In the first decade of the third millennium, the American drone RQ-170 Sentinel allegedly flew deep into Chinese airspace on a secret surveillance mission. What’s shocking is that it returned unnoticed. This stealth drone, nicknamed the Beast of Kandahar, was designed to avoid radars. It gathered intelligence information including about nuclear facilities. The mission was classified for years and no one officially confirmed it. It showed how invisible drones can be – even to a superpower.

Rarely do you have the luck in life to not only observe but also be part of a great change. Drones were known in armies for a relatively long time. A narrow group of intelligence and reconnaissance specialists or experts in fire destruction worked with them. When I took office as chief of operations staff of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan in 2007, such a change occurred.

We began to use drones more intensively not only for reconnaissance, but also directly for conducting combat from the air. The complex mountainous terrain of vast Afghanistan directly demanded such innovations. We began to use the already known MQ-1 Predator more massively. The drone was already modified – capable of carrying two Hellfire missiles or other ammunition. Suddenly we had a multifunctional tool at our disposal. While one drone maintained situational overview over the battlefield, with the second we could execute a quiet and effective air strike. We could immediately evaluate live the effectiveness of the executed strike – so-called battle damage assessment.

Such missions are classified to this day. But much has changed. During the mission in Afghanistan, I began exceptionally allowing the display of live footage from drones monitoring ongoing operations on one of the large screens at the operations center. Some soldiers were scandalized. They were bothered by the live display of combat. Today on social networks and the internet you can find plenty of footage from drones or FPV drone strikes from Ukraine.

In autumn 2007 we received significant reinforcement – the MQ-9 Reaper drone. It was larger than the Predator, lasted longer in the air and could carry more than ten times the combat payload. It could monitor the situation on the ground for entire hours from great height, transmit data to intelligence officers and then strike massively.

In civilian life few people suspected it, but soldiers from ISAF command knew about the use of Predators and Reapers. Besides that, another story was also unfolding out of sight of most ISAF members. At the end of 2007, grainy photographs began spreading on the internet showing a mysterious aircraft with bat wings parked at Kandahar airport in Afghanistan. Aviation enthusiasts were confused. The US Air Force remained silent. Only in December 2009 did it officially acknowledge the existence of the RQ-170 Sentinel, a stealth reconnaissance drone developed by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division.

One of its most dramatic roles? The RQ-170 allegedly flew over Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistani Abbottabad during Operation Neptune’s Spear in 2011. It transmitted live video to American commanders and to the White House. It provided oversight over how Navy SEALs executed the raid in which the world’s most wanted terrorist died.

The mystique around the drone deepened later that same year. Iran claimed it captured the RQ-170 intact. According to the Iranians, the drone was flying 140 miles inside their airspace. It was probably monitoring nuclear facilities. They claimed they hacked into its control systems and forced it to land. The US rejected this claim, but footage of a seemingly undamaged drone appeared on Iranian state television.

Pentagon Shaken by $26 Hack

At the end of 2008, American soldiers in Iraq arrested a Shiite militant. In his laptop they discovered something unexpected – hours of live video recordings from American Predator drones. The footage was captured using SkyGrabber software for $26. It was developed by a Russian company for downloading satellite television and media streams. One teenager came up with this trick.

The insurgents didn’t hack into the drone’s control systems. They simply intercepted unencrypted video channels. Information from these channels was transmitted from drones to ground stations and command centers. Because they weren’t encrypted, anyone with the right satellite antenna and software could tune into them.

The breach was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in December 2009 and later confirmed by CNN and other media. It turned out that the military had known about the vulnerability since the 1990s, already during operations in Bosnia. Encryption had been removed from many channels at that time to prevent latency problems with real-time monitoring.

The Pentagon reacted quickly after the hack information was published. Encryption protocols on UAV platforms were updated. The military began modernizing the ROVER system – Remote Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, which was used to share footage from drones with soldiers on the ground. Officials acknowledged that solving the problem was not trivial, because almost every drone in the fleet used similar connection for downloading information.

Although no missions were compromised, the incident was a wake-up call. It showed how low-tech solutions can exploit high-tech systems and how even the most advanced military tools can be vulnerable to digital espionage. This story shows that drone development is not just about engineering, but also about playing cat and mouse in cybersecurity and electronic warfare.

Aerial Torpedoes

According to Cambridge Dictionary, a drone is an aircraft or small flying device that has no pilot but is remotely controlled by someone on the ground. It is used for monitoring, filming or dropping payload. Key characteristics include the absence of an onboard pilot. It can have various propulsion systems such as battery, combustion engine and similar.

A drone is often part of unmanned aerial systems – UAS or Unmanned Aerial System, which include the drone itself, ground control station and communication equipment. Today the designation drone is no longer tied only to flying devices, but also to remotely controlled ground, surface and underwater devices.

Most people associate drones with the advent of digital technologies that enabled more precise remote control as well as live image transmission. But the history of drones begins much earlier, already during World War I.

The stalemate in trench warfare forced armies to look for innovative ways to attack enemy positions without risking pilots‘ lives. One idea was to develop aerial torpedoes – essentially flying bombs that could autonomously deliver explosives across enemy lines. These early concepts were predecessors of glide bombs, guided missiles and modern UAVs.

Several key initial projects got underway. One of the first was Britain’s Aerial Target project from 1917. It was a radio-controlled aircraft designed by A. M. Low, intended for intercepting German airships. Although the machine never entered combat, it represented pioneering effort in remote-controlled aviation. Low is often called the father of radio guidance systems.

Americans came up with the Kettering Bug in 1918. It was developed by Charles Kettering and the US Signal Corps. It was a small biplane powered by a four-cylinder engine. It used gyroscopes and a mechanical timer for flight guidance and payload dropping. It had a range of up to 120 kilometers and was supposed to be a disposable flying bomb.

At that time, digital technologies or devices for image capture and transmission were not available. Using such flying devices to destroy targets meant great technological challenges. Navigation was the biggest one. It was based on gyroscopes, barometers and mechanical counters. Remote control was in its infancy and reliability was low. Most prototypes were experimental and were never deployed in combat operations.

They left behind a legacy that paid off later. These initial efforts laid the foundation for future development of guided missiles, kamikaze drones and eventually reconnaissance UAVs. They proved the feasibility of pilotless flight, even though technology was not sufficiently advanced at that time for wide use. The idea of a pilotless aircraft for dangerous missions was revolutionary in World War I and remains central to UAV philosophy today.

Military strategy also began to change. These first attempts proved that risk-free reconnaissance and attacks were possible, which influenced the development of unmanned aircraft during the Cold War and modern doctrines such as persistent surveillance and targeted strikes. Every military conflict brings a revolutionary leap to the evolution of technologies. During World War II and the Cold War, these ideas matured into combat drones, spy aircraft and eventually combat UAVs like the Predator and Reaper.

Today’s UAVs use artificial intelligence, GPS and real-time data connections. But the main mission – performing tasks too risky or tedious for humans – remains unchanged. The connection between the Kettering Bug and the Tomahawk cruise missile is direct. Both are unmanned long-range weapons, precisely guided.

Secret Cold War Missions

After the end of World War II, the Cold War began between East and West. The competition moved from land, seas and air also to space. It continued intensively also in the field of unmanned vehicle development. The competing sides suspected each other and wanted to know what secrets the other side was hiding. Espionage and deep reconnaissance over enemy territory became a strategic task. The Ryan Firebee and Lockheed D-21 were two of the most important early American drones. Each represented a different philosophy of unmanned aircraft development during the Cold War.

The Ryan Firebee became a versatile workhorse. The first flight took place in 1952, a year later it was introduced into service. It was a response to the US Air Force’s request to develop a jet-powered target. Originally it was thus a target drone for fighter pilot training and testing missile anti-aircraft systems. Later it was modified into reconnaissance variants – the Model 147 series – during the Vietnam War and Cold War. It was used for electronic warfare, surveillance and even decoy missions.

