| The Maritime Security Forum is pleased to provide you with a product, in the form of a daily newsletter, through which we present the most relevant events and information on naval issues, especially those related to maritime security and other related areas. It aims to present a clear and concise assessment of the most recent and relevant news in this area, with references to sources of information. We hope that this newsletter will prove to be a useful resource for you, providing a comprehensive insight into the complicated context of the field for both specialists and anyone interested in the dynamics of events in the field of maritime security. |
Zelensky threatens strike on Putin’s beloved parade despite Vlad’s ceasefire
MS DAILY BRIEF – MAY 01 th, 2025
READ AND SHARE!
Daily appearance Monday-Saturday 10 AM (GMT +2)
Some information is presented when possible from several sources
We will see you again with news starting May 5.
CONTENT
Latest news from Ukraine | Zelenskyy wants to disrupt Russian military parade. Putin is scared. 1
US and Ukraine sign mineral agreement strengthening investment in Kiev’s defense against Russia. 1
Ukraine war update: Ukrainian leaders reveal details of long-awaited minerals deal with US. 3
Lammy confirms that Britain and France are in talks on recognizing Palestine. 4
The Liberty Lifter Ekranoplan demonstrator aims to lift payloads the size of a C-130 13
Musk attacks F-35 fighter jets again; Chinese drones can destroy manned aircraft in seconds. 15
Urengoy torpedo exercise exposes Russia’s weaknesses in the Baltic Sea. 22
Finnish Coast Guard reports dangerous incident with Shadow Fleet oil tanker. 26
TASS: Three Russian sailors injured in US air strike on Ras Isa. 27
Additional Patriot system for Romania approved by US State Department – April 30, 2025 28
Are UK shipyards being avoided for recycling Royal Navy warships?. 30
PD Ports unveils plans for major offshore wind hub on UK east coast – April 30, 2025 30
French Navy hits explosive drone on cargo ship in real-life test – April 30, 2025. 38
Decision to be made soon on new craft for maritime reconnaissance units – April 29, 2025 38
South Korea’s Hyundai to develop new submarine for Peruvian Navy – April 29, 2025 43
Latest news from Ukraine | Zelenskyy wants to disrupt Russian military parade. Putin is scared
US and Ukraine sign mineral agreement strengthening investment in Kiev’s defense against Russia
The agreement seals the creation of a fund that, according to the Trump administration, will begin to repay approximately $175 billion granted to Ukraine
Andrew Roth in Washington
Thursday, May 1, 2025, 1:35 a.m. CEST
The US and Kiev have signed an agreement to share profits and royalties from the future sale of Ukrainian minerals and rare earths, consolidating a deal that Donald Trump said would provide an economic incentive for the US to continue investing in Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction after it negotiates a peace agreement with Russia.
The minerals agreement, which was the subject of tense negotiations for months and was on the verge of collapse just hours before signing, will establish a US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, which, according to the Trump administration, will begin to repay approximately $175 billion in aid provided to Ukraine since the start of the war.
“This agreement sends a clear signal to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine in the long term,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.
“President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to demonstrate both sides’ commitment to peace and lasting prosperity in Ukraine. And to be clear, no state or individual that has funded or provided the Russian war machine will be able to benefit from Ukraine’s reconstruction.”
Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko confirmed in a social media post that she signed the agreement on Wednesday. “Together with the United States, we are creating a fund that will attract global investment to our country,” she wrote. The agreement still needs to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament.
Ukrainian officials disclosed details of the agreement, which they described as fair and allowing Ukraine to retain control over its natural resources.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the fund would be split 50-50 between the US and Ukraine and give each side equal voting rights.
Ukraine will retain “full control over its mineral resources, infrastructure, and natural resources,” he said, and the agreement will only refer to new investments, meaning it will not include any debt repayment obligations to Ukraine, a major concern for Kyiv. The agreement will ensure revenue through the conclusion of contracts based on the “take or pay” principle, Shmyhal added.
On Wednesday, Shmyhal described the agreement as “a truly good, fair and beneficial international agreement on joint investments in the development and recovery of Ukraine.”
Critics of the agreement said the White House was trying to take advantage of Ukraine by making future aid to the struggling country conditional on the surrender of revenues from its resources. The final terms were much less onerous for Ukraine than those initially proposed by Bessent in February, which included a clause whereby the US would control 100% of the fund’s revenues.
Until the last moment, it was unclear whether the US and Ukraine would be able to sign the agreement, with Washington pressuring Ukraine to sign additional agreements, including on the structure of the investment fund, or to “go home.” This followed months of tense negotiations, during which the US regularly issued last-minute ultimatums while cutting off aid and other forms of support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia.
The Ukrainian prime minister had previously said he expected his country to sign the minerals deal with the US within “the next 24 hours,” but reports emerged that Washington was insisting that Kiev sign three agreements in total.
The Financial Times said Bessent’s team told Svyrydenko, who was on his way to Washington DC, to “be prepared to sign all the agreements or go home.”
Bessent later said the US was ready to sign, although Ukraine had made some last-minute changes.
Reuters reported that Ukraine believed the two additional agreements — reportedly relating to an investment fund and a technical document — needed more work.
The idea for the agreement was originally proposed by Ukraine, which was looking for ways to offer economic opportunities that could persuade Trump to support the country. However, Kiev was taken by surprise in January when Trump’s team presented a document that essentially called for the country to hand over its mineral wealth in exchange for insignificant benefits.
Since then, there have been various attempts to revise and reexamine the terms of the agreement, as well as a planned signing ceremony, which was canceled after a disastrous meeting between Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House in February.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice had hired US law firm Hogan Lovells to advise on negotiations over the agreement, according to documents filed with the US Foreign Agents Registration Act registry.
In a Facebook post, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, provided more details about the fund, which she said would “attract global investment.”
She confirmed that Ukraine would retain full ownership of the resources “on our territory and in the territorial waters belonging to Ukraine.” “The Ukrainian state decides where and what is extracted,” she said.
There will be no changes in ownership of state-owned companies, she said, “they will continue to belong to Ukraine.” These include companies such as Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest oil producer, and nuclear power producer Energoatom.
Revenues will come from new licenses for critical materials and oil and gas projects, not from projects that have already started, she said.
Revenues and contributions to the fund will not be taxed in the US or Ukraine, she said, “so that investments yield the best results.”
Razom for Ukraine, a US non-profit organization that provides medical and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and advocates for US assistance, welcomed the agreement and encouraged the Trump administration to increase pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the invasion. “We encourage the Trump administration to build on the momentum of this economic agreement by forcing Putin to the negotiating table through sanctions, seizing Russian state assets to help Ukraine, and providing Ukraine with the tools it needs to defend itself,” Mykola Murskyj, Razom’s advocacy director, said in a statement.
,,, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/us-ukraine-minerals-deal-russia
Ukraine war update: Ukrainian leaders reveal details of long-awaited minerals deal with US
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said a new reconstruction and investment fund will be split 50-50 between his country and the US. What we know on day 1,163
Angela Dewan and Léonie Chao-Fong
Thursday, May 1, 2025, 02:06 CEST
- Kiev and Washington have signed an agreement providing for the sharing of future revenues from minerals in Ukraine, with the US maintaining military aid to the country as well as investments in its defense and reconstruction. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal presented details of the agreement, saying that a new reconstruction and investment fund will be split 50-50 between Kiev and the US, with each side having equal voting rights.
- The agreement will only cover new investments, Shmyhal said, meaning it will not include any debt repayment obligations to Ukraine, a major concern for Kiev. Ukraine will retain “full control over mineral resources, infrastructure, and natural resources,” Shmyhal added. The agreement will ensure revenues through the conclusion of contracts based on the “take or pay” principle, Shmyhal said.
- Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said there would be no changes in ownership of state-owned companies, including Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest oil producer, and nuclear power producer Energoatom. Revenues and contributions to the fund will not be taxed in the US or Ukraine, she said, “so that investments yield the best results.”
- Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin said that small groups of Ukrainian soldiers are still barricaded in basements and hideouts in the Kursk region of western Russia. Speaking at an event in Moscow on Wednesday, the Russian president said that radio intercepts suggest that the few Ukrainians left behind are asking their commanders to evacuate them.
- The EU is preparing a “plan B” to maintain economic sanctions against Russia if the US abandons peace talks with Ukraine and seeks closer ties with Moscow, according to the bloc’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas. “We see signs that they are thinking about whether they should leave Ukraine and not try to reach an agreement with the Russians because it is difficult,” Kallas told the Financial Times.
- The Kremlin said Putin is open to peace despite continued aggression against Ukraine, but stressed that the conflict is so complicated that the rapid progress Washington wants is difficult to achieve, Reuters reported.
- Russia and North Korea have begun construction of a road bridge between the two countries as part of efforts to strengthen their strategic partnership, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said. The announcement comes after South Korean lawmakers said that about 600 North Korean soldiers had been killed fighting for Russia against Ukraine.
Lammy confirms that Britain and France are in talks on recognizing Palestine
Two permanent members of the UN Security Council could make a move at the June conference on the two-state solution.
Wednesday, April 30, 2025, 6:51 p.m. CEST
The UK is in talks with France and Saudi Arabia on recognizing a Palestinian state at a June conference convened by the two countries to keep alive the political path to a two-state solution in the Middle East, the British foreign minister said.
David Lammy’s comments mark the first time the UK has acknowledged that talks are underway with France on a recognition process at the conference.
Recognition of Palestine by two permanent members of the UN Security Council would be a powerful statement, but faces many diplomatic obstacles, including the need for greater clarity on what France is proposing and whether recognition could be part of a credible process towards a two-state solution, which Israel opposes.
Lammy, speaking before the House of Lords’ special committee on international relations, said the UK wanted to take this step when it would have an impact on the ground and not at a symbolic moment, adding that he had come to the sad conclusion that the recent recognition of Palestine by some European countries had had no effect.
Reminding him that 160 countries have so far recognized Palestine, most recently Spain, Norway, and Ireland, Lammy said: “No one has a veto over when the UK will recognize the Palestinian state… We have always said that recognition is not an end in itself and that we prefer recognition to be part of a process leading to two states.
President Macron has had a lot to say on this, most recently alongside the Saudis, and of course we are in discussions with them at the moment.”
He said that in talks with Qatar last week, he had emphasized that any long-term solution would require Hamas no longer being in government in Gaza and its leaders leaving, probably to a third country. He said there must be a complete process of demilitarization, similar to that which took place after the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.
Lammy said, however, “It is unacceptable that a group of people should live without a state for longer than I have lived.”
He acknowledged that the rapid pace of settlement expansion undermines the viability of two states and said the level of violence in the settlements was “shocking.”
In the last year, he said, 59 outposts have been built in the West Bank, compared with an average of seven over the past 25 years.
The latest speculation about the long saga of recognition began when Emmanuel Macron returned from a trip to Egypt on April 9 and said that France would probably recognize a Palestinian state at the June conference. It would be the first recognition of Palestine by a G7 member state.
A few days later, Macron clarified that the move would be intended to “trigger a series of other recognitions… including the recognition of Israel by states that do not currently do so,” remarks that could provide France with a way out if momentum toward recognition fails to materialize.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently called Macron to tell him that recognizing Palestine as a state would be a victory for Hamas and Iran.
Donald Trump is set to visit Saudi Arabia this month, where he will undoubtedly be informed by Riyadh that normalizing relations with Israel, one of Trump’s signature diplomatic themes, is impossible without a credible path to a two-state solution.
Michel Duclos, a special adviser at the Montaigne Institute, a Paris-based think tank, argued that France’s political credibility is at stake in how it handles this issue.
He said that since the best outcome of the June UN conference “could be just a roadmap or a set of proposals, France’s dilemma could soon become even more difficult: can it continue to postpone recognition of Palestine while waiting for a real push towards the two-state solution? Or would further delay undermine its credibility?”
Lammy expressed frustration at the 60-day ban imposed by the Israeli leadership on humanitarian aid to Gaza, but did not propose any new measures. “The blockade of necessary aid to Gaza is appalling, the suffering is terrible, the needs are enormous, the loss of life is extreme,” he said.
He said he had made clear to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar Israel’s obligations to provide aid during their meeting in London two weeks ago.,,,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/30/uk-france-talks-palestinian-state-recognition-lammy
The administration is in contact with Nayib Bukele regarding the detention of a man who was wrongfully deported, according to two people
Hugo Lowell in Washington
Thursday, May 1, 2025, 1:52 a.m. CEST
The Trump administration has been in direct contact with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in recent days regarding the detention of Kilmar Ábrego García, the man wrongfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, according to two people familiar with the case.
The nature of the discussions and their purpose have not been clarified, as several Trump administration officials have said the administration is “not interested in his return” to the US, despite the US Supreme Court ordering that Ábrego García’s release be “facilitated.”
The contacts did not lead to any progress after Bukele rejected the request, the sources said. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to return Ábrego García to the US to face immigration proceedings, as he would have if he had not been sent to El Salvador.
The talks appeared to be an attempt by the Trump administration to hide the underlying legal case and build a written case to present to US District Judge Paula Xinis, who had previously ruled that Donald Trump raising the issue in the Oval Office was not sufficient.
Ábrego García was transferred from Cecot, the mega-prison known as a detention center for terrorists, to another prison in El Salvador after the Supreme Court’s decision, which the administration repeatedly tried to discredit or misinterpret.
The US administration’s refusal to comply was evident for weeks as Trump’s senior advisers became increasingly determined to use the case to test the limits of presidential power and boast that the courts had no practical way of ensuring swift compliance with orders.
At a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would “never say” whether he had been in contact with Bukele. CNN previously reported that Rubio had direct talks with Bukele. The New York Times reported that a diplomatic note had been sent to Bukele.
“I would never tell you that. And you know who else I would never tell? A judge,” Rubio said, sitting next to Trump, adding that “because our foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States and the executive branch, not a judge.”
