Ukrainian crews operating Australian-supplied M1A1 Abrams tanks say the battlefield has become so saturated with Russian drones that their tanks cannot currently be used in combat, but they reject the idea that main battle tanks have become forever obsolete.
Since receiving these tanks last year, the crews, serving with Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skala,” have used the Abrams in two combat operations in the fight for Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistics hub and part of a defensive belt of towns in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. They recounted their experiences to Hromadske, an independent media channel in Ukraine.
The first major deployment described by the crews took place in December of last year, when Abrams tanks were used to support assault groups entering Pokrovsk.
The crewmember with the callsign Kent described moving into the city behind a mine-clearing tank and ahead of two infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carrying assault troops, during a mission that was deliberately aggressive.
“Since a tank is a priority target — my task was to draw their attention, while our infantry dismounted and moved in successfully.”
The Abrams was also assigned three target points to engage along the route.
“We went right in there, poured it on, and drove back out,” he recalled.
A video showing the 425th Separate Assault Regiment in action in August 2025, soon after receiving the Abrams:
The second operation, on March 31, involved an attempt to enter and hold an industrial area near Pokrovsk to help block Russian movement toward Hryshyne, a contested village in the district.
The operation was prepared for more than two weeks. Ukrainian forces conducted reconnaissance flights, examined difficult sections of the planned routes, and provided crews with extensive video and imagery.
“They knew every meter of the route,” another of the unit’s commanders, with the callsign Kubik, said.
Weather was considered essential. The Ukrainians waited for fog and rain, hoping to limit the effectiveness of Russian drones.
“Without the right weather we wouldn’t have been able to pull off operations like that,” Kubik said.
The operation nevertheless resulted in the destruction of four out of five armored vehicles, some of which are seen in the video embedded below.
Russia's Rubicon Drone Center FPV drones destroyed a Ukrainian assault group near Pokrovsk, hitting an M1A1 Abrams tank, M1117 APC and BMP-2 as the unit tried to advance near Hryshyne under fog cover. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ZzE52qAYxp
— NOELREPORTS
The commander acknowledged that the Russian side may have had advance knowledge of the operation.
“I can’t rule out the possibility that the enemy knew our plan,” he said.
His Abrams was not immediately destroyed. According to the crew, it completed its task and the assault troops dismounted before the weather changed.
“Once the fog lifted, they started working on it with an FPV drone,” the commander said.
The losses prompted criticism from Ukrainian military commentators, particularly after footage of the destroyed vehicles was published.
However, the crews defend the decision to use armored vehicles for the missions. According to the men of the Skala interviewed, the alternative was often to send infantry over several miles on foot while carrying weapons, ammunition, water, and other supplies.
“That takes more time,” Kubik explained. “And the enemy isn’t standing still — the enemy is moving toward them.”
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) December 23, 2025
The tanks of such type recently saw combat in the area of Pokrovsk. pic.twitter.com/qhjSyGbhH6
The argument that infantry could simply move more stealthily on foot also has limitations.
“Every day the Mavic drones are flying, the fixed-wing drones are flying,” he said. “No fog, guys are visible.”
Combined with IFVs, the Abrams can provide the ability to rapidly move troops while simultaneously delivering heavy direct fire against enemy positions and offering substantial protection to its crew.
The crews argue that this capability remains worthwhile even when the tank itself may eventually be lost.
One commander was asked whether deploying a roughly $5-million tank makes sense if a single sortie can result in its destruction.
“Yes, of course it makes sense to deploy it,” he replied.
“First and foremost — it saves the lives of the crew inside it.”
Russian forces captured a relatively lightly damaged M1A1SA Abrams main battle tank operated by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade in the Pokrovsk direction.
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) October 27, 2024
The tank is equipped with added cage armor, as well as Kontakt and ARAT ERA. pic.twitter.com/mHyKk1xNRY
The Ukrainian crews repeatedly highlighted the Abrams’ accuracy and survivability.
“What are the biggest advantages of the Abrams?” Kent was asked.
