Ukraine has accused China of supplying key equipment and supplies to Russian defense manufacturing facilities
Speaking to Ukrinform state news agency, military intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko said Ukraine had "confirmed data" that China was supplying 20 Russian factories.
"There is information that China supplies tooling machines, special chemical products, gunpowder, and components specifically to defense manufacturing industries," he said.
"As of early 2025, 80 percent of critical electronic components found in Russian drones originated in China," Ivashchenko added.
Since the launch of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Western countries have imposed waves of sanctions in a bid to restrict its access to hardware such as chips, which are vital for building weapons like cruise missiles and some drones.
Russia has managed to partly dodge the sanctions through the support of its allies, and partly through complex black market networks for obtaining sanctioned tech.
China has provided Russia with diplomatic and economic backing in the wake of the Ukraine invasion, but has denied providing material to support the Russian military.
The Chinese embassy in London didn't respond to a Business Insider request for comment related to Ivashenko's claims.
The Biden administration last year accused China of providing vital dual-use goods to boost Russia's defence manufacturing sector.
However, Ivashchenko's comments are among the most specific claims on the nature of the support China may be providing to Russia.
"There are facts of product substitutions, deceptive product names, there are shell companies through which everything necessary for the production of microelectronics is supplied," Ivashchenko said.
The Kremlin has increased Russia's military production to keep pace with the huge demand for shells, drones, and other equipment on the front line.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in televised comments last month that production of weapons, communications, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare systems more than doubled in 2024.
"The troops received over 4,000 units of armoured weapons, 180 combat aircraft and helicopters," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's DeepSeek quietly releases an open-source rival to GPT-5—optimized for Chinese chips and priced to undercut OpenAI
Chinese AI startup DeepSeek shocked the world in January with an AI model, called R1, that rivaled OpenAI's and Anthropic's top LLMs. It was built at a fraction of the cost of those other models, using far fewer Nvidia chips, and was released for free. Now, just two weeks after OpenAI debuted its latest model, GPT-5, DeepSeek is back with an update to its flagship V3 model that experts say matches GPT-5 on some benchmarks—and is strategically priced to undercut it. DeepSeek's new V3.1 model was quietly released in a message to one of its groups on WeChat, China's all-in-one messaging and social app, as well as on the Hugging Face platform. Its debut touches several of today's biggest AI narratives at once. DeepSeek is a core part of China's broader push to develop, deploy, and control advanced AI systems without relying on foreign technology. (And in fact, DeepSeek's new V3 model is specifically tuned to perform well on Chinese-made chips.)While U.S. companies have been hesitant to embrace DeepSeek's models, they've been widely adopted in China and increasingly in other parts of the world. Even some American firms have built applications on DeepSeek's R1 reasoning model. At the same time, researchers warn that the models' outputs often hew closely to Chinese Communist Party–approved narratives—raising questions about their neutrality and trustworthiness. China's AI push goes beyond DeepSeek: Its industry also includes models including Alibaba's Qwen, Moonshot AI's Kimi, and Baidu's Ernie. DeepSeek's new release, however, coming just after OpenAI's GPT-5—a rollout that fell short of industry watchers' high expectations—underscores Beijing's determination to keep pace with, or even leapfrog, top U.S. labs. OpenAI is concerned about China and DeepSeek DeepSeek's efforts are certainly keeping U.S. labs on their toes. In a recent dinner with reporters, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that rising competition from Chinese open-source models, including DeepSeek, influenced his company's decision to release its own open-weight models two weeks ago. 'It was clear that if we didn't do it, the world was gonna be mostly built on Chinese open-source models,' Altman said. 'That was a factor in our decision, for sure. Wasn't the only one, but that loomed large.' In addition, last week the U.S. granted Nvidia and AMD licenses to export China-specific AI chips—including Nvidia's H20—but only if they agree to hand over 15% of revenue from those sales to Washington. Beijing quickly pushed back, moving to restrict purchases of Nvidia chips after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC on July 15: 'We don't sell them our best stuff, not our second-best stuff, not even our third-best.' By optimizing DeepSeek for Chinese-made chips, the company is signaling resilience against U.S. export controls and a drive to reduce reliance on Nvidia. In DeepSeek's WeChat post, it noted that the new model format is optimized for 'soon-to-be-released next-generation domestic chips.' Altman, at that same dinner, warned that the U.S. may be underestimating the complexity and seriousness of China's progress in AI—and said export controls alone likely aren't a reliable solution. 