And in an interview with ABC News broadcast the night before, the US president himself said he “could” tell El Salvador to return Ábrego García.
When it was pointed out to him that he could call Bukele and tell him to “send him back immediately,” Trump rejected responsibility. “I’m not making that decision. We have lawyers who don’t want to do that,” he said.
The statements could cause major headaches for the Justice Department in court, which is preparing in the coming weeks to face a series of tough questions from Ábrego García’s lawyers, in writing and in depositions, about the administration’s efforts to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
By claiming that his lawyers told him not to call Bukele, Trump could expose the department to painful questions about whether it deliberately ignored the order and put the department at risk of being accused of contempt.
After a closed-door hearing on Wednesday in federal court in Maryland, Xinis rejected the Justice Department’s request to extend the pause in discovery, ordering it to respond by Friday to Ábrego García’s lawyers’ questions about his detention.
Xinis also said in an expedited deposition schedule that Ábrego García’s lawyers could interview up to six administration officials — including Robert Cerna, a senior ICE official, and Joseph Mazarra, the acting general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security — by Thursday.
,,, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/trump-kilmar-abrego-garcia-nayib-bukele
Russia is arbitrarily detaining approximately 16,000 civilians in 180 separate centers. Taganrog was the most notorious of these.
By Manisha Ganguly, Shaun Walker, Pjotr Sauer, Tetyana Nikolayenko, Anton Naumliuk, Artem Mazhulin, and Lucy Swan
Wednesday, April 30, 2025, 11:00 a.m. CEST
A few weeks after being detained while trying to leave a Russian-occupied area of Ukraine in January 2023, Yelyzaveta Shylyk was subjected to a polygraph test. As investigators attached the lie detector cables to her, they calmly threatened her with what would happen if she failed the test: “You will end up in a place where you will regret being born.”
She would later learn that this place had a name: Sizo No. 2, a pre-trial detention center in the southern Russian city of Taganrog.
Before the large-scale invasion in February 2022, this center held minors and mothers with young children. After the outbreak of hostilities, it was turned into a torture center for Ukrainian prisoners and has since become the darkest link in a network of detention centers in Russia and occupied Ukraine.
Guards subjected not only combatants but also civilians to ongoing violence and torture. The exact number of civilian detainees is impossible to determine, but the Ukrainian parliament’s human rights commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, said that in April 2024, the number of people registered as missing was 16,000.
Most are in a legal limbo and have not been charged with any crime. Their whereabouts are often secret, although information sometimes leaks out through released prisoners of war. Ukraine believes they are being held in up to 180 different locations.
The Guardian and its media partners have identified the systematic use of torture in 29 of these locations – 18 in Russia and 11 in Russian-occupied territories. The most common methods used include electric shocks, simulated drowning, mock executions, beatings with wooden and metal hammers, and repeated blows to the same part of the body, along with bizarre humiliations such as tying a person with duct tape and sitting on them as “human furniture.”
Detainees also reported being banned from speaking Ukrainian, severe food rationing, and incitement to suicide. In the worst of these places, multiple deaths have occurred.
The use of torture to obtain information or false confessions appears to have been organized and sanctioned by Moscow at the highest levels.
These are the conclusions of Project Viktoriia, a six-month investigation involving 13 media outlets, including the Guardian, the Washington Post, and Le Monde, led by the French group Forbidden Stories.
Named after Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna, who died in detention after spending months in Taganrog, the project is based on more than 50 interviews with some of those who survived Russian captivity and with the families of some of those who are still detained. Legal sources in Russia and the occupied territories have also shared information, as have prison officials who have resigned from their posts, horrified by what they have seen. Overall, a picture is emerging of a brutal and systematic attack on Ukrainian prisoners.
“It is clear to me that torture is part of Russia’s policy and war machine, both against Ukrainian civilians and captured prisoners of war,” said Alice Edwards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in an interview. “It is being applied in all regions occupied by the Russian Federation, in all types of detention centers. Such a level of organization can only be approved at the highest levels.”
Violence upon arrival
Taganrog, the hometown of the beloved Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, is a quiet town on the Sea of Azov. It is the closest Russian city to Mariupol, which was occupied by Moscow’s forces in May 2022 after intense fighting. In the months following the fall of Mariupol, Russia transferred some of its most valuable prisoners to Taganrog, including soldiers from the Azov brigade who defended the city. They frequently appeared in Russian war propaganda as “neo-Nazis,” and Moscow promised to hold spectacular trials for them. Satellite images show that as the prison filled with Ukrainians in the summer of 2022, it was reinforced with new steel roofs.
The violence in Taganrog began as soon as the prisoners arrived. The first Ukrainian prisoners were sent there in April 2022, often bound and blindfolded, in military trucks marked with the symbol Z. Most were subjected to a “reception” procedure, known as “reception,” in which guards beat them with their fists, feet, and batons.
“It’s a sacred ritual for them. Blindfolded, with your hands tied and your head down, you are ordered to walk, and every dog standing there thinks it’s necessary to hit you with something,” said Volodymyr Labuzov, chief medical officer of a Ukrainian marine brigade who arrived in Taganrog in April 2022.
Over time, civilians were also taken to Taganrog, a symbol of a system that blurred the lines between combatants and alleged “hostile elements” among the civilian population in the occupied territories.
Before 2022, the facility housed around 400 Russian detainees, but reports of overcrowded cells and analysis of food supply contracts suggest that it may have held many more Ukrainian prisoners at the height of its activity.
A typical meal at Taganrog consisted of about four and a half tablespoons of food, according to former detainees. One of them counted a serving of pasta that contained 15 small pieces. Sometimes they were given fish, but it was mixed with bones and offal. Some did not eat anything during the day, saving their rations for a single meal in the evening, just to feel full enough to sleep normally. Labuzov said that men typically lost up to 25 kg during their detention.
Using detailed testimonies from six former detainees, plus photographs and public information such as construction contracts, the collaboration produced a 3D model of the prison and reconstructed the torture chambers, the interrogation room, and the cells.
The model shows the exterior of the Taganrog pre-trial detention center, reconstructed based on satellite images and other open-source analysis. The interior models are based on the memories of six former detainees.
These are the buildings where former detainees said they were tortured. Severe beatings were routinely reported upon arrival, during cell inspections, and during outings to the exercise yard.
These are the buildings where former detainees said they were tortured. Severe beatings were reported upon arrival, during cell inspections, and during outings to the exercise yard.
After being subjected to electric shocks, waterboarding, and other forms of torture, detainees reported being taken to an interrogation room to record false confessions.
To help map the layout, former detainees, who were often blindfolded during interrogations, used techniques such as memorizing the number of steps between rooms.
After the “reception,” the violence continued, with regular beatings during cell searches twice a day and, most brutally, during interrogations. Two buildings have been identified as the main sites of torture in Taganrog. Former detainees recalled hearing screams coming from these areas.
Serhiy Taranyuk, a former Ukrainian marine detained in Taganrog, said he was often interrogated in a sparsely furnished room with a chair and a table. “You go in, you’re immediately thrown to the floor, you start getting beaten and cut… Then, when you’re ready to tell them something, they tell you to sit down,” he said. Taranyuk said he was forced to make a false confession.
All Ukrainian prisoners who passed through Taganrog reported horrific and prolonged torture, including civilians and female prisoners. Shylyk, a former soldier who was a civilian at the time of her detention, was beaten with sticks all over her body, subjected to electric shocks, threatened with rape, and attacked with dogs. Oleksandr Maksymchuk, a prisoner of war who spent 21 months in Taganrog in two separate periods, wrote in a testimony obtained by the Guardian about repeated beatings, electric shocks, suffocation, and a technique whereby guards wrapped prisoners from head to toe in duct tape and then ” used them as human furniture.”
Shylyk mentioned a room with an electric chair: “I was put on the electric chair twice… with a device that clamped my toes. Then they turned on the electricity.” She said she heard guards complaining that they had to limit the duration of electrocution to less than two hours to avoid the death of prisoners, as deaths meant more bureaucracy.
Prisoners reported being tortured in several separate rooms. From left to right: the water torture chamber, where a female detainee described being held underwater until she went into convulsions and had to be resuscitated; an electric chair with restraints – a detainee heard guards discussing the need to limit electrocution sessions to two hours to avoid deaths; and a room with bars used to suspend handcuffed detainees upside down in a reverse fetal position for 10-15 minutes while they were beaten or electrocuted. Illustration: Jarrett Ley/Washington Post
Labuzov was repeatedly assaulted by guards who demanded that he confess to mutilating Russian soldiers. “During one of the interrogations, the investigator asked me to state my rank and position. But he didn’t even listen to who I was… I was immediately hit on the head with a wooden hammer.
The interrogator told me, ‘Tell me something interesting, so we won’t beat you anymore.'” Labuzov said he was then electrocuted with electric wires and beaten with a baton and the leg of a chair.
Labuzov recalled that on another occasion, his palms were burned with a lighter. Once, he was taken to the boiler room and pushed waist-deep into a furnace used to heat water, then placed on a meat-cutting table in the kitchen, where he was threatened with a knife.
Others told of psychological pressure, including forced indoctrination, forced recitation of Russian patriotic poems, and repeated physical and sexual threats.
The cells were overcrowded, with eight men crammed into a space designed to hold half that number. Labuzov also recalled another presence that constantly watched over the prisoners. “In all four cells I was in, there was a portrait of Putin,” he said.
FSB interrogations
Since November 2022, public information suggests that the Taganrog facility is run by Aleksandr Shtoda, who took over from former head Gennady Bodnar. Shtoda, the son of two postmen, was born in a village not far from Taganrog and, prior to his current position, held a senior prison post in 2019 and 2020.
One detainee recalled that Shtoda frequently advised prisoners to take Russian citizenship. He was often polite and even joked with some of the inmates. There is no evidence that he personally supervised any interrogations or torture. But as head of the institution, he was ultimately responsible for the conditions in which the inmates were held.
When contacted by voice call on Telegram, Shtoda, 44, hung up the phone. He then read the additional questions sent by text message but did not respond to them or to a subsequent official request for comment. The consortium also tried to contact Bodnar and 35 other current and former employees of the Taganrog prison, identified on the basis of prisoner testimonies and open source research. Most did not answer calls, hung up immediately, or denied having worked there. Two said that conditions in the prison were “excellent,” and one denied that there were Ukrainian detainees there.
While prison staff oversee the day-to-day running of the facility, Russian FSB security service officers are responsible for the torture system and conduct the most important interrogations. They control the cases of known dissidents and exert pressure to obtain confessions. To support the FSB, Russia has deployed special units of the FSIN prison service to deal with Ukrainians, which, according to reports, are responsible for much of the violence.
Testimonies obtained from three sources who previously worked within the system, shared exclusively with the human rights group Gulagu.net, all point to a decision taken in the first weeks of the war to encourage physical violence.
Aleksandr Shtoda, head of Taganrog.
A former senior FSIN official recalled meetings in the spring of 2022 in which the head of the FSIN branch in St. Petersburg, Igor Potapenko, appears to have told commanders that they would, in fact, have free rein to resort to violence. It seems unlikely that Potapenko acted on his own initiative, and international observers believe that ultimate responsibility for these policies, which were applied throughout the prison service, lies with the Kremlin.
“It wasn’t explicitly said ‘beat them up’, but it was understood. It was communicated through the chain of command, from the general and his deputy to the commander of the special forces unit and then to the soldiers, that we had to ‘work hard, do everything possible’. That was the euphemism. But everyone understood what it meant. The message was: ‘Do what you want’,” the source said.
Unlike previous missions in Russian prisons, when officers wore video cameras to give the appearance of accountability, this was no longer the case. “No violent action was to be recorded on video. That was made clear. No documentation, no surveillance,” the source recalled.
The FSIN and Potapenko, who was recently appointed deputy governor of St. Petersburg, did not respond to requests for comment. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also declined to comment.
Analyzing reports from the UN and Ukrainian intelligence services, collaborators have located 29 detention centers run by Russia where cases of torture have been reported. According to public records, these centers can hold a total of approximately 18,000 people. A total of 695 distinct forms of torture have been recorded. The information suggests that Ukrainian detainees have been scattered across Russia, being held up to 600 miles from the Ukrainian border.
Sources said that FSIN special forces units were sent on a month-long rotation to different Russian regions to ensure that they did not establish any contact with the prisoners.
Valeriia Subotina, a spokeswoman for the Azov brigade who spent months in Taganrog, confirmed that the guards rotated about once a month. According to a Ukrainian intelligence source, FSIN special forces units from Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, and Rostov, known as the Grozny, Orel, Bulat, and Rosna groups, were deployed at various times in Taganrog.
The guards were careful not to reveal too much about their identity. Prisoners were frequently blindfolded and inmates were forbidden from looking out of the windows. The guards addressed each other using code names instead of their names. One was called “wolf,” another “shaman,” and a third used the code name “death.” All wore hoods or other face coverings, suggesting a systematic concealment of identity to avoid future accountability.
A former senior FSIN official stated that the initial reason for using torture was to obtain information that could be useful to the Russian military or civil administrations in the occupied areas. “Information about targets, training locations, preparations, names of commanders, people who might have useful connections, even civilians who might be of interest.”
Reports suggest that abuse was also used as a tool to humiliate Ukrainians, often with a strong ethnic element of denigration. Oleg Orlov, a Russian human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said that the basic system of abductions and disappearances of “disloyal” civilians was familiar from the wars in Chechnya. “But there is something new. This ongoing, regular cruelty and torture, lasting months and years, this long-term torture of entire groups, I have never heard of anything like this in the Russian prison system,” he said.
Subotina said that some of the guards she met seemed distraught: “They whispered that they had no choice… that they had no option but to follow orders.” Most, however, appear to have carried out their tasks with enthusiasm.
