logo
I just returned from my second voyage to space on Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. The 10-minute trip changed my perspective on life.

I just returned from my second voyage to space on Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. The 10-minute trip changed my perspective on life.

Yahoo23-03-2025

Technologist Lane Bess reflects on his two Blue Origin space trips.
Bess said each trip renewed his sense of what matters in life.
He called for more visionary investments in space technology and exploration.
This is an as-told-to conversation with tech industry veteran Lane Bess. He founded Bess Ventures and is CEO of Deep Instinct, a deep learning-powered cybersecurity company. He is also the chairman of Blaize AI, the former CEO of Palo Alto Networks, and the former COO of Zscaler. He does not have financial ties to Blue Origin.
I've been to space twice in about three years. Each time, I've returned with a renewed sense of what matters in life.
I took my first trip in December 2021 and my second this past February. Each flight was just 10 minutes long, but Earth looks completely different when you take off and when you land.
I came back this time with several questions about the state of our world. Since my first trip, war has escalated. I thought this then — and still do now — the only limitation to what humanity can achieve is our ability to get along with one another.
What I see instead is a thirst for power, a change in how people see politics, and people compromising the founding ideas of our constitutional forefathers for things that just advantage one country over another.
US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping shouldn't be the only three people on Earth who have a say in how the rest of humanity lives their lives.
All of this might make you think we should find another place to go because we're going to mess this up. We won't colonize Mars anytime soon, but maybe it has to start now.
I've been fascinated by rockets since I was a child. Even before I was a teenager, I remember going to the local hobby store — where I'd have to lie about my age — to buy these model rocket engines (which were obviously flammable). It's a passion I grew to share with my son, Cameron, who also accompanied me on my first space trip.
Years later, it became possible for civilians to go to space. Fortunately, by then, I had made great exits from my previous cybersecurity companies, Palo Alto Networks and Zscaler, so I could afford to bid on a Blue Origin seat in an auction. I had also been looking into investing in space technology through my family office, Bess Ventures.
In 2021, right before Thanksgiving, Blue Origin's operations and civilian sales director contacted me about joining its third flight. I was contacted again in January of this year when a seat opened on the 10th flight.
I can't disclose exactly how much my latest trip cost, but it was in the millions. It's clear my five fellow passengers also had good financial outcomes in life. Richard Scott is a reproductive endocrinologist who sold his reproductive medicine group, IVIRMA, to private equity firm KKR. Elaine Chia Hyde, a physicist, pilot, and founder of the media company Chicago Star and the only woman on the trip, had been saving for years to do something like this.
We spent about two and a half days in classroom training before takeoff. Unlike astronauts who prepare for longer orbital trips, we spent no time training in a centrifuge or swimming in a tank to understand weightlessness. This was more about learning the engineering behind the rocket so you know how safe it is. Up until two and a half minutes before they pull the gangplank, though, you can bail out.
Before takeoff we get into the designated crew capsule of the rocket. For the first five to seven seconds, you don't feel much movement because the engine is igniting. You have earpieces to soften the sound of the engine, but you still hear a lot of banging. Then, the capsule is ejected into the air.
In two and a half minutes, you're crossing the Kármán line, and you start to realize how thin and fragile the Earth's atmosphere is. By then, you're also weightless. I used my GoPro to get a shot of the view.
The ascent is smooth, but the descent can get bumpy. You're pulled into your seat with such a high gravitational acceleration that you can't physically move — let alone take a deep breath.
Once we landed, our families were there to welcome us. We had a Champagne toast and took in the fact that we were one of a few hundred civilians that had ventured into space.
I first interacted with Jeff Bezos' company Amazon back in the nineties when I was a product manager launching AT&T's internet business and Amazon was launching book sales online.
I wouldn't say we're close friends, but I know him well enough to say he's sincere in his commitment to space and science. At his ranch, he once told me he feels blessed that his businesses have generated enough wealth that he can really think about things that most people just won't think about.
There are thousands of billionaires in the world, but only a dozen or so who put their money into really forward looking things. I guess every generation needs a few of those.
