“It would be a disaster” if Ukraine-skeptic leaders were elected in Austria and Slovakia, a European Commission official told Politico on Tuesday. The EU reportedly fears that a swing to populism in both countries could jeopardize future sanctions against Russia, as well as the bloc’s military aid to Kiev.
Austria’s center-right government is unpopular, and concerns about immigration and the rising cost of living have made Herbert Kickl’s right-wing Freedom Party the most popular political faction since late last year. Legislative elections are scheduled for next autumn at the latest.
Similar concerns in Slovakia have seen former Prime Minister Robert Fico surge in popularity. With just three months to go until parliamentary elections, Fico’s Direction – Slovak Social Democracy party is leading in the polls, as the country labors under an unelected government of technocrats.
“It would be a disaster” if both men were to take office, an anonymous “senior [European] Commission official” told Politico, referring to Kickl and Fico’s stance toward Russia.
Politico evidently agrees with the European Commission, and has published multiple articles in recent days describing the Austrian politician as “a pro-Russian, anti-American conspiracy theorist,” and his Slovakian counterpart as a spreader of “Russian disinformation.”
Both potential prime ministers are vehement opponents of immigration, particularly from Islamic countries. When it comes to Ukraine, Kickl has declared NATO as responsible for the conflict as Russia and considers Austria’s backing of EU sanctions on Moscow to be a violation of the country’s neutrality. In March of this year, Kickl and his Freedom Party colleagues walked out of parliament during an address by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
Slovakia is a member of NATO and has given Ukraine armored personnel carriers, howitzers, and its entire fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jets since last February. Fico, who served two stints as prime minister in the last two decades, has said he would cut off this military aid.
Until now, Hungary has been the only EU member to consistently oppose sanctions on Russia, with Viktor Orban’s government usually agreeing to the bloc’s restrictions only after carving out concessions for Hungary. Budapest is currently holding up the EU’s eleventh sanctions package over Ukraine’s blacklisting of several of its companies as “war sponsors,” while simultaneously blocking a $542 million tranche of EU military aid to Kiev.
Were Kickl and Fico to take office, Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia would form a powerful political bloc, and could exert significant pressure on Brussels to change its Ukraine policy.
The Kakhovka dam has been destroyed and the Dnieper River is flooded: How will this affect the military conflict?
By Vladislav Ugolny | RT | June 8, 2023
On Tuesday night, the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), now part of southern-western Russia and formerly on Ukrainian territory, was partially damaged and 11 of its 28 spans were destroyed. Torrents of water from the reservoir rushed downstream through the broken dam and into the Dnieper River. This has led to a humanitarian disaster affecting residents of both banks of the river, significantly impacted the environment, and altered the deployment of military forces in the region.
Who benefits most from the catastrophe and how will it impact on the ongoing conflict?
Prerequisites for disaster
The Kakhovka HPP has been under the control of Russian troops since day one of the offensive, in February 2022. Along with the Antonov automobile and railway bridges, it was one of the key points used for their advance and positioning in the then southern part of Ukraine. Later, the bridge over the dam was used for supplying troops in Kherson and Nikolaev regions.
After receiving long-range weapons from NATO, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) attacked the routes to prevent Russian use of them. On the night of August 12, 2022, the AFU fired at the hydroelectric dam using rocket artillery. The bombing of the dam was confirmed at the time by Vladislav Nazarov, a spokesman for Ukraine’s Operational Command South. It was applauded by Western experts and the Ukrainian media.
While the former were busy assessing whether the shelling guaranteed the Russian Army’s isolation, the latter tried to outdo each other with “humor.” One of Ukraine’s main propaganda outlets, the “Trukha” Telegram channel (with over 2.7M subscribers) joked about “inflatable ducks.” However, after the destruction of the dam, their narrative changed and the post was deleted.
On December 29, The Washington Post, citing Ukrainian General Andrey Kovalchuk, reported that the Ukrainian army had conducted test strikes on the floodgates of the HPP with HIMARS launchers – apparently, to see whether this would cause a rise in water levels downstream. The plan was to flush Russian crossings with a torrent of water from the damaged dam.
This is in fact what exactly happened on June 6. However, the Russians had departed from the right bank by that time. In November of last year, Moscow retreated from the area due to the AFU’s constant strikes and the risk of the collapse of the Kakhovka HPP.
The constant shelling didn’t just damage the structure of the hydroelectric power plant. It also made maintenance increasingly difficult, and this played a part in the catastrophe. Since Ukraine became independent in 1991, the Dnieper reservoir cascade (a series of HPPs along the Dnieper River) has not been sufficiently funded, which led to multiple negative assessments of the HPP’s condition, in particular by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE).
The final contributing factor was the water level in the Kakhovka reservoir. It rose from 14 meters in February to 17.5 meters in early June due to Ukraine opening the floodgates of the Dnieper HPP, located upriver in Zaporozhye. Previously the reservoir water level rarely exceeded 16.5 meters. Moreover, Ukrainian shelling prevented staff of the Kakhovka HPP from undertaking repairs and regulating water discharge.
The current situation
Novaya Kakhovka and the surrounding villages under Russian control were the first to suffer from the destruction of the hydroelectric power plant. After assessing the situation, the local authorities implemented a flood emergency evacuation plan. However, many residents refused to evacuate and stayed in their flooded homes. By the morning of June 7, the water level in Novaya Kakhovka began to subside.
