Latest news with #F-16
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Western hesitation continues to undermine Ukraine
On May 28, President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Germany and met with the country's new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. There were high expectations that Berlin would finally authorize the delivery of Taurus long-range missiles — a long-standing request from Kyiv since the beginning of the Russian invasion. However, this demand had been systematically rejected by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who feared dragging Germany into a direct confrontation with Moscow. Instead of Taurus missiles, Merz announced a new 5 billion euro aid package and a commitment that Germany would support the production of long-range weapons on Ukrainian territory. Although these systems are not as sophisticated as the Taurus — whose operation would require months of training — the models to be co-produced by Berlin and Kyiv have the advantage of being easier to use, which could accelerate their integration into the Ukrainian Armed Forces. While investing in Ukraine's defense industry is necessary — something President Zelensky himself has emphasized in urging allies to strengthen the country's defensive capabilities — the fact that he returned from Germany without a Taurus delivery promise reveals a deeper issue. These missiles represent not only a powerful symbolic gesture, demonstrating that the West is truly committed to Ukraine's defense, but also an immediate and tangible impact on the battlefield. As recently highlighted by the Kyiv Independent, the Taurus missile can be programmed to detonate only after penetrating multiple layers of protection, making it especially effective against strategic targets like the Crimean Bridge. Beyond being an important symbol for Russian President Vladimir Putin, that bridge is a crucial logistical link between mainland Russia and the occupied peninsula — a target of both symbolic and operational significance. The absence of the Taurus in this package highlights a familiar blind spot: many Western governments still underestimate how much timing matters. In a war, it's not just about how much support is given, but how quickly it comes. Delays in key decisions don't just slow progress — they quietly erode Ukraine's position on the ground. Has the West become so focused on the latest headlines, diplomatic theater, and talks in Istanbul that it has forgotten to reflect on its own recent history and the decisions made over the past three years? Read also: If Germany sends Taurus missiles to Ukraine, Russia has a major Crimean Bridge problem The truth is that the West sabotages itself by delaying the release of essential resources — a hesitation systematically exploited by Russia. That was the case with the F-16 fighter jets: the U.S. and European countries, initially fearful of escalation, delayed their delivery by more than a year — only relenting after intense Ukrainian pressure and decisive support from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. The same pattern occurred with the Leopard 2 tanks, delivered only in early 2023; with the UK's Challenger 2 tanks, which arrived in March 2023; and with the U.S. M1 Abrams, delivered only in September that year — a year and a half after the invasion. Even Patriot air defense systems, vital for intercepting Russian missiles, faced initial resistance due to escalation fears and were only delivered in early 2023. Storm Shadow cruise missiles likewise only began arriving in May 2023. Given all this, the inevitable question is: why so much hesitation, if in the end they give in anyway? Russia, unlike its Western counterparts, has shown no hesitation when it comes to speed — whether in advancing troops or manipulating diplomacy. Every so-called negotiation is just another stalling tactic, with the Kremlin expertly layering new steps, new demands, and new distractions to stretch the clock. After the first Istanbul round, came the promise of a 'memorandum', only to be followed by yet another 'new phase.' It's a script they've used repeatedly: feign interest, pretend flexibility, and use the time gained to recalibrate offensives. U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, appears to have started losing patience with Putin — but that frustration hasn't translated into any concrete action. Instead, he ends up playing straight into Moscow's hands, a convenient figure in a Kremlin-scripted performance designed to drain Western resolve and dress delay up as diplomacy. The race faced by Ukraine and its European allies is, above all, a race against time — and many still don't seem to realize it. For Europeans, this race involves rebuilding strategic autonomy in defense — a process that should have begun over a decade ago, with the annexation of Crimea. At the very latest, the alarm bells should have rung in 2017, when Trump, then president, openly threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO and, on one occasion when asked about Russian election interference, said he trusted Putin over his own intelligence agencies. The signs were there, flashing red — but Europe chose to look away. Now, the cost of that complacency is becoming impossible to ignore. For Ukrainians, this race against time is even more literal: every day counts, and every delay can mean a new Russian offensive. At this very moment, Russia is mobilizing around 50,000 troops near the border with Sumy — potentially signaling not just an attempt to create the 'buffer zone' Putin has demanded, but preparations for a new large-scale military advance. None of this is to downplay the support Europe has already provided — it's been essential. But that doesn't mean it's been enough, or delivered with the urgency the moment demands. While Putin takes advantage of U.S. ambiguity, Europe often falls into the trap of responding with long-term commitments that, although important, have little immediate effect on the battlefield. Trump, despite his recent tough rhetoric, continues to offer Moscow concessions