Read the original article on Business Insider

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget
E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

A seismic shift has occurred in the Trump administration's new defense spending plan that is just emerging when it comes to the USAF's airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) predicament. The service's E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft are dwindling in number and rapidly aging into unsupportability. The proven and in-production E-7 Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 and serving with multiple allies, was supposed to bridge the gap between the E-3's retirement and pushing the sending part of the mission to space-based distributed satellite constellations. You can read all about this here. Now, if the administration gets its wish, that won't happen. The E-7 will be cancelled and the E-2D Hawkeye, currently flown by the U.S. Navy, will step in to fill the gap. This major turn of events came to light today as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. John Caine, and Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. MacDonnell is Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and is currently performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Pentagon's Chief Financial Officer. In 2023, the USAF announced its intention to purchase E-7s, potentially as many as 26 of them, as replacements for a portion of the E-3 fleet. At the hearing today, the question of the current future of the USAF AEW&C force came from Sen. Lisa Murkowski late in the hearing. Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska, where fighters, tankers, and E-3 Sentry jets launch regularly to intercept foreign planes, primarily Russian fighters, bombers, and surveillance aircraft, over the vast arctic wilderness. Chinese H-6 missile carrier aircraft also appeared off Alaska last year for the first time, as part of a joint mission with Russia. Chinese air and naval presence in the region is only expected to grow in the future. China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps:// — Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024 With this in mind, just how big of an issue the age of the E-3 fleet has become was central to Murkowski's question. 'I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We're kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program. Again, the E-3 fleet [is] barely operational now, and I understand the intent to shift towards the space-based – you call it the 'air moving target indicators' – but my concern is that you've got a situation where you're not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And, so, how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I'm not sure how you make it.' 'You know, the E-3 and the E-3 community have been really important to us for a long, long time, and I'll defer to the Comptroller, but I you know the Department has a bridging strategy through investing in some additional airborne platforms in order to gap fill while the space-based capabilities come online,' Kane replied in response to the senator's question. This is where the E-2D comes in. MacDonnell then added, 'Ma'am, we do have in the budget $150 million in FY26 [Fiscal Year 2026] for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds, and the budget also funds for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap at $1.4 billion.' Currently, the only branch of the U.S. military that operates the E-2D is the U.S. Navy. The Alaskan senator then inquired, 'Can you tell me, will that have implications for what we're seeing up north in Alaska?' 'The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and 'gold plated,' and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges,' Hegseth responded. At a separate hearing before the House Appropriations Committee yesterday, Hegsteth had also described the Wedgetail as an example of a capability that is 'not survivable in the modern battlefield' and mentioned broad plans 'to fund existing platforms that are there more robustly and make sure they're modernized.' An annual assessment of high-profile U.S. military procurement programs from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, which was released today, offers additional insight into issues with the USAF's effort to acquire E-7s. The original plan was to acquire a pair of production representative prototype (or RP) aircraft ahead of production of examples in a finalized configuration, starting this year. The service had then expected to reach initial operational capability with the Wedgetail in 2027. 'Air Force officials said that they now plan to begin production by the second quarter of fiscal year 2026 before completing the E-7A RP MTA [Middle Tier Acquisition] rapid prototyping effort by initiating a separate, concurrent program on the major capability acquisition pathway,' according to GAO. 'They said that it was necessary to begin production concurrently with the E-7A RP rapid prototyping effort to offset the lead time associated with the build and subsequent modification of the aircraft.' 'The program definitized its contract with Boeing since our last assessment. After the contract was definitized, Boeing delayed the first flight test by 9 months to May 2027,' the report adds. 'According to Air Force officials, the delay was due to a late-breaking, required critical security architecture change that affected the procurement of parts, qualification testing, and modification of the airframe.' 'The program stated that the Air Force definitized the MTA rapid prototyping effort contract in August 2024 to deliver two operationally capable E-7A prototype aircraft in fiscal year 2028,' GAO's new assessment further notes. 