In the coastal villages located downstream, the situation was more severe. The village of Korsunka is completely flooded, and Dneprani, Krynki, and Kazachiyi Lageri are partially submerged. Floodwaters also reached Alyoshka, an important city for the Russian army. A state of emergency has been declared in the part of Kherson region controlled by Moscow. Currently, seven people have been reported missing.
The flood has also affected territories controlled by Ukraine. The city of Kherson was partially flooded, and over a thousand people have been evacuated. According to the Ukrainian authorities, the floodwaters began subsiding on Wednesday morning
The Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant is currently completely submerged. This poses a further threat to the HPP, especially as Ukrainians continue discharging water into the Kakhovka reservoir. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, has claimed that Kiev is responsible for the catastrophe, and that the Kakhovka HPP shows signs of deliberate sabotage by Ukraine, undertaken due to the failure of its much-hyped counteroffensive.
Putin himself has decried the “barbaric act of destroying the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant in Kherson region,” which, according to the Russian President, has led to a “massive ecological and humanitarian catastrophe” downstream.
Ukraine blamed Russia for the disaster, accusing it of terrorism and a cynical attitude towards people in territory it controls in the Kherson region.
The humanitarian aspect
For the past six months, active battles have been raging in the territories affected by the current flood. As a result, both Russia and Ukraine regularly carried out civilian evacuations. Many internally displaced persons and refugees moved to other Russian regions from the flood plain. However, it represents yet another calamity for the local population and has made moving very relevant for the few people who have remained in their homes.
Consequently, the emergency response measures have been rather limited. After more than a year of battles, both sides have become accustomed to accommodating refugees and this new challenge hasn’t taken them by surprise.
Eventually, the water will recede and destroyed homes will again be accessible. However, returning will be difficult, even for those who are willing to risk living under constant shelling. To support refugees and motivate them to leave the war zone, Russia is issuing housing certificates and providing a one-time payment of 100,000 rubles for evacuees (about $1,200 at the current exchange rate).
Major damage has been done to the region’s water supply in the territories both under Ukrainian and Russian control. The authorities have already imposed restrictions in Krivoy Rog, a large Kiev-controlled city that receives its water from the Kakhovka reservoir.
Crop irrigation is also endangered across a large area, but the full extent of the damage from this disaster is yet to be expertly assessed.
Threat to the ZNPP
Another danger is the imminent drop in the water level of the Kakhovka reservoir, should the HPP collapse completely. Some believe that this could disrupt the cooling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) reactors – a process that relies on water from Kakhovka.
However, Russian experts do not believe that the ZNPP is endangered since the cooling pond is isolated from the reservoir from which it collects water. There is enough water to cool the two operating reactors. If additional volumes of water are needed and the water levels in the reservoir drop (which has not been observed yet), the pipes can be extended.
Officials assess the situation in a similar way. “The Zaporozhye NPP has not been impacted in any way as a result of this undoubtedly unfortunate event. The cooling system is not endangered,” said Renat Karchaa, adviser to the head of Rosenergoatom. He noted that specialists use “other technical means” to compensate for the decrease in the water levels of the Kakhovka reservoir.
The failed battle for the Dnieper river islands
After the withdrawal of the Russian Army from Kherson and the establishment of the front along the Dnieper River, both sides engaged in artillery duels. Ukraine’s army was in a more favorable position because of its location on the higher bank. However, the Russian side had the advantage of superior firepower and air forces.
Moreover, sabotage and reconnaissance groups became active at this section of the front. Small groups from both sides crossed the river on combat missions, and this led to collisions on the islands formed by the Dnieper delta.
The Russian side did not initially bother to establish full control over the islands, which was a difficult task due to the swampy terrain and high water levels. As a result, the AFU got the upper hand and gradually advanced. This worried the Russian units positioned in the area and several military correspondents.
All these efforts by both armies came to a halt on June 6. The islands in the Dnieper delta were flooded, and both sides hastened to evacuate their troops. At the same time, artillery units attempted to impede the evacuation of the enemy. This confusion might suggest that neither Moscow or Kiev really planned to destroy the dam and create a deluge.
The potential landing operation and the ‘Priazovsk Battle’
In addition to the local battles for the islands, which mostly resembled minor tactical operations, this section of the front was considered one of the main potential directions for the Ukrainian counteroffensive. According to some pundits, the AFU planned to carry out several landing operations across the river to constrain Russia’s “Dnieper” unit.
This strategy could have been used by the Ukrainians to pressure Russian troops positioned next to the “Vostok” unit, which controls the section of the front from the Kakhovka reservoir to Ugledar in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The main attack of the Ukrainian counteroffensive was projected to be inflicted on the “Vostok” to draw it into the so-called “Priazovsk Battle,” aimed at cutting off the land corridor to Crimea and Russia’s access to the Sea of Azov.
If Ukraine chose to attempt to cut through the defense of the “Vostok” unit and attack Melitopol or Berdyansk, a flanking strike by the “Dnieper” unit from Crimea and Kherson regions would pose significant danger. In order to avoid this and delay Russian reserves, the Ukrainians likely planned on conducting several landing operations.
The Ukrainian army, however, has no successful experience of conducting large-scale landing operations. The attempts to seize the Kakhovka reservoir in the summer of 2022 ended badly for them. Additionally, Ukrainian engineering units have no track record in implementing pontoon crossings in combat conditions, and small maritime vessels cannot be used to supply a large number of troops.
All this makes it highly unlikely that the Armed Forces of Ukraine could carry out a landing operation that could force the Russian Armed Forces to retreat from the coastal line. However, such a maneuver could assist the advance in the Zaporozhye region.
