One Of Russia's Swing-Wing Tu-22M Bombers Just Crashed
A Tu-22M burns on the ground in 2023.
A Russian air force Tupolev Tu-22M bomber crashed in Usolsky District, in eastern Russia 2,700 miles from Ukraine. It's probably the fifth of the 139-foot, four-person bombers the Russians have lost in the 37 months since they widened their war on Ukraine.
That's nearly 10 percent of the pre-war fleet of around 60 swing-wing Tu-22Ms, updated versions of Cold War bombers that carry anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles and which, from the Ukrainian perspective, are terror weapons. These days, they primarily target Ukrainian cities. Their victims are usually civilians.
Fighterbomber, the unofficial Telegram channel of the Russian air force, confirmed the crash on Wednesday. 'Crew is being searched for,' the channel reported.
The Tu-22M force has had a hard war. Before Wednesday's crash, the Russian air force had lost four of the bombers—another that crashed, one that was shot down and two that were destroyed or at least badly damaged by Ukrainian drones.
Ukraine's long-range drone strike force has focused much of its attention on Russian bomber bases. A triple-tap series of raids between January and March targeting Engels air base in southern Russia, 400 miles from Ukraine, destroyed a huge stock of bomber-launched cruise missiles costing nearly $1 billion.
A flaming Tu-22M falls to the ground in April 2024.
The Tu-22Ms almost always conduct standoff raids, launching their cruise missiles from as far away as 600 miles. This keeps the Tu-22Ms out of range of Ukraine's surface-to-air missiles—usually. But that doesn't mean the bomber raids are totally safe for their crews. Last April, a Ukrainian SAM battery—likely an aged but potent S-200—hit a Tu-22M flying over southern Russia after launching its Kh-22 cruise missile.
Merely carrying a 1960s-vintage Kh-22 can be dangerous. 'Nothing says fun like flying around with an ancient missile containing ~4 tons of hypergolic fuel,' aviation expert Bill Sweetman quipped.
But for all the risk and all the losses the Tu-22M community has endured while terrorizing Ukrainian civilians, there's no reason to believe it will stand down—not even temporarily. The Russian air force has been losing bombers at a rate of just one or two a year. It has more than enough Tu-22Ms and larger Tupolev Tu-95s and Tu-160s to bombard Ukraine for the foreseeable future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats are spending $20 million to learn how to talk to men. Here's what they should do instead
It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. Democrats are spending $20 million on a program called SAM, or 'Speaking with American Men,' to help them learn how to communicate with the demographic that is shifting the political landscape in the Trump era. 'Above all,' it urges, 'we must shift from a moralizing tone.' But that's what Democrats do best! The Dems could have saved that money and gotten better advice on winning back voters by spending $30 on UC law school professor Joan C. Williams' new book, 'Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back.' Bay Area liberals — and those like them around the country — are part of the problem. She calls them 'the cultural elites.' College-educated voters who are in the upper 20% of income-earners in this country. You know the type. Perhaps you are the type. The virtue-signaling, sign-posting, Facebook-oversharing, holier-than-thou tsk-tskers among us. 'That's us, most of us in this room,' Williams said during a recent book reading in Berkeley. 'Too often, we don't rail against economic elites, but we also fuel that narrative that we look down on people in the middle over time. They're 'deplorables' (Hillary Clinton's description of some Donald Trump supporters) 'clinging to guns and religion' (Barack Obama's line). They're 'stupid Trump voters who don't understand their own self-interest' (typical liberal Facebook post, an allusion to Thomas Frank's 'What's the Matter With Kansas?'). These are all class insults that just fuel the far right.' All those pulldowns do, Williams said, is 'reinforce the right's populist scripts that elites are looking down on you.' And that script is playing nonstop on your favorite conservative media outlet. Williams cites a study showing that former Fox News host Tucker Carlson mentioned the term 'ruling class' in 70% of his episodes from 2016 to 2021. Yes, Carlson is an annoying, bow tie-wearing dweeb, but he also hosted a top-rated cable news show. And his relentless messaging was echoed across the conservative world, including by Donald Trump. It was effective. Two-thirds of non-college-educated voters — once the base of the Democratic party — have consistently backed Trump. Meanwhile, only 20% of ads run by Democratic House candidates in competitive districts in 2022 'critiqued economic elites in any way whatsoever,' Williams writes. Williams notes there are two kinds of populism: 'The left's version of populism: 'They're robbing you blind.' Where the villains are the economic elites, the 1% as we like to call them. And then there's the right's version, which is 'They (the cultural elites) look down on you.'' Republicans do the bidding of the 1% (like the Trump tax bill that disproportionately rewards wealthy taxpayers) by co-opting the working class voters onto their side through culture wars against the cultural elite. 'We keep walking into the same old traps over and over,' Williams said. For 40 years. Nevertheless, Williams doesn't scold liberals. Instead, she suggests ways to win back working-class voters. Here's the most important: 'Make them feel seen.' Feelings rule among progressives, she said. She cites the virtue-signaling yard signs that are everywhere in the Bay Area: 'In this house, we believe: Black lives matter / Women's rights are human rights / No Human is illegal / Science is real / Love is love / Kindness is everything. 