'The program added that the total acquisition cost increase of 33 percent resulted from updated methodologies to include additional scope related to non-recurring engineering, with the primary drivers being software and air vehicle subsystems.' Last year, the Air Force had been very open about the difficulties it was having finalizing a contract with Boeing for the RP jets. The two parties ended up agreeing on a deal valued at nearly $2.6 billion. A contracting notice the service put out earlier this year also pointed to significant expected differences between the RP aircraft and the full production examples, including the possibility of a new radar. Existing versions of the E-7 in service elsewhere globally today are equipped with Northrop Grumman's Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. The USAF's move to drop the E-7 and leverage the E-2D, which is already in the Pentagon's stable, prompts many questions. For instance, just how many of these aircraft will the USAF end up with? As of 2024, the USAF's E-3 fleet stood at 16 aircraft. Above all else, there are major capability trades here. The Hawkeye is a much smaller aircraft than both the Sentry and the Wedgetail. It is extremely capable, but it is also optimized to exist within the confines of carrier operations. The crew size is just five individuals. This limits the amount of shear manpower to perform highly complex operations and other tasks beyond traditional AEW&C. The E-2 also has less range and is far slower than both the E-3 and E-7. This means longer transit times, and the aircraft doesn't fit in as seamlessly with the jet-centric operations for the counter-air mission the service currently enjoys. The E-2D's AN/APY-9 radar from Lockheed Martin is hugely capable, but many of its other advanced data fusion and relay systems are unique to the Navy. These systems would either be stripped or just left unused for USAF-focused operations. It's also possible that other systems will replace them, but this will cost money and take time to integrate and field. Hawkeyes, being turboprop aircraft, also operate at lower altitudes, giving their radar, radio systems, and electronic surveillance suites reduced line-of-sight, limiting their range and fidelity at distance for some targets and surveillance application, in some cases. Then there is the aerial refueling issue. The E-2D has gained this ability relatively recently, which expands its endurance. Typical missions can now last over seven hours. However, the aircraft uses the Navy-preferred probe-and-drogue refueling method, not the boom and receptacle one favored by the USAF. The USAF's KC-46 tankers do have a hose and drogue system and some of the service's KC-135Rs have podded hose and drogue systems. Otherwise, they require a basket attachment to their boom, often called the 'Iron Maiden' or 'Wrecking Ball,' due to its rigid metal frame and potential to smack into and damage airframes. This system makes the KC-135R useless for refueling receptacle-equipped aircraft when it is fitted. The E-2D also refuels lower-and-slower than jet aircraft. All these issues are not 'show-stoppers,' but they are ones that will impact operational planning and flexibility. The E-2D, being already a highly upgraded and a much smaller airframe, also lacks the same capacity for future expansion compared to the E-7. This could include adding more personnel for various non-traditional functions, including using its advanced radar to scan the surface more extensively or for unique battle management needs, such as controlling future drone swarms, or even for more extensive passive intelligence collection and exploitation and data fusion operations. High-bandwidth datalinks can possibly make up for some of the manpower differentials, allowing folks on the ground to execute critical functions in near real time as part of a distributed crew arrangement, but there are downfalls to this concept, as well. On the other hand, having commonality with the Navy's AEW&C aircraft should help reduce costs for both services and accelerate the type's entry into USAF service. It could also benefit the future evolution of the E-2D as more money will be flowing into the program. It's also a very capable and well-proven platform, lowering risk. Above all else, joint service E-2Ds could be absolutely critical to the USAF's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine that will see its forces distributed to remote forward locales and constantly in motion. The E-2D's turboprop performance, robust landing gear, and arrested landing capabilities mean it can be pushed far forward to very austere operating locations with limited runway length. And it can do this without sacrificing the quality of the data it collects or the efficacy of its use as a battle manager. This is something a 707 or 737 platform simply cannot match and could prove decisive in a major peer-state contingency. TWZ highlighted these exact benefits after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video last year showing a Navy Hawkeye refueling from a USAF HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue aircraft, which can act as a probe-and-drogue tanker, primarily for helicopters and Osprey tiltrotors. A @USNavy E-2D refuels inflight from an @usairforce HC-130 over the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) August 6, 2024 While the USAF's move away from the E-7 is certainly surprising, and it will result in shortfalls in some areas, it also unlocks new capabilities, some of which are arguably more applicable to tomorrow's wars. It also buys down additional risk, which is looming very large as it isn't clear at this time, at least publicly, how far along the Pentagon's persistent space-based aircraft sensing constellation development actually is. All of this still has to make it through congressional approval, which could be a challenge considering the special interests involved. But as it sits now, the flying service is pivoting big once again when it comes to its increasingly dire AEW&C needs. Contact the author: Tyler@

Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War
Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump's trade war is fast turning into a fiasco. When the president started the war, Team Trump advertised it as certain to be fast, easy, and cheap. Trump would impose tariffs. The world would yield to his will. The tariffs would do everything at once. They would protect U.S. industry from foreign competition without raising prices, and generate vast revenues that would finance other tax cuts. Americans could eat their cake, continue to have the cake, and trade the same cake for pie—all at the same time. 'There's not going to be any pain for American workers,' Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, vowed in April. The advertising rapidly proved false. The U.S. economy is slowing because of the Trump tariffs; China's is thriving in spite of them. Team Trump falsely promotes vague five-page outlines with alienated former allies as big deals; China is successfully wooing some of its former rivals, such as Vietnam. America's standing in the world is measurably sinking; China's is measurably rising. Courts are ruling that Trump's tariffs are illegal; public opinion mistrusts the tariffs, regarding them as expensive and unproductive. The promise of huge flows of painless money from tariff revenues is evanescing as the fantasy it always was. Oh, and the country's largest chain of Halloween retailers canceled its traditional summer grand opening because of Trump-caused supply disruptions. What comes next, as things go wrong? Trump's first instinct is to blame the targets of his economic aggression for not cooperating with his wishes. On May 30, Trump accused China of violating an imaginary agreement with him. On June 4, he complained that Xi Jinping was 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' But Trump seldom chooses to quarrel with foreign dictators, saying in the same breath, 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will.' Today, in all-caps emphasis, Trump announced that a deal had been done, declaring that his 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT' with the Chinese president-for-life. The lack of details in the announcement strongly suggests that Trump yielded more and gained less than his publicity apparatus wants Americans to believe. That's because, in reality, Trump's global trade war has always been subordinate to his domestic culture war. Trump much prefers to vent his rage against enemies within. Get ready for him to blame the failure of his trade war on fellow Americans who did not support him enough. The Trump tariffs will be ballyhooed as an act of patriotism, a necessary sacrifice to be laid on the altar of the nation. One of Trump's television talkers reminded viewers that Americans melted down their pots and pans to win the Second World War. If the president needs to ration dolls and colored pencils, how dare any true American raise a contrary voice? The coming call for national solidarity with Trump's Great Patriotic War against imported Halloween costumes deserves all the scoffing it will get and more. Trump ordered the nation into economic warfare. He did not do any of the things necessary to create any hope of success in that war. The impending defeat is his personal doing, entirely his own fault. [Jonathan Chait: The good news about Trump's tariffs] Recall the classic Norm Macdonald bit in which the comedian marvels that in the 20th century, Germany decided to go to war with 'the world,' twice. That was meant as a joke. Trump adopted it as his actual strategy. Trump's rationalizers invoke anxiety about China as his justification. Yes, China numbered among the targets of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But so did Australia. So did Brazil. So did Canada. So did Denmark. So did Egypt. And on and on, through the whole alphabet of American allies and trading partners. The United States is by far the planet's strongest national economy, producing slightly more than one-quarter of the planet's goods and services. Including its historic and recent partners, the United States could potentially lead a group of nations sufficiently influential to write economic rules that everybody would need to take into account. That fact underpinned the Trans-Pacific Partnership concept of the Obama years: Form a large-enough and attractive-enough club, and China will have no choice but to comply with the founding members' terms. Trump's alternative concept is for a quarter of the world economy to cut itself off from the other three-quarters, and then wait for the three-quarters to beg for mercy from the one-quarter. Unsurprisingly, that concept is fast proving a stinker. But suppose the president sincerely believed that the U.S. had no choice: The one-quarter must fight the three-quarters as a matter of national survival, or 'liberation,' from the tyranny of foreign goods and services, foreign fruits and vegetables. Crazy, but suppose he did. What would follow? A rational president would grasp that a U.S. economic war against the rest of the world would be a big, protracted, and painful undertaking. Such an enormous commitment would require