In present conditions, a landing operation is even less likely to take place until the water recedes. The problem isn’t just that the Dnieper has become wider, but that a large strip of the coast has essentially become a swamp, with the water level less than a meter deep.
In addition, mines earlier placed by both sides to halt the enemy’s sabotage and reconnaissance groups are now floating about in the waters. Washed away into the river, they may end up in unexpected places downstream.
In military terms, this is a great loss for Russia as many of the defensive positions, including the first line of defense, were flooded and the Russian army will have to hastily restore them after the situation returns to normal.
Who is to blame?
There’s currently no logical argument that the destruction of the Kakhovka HPP was directly beneficial for either side. The actions of the militaries on the Dnieper Delta islands and officials in coastal settlements indicate that the events took both Ukraine and Russia by surprise. These factors, along with the lack of any video footage depicting the explosions alleged to have destroyed the hydroelectric power plant on June 6, indirectly confirm the version that the disaster was the long-term consequence of Ukraine’s HIMARS strikes on the dam. This is supported by satellite images taken from May 31 to June 4, showing part of the dam having been damaged by water pressure.
The only mystery remains as to why the Ukrainians raised the water level in the Kakhovka reservoir to a record high, thereby increasing pressure on the HPP, while maintenance personnel couldn’t do their jobs properly due to strikes from Kiev’s forces. One of the versions is that the entire Dnieper reservoir cascade has become worn out and the Ukrainians were attempting to save their hydroelectric power plants, since their destruction could lead to serious consequences for Kiev.
Meanwhile, further destruction of the Kakhovka HPP is probable due to increasing water pressure and regular shelling which prevents access for repair crews. If this activity continues, the consequences are likely to become even more serious.
Vladislav Ugolny is a a Russian journalist born in Donetsk.
Iran unveils domestically-made hypersonic missile
The Cradle | June 6, 2023
On 6 June, the Aerospace Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) unveiled its first domestically-made hypersonic ballistic missile capable of traveling at 15 times the speed of sound with a range of 1,400 kilometers.
Named Fattah, or ‘Conqueror’ in Farsi, officials described the missile as “a generational leap.”
“Fattah can bypass the most advanced anti-ballistic missile systems of the United States and the Zionist regime, including Israel’s Iron Dome,” Iran’s state TV reported.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Chief Commander of the IRGC Major General Hossein Salami, and the Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, attended the unveiling ceremony.
“Some may ask ‘what is the purpose of manufacturing missiles?’ They are for deterrence, for defense,” the Iranian president noted.
“We build missiles so that we do not suffer from aggression by the enemies and so that we have the power that the enemies would not even think of an act of aggression against the Islamic Republic,” Raisi said, adding that “Defense and missile industries have become indigenous in Iran. As Iran does not import its defense weapons, therefore nothing can threaten to marginalize this advanced industry.”
General Hajizadeh highlighted that Iran is now among only four countries that have the technology to manufacture hypersonic missiles, with the other three being Russia, China, and North Korea.
The US is also developing hypersonic missiles, but their program has trailed behind the others due to a lack of planning, technological gaps, and a belief in Washington that ballistic missiles are a better and cost-effective bet against an adversary.
“Our activities in this field do not end with the manufacturing of this missile. We will continue this path so that no enemy even imagines attacking Iran,” the IRGC commander asserted.
In November, Hajizadeh said Iran’s new hypersonic missile could reach Israel in 400 seconds.
Hypersonic weapons fly at speeds in excess of Mach 5, are capable of striking targets thousands of miles away in 15-30 minutes, and pose crucial challenges to missile defense systems because of their speed and maneuverability.
While a traditional ballistic missile travels into the atmosphere and then returns to earth on top of the target, a hypersonic missile travels much closer to the earth, eliminating the arch into the atmosphere and allowing for it to switch targets on the fly.
France Is Reportedly Making A Principled Stand Against NATO’s Expansion To Asia
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JUNE 6, 2023
The Financial Times cited eight unnamed sources who revealed that France is reportedly preventing the planned opening of NATO’s liaison office in Japan. According to them, Macron believes that this move violates the alliance’s charter, which limits its geographic reach to the North Atlantic. He’s also supposedly against anything that can contribute to NATO-Chinese tensions. The spanner that the French leader unexpectedly threw into the bloc’s Asian expansion plans comes after his trip to China in early April.
He visited the People’s Republic along with European Commissioner Von Der Leyen around two weeks after President Xi traveled to Moscow. Upon returning home, Macron revived his prior rhetoric about Europe’s strategic autonomy in the New Cold War, specifically saying that the continent should resist American pressure to take its side over Taiwan. Later that month, China’s Ambassador to the EU said that his country’s cooperation with the continent is as unlimited as its cooperation with Russia.
This sequence of events suggests that Macron’s rhetoric was sincere despite many in the Alt-Media Community suspecting that he was just trying to strategically disarm Russia with his words. About that alleged end goal, Kremlin spokesman Peskov confirmed in early June that Moscow doesn’t regard Paris as a suitable mediator in the NATO-Russian proxy war due to its direct involvement in it. Nevertheless, there’s also no denying that France’s reported stand against NATO’s Asian expansion is commendable.
That said, Macron’s position isn’t driven by the desire to do any favors for President Xi, but is predicated on his assessment of France’s national interests. In his mind, the bloc’s growing involvement on the other side of Eurasia needlessly provokes the People’s Republic, which is the EU’s top trade partner. Moreover, it could also make it more difficult for NATO to contain Russia in Europe if its members end up dividing their focus between that front and the Asia-Pacific.