“Outside the legal framework”
Most civilians are detained for months or years without charge. Families may eventually receive a terse confirmation that their relatives are being held “for opposition to the special military operation,” using the Kremlin’s term for the war. These prisoners are known as “incommunicado.” They are not allowed to send letters or receive parcels, and Russia often does not even confirm which prison they are being held in.
Often, the first information relatives receive about the whereabouts of their loved ones is when those released in a prisoner exchange testify about the people they shared a cell with.
Legal experts say that the framework within which Russia detains civilians captured in the occupied territories is unclear and has no legal basis. “There is no official crime called ‘opposition to the special military operation’ in the Russian criminal code. All of this exists outside the legal sphere. It’s an absurd situation; even in Stalin’s time, there were always charges,” said Vladimir Zhbankov of Poshuk.Polon, an NGO that helps people search for their loved ones.
A Russian lawyer working on Ukrainian cases said: “There are people who have been imprisoned for years and we don’t even know where they are. We have no access to them. We regularly send requests to find out where they might be. But in response… they tell us that according to their records, there has never been such a person, never detained.”
Access to detainees in Taganrog is said to be even more difficult than in most institutions. “It is impossible for a lawyer to enter Taganrog. I introduce myself and they give me a written refusal: ‘I refuse the services of a lawyer’. No lawyer’s name is mentioned, it just says ‘lawyer’ in general, and it is signed and dated,” said a lawyer who tried to take on the case of a person detained in Taganrog.
The few who still do so bear an enormous burden. “Lawyers have to be social workers and psychologists. It’s very risky, extremely difficult emotionally. We are the only ones who have access,” said a legal source.
“A lawyer I know saw his client who had been in Taganrog, and the detainee was in such a bad state that the lawyer cried for three days,” the source added.
Constant threat
According to a source in the Ukrainian intelligence services, by the fall of 2024 there had been at least 15 cases of Ukrainians who died in Taganrog, based on statements from witnesses among detainees who returned after prisoner exchanges. One died as a result of torture during interrogation, four fainted and died during violent “reception” upon arrival, and in 10 other cases no specific data was available.
“There was never a doctor in the colony, only a paramedic,” Labuzov said. “When the detainees felt ill, she would come and ask them what was wrong. She didn’t even give them pills.” If the condition was serious, an ambulance was called from the local hospital, but it often arrived late, sometimes only the next day. “I know for sure that one man died that way,” Labuzov said.
In recent months, there have been reports of improved conditions in Taganrog, and there are suggestions that it has returned to its pre-war purpose. Although the torture chambers have fallen silent, they can still be used to instill fear.
“Taganrog now functions as a threat,” said the Russian legal source. “If they say, ‘We’re sending you to Taganrog,’ many people will sign anything you ask them to.”
The Liberty Lifter Ekranoplan demonstrator aims to lift payloads the size of a C-130
DARPA is considering a first flight for the Liberty Lifter X aircraft in 2028-2029, which could lead to a much heavier production aircraft.
Aurora Flight Sciences has provided new details about the design of the demonstrator it is working on for the Liberty Lifter X-plane program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The primary goal of the Liberty Lifter is to prove a new ekranoplan flying transport design that uses the wing-in-ground (WIG) effect principle. A future aircraft based on the demonstrator could provide the US military with a new way to transport large amounts of cargo and personnel over long distances at affordable prices and without the need for traditional runways.
Richard Koucheravy, director of business development for manufacturing at Aurora, provided him Howard Altman of TWZ with an update on the Liberty Lifter from today’s Modern Day Marine exhibition. In 2023, Aurora Flight Sciences and General Atomics were awarded contracts to perform initial work on the Liberty Lifter. Last year, DARPA selected Aurora Flight Sciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing, to continue alone with the development of what is hoped to be a flying demonstrator.
The latest conceptual art of Aurora’s Liberty Lifter design shows a flying boat-style arrangement with a V-shaped hull for a fuselage and a large straight main wing with floats at the wing tips, all powered by eight wing-mounted turboprop engines. It also has twin vertical tails joined at the top by a horizontal stabilizer. The payload, including light amphibious armored vehicles, has been described as being unloaded through a large ramp at the rear, as seen in the video below.
General Atomics has proposed a more radical twin-fuselage design, which you can read more about here.
“So we’re designing a demonstrator that’s about 80% scale relative to the target aircraft,” explained Koucheravy of Aurora. This is a scale that “is representative enough that you can draw some very good lessons from it without having to build the target aircraft at full scale.”
“So now we’re talking about something that’s closer to the size of a C-130 payload, 25 tons [payload],” he continued, adding that the demonstrator is expected to have a wingspan of about 216 feet. It will also use engines provided by the US government, and Aurora said it will work with TWZ to determine exactly what type it expects to receive.
DARPA has previously stated that the ultimate vision for the Liberty Lifter is a design with a payload capacity comparable to that of the C-17A Globemaster III cargo aircraft. The C-17’s maximum declared payload is approximately 82 tons, although the aircraft typically flies with approximately 60 tons or less of cargo and personnel inside.
The Liberty Lifter requirements that DARPA has publicly released in the past also include the ability to take off and land in open water in conditions up to Sea State 4 and “sustained operation on water” up to Sea State 5. These two sea states are characterized by wind speeds of 11 to 16 knots and 17 to 21 knots, as well as wave heights between three and five feet and six and eight feet, respectively.
“We are building a demonstrator with an unpressurized cockpit because the aircraft is primarily intended to fly with ground effect, which, for an aircraft of this size, will be quite close to the water. You’ll be a few hundred meters from the water,” Koucheravy explained. “And to do that, if there’s a certain sea state, you need to have the right technology to allow the aircraft to maintain ground effect over very long distances, even if you potentially have rough seas. So that’s one of the technical challenges of the program.”
The idea of a flying platform using the wing-in-ground (WIG) principle is not new, but models of this kind have had very little historical success, especially for military use. The Soviet Union remains the most notable operator of military WIG projects, known in Russian as ekranoplans—a term now widely used for WIG projects—but even there their service was limited. Efforts to revive military plans in Russia in recent years have not yet produced any operational type.
In principle, ekranoplans offer an extremely efficient watercraft that can travel at high speeds because it does not suffer from the drag associated with typical ship designs, while benefiting from the lift generated by a wing. At the same time, high-speed flight presents challenges, as Koucheravy pointed out, including the risk of collision with various objects on the surface or even just high waves.
To help solve these problems, the DARPA Liberty Lifter program has called for a hybrid design that is still capable of functioning as a traditional flying boat, if necessary, at “altitudes of up to 10,000 feet mean sea level, with a compromise in range.”
“I think at the beginning of designing an aircraft where you have the preliminary design, you basically have the outer line of the aircraft mold, more or less set, you understand the configuration, but there’s still design work to be done once you get through that,” said Koucheravy of Aurora. “So we’re excited to move into the detailed design phase and start building the aircraft.”
DARPA is expected to make a decision on whether to move forward with Liberty Lifter this summer. Where Aurora might start building the demonstrator is still an “open question,” according to Koucheravy.
“You know, one of the goals of the program is to look at maritime manufacturing processes to the greatest extent possible, rather than just approaching this purely from aerospace construction,” he explained. “So the aircraft will be built through a combination of maritime shipbuilding processes and aircraft manufacturing processes.
This “means that we will be looking for a location that has a robust maritime workforce,” which includes “shipyards [and other] partners on the shipbuilding side who can help us build and assemble the aircraft close to the water and then float the aircraft,” he continued. “It will not have a landing gear. The demonstrator will not be a land-based aircraft. So shortly after construction, at some point in the construction process, it will be floated and will live its entire life cycle, basically, on the water.”
Naval architecture and marine engineering firm Gibbs & Cox, a subsidiary of Leidos, has been part of Aurora’s Liberty Lifter team since the beginning.
The maritime focus of Aurora’s projects speaks to the broader goals of what DARPA is seeking to demonstrate with the Liberty Lifter.
“The Liberty Lifter program is currently designing and will build, float, and fly an affordable and innovative seaplane that can transform rapid logistics missions for the DOD and commerce,” DARPA states on its current web page about the program. “The Liberty Lifter’s innovative manufacturing techniques and materials offer a way to use existing infrastructure to rapidly build—at low cost—a critical capability for our warfighters, helping to increase the effectiveness of our defense industrial base to meet short-term needs. The Liberty Lifter could also provide at-sea search and rescue and disaster response at ship scale with air transport speed.”
More than just an alternative to traditional cargo aircraft, the Liberty Lifter could provide a new tool for “efficiently transporting large payloads at speeds far exceeding existing maritime transport platforms,” according to DARPA.
An overwater logistics capability that is faster than existing cargo ships and does not depend on a runway, like many traditional cargo planes, could be particularly valuable in a future conflict in the Pacific. Especially in a next-generation fight against China, US forces in the region would be highly dispersed, including in more remote locations without well-established infrastructure, to reduce their own vulnerability to attack. Traditional air and maritime transport assets would be heavily tasked overall to support these distributed operations.
In addition, the Liberty Lifter could avoid many maritime threats, such as submarines and anti-ship missiles. A very low-altitude flight profile typically improves overall survivability by helping to conceal an aircraft from defenders, especially their radars.
Given all this, runway-independent aviation capabilities, or at least those that are less dependent on traditional landing strips, are of increasing interest to the US military. The US Special Operations Command has also worked on a seaplane version of the MC-130J Commando II special operations transport aircraft, but abandoned the project last year, citing budgetary issues. The Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 seaplane has also been discussed as another potential avenue toward this type of capability.
For its part, last year, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) announced the start of series production of the AG600, a large seaplane that has been in development since the late 2000s. TWZ has previously highlighted how the AG600 would be particularly suited to supporting remote island outposts, such as those China maintains in the South China Sea.
It remains to be seen whether DARPA decides to proceed with the Liberty Lifter and when Aurora’s planned demonstrator might fly for the first time. The program is now looking at the potential start of flight testing in the 2028-2029 timeframe, a delay from the original 2027-2028 schedule. DARPA X-plane programs don’t always come to fruition, something Aurora is directly familiar with from the cancellation of work on the XV-24 LightningStrike hybrid-electric vertical drone in 2018.
“DARPA is facing a decision this year, this summer, on whether to move forward, execute the preliminary design review, and begin the detailed design and demonstrator manufacturing phase,” Koucheravy acknowledged. “I think we are as ready as we can be to give DARPA what they need to make that decision, and we are excited about the opportunity.”
For now, the Aurora project for what could be the basis of a new ekranoplan transport for the US military is already taking shape.
Source: here
Musk attacks F-35 fighter jets again; Chinese drones can destroy manned aircraft in seconds
New shots have been fired in the war between Elon Musk and the F-35, even though aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin, after losing the contract to build the US Air Force’s 6th generation fighter jet, promised to upgrade the 5th generation F-35 Lightning II with 6th generation technology.
Tech czar Musk has never hidden his contempt for the most expensive weapons development program in Pentagon history, repeatedly calling the F-35 “obsolete” and “expensive” in the era of cheap drone swarms.
On previous occasions, Musk has also called the F-35 program “the worst value for money in military history.” His opinions have attracted attention, especially since he was appointed to advise the US government on optimizing federal spending.
Musk’s recent statement was made on X, in the context of China’s booming drone technology. The cost of the F-35 was highlighted by investigative journalist Laura Loomer.
She claimed that Lockheed Martin was “delivering F-35 fighter jets that are simply not ready for combat.”
Past media reports have claimed that even in 2025, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program failed to meet software development and testing guidelines, particularly with the Technology Refresh 3 and Block 4 efforts, according to the annual test and operational evaluation report.
In response to Loomer, Musk wrote on X: “Manned aircraft will be instantly destroyed by swarms of cheap drones.”
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, developed by Lockheed Martin, is the Department of Defense’s most expensive and ambitious weapons program.
Despite being praised for its critical role in US national security, the program has been consistently criticized for its excessive spending and delays. The program is the most expensive military effort in history, with the US Government Accountability Office estimating that its lifetime cost will exceed $2 trillion.
In 2024, a declassified Pentagon report revealed the program’s flaws. It said: “The overall reliability, maintenance, and availability of the US fleet remain below service expectations.” Lockheed Martin responded that the F-35 “consistently meets or exceeds the reliability performance requirements we are contracted to deliver” because “nearly 90% of F-35 components perform better than required.” The aircraft is also operational in 20 allied countries.
While awarding the contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform, dubbed the F-47, to Boeing, the US government promised to learn from the mistakes made in the development of the 5th generation F-35 Lightning II, which turned it into a crazy weapons program.
The biggest mistake of all was that the US government does not own the intellectual property associated with the development of the 5th generation fighter jet. This gave the prime contractor control over many aspects of the aircraft’s life cycle.
Over the years, the US Air Force has discussed the lessons learned from the development of the F-35 fighter jets. A major problem was the “competitive” approach, in which production began even before the design was completely finalized. This led to costly and time-consuming design changes during production.
Lockheed Martin broke the silence when CEO Jim Taiclet claimed that the company can integrate 80% of the sixth-generation NGAD technology into the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II, which is already in production (with over 1,100 produced so far), at half the cost. This upgrade will create what will be known as the “fifth-plus generation” variant of the F-35. “We’re basically going to take the [F-35] chassis and turn it into a Ferrari,” Taiclet said.
The importance of manned fighter jets for important long-range missions has not been disputed, but the rise of China’s drone industry has created waves in the strategies of the world’s leading countries.
“Chinese drones, such as DJI or military models, cost a thousandth of the price of an F-35, but can destroy one in seconds,” Musk previously wrote.
“Manned fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs. A reusable drone can do this without all the baggage of a human pilot. And fighter jets will be shot down very quickly if the opposing force has SAMs or sophisticated drones, as the Russia-Ukraine conflict has shown,” Musk opined.
The rise of China’s drone industry
Even before the war between Ukraine and Russia highlighted that future warfare will have a greater component of unmanned combat vehicles, China had considered unmanned systems in its strategic planning.