“Accuracy.”
Its biggest disadvantage, he said, is equally obvious on a modern battlefield: “It’s very tall — and very large — so it’s hard to conceal.”
A video showing a U.S.-supplied Abrams under attack from Russian FPV drones:
— PS01 □ (@PStyle0ne1) July 7, 2024
Kent described surviving an engagement in which his tank was struck repeatedly while on the move.
“More than 20 drones hit me,” he said of one operation into Pokrovsk.
He attributed the Abrams’ survival to the combination of its armor and additional anti-drone protection fitted to the vehicle.
“All of it together is effective,” he said.
He pointed to fairly basic modifications including rubber strips and a foldable wire cage mounted on the turret, as additional layers of protection against drone attacks.
“A drone doesn’t hit the actual penetrating element directly — it just can’t reach it,” he explained. “It hits the rubber, and then the blast wave travels from there.”
Even with their tanks festooned with explosive reactive armor (ERA) bricks, the crews acknowledge that such protection has limits.
US-supplied M1A1 Abrams tank in service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with added Kontakt-1 ERA on the frontal hull and standard ARAT ERA on the sides. pic.twitter.com/PC2kDfxefO
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) May 21, 2024
Kent also noted that the Abrams was still missing the ‘hedgehog’-type protective coverings that have been seen on Russian tanks.
“They also protect very well. An effective thing,” he said.
For now, the drone threat has led the regiment to keep its Abrams out of combat, as we will return to later.
The crews’ assessment of the Abrams included praise for its mobility, roomy interior, gun, and fire-control system.
Kubik said he had personally driven an Abrams to 50 miles per hour cross-country.
“The engine is an absolute beast,” he added.
The tank can also rapidly perform a pivot turn, which the crews consider particularly useful when maneuvering in confined spaces. Despite its prodiguous weight, it only rarely becomes bogged down after the kind of very heavy snow-melt that effects all vehicles on the battlefield.
Loading a 120mm M1028 canister cartridge into an M1A1 AIM Abrams main battle tank of the tank battalion of the 425th Assault Regiment. pic.twitter.com/tMd8QcROQe
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱
Its disadvantages include its demanding maintenance requirements. The running gear was described as particularly sensitive, with crews inspecting, lubricating, and replacing components after every sortie.
Fuel consumption is another major burden. The crew cited roughly 400 to 700 liters (106 to 185 gallons) per 100 kilometers (62 miles) depending on terrain and operating conditions.
“On asphalt it burns about 400 liters,” one said. In boggy terrain, consumption can reach “700 liters or more.”
The Abrams thirsty gas turbine engine and extreme logistical demands have always been a criticism of the platform.
The crews said the vehicle’s ability to operate on different fuels is useful, although diesel provides the best engine-hour performance in their experience. Prior to delivery, the gas turbine engines of the tanks were reconfigured to use diesel fuel instead of the standard JP-8 aviation kerosene, according to earlier reports.
They also praised the Abrams’ protected ammunition storage and crew space compared with Soviet-designed tanks.
The version operated by the Ukrainians is an M1A1 rather than the latest Abrams configuration, with less sophisticated electronics than newer variants. It also lacks the classified armor found on its U.S. Army counterpart.
“For me — as a tanker — this configuration, what we have right now, is more than enough,” Kubik said. “The sight is absolutely excellent. The gun is also great.”
— MAKS 26
The interview ultimately presents a more complicated picture than the declaration that tanks are obsolete on the Ukrainian battlefield.
At the time of writing, at least 25 Abrams have been confirmed visually to have been destroyed, damaged, or abandoned in Ukrainian service. This is from a total of 31 provided by the United States and 49 from Australia.
“For now, we’re not using them further — there’s no way to,” Kubik said. “The enemy has developed their drone component very heavily, and for now we don’t have the means to counter that.”
While tanks remain exceptionally powerful direct-fire and protected mobility platforms, the proliferation of inexpensive uncrewed aircraft has made operating them increasingly difficult.