Simply put, France has yet to fully abandon the notion of national interests like most of its liberal–globalist European peers have already done, which explains Macron’s reported resistance to NATO’s plans. His country’s different approach to International Relations is likely attributable to its neo-colonial empire in Africa, which is crumbling as a result of Russia’s “Democratic Security” inroads there over the past few years but still exists in some form.
No other NATO member has anything comparable, which is why the majority of them are predisposed to complying with the demands of this bloc’s US leader even at the expense of their own interests in pursuit of what Washington claims is the “greater good”. France might ultimately be pressured by the US and its vassals to such an extent that it’s forced to relent on its reported opposition to the bloc’s Asian expansion plans, but for now Macron is holding his ground in defense of his country’s national interests.
This observation proves that NATO’s internecine rifts are naturally occurring, just like the ones that the bloc has with Hungary and Turkiye, and not the result of foreign meddling like the Mainstream Media misleading implies is the case. While it’s true that the US exploited its proxy war with Russia to successfully reassert its unipolar hegemony over Europe, it failed to do so completely, and that’s why France still has a modicum of sovereignty left to resist NATO’s Asian expansion plans (at least for now).
Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman to form joint naval force under China auspices: Report
Press TV – June 2, 2023
A Qatari website has reported that Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman are to form a joint naval force under China’s auspices towards enhancing maritime security in the Persian Gulf.
Al-Jadid carried the report on Friday, saying China had already begun mediating negotiations among Tehran, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi aimed at reinforcing maritime navigation’s safety in the strategic body of water.
Back in March, Beijing successfully mediated talks between Tehran and Riyadh that led to the Persian Gulf littoral states’ signing of a deal enabling the restoration of their diplomatic ties.
According to observers, the Persian Gulf states’ consent to Beijing’s mediation in such sensitive matters serves to indicate China’s growing influence in the region as opposed to Washington’s waning clout.
Since the 1979 victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic has invariably opposed foreign meddling and presence in the region, asserting that the regional issues have to be addressed by the regional players themselves.
The latest instance of the opposition came last Friday when the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy categorically dismissed the US military’s presence in the Persian Gulf under the pretext of securing the maritime region.
Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri said only Iran and other regional countries would ensure the security of the Persian Gulf and there was no need for the US and other countries to be present in the waterway. “If we back down against the enemy, it will definitely dominate us and we have no choice but to stand and resist, which is the path to the victory of our nation,” he said.
UAE quits US-led naval force
The UAE has, meanwhile, announced quitting a United States-led naval force.
On Wednesday, the website of the Emirati foreign ministry said Abu Dhabi had withdrawn from the Joint Maritime Forces that operate in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.
The ministry said the Emirates had decided to ditch the naval coalition following an extensive evaluation of its security needs.
Analysts say Abu Dhabi has chosen the withdrawal in line with its ambition to diversify its security relationships.
Zelensky will not attend the NATO summit unless his ultimatum is met – FT

By Ahmed Adel | June 2, 2023
The Financial Times reported that Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky has made it clear to NATO leaders that he will not attend the July summit in Lithuania unless a roadmap is proposed for Kiev’s entry into the alliance. According to FT, in addition to the plan for joining the alliance, Zelensky also wants alliance-specific guarantees.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba stated that Ukraine would not be satisfied with any other decision of the July summit other than the invitation to join NATO. Previously, the Ukrainian president stated that the country would not join the alliance until the end of the conflict but would like the support of partners and a membership invitation. In September 2022, Zelensky announced Ukraine’s candidacy to join NATO on an expedited basis.
The secretary general of the Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged the bloc’s position on the right of each country to determine its path and stressed that the “open door” policy remains, emphasising that the alliance would spare no effort in helping Kiev to defend itself.
“Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make it possible,” Stoltenberg declared during his visit to Kiev in April 2023.
If NATO were to grant Ukraine membership, it would automatically drag the entire alliance into a direct war with Russia — a nuclear power that has regularly warned it would use its nuclear weapons if it were under existential threat. For this reason, NATO leaders have clarified that Ukraine’s membership prospects are untenable if the war continues; thus, Zelensky’s ultimatum demonstrates his entitled attitude even more.
Sources told DW that NATO countries have been unable to find a consensus on what this means for Ukraine’s membership prospects in the short- to medium-term. Several former Soviet bloc NATO members are seeking formal commitments to Ukraine — pledges such as a pathway or a timetable that could be given to Kiev at a summit of NATO leaders in July in Vilnius.
Zelensky, despite his ultimatum, is still expected to attend the meeting and make the plea for Ukraine’s need for a concrete roadmap to becoming a NATO member and for more weapons. However, even Washington, a huge backer of the Ukrainian military, does not seem inclined to make formal accession promises to Kiev, even if the administration of US President Joe Biden says it remains steadfast in its commitment to NATO’s “open door” policy.
“We will look for ways to support Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations,” Dereck Hogan, the top US diplomat for European and Eurasian Affairs, told reporters in Washington. “But right now, the immediate needs in Ukraine are practical, and so we should be focused on building Ukraine’s defence and deterrence capabilities.”
NATO’s major members now no longer openly map a roadmap for Ukraine’s membership, as they once did. The US and France are restraining support for Ukraine due to upcoming elections, and Germany has repeatedly said it wants to prevent a total isolation of Russia in the post-war European security architecture.
It is recalled that those member states adopted a completely different language at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 when they agreed that Ukraine and Georgia are prospective members of the alliance but stopped short of extending a formal invitation. However, given the success of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the current demilitarisation operation in Ukraine in blocking Tbilisi’s and Kiev’s NATO accession, alliance members are fully aware that Russia will take devastating action if they directly intervene.