democratic consent from a large majority of the public, all the more so because the United States is starting the war itself. Trump's trade conflict is very much a war of choice. The president must explain why he chose it. A rational president determined to fight an economic war would try to mobilize broad support from the public and from Congress. He would seek allies in Congress, and not only from his own party. He might, for example, compromise on some of his other goals. If he also wanted to tighten immigration at the same time as waging a global trade war, or to roll back DEI programs, or to cut taxes for the wealthy, or to relax anti-corruption measures, or to pardon the crimes of his violent supporters, or to plan any other ambitious but divisive project, he might think twice about pursuing them. You can't ask your opponents to pay more and do without if you won't forgo even a scrap of your partisan agenda. You can ask anyway, but don't be shocked when they answer with a Bronx cheer. That president would also lead from the front. A president seeking to inspire Americans to endure hardship for the greater good would certainly not throw himself a multimillion-dollar birthday parade at public expense. He would not accept lavish gifts from foreign governments, would not operate a pay-for-access business that collected billions of dollars for himself and his family from undisclosed favor-seekers. While asking other Americans to accept less, he would not brazenly help himself to more. He certainly would not troll, insult, and demean those who may not have voted for him, but whose cooperation he needs now. This president has, of course, done the most egregious version of every item above. His economic war is adjunct to his partisan culture war. He did not seek broad support. He gleefully offends and alienates everyone outside his base. Which works for him as long as times are prosperous, as they were in the first three years of his first administration. Allow things to get tough, though, and it's a different story. Trump cannot ask for patience and trust, because at least half the country has unalterably judged him as untrustworthy and out only for himself. [David Frum: The ultimate bait and switch of Trump's tariffs] Trump bet his presidency on the theory that trade wars are 'good and easy to win,' as he posted during his first term. His second-term trade war, however, is proving not so easy, and not so good, either. He is fighting it alone, without global allies or domestic consent, because that's his nature. It's now also his problem. In the 1983 movie WarGames, a computer thinks its way through dozens of terrifying nuclear scenarios and concludes: 'The only winning move is not to play.' In other words, the only safe way to conduct a nuclear exchange is never to have one. The same could be said of trade wars, at least when fought by one nation, however big and rich, against all the others, all at once. Trump decided he did not care about Americans' support for his economic war. He did not ask for their backing. He did not make any effort to win it. He willfully alienated at least half of the public. Now that he's losing, his supporters want to scold the country because it rejects the whole misbegotten project as stupid and doomed. Don't listen to their reproaches. This is Trump's war, and his alone. The only way to win now is to end Trump's trade war as rapidly as possible. And then end the excessive, unilateral trade powers of a corrupt president who blundered into a pointless and doomed conflict without justification, plan, or consent. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine strikes targets in Russia, including gunpowder plant
Ukraine war latest: Ukraine strikes targets in Russia, including gunpowder plant

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine strikes targets in Russia, including gunpowder plant

Key developments on June 11: Ukrainian drones strike targets in Russia, including gunpowder plant, General Staff says Zelensky urges 'stronger' EU sanctions on Russia, lower oil price cap Ukraine repatriates bodies of 1,212 fallen soldiers Ukraine's SBU releases fresh video of Operation Spiderweb, teases 'new surprises' NATO summit statement omits Ukraine's entry bid, $40 billion pledge, Bloomberg reports Ukrainian drones struck multiple military targets in Russia, including the Tambov Gunpowder Plant, overnight on June 11, the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces reported. The plant, one of Russia's main manufacturers of gunpowder and explosives for small arms, artillery, and rocket systems, caught fire following the drone strike, according to the General Staff. Local residents reported hearing explosions and shared videos showing a large blaze near the facility, according to the Russian independent media outlet Astra. The General Staff described the attack as part of a broader operation to degrade Russia's ability to produce explosive materials and ammunition used in the full-scale war against Ukraine. The Tambov facility has been targeted several times since November 2023, and U.S. sanctions were imposed on it that same year. Tambov Oblast, located southeast of Moscow, lies hundreds of kilometers from Ukraine and shares no direct border with it. Russian state news agency TASS confirmed a drone attack but did not mention the strike on the powder plant. Tambov Oblast Governor Maxim Egorov said that emergency services had extinguished the fire and that there were no casualties, though he did not specify the location of the fire. In addition to the strike on Tambov, Ukrainian drones hit the ammunition depot of Russia's 106th Airborne Division in Kursk