China’s 2019 defense white paper states that “there is a prevailing trend toward developing long-range, intelligent, stealthy, or unmanned precision weapons or equipment.” It adds that “smart warfare is on the horizon.”
China has developed both attack-capable systems and unarmed systems for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. A 2018 report by the Department of Defense noted that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) “is closing the gap with the US Air Force across a spectrum of capabilities, gradually eroding the US’s long-standing technical advantages.”
China’s Wing Loong and Caihong (CH) series have become the platforms of choice for countries around the world, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa. It also has a fleet of reconnaissance drones, including the High-Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Soaring Dragon and Cloud Shadow.
China’s dominance in the drone market was fully on display during the 2024 Zhuhai Air Show. Beijing unveiled new members of China’s CH drone family, including the CH-9, a large armed reconnaissance drone, and the CH-7, the latest upgraded version of the stealth early warning drone.
Another low-cost drone, the CH-3D, and a cargo drone, the CH-YH1000, were also on display.
The CH-9, the latest addition to the CH series of armed reconnaissance drones, has a range of 11,500 kilometers and can take off with a weight of 5,000 kilograms. It can fly for 40 hours while conducting surveillance.
In addition to these drones, China unveiled the next generation of the “mother of all drones,” capable of carrying smaller drones in its belly.
Jetank, a heavy unmanned aerial vehicle, was unveiled for the first time at the Zhuhai Air Show 2024, which ended on November 17. The large drone can carry missiles, bombs, and smaller drones, earning it the nickname “swarm carrier.”
Jetank was on display in the outdoor static display area of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). According to the Global Times, it has a maximum takeoff weight of 16 tons, a maximum payload capacity of six tons, and a wingspan of 25 meters.
The state-of-the-art unmanned platform has eight hardpoints and can switch mission modules using different modular payloads. The display showed the drone equipped with a radar system and an electro-optical pod in its nose. It can be connected to satellites, providing battlefield situational awareness and remote control capability.
Swarm drones
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines drone swarms as consisting of coordinated systems of at least three and potentially thousands of drones that can perform missions autonomously with minimal human oversight.
These swarms use swarm intelligence by emulating biological patterns observed in groups of ants, bees, or birds, where decentralized rules generate complex collective behavior.
Modern drone swarms integrate artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to overcome obstacles such as GPS jamming, radio signal interference, and adverse environmental conditions, thereby maintaining synchronized operations.
Manned aircraft require high maintenance and intensive training, along with substantial infrastructure, unlike drone swarms, which are cost-effective and scalable. A single F-35 costs approximately $80 million, while a swarm of 1,000 drones could be deployed for a fraction of that price using mass production and modular design.
Drone swarms will become disruptors on the battlefield, using artificial intelligence to execute complex maneuvers.
Armies around the world have announced their swarm drone programs. The French Icarus project, Russian Lightning, the Spanish RAPAZ, the Blue Bear swarm in the UK, and N-Raven in the United Arab Emirates/South Africa.
The Pentagon’s Replicator program aims to deploy thousands of inexpensive autonomous drones by August 2025. With $500 million allocated for fiscal year 2024 and additional requests for fiscal year 2025, efforts are focused on Autonomous Collaborative Teaming (ACT) and Opportunistic Resilient Network Topology (ORIENT) to ensure effective coordination and communication with drones.
The US has another project, the Perdix system, which has been operational since 2016. Integrated with F/A-18 fighter jets, it has undergone rigorous testing. Over 670 Perdix drones have been produced, showing significant progress in swarm capabilities.
In the Perdix drone swarm, the swarm of microdrones is launched from F/A-18 Super Hornets. It autonomously performs a series of missions, demonstrating collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and self-healing capabilities.
Perdix are not pre-programmed, synchronized individuals; they are a collective organism that shares a single distributed brain for decision-making and adapts to each other like swarms in nature. Because each Perdix communicates and collaborates with all other Perdix, the swarm has no leader and can gracefully adapt to drones joining or leaving the team.
Source: here
The Golden Dome, shipbuilding, and ammunition production were among the highlights of the new $150 billion increase in defense spending for the Pentagon proposed by Republicans in Congress in the reconciliation bill. Combined with the already approved $886 billion defense budget, this would push defense spending to over $1 trillion for the first time in US history.
The bill, drafted by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC), includes $25 billion allocated to President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense project, a $33.7 billion boost for the US shipbuilding industry, and a significant $20.4 billion for ammunition production, including nearly $640 million in additional funding for new medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs).
The package also includes $7.2 billion set aside for the purchase and modernization of tactical aircraft. Nearly half of this money will be allocated to increasing production of the F-15EX, an air superiority platform. U.S. Set To Cross $1 Trillion In Defense Spendings; Shipbuilding, Golden Dome & Nuclear Deterrence Get Top Priority
The Golden Dome, shipbuilding, and ammunition production were among the highlights of the new $150 billion increase in defense spending for the Pentagon proposed by Republicans in Congress in the reconciliation bill. Combined with the already approved $886 billion defense budget, this would push defense spending past $1 trillion for the first time in US history.
The bill, drafted by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC), includes $25 billion for President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense shield project, a $33.7 billion boost for the US shipbuilding industry, and a significant $20.4 billion for ammunition production, including nearly $640 million in additional funding for new medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs).
The package also includes $7.2 billion earmarked for the purchase and modernization of tactical aircraft. Nearly half of this money will be allocated to increasing production of the F-15EX, an air superiority platform.
There is also additional funding for the B-21 bomber, the US’s next-generation strategic bomber, the F-47, the US’s next-generation fighter jet, and the F/A-XX, a sixth-generation fighter jet planned for the US Navy.
If passed, this would push the total defense spending bill for fiscal year 2025 above $1 trillion for the first time in US history, as the US Congress has already approved a $886 billion defense budget for this fiscal year.
“This legislation is a historic $150 billion investment to restore America’s military capabilities and strengthen our national defense,” said HASC Chairman Mike Rogers.
“America’s deterrence is failing, and without a generational investment in our national defense, we will lose the ability to defeat our adversaries. With this bill, we have the opportunity to get back on track and restore our national security and global leadership,” he added.
The bill, which reflects President Trump’s domestic policy priorities, also includes funding for space systems, nuclear deterrence, emerging technologies, border security, military intelligence, and cyber capabilities.
Boost for US shipbuilding
The US shipbuilding industry could be the biggest winner in the proposed $150 billion increase in defense spending for the Pentagon.
The legislation allocates $33.7 billion to the US shipbuilding industry.
This money will be used to build new ships, develop unmanned vessels, and modernize the US shipbuilding infrastructure.
The focus on reviving the US shipbuilding industry is not surprising. The industry is undoubtedly going through one of the worst phases in its history, even as China continues to advance and has achieved a leading position in the global shipping industry.
China’s largest state-owned shipyard, China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), built more commercial ships by tonnage in 2024 than the entire US shipbuilding industry since World War II.
In a report, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) stated that China will have a powerful fleet of 425 ships by 2030, compared to the US Navy’s 300 ships.
Such is the dominance of Chinese shipbuilders that even the US military is dependent on Chinese warships. According to the 2023 US Congressional report: “Three of the ten commercial tankers selected to transport fuel for the DOD (Department of Defense) as part of the newly adopted tanker security fleet are built in China. In terms of dry cargo supply for the DOD, 7 of the 12 most recently built ships in the Maritime Security Fleet are built in China.”
Earlier this year, a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that, in order to counter the expanding maritime power of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), the US Navy’s ambitious plan to add 85 ships to its fleet would come at a staggering cost of $1 trillion.
Earlier this year, Trump promised to “revive the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial and military shipbuilding,” adding: “We used to build so many ships. We don’t build them much anymore, but we’re going to build them very quickly, very soon. It will have a tremendous impact on enhancing our national security even more.”
The bill includes $4.6 billion for the construction of a second Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2027, $5.4 billion for two additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, $2.1 billion for the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock program, $3.7 billion for America-class amphibious assault ships, a $1.8 billion boost for the medium ship program, and $2.7 billion for the acquisition of T-AO tankers.
The bill also proposes $1.5 billion for expanding the production of unmanned surface vessels, $1.8 billion for the production of unmanned surface vessels, and $1.3 billion for the production of unmanned underwater vehicles.
Golden dome
Trump’s plan was the second-biggest winner in the proposed $150 billion increase in defense spending for the Pentagon.
The legislation allocates $24.7 billion for the ambitious missile defense shield.
The war in Ukraine and ongoing hostilities with the Houthis in the Red Sea have highlighted the central role that armed drones will play in any future conflict. In addition, China and Russia are developing new hypersonic weapons that have the potential to penetrate existing air defense systems.
These new challenges have underscored the need to modernize the US’s existing air defense systems.
The bill proposes $7.2 billion for the development and acquisition of space sensors, $5.6 billion for space phase-on-phase and growth interception capabilities, $2.4 billion for non-kinetic missile defense capabilities, $2 billion for military satellites to track moving targets in the air, $2.2 billion to accelerate the development of hypersonic defense systems, $1.9 billion for improved ground-based missile defense radars, and $800 million for the accelerated development and deployment of next-generation intercontinental missile defense systems.
Ammunition production
The third largest component of the proposed bill is ammunition production. The bill provides $20.4 billion in funding to develop and procure additional stocks of hypersonic, air-to-air, cruise, anti-ship, ballistic, and anti-radiation missiles; develop stocks of torpedoes, mines, and underwater explosives; to purchase unmanned attack drones; to improve infrastructure and expand the capacity of the ammunition industrial base; and to expand the domestic capacity to extract and refine rare earth elements and critical minerals.
Air superiority: F-15EX, F-47 to F/A-XX
The bill allocated $7.2 billion to maintain air superiority. This money will be spent on the purchase of tactical aircraft, the modernization of combat, cargo, tanker, and special-purpose aircraft, the prevention of the retirement of certain combat aircraft, and the purchase of state-of-the-art manned and unmanned aircraft.
Specifically, $3.15 billion is allocated to increase production of F-15EX fighter jets; $361 million to prevent the retirement of F-22 Raptor aircraft; $127 million to delay the retirement of F-15E fighter jets; $50 million to improve the electronic warfare capabilities of the F-16; and $678 million to accelerate the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.
The bill also proposes $400 million to accelerate production of the F-47, the US’s latest-generation fighter jet program recently awarded to Boeing. The US Navy received $500 million to advance its sixth-generation fighter aircraft program, the F/A-XX, for carrier operations.
The bill also includes $13.5 billion for “innovation,” $12.9 billion for nuclear deterrence, $11.5 billion for military readiness, $11.1 billion for Pacific deterrence amid growing tensions with China, $5 billion for border security, $4.5 billion for the B-21 bomber, $2 billion for military intelligence, and $380 million for the Pentagon’s annual audit.
Overall, the bill represents the defense priorities under the new Trump administration. The HASC will take up the bill in a marathon session on April 29, which will also allow Democrats to amend it before it is sent to the House Budget Committee.
Source and photo: here
Urengoy torpedo exercise exposes Russia’s weaknesses in the Baltic Sea
On April 28, 2025, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Baltic Fleet’s small anti-submarine ship Urengoy had conducted a training exercise near the coast of Kaliningrad, targeting a simulated enemy submarine with torpedoes.
The exercise, conducted in the Baltic Sea’s naval training grounds, involved searching for, detecting, and maintaining contact with a submarine, followed by a torpedo attack using training ammunition. The exercise also included simulated counterattacks from a Varshavyanka-class submarine and training in ship survival, air defense, and anti-sabotage tactics.
While the Russian announcement framed the exercise as routine, its timing and location raise questions about Moscow’s strategic priorities in a region where tensions with NATO remain high. Why is Russia emphasizing anti-submarine warfare in the Baltic Sea now, and what does this reveal about its naval capabilities and fears?
The Baltic Sea has long been a geopolitical flashpoint, with Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave — a heavily militarized outpost between Poland and Lithuania — serving as both a strategic asset and a vulnerability.
The Urengoy exercise, conducted near this sensitive region, underscores Russia’s focus on securing its maritime approaches amid growing NATO activity in the Baltic Sea. Since Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively, the alliance’s naval presence has expanded, with advanced submarines and surface ships operating regularly in these waters.
The Russian navy, particularly its Baltic fleet, faces the challenge of countering this presence while maintaining control over vital sea lanes linking Kaliningrad to mainland Russia. The exercise signals Moscow’s intention to project power, but a closer look at the platforms involved and the broader context reveals a more complex picture.
At the center of the exercise is the Urengoy, a small Grisha-class [Project 1124M] anti-submarine ship designed for coastal defense and submarine hunting. Ordered in the late 1980s, Grisha-class ships are compact, displacing approximately 1,200 tons and measuring approximately 71 meters in length.
They are equipped with a suite of sensors and weapons adapted for anti-submarine warfare, including the RBU-6000 rocket launcher, twin 533 mm torpedo tubes, and depth charges. The Urengoy’s sonar systems, such as the MG-322, allow it to detect submarines at moderate ranges, while its 76 mm AK-176 gun and AK-630 close-range weapon systems provide limited defense against surface and air threats.
However, the Grisha class is a product of Soviet-era design, with outdated electronics and limited endurance compared to modern Western counterparts. For example, NATO navies operate frigates such as the German Sachsen class or the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class, which boast advanced active radars with electronic scanning and long-range anti-submarine missiles such as the naval strike missile.
These platforms surpass the Urengoy in terms of range, sensor sophistication, and versatility, highlighting the technological gap Russia faces in the Baltic Sea.
The exercise also included a Varshavyanka-class submarine [Project 636.3], which played the role of the adversary. Known in the West as the improved Kilo class, these diesel-electric submarines are among Russia’s most capable non-nuclear underwater assets.