Although it is impossible for Ukraine to become a NATO member at this current junction, NATO leaders seek to send a positive signal to Kiev without making substantial decisions on the principles or the timing of possible membership. One such proposal is to upgrade Ukraine’s political relationship with NATO, but this is mostly bureaucratic. There is, of course, the potential for increased and deeper joint military exercises, but again, this is very far from what Ukraine wants, the highly-coveted collective defence pact – Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one member of the alliance is an attack on all members.
At the same time, Western countries are putting increasing pressure on Turkey to admit Sweden to NATO, with the country’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, writing in the Financial Times that a new anti-terror law which entered into force on June 1 delivered “on the last part” of an agreement to secure Ankara’s support for entry into the military alliance.
A senior Swedish official said: “This terror law is our big hope for unlocking the situation. Then it’s up to Turkey to decide.”
However, this should not give encouragement to Ukraine because Turkey’s impasse with Sweden is over the Scandinavian country’s hosting of Kurdish and political dissidents. Stockholm can overcome this relatively minor issue if it submits to Ankara’s demands. Going to war with Russia for the sake of a new member like Ukraine is an entirely different prospect, in any case. No number of ultimatums and entitled behaviour by Zelensky will change the position of NATO member states.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Kiev Faces Seven Key Challenges Ahead Of Its Counteroffensive
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JUNE 1, 2023
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed that Kiev’s upcoming NATO-backed counteroffensive will commence sometime this summer, which makes it timely to discuss the key challenges that it’ll face. First and foremost among these is the NATO-Russian “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” that Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared in mid-February. Considering that Kiev is entirely dependent on foreign support, the state of those two’s competition is the most crucial variable.
The second one is connected with the preceding one and concerns the fact that Kiev’s NATO-trained forces haven’t yet been tested in battle. For all the hype about the upcoming counteroffensive, it remains to be seen whether they’ll perform as expected since they lack the experience carrying out large-scale operations. Russia learned from its shortcomings that were responsible for Ukraine’s reconquest of Kharkhov and half of Kherson Region, thus reducing the chances of this happening again.
On that topic, the third key challenge facing the counteroffensive is that Russia has fortified its defenses along the Line of Contact (LOC). Kiev will therefore struggle to achieve a breakthrough absent some black swan event, which of course can’t be ruled out but nevertheless appears unlikely. Moreover, the Battle of Artyomovsk imbued Russian forces with invaluable urban warfare experience that they can put to use defending major cities under their control, which could create more meat grinders for Kiev.
This leads into the fourth point, which is that Ukraine has already exhausted a large amount of its equipment and personnel over the past 15 months. The Washington Post drew attention to this in their detailed report in mid-March, which the Polish Chief of Army Staff extended credence to in his similar assessment that he shared in late April. These objective observations from pro-Kiev sources cast serious doubt on the success of the upcoming counteroffensive.
It’s precisely because of these worries that Ukraine is pinning its hopes on so-called “wunderwaffen” like the F-16s, but even US Air Force chief Frank Kendell said in late May that such systems aren’t going to be a “dramatic game-changer…for their total military capabilities.” Furthermore, Russia has already proven that it’s able to adapt to Kiev’s fielding of prior such “wunderwaffen” like Turkiye’s Bayraktar drones, which government-funded US and UK experts recently admitted that Moscow successfully neutralized.
Building upon the abovementioned fifth key challenge, the sixth one involves the West’s growing fatigue with indefinitely funding the NATO-Russian proxy war, which has already cost their taxpayers over $160 billion. Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul cautioned in early May that the counteroffensive’s potential failure to meet the public’s expectations could lead to a reduction in future support, which exposes other Western officials’ pledges of unconditional support as lies.
And finally, the last factor working against Kiev’s favor ahead of its counteroffensive is to meet the Western public’s unrealistically high expectations that McCaul spoke about despite the tremendous odds. Unnamed Biden Administration officials told Politico in late April that they’re very worried that this won’t happen, which places Ukraine’s spree of terrorist attacks since then into their appropriate context by revealing them to be nothing but infowar copium to satiate the bloodthirsty Western masses.
These seven key challenges will be very difficult for Kiev to overcome, thus making it likely that the outcome of its much-hyped counteroffensive will simply be some limited changes along the LOC. Seeing as how that would almost certainly provoke deep disappointment among the Western public, it could very well be that this predictably lackluster result directly leads to the resumption of peace talks by year’s end, which might freeze the conflict with a ceasefire if not end it outright with some sort of compromise.
Insisting on “demilitarized zone” in Russia, Kiev shows no interest in diplomatic solutions
By Lucas Leiroz | June 1, 2023
The Kiev regime shows that it is really not willing to negotiate and achieve peace diplomatically. In a recent publication on social media, Mikhail Podoliak, the main adviser to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, stated that it would be necessary to create a “demilitarized zone” inside Russian territory. The measure sounds absolutely absurd and does not correspond to the terms of peace demanded by the Russians, making it impossible for there to be talks seeking mutual interests.
Podoliak published his plan in his Twitter account on May 29. The adviser stated that the creation of a demilitarized zone of 100-120 km (62-76 miles) deep into Russian territory bordering Ukraine would “prevent a recurrence of aggression in the future”, and “ensure real security” for Ukrainian citizens in Kharkov, Chernigov, and Sumy regions. According to him, Zaporozhye, Lugansk and Donetsk regions (which Kiev considers its own, but which were already reintegrated into Russia last year) would also benefit from the absence of Russian troops in the area.