Oblast and the depot at Buturlinovka airfield in Voronezh Oblast, the General Staff said. The extent of the damage is still being assessed, the General Staff said. "The Defense Forces continue to take all measures to undermine the military and economic potential of the Russian occupiers and force Russia to stop its armed aggression against Ukraine," the statement reads. Ukraine has ramped up long-range drone strikes in recent weeks, targeting Russian air bases and arms production facilities in an effort to disrupt Moscow's war machine ahead of an anticipated Russian summer offensive. Read also: As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 11 called on the European Union to impose tougher sanctions against Russia, arguing that stronger financial pressure is necessary to curb Moscow's war effort. Speaking at the Ukraine-Southeast Europe Summit in Odesa, Zelensky said the upcoming 18th EU sanctions package "could be stronger," especially in targeting Russian oil tankers and the financial sector. He urged the EU to further reduce the price cap on Russian oil exports. "A ceiling of $45 per barrel of oil is better than $60, that's clear, that's true. But real peace will come with a ceiling of $30," he said. "That's the level that will really change the mindset in Moscow." After the 17th package of sanctions against Russia took effect on May 20, Ukraine's allies announced the following day that another round of restrictions was already in the works. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on June 10 that the EU is considering lowering the oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel — a measure that will be discussed at the upcoming G7 summit in Canada on June 15–17. The Kremlin's budget is increasingly strained by soaring military expenditures, with Russia's Finance Ministry relying heavily on energy revenues to fund the war against Ukraine. Join our community Support independent journalism in Ukraine. Join us in this fight. Support Us The push for tighter sanctions comes as Russia continues to reject ceasefire proposals and presses forward with military operations. Zelensky warned that Odesa remains one of Russia's "main targets," with plans to push beyond it toward the borders with Romania and Moldova. "Russia wants to destroy it, as it has done with countless cities and villages in the occupied territories," he said. "Russian military plans point to this region — Odesa — and then to the border with Moldova and Romania." Odesa is a major port city in southern Ukraine, located on the northwestern coast of the Black Sea. The president warned of possible destabilization efforts in the broader region, comparing the Kremlin's strategy to its previous interference in the Balkans. "We saw this before in the Balkans, where Russia intensified interethnic friction, carried out sabotage, and even attempted coups," Zelensky said. The Odesa summit was attended by several southeastern European leaders, including Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Romania's newly elected President Nicusor Dan. Vucic's trip marked his first official visit to Ukraine since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. Read also: Ukraine bracing for 'painful' reduction in US military aid after Hegseth announces cuts Ukraine has brought back the bodies of 1,212 fallen service members, the Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War (POW) said on June 11. The announcement follows Russian-Ukrainian Istanbul talks on June 2, which focused on exchanges of POWs and fallen soldiers. The repatriation was carried out through a coordinated effort involving the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the Armed Forces, the Interior Ministry, the Ombudsman's Office, the State Emergency Service, and other national security and defense institutions. The International Committee of the Red Cross also supported the operation. The remains of soldiers were returned from multiple front-line regions, including Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Sumy oblasts. Officials emphasized that investigative and forensic teams from the Interior Ministry and the Health Ministry are working to identify the bodies in the shortest possible time. Vladimir Medinsky, aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, claimed Russia transferred the bodies of 1,212 Ukrainian soldiers in accordance with the agreements in Istanbul, while Ukraine released the remains of 27 Russian service members. The Ukrainian side did not disclose how many Russian bodies were handed over in return. At the Istanbul meeting on June 2, Russian and Ukrainian delegations agreed on a new exchange of POWs but failed to reach a ceasefire agreement. The Turkey-hosted talks were the second round since mid-May and resulted in an agreement to exchange severely wounded and young prisoners, with President Volodymyr Zelensky saying up to 1,200 individuals could be returned on each side. Russia also pledged to transfer up to 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers. Following the Istanbul talks, Ukraine and Russia have already conducted two prisoner exchanges on June 9 and 10. While exact figures were not immediately disclosed, Ukraine confirmed the return of severely wounded and chronically ill prisoners, including those captured during the 2022 siege of Mariupol and held for more than three years. In Istanbul, Ukraine also submitted a peace proposal that called for a full ceasefire, an "all-for-all" POW exchange, the return of abducted children, and the use of frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine. Russia has yet to formally respond. Read also: 'Ukrainians have been stripped