It was equipped with jet propulsion, capable of reaching speeds close to Mach 0.96 and altitude over 18,000 meters. It could be launched from aircraft like the B-26 Invader, or from the ground with RATO – Rocket-Assisted Take-Off boosters. The RATO booster provided short-term but powerful thrust that allowed the drone to quickly leave the launch ramp. After fuel exhaustion, the RATO booster detached and the drone continued flight using its own turbojet engine. It was controlled by radio connection and equipped with parachutes.

Modified Firebees flew over China and North Vietnam and collected intelligence without risking pilots‘ lives. Some were destroyed by enemy defenses, but many missions were successful and helped shape UAV doctrine.

After the shooting down of the American U-2 spy plane over the USSR came the Lockheed D-21 spy drone. Its development began in 1962, the first flight took place in 1964. It was in active military service only briefly, from 1969 to 1971. It was intended for deep reconnaissance over enemy territory, mainly China and the USSR. It could fly at Mach 3.3 speed at altitude of approximately 27,400 meters.

It had a high-resolution camera and inertial navigation system. The drone was launched from M-21 Blackbird aircraft and later from B-52 bombers. After completing the reconnaissance mission, the machine could drop a film capsule and then proceed to self-destruct so enemies couldn’t capture it. Its use was accompanied by problems. One M-21 launch aircraft crashed during drone startup, killing a crew member. Operational missions over China were unsuccessful, leading to program cancellation in 1971.

During the Cold War, the US and Western countries developed and used several other types of unmanned aircraft, such as the Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug, Lockheed Q-Star, and at the end of the Cold War, the Teledyne Ryan RQ-2 Pioneer.

The Ryan Model 147 was a reconnaissance drone derived from the Firebee. They used it for flights over North Vietnam, China and North Korea. It was equipped with cameras and radar sensors. Interestingly, it was launched from a DC-130 aircraft and after the mission recovered in the air using a C-130 with a hook.

The Lockheed Q-Star or Compass Cope was an experimental UAV for long-term reconnaissance. They developed it in the 1970s as an autonomous reconnaissance system with the ability to return to the launch site. The Teledyne Ryan RQ-2 Pioneer served for tactical reconnaissance. It was used by the US Navy and Marine Corps during Operation Desert Storm. It was one of the first UAVs used in combat conditions.

Soviets Respond

Countermeasures to American development also came from the Soviet bloc. After the U-2 incident in 1960, when pilot Gary Powers was shot down over Soviet airspace, the USSR realized the threat posed by high-altitude reconnaissance. The Soviets began developing unmanned systems that would match US capabilities and reduce dependence on vulnerable manned aircraft.

The key Soviet UAV was the Tupolev Tu-123 Yastreb. It was introduced in 1964 and intended for strategic reconnaissance over NATO territory. The drone was equipped with supersonic jet propulsion and had a preprogrammed flight path. It carried cameras and electronic reconnaissance equipment on board. It was a one-time mission, after which the machine dropped a film capsule and then self-destructed.

Later the Soviets introduced the Tupolev Tu-143 Reis for tactical battlefield reconnaissance. It was introduced into armament in the early 1970s. It was a subsonic machine with short range, a parachute was to serve for its rescue and recovery. It was used in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic it was introduced under the designation VR-3 Reis. Its use was more similar to the Firebee and was used to obtain real-time battlefield information. It was introduced to Czechoslovakia in 1985 and used until 1995. Its role was photographic and television reconnaissance, radiation situation assessment, target tracking at depths of 60 to 70 kilometers.

During a 1988 incident, one of these drones fell by parachute into a kindergarten area in Prague, causing a stir. Officially it was then covered up by designating the VR-3 as meteorological apparatus. The drone was launched from a mobile launcher and could be used up to five times. One VR-3 specimen is now displayed at the Aviation Museum in Kbely and another in Lešany.

The Tu-143 drone went through several modifications and renewals. The M-143 was a target drone version introduced in the mid-1980s. The Tu-243 Reis-D was an improved version with longer range and improved engine. The Tu-300 Korshun was a further refined model with modern sensors and optional ammunition – development renewed in 2007. The Tu-143 system was deployed in Afghanistan by Soviet forces. Syria used it during the 1982 Lebanon War for reconnaissance of Israel. Ukraine during the 2022 war converted it into substitute cruise missiles or for revealing air defense.

Like the Americans, the Soviets also needed target drones for training their pilots and testing missile anti-aircraft systems. The solution was the Lavochkin La-17. They introduced it in 1950. It had a jet engine and was radio-controlled. Later the Soviets developed it into reconnaissance variants.

However, the Soviets faced several technological challenges. Their drones often relied on film cameras, which limited real-time intelligence. Navigation systems were less advanced than American ones and relied on inertial guidance. Recovery or extraction after mission was difficult, especially for dynamic missions or missions with deep penetration over enemy territory.

Soviet unmanned aircraft enabled surveillance over NATO forces and border areas. They were extensively used in Warsaw Pact exercises and some were exported to allies like Syria and Iraq. These programs laid the foundation for modern Russian UAVs including the Orlan-10 and Forpost.

Conclusion

After the end of the Cold War, few suspected what would come. With digitalization came enormous drone development and it continues to accelerate. In the next part we will look at four generations of modern drones, activities of key countries and drone diplomacy.

The post Evolution of Military Drones – Part One appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

#ceasefire #drone #Fico #Israel #Peace negotiations #Putin #Russia #Syria #Trump #Ukraine #USA #War in Ukraine #Zelensky

Welcome to the 128th edition of General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar.

Moderator: Welcome, Palo.

Pavel Macko: Thank you very much, I greet the listeners and wish you a pleasant extended weekend and holiday.

Moderator: And I’d like to ask one more thing – today in Banská Bystrica we commemorate the Slovak National Uprising, and I haven’t read that Robert Fico would be there, so I’m curious if he will come at all.

Pavel Macko: Well, I’m curious about that too, but I’ll be honest, I don’t even want him to go there, because a person who shows neo-Nazi gestures to support one of his prosecuted friends probably doesn’t deserve to stand on the podium.

Fog of War

Moderator: So, General, what is the development on the two main battlefields? Let’s start with Ukraine.

Pavel Macko: I’ll go straight to the point. We always start with strategic bombing, and we had the opportunity to see it yesterday. The Russians attacked furiously again, it was one of the largest attacks.

We already have 21 dead and four dozen wounded. In total, yesterday they launched:

▪️598 Shaheds and various decoys (they release decoys to blind the air defense system)

▪️31 missiles, including two Kinzhals

▪️12-13 Iskander-M or KN-23 missiles (those are Hwasong missiles from North Korea)

▪️The rest were Kalibr missiles from vessels and Kh-101 missiles from aircraft, which the Russians regularly use

This time, the primary target was Kyiv, where they hit 17 different objects in multiple districts of the city, directly in the center. We have 48 wounded here in Poznan. That was the information in the morning when I prepared the materials.

Of course, among other things, the British Council in Kyiv was also hit (that’s their representation, similar to the Polish Institute in our country) and the location of the European delegation, which, by the way, is led by Slovak citizen Katarína Mathernová, the EU Ambassador.

This means that the Russians, with precision weapons that have an accuracy of up to 5 meters, hit the representative mission of the European Union. Any coincidence is ruled out there. It was intentional to have something explode near the EU diplomatic mission. The effect was perhaps greater than the Russians originally wanted to scare those people, but that’s the principle.

It is an absolute negation of any Russian interest in peace. They systematically continued these strategic attacks. Previously on western Ukraine – we even had an attack in Mukachevo, which is a district town very close to our borders, where they attacked an American factory.