Measuring 74 meters and displacing approximately 3,950 tons submerged, the Varshavyanka is renowned for its stealth, thanks to its anechoic hull coatings and quiet propulsion system. It can carry 18 torpedoes, including the 53-65KE or TEST-71M models, and is equipped with Kalibr cruise missiles, which have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers and can strike land or sea targets.
The submarine’s MGK-400 Rubikon sonar and modernized combat management systems make it a formidable hunter in shallow waters such as the Baltic Sea. Compared to NATO submarines such as the German Type 212A or the Swedish Gotland class, the Varshavyanka is on par in terms of stealth and firepower, although it lags behind in terms of sensor integration and crew endurance.
Its inclusion in the exercise suggests that Russia is testing its ability to counter NATO’s underwater threat while showcasing the offensive potential of its submarine fleet.
The use of training torpedoes in the Urengoy attack is noteworthy. These warhead-less munitions are designed for training and can be recovered after firing, as one torpedo did during the exercise.
This approach allows crews to simulate real combat scenarios without expending expensive live ammunition. However, it also raises questions about the readiness of Russia’s Baltic Fleet to engage in sustained operations. The fleet has historically relied on older platforms such as the Grisha class, and while the Varshavyanka represents a modern asset, Russia’s submarine force in the Baltic Sea is limited compared to its Northern or Pacific fleets.
According to a 2024 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Baltic Fleet operates only a handful of submarines, with most of its surface ships dating back to the Soviet era.
In contrast, NATO’s Baltic fleets, supported by contributions from Germany, Sweden, and Finland, have a diverse range of modern frigates, corvettes, and submarines, backed by advanced maritime patrol aircraft such as the P-8 Poseidon.
Historically, the Baltic Sea has been a theater of intense naval rivalry. During the Cold War, Soviet and NATO forces regularly tested each other’s defenses, with submarines playing a game of cat and mouse in these enclosed waters.
The 1981 incident, when a Soviet Whisky-class submarine failed near a Swedish naval base, exposed the aggressive attitude of the Soviet navy and triggered a diplomatic crisis. More recently, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Ukraine have heightened tensions, prompting NATO to step up its naval exercises in the Baltic Sea.
The alliance’s annual BALTOPS exercise involves dozens of ships and aircraft from several member states, practicing complex scenarios such as countermeasures against mines and anti-submarine warfare.
Russia’s response, through exercises such as the one in Urengoy, reflects its determination to maintain credible deterrence, even if its naval resources are stretched by commitments elsewhere, particularly in the Black Sea, where Ukrainian drones have inflicted significant losses on the Black Sea Fleet.
The choice of Kaliningrad as the backdrop for the exercise is no coincidence. The exclave, which is home to the Baltic Fleet’s headquarters, hosts a dense concentration of military assets, including Iskander-M ballistic missiles, S-400 air defense systems, and coastal defense batteries.
Its strategic importance lies in its ability to project power into NATO’s eastern flank and disrupt the alliance’s operations in the event of a crisis. However, Kaliningrad’s isolation makes it dependent on maritime supply lines, which are vulnerable to NATO interdiction.
A 2023 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that NATO control of Baltic Sea chokepoints, such as the Danish straits, could effectively isolate Kaliningrad in a conflict, cutting off Russia’s ability to reinforce or resupply the exclave.
The Urengoy anti-submarine exercise, which focuses on detecting and neutralizing underwater threats, appears tailored to address this vulnerability by ensuring that Russia can protect its maritime lifeline.
Beyond the technical aspects, the exercise carries a clear political message. By publicizing the exercise, Russia aims to signal resilience to both domestic and international audiences.
Domestically, such demonstrations reinforce the Kremlin’s narrative of military strength amid economic challenges and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Internationally, the exercise serves as a reminder to NATO that Russia remains a powerful naval player in the Baltic Sea, capable of responding to perceived invasions.
The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement, published on its official website, emphasized the exercise’s role in maintaining combat readiness, but its timing—shortly after the conclusion of NATO’s 2025 BALTOPS exercise—suggests a deliberate attempt to counterbalance the alliance’s activities.
Open-source intelligence, including posts on X, tracked increased NATO naval movements in the Baltic Sea in early 2025, with ships from the US, Germany, and Sweden conducting joint patrols. Russia’s response, while limited in scope, seeks to project an image of parity.
The inclusion of additional training elements, such as ship survivability, passive jamming air defense, and anti-sabotage grenade throwing, indicates a broader concern within the Russian Navy: the need to prepare for threats across multiple domains.
The shallow and limited waters of the Baltic Sea make it an ideal environment for sabotage operations, such as those carried out by special forces or unmanned underwater vehicles. NATO’s growing investment in such capabilities, including the US Navy’s Orca unmanned underwater vehicle and Sweden’s A26 submarines, poses a direct challenge to Russia’s aging fleet.
The exercise’s focus on these tactics suggests that Moscow is adapting to a battlefield where traditional naval power is increasingly complemented by asymmetric threats.
Despite its activity, the Baltic Fleet’s limitations are evident. Urengoy, although functional, is part of a class that struggles against modern adversaries. Grisha’s sensors, for example, do not have the range and resolution of systems such as Thales CAPTAS-4 found on NATO frigates, which can detect submarines at greater distances and in noisier environments.
Russia’s investments in new ships, such as the Steregushchiy Project 20380 corvettes, have been slow to reach the Baltic Sea, with most modern ships being prioritized for fleets in the Pacific or North. A 2024 report by Naval News noted that the Baltic Fleet’s surface combatants are outnumbered and outclassed by NATO’s combined forces, which include over 50 major warships and dozens of support vessels.
The Varshavyanka submarine, while a powerful asset, cannot fully compensate for these shortcomings, especially given the challenging acoustic environment of the Baltic Sea, where shallow waters and heavy shipping traffic complicate submarine operations.
NATO’s response to the exercise is likely to be measured but vigilant. The Alliance has long monitored Russian naval activity in the Baltic Sea, using assets such as the US Navy’s P-8 Poseidon and Swedish Visby-class corvettes to track movements.
The Urengoy exercise, while not a direct challenge, will likely lead to increased intelligence gathering and potentially a counter-exercise to test Russia’s response. A 2023 AP News report on Russia’s Ocean Shield exercise in the Baltic Sea noted that NATO reconnaissance aircraft from Poland and Sweden closely observed the maneuvers, a pattern that is likely to repeat itself.
The alliance’s ability to maintain situational awareness in the region, supported by satellite imagery and signals intelligence, gives it a significant advantage over Russia’s less integrated command and control systems.
The exercise also fits into Russia’s broader naval strategy, which emphasizes deterrence and regional control despite resource constraints. The Russian Navy’s Ocean-2024 exercise in 2024, conducted across multiple seas, involved over 400 ships and 90,000 personnel, according to RIA Novosti.
While these figures are likely inflated, they reflect Moscow’s ambition to project global power. However, the Baltic Sea remains a secondary theater compared to the Arctic or the Pacific, where Russia’s strategic interests—such as securing the Northern Sea Route or countering US forces in the Indo-Pacific—are more pronounced.
The Urengoy exercise, though small in scale, is a microcosm of this strategy: a targeted effort to maintain credibility in a contested region without overstretching limited assets.
From a technical perspective, the exercise highlights the challenges of anti-submarine warfare in the Baltic Sea. The region’s shallow waters, with an average depth of 55 meters, create complex acoustic conditions that can mask submarine signatures. Urengoy’s reliance on active sonar, which emits sound waves to detect targets, is less effective in such environments compared to the passive sonar systems used by NATO.
The Varshavyanka’s stealth capabilities, while impressive, are also limited by the need to operate in confined spaces, where detection by surface ships or maritime patrol aircraft is more likely. These dynamics underscore the importance of training, as even advanced platforms require skilled crews to cope with the unique challenges of the Baltic Sea.
Looking ahead, the Urengoy exercise is unlikely to alter the balance of power in the Baltic Sea. NATO’s numerical and technological superiority, combined with its ability to coordinate multinational forces, gives it a decisive advantage.
Russia’s Baltic Fleet, while capable of localized operations, lacks the depth to sustain a protracted conflict. The real significance of the exercise lies in its message: a signal to NATO that Russia is watching and ready to defend its interests, particularly around Kaliningrad. For the American public, this serves as a reminder of the Baltic Sea’s role as a potential flashpoint, where small incidents could quickly escalate.
Analyzing this event, it is clear that Russia is walking a tightrope. The Urengoy exercise demonstrates a commitment to maintaining naval readiness, but it also exposes the Baltic Fleet’s dependence on outdated platforms and limited resources.
The Varshavyanka submarine offers a glimpse of Russia’s modern capabilities, but its deployment in a training role suggests caution about risking high-value assets in a real conflict. The exercise reflects Moscow’s broader strategy of projecting force through carefully choreographed demonstrations, even as it struggles with the realities of a stretched military.
For NATO, the challenge is to balance deterrence with restraint, ensuring that routine Russian exercises do not turn into miscalculations. As tensions persist, the Baltic Sea will remain a testing ground for the resolve of both sides. What happens if these exercises escalate beyond simulations, and are both Russia and NATO prepared for the consequences?
Source and video: here
Finnish Coast Guard reports dangerous incident with Shadow Fleet oil tanker
Finland has joined its neighbor Estonia in reporting a continued increase in the number of suspicious vessels sailing in the Gulf of Finland and on Baltic Sea shipping lanes to and from Russia. The Finnish Coast Guard reported an incident in which a loaded oil tanker had to be warned to leave its course as it was heading towards a shoal, the second in just a few months involving a shadow fleet tanker.
In its weekly update, the Finnish Coast Guard Council reports that a tanker from the shadow fleet carrying crude oil was approaching a dangerous shoal near the Kalbadagrund lighthouse east of Helsinki, near Emäsalo, in the Gulf of Finland. They determined that the ship was about 10 minutes away from reaching the shoal with the danger of “serious damage to the marine environment” if the ship had continued on its course.
The Maritime Traffic Center managed to reach the ship by radio and warn it of the dangers. The ship corrected its course. The Coast Guard says that a similar dangerous situation occurred in February at the same location. Again, another tanker belonging to the shadow fleet was on a dangerous course.
“In the past week, several ships belonging to the so-called shadow fleet, whose flag state was unclear, were seen again in the Gulf of Finland,” the Board Guard said in its weekly summary. They noted that in the past week “anomalies were detected” and investigated with the AIS signal from ships registered in Panama and Liberia. “The Finnish Gulf Coast Guard continues to monitor the phenomenon,” they report.
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said yesterday, April 28, that his country continues to detect shadow fleet vessels sailing under flags of convenience. He said that Estonia was the first country to start inspecting ships of the Russian shadow fleet in June 2024. Since then, Tsahkna said his country has requested insurance documents from more than 500 ships and will continue to carry out inspections of passing ships.
One of these inspections led to the detention of a shadow fleet tanker, the Kiwala, on suspicion of operating as a stateless vessel without insurance. Estonia detected 23 deficiencies due to documentation and 17 other technical problems, saying that 29 of the problems were grounds for detention. After two weeks, the ship managed to demonstrate technical compliance and left Estonia bound for Russia. However, according to the Estonian Transport Administration, the ship’s flag registration was only extended until May 7 by Djibouti, giving it time for transition. Djibouti reportedly canceled the registration in early 2025 due to “illegal activities.” The European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Switzerland had previously sanctioned the tanker.
Finland and Estonia have said they will continue to monitor ships transiting the Baltic Sea. Tsahkna also called for cooperation between the Baltic states to protect the marine environment from the continuing threat posed by the shadow fleet.
Source: here
TASS: Three Russian sailors injured in US air strike on Ras Isa
A tanker carrying unknown products (bottom right) at Ras Isa during the US strike, April 18 (Houthi social media)
The US air strike on the port of Ras Isa, controlled by the Houthis since April 18, was intended to hit energy infrastructure, but the massive explosions also killed 80 people and wounded about 170 others, according to Houthi-controlled media. Three of the injured appear to have been Russian sailors working on board a foreign-flagged oil tanker; the ship had called at Ras Isa despite a US State Department warning that all ships should cease trading in Houthi-controlled ports.
The vessel in question was the 54,000 dwt oil tanker Seven Pearls. Flagged in St. Kitts and anonymously owned in Liberia, the aging Seven Pearls has a history of calling at ports in Houthi territory. Over the past year, she has traded regularly between the United Arab Emirates, Djibouti, and Houthi areas of Yemen, interrupted by a three-month detour to the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
AIS history of Seven Pearls, April 2024-March 2025 (Pole Star)
The Seven Pearls’ AIS signature has not been detected by commercial AIS services for over a month, and its last transmission placed it near the Suez Canal. However, it was present at Ras Isa during the US air strike, Russian chargé d’affaires in Yemen Yevgeny Kudrov told TASS.
According to Kudrov, three sailors from the Seven Pearls were injured in the attack. As of April 29, one of them remains hospitalized and may require surgery for a serious eye injury, Kudrov said. “According to our data, their lives are not in danger,” he said. The ship and the remaining 19 crew members are anchored “at a safe distance” from the Yemeni coast, according to Kudrov.
Houthi representatives named the Russian victims as Roman Kashpor, Igor Kazachenko, and Artyom Vanin.
The location of the Seven Pearls could not be immediately confirmed due to a lack of AIS data; however, videos from passersby show that at least one ship was alongside the port’s breakwaters during the attack, and satellite photos confirm that commercial tankers were present before and after. (The hijacked car carrier Galaxy Leader is also visible in the footage.)
The Trump administration has previously warned that it will penalize any vessel that continues to serve Houthi commercial interests. “The United States will not tolerate any country or commercial entity providing support to foreign terrorist organizations such as the Houthis, including unloading ships and supplying oil in Houthi-controlled ports,” a State Department spokesperson said on April 9.