M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks of the 425th Assault Regiment
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱
The reinforced upper glacis and turret roofs are clearly visible. pic.twitter.com/Sn9h8OWZ9P
“If someone had told me, as a tanker, back in 2022: ‘Take this — we’re giving you an Abrams, we’ll give you time to train and you’ll fight in it,’” Kubik said, “I would never have climbed out of it.”
“I’d only be saying: ‘Bring me shells. I’ll drive non-stop wherever needed, arrive and work.’”
As it stands, reconnaissance drones can find the Abrams, FPV drones can attack it, and persistent surveillance makes concealment difficult. Experience has shown that without more effective counter-drone capabilities, even a heavily protected tank can eventually be overwhelmed.
But Kubik believes that will change.
“The day will come when one of our bright minds figures out some excellent solution against drones — and we’ll start using them again.”
Asked whether the era of tanks is over, his answer was unequivocal.
“It’s not over … They’re just waiting it out for now, biding their time. Writing off tanks — in my opinion — is still too early.”
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
The post How Russian Drones Forced Ukraine To Park Its M1 Abrams Tanks appeared first on TWZ.
It took Europe’s far-right leaders no time at all to work out what Icelanders meant on August 29th, when they voted 52.8% to 47.2% against resuming negotiations to join the EU: a prosperous democracy had looked hard at Brussels and said no. Britain’s Nigel Farage congratulated them on “voting to keep their independence”. France’s Marine Le Pen went further, calling the result a reminder that “another Europe is possible”.
But Iceland did not vote against Europe—it voted to keep the Europe it already has.The country sits inside the single market through the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, is part of the Schengen area, and adopts swathes of EU legislation to stay compliant with standards set in Brussels. Short of membership, there is no closer relationship with the EU on offer.
Opposition to tight integration with Europe remains at the fringes of Icelandic politics and does not appear in any party’s manifesto. The foreign ministry’s latest annual survey showed that only 6% of Icelanders believe that international co-operation diminishes our sovereignty, against 69% who think it strengthens it. On the EEA agreement, 58% take a positive view and only 19% a negative one.
The Icelandic electorate has never shown much enthusiasm for politics built on distrust of institutions, conspiracy theories or the dissolution of the post-1945 international system. A country whose biggest annual festival is the Pride parade, and where women hold the offices of president, prime minister, foreign minister, bishop of the national church, mayor of the capital, chief of police and deans of both main universities is not a promising beacon for movements in the West that are uncomfortable with the inclusive nature of liberal democracy.
That being said, there is no denying that there was more than a whiff of culture wars in the no campaign. The masculine energy was palpable, and much effort went into far-fetched notions of an EU plot to expropriate Icelandic wealth. Young people were, by all accounts, targeted on social media and inundated with phone calls; one of the most potent messages was that EU accession could see them drafted into a European army. The yes side also played loose with the facts, not least in assertions that lower euro interest rates would automatically ease young people’s access to the housing market. Highly nationalistic messaging left some voters in a charged emotional state—and those voices were the loudest online, both during the campaign and in celebrating the outcome.
Still, the result was not a victory for the reactionary fringe. The fringe just happened to be on the winning side. The reasons Icelanders voted no are deep, domestic and largely unglamorous: fish, the currency, a comfortable arrangement with the world and a belief that the international order will remain relatively unchanged, despite temporary turbulence.
Through the EEA and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Icelanders and Icelandic businesses already enjoy the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Every knowledgeable Icelander understands that without the market access, Iceland would not have prospered as it has. No serious politician dares to entertain abandoning the EEA. In fact, the no side ran on defending the agreement as the better alternative to full membership.
On defence and security, Iceland is a founding member of NATO and has a bilateral defence agreement with the US. For a country of 400,000 people that has never in its history had a military, these two pillars seem more than adequate, untested as they may be.
Full membership in the EU would require amending the constitution, which currently does not permit the transfer of sovereign powers that accession involves. This is sensitive in any debate about independence and sovereignty. As things stand, obligations arising from the EEA agreement only reach Icelandic law when the Icelandic parliament, the Althingi, legislates for them.