There are only three conclusions to this:

1) The Russians will escalate these attacks; they have absolutely no interest in any negotiations

2) They will increasingly focus on infrastructure

3) And this is an important conclusion – I haven’t caught the Russians declaring that the mentioned factory produced anything for the defense industry. It’s ordinary consumer electronics. It cannot be ruled out that it might also do something for the army, but the Russians would be very happy to boast about it to justify the attack on this target.

But they actually attacked this factory directly. This is proof that the presence of American companies somewhere in Ukraine is not a security guarantee. And at the same time, that Russians attack anything that can harm Ukrainians. And they don’t care at all whether it’s a military target or not. Because if that factory wasn’t involved in anything and is located on the opposite end of Ukraine, it in no way contributed to Ukrainian military potential, nor did it threaten Russian aggressive forces that have no business being in Ukraine.

Moderator: Okay, and what about the Ukrainians?

Pavel Macko: The Ukrainians, of course, are trying to respond as well, escalating their campaign. We’ve seen that they’re now really focusing on the energy industry, Russian oil refineries, but also on important railway junctions.

So the Ukrainians, in return, managed to strike near Moscow, where they actually complicated the fuel supply of Moscow itself. Most recently, they also struck 170 km north of Moscow on an important railway junction, but those were diversionary-sabotage actions. That means they blew up trains with fuel, taking that station and junction out of operation for some time.

They attacked similarly in other areas as well. For example, what we saw – at the beginning of the week they attacked one refinery, then in the middle of the week in Novoshakhtinsk, a refinery in the Rostov region, which set the area on fire. Later it was the Siziran refinery in the Samara region, and the Volgograd refinery already cyclically.

They also attacked the Druzhba oil pipeline. This, of course, was met with great displeasure from the Slovak and Hungarian governments. It should be said here that the Hungarian and Slovak Republics have seriously jeopardized their own energy security, because they are aware that a 3.5-year war has been going on in that area, that this is a legitimate target, but even accidentally it can happen that there will be damage… After all, planes don’t fly over Ukraine precisely because there is a war.

And everyone must count on the same thing, that any critical infrastructure, whether intentionally or accidentally, can become the subject of an attack, or be damaged as a result of combat activities. This happens regularly. And we are shouting about Ukrainians that they are terrorists who are defending themselves, but an explosion next to the building of the European Union diplomatic mission, where our Slovak citizens are, that’s okay?

Not to mention that this is a clear attack on the European Union, the Russians are clearly demonstrating that they will continue to dare. And this confirms what I have been saying for a long time, that if we give the Russians an opportunity, if one presents itself, they will also attack the North Atlantic Alliance and then try to de-escalate very quickly by threatening to use nuclear weapons. This is a proven Russian doctrine, it does not change, it is officially exercised, trained, written, and is also implemented by Russian state bodies and Russian political leadership.

Moderator: And I’d like to ask one more thing. Well, why don’t the Ukrainians do the same? Why don’t they start bombing Moscow?

Pavel Macko: Higher moral standard, and the second thing is, the Russians do it – first, they are supported by rogue states, criminals such as the North Korean regime or Iran, and quietly by China, which is a communist regime, although in China communism as a social system no longer rules, but communists rule there and worse, because they actually use hard profit capitalism with perverse exploitation of child labor, but at the same time, it’s simply a gang of communist party leaders who actually have totalitarian power in the country.

And those regimes of Putin and Xi Jinping are very close to each other. Russia can afford, in quotation marks, to do what it wants because it has a huge nuclear arsenal, which Ukraine gave up according to the Budapest Memorandum, and Ukraine is dependent on the help of all the rest of us. And with politicians like Fico, Orbán, but of course others who are critical now, like Polish President Nawrocky, well, Ukrainians cannot afford to do the same in that war as would be demanded, like the Russians. They simply have to maintain that higher standard.

Moderator: Well, you also mentioned some Hungarian, but that’s not a Hungarian Hungarian.

Pavel Macko: Yes, he has the nickname „Magyar“, otherwise he is a Ukrainian of Hungarian nationality, Major Robert Brovdi, he has been known for a long time. He has always been very active since the beginning of the war, he is a Ukrainian patriot. This proves that it does not depend on ethnicity, but that identification with one’s state and the willingness to defend it against an external threat is primary.

And now, it’s a complete bizarreness, because the collaborationist, anti-Hungarian, and anti-European government in Budapest has even put this ethnic Hungarian fighting for Ukraine’s freedom against external aggression on a list saying that he must not enter the Schengen area for three years. To this, the Poles, again Radek Sikorski, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, immediately responded that they are inviting him to visit Poland and that they will ensure his safety on Polish territory, which is also in the Schengen area.

And here I’ll just remind you, it’s good that you asked about that, that Hungary is the gateway and hole for Russian agents and various murderers and arsonists who come to the European Union, because Hungary has simplified the visa regime for Russian citizens at a time when a major war is being waged here.

This means that Hungary’s rhetoric is unpleasant, it is explicitly anti-Ukrainian. Hungary also has territorial claims on Ukraine, so there is a sense of predatory interest there. I’m just shocked and fascinated by where is Slovakia’s national-state interest, because in this case with Druzhba we are talking about the government of the Slovak Republic instead of ensuring energy security, because it knows that it can happen there by accident, stubbornly promotes the interests of a private Hungarian oligarchic company, which actually controls Slovnaft. We so generously privatized it under Mečiar and then our tunnel makers quickly passed it on to a Hungarian company. And actually, one private Hungarian company is now blackmailing two states and the entire European Union because it has political cover. This is a total betrayal of national and national-security interests by Robert Fico and his government.

Continuation of Fighting in Ukraine

Moderator: Let’s go to the battlefields. How are the fights continuing? Is that Russian penetration into the Dnipropetrovsk region serious?

Pavel Macko: Of course, it’s always something worthy of attention, because the Russians are indicating that they could continue beyond those four formally annexed areas, and by doing so, they are literally exposing themselves, I would say, because they reveal those primary goals, that they would really want at least all of Left-bank Ukraine.

I’ll explain for the listeners – Left-bank, when going in the direction of the river flow, everything that is to the left or east of the Dnipro River, so from Kyiv to the east (but the Russians would probably like to get Kyiv too), all the way to the estuary is everything that the Russians would like as a minimum goal. Lavrov confirmed that he wants all of Ukraine.

But when I look at it, so far that penetration is small tactically. On the contrary, the Russians also face the risk that if they get too far, the same thing could happen to them as at Dobropillia, that Ukrainian forces will close the loop around them and they will be surrounded. But the Russians are demonstrating their determination by this.

But there is a broader context here, which I wanted to get to even with those military operations. At that tactical level, the Russians are now systematically bombing bridges across the Dnipro. This means that they are really preparing conditions for the future to disrupt the supply of Ukrainian forces. If they happen to achieve a breakthrough, whether in the Donbas or somewhere else, so that they can advance as quickly as possible to the Dnipro River and to those large population centers of Zaporizhzhia and the city of Dnipro.

This is not imminent yet. When I make a roundup:

▪️In the north, intense fighting, but no change in situation or positions, I mean, whether in Kursk, Sumy, or Kharkiv regions

▪️When we look at Kupiansk, they attacked Sinkivka again. I’ll explain this because until now we’ve been talking about them being beyond the Oskil River in the north, near Kupiansk, where they created such a bridgehead. They are not succeeding in continuing further, so they are again increasing pressure on the opposite bank of the river, just on the northern outskirts of that town of Kupiansk, where Sinkivka is right in the way. So they attacked there now, but those attacks were repelled

▪️When we look at those other directions, Lyman, Toretsk, there are intense battles, attacks were repelled

▪️The situation around Pokrovsk is serious, but it is stabilized. The Ukrainians eliminated that Dobropillia penetration, but that is actually east of Dobropillia. The Ukrainians eliminated this and the situation is more or less static.