In the scheme exposed by him, there should be no units of the Russian armed forces in the cities of Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and Rostov. Curiously, Podoliak referred to these Russian oblasts as “republics”, quietly suggesting that they should become more autonomous regions or independent states. With this, Podoliak also makes it clear that he echoes the already known intentions of the Ukrainian and Western authorities to divide the Russian Federation in order to neutralize it through the loss of territorial control.
The adviser believes that the plan to create the demilitarized zone should be implemented in stages, with the possibility of initially allocating an international security contingent in the region to gain territorial control and guarantee the absence of Russian forces. Then, the area could finally be completely demilitarized, making the peace project successful.
The official even classified these measures as a “key issue” to discuss the possibility of lasting peace between the two countries. For him, “if [the Russians] are not going to attack and don’t decide they want revenge in a couple of years, this shouldn’t be an issue”. Obviously, the aide ignores all the problems involved in this dispute, such as the self-determination of ethnic Russians who want to join the Federation and Russia’s need for solid security guarantees.
In fact, the Ukrainian attitude of ignoring Russian demands for peace is already well known, being the main reason why all attempts at talks so far have failed. However, there is something significantly more serious about the current case, as Kiev openly plans to violate Russia’s undisputed territory under the excuse of “avoiding aggression”. In practice, Ukraine makes it clear that its condition for peace is not only to take back the territories it considers its own (the newly integrated oblasts and Crimea), but also to fragment the Federation and prevent Moscow from exercising its sovereignty even in areas not claimed by Kiev.
In other words, Podoliak makes it clear that the neo-Nazi regime has no other intention in this conflict than to attack Russia and violate its sovereign space. Although the western narrative describes Russia as an “invader” and an “aggressor”, the real situation is the exact opposite, with Kiev and NATO being the threatening sides, who openly want to harm Russia and its people. Moscow’s military actions since the beginning of the special operation have been only a reaction to the imminent risk posed by the (Western-sponsored) Ukrainian side.
In practice, this definitely annuls the chances of peace through diplomacy. Moscow will obviously not accept restrictions on the use of its military force in its own territory. And Kiev will certainly continue to refuse to accept Russian terms, which would oblige the Ukrainian government to recognize territorial losses and commit to not joining NATO. Faced with this impasse, the only solution left is to continue fighting on the battlefield until the winning side unilaterally imposes its conditions after neutralizing the enemy.
For Ukraine, this is the worst scenario, since, according to many experts, the country is simply not able to reverse the unfavorable military scenario. Russian victory seems to be just a matter of time, as Moscow troops continue to gain territory even with a low percentage of mobilization, while Ukraine is losing more and more ground even though it is using everything it has – no longer being able to count on reserves for the future. Obviously, in the face of imminent defeat, it is best to resort to negotiations, but Kiev does not have the sovereignty to decide something in this sense, only obeying Western orders to continue a proxy war that is impossible to win.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Scott Ritter: Sanctions Against Russia Failed. I Saw It Firsthand.
By Scott Ritter – Sputnik – 01.06.2023
I just returned from a month-long visit to Russia, during which time I had the opportunity to see a dozen different cities covering nearly the entire expanse of the Russian Federation. Prior to my departure, I was filling up the tank of my car, when I noticed a sticker on the gas pump.
The sticker portrayed a smiling Joe Biden, the President of the United States, gesturing to his right. Underneath the image were printed the words, “I did this!”
Far from being a compliment, the sticker was a form of humorous protest against the Russia sanctions adopted last year after the start of the special military operation. Many of these sanctions involved Russian energy, and the resulting economic chaos in global energy markets prompted gas prices to surge. Biden was quick to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin, claiming on June 22, 2022, that “the simple truth is gas prices are up almost $2.00 a gallon because of Vladimir Putin’s ruthless attack on Ukraine.”
Biden called the increase in cost “Putin’s Price Hike”, but the American people saw through the subterfuge, as the sticker on the pump proved. If anything, the increase in gas prices prompted many Americans to look at the sticker after examining the bill, and sarcastically proclaim, “Thank you, Joe Biden.”
Upon my arrival to Russia, I expected to see a nation heavily impacted by the consequences of American-led sanctions. Instead, I saw a nation undergoing an economic revival, in large part thanks to the policies Russia was compelled to undertake because of Western sanctions. When I told my Russian hosts about the sticker at the gas pump and my sarcastic appreciation, they laughed. “Send us the stickers,” they said. “And we will thank Joe Biden with all the sincerity we can muster!”
The best way to judge a man is most often based upon the weight of his own words, and when it comes to sanctions and the Russian economy, Joe Biden is no exception. On March 26, 2022, Joe Biden spoke before an audience in Warsaw, Poland about the conflict in Ukraine. One of Biden’s main objectives for his speech was to engender a sense of confidence among the crowd that his administration had the situation under control. The heart of Biden’s argument was the detrimental impact the program of systemic economic sanctions championed by the US, the European Union, the G-7, and NATO were having on the Russian economy.
A little more than a year later, Biden’s words have come back to haunt him.
“As a result of these unprecedented sanctions,” Biden then crowed, “the ruble almost is immediately reduced to rubble. The Russian economy—that’s true, by the way, it takes about 200 rubles to equal $1.”