Iceland owes its rise from poverty to prosperity in the 20th century to controlling the rich maritime resources that surround it. For centuries, foreign fleets exploited those grounds while Icelanders were kept out of large-scale fishing by both restrictions imposed by Denmark (which ruled Iceland from 1380 to 1918) and a lack of financial infrastructure.
At the start of the last century, new technology and financing opportunities unleashed an explosion of entrepreneurial activity in the sector. Iceland then pushed its fisheries zone outwards until it reached its present limit in 1975, over fierce British opposition in stand-offs known as the “cod wars”. It was the closest the country has ever come to a military confrontation. Legal victory in that dispute is a tremendous source of national pride and a standing reminder of the importance of natural resources to our economy. Furthermore, Iceland’s track record in managing this resource compares very favourably with efforts elsewhere.
Accepting the EU’s common fisheries policy is, on the face of it, a requirement for full membership. For most Icelanders, this is where the conversation stops.
It follows that a crucial question is whether Iceland could join the EU and keep control of its fisheries. Accepting the EU’s common fisheries policy is, on the face of it, a requirement for full membership. For most Icelanders, this is where the conversation stops. It is out of the question. Therefore, much of the historical debate about EU membership has revolved around whether a permanent carve-out is possible, and much energy has gone into reading cryptic remarks on the matter from EU representatives. The application launched in 2009 produced no answer. Talks were shelved before this vital question was seriously engaged.
For the yes camp, applying again was the only way to find out the real answer. The no side held that a satisfactory answer was simply not on the table—a belief that makes a no vote logical even for people who do not object to membership in principle. Why board a train if you do not believe it will reach its destination?
Since its adoption in 1918, the króna has been one of the most consistent sources of frustration in Icelandic public life. It started out at par with the Danish krone and, by that benchmark, has since lost 99.9% of its value. Long protected by import, export and currency controls, and propped up by punishing interest rates, it has now been largely abandoned by the big Icelandic businesses that operate internationally. They have mostly chosen the euro as their operating currency.
Despite its drawbacks, the flexibility that a national currency provides a small economy reliant on natural resources is not to be discounted. Some economists claim that the currency is a valuable tool to smooth out external shocks and protect Icelanders from economic setbacks turning into societal hardships such as mass unemployment. For many, the costs of maintaining a tiny currency that is attuned to our specific economic conditions are well worth the benefits of keeping unemployment at a minimum. For others, these benefits are overstated, and the costs in perennially high interest rates and market risk do not make economic sense.
Iceland’s business and finance community is very focused on topline economic figures that show European growth lagging behind America’s. The prevailing narrative is that Europe buries its entrepreneurial talent under the weight of regulation while the US offers a superior environment for economic activity and technical innovation. Iceland’s business and financial community sees the country’s relative economic success as too valuable to risk with full EU membership.
Counter-narratives that build on broader measures of well-being do not seem to gain traction. Even extensive first-hand experience of European quality of life stands little chance when pitted against economic metrics.
Icelanders often cite Mario Draghi’s bleak assessment of the EU’s competitiveness as evidence that even consummate EU insiders have lost faith. The claim of the EU’s supposed economic feebleness does more than feed the economic debate; it has also become a thinly veiled contribution to the culture-war caricature of a weak Europe in contrast to a muscular America.
The biggest disconnect between international affairs experts and the general Icelandic population lies in how each reads the way geopolitics is evolving. Contrary to much international reporting, the volatile state of the world barely featured in the campaign, which was mostly fought on domestic issues. Even threats from the American president, Donald Trump, against our Greenlandic neighbours have not moved the needle. Perhaps most Icelanders viewed the episode as too outlandish to be taken seriously, or too uncomfortable to contemplate.