Only the Russian pressure is escalating in terms of aerial bombs and other materials. Otherwise, there is no significant breakthrough from either side. We also saw yesterday intensive bombing by Ukraine, whether by drones, even by gliding bombs, of Russian positions along the southern front, in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.

If this continued longer, we would start monitoring it intensively, because it could also indicate that Ukrainians might try to change the situation in this area, but so far it rather looks like it’s preventive.

Moderator: And it’s in the Kharkiv region, not in the Kherson region?

Pavel Macko: I said Kharkiv, I apologize. It’s in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, because I was talking about the south. And it’s exactly there that they attacked their bases, their warehouses, even trains with fuels. And it seems to me that at this moment I would assess it as prevention. Simply put, they are trying to reduce the Russians‘ capacity and strength so that they don’t happen to think about another attack or another offensive in the south.

Middle East

Moderator: The Middle East. Why hasn’t a ceasefire agreement been reached so far? How is the situation developing there?

Pavel Macko: The situation there is of course complicated, there are a lot of emotions around it, as well as many contradictory reactions from politicians on the international scene and the media. Of course, those media, when it’s Al Jazeera, is strongly pro-Palestinian, always looking at it from their angle, then there are international media that try to be objective, then there are Israeli media, which even when they are opposed to Netanyahu, portray the situation a bit differently. So it’s difficult to navigate sometimes.

Currently this week, what happened in the last few days – Hamas formally said that it publicly accepts the Qatari-Egyptian proposal for a 60-day ceasefire, where they would actually also release roughly half of those hostages.

Meanwhile, however, Israel has already approved the plan that we discussed here – a five-phase plan. Now the first phase is running, and that is a plan to conquer the Gaza Strip, to completely control Gaza City and Jabalia, which should complete Israeli control over this area, and then in further phases, the Israelis intend to clean it up, but at the same time later hand over control to some authority other than Hamas.

Why was no agreement reached? Israel first demonstrated that it is capable and ready to carry out that operation. The most intensive phase is to begin no later than October 7th. The preparatory phase is already running, which means that evacuation has occurred, people are being resettled, and at the same time Israel is tightening the noose, which means there is intensive bombing of Hamas positions.

In this area, they have not yet entered with the main force into that space, but they are creating such a closure around that city. To one side, they are letting refugees into camps that are being prepared in the more southern area, and at the same time, they are trying to increase pressure on Hamas.

Quite logically, an agreement was not reached because Israel, in a situation when Netanyahu got approval for this plan, and they also completed that detailed military operational plan last week, wants to increase pressure, because this is just another delaying step from Hamas. Israel wants to resolve it now.

Meanwhile, pressure is increasing to address the humanitarian situation that exists there. The losses are also escalating, and we have also seen large demonstrations in Israel. Because family members are impatient. This is understandable, but there is also the other side of the coin, which says that Hamas has not offered to return your relatives. He offered that part of them, mostly the dead and some of the living, will be returned. And that means, what will happen after those 60 days? The conflict will continue again.

It’s a difficult situation. When we look at the international scene as well, there is strong criticism, largely justified, of the way those operations are conducted by Israel. On the other hand, there is strong support from the United States.

Moderator: And the Czech Republic.

Pavel Macko: I know that, but militarily it’s not that significant.

Moderator: What’s happening in Syria, Lebanon, or in the Red Sea?

Pavel Macko: In Lebanon, the effort to disarm Hezbollah continues. At the same time, we know that next year the mandate of those UNIFIL units will end. And Lebanon, quite logically, in an effort to avoid a larger conflict with Israel, is trying to disarm Hezbollah instead.

Now is the opportune time, because conditions are not favorable for Hezbollah in Syria either. Iran is – I don’t want to say weakened, but certainly its influence is not what it was before, and it has other concerns. It needs to recover from the blow that was dealt to it several weeks ago.

When we look at Syria, the consequences of that conflict in Suwayda are still being addressed. That’s in the southern province, where there were attacks on Druze and fighting between Druze and Bedouins, in which government troops got involved. Israel responded to this. This week we saw strikes from Israel that were on the positions of some Syrian units near Damascus. Behind this is the fact that Israel had some of its reconnaissance-observation and eavesdropping devices, which these troops also attacked. So Israel was cleaning it up there.

The Syrian army – it is not a compact unit. There were various armed factions there, which tried to integrate Kurds in the north. In the south, they integrated various tribes. Today’s president was previously a leader from that main group, which overthrew the government of Damascus with finality. He is trying to integrate it, but we are talking about more than two dozen different groups there. Israel still suspects some of them of being too closely connected with Hezbollah and is trying to eliminate this threat.

I’ll also mention, since the Houthis attacked Israel again, and that was around August 22nd, that’s last time, if we were recording the radar, they sent rockets to Israel, cluster rockets with cluster munitions. And to this, of course, Israeli planes struck back at locations in Sanaa and in other areas at warehouses with fuels and weapons. This means that Israel is responding to this and trying to maintain the safety of navigation in the Red Sea, but mainly to respond to these Houthi attacks.

Strategic Backstage

Moderator: Today I read such an article that the German Chancellor declared that there will be no meeting between Zelensky and Putin. So, the German Chancellor is apparently well informed and knows well what is happening. Palo, what is the state of those preparations for negotiations between Zelensky and Putin?

Pavel Macko: What I’ve been indicating before is being fulfilled, even when we were with Martin Svarovsky at your place in that video, that it will eventually be decided elsewhere. The Russians are looking for pretexts to prevent Putin and Zelensky from meeting. We now saw that attack on Kyiv.

Lavrov has again confirmed that the conditions are not there for it. Putin is willing to meet with Zelensky even when he has in his hands an agreement with which he will definitely agree. At the moment, Putin feels that such an agreement should be the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine not only doesn’t feel up to that, but it can’t do that either.

The latest news also includes those security guarantees about which the Russians spoke so „positively“ and vaguely in Alaska. I have pointed out in several other interviews that we are amateurs even at the highest diplomatic level, that we don’t want to read those nuances. When the Russians say something, what is the nuance there, one needs to weigh not just every word, but every comma, period, and accent mark, because it can completely change the meaning.

The Russians actually just needed to gain time. They are trying to play a big strategic game with the United States and with President Trump, where Putin is gaining the upper hand, because Trump does not have the strength and determination to use the tools he has. He still thinks that for some big deal he will get the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, he won’t get anything, and the conflict continues.

Trump has now approached India more strongly and increased those secondary tariffs to 50%. That’s a kind of selective approach, because he doesn’t have this resolved with China, but on the other hand, it’s at least an indication that in a situation when the Nobel Peace Prize is not in sight, and he looks like a loser in these negotiations, he has to do something and does what is logical. And there is also talk about some sale of longer-range missiles.

Let’s wait, because we’ll find out when those missiles are already flying. There is, of course, such controversy that meanwhile they were restricting the use of longer-range weapons on Russian territory, but there is also some disharmony between the Ministry of Defense and Trump himself, because that has already happened once with the export of those weapons that had already been approved by the previous government to Ukraine.

When I return to the core of the question – the Russians do not want to negotiate, and most recently they said that under no circumstances do they want security guarantees that would consist of having some troops from NATO member countries. They will not accept that.

This means that the fight will continue to the total exhaustion of one side or the other, and we have to think carefully about what we will do. I mean we collectively, the West including Slovakia, although I give the Slovak government zero chance of helping anything. On the contrary, it is capable of carrying out sabotage against Ukrainians, but at least it has been doing political diversion for a long time.