before they're even requested. In February 2025, he stated, 'I'd love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out,' referring to Russia's expulsion from the G8 after the annexation of Crimea. It's exactly the kind of signal that undermines Western unity and hands the Kremlin an unearned diplomatic win — no pressure needed. Meanwhile, Europe's delayed promises may look good on paper, but they don't change the reality on the ground, where time and resolve are the most decisive weapons. Gestures like promising Ukraine EU membership by 2030 are certainly meaningful. They send the right message — that Ukraine belongs in the European family and that a future of integration and reconstruction lies ahead. But these are not messages that deter the Kremlin. Because 2030 is five years away — and in a war where every month can redraw the front lines, that's a long time. Ukraine has stunned the world with its resilience, determination, and ability to adapt under extraordinary pressure. But even under U.S. President Joe Biden — a president who, despite his caution and delays, remained firmly committed to Kyiv — 20% of Ukraine's territory remains under illegal Russian occupation. The question now is: what will Ukraine's map look like in five years? Europe, out of fear of escalation, has too often treated Ukraine as a burden. But the truth is that Ukraine should be seen as an opportunity — for integration, for strengthening collective security, and for renewing the European project. Its Armed Forces, forged in the most demanding conditions, have accumulated real combat experience, developed homegrown technologies, created new drone models, and demonstrated a level of adaptability that many European militaries lack. More than that: Ukraine has kept its institutions functioning and its government operating under the pressure of war — something most European countries would struggle to do. Read also: Russia 'testing' Europe's capacity to help Ukraine by intensifying air attacks Ukraine is not just a country in need of help; it's a partner with valuable capabilities to offer. Europe must also understand that not every show of strength leads to escalation. The recent use of the Russian Oreshnik missile against Ukrainian territory — following the U.S. decision in November 2024, under Biden, to authorize Ukraine's use of ATACMS inside Russia — was a calculated, demonstrative move, not the start of a broader escalation. In contrast, the unprecedented attacks on Kyiv and other regions in recent days were deliberate Russian actions that didn't follow any 'Ukrainian provocation.' They were likely triggered by something else entirely: the West's visible hesitation to act more decisively. When deterrence is delayed or watered down, it doesn't prevent escalation — it invites it. The message Moscow will understand is not the one about promises for 2030 — but the one about deliveries tomorrow. Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Russian oil company says it paid out a $195,000 bounty to soldiers it credited with downing an F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine
A Russian company said it paid 12 soldiers a combined $195,000 for shooting down an F-16 jet. Fores said it presented the soldiers the cash at a ceremony near the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday. Kyiv had long coveted the US-made F-16. It received its first of the jets in 2024. A Russian oil company said it had awarded a total of 15 million rubles (around $195,000) to Russian soldiers who it credited with downing the first US-made F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine. In a press release, Fores, a fracking parts manufacturer, said it had presented 12 servicemen with the cash at a ceremony near the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday. "Fores fulfilled its earlier promise and paid 15 million rubles to Russian servicemen for destroying the first F-16 fighter jet in the special operation zone," the company said. The firm announced the bounty system in 2023, promising cash rewards for soldiers who destroyed certain Western-supplied military equipment. The company said it had so far paid out just over 52 million rubles (around $670,000) for the destruction of the F-16 and an unspecified number of Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had long coveted the F-16 as he sought to bolster Ukraine's air defenses, and Kyiv received its first delivery of the jet in the summer of 2024. Ukraine's forces have so far lost at least three F-16s in combat, with the General Staff confirming the first loss in August last year. The F-16 has nevertheless seemingly proved a hit over the battlefield. Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the US's top general in Europe, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in April that F-16s were flying "every day" in Ukraine and that they had been successful in both air defense and offensive operations. "They've defeated a large number of cruise missile threats, and they've delivered an awful lot of offensive attacks as well," he said, adding: "Specifically, bombing attacks in the east." Read the original article on Business Insider
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Operation Sindoor: How India's communication strategy is hitting its target