of illusion of control' — Filmmaker Kateryna Gornostai on Russia's war, cinema and reclaiming the narrative The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) released on June 11 a new video detailing the sequence of its mass drone strike against Russia's strategic aviation earlier this month. The Operation Spiderweb, carried out on June 1, involved 117 drones that were hidden in trucks across Russia and deployed against four air bases, some thousands of kilometers from the Ukrainian border. The strike deep in the rear damaged 41 aircraft, including Tu-95, Tu-22M3, and Tu-160 bombers, rare A-50 spy planes, and An-12 and Il-78 transport aircraft, causing damage of over $7 billion, the SBU said. Trucks, seen in the footage driving in an undisclosed location, first transported first-person-view (FPV) drones and wooden cabins to Russia, the SBU said. Already on Russian territory, the vehicles were loaded with cabins, which, in turn, carried the drones. 0:00 / 1× The preparations were taking place in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk, not far from a Federal Security Service (FSB) office, according to the SBU. The loaded trucks then drove to multiple locations in the cities of Ivanovo, Ryazan, and in the Murmansk, Irkutsk, and Amur oblasts. The cabins opened remotely at the time of the attack, allowing the drones to strike Russian planes at the Belaya, Olenya, Dyagilevo, and Ivanovo air bases. The operation was also meant to strike at the Russian air base in Ukrainka in Amur Oblast, but this part of the attack failed. In the strike, Ukraine deployed drones specially designed by SBU specialists for attacks deep in the rear. Their unique features allowed them to be remotely controlled in real time thousands of kilometers behind the border, an SBU source told the Kyiv Independent. The drones' design also helped them "bypass Russian defenses and effectively strike the strategic aviation," the source said. SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk, who personally oversaw the operation, stressed that Ukrainian drones targeted "absolutely legitimate targets – military airfields and aircraft that attack our peaceful cities." "The SBU is hitting and will hit (Russia) where it considers itself unreachable!" Maliuk said in a statement. "We are working on new surprises, no less painful than the Operation Spiderweb." The attack was lauded by Ukrainian leaders and Western partners, with NATO Admiral Pierre Vandier calling it a reinvention of "the Trojan Horse" method with "technical and industrial creativity." Various satellite imagery released after the attack showed around a dozen destroyed planes. NATO estimates that between 10 and 13 Russian planes were completely destroyed, and more were damaged. In turn, President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that roughly half of the 41 targeted planes have been damaged beyond repair. Russia acknowledged damage to its aircraft but claimed all of them will be "restored." Read also: America's weak strongman A one-page draft of a joint declaration for the upcoming NATO summit omits Ukraine's membership aspirations and last year's pledge of over $40 billion in support, Bloomberg reported on June 11 after reviewing the draft. This news signals that, for the first time since 2022, Russia's war against Ukraine will not be the chief focus of the annual NATO meeting, which is taking place on June 24-25 in The Hague. The unusually brief document recognizes Russia as a threat to NATO but not as an aggressor in Ukraine. It also does not mention China, Bloomberg reported. The communique of the 2024 summit in Washington named Beijing as a "decisive enabler" of Russia's war against Ukraine. Last year's gathering also included a declaration that Ukraine's path to NATO is "irreversible" and promised more than $40 billion in additional military aid. This year, the document will solely focus on defense spending, as U.S. President Donald Trump pushes NATO partners to hike the military expenditure benchmark from 2% to 5% of GDP. The final version of the statement can still change, Bloomberg reported. The brevity of the communique and the summit itself, as well as the decreased focus on Ukraine, stems from the effort to avoid conflict between Trump and European allies. In a sharp break from former U.S. President Joe Biden, the Trump administration has not approved any new military aid packages to Ukraine and signaled its intent to reduce assistance for Kyiv in the next year's budget. The U.S. president initially vowed to broker a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow but became increasingly less engaged in the process as the negotiations stalled and Russia only intensified its attacks against Ukraine. According to Bloomberg, NATO allies will pledge to allocate at least 3.5% of GDP to defense needs and 1.5% to protecting infrastructure and civil preparedness by 2032. Member states will also consider counting their contributions to Ukraine as part of the new defense spending targets, the news outlet reported. The summit was preceded by rumors that President Volodymyr Zelensky would not be invited to participate for the first time due to U.S. opposition. Later, the speculations were dispelled after the Dutch media reported that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had invited the Ukrainian leader to attend. Ukraine War Latest is put together by the Kyiv Independent news desk team, who keep you informed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you value our work and want to ensure we have the resources to continue, join the Kyiv Independent community. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store