But it can be expected that it will have to come to increased supplies for Ukraine. Ukraine must withstand this. I don’t quite understand the Russian strategy, because for example this attack on Kyiv was senseless, because they had a far greater number of militarily more significant targets they could attack, and simply they are trying to continue conducting that psychological warfare.

But by doing so, they are actually undermining their efforts. Really that Russian warning finger, that caution, we can also hit your European mission, even that is not safe. That is completely before any efforts for a ceasefire, which paradoxically can unite the EU except for exceptions of these two countries.

Moderator: I heard that Erdogan is preparing some steel dome in Turkey. Is it some kind of equivalent to that Israeli Iron Dome? Or what is it actually about?

Pavel Macko: At the very least, by that naming, because they called it Steel Dome, they are trying to imitate something. Iron Dome is iron as such, and Steel is this hardened iron, which is steel. They deliberately chose that name – Golden Dome was also invented by President Trump.

Turkey previously bought S-400 from the Russians, that didn’t meet with much response. Most recently, it has turned out that the Triumf system is not such a triumph as many would imagine.

Turkey, which by the way, and I wrote about it, and I’ll give advertisement to the continuation of that saga about drones, so in the magazine .týždeň in the latest issue I wrote that Turkey is one of the strong players in the field of military drones and is trying to build something like air sovereignty. After seeing that it is occasionally the subject of some sanctions, because we know that they were excluded from the F-35 program, temporarily also from F-16. They regained that with the nod to the entry of Finland and Sweden, that they will be able to maintain F-16 in an operational state.

This week they presented a system, which is actually something similar, but Iron Dome. That Israeli system is a short-range system and is also for such high intensity of those artillery shells and for lower targets and for rockets, but not for that long distance. This Turkish system is from Turkish manufacturers, they also use their own rockets there. Its plus is that it’s quite an interesting solution according to what is publicly available. It is also designed against drones.

This means that it already reacts, the development is such that this integrated complex system of medium and short range responds to drones and can similarly up to those 30, maximum 50 kilometers act also against rockets. This means that it is also an anti-missile shield.

They should also protect the area around the Dardanelles, Bosphorus, where it is absolutely key infrastructure. It’s such a combination. They have ground stations, they have mobile launchers, 47 launchers. It’s in the first package they put together. But there is also a combination of radars, sensors, both on land and at sea. This means also from naval platforms. And some firing means are also from naval platforms. So I will definitely follow it.

Moderator: But the Turks must not find out that you’re watching it.

Pavel Macko: But no. They know that it is being watched by more significant people than me. And therefore they kept the details relatively secret, because parameters of such a system are commonly given. The Turks kept them secret. This means we don’t really know what the reach, range is there.

Slovak National Uprising and Its Legacy

Moderator: We have already mentioned the 81st anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising in the introduction. At this very time, when we are recording the podcast, the speaker of parliament and the president should already be speaking in Banská Bystrica. We still don’t know if Prime Minister Fico is there as well. So we’ll see when we finish recording this podcast. What would you like to say about the Slovak National Uprising?

Pavel Macko: It seems almost absurd to me that this gang of semi-fascists goes to honor the Slovak National Uprising. They stole the Slovak National Uprising from the Slovak nation. It was appropriated by extremists whose rhetoric is purely neo-Nazi, or then extreme.

A prime minister who, in support of some Bombic or Danny Kollár, shows a White Power gesture, or some right-wing extremist gestures, which are very close to fascism. That’s just something that’s terrible. When you take everything they do, who they ally with, that they’re also thinking about integration with Republika, that they already count on them as a future possible partner, given that Andrej Danko is not able to deliver some MPs, even last time he brought such nobodies there to parliament, and he remained the only one from the Slovak National Party, so it’s bad.

But I’ll put it in context. What do I want to convey? First, I want to greet all the still living veterans of the Slovak National Uprising who fought. When I was still serving, at one of the previous anniversaries I had the honor to present medals to 793 of them on behalf of the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces as a deputy chief of the general staff. Unfortunately, it is natural with that age, most of them are no longer alive, there remain just a few. Some of them are active, some less so, but respect and honor belong to all of them.

The message of the Slovak National Uprising is, in my opinion, underappreciated and also profaned by what we just talked about, but also by attacks of such as the Kotleba people, who not so long ago were hanging a black flag on the county office in Banská Bystrica on the anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising.

It should be said, because there will now be many historians talking, and there will be many outputs on this uprising, that that’s why we also left out World War II today. But I’m not going to analyze the uprising itself in detail either. But I want to say, it was an uprising of the Slovak nation, it wasn’t just a handful of rebels. It was that healthy part of the nation, which stood up primarily against domestic fascists, against the domestic regime, which collaborated with Nazi Germany.

And of course the uprising was prepared for a long time. It was then finally accelerated, in the end there was a betrayal, so it had to take place earlier than planned, there was no synchronization of the 1st Czechoslovak Army Corps, the Soviet army, that they should pass through Dukla and start liberating the territory as quickly as possible together with those two East Slovak divisions, which were actually supposed to let those troops through.

What was essential was that it was primarily an uprising against one’s own domestic Ludak regime, where that healthy part of the Slovak nation rejected this totalitarian regime, which murdered its citizens and even paid for it to Nazi Germany in Reich marks for each killed Jew or Roma. That is something incredible.

The message is also in the fact that they fought. Despite knowing that they were going against overwhelming odds, they fought. They also fought against the Nazis, but it wasn’t a pure uprising just against the Nazis, it was an uprising against a regime that was then supported by the Nazis and who then, when they saw that the regime might collapse, also decided on a massive occupation of Slovakia. But the cause and effect were clear there – the primary cause was dissatisfaction with this regime, which was a pro-Nazi regime.

These heroes, whom I still salute, and the government of moderation and others, proved that one should not say that one must not fight against overwhelming odds. Because we’re now hearing from our government representatives that the occupier will leave one day. No, they stood up and started fighting, because they knew that it was important to stand up to evil, and that when that evil uses weapons, you have to stand up to it with a weapon in your hand.

Today, these government representatives, in a forum other than that podium in Banská Bystrica, would probably say that they were some charlatans who fought instead of capitulating and unnecessarily prolonged losses and war. It’s the opposite. Simply put, there are moments when one needs to resist, and fortunately, the Slovak nation had this moment in that uprising, and it is one of the strongest historical moments. Our nation stood up against evil and did not look at whether they had a chance to win or not. It simply stood up because it was the right thing to do, and therefore I think we should value the message of this uprising.

The current situation is bad and is coming to a head, so we need to say again what all the bad things were that the insurgents rebelled against. What all happened after the suppression of the uprising, that Slovak citizens also participated in it, or mainly in some cases, and what rhetoric they used to discredit these insurgents. What rhetoric some politicians use today to discredit democracy in Slovakia or to discredit Ukraine’s effort to survive under the pressure of external aggression.

360°

Moderator: What’s on your radar?

Pavel Macko: I would mention two things. First, Taiwan and again Africa. Unfortunately.

Moderator: And why Taiwan again?

Pavel Macko: Chinese military exercises are currently taking place around Taiwan. It’s called „Joint Sword“ or „Common Sword“ in that strait. These are Chinese military maneuvers. They were launched last week on August 26th. They continued for several days and practiced a blockade of Taiwan. Precise strikes on key targets.

In short, they wanted to demonstrate that when they decide militarily, they are able to block maritime routes in that strait – the Taiwan Strait. That is the area between Taiwan and mainland China. They also had their own aircraft carrier there. They involved fighter planes and the coast guard there.

One should also mention the political context here. Beijing again labeled the Taiwanese president as a parasite and declared that as soon as he will push for complete independence of Taiwan, that means war.