While I was in Russia, the exchange rate hovered between 79 and 81 rubles to the dollar. The Russian currency is stable, backed by a strong and vibrant economy. Moreover, unlike during the pre-sanction period, the ruble today is a convertible currency, used to pay for Russia’s international business transactions, especially in the field of energy, once the exclusive domain of the petrodollar. Far from being reduced to rubble, the ruble today serves as a foundational currency for global economic activity, part of a new “basket of currencies” that is responsive to the needs of a new multilateral reality that is rapidly supplanting the previous era of US economic hegemony.
“Thank you, Joe Biden!”
“The [Russian] economy is on track,” Biden then bragged, “to be cut in half in the coming years. It was ranked, Russia’s economy was ranked the 11th biggest economy in the world before this invasion. It will soon not even rank among the top 20 in the world.”
The Russian economy currently retains its rank as the 11th in the world, based upon standard gross domestic product (GDP) comparisons. However, when one converts Russia’s $1.78 trillion GDP using the “basket of goods” formulation of purchasing power parity (PPP) (i.e., what similar goods cost in the United States versus Russia), Russia’s actual economic strength converts to $4.80 trillion, making it the world’s sixth largest economy, surpassing all but China, the US, India, Japan, and Germany.
“Thank you, Joe Biden.”
“Taken together these economic sanctions,” Biden then pontificated, “a new kind of economic statecraft with the power to inflict damage that rivals military might. These international sanctions are sapping Russian strength, its ability to replenish its military, and its ability to project power. And it’s Putin, it is Vladimir Putin who is to blame. Period.”
In January and February 2023, Russia spent 2 trillion rubles ($26 billion) on defense, a 282% jump on the same period a year ago. Far from being unable to replenish its military strength and sustain the conflict in Ukraine, Russia is far outpacing NATO in terms of rushing military material to the frontlines by 4 to 1 in terms of tanks and armored fighting vehicles and 5 to 1 in artillery ammunition. When calculated with kill ratios that are overwhelmingly in favor of Russia, the fact is that Russia is sapping the strength of NATO and its Ukrainian proxy, while expanding its own. In addition to nearly tripling the size of its special military operation contingent, Russia is simultaneously building up the forces necessary to meet the expansion of its army from its pre-conflict size of 1 million, to a force of more than 1.5 million. Moreover, Russia’s increase in military production has not only softened the economic impact of the US-sponsored sanctions, but also helped reverse their impact across Russia’s industrial base.
Everything I saw while touring Russia underscored the incontrovertible fact that, because of Western sanctions, the Russian economy has been compelled to undertake changes which have not only made it more resilient, but also more productive and efficient. Foreign investments are surging in, proving that there is a world that exists beyond that controlled by the American economic hegemon. Moreover, because sanctions have curtailed the previous practice of Russian business tycoons sending their wealth abroad, there is a huge amount of domestic economic capital available for reinvestment into the Russian economy. This truth was evident in every city I visited, where there were unprecedented levels of infrastructure improvements and new construction taking place.
I thought about this upon my return to the US, contrasting my journey from JFK airport through New York City with a similar journey I made from Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport into Moscow. My New York journey took me from a decaying airport, through decaying highways and bridges, into a decaying city. The Moscow equivalent was, by comparison, one of pristine facilities, roads, and a city that was not only composed of recently constructed buildings, but alive with new construction as well.
I still see the “I did this!” stickers on the gas pump, and I still mutter my words of thanks to the American President that I hold accountable for the high prices. And I laugh when I think of my Russian hosts making the same exclamation. The sarcasm is evident, whether uttered in the US or Russia, but for diametrically opposed reasons. Biden, a man who promised to revitalize the US economy, has done the opposite. And yet while he has pledged ruin in Russia, a revival has occurred.
“Thank you, Joe Biden!”
A Cheat Sheet for Legislators Regarding the WHO and Health Emergencies
By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | MAY 30, 2023
We are told that, in a world of multiplying health emergencies, it has become necessary to give up some independence in return for safety. It is a tribute to those backing this agenda through the World Health Organization (WHO) that this message continues to gain credence. If humans are important, then we should also understand its flaws, and decide whether they matter.
1. The World Health Organization is not independent, and is significantly privately directed.
Early WHO funding was dominated by ‘assessed’ contributions from countries, based on national income, and the WHO decided how to use this core funding to achieve the greatest impact. Now, WHO funding is mainly ‘specified,’ meaning that the funder may decide how and where the work will be done. The WHO has become a conduit through which a funder can implement programs from which they stand to benefit. These funders are increasingly private entities; the second largest funder of the WHO is the foundation of a software entrepreneur and Big Pharma investor.
In ceding power to the WHO, a state will be ceding power to the funders of it. They can then profit by imposing the increasingly centralized and commodity-based approach that the WHO is taking.
2. People in democracies cannot be subject to dictatorships.
The WHO rightly represents all countries. This means that member states run by military dictatorships or other non-democratic regimes have an equal say at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s governing body.
In ceding power to the WHO, democratic States are therefore sharing decision-making power over the health of their own citizens with these non-democratic states, some of whom will have geopolitical reasons to restrict a democratic state’s people and harm its economy. While equal say in policy may be appropriate for a purely advisory organization, ceding actual power over citizens to such an organization is obviously incompatible with democracy.
3. The WHO is not accountable to those it seeks to control.
Democratic states have systems through which those allowed to wield power over citizens wield it only at the citizens’ will, and are subject to independent courts for malfeasance or gross and harmful incompetence. This is necessary to address the corruption that always arises, as institutions are run by humans. Like other branches of the United Nations, the WHO is answerable to itself and the geopolitics of the WHA. Even the UN secretariat has limited influence as the WHO operates under its own constitution.
