Russian missiles ‘fool' US-made Patriots
US-designed Patriot air defense systems are struggling to keep pace with Russia's missile technology, particularly the Iskander missiles, Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Igor Ignat admitted on Monday.
Kiev has long praised the MIM-104 Patriot as a vital part of its arsenal following the deployment of the first battery in April 2023. But the American system is showing critical limitations in the face of Russia's weaponry, Ignat told Le Monde in an interview.
'The Iskander missiles perform evasive maneuvers in the final phase, thwarting the Patriot's trajectory calculations,' he said. 'In addition, the Iskander can drop decoys capable of fooling Patriot missiles.'
While Ukrainian officials previously lauded the Patriot system for its ability to intercept Russian hypersonic Kinzhal missiles, Moscow has questioned such claims. Russian officials also argue that Kiev often overstates the number of missiles it downs compared to the number actually launched.
As of May, Ukraine is reported to have six active Patriot systems, primarily donated by the US and Germany, with additional components provided by the Netherlands and Romania.
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has called the Patriot system the only viable defense against Russian strikes, and has stated an aim to acquire a total of 25 units. He recently proposed that Kiev's European backers fund the purchase of an additional ten systems for Ukraine at a cost of $15 billion. However, the administration of US President Donald Trump has dismissed the proposal as unrealistic.
Ukraine also faces dwindling supplies of interceptor missiles for its Western-donated platforms, even as Russian forces adapt their drone tactics to circumvent existing countermeasures.
Ukrainian forces have escalated their own drone offensives against Russia, moving from overnight attacks to continuous launches throughout the day. The shift comes amid increased pressure from Washington for continued direct peace negotiations. On Sunday, Trump expressed frustration with the lack of progress, blaming both Moscow and Kiev.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU may target Russia's financial reputation
The EU is considering adding Russia to its anti-money laundering 'grey list' in an effort to cause reputational damage and increase financial pressure on Moscow, Financial Times reported on Friday. The blacklist includes countries that Brussels considers to have inadequate regulations against shady financial activity. Inclusion on the list would impose extra compliance requirements on banks and financial institutions dealing with Russian individuals and entities, leading to higher costs in conducting business activity. The European Commission is preparing to adopt a revised list of high-risk third countries next week, after postponing its release at the last minute for 'administrative/procedural reasons,' FT reported. 'There is huge support for putting Russia on the list,' Markus Ferber, a German MEP with the center-right European People's Party, the EU parliament's largest grouping, told the outlet. Typically, the EU aligns its blacklist with decisions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global intergovernmental body that combats money laundering and terrorist financing. Although Russia's FATF membership was suspended in 2023, several countries would likely block any attempt to formally add it to the FATF grey list, leading Brussels to consider unilateral action. Despite its suspension from FATF, Russia continues to engage with the Eurasian Group (EAG), a regional body affiliated with FATF. In 2024, the EAG assessed Russia's progress in strengthening its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures. It acknowledged some improvements but urged further action, particularly in enforcing targeted financial sanctions and increasing transparency around beneficial ownership. Ukraine has repeatedly pushed for Russia to be placed on the FATF blacklist, citing its connections with already blacklisted states and the potential risks it allegedly poses to the global financial system. However, these attempts have failed due to resistance from several FATF member states, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. Despite being suspended, Russia remains obligated to comply with FATF standards and continues to fulfill its financial commitments to the organization.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine's most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?