It is strategically important for us. We’ve already discussed it here in that Taiwan is one of the key manufacturers, a completely dominant manufacturer of semiconductors. Today we can’t move without semiconductors. In one such better upper-middle class car, e.g., in a German one, there are 37-40 thousand different electronic components, while Taiwan produces:

▪️100% of advanced chips for artificial intelligence

▪️More than 90% of advanced chips overall

▪️60% of all semiconductors.

Moderator: Okay, and what about Africa?

Pavel Macko: Well, in Africa, Sudan. We haven’t talked about it for a long time. And that conflict really isn’t subsiding, but is escalating. On one hand, there is a complex situation in Darfur. The Sudanese army and those RSF forces or Rapid Support Forces, or rapid reaction forces, rapid support, are fighting there. Those are those rebellious generals who have their own agenda.

And actually, the siege of the capital in Darfur has been going on for a long time. The fighting continues intensively, recently those government troops have seemingly partially gained the upper hand. On the other hand, we see that in the eastern part there are other rebel groups, which the Sudanese government accuses of being fed and supported by Eritrean forces and politicians.

The situation is deteriorating. If we last talked about 5.6 million internally displaced refugees, today we are talking about 10.8 million people. With that, 25 million people have problems with nutrition and food, who are in immediate danger of famine breaking out.

Of course, the international community is not able to somehow organize, suppress this. That conflict is too strong, we don’t have the capacity and probably not the will to go into such a conflict, because it has already been experienced in Somalia, when in the early 90s those fights were taking place between individual factions. The Americans, when they came to help, in the end it ended with the retreat after the fall of that Black Hawk, because those conflicts are very complicated.

Always, when an external player comes there, and it doesn’t matter what kind of international unit, so always the problem is then that in the end somehow the domestic hostile factions group against external forces. So I mention that conflict because RSF tried to declare as if a competing government. The UN Security Council rejected it against that government, because actually there is still a threat of the disintegration of Sudan.

In a situation when we see that that whole sub-Saharan belt, we talked about it last time, is already in disarray, so this is a further deterioration of the situation. A conflict that has been going on since April 2023 has also exceeded more than two and a quarter years.

Moderator: Unfortunately, the Russians are also meddling in their own way in this conflict. Why? Is it so?

Pavel Macko: Unfortunately, in that we see that the Russians are daring, and that they are that source of instability in the world. And there isn’t even any ideology behind it anymore, just ordinary, God-forsaken stealing and plundering of resources.

Moderator: We’re at the quote, so we’re at the end. Sorry, Palo, let me intervene.

Radovan Macko (publishing director): I would like to announce to our listeners that we are planning to come to them. I’ll interrupt you again. This, who is speaking, is Macko, but not the general. It’s Rado Macko and he’s the publishing director.

I am now announcing an important message to you. Dear listeners, we are coming to you this time on September 12th. We will be broadcasting our security radar with General Pavel Macko at Cinematic in Piešťany at 5:30 PM. We cordially invite you and look forward to seeing you.

Pavel Macko: I am also looking forward to it and will be on the road directly. I will be returning from France, where I have some lectures, but I will be even more motivated to get to the domestic audience.

Quote

Moderator: So, a quote. We mentioned the Slovak National Uprising. Today is a holiday, the anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising. I suggested that it wasn’t just a small group of people. That it wasn’t even just a communist uprising, as it was then profaned during socialism, that the communists appropriated that uprising.

Pavel Macko: So I’ll allow myself such a quote from Kornel Filo, a member of the Slovak National Council for the Democratic Party from 1946:

I must emphasize that this was truly and in all consequences a nationwide uprising, a spontaneous explosion of the entire Slovak nation against Nazi neo-paganism, oppression and enslavement. That part of the nation, which our ill-wishers today so gladly label as reactionary, participated in this national uprising. On the fronts of the Slovak National Uprising, ladies and gentlemen, up to 60,000 Slovak Catholics fought.

See also:

General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar 127 – Pavel Macko – Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie

General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar 126 – Pavel Macko – Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie

General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar – episode 125 – Pavel Macko – Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie

The post General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar 128 appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

#aerial attacks #air defence #Chasiv Yar #drone #Pokrovsk #Russia #Russian aggression #Shahed #Ukraine #War in Ukraine

Latest attacks on both sides

Flames engulfed dozens of shops. According to local authorities, there were no casualties in the attacks. In the Kherson region, Russian shelling of the village of Antonivka caused the death of one man.

Ukraine also attacked. According to local reports, an unmanned aerial vehicle that hit a railway station in the Volgograd region in southwestern Russia damaged power lines. A fire broke out at the site.

The most significant damage in Odesa occurred at an electronics shopping center, where stores with electronics and household appliances caught fire. Rescuers, together with volunteers, also extinguished a fire in an abandoned building near the railway tracks.

Ceasefire negotiations and the threat of sanctions

US envoy Steve Whitkoff could negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine in Moscow on Wednesday or Thursday. President Donald Trump announced this and again warned that Russia would face severe sanctions if it did not agree to stop the fighting by Friday when the specified ten-day deadline expires.

Trump said he plans to impose up to 100% import duties on countries that buy Russian oil. Such a measure could particularly affect Brazil, China, and India.

„We will impose sanctions, but it looks like they are quite good at circumventing them. You know, they are cunning people, so we’ll see what happens.“ – Donald Trump

„It is unacceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing oil from Russia. It may be shocking for people to learn that India is essentially at the same level as China in purchasing Russian oil. It presents itself as one of our closest allies, but it doesn’t buy our products.“ – Steve Miller

Interview with General Pavel Macko

Moderator: We will continue discussing the current development of the war in Ukraine in the ČT 24 studio in the following minutes. Pavel Macko, Lieutenant General (Retired), former commander of the NATO Joint Forces Training Center, is already with us. Good afternoon.

Pavel Macko: Good day.

Moderator: Ukraine today confirmed a drone attack on an airport in Crimea, where it reportedly destroyed one fighter jet and damaged four other aircraft. How significant is this strike from a military perspective, especially regarding Russia’s ability to maintain air superiority in the region?

Pavel Macko: We have seen several such Ukrainian attacks over the last two to three days. Regarding Crimea and the attack on the Saky base, where a Su-30MS fighter was destroyed, another such fighter was damaged, and three Su-24 fighter-bombers were damaged, this was carried out by the Ukrainian SBU service, Team Alpha. This means that it was likely done using shorter-range drones, but directly from Crimean territory or its immediate vicinity.

But meanwhile, we have also seen massive attacks deep into Russian territory. The attack on the Volgograd region was already mentioned in the report, but we also saw attacks in the Krasnodar region on the Sochi base or Sochi airport, where there is also an oil terminal of the Russian company Rosneft. That was burning too. We saw Ukrainian strikes on multiple industrial facilities.

This means that Ukraine is gradually improving its ability to penetrate Russian air defense and simultaneously destroy not only military objects but also the military-industrial complex – factories that supply either electronic components or radio-electronic warfare systems for Russian weapon systems.

The Russians are responding by trying to fortify facilities being built in Milerovo, Gvardeysk, and also in Crimea, where the Russians are trying to build improved shelters for air equipment, even after the successful „Spider web“ operation that the Ukrainians carried out in early July.

Moderator: Ukraine has also admitted responsibility for hitting a fuel depot in Sochi. Is this more of a signal for the Russian leadership, or potentially the Russian public, or does it change something about the current balance of forces?

Pavel Macko: It’s not just a signal. Simply put, Ukraine is gradually trying to equalize in the capability of long-range attacks. The Russians attack with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and especially Shahed drones. Ukrainians have a wider spectrum of these long-range drones, they are developing other drones as well, and we will see increasingly frequent attacks on these bases.

The Russians are improving aircraft positions, fortifying all facilities, trying to strengthen air defense, but similar to how Ukraine has problems intercepting Russian drones, this applies to the opposite side as well. Through this, Ukraine is clearly demonstrating that Russia is not invulnerable.