'I'm worried about China,' he said. Less of a leap, but still striking incremental advances Technically, what makes the new DeepSeek model notable is how it was built, with a few advances that would be invisible to consumers. But for developers, these innovations make V3.1 cheaper to run and more versatile than many closed and more expensive rival models. For instance, V3.1 is huge—685 billion parameters, which is on the level of many top 'frontier' models. But its 'mixture-of-experts' design means only a fraction of the model activates when answering any query, keeping computing costs lower for developers. And unlike earlier DeepSeek models that split tasks that could be answered instantly based on the model's pretraining from those that required step-by-step reasoning, V3.1 combines both fast answers and reasoning in one as well as the most recent models from Anthropic and Google, have a similar ability. But few open-weight models have been able to do this so far. V3.1's hybrid architecture is 'the biggest feature by far,' Ben Dickson, a tech analyst and founder of the TechTalks blog, told Fortune. Others point out that while this DeepSeek model is less of a leap than the company's R1 model—which was a reasoning model distilled down from the original V3 that shocked the world in January, the new V3.1 is still striking. 'It is pretty impressive that they continue making non-marginal improvements,' said William Falcon, founder and CEO of AI developer platform Lightning AI. But he added that he would expect OpenAI to respond if its own open-source model 'starts to meaningfully lag,' and pointed out that the DeepSeek model is harder for developers to get into production, while OpenAI's version is fairly easy to deploy. For all the technical details, though, DeepSeek's latest release highlights the fact that AI is increasingly seen as part of a simmering technological cold war between the U.S. and China. With that in mind, if Chinese companies can build better AI models for what they claim is a fraction of the cost, U.S. competitors have reason to worry about staying ahead. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Meta is under fire for its AI chatbots being allowed to talk "seductively" to kids. Meta is investing heavily in AI, and Mark Zuckerberg says "personal superintelligence" is the future. Business Insider correspondents Katie Notopoulos and Peter Kafka discuss why Meta is pushing these chatbots. Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Still, why does Meta think people want to talk to fake avatars online? Do many people in tech believe this is the future, or just Mark Zuckerberg? Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry! Read the original article on Business Insider Play Farm Merge Valley
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia Dangles Discounts to Keep Indian Oil Trade Alive
Russia and India are looking for ways to continue trading oil, and Russia has offered what it calls a special mechanism to the India side to ensure this—despite U.S. President Trump's threat to impose an additional tariff of 25% on Indian exports if the country keeps buying Russian oil. The news about a special mechanism broke earlier this week, with Reuters citing Russian diplomats from the embassy in New Delhi as talking about it but without providing any details. 'I want to highlight that despite the political situation, we can predict that the same level of oil import [by India],' Reuters quoted Roman Babushkin, the Russian charge d'affaires at the New Delhi embassy, as saying. Indian refiners earlier this month began shunning Russian crude on the spot market, after President Trump said India had to stop buying crude oil from Russia. India did not respond well to the threat, with the government essentially saying it would keep doing what was best for India, regardless of the U.S. agenda, even as refiners began contracting U.S. and Middle Eastern oil cargoes. However, the shunning of Russian oil was short-lived, and Indian oil importers soon resumed purchases, taking advantage of a deeper discount for Russia's flagship Urals blend, since Chinese refiners have been unable to absorb all additional volumes freed by their Indian counterparts' temporary turn away from Urals on the spot mechanism that Russia is now offering India perhaps includes an additional discount, to stimulate demand, the Reuters report suggested, as it cited Russian Trade Deputy Commissioner Evgeny Griva as saying that India's imports of Russian oil were a good bargain for the buyers, with discounts at between 5% and 7%. Meanwhile, Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro earlier this week lashed out at India for buying Russian oil, calling the trade 'opportunistic and deeply corrosive of the world's efforts to isolate Putin's war economy' in an op-ed for the Financial Times. India has become the second-biggest buyer of Russian crude since 2022, and Russia has gone from a minor oil supplier to the subcontinent into its top supplier, thanks to those discounts. With India's dependence on imported oil still over 85% of demand, every discount matters, and refiners have saved quite a lot of money with Russian purchases. If Indian buyers stop importing Russian oil, the country's total import bill could swell by $9 billion this fiscal year, the State Bank of India calculated recently, and this will further increase by $11 billion over the next fiscal year. Interestingly, one energy analyst recalled that it was the U.S. administration that encouraged Indian oil buyers to switch to Russian crude in the first place, to avoid a global price shock after sanctions kicked in back in 2022. 'Joe Biden went to India after the invasion of Ukraine and begged them to take Russian oil, the Indians hardly imported any Russian oil, and they begged India, 'please take the oil,' so that crude prices would remain low, and they did. Now we're flipping around and saying, 'why are you taking all this oil,'' the president of Rapidan Energy Group, Bob McNally, told CNBC recently in what was a timely reminder of the literal global nature of oil markets and prices. President Trump also has zero interest in a price shock, which would be the most likely result of a sudden halt in Indian purchases of Russian crude, with some 1.7 million bpd in trade disrupted. It seems, however, that it may not come to that, after all, if Russia and India find a way to continue trading without fear of punishment from the U.S. with that new mechanism. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