As of April 28, several foreign ships remained at Ras Isa, according to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Source: here
Additional Patriot system for Romania approved by US State Department – April 30, 2025
The Romanian Army’s 74th Patriot Regiment conducted the country’s first Patriot air defense exercise at the Capu Midia test range in Romania on November 15-16, 2023. On April 28, 2025, the DSCA announced that the US Department of State had approved an FMS for Romania covering an AN/MPQ-65 Configuration 3+ Increment 3 radar set; an AN/MSQ-132 coupling control station; two M903 launch stations; and a power plant III. [USEUCOM]
The US Department of State has approved a possible foreign military sale (FMS) to Romania of a Patriot air defense system and related equipment, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on April 28, 2025.
The proposed FMS, valued at approximately $280 million (€247 million), has been submitted to the US Congress for final approval.
Romania has requested the purchase of one AN/MPQ-65 Configuration 3+ Increment 3 radar set; one AN/MSQ-132 coupling control station; two M903 launch stations; and one power plant III.
Various items that are not major defense equipment are also included in the package, including generators; main engines; parts; friend or foe identification (IFF) encryptors; advanced global positioning system (DAGR) receivers; documentation; and various engineering, technical, logistical, and program support aspects.
Romania is already a user of the Patriot system. In 2017, Romania signed a $4 billion agreement covering seven Patriot systems. The Romanian Armed Forces received the country’s first Patriot system on September 17, 2020.
Given that Romania transferred one of its Patriot systems to Ukraine in October 2024, this latest FMS appears to cover a replacement for that system.
The DSCA stated that the proposed sale “will improve Romania’s ability to address current and future threats, enabling it to project a credible force to deter adversaries and sustain its participation in NATO operations.”
The main contractors for the FMS will be RTX Corporation, from its facilities in Andover, Massachusetts, and Lockheed Martin, from its facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
Source: here
Hadean’s advanced synthetic environment technology will bring increased fidelity and immersion to the Joint Command and Staff Training (JCAST) program. [LITURGHIE/Hadean]
British defense and training support company MASS, part of the Cohort Group, has signed a contract with Hadean, a UK leader in artificial intelligence (AI) and spatial computing technology, MASS announced on April 24, 2025.
The partnership was formed to support the Joint Command and Staff Training (JCAST) program for the UK’s Strategic Command, providing a simulated and immersive capability for the design, preparation, delivery, and analysis of joint operational force exercises.
The JCAST program provides comprehensive support to the Integrated Warfare Center within the Strategic Command and other areas of the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD). According to MASS, it provides “a complete capability to support the design, preparation, delivery, and analysis of operational-level exercises, helping to ensure that the UK’s operational command is prepared for the full spectrum of potential deployments, from humanitarian assistance and disaster response to evacuations and non-combatant evacuation operations.”
Combining MASS’s expertise in planning and delivering large-scale training exercises with Hadean’s AI-assisted crisis scenario generation, UK Strategic Command personnel will train in a simulated environment that reflects today’s evolving operational challenges, MASS said. The training environment will be complemented by additional “layers” of realism, such as civilian behavior and attitudes, as well as reflecting the evolving role of social media.
Hadean’s advanced synthetic environment technology will bring increased fidelity and immersion to the execution of the Joint Command and Staff Training (JCAST) program. [LITURGHIE/Hadean] By increasing the size, frequency, and complexity of training exercises, the partnership will help the British Armed Forces improve operational readiness, accelerate exercise development, and generate long-term cost savings. The evolution of training support will enable JCAST personnel to remain adaptable in a rapidly changing operational landscape, with faster turnaround times and flexibility for planning and delivering training.
In addition, the use of AI technology will also reduce reliance on manual processes and the need for additional staff and other resources to deliver exercises that reflect the evolving operational environment.
“Today’s military training must reflect the defense landscape; operations no longer take place in isolation, with digital developments now playing a significant role,” explained Keith Norton, CEO at MASS, in a company press release. “By integrating emerging and innovative technology—such as generative AI—into joint forces defense training, we can prepare JCAST training support for the future, ensuring it evolves in step with real-world defense operations.
“Our partnership with Hadean allows us to create a richer and more engaging training environment,” Norton added. “We combine MASS’s expertise in planning and delivering realistic training scenarios – with personnel playing key roles – with Hadean’s advanced synthetic environment technology, which simulates broader operational interactions, including information and disinformation on social media. This unique approach allows us to deliver a truly ‘train as you operate’ experience.
“We are committed to providing the UK Ministry of Defense with a decisive strategic advantage by delivering the most accurate, engaging, and realistic simulations of the real world,” added Craig Beddis, CEO of Hadean. “By combining Hadean’s best-in-class artificial intelligence with MASS’s cutting-edge expertise, we will enable more effective and impactful training programs for defense and national security. Together, we can deliver solutions that improve operational readiness and empower our forces to be the best trained and prepared in an increasingly complex environment.”
Source: here
Are UK shipyards being avoided for recycling Royal Navy warships?
Since the 2000s, the vast majority of warship recycling in the UK has gone to Turkey.
While another UK warship is set to be sent to the scrapyard with the former Type 23 frigate HMS Monmouth, now destined for scrapping at Leyal Ship Recycling in Turkey, the apparent absence of UK shipyards in providing sovereign ship recycling capacity is striking.
The award of a Turkish shipyard on April 8 is the latest in an ongoing trend of contracting the recycling of British warships abroad, with the Type 22 frigate HMS Cornwall being the last to be dismantled in the country more than a decade ago.
Extensive research by Naval Technology, analyzing formal documentation of the recycling process from the award of preferred bidder status to the signing of the contract, has revealed the dominance of Turkey’s ship recycling industry when it comes to scrapping the UK’s old warships.
Announcing the contract to recycle the decommissioned Type 23 frigate HMS Monmouth, the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) said on April 8 that the ship would be broken up in Turkey by Leyal Gemi Sokum Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti (also known as Leyal Ship Recycling).
The UK Ministry of Defense said that expressions of interest had been sought from recycling yards on a “European list of ship recycling facilities” and, following a “robust tender and evaluation process,” the award was granted to Leyal.
Recycling of UK warships – a clear trend
Following an investigation into historical contracts for the recycling of warships in the UK, of the 29 most recent surface combatants in the Type 22 and Type 23 frigate classes, the Type 42 destroyers, and the three aircraft carriers of the Invincible class, it can be established that 18 ships were sold for recycling in Turkey.
Source: here
PD Ports unveils plans for major offshore wind hub on UK east coast – April 30, 2025
PD Ports has announced ambitious plans to develop one of the UK’s largest offshore wind energy production and installation centers, Teesport Offshore Gateway. The proposed £200 million development aims to establish critical port facilities to support the government’s offshore wind energy development targets.
The project will transform 180 acres into a comprehensive offshore manufacturing hub with assembly, staging, and supply chain support services. The development is strategically positioned to promote the UK’s Net Zero initiatives and energy independence goals.
A notable feature of the development includes a one-kilometer deep-water quay on the riverfront, providing unrestricted access to the North Sea for both floating and fixed-bottom offshore wind development. The facility will include a 15.5 m deep berth capable of accommodating all current and planned offshore installation vessels globally.
“Teesport and the River Tees have everything necessary to successfully operate what we believe will be one of the largest offshore wind production and assembly centers on the east coast of the UK, offering unrivalled access to the North Sea,” said Frans Calje, CEO of PD Ports.
Although still in the early stages of planning, the project has secured both planning and maritime approval, subject to modifications. PD Ports is actively seeking involvement in the offshore renewable energy sector, including OEMs, developers, and industry experts, to refine the strategic direction of the project.
Source: here
The SHIPS for America Act, introduced today by Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young and Representatives Trent Kelly and John Garamendi, proposes a radical overhaul of US maritime policy aimed at rebuilding the US merchant marine, shipbuilding capacity, and maritime workforce.
The bill is paired with the Build in America Act, which includes tax incentives and financial tools to strengthen domestic shipbuilding. Below is a breakdown of the main provisions:
1. National oversight and coordination
· Establishes a maritime security advisor in the White House and a new maritime security council to coordinate maritime policy across federal agencies.
· Enhances the role of the National Maritime Transportation System Advisory Committee and mandates direct hiring authority for key maritime positions.
· Requires biennial progress and oversight reports from the GAO and the Federal Maritime Commission.
2. Maritime Security Trust Fund
· Creates a trust fund dedicated to maritime security, modeled on transportation trust funds, funded by taxes, tonnage fees, and penalties, particularly against Chinese and other adversary-linked vessels.
· Prevents the suspension of tonnage taxes for ships flying the flags of foreign adversaries.
3. Maritime transport and strategic capacity
· Declares that it is US policy to maintain a strategic fleet under the US flag, with coordination between the DOT and the DOD.
· Extends the National Strategic Freight Plan to include maritime transport and amends laws to counter unfair foreign maritime transport practices.
4. Strategic commercial fleet and cargo preference
· Launches the Strategic Commercial Fleet Program to grow the US-flagged fleet to 250 vessels, incentivizing new US-built, US-flagged, and US-crewed vessels.
· Allows temporary foreign-built vessels but phases them out after fiscal year 2030.
· Prioritize oil tanker acquisitions, submarine cable security, and US shipyard repairs through steep tariff penalties.
· Extends cargo preference rules: 100% of US government cargo must be carried on US-flagged vessels, including imports from China (target: 10% within 15 years).
· Creates the Ship America Office to promote US shipping and consumer awareness.
5. Regulatory reform
· Streamline US Coast Guard compliance through the alternative compliance program.
· Form a regulatory committee to align US maritime regulations with IMO standards while protecting national interests.
· Amend the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 to increase the liability of foreign vessels.
6. Investment in shipbuilding
· Authorize $250 million annually (FY26-35) for domestic shipbuilding projects.
· Provide $100 million per year for small shipyards and expand eligibility.
· Convert Title XI funding into a revolving loan fund.
· Modernizes construction and capital construction funds, opening them to more maritime actors, including maritime terminal operators.
· Streamlines environmental reviews and unblocks DOE loan guarantees for maritime infrastructure.
· Requests assessments of logistical threats related to China, such as LOGINK.
7. Integration of defense shipbuilding
· Call on the DOD and Navy to incorporate best commercial practices and use Defense Production Act authorities to increase shipyard capacity.
· Improve recruitment and retention for the Military Sealift Command.
8. Innovation and infrastructure
· Fund regional maritime innovation incubators at $50 million/year, focusing on research and development in shipbuilding, fuels, ship design, and port infrastructure.
· Strengthen ties with the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP).
9. Maritime workforce development
· Makes sailors and shipyard workers eligible for public service loan forgiveness and GI Bill benefits.
· Establishes new recruitment pipelines through the DoD, schools, and transition programs for veterans.
· Expands support for the Naval Sea Cadet Corps and international academic exchanges in naval architecture.
10. Maritime academies
· Modernize the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and bring it up to parity with other service academies.
· Increase support and enrollment for State Maritime Academies (SMAs), including fuel, scholarships, and integration of training ships into naval exercises.
11. Licensing and accreditation
· Digitize the commercial mariners accreditation system, revise training standards, and clarify renewal/expiration rules.
· Authorize the emergency reactivation of expired mariners’ credentials and extend eligibility to American Samoans.
12. Tax incentives (Build in America Act)
· Establish a 33% tax credit for the construction of ships under the US flag, with bonus credits for US insurers and classification societies.
· Exempt various maritime program payments from gross income.
· Extends access to tonnage tax regimes and capital gains exemptions in new maritime prosperity zones.
· Creates 25% tax credits for investments in shipyards and related facilities.
This ambitious legislative package represents one of the most comprehensive efforts in decades to restore the United States as a global maritime power, building on President Trump’s recent executive order following the US Trade Representative’s findings on China’s dominance in shipbuilding.
By combining regulatory reform, industrial investment, cargo policy, and workforce development, the SHIPS for America Act aims to ensure that American-flagged ships, shipyards, and sailors can once again compete and win on the world stage.
A detailed section-by-section guide to the bill can be found here.
Source: here
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has reintroduced the Shipbuilding and Port Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) Act for America.
The landmark legislation, led by Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Todd Young (R-IN), along with Representatives John Garamendi (D-CA-8) and Trent Kelly (R-MS-1), aims to address the stark disparity in maritime capabilities between the United States and China.
Currently, the US has only 80 ships flying its flag in international trade, while China operates 5,500 ships. This dramatic imbalance has raised concerns about national security and economic competitiveness, prompting what Senator Kelly, a US Navy veteran and the first graduate of the US Merchant Marine Academy to serve in Congress, describes as “the most ambitious effort in a generation to revitalize US shipbuilding and commercial maritime industries.”
The legislation sets an ambitious goal of adding 250 ships to the international fleet flying the US flag within a decade through the Strategic Commercial Fleet Program, backed by cargo preference rules and new regulations to increase competitiveness. This program will develop a fleet of U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed, and domestically built commercial vessels capable of competing in international trade.
To achieve these goals, the law introduces several key initiatives, including the creation of a maritime security advisor position within the White House, tasked with leading a national strategy and leading a new Maritime Security Council and a Maritime Security Trust Fund. The trust fund would reinvest industry-generated fees and charges into maritime security programs and infrastructure.
The legislation also addresses regulatory barriers by creating a Commercial Maritime Regulations and Standards Regulatory Committee to streamline the bureaucracy of the US Coast Guard. Starting in 2030, the law would “modify fees to make cargo on U.S.-flagged vessels more competitive by requiring government-funded cargo to move to U.S.-flagged vessels and requiring a portion of commercial goods imported from China to move to U.S.-flagged vessels,” according to lawmakers.
Since the introduction of the SHIPS for America Act in December 2024, boosting US shipbuilding has become a bipartisan priority, particularly following the USTR’s findings on China’s dominance in shipbuilding and President Trump’s signing of the executive order on shipbuilding earlier this month.