The government clearly intends to retain the focus on strategic and security matters for the time being, and its information management is designed to allow it to do so read more The Indian government has put to use hard-learned lessons from the aftermaths of the Uri surgical strike (2016), Balakot airstrike, and the air skirmishes that followed (2019) in its Operation Sindoor communications strategy. And despite some difficult moments and seeming reverses, so far, the strategy has served India well. A Pattern from Past Conflicts Previous Indian successes on the battlefield were undermined in almost identical ways: Pakistan stage-managed a counter-narrative following Indian action; Western media and 'analysts' on these Pakistani official tours supported the Pakistani version; the issue then became controversial in the Indian media and political opposition; and the Indian government and armed forces were pressured to release and defend their battlefield-damage assessments. In other instances, firefighting disinformation and negative news shifted focus from the armed forces' strategic goals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The number of terrorists actually killed in the Uri strike, whether terrorists were killed at all in the Balakot airstrike, and whether a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-16 was shot down in air skirmishes were all called into question in this manner. In the last instance, reluctant Indian armed forces were forced to make sensitive information public to support their claims. In the same post-Balakot dogfight, Pakistan falsely claimed to have downed two Indian fighter aircraft, wrongly announced the death of an Indian pilot, and showed video footage of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman being manhandled by civilians. This created substantial pressure on the Indian government to manage public morale. Western reportage filtering back into Indian media resulted in the opposition demanding the release of video footage of the Uri strike and proof of the Balakot strike. There was also considerable frustration with the Western media's soft-pedalling of proof provided by the Indian government or media–The Print's outstanding reporting on the downing of an F-16 in 2019 is a case in point. India's communications handicaps were clear: one, evidence of inflicted damage lay in enemy territory; two, controversies played out in hostile territory–the Western media. The media landscape, however, has changed since 2019, with many Indians now trusting domestic online analysts and commentators over conventional media sources. There is also greater awareness that Western media's hostility towards India is structural: tainted by financial incentives and their home country's strategic interests. This is visible also in the Indian government's greater willingness to call out the Western media for both condescension and bias. These experiences have likely shaped the principles of India's current communication strategy: (1) Tightly controlled information; briefings restricted to dry facts released by designated officials; (2) Silence on real-time discussion of 'operational details'; (3) Announcing successes with proof; (4) Engaging with foreign media on India's terms; (5) Communicating for and with foreign governments; (6) Tailoring messaging to outsource aspects of context-setting, analysis, and public morale management to online commentators. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let us examine how these principles played out. Information Control Daily briefings were initially held by a team consisting of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, Colonel Sophia Qureshi, and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) and the Ministry of Defence's Additional Directorate General of Public Information (ADGPI) put out press releases and online messages. These were the only sources of information. The briefing team was aptly chosen: as Operation Sindoor was named to evoke the red vermillion worn by married Hindu women–in response to terrorists singling out and massacring Hindu men in front of their wives at Pahalgam on April 22–women military officers on the podium signified women power, professionalism, and national unity. A short intro film showing past attacks on India by Pakistan-based terrorists was also screened on the first day. That apart, the briefings were to the point, factual, and technical (with photographs or videos of strikes shown at times). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD After the deplorable trolling of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri (and his family) for merely announcing the ceasefire, later briefings were conducted by the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of all three armed services. Details of some operations were now shared–perhaps as more information became available and the DGMOs were better placed to decide on disclosures. The emphasis on intelligent control of information was maintained all through. Silence on Operational Details Minutes after India announced Operation Sindoor, Pakistan claimed to have downed several Indian jets, including Rafales. PIB issued generic disclaimers about 'misinformation' and fact-checked fake posts purporting to show visuals of downed jets. Similarly, Indian embassies approached for comment merely responded 'disinformation' and no more. Even Indian diplomats interviewed on foreign television channels wouldn't be drawn into confirming or denying these rumours. Announcing Successes with Proof The DGMOs provided satellite images, videos, photographs, and other data as proof of successful hits. What about Pakistan's losses? '[W]e would not like to hazard a guess out here, I have the numbers and we are getting into technical details to establish it,' said Indian Air Marshal. Contrast this with the Pakistan defence minister getting called out on international television for citing social media posts as proof of downing Indian planes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This measured, professional approach may just be paying off. By the time of writing, the narrative has shifted in India's favour in several quarters, with even the perceivedly anti-India New York Times conceding that '[w]here India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan's military facilities and airfields.' Subsequently, 'sources' have revealed tactical details like India disguising drones as fighter jets to ' bait and disable Pakistan's Chinese-supplied air defence systems'. Perhaps the shaping of narrative goes on. Dealing with Foreign Media on India's Terms As detailed above, India refused to be drawn into discussions about operational matters, especially possible losses. That this is wise can easily be established by contrasting press claims country-wise (and so, vested-interests-wise): defence competitors of France like the US (which has offered to sell India F-35s); Pakistan's arms supplier and US adversary, China; and Rafale-manufacturer, France. Further, Indian diplomats, rather than politicians, were fielded to engage with the foreign press. Some diplomats' interviews were masterclasses in messaging control. The Indian High Commissioner to the UK, Vikram Doraiswami, for example, responded to a question about Pakistan downing Indian jets by asking why Pakistan was still escalating the conflict if it had indeed done so. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Indian High Commissioner to Singapore Shilpak Ambule countered a suggestion that India hadn't provided proof of Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam massacre, stating that India had submitted proof to the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee for years, including on the terrorist group involved, an offshoot of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, The Resistance Force (TRF). Communicating for and with Government From the very start, India aimed its communications at the community of world governments. Operation Sindoor was lucidly framed: as a response to the Pahalgam massacre and directed at terrorists; non-escalatory, as the Pakistan Army was not targeted; designed to avoid collateral damage; and placing the choice of escalation in Pakistan's court. Indian diplomats in foreign media stuck to this line. They retained focus on Pahalgam and emphasised that the off-ramp was available to Pakistan, even while asserting that India would respond to escalation with force. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and Foreign Secretary Misri briefed counterparts around the world and envoys about India's actions and approach. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The next step was briefing 70 foreign service attaches (defence attaches) serving in India. This was a way of dealing directly with the grown-ups of the strategic world. Unlike in the media space, these military professionals would appreciate India's restraint and scale of success in strategic terms. It was also an opportunity to showcase India's defence prowess and Indian-manufactured defence technology. Trusting the Influencer Ecosystem India has a massive YouTube ecosystem of political commentators and defence analysts, with several of them being retired military, civilian, and diplomatic officials. The government appeared to trust them to declutter complex military information for their audiences and highlight successes. It was these analysts who discussed threadbare the import of Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases along with satellite images and other technical details. This was an invaluable exercise in educating the public on India's military platforms and operational successes and in effectively countering enemy disinformation. For instance, online analysts quickly debunked visuals purportedly showing Indian jets shot down by pointing out that the drop tanks and not wreckage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These channels also helped prepare their audiences for any possible battlefield losses by emphasising strategic goals. Overall, the online ecosystem played a major part in managing public morale. Missteps and Curveballs The real narrative curveball, however, came with President Donald Trump announcing the ceasefire and stating that the United States had brokered it. Coming as it did when India was toying with Pakistan's air defences and hitting military targets at will, the suggestion that America stopped the fighting was spun as a minor face-saver for Pakistan. India asserts, quite rightly, that the Pakistan DGMO's 'frantic' calls to his Indian counterpart were, in effect, pleas for peace. Feeling cheated out of a crushing win, there was anger amongst Indians. PM Modi's speech on May 12 addressed these concerns by announcing the following: that Pakistan had pleaded for a ceasefire; Operation Sindoor was now India's permanent policy on cross-border terrorism; the Indus Water Treaty would remain in abeyance; India would no longer tolerate 'nuclear blackmail'; there would be no talks with Pakistan until terror stopped; and when talks occurred, they would only be on terror and the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. In essence, PM Modi asserted that Pakistan had achieved none of its strategic goals, that there was no scope for talks or mediation, and that Pakistan was now on probation. So, at this time, it's surprising to see talk of India losing the narrative war. So who's winning? Pakistan, which has withdrawn into a delusory propaganda bubble where it claims victory? Does that claim fool anyone beyond its borders? Are political noises about the United States brokering a peace a loss? India certainly had no interest in Pakistan being handed a face-saver, but, having demonstrated its military superiority, India also had no interest in prolonging the conflict–India's restraint and leaving the escalatory off-ramp open for Pakistan to show as much. And ultimately, whose 'narrative approval' is one seeking? The Indian media and public must display the same self-confidence that their leadership has in their messaging strategy. Meanwhile, one hopes the Indian government will make this evidence-based, assertive, and professional communication approach its default. Post Script: Phase 2 Since the initial writing of this piece, the Government of India has formed seven all-party delegations of Members of Parliament (MPs) to visit and brief foreign governments about Operation Sindoor, its context, and India's policy towards terror going forward. This is the next step in India's efforts to communicate directly with foreign governments. All-party representation in these delegations is also intended to project a united front and limit political controversy about security matters at this time. A move that seems to have worked so far. Additionally, as former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has pointed out, multi-party composition may create space for foreign media to look