Basically, for Ukraine, this is the only effectively possible way to defend against increasing Russian aggression – to act asymmetrically, disrupt the Russian rear, meaning logistical and air bases, and thus not allow the Russians to escalate the transfer of forces and offensive means to the Ukrainian battlefield.

Moderator: How challenging is it to hit such targets without direct air support, only with the mentioned drones, and what does this possibly tell us about the current capabilities of the Ukrainian army?

Pavel Macko: The Ukrainians have demonstrated not only on land but also at sea that they can equip these resources with relatively good navigation and communication tools. Thus, they can control them remotely, or they operate in a semi-autonomous mode. In any case, they need to guide them to the target area.

This means that the Ukrainians have this communication relatively resistant, the Russians cannot completely jam it and cannot destroy all these targets. As a result, Ukrainians penetrate deeper and deeper into these areas, and that’s why the Russians are resorting to mechanical fortification of objects.

Of course, it’s a never-ending story, because Ukrainians will escalate these attacks. Ukrainians are definitely advancing technologically. It’s a kind of duel – we see that in the drone area, the basic cycle is 3 to 6 months. This means that what works well today may not work in 3 months because the other side has a counter-tool.

For example, the Ukrainians recently put into operation Interceptor 2.0. It’s their own product, but there are also components from Western countries. It’s a drone designed to hunt Russian drones, and this will likely continue on both sides.

Drone warfare and production capacities

Pavel Macko: First of all, Ukraine is significantly ramping up drone production and is also receiving increased aid. Most recently, Britain announced that it would deliver around 100,000 drones, and these are mostly combat drones for contact combat.

Ukraine specializes primarily in long-range drones, but it is also developing ballistic missiles, which it has already tested, and now they are waiting for serial production to start. Similarly, Ukraine is trying to produce cruise missiles.

Moderator: And what do we actually know, or conversely, don’t know at all, about Russian reserves and Russian production capacities? Because during July, according to Ukrainian authorities, Russia attacked with 6,300 long-range drones and sent 198 missiles and rockets, which in the case of drones is the most per month, and there were more missiles only in June. So how long can Russia still maintain this?

Pavel Macko: It’s a battle for survival on both sides and a race against time. Both sides are escalating production. The Russians are capable of producing about 120 missiles of various types per month.

In their latest use, the Russians also deployed missiles such as the Kh-22, which is an anti-ship missile originally designed to destroy aircraft carriers or as a nuclear weapon carrier. It is very inaccurate, by the way – it has an inaccuracy of up to 600 meters, which is why it is extremely dangerous to use it in built-up areas and very difficult to intercept.

The Russians are producing around 100 to 150 Shahed drones daily, and their planned capacity is that they would like to achieve a capacity of up to 300 drones per day by the end of the year. This would mean a significant increase in the use of these drones from the 5,000 in June, and 6,000 plus in July.

Simply put, after depleting their resources in artillery, where primarily the artillery systems themselves are failing, the Russians are shifting a large part of the focus to drone technology. This is both in contact combat on the front line and in deep attacks.

In short, Shahed drones and their Geran derivatives, which have been modernized, will be the main combat tool of the Russians in the coming months. And the same is happening on the Ukrainian side, but there it’s for the opposite reason – the Ukrainians never had very numerous artillery, and therefore were forced to resort to the dronization of the entire fight.

Strategically important points on the front

Moderator: On the front, the greatest attention is now focused on the locations of Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar. What exactly are the Russians trying to do? Why is this section of the front important?

Pavel Macko: When I consider Pokrovsk, it’s an important logistical hub, which would allow the Russians, if they controlled it, to proceed then from the salient northward and in a kind of arc maneuver try to open up the space of the so far unoccupied Donbas. Of course, in connection with further attacks, or they also have the alternative to continue further into the Dnipropetrovsk region.

Simply put, it’s an important supply route for Ukrainian forces from the direction of Dnipro. Dnipro is a large industrial center, a supply center, and has further connections to central Ukraine.

If we look at Chasiv Yar, it’s a kind of elevated terrain and is actually a direct gateway to the basin where Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are located. Of course, there are other villages there as well.

In the case of Chasiv Yar, the Russians have it almost under control after 16 months, but the Ukrainians are still holding on in the western part. As far as Pokrovsk is concerned, they haven’t directly attacked it, although some reconnaissance and sabotage groups have penetrated there. The Russians are concentrating more on a bypassing maneuver, where they are trying to bypass Pokrovsk from the southwest and from the north and gradually isolate it, interrupt supply routes directly to Pokrovsk, and subsequently either exhaust it or try to take control of it.

In short, both of these cities are important. One is in the western part, the as yet unoccupied part of the Donetsk region, the other is more in the west-central part, that’s Pokrovsk. And it allows the Russians, if they were to acquire them, to contemplate a further attack towards the as yet unoccupied part of the Donetsk region.

Nuclear rhetoric and deployment of American submarines

Moderator: One last thing. The deployment of American nuclear submarines closer to Russia. Is this, in your opinion, an adequate reaction from Donald Trump to the words of Dmitry Medvedev, and does it potentially have any escalation potential? Because spokesman Peskov has already called for caution, saying that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.

Pavel Macko: It’s good that Dmitry Peskov is saying this, because Russia has been constantly intimidating, literally blackmailing with nuclear weapons for three and a half years. President, ex-president Medvedev is not just anyone, because he is after all a deputy of the Security Council and doesn’t say anything into the wind without it being approved from the Kremlin. Or if he were speaking arbitrarily, they would silence him very quickly.

This means that Russia has long been conducting this so-called reflexive control, where it is constantly hinting, suggesting that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons. We hear this from Russian state television every week, that Europe should look forward to an attack, President Putin himself has repeatedly threatened a nuclear „solution.“

And then, of course, came just a verbal reaction from President Trump, which from a military perspective doesn’t have any real significance, because part of these submarines with nuclear missiles is permanently in combat service and is permanently hidden in such areas where the adversary doesn’t know about them.

It’s part of the nuclear triad, and it’s precisely these submarines that are meant to guarantee that in the case of even a first strike from the other side, the one who has these submarines retains the capability of a retaliatory strike. From this perspective, it should be seen only as signaling from President Trump.

Some may have criticized it as an unfortunate word. He used it on an unofficial platform, on his social media. But it was a clear message to the Russians that today’s „language“ from the Russians cannot go on indefinitely. And he implied by this that the United States, like Russia, also has nuclear weapons, and both sides know well that they have the capability of mutual self-destruction. And thus the reproach from Dmitry Peskov should primarily be directed within the Russian ranks.

Moderator: Says Pavel Macko, former commander of the NATO Joint Forces Training Center. Thank you very much for your time. Have a nice day.

Pavel Macko: Thank you for the invitation. Have a nice day.

See also:

How Long Will Russians Continue to Escalate Terror Against Civilians?

Is Russia provoking President Trump?

The post Is Ukraine Balancing the Forces in Deep Drone Strikes? appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

#aerial attacks #Chasiv Yar #drone #Kupiansk #Kyiv #missile #Pokrovsk #Russia #Russian war in Ukraine #Sumy #Ukraine

Battles for the strategic city of Chasiv Yar

Ukraine denies reports that it has lost the important city of Chasiv Yar. Russians, on the other hand, claim that they have managed to occupy it after a 16-month bloody battle. According to Ukrainians, however, defenders remain in fortified positions in its western part. They are also under heavy pressure from the aggressors in another strategic city, Pokrovsk. Russian bombs were also killing in the inland areas.

The battle for the city of 12,000 began with the landing of Russian paratroopers last April. The vast majority of residents were replaced by Ukrainian soldiers, who fortified themselves in cellars and the ruins of buildings. However, the encounter turned into a cruel war of attrition, which turned the industrial settlement into ruins.