Industry stakeholders have expressed strong support for the initiative. Brian W. Schoeneman, president of USA Maritime, called it “the most comprehensive maritime policy initiative in more than half a century,” while Marine League CEO Mike Stevens highlighted its importance in “today’s global threat environment, arguably the most dangerous since the end of the Cold War.”
The president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, Matt Paxton, said it marks a “significant step forward in strengthening the nation’s shipbuilding industrial base and establishing a comprehensive national maritime strategy.”
The law includes substantial financial incentives for the shipbuilding sector, including a 25% investment tax credit for investments in shipyards. It also establishes a US Center for Maritime Innovation to accelerate leadership in the design and manufacturing of next-generation ships.
Workforce development features prominently in the legislation, with provisions for a maritime workforce promotion and recruitment campaign and support for maritime education institutions. The bill also addresses the infrastructure needs of the US Merchant Marine Academy and modernizes the Coast Guard’s commercial mariner certification system.
The introduction of the legislation comes after increased attention to maritime security concerns, particularly following recent findings by the US Trade Representative regarding China’s dominance in shipbuilding. The bill will be introduced in two parts in the Senate: the SHIPS for America Act and the Building SHIPS in America Act.
“America has been a maritime nation since our founding, and maritime power has contributed significantly to our rise as the most powerful nation on earth,” said Senator Young, a graduate of the US Naval Academy.
The bill has garnered support from more than 60 maritime organizations and industry stakeholders, reflecting a broad consensus on the need to strengthen America’s maritime capabilities.
As the legislation moves through Congress, it represents a crucial step toward rebuilding the US maritime infrastructure and ensuring national security in an increasingly competitive global environment.
Source: here
Four ice-strengthened LNG carriers have been spotted in the Russian Federation along with the name change. The ships are part of Russia’s emerging “shadow fleet” designed to deliver sanctioned liquefied natural gas from the Arctic.
The North North Sky, North Air, North Mountain, and North Way were renamed Iris, Buran, Voskhod, and Zarya around April 17, along with a change of registration from Panama to Russia.
Last summer, several LNG carriers traveling to the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project engaged in deceptive practices, disabling or falsifying their location. The change of flag of the four ships may allow similar practices in the future.
“Russia may decide to be relatively lax in enforcing AIS position reporting, at least in Russian waters, and provide state-backed assurances,” speculates Kjell Eikland, managing director of data provider Eikland Energy.
The move could suggest preparations by Russian firm Novatek to launch a new attempt to pick up cargoes from the Arctic LNG 2 project. All four ships carry an Arc4 classification, a medium level of ice reinforcement, essential for reaching the Utrenniy terminal in icy conditions.
“Locally, however, it is still quite winter there, and with unbroken ice. The beginning of June is absolutely possible with ALNG2 definitely ready with two GBS [production lines],” Eikland confirms.
Launched in 2023 and 2024, the vessels were built by Samsung Heavy Industries for Japanese operator NYK against charters with Novatek’s Arctic LNG 2 project. They have since been transferred to White Fox Ship Management in Dubai. All four vessels and White Fox were included in the August 2024 round of economic sanctions by the US.
Novatek was forced to temporarily shut down Arctic LNG 2 last October when sea ice began blocking shipping routes. The company also continues to struggle to find buyers for about one million tons of LNG shipped over a two-month period starting in August 2024.
In recent weeks, production levels at the plant have increased, with gas flaring continuing throughout April. The significance of the increase in activity remains to be seen. Some industry analysts suggest that the restart of train 1 and the commissioning of train 2 in recent weeks are paving the way for new deliveries this summer. Any such effort would likely rely on the four renamed ships from the North series.
But without substantial changes to the sanctions environment or new ways to hide the origin of sanctioned cargoes, Novatek could continue to struggle to find buyers.
“While Russia may be testing the waters, Kpler Insight does not expect an increase in production of materials under the current sanctions and limited buyer appetite,” confirms Ana Subasic, gas and LNG analyst at Kpler, a data and analytics firm for commodity markets.
Burning gas may simply be part of maintenance and commissioning procedures.
“Train 1 is expected to shut down once on-site storage is full, while Train 2 — despite nearing technical readiness — may also be inactive after commissioning, unless there is a significant relaxation of sanctions or the emergence of new circumvention methods,” says Subasic.
However, concerns about secondary sanctions may be easing. “China is apparently the obvious buyer, and the risk of additional OFAC sanctions probably wouldn’t mean much at this point,” Eikland concludes.
Any attempt to send additional cargoes from the plant is unlikely to come before the sea ice in Ob Bay begins to break up, usually sometime in June. The four Arc4 ships in the North series could travel to the Utrenniy terminal as early as June. The neighboring Yamal LNG project transported cargo aboard Arc4 LNG carriers between July and November last year.
Source: here
Ukraine may launch its own space forces, developing satellite and rocket solutions – April 30, 2025
Lawmakers want to bring national defense into Earth’s orbit by the next decade
Ukraine is considering establishing a Space Forces branch within the Armed Forces, following a legislative initiative by Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the parliamentary defense committee. Although the full text of the bill has not yet been made public, the proposal marks a significant step in Ukraine’s efforts to enhance its military capabilities in space.
This initiative builds on previous efforts by the Ministry of Defense, which established the Space Policy Directorate aimed at developing military space technologies, including satellites and missile systems.
Read more: 105 employees of Russian space agency Roscosmos killed in war in Ukraine
Deputy Minister Kateryna Chernohorenko emphasized the ministry’s goal of becoming the main customer for space solutions tailored to the needs of Ukraine’s armed forces. Plans are underway to deploy domestic satellites for defense purposes, establish an early warning system, and implement comprehensive space monitoring capabilities by 2030.
The move aligns with global trends in which space is increasingly recognized as a critical domain for national security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has highlighted concerns about the potential militarization of space, including the deployment of nuclear weapons by Russia.
Ukraine’s consideration of a Space Forces branch reflects its commitment to modernizing its military infrastructure and ensuring its sovereignty in all domains, including space.
Source: here
The UK Defense Intelligence: Ukraine Remains Wary, Pushing for a Longer Ceasefire Amid Continued Fighting
April 30, 2025
29
Illustrative image / screenshot from video
Ukraine urges longer pause, calling 72-hour ceasefire an “optical move” ahead of domestic holidays
On April 28, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin unilaterally announced a complete ceasefire in Russia’s war in Ukraine, covering the entire 72-hour period of May 8, 9, and 10. This coincides with Victory Day on May 9, commemorating Russia’s victory in World War II.
Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski demanded an “immediate, complete and unconditional” ceasefire lasting “at least 30 days” in response, according to the UK Defense Intelligence Service.
As with Vladimir Putin’s unilateral 30-hour ceasefire, this announcement is almost certainly intended to demonstrate a constructive approach to the ongoing talks without incurring significant costs to Russia’s position on the battlefield. Vladimir Putin is probably trying to reduce the potential for Ukrainian strikes to affect Victory Day commemorations.
Since Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Victory Day parades have been canceled in several Russian cities, primarily in those in regions bordering Ukraine.
As previously reported by Defense Express, on Saturday, April 19, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly announced a unilateral 30-hour ceasefire on humanitarian grounds, which began at 6 p.m. Moscow/Kyiv time and ended at midnight on Easter Sunday. Vladimir Putin’s announcement was almost certainly intended to demonstrate a constructive approach in the ongoing talks without incurring significant costs to Russia’s position on the battlefield.
Source: here
French Navy hits explosive drone on cargo ship in real-life test – April 30, 2025
This screenshot from a French Navy video shows the impact of an explosive drone hitting a cargo ship in a test on April 26, 2025, near Toulon, France. (French Navy)
France detonated an explosive naval drone against a decommissioned cargo ship at sea, the latest in a series of live-fire experiments as the French Navy seeks to prepare its ships and crews for high-intensity sea battles in what the government calls an increasingly unstable international environment.
The April 26 test explosion will allow France to refine its remotely operated naval munitions systems, including their guidance and pyrotechnics, the Ministry of Armed Forces said in an emailed statement. The unmanned surface vehicle (USV) was deployed by a Navy offshore patrol vessel off the coast of Toulon, where France’s main naval base is located.
“The aim of the experiment was to confirm the French Navy’s ability to deploy remote-controlled naval ammunition from the sea,” the ministry said. “Given the tougher international context, it now seems appropriate for the French Navy to conduct such experimental campaigns at sea.”
USVs loaded with explosives have helped Ukraine keep Russia at bay in the Black Sea, with Ukrainian forces using the drones to sink several Russian ships. Armies around the world have taken note, with Florida-based Maritime Tactical Systems unveiling last year a one-way mission naval drone for the US Navy.
In the recent French test, the target’s hull was depolluted and stripped of fuels and fluids, the ministry said. The target ship’s impact area was protected with metal plates and tires to act as a shield and limit the risk of sinking, although a video of the test explosion released by the Navy on X suggested that the USV may have missed the metal plates.
The naval drone test follows a live torpedo test in December, with a French Navy nuclear attack submarine firing a heavy F21 torpedo against the decommissioned Premier-Maître L’Her, tearing the 80-meter ship’s hull and sinking it.
In February, the Navy conducted a shock test on the Lafayette-class frigate Courbet, detonating a naval mine near the ship while it was sailing with its crew.
Source: here
Decision to be made soon on new craft for maritime reconnaissance units – April 29, 2025
Marine Corps leaders will decide this year whether to equip each of their divisions with a maritime reconnaissance company and new medium-sized ships to explore the coastline.
Lieutenant Colonel Brian Lusczynski outlined some of the work already completed on the new unit concept today at the annual Modern Day Marine military exhibition in Washington.
The companies, one for each of the Marine Corps’ three active divisions, could contain between a dozen and 18 multi-mission reconnaissance craft and an undisclosed number of unmanned vessels to accompany each during operations.
“We don’t expect to trade lead and paint with a destroyer,” Lusczynski said.
The medium-sized craft would be larger than the rigid-hulled inflatable boats currently in inventory. They must be able to handle open-ocean conditions and carry Marines, their gear, and enough command and control equipment for a variety of missions.
“You get 10 to 15 miles offshore and you start to experience open ocean conditions,” Lusczynski said.
Some of the work to better understand the needs of this new type of formation and craft has been done by the Marine Corps Reserve in recent years.
In 2023, Marine Corps Systems Command requested industry input for small drone boats that could be used for reconnaissance and surveillance. These types of boats could be used in conjunction with multi-mission reconnaissance boats under the current unit design concept.
Marines could command the boats from shore or anywhere within the ship’s communication range at sea. The boats will focus on the “littoral operating environment,” meaning the water between land and the open sea.
The vessel must be light enough to be towed by a CH-53 heavy transport helicopter or a light tactical vehicle and small enough to fit into a C-130 aircraft.
The Marine Corps Times previously reported that the 4th Amphibious Assault Battalion, a reserve unit based in Tampa Bay, Florida, conducted experiments with small boats in 2023.
If adopted, the boats would be used for “reconnaissance, detection, tactical maneuvering, and logistical support in the maritime domain,” officials said at the time.
The boats would allow Marines to spread out and would have the advantage of being harder to detect than large ship-to-shore vessels such as the current landing craft.
In addition, the boats are faster than the amphibious assault vehicle, the Marine Corps’ most commonly used ship-to-shore connector.
Small boats would allow marines to fire in deep water, noted a 2020 analysis by the US Naval Institute.
Source: here
If the “Trump factor” played the most important role in reviving the fortunes of a liberal party in just two months to recover and retain power in Canada in the April 28 elections, will it prove equally powerful when Australians vote to form their next government on May 3?
In fact, this question is shared by a growing number of political analysts around the world. If this question had been asked when Donald Trump took office in the United States for the second time, the dominant response would have been that he is the greatest asset to the conservative movement worldwide and that the parties and leaders who support and applaud Trump and his conservative ideas would do remarkably well in elections in their respective countries.
In fact, this is what happened in France, Germany, and Austria. They may not have won enough to form a government (Germany may be an exception), but their parliamentary performances have made them a force to be reckoned with in their countries’ politics and governance, and no one can ignore them.
And for conservatives already in power in Italy, Hungary, Argentina, or, for that matter, India, Trump’s re-election was a huge boost in their fight against the liberal ecosystems that have traditionally dominated their countries.
In other words, there was what some political scientists called the “Trump bump” for conservatives everywhere who wanted to emulate the US president’s nationalist and anti-establishment policies.
But with Trump in office for the last 100 days, the bump seems to have turned into a “Trump crisis.” Now, conservative leaders around the world are much more cautious in their praise of Trump. In fact, many of them are trying to distance themselves from the US president.
The leader of Canada’s Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, did so, but by the time he did, it proved too late.
Poilievre’s Conservatives held a 45% to 22% lead over the ruling Liberals of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in January. However, Trump’s reaction not only halted the Conservatives’ momentum and led to a resurgence of the Liberals, but also denied Poilievre victory in a constituency he had won three times previously.
Trump’s extraordinary attack on Canada, his repeated suggestion of making it the 51st US state, and unprecedented tariffs on Canadian goods appear to have galvanized Canadian voters. So much so that a political novice, former banker Mark Carney, who won the internal race to succeed Justin Trudeau as prime minister, was considered by his compatriots to be the most capable of dealing with Trump in order to win the election.
Will the same phenomenon be repeated on Saturday in Australia? Well, the Canadian situation may not be exactly the same in faraway Australia, although both are Commonwealth partners. But Trump’s global tariff war and volatile diplomacy are said to be strengthening the prospects of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the center-left Labor Party.
As in Canada, when Trump was inaugurated in January, Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton was leading in opinion polls as Australians expressed anger over the cost of living and housing affordability.
He appears to have embraced the Trumpian idea of “woke.”
He called for cuts to schools he considers to have a “woke” agenda. Like Trump, he has been in favor of immigration restrictions, deregulation, and federal government downsizing, and has positioned himself as a candidate for change at a time when ordinary citizens are frustrated with rising costs. For Dutton, Trump was “a great thinker.”