While Western headlines celebrated Operation Spider's Web as a daring feat of Ukrainian ingenuity, a closer look reveals something far more calculated – and far less Ukrainian. This wasn't just a strike on Russian airfields. It was a test – one that blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world's most advanced intelligence networks can deliver. And it begs the question: who was really pulling the strings? Let's be honest. Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence didn't act alone. It couldn't have. Even if no Western agency was directly involved in the operation itself, the broader picture is clear: Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence, its military, and even its top political leadership rely heavily on Western intelligence feeds. Ukraine is deeply embedded within NATO's intelligence-sharing architecture. The idea of a self-contained Ukrainian intel ecosystem is largely a thing of the past. These days, Kiev draws primarily on NATO-provided data, supplementing it with its own domestic sources where it can. That's the backdrop – a hybrid model that's become standard over the past two years. Now, let's look more closely at Operation Spider's Web itself. We know the planning took roughly 18 months and involved moving drones covertly into Russian territory, hiding them, and then orchestrating coordinated attacks on key airfields. So how likely is it that Western intelligence agencies had a hand in such a complex operation? Start with logistics. It's been reported that 117 drones were prepped for launch inside Russia. Given that numerous private companies in Russia currently manufacture drones for the war effort, it wouldn't have been difficult to assemble the necessary devices under that cover. That's almost certainly what happened. Components were likely purchased domestically under the guise of supplying the 'Special Military Operation.' Still, it's hard to believe Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence could have pulled off this mass procurement and assembly alone. It's highly likely Western intelligence agencies played a quiet but crucial role – especially in securing specialized components. Then there's the explosives. If the operation's command center was located in the Ural region, as some suggest, it's plausible that explosives or components were smuggled in via neighboring CIS countries. That kind of border-hopping precision doesn't happen without outside help. In fact, it mirrors tactics long perfected by intelligence services in both the US and Western Europe. Because make no mistake: this wasn't just the CIA's playground. European services – particularly those in the UK, France, and Germany – possess the same capabilities to execute and conceal such an operation. The NATO intelligence community may have different national flags, but it speaks with one voice in the field. The real giveaway, however, lies in the timing of the strikes. These weren't blind attacks on static targets. Russia's strategic bombers frequently rotate bases. Commercial satellite imagery – updated every few days at best – simply can't track aircraft on the move. And yet these drones struck with exquisite timing. That points to a steady flow of real-time surveillance, likely derived from signals intelligence, radar tracking, and live satellite feeds – all tools in the Western intelligence toolbox. Could Ukraine, on its own, have mustered that kind of persistent, multidomain awareness? Not a chance. That level of situational intelligence is the domain of NATO's most capable agencies – particularly those tasked with monitoring Russian military infrastructure as part of their day job. For years now, Ukraine has been described in Western media as a plucky underdog using low-cost tactics to take on a larger foe. But beneath the David vs. Goliath narrative lies a more uncomfortable truth: Ukraine's intelligence ecosystem is now deeply embedded within NATO's operational architecture. Real-time feeds from US and European satellites, intercepts from British SIGINT stations, operational planning consultations with Western handlers – this is the new normal. Ukraine still has its own sources, but it's no longer running a self-contained intelligence operation. That era ended with the first HIMARS launch. Western officials, of course, deny direct involvement. But Russian investigators are already analyzing mobile traffic around the impact sites. If it turns out that these drones weren't connected to commercial mobile networks – if, instead, they were guided through encrypted, military-grade links – it will be damning. Not only would that confirm foreign operational input, it would expose the full extent of how Western assets operated inside Russia without detection. At that point, no amount of plausible deniability will cover the truth. The question will no longer be whether NATO participated – but how deep that participation ran.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
IAEA chief condemns Ukraine strikes on Zaporozhye power plant
Attacks on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (ZNPP), Europe's largest facility of its kind, are 'unacceptable,' Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated. His remark came shortly after Russian authorities in the eponymous region reported multiple drone strikes on the ZNPP, blaming the Ukrainian military. Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of targeting the facility in the past. The power plant was brought under Russian control in March 2022, shortly after which the region's residents voted in a referendum to join Russia, which Ukraine has dismissed as a sham. Around the same time, the IAEA deployed a monitoring mission to the ZNPP, which has remained in-situ to date. Speaking to reporters at Khrabrovo Airport in Russia's Kaliningrad Region on Friday, Grossi insisted that 'any attack on any nuclear power plant, in particular [the] Zaporozhye [NPP], is absolutely unacceptable.' He stopped short of apportioning the blame for such incidents to either Ukraine or Russia, noting that the IAEA's mandate is purely technical in nature. Grossi argued, however, that the fact that the international watchdog is monitoring the situation and recording any attacks, is meant to act as a deterrent. He was in Kaliningrad for a meeting with the CEO of Russia's state-run nuclear corporation, Rosatom, Aleksey Likhachev, who described the talks as the 'most multifaceted and meaningful' to date, during a press conference on Friday. He emphasized the importance of IAEA's mission at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, noting how it provides an 'information window for the whole world into the real state of affairs.' This helps fight 'provocations [and] fakes.' In a statement on Thursday, the IAEA chief reported that the watchdog's team stationed at the facility had 'heard repeated rounds of gunfire that appeared to be aimed at drones reportedly attacking the site's training center, followed by the sound of multiple explosions.' Grossi stressed that 'it was the fourth time this year that the training center, located just outside the site perimeter, was reportedly targeted by unmanned aerial vehicles.' Drone attacks on the ZNPP 'must stop immediately,' he insisted, warning of 'potentially serious consequences.' Also on Thursday, a statement appeared on the ZNPP's Telegram channel, claiming the Ukrainian military had conducted multiple drone attacks on the training center located on the facility's grounds, with no casualties or significant damage reported.