For 484 days already, the Russians have been showering Ukrainian positions with grenades, rockets, and suicide drones. Kyiv denies Moscow’s boastful reports that its forces have broken through on the extensive front and occupied the city. According to sources from Czech television, defenders are still holding out in its western part.

Another key city, Pokrovsk, is also falling. Fighting for it has been going on since last July. Here too, Ukrainians lack infantry. Massive Russian attacks with the help of drones often cover the often suicidal advance of small units. Where they manage to break through, the aggressors immediately deploy reinforcements and enlarge the breakthrough. The defenders then have no choice but to retreat.

Attacks on Ukrainian inland

Russians also attacked in the Ukrainian inland. Kyiv was hit in two waves:

▪️First, swarms of Russian drones circled over the city

▪️Then the Russian army fired missiles

In one of Kyiv’s districts, an Iskander missile destroyed part of a residential building.

Interview with Pavel Macko, former commander of the NATO Joint Forces Training Center

Moderator: Good evening to you.

Pavel Macko: Good evening.

Moderator: So if we first stop at those Russian air strikes on Ukrainian territory, they have been much more massive lately. What tactics do the Russians use in them and how does the Ukrainian air defense manage to respond?

Pavel Macko: Well, they are already combining those attacks, whether with missiles or drones. But they are already flying in with those drones from all directions. In this way, they are trying to saturate basically the entire air defense system. Meanwhile, they have also improved the design of those drones. And it’s harder for Ukrainians. They still had a 95% success rate last year. Now it’s about 79%. And against missiles, of course, they are gradually running out of those ground-to-air resources, and the effectiveness reaches about 50%. So this is actually the main way Russians are trying to break through that defense – to saturate it with the maximum number from all directions.

Moderator: When I turn it around, how successful is Ukraine in its air strikes on Russia, and can it match Russia in the production of unmanned machines, or missiles?

Pavel Macko: Ukraine is catching up in the production of these unmanned machines, and of course we are talking about different categories. Russians primarily threaten Ukraine with those Shahed clones, which they are now producing themselves. And Ukraine has made very significant progress, has greater reaches into the depths of Russian territory. Those strikes are increasingly effective and really inflict severe blows to that Russian infrastructure, but also to the Russian military-industrial complex. For example, strong Russian air defenses cannot prevent all these strikes. And additionally, Ukraine is also working on ballistic missiles and they almost have a range of up to 700 kilometers and is also working on its own cruise missiles derived from the Neptune missile.

Moderator: If we look at the front, we’ve already mentioned it, Ukraine today denied the Russian claim that the Russians captured the city of Chasiv Yar. What information do we have about what’s happening on the ground, and how important is this city?

Pavel Macko: This city is tactically significant. I know that it’s used in the media as a strategic target, but it’s a tactically significant place. Its possession or control could fundamentally influence the course of fighting in that immediate vicinity. Namely, it would increase pressure on Konstantinovka, and if that fell too, the Russians would open up space for a stronger attack into that northwestern part of the Donetsk region around Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.

It’s also an elevated city, where it’s advantageous tactical terrain for defense, because from it you can also control that surrounding area if the Russians tried to bypass Chasiv Yar. And it’s also advantageous for supporting a possible penetration into the depth of that territory. So it’s important to monitor it.

Ukrainians still hold positions there according to the latest information, but if they lost that city, the Russians would gain such a local tactical advantage. But basically they have to finish, and if they wanted success in that entire Donbas, they probably have to complete the operation in the area of Toretsk and Pokrovsk as well. Or then bet a lot of forces on one breakthrough. But that’s also risky in that they could get to advanced positions and then be subsequently under Ukrainian fire.

Moderator: You mentioned Pokrovsk, which lies about 60 kilometers south of Chasiv Yar. What is the situation there, how important a section of the front is it? Or, where are the key sections of the front now, where the Russians are pushing the most?

Pavel Macko: Let’s start with Pokrovsk. The Russians are trying to bypass Pokrovsk from the southwest, they are actually already beyond Pokrovsk, heading west and also on the northern side. They are using a similar tactic as they used at Vuhledar, that they don’t go for a direct attack on the city and don’t conquer it as at Toretsk, Kupiansk, or mainly at Chasiv Yar for 16 months, which is an extremely long time. So they try to bypass it and gradually isolate the city.

The same thing is happening in Toretsk, where Toretsk is still partially under Ukrainian control and Ukrainians are waging the most intense battles, besides these areas. Chasiv Yar, Pokrovsk, Toretsk. Precisely in the Kupiansk area, where the Russians are again attacking for more than a year and are trying to create a bridgehead and are bypassing that Kupiansk from the north. But they haven’t succeeded so far from the southern side, so they couldn’t surround it. Kupiansk is important because it’s an important hub for supplying Russian troops from that entire area from central or western Russia. At the same time, if the Russians wanted to contemplate any offensive into the Kharkiv region in the future, then they need that Kupiansk under control.

Moderator: Does anything suggest that the Russians might manage a more significant breakthrough in the foreseeable future?

Pavel Macko: Not yet. That Russian offensive is still expected, but it’s running de facto. The Russians are testing the strength of the Ukrainian defense in various places and are trying to break through it. But they haven’t created something that I would call operational reserves. That means at some depth distance from the combat line, that they would have some reserves that they could immediately deploy into that breakthrough, as the Ukrainians did in the case of that breakthrough almost three years ago, when they were attacking precisely in the Kharkiv region.

That means that the Russians will try to break through the defense somewhere. And then they will do the regrouping afterwards by taking from some part of the front and will transfer forces to that breakthrough point as quickly as possible. But that’s mostly by rail and it doesn’t mean that we could expect some massive breakthrough from day to day. Simply put, they will try for such tactical successes. But we see that conquering a city of 12,000 for 16 months is probably not something that could be called modern maneuver warfare.

Moderator: What price are the Russians paying for advancing on the front?

Pavel Macko: That price is enormous. For Chasiv Yar itself, it’s said that those losses could be approaching 10 thousand. Last year, for those 4 thousand square kilometers, the Russians paid with enormous losses. Those are wounded and fallen, not just fallen – 427 thousand soldiers. These losses at this pace are very high.

Ukrainians, although they have a smaller number of personnel, but still using drones and other measures, they manage to quite intensively destroy these Russian attacks. It means that the Russians continue at the cost of those massive waves, when they actually oversaturate that ground defense of Ukrainians, but those Russian losses are disproportionately high. They are high, but apparently it’s not some factor that would influence Russian decision-making.

Moderator: We’re talking about Russian pressure, but do Ukrainians have more initiative in some parts of the front?

Pavel Macko: It’s kind of alternating. Of course, overall, the Russians have the tactical initiative and at this moment also the operational initiative, which means they open those combat encounters. They decide where the attack is mostly happening. But Ukrainians repeatedly in that northern part near Pokrovsk, or in the western part near Chasiv Yar, they repeatedly pushed back even in the last few days.

Back to those Ukrainian units. We saw in the Sumy region that the Russians tried, after the Ukrainians withdrew from the Kursk region, they tried to push towards Sumy through the Sumy region. There, the Ukrainians pushed them back. The same thing happens continuously then at those other main points, whether at Toretsk, or also around Chasiv Yar. The city itself is of course now a gray zone, where they are actually fighting for control of the rest of that western part of the city.

Moderator: Says the former commander of the NATO Joint Forces Training Center Pavel Macko. Thank you very much for the interview. I wish you a nice day.

Pavel Macko: Thank you for the invitation. Have a nice evening.

Note: The original video in Czech and LSovak language you can see here:
https://youtu.be/QsOahqIJa6M?si=prFZA2B8HYRclOBD

The post How Long Will Russians Continue to Escalate Terror Against Civilians? appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.