But now the Canadian results appear to have improved Albanese’s prospects of winning a second term. A poll conducted by Australian public broadcaster ABC found that more than seven in 10 Australians believe Trump’s actions will leave them worse off financially, while a majority no longer see the United States as a reliable security partner.
Up to 66% of Australians now believe that their country can no longer rely solely on the United States and must continue to develop its own military capabilities. This figure was below 40% in June last year.
Of course, as his Canadian counterpart Poilievre did in the days leading up to the election, Dutton tried to distance himself from many aspects of Trump’s agenda, particularly on trade. He criticized US tariffs, saying that Trump’s self-proclaimed “Day of Liberation,” when the reciprocal tariffs came into effect, was “a bad day for our country.” But it remains to be seen whether this will be enough when Australians vote this weekend.
However, Canada and Australia are not the only two countries where association with Trump’s policies is affecting their right-wing/conservative leaders.
Although the Christian Democratic Party did very well in the last German elections, its leader, Friedrich Merz, decided to form a coalition government with the Social Democrats and has emerged as a significant critic of Trump’s policies toward NATO and Ukraine.
Despite her affinity with Russia and Putin and her skepticism toward NATO, French right-wing and nationalist leader Le Pen does not present herself as close to America under Trump. She now seems to view Trump more as a liability for her future political fortunes.
Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who visited the White House in recent days to meet with Trump, could represent a path forward for right-wing populists seeking to balance their political survival while moving toward the center, observers say.
In this context, it is worth finding out whether Trump has abdicated conservative ideals and principles as a result of becoming isolated internationally. His critics argue that he lacks the moral foundation and conservative principles necessary to truly represent a conservative perspective. They cite examples of how he expands his power by ignoring norms and the law.
Although they have never been entirely static and open to change due to the demands of the times, conservative ideals, as seen in America, have essentially been the following:
· A commitment to limited government and low taxes.
· A belief in capitalism and the market economy, the allocation of resources through the free play of supply and demand, as the only economic system compatible with the requirements of personal liberty and constitutional government.
· A strong national defense, with an emphasis on an army capable of defending American interests abroad.
· Nationalism with a strong respect for Judeo-Christian values and thus opposition to policies that are apparently discriminatory against the white majority.
· Separation of powers in which each branch has a clearly defined constitutional role—Congress makes laws, the president governs, and the judiciary interprets the laws. They should remain within their respective spheres of authority and zealously guard them against encroachment.
Did Trump really compromise on the above? Viewed dispassionately, his supporters are right when they say that Trump is not the “evil” he is made out to be. Their counterarguments are as follows:
There is now a growing federal debt that exceeds the annual economic output of the United States, posing an existential threat to the future prosperity, freedom, and happiness of Americans. Therefore, Trump will restore America’s fiscal sustainability, ensuring that future generations inherit a more prosperous and secure nation.
Trump is not against immigration, but against illegal immigration. The idea of separation of powers is not under attack by him, but by the inferior judiciary that makes it impossible for an elected president to function.
If Trump argues against American involvement in foreign wars or for reducing the US share of collective defense with allies and partners, it is because the US defense budget cannot be sustained in the long term with growing debt. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the manpower to wage war on behalf of the United States.
In this context, Trump’s plan for hemispheric defense is essentially a return to the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, whereby the United States maintains military supremacy over the Western Hemisphere and keeps foreign powers at bay, which makes perfect sense.
Trump’s supporters argue that he has only made a reasonable request: that NATO nations increase their defense spending to five percent of GDP. However, most NATO allies barely reach two percent, while the Germans have not yet reached this target.
In this sense, hemispheric defense will force Europeans to finance their own defense and rebuild their armies to Cold War levels, which can only benefit America’s efforts to have more reliable and capable allies, rather than, as Vice President Pence said, freeloaders.
Regarding Trump’s idea of territorial expansion, it is noteworthy that his statements are based on political and historical precedents. In 1917, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John from Denmark, and followed up with the acquisition of Water Island from a private Danish company in 1944.
Even in the case of Canada, it is interesting to note that there have been periodic calls in Canada’s Atlantic provinces—Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland—that if French-speaking Quebec secedes, they will seek to join the United States.
It seems that many believe that British Columbia, which is separated from Canada by the Rocky Mountains and whose economic ties are more closely linked to the West Coast of the United States, would also like to be with the United States if neighboring provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan exercise their American option.
Apparently, there is no solid defense from Trump’s supporters regarding his tariff war. All in all, this war could be cited as going against a fundamental conservative principle: that the market economy is best managed through the free play of supply and demand, with personal freedom, rather than through government interference.
It is said that when the government interferes with the workings of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation.
Is Trump’s tariff war the real reason for his decline in popularity among conservatives, not only in the United States but also in the rest of the world? Many, perhaps, will say “yes.”
Source: here
South Korea’s Hyundai to develop new submarine for Peruvian Navy – April 29, 2025
In February, quoted by Defense News, Guillaume Rochard, head of strategy and partnerships at Naval Group, attacked ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems [TKMS], claiming that the German shipbuilder was a “champion in the art of creating new competitors,” particularly in the field of submarines. This has just been illustrated by the choice made by the Peruvian Navy.
For example, in the 1980s, the shipbuilder Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft [HDW], a subsidiary of TKMS, made extensive transfers of know-how and industrial technology in order to win tenders launched by South Korea for conventionally powered submarines derived from the Type 209 [KSS-I program] and Type 214 [KSS-II program].
As a result, the South Korean shipbuilding industry is now capable of developing and producing its own submarines… not only to meet domestic demand, but also to try to win export markets. It has just done so, through Hyundai Heavy Industries, in Peru.
While TKMS is involved in the modernization of the six Type 209 submarines it acquired between 1974 and 1983 from Germany, the Peruvian Navy will turn to the South Korean manufacturer to replace them. However, this was to be expected, given that a memorandum of understanding was signed to this effect at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima last November.
Last week, Hyundai Heavy Industries signed a memorandum of understanding with the Peruvian state shipyard SIMA for the joint development of a new submarine based on the HDS-1500 model, which was officially unveiled at the “Colombiamar 2025” international maritime defense conference.
“The main objective is to develop customized submarines based on Hyundai Heavy Industries’ advanced technology and Peru’s maritime defense needs as part of the renewal of the Peruvian Navy’s aging fleet,” the South Korean industrialist explained.
“Hyundai Heavy Industries is expanding its cooperation from surface ships to submarines through a long-term partnership with the Peruvian Navy. Hyundai Heavy Industries has completed all preparations to enter the Latin American market, with Peru as its stronghold,” said Joo Wonho, head of the group’s naval and special ship division.
Last year, HHI was chosen by Lima to be the “strategic partner” of the SIMA shipyard, one of the largest in Latin America, to deliver to the Peruvian Navy a frigate based on the HDF-3200 model, an HDP-2200 offshore patrol boat, and two 1,500-ton landing ships. All for $463 million. And that was just the beginning, as there was talk of a subsequent order for at least 11 more ships.
As for the HDS-1500, designed according to an open architecture, it is a submarine with a displacement of 1,500 tons submerged, 65 meters long and a diameter of 6.5 meters. Equipped with a lithium-ion battery-based propulsion system, an optronic mast, and “advanced” sensors, it will be operated by a small crew of 25 submariners. Ultimately, it will be able to carry fiber-optic-guided Tiger Shark torpedoes.
Source: here
The Kremlin’s aggressive policy towards the Northern Sea Route: is there an antidote? – 30.04.2025
Bohdan Ustymenko, Director of the Institute for National Security (Ukraine), PhD
The formation of maritime policy is of particular importance to Vladimir Putin. In 2001, a year after his election as President of Russia, Vladimir Putin approved the first naval doctrine of the Russian Federation. In 2015, after the occupation of Crimea and the simultaneous seizure of approximately 3/4 of the entire area of Ukrainian maritime space in the Azov-Black Sea basin in 2014, the second maritime doctrine was approved. The third, current naval doctrine was approved in the year that marked the beginning of the large-scale invasion of Ukraine.
To consolidate his influence over the state’s maritime sector, the Russian president created on August 13, 2024, the Maritime Council of the Russian Federation, which is responsible, in particular, for strengthening Russia’s defense and security in the World Ocean and developing the Northern Sea Route. The Maritime Council was headed by one of V. Putin’s closest friends, long-time associate, former FSB director, and secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev. Such an important appointment may indicate that Putin is seriously preparing to wage a hybrid war against NATO in the maritime domain, which will include acts of underwater sabotage not only in the Baltic Sea, but also in the North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea and other areas of the World Ocean, where the critical underwater infrastructure facilities of NATO member states are located.
The current maritime doctrine of the Russian Federation reflects V. Putin’s views, in particular, on the main international processes and the undisguised desire to dominate the Arctic region, primarily through the effective “privatization” of the Northern Sea Route* (ILR). Russia considers the ILR to be its “national transport communication” and has a clear intention to “control the naval activities of foreign states” in the water area. No ship can enter the PHC without permission from the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom (Rosatom) or an organization authorized by Rosatom.
It is important to note that the PHS is not a thin line on a map or a narrow maritime corridor. It is a huge maritime area consisting of 28 districts, whose boundaries extend far beyond the territorial sea of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, Russian strategic planning documents state that Russia will protect its interests, in particular, by strengthening the combat potential of the Northern and Pacific Fleet forces (troops), the Federal Security Service, as well as the forces and means of the Russian Guard.
The introduction of a navigation permit in the ILC illegally restricts freedom of navigation, directly violates international law, in particular the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is highly likely to lead to an armed conflict between Russia and NATO in the future.
In addition, a number of Russian experts and scientists believe that, despite the fact that the Russian Federation ratified UNCLOS in 1997, this convention does not apply to the Russian “Arctic sector,” and Russia has “special, preferential rights” in the Arctic region and, consequently, within the APS. For example, professors I. Zenkin and S. Gureev in the popular Russian textbook “International Maritime Law” write that the shelf of the “Russian Arctic sector” belongs exclusively to the Russian Federation. At the same time, the upper point of this “sector” is the North Pole, the lateral points are the western and eastern extremities of the Russian border along the Arctic Ocean. It is important to add that the “sector” that Russia so desires covers approximately half of the entire area of the Arctic Ocean!
Well-known Russian scientists also believe that Russia, within its jurisdiction, can organize civilian aircraft flights over the PHC (and in fact establish a permit regime for flights in the airspace above the PHC), as well as has exclusive rights to explore and develop minerals in the “Russian Arctic sector.”
Thus, there is a risk that Russia will act illegally in approximately 6.8 million square kilometers of the Arctic Ocean seabed, the so-called “Russian sector,” as well as the airspace above the ILH, using its own legislation as a legalization tool. Moreover, a negative precedent has already been set – under the eyes of the whole world, Russia has illegally appropriated a huge area of PHC.
Russian-Chinese cooperation in the use of the ILH poses a particular threat to global security. It is well known that both countries seek to strengthen the implementation of joint projects in the development of coastal/port infrastructure in the PHC and mining in the Arctic region. There is a direct interdependence between these states: China has huge Arctic resources that are super important, including gas, as well as shipping in the PHC in the near future, and Russia, in turn, needs vital Chinese investment and technology. If China, using Russia as a springboard, achieves dominance in the Arctic, this could lead to China’s global dominance, given the extremely strong resource and logistical potential of the region.
In addition, Russia and China could use the PHC and its ports for naval and/or sabotage (underwater) operations in the future. Climate change may also threaten the emergence of new Russian and/or Chinese military facilities on islands in the Arctic basin, particularly in the Franz Josef Land archipelago, and the future deployment of Chinese strategic and multi-purpose nuclear submarines as an element of water control.
It should be borne in mind that, in a negative scenario in the Arctic, China, together with Russia or on its own, may attempt to occupy Nunavut, a weakly defended territory of Canada. It is well known that the natural resources of Arctic Nunavut have been attracting China for more than a year.
In addition to the obvious recommendation on the need to radically strengthen NATO’s combat potential, especially in the Arctic region, it is considered appropriate to note the following:
1. As history has shown, particularly the collapse of the Soviet Union, the deep economic crisis of the 1990s in the newly independent Russian Federation, as well as the additional economic growth associated with rising oil prices, Russian oil products and natural gas on the world market since the late 1990s, Russia commits large-scale acts of aggression when it has the appropriate budgets for this (the attack on Georgia in 2008, the occupation of Crimea and approximately 100,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian maritime space in 2014, Russia’s intervention in Syria in 2015, the large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022).
It is therefore necessary to limit as much as possible imports of Russian oil, petroleum products, and natural gas through sanctions. The implementation of this sanctions policy will also halt the development of dangerous Russian-Chinese projects in the Arctic, lead to the degradation of the armed forces of the aggressor states and, consequently, ensure international peace and security in the Arctic region.
(2) In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly may request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on any legal question.
The question of initiating an appeal by the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice to obtain an advisory opinion, containing, in particular, an answer to the question concerning the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean and the regime of navigation therein, should be considered. Although an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is not binding, such a document will be important for political decision-making and for the possible preparation and discussion of a draft international treaty on the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean.
3. In order to maintain international peace and security in the Arctic region, it is considered appropriate to consider the conclusion by all Arctic states and other subjects of international law of the Convention on the Legal Regime of the Arctic Ocean, which will be based on the UN Charter and UNCLOS.
4. In order to prevent the domination of undemocratic states in the Arctic region, to strengthen the security of Nunavut and neighbouring Greenland, and to protect against potential acts of aggression, it is considered appropriate to consider the conclusion of special security agreements with the United States that comply with the requirements of international law.
The Northern Sea Route (NSR – Russian) is a shipping route approximately 5,600 kilometers long. It is the shortest shipping route between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, including between the European part of Russia and the Far East.
Source: here