'But that empathy and connection is strictly optional when it comes to working-class people,' Williams said, guessing what a liberal might say about them: 'They're just dumb people who are trashing democracy, who are duped by the right.' Said Williams: 'We are very upset about how people are disadvantaged by race and gender — and completely blind, or largely blind, to people who are disadvantaged by class,' she said. The backlash: That unfeeling toward working-class voters, Williams said, puts a target on the backs of immigrants and trans kids and people of color, and 'sculpts anger against them,' she said as some may wonder, Why are we less deserving than them? Williams said if you're asking why working-class voters 'are so angry, they're angry because we have a rigged economy.' Over the past 35 years, the wages of college graduates have increased 83% while those of working-class Americans have stagnated. And if the left doesn't channel that anger, Williams said, 'We know who will.' Here's one of her tips for winning them back: Candidates should stop focusing on 'defending democracy.' Defending democracy is low on the scale of needs for someone working three jobs who can't afford decent child care. 'Defending democracy is not best done by talking incessantly about defending democracy,' Williams said. 'And the people who we've lost — non-college voters — they're not too interested in defending democracy, because they think democracy has failed them. We need to focus on economics, not defense of democracy.' Take how liberals often talk about climate change. Calling conservatives 'climate deniers' may be accurate, but it comes off sounding like 'We're smarter than you.' she said. Instead, progressives can connect with farmers, who can become messengers who can say, 'I can no longer grow what my grandfather grew on this land,' Williams writes. In coastal and fire-prone areas, she writes that progressives 'can point out that insurance companies are already changing underwriting habits due to fires and floods exacerbated by climate change.' It's a way to unite different classes in a populist way against Big Insurance. When it comes to religion, progressives often look down at churchgoing non-college grads. That's a mistake, as religion is central to their lives, Williams writes, providing 'for many non-elites the kind of intellectual engagement, stability, hopefulness, future orientation, impulse control, aspirations to purity and social safety net that elites typically get from their careers, their therapist, their politics, and their bank accounts.' She tilted the chapter that contains that passage: 'Therapy's expensive, but praying is free.' 'Religion is very functional in the lives of non-elites,' Williams said. 'Religion is so powerful in offering sort of mental ballast and stability that being a believer actually erases the effects of class disadvantage.' In 2020, 84% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump, a thrice-married man who bragged about sexually assaulting women on the 'Access Hollywood' tape. Williams notes that 40% of college grads say they are neither spiritual nor religious. Williams is not advocating that progressives move toward the center and abandon advocating for marginalized groups that can be politically polarizing, like the trans community. 'Politically, it doesn't make sense,' Williams said at her Berkeley reading last month. 'Raise your hands if you will support a Democratic candidate that gives up on all of the issues that you cherish most.' Instead, she suggested channeling Sen. John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat whom she paraphrased as saying, 'If you get your jollies bullying trans kids, then you really need another job.' She said Fetterman is using a 'blue-collar style of conversation. It's not fancy, it's not policy based. It's poking fun at somebody. He's doing all the things that Trump does. Trump channels a certain style of American working-class masculinity to victimize trans kids. Some politicians, not all of them, can channel the same style of masculinity to say, you know, if you're bullying kids, you know, you got to find another job.' The challenge is finding Democrats who can pull that off.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Tuberville accuses Zelensky of attempting to ‘lure NATO' into Russian conflict
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was undoubtedly trying to 'lure NATO' into their war with Russia. 'There is no doubt, because he cannot win this war on his own. He knows he's losing,' Tuberville said during a Sunday appearance on John Catsimatidis's radio show 'Cats Roundtable' on WABC 770 AM. However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously mentioned that the country would never join NATO, although he later walked back the comments. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and has continued to launch deadly drone strikes on the country in an effort to gain more land. The Kremlin attacked the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, on Saturday, wounding 80 and killing at least six. Russia ramped up its strikes after Ukraine successfully completed a series of drone attacks to defend its sovereign borders. 'They drove trucks 2,000 miles into Russia. They had drones that were covered up in the backs of these trucks. They got close to the targets, opened up these trucks, the drones flew out and destroyed somewhere around 40 major airplanes that Russia uses in their nuclear arsenal,' Tuberville said. 'It was devastating. Then again, both sides are at fault. Let's get this thing over with. And President Trump is the one who can get this done,' he continued. His rhetoric aligns with President Trump's past statements alleging Ukraine caused the war and shouldn't seek to recover the Crimea region. Trump publicly chastised his counterpart Zelensky in the Oval Office in February, warranting a chorus of responses from national lawmakers and international leaders. During Sunday's interview, Tuberville also slammed Zelensky's presidency, describing him as a 'dictator.' 'Zelensky is a dictator, and he has created all sorts of problems. We've got a lot of money that's been missing. No telling where it's gone…,' Tuberville said. 'I think both of these [nations] have lost close to 500,000 to 700,000 people. It's devastating to the world,' he added. Senators have considered sanctions on Russia for refusing to agree to a ceasefire amidst angst. However, they ultimately held off deciding to follow the president's lead.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