Icelanders are very supportive of Ukraine and disdainful of Russia’s aggression, but they seem to judge the war far enough away not to affect them. Many are perplexed by America’s current foreign policy yet treat it as a deviation from a norm that will eventually re-establish itself. Bogi Ágústsson, a respected Icelandic journalist, recently told The Economist that Icelanders are in denial about how serious some recent international developments are. I believe most close observers of US politics would tend to agree with him.
During the campaign, warnings about an impending rupture in the world order that underwrites Iceland’s peaceful existence found few takers. The government had brought the referendum forward from a planned 2027 precisely because of these international developments, but worries about Europe’s security and NATO—that now dominate international policy discussions—were simply not top of mind.
In this context, it bears mention that Iceland has never suffered a violent invasion or a hostile occupation, which leaves matters of security and defence largely a theoretical exercise.
While the referendum’s result does not represent what some far-right European leaders wish it did, some elements of the campaign should give cause for concern. The intensity of the rhetoric was excessive considering the low stakes of the vote. Any accession treaty would itself have gone to a second referendum.
The international reaction to the result also suggested that some elements within Icelandic politics are embedded within the international anti-globalist movement. Micro-targeting, emotional pressure and unsupported claims proved effective. A sense of crisis or impending disaster was invoked, inviting a mindset that loosens the scruples that normally keep political discourse civil and constructive. The success of this approach could provide a campaign blueprint that all parties might find hard to resist in future elections, to the detriment of Iceland’s hitherto relatively civil political culture.
As any fisherman knows, illegal bait might get you an easier catch a few times, but eventually will ruin the fishing for all. Trust in elections is a common stock too, and it does not tend to replenish on demand.
Ukraine carried out one of its farthest uncrewed surface vessel (USV) attacks from Ukrainian shores, striking the Nefrit, a multipurpose offshore vessel, in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi. The seaside getaway is located about 350 miles on a direct line from the nearest Ukrainian-held territory, but the trip is a lot longer if originating from Ukrainian-held shores.
This marks the first known USV attack on this city that Russian President Vladimir Putin often visits. As we have reported in the past, it has been attacked several times by Ukrainian aerial drones.
The Ukrainian Navy said it carried out the attack as part of the country’s campaign against Russia’s energy infrastructure. The Nefrit supported that infrastructure, the Ukrainian Navy claimed.
“The multipurpose support vessel, flying the Russian flag, was hit by an unmanned naval vessel of the Ukrainian Navy,” the service said on Telegram. “A powerful explosion and smoke were observed in the area of the vessel.”
“The NEFRIT is part of Russia’s maritime and energy infrastructure, providing support for oil and gas operations, servicing offshore facilities, transporting cargo and personnel, and carrying out underwater technical work,” the Ukrainian Navy explained. “Its activities directly supported the enemy’s war economy and financed the criminal aggression against Ukraine.”
“The damage to the NEFRIT is a blow to the enemy’s logistics, special capabilities, and military-economic infrastructure,” the Ukrainian Navy added. “The Ukrainian Navy continues to deprive the enemy of resources and capabilities for waging war, and once again demonstrates that even Russian territory is not a safe haven.”
— Військово-Морські Сили ЗС України (@UA_NAVY) September 3, 2026
Багатоцільове судно забезпечення під прапором рф було уражене морським безекіпажним катером Військово-Морських Сил. У районі судна зафіксовано потужний вибух та задимлення.
Детальніше https://t.co/DTfnO15nYO pic.twitter.com/yPDFkks37r
While the Ukrainian Navy claimed the Nefrit was damaged, the extent of that is hard to determine from imagery emerging on social media.
Some video, shot from inside the city, shows a large explosion at the port.
—
The port in Sochi, Russia, came under attack from Ukrainian naval drones. pic.twitter.com/XygeQLaAWi
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) September 3, 2026
A still picture shows smoke wafting from the Nefrit; however, the quality of the image makes it hard to determine the vessel’s condition.
Sochi: footage of this morning’s USV raid on the seaport.
— Exilenova+ (@Exilenova_plus) September 3, 2026
The likely target was a Multipurpose Supply Vessel (MPSV) used to support offshore oil