past any anti-BJP biases they might hold. These delegations have been remarkably on message even as MPs have brought their own flair to its articulation. In fact, opposition MPs on these delegations have been able to voice opinions on matters like the US brokering a peace deal more openly than ruling party MPs may have been able to. Meanwhile, more evidence of India's strikes has been put out, only now with added commentary and reactions from military personnel involved in the planning and execution of Operation Sindoor. Increasingly, private sources along with journalists are bringing out or confirming evidence shared by the Indian armed forces. A few opposition moves to create a controversy around the external affairs minister's comments have also not fully taken off so far, in part, because Operation Sindoor is ongoing and operational matters have not been fully disclosed. In India's democratic system, disclosures to parliament (or its committees) or the public are inevitable, and a degree of controversy will perhaps accompany them. But the government clearly intends to retain the focus on strategic and security matters for the time being, and its information management is designed to allow it to do so. In all, the Government of India's approach has held to the principles discussed in this article as it moves past the crisis-communication stage into a new normal. The writer is the published author of two novels (Penguin, India and Westland, India) based out of the San Francisco Bay Area. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business
- Business Insider
A Russian oil company says it paid out a $195,000 bounty to soldiers it credited with downing an F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine
A Russian oil company said it had awarded a total of 15 million rubles (around $195,000) to Russian soldiers who it credited with downing the first US-made F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine. In a press release, Fores, a fracking parts manufacturer, said it had presented 12 servicemen with the cash at a ceremony near the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday. "Fores fulfilled its earlier promise and paid 15 million rubles to Russian servicemen for destroying the first F-16 fighter jet in the special operation zone," the company said. The firm announced the bounty system in 2023, promising cash rewards for soldiers who destroyed certain Western-supplied military equipment. The company said it had so far paid out just over 52 million rubles (around $670,000) for the destruction of the F-16 and an unspecified number of Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had long coveted the F-16 as he sought to bolster Ukraine's air defenses, and Kyiv received its first delivery of the jet in the summer of 2024. Ukraine's forces have so far lost at least three F-16s in combat, with the General Staff confirming the first loss in August last year. The F-16 has nevertheless seemingly proved a hit over the battlefield. Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the US's top general in Europe, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in April that F-16s were flying "every day" in Ukraine and that they had been successful in both air defense and offensive operations. "They've defeated a large number of cruise missile threats, and they've delivered an awful lot of offensive attacks as well," he said, adding: "Specifically, bombing attacks in the east."
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Russian firm rewards 12 soldiers with around $200,000 each for downing Ukraine's three F-16
Russian firm rewards 12 soldiers with around $200,000 each for downing Ukraine's three F-16 (AP) Twelve Russian soldiers have been awarded 15 million rubles (approximately $195,000) each by Russian oil equipment firm Fores for their alleged role in shooting down a US-made F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine, the first of its kind reportedly brought down in the conflict, New York Post reported. The award ceremony was held on May 29 near the Russian-Ukrainian border in the presence of military commanders, the company said in a statement. 'Fores has delivered on its earlier promise to transfer 15 million rubles to members of the Russian Armed Forces for downing the first F-16 in the special military operation zone,' the statement read. Fores did not specify how or when the aircraft was brought down, but media reports have linked the incident to the crash of a Ukrainian F-16A/B on March 13, 2025, over Russian-occupied territory. While Russian sources claim the jet was downed by an S-400 air defence system or an R-37 missile fired by a Russian fighter, Ukraine has said the aircraft may have been accidentally hit by one of its own air defence missiles during an attempt to intercept Russian jets. The cash reward had been promised months earlier by Fores Director General Sergey Shmotyev, who announced it at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in December said his company would pay 15 million rubles to Russian troops for the first confirmed F-16 shootdown. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo 'Payment for the downed F-16 is our contribution to those risking their lives for the Motherland's security,' Shmotyev told TASS. Fores, based in the Urals and primarily manufacturing consumables for the oil industry, has supported the Russian military throughout the war. To date, it has donated over 237 million rubles (around $3 million) for military equipment and supplies including communication devices, thermal sights, and medical kits. Meanwhile, Ukraine has confirmed the loss of three F-16s since receiving them from Western allies—first in August 2024, then in April 2025, and most recently on May 16. All losses have officially been attributed to technical malfunctions or emergencies, not enemy fire. In the latest incident, Ukraine said the pilot safely ejected after steering the jet away from a civilian area. However, speculation continues about possible Russian missile involvement or friendly fire in at least two of the cases.