No one will be held accountable for the nearly quarter-million children that UNICEF estimates were killed by policies that the WHO promoted in South Asia. None of the up to 10 million girls forced into child marriage by WHO Covid policies will have any path for redress. Such lack of accountability may be acceptable if an institution is simply giving advice, but it is completely unacceptable for any institution that has powers to restrict, mandate or even censor a country’s citizens.
4. Centralization through the WHO is poor policy by incompetent people.
Before the influx of private money, the WHO’s focus was high burden endemic infectious disease, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. These are strongly associated with poverty, as are those arising from malnutrition and poor sanitation. Public health experience tells us that addressing such preventable or treatable diseases is the best way to lengthen lives and promote sustainable good health. They are most effectively addressed by people on the ground, with local knowledge of behavior, culture and disease epidemiology. This involves empowering communities to manage their own health. The WHO once emphasized such decentralization, advocating for the strengthening of primary care. It was consistent with the fight against fascism and colonialism within which the WHO arose.
Centralized approaches to health, in contrast, require communities and individuals to comply with dictates that ignore local heterogeneity and community priorities. Malaria is not an issue to Icelandic people, but it absolutely dwarfs Covid in Uganda. Both human rights and effective interventions require local knowledge and direction. The WHO pushed mass Covid vaccination onto sub-Saharan Africa for nearly 2 years through their most expensive program to date, whilst knowing a large majority of the population were already immune, half were under 20 years, and deaths from each of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDs absolutely dwarfed Covid-19 mortality.
The WHO staff are rarely experts. Experience in the 2009 Swine flu and West African Ebola outbreaks demonstrated that. Many have spent decades sitting in an office with minimal experience in program implementation or practical disease management. Country quotas and the nepotism associated with large international organizations mean that most countries will have far greater expertise within their borders than exists in a closeted bureaucracy in Geneva.
5. Real pandemics are not common, and are not becoming more common.
Pandemics due to respiratory viruses, as the WHO pointed out in 2019, are rare events. They have occurred about once per generation over the past 120 years. Since the advent of antibiotics (for primary or secondary infections), mortality has dropped dramatically. An increase in mortality recorded during Covid-19 was complicated by definitions (‘with’ versus ‘of’), average age of death was over 75 years, and death was unusual in healthy people. The global infection mortality rate was not greatly different to influenza. Tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and most other common infections kill at a much younger age, imparting a greater burden in life years lost.
In summary
It makes no sense to grant a foreign-based, poorly unaccountable institution powers that contradict democratic norms and good public health policy. More so when this institution has limited expertise and a poor track record, is directed by private interests and those of authoritarian governments. This is obviously counter to what a government in a democracy is supposed to do.
This is not a matter of domestic political rivalries. However, the public relations departments of the prospective beneficiaries of this perpetual health emergency project would like us to believe it is.
We are currently funding the dismantling of our own independence and ceding our human rights to a small group which stands to benefit from our impoverishment, financed from a war chest accrued through the pandemic just ended. We don’t have to. It is as straightforward to see through this as it should be to stop it. All that is needed is clarity, honesty and a little courage.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
Russia Reacts Harshly to Ukrainian Terrorist Attacks With NATO Weapons – Shoigu
Sputnik – 30.05.2023
MOSCOW – The Russian armed forces are reacting as harshly as possible to terrorist attacks by Ukraine against civilians in Russia using NATO weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday.
“Using NATO weapons, the Kiev authorities continue to strike at social facilities, carry out terrorist attacks against peaceful Russian citizens. Our armed forces react as harshly as possible to the actions of Ukrainian militants,” Shoigu said at a conference call.
The Western support to Kiev only prolongs the conflict but will not affect the outcome of Moscow’s special military operation, Shoigu said.
“Military support for Ukraine only prolongs the hostilities, but cannot affect the outcome of the special military operation,” the minister said.
Shoigu also said that the West supplies more and more military equipment to Ukraine.
“We monitor the amount and routes of supply and, when we detect them, we strike,” Shoigu said.
The defense minister added that Western curators continue to demand from Ukraine to launch mass offensive operations.
“Despite the significant losses of Ukrainian armed forces, Western curators continue to demand that the Kiev regime switch to large-scale offensive operations,” Shoigu said.
Ukraine lost more than 16,000 military in May as a result of the military operation, Shoigu said.
“Groups of Russian troops continue to inflict effective fire damage on the enemy. This month alone, its [Ukraine’s] losses amounted to over 16,000 military,” Shoigu said during a conference call.
Ukraine also lost 16 aircraft, five helicopters, 466 unmanned aerial vehicles, more than 400 tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, 238 field artillery pieces and mortars, the minister added.
Additionally, Russian air defense systems intercepted and destroyed 29 UK Storm Shadow cruise missiles and almost 200 HIMARS long-range guided missiles in May, Shoigu said, adding that Russian troops have recently hit another US Patriot anti-aircraft missile system in Kiev.
The drone attack carried out by Ukraine early on Tuesday targeted civilian facilities of Moscow, minister said.
“This morning, the Kiev regime carried out a terrorist act in the Moscow region. I would like to note that it was against civilian targets. Eight aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles were involved in it. All of them were hit,” Shoigu said during a conference call.
Ukraine attacked the Russian capital with eight unmanned aerial vehicles early on Tuesday, all drones were shot down, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
Three of these drones were suppressed by means of electronic warfare, lost control and deviated from their intended targets, another five unmanned aerial vehicles were shot down by the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and gun system in the Moscow region, the ministry added.