NATO Ally 'Can't Rely' Solely on US for Protection, Ex-Trump Adviser Warns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. can no longer be considered a reliable ally for Britain and the other NATO members, former Russia adviser to President Donald Trump Fiona Hill said in a recent interview with British newspaper The Guardian. "We're in pretty big trouble," the American-British national said during her interview about the U.K.'s vulnerable geopolitical situation. "We can't rely exclusively on anyone anymore," she said, casting doubt on Trump's determination to tackle Vladimir Putin's aggressive expansion ambitions in Europe. Why It Matters Hill's comments reflect widespread concerns in Europe that the U.S. is no longer the reliable ally it used to be for the continent, and European nations need to quickly get ready to fend for themselves, boosting military spending, forging new alliances or strengthening existing ones. Earlier this week, most NATO members voted to endorse Trump's demand for them to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of their GDP. But this goal might be hard to reach: already in 2023, NATO leaders agreed to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense budgets, but 22 of the 32 member states are still falling short. During #DefMin, NATO Defence Ministers agreed an ambitious new set of capability targets to build a stronger, fairer, more lethal Alliance, and ensure warfighting readiness for years to come Tap to learn more ↓ — NATO (@NATO) June 5, 2025 What To Know While Hill was born in England, she lived and worked in the U.S. for 30 years, ascending to the role of the White House's chief adviser on Russia during Trump's first administration. Her role was cut short in the summer of 2019, when she was fired by the president, who later accused her of being "terrible at her job." The dismissal followed Hill's testimony at Trump's impeachment trial, where she spoke of Russian meddling at the heart of the White House. Since then, Hill has spoken repeatedly of Trump's admitted admiration for Putin, criticizing his soft approach to the Russian strongman. Fiona Hill, former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, on February 2, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Fiona Hill, former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, on February 2, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington said that Putin had "declared war on the West" through his invasion of Ukraine, which the Kremlin leader presented to his counterparts in China, North Korea and Iran as "part of a proxy war with the United States." But Trump, who has long admired the Russian president, appears unwilling to take a strong stance against him and instead "wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms-control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourage further," Hill told The Guardian. While Trump has recently shown frustration with Putin, who has largely ignored or stalled on the U.S. president's calls for an end to the invasion of Ukraine, he has remained reluctant to impose further sanctions on Moscow—a type of punishment that European leaders have instead embraced. In a recent interview with The Telegraph, Hill said: "If you offer the Russians a carrot, they just eat it, or they take it and hit you over the head with it." What People Are Saying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in March: "If Europe wants to avoid war, Europe must get ready for war. By 2030, Europe must have a strong European defense posture." Though she recently insisted that the U.S. was still "an ally," in April she said: "The West as we knew it no longer exists." France's President Emmanuel Macron, who has long advocated for the creation of an EU army and boosting military spending, said in January: "What will we do in Europe tomorrow if our American ally withdraws its warships from the Mediterranean? If they send their fighter jets from the Atlantic to the Pacific?" Earlier this week, President Donald Trump described a phone call with Putin as a "good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace." During the phone call, he said, Putin said "he will have to respond to the recent [Ukrainian] attack on the airfields," Trump wrote on social media, without adding whether he tried to sway the Russian leader from doing so. On June 1, Kyiv launched coordinated, long-range strikes on multiple Russian airbases thousands of miles from Ukraine which took out more than a third of Moscow's strategic cruise missile carriers. What Happens Next According to Hill, Putin sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a way toward establishing the country's dominance as a "military power in all of Europe." And the U.S., she warned, cannot be relied on at the moment to help Europe fight off this growing threat. When it comes to defense, she said, the U.K.—and the other NATO members—should not rely on the military umbrella of Washington as they did during the Cold War, "not in the way we did before." A recent survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations found that Europeans are increasingly losing confidence in the U.S. from a geopolitical perspective. A majority, according to the study released in February, considered the U.S. a "necessary partner" rather than "an ally."
