Commander of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces may be dismissed, could receive new position
Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi is reportedly set to be dismissed from his post as Commander of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces, with the possibility of being appointed commander of a newly established army corps instead.
Source: Ukrainian military media outlet Militarnyi, citing sources in political and military circles
Details: The sources reported that the issue of Sukharevskyi's dismissal had been under discussion within the Armed Forces leadership for several months.
It is currently unknown which of the army corps Sukharevskyi may be appointed to lead.
Army corps have been established within the Ground Forces, the Air Assault Forces and the Marine Corps of the Ukrainian Navy.
For reference: Vadym Sukharevskyi was the first officer of the Ukrainian Armed Forces under whose command fire was opened on Russian troops. This occurred on 13 April 2014 near the city of Sloviansk, Donetsk Oblast.
Background:
On 10 February 2024, Sukharevskyi was appointed deputy to Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi with responsibility for unmanned systems and the development of drone usage.
On 7 May 2024, Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers (Ukrainian government) backed a draft decree by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, prepared by the Ministry of Defence together with the General Staff, establishing a separate branch of the Armed Forces – the Unmanned Systems Forces.
In June 2024, Sukharevskyi was appointed Commander of the Unmanned Systems Forces.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia attacks centre of Kharkiv with guided aerial bombs, killing 1 person and injuring 10
One person has been killed and at least 10 injured as a result of a Russian attack on the central part of Kharkiv with guided aerial bombs. Sources: Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov; Oleh Syniehubov, Head of Kharkiv Oblast Military Administration Details: Terekhov said that two guided aerial bombs hit the Shevchenkivskyi district of Kharkiv. At least one person was reported dead. Syniehubov reported 10 injured as a result of the strikes on Kharkiv. He also confirmed that Russian aircraft had used guided aerial bombs. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Putin Incentivizes Space Investors After Elon Musk's Russia Asylum Floated
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. Private investment is needed to boost Russia's space industry, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. His comments come as a lawmaker in Russia floated the idea of offering political asylum to Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX. Dmitry Novikov, from Russia's international affairs committee, suggested Musk could be given asylum in Russia, following his public fallout with President Donald Trump, although there has been no confirmation of any formal offer being made. Putin asked the head of Russia's space agency Roscosmos, Dmitry Bakanov, about how to attract financial backers because of the need "to commercialize services." Newsweek has contacted Roscosmos for comment. File photo: Vladimir Putin sits with a pen on June 6, 2025 during a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects. File photo: Vladimir Putin sits with a pen on June 6, 2025 during a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National It Matters As part of its space strategy, Russia is looking to create its equivalent of the satellite system of Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, which Musk heads. Musk's relationship with Trump continues to unravel, but there is no suggestion yet that he would fund such a Russian venture. However, Putin's call for private investment in a key strategic sector comes as the country has lost access to many Western technologies due to sanctions caused by the war he started. What To Know Putin has previously raised the need to attract nongovernmental funds for Russia's space sector. At a meeting of Russia's Council for Strategic Development and National Projects, the president asked Bakanov when private money will start flowing into Russia's space industry, news agency Tass reported Friday. As other countries use private funding for the space sector, Putin said investors in Russia's program would need to see how they can get a return on their money as he emphasized the need to commercialize such services. Bakanov responded that Russia's space projects included developing the "Rassvet" group, which will become the country's equivalent to Starlink in providing communications services, TASS reported. Another plan is the Russia selling high-resolution satellite images from 2026, for which a regulatory framework has already been set up. Bakanov had previously said Russia plans to launch over 1,000 satellites—including 886 for the "Rassvet" internet constellation—and would deploy more than 100 satellites in orbit to control drones, the publication Izvestia reported. Putin's comments coincide with the idea floated by Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma's international affairs committee, that Musk could be granted asylum in Russia, although he added that the SpaceX founder is unlikely to need it. Moscow has previously granted asylum to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as the pro-Kremlin British blogger Graham Phillips. When asked to comment on the spat between Musk and Trump, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was "a domestic issue of the United States, and we don't intend to interfere." What People Are Saying Russian President Vladimir Putin said on private funding Russia's space sector: "As long as the business does not have an understanding of how the invested money will be returned, there will be no movement." Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee, said: "If (Musk) he did [need political asylum], of course, Russia could offer it." What Happens Next Putin has called for "regulatory documents" to be prepared for private funding of the space sector, although no time frame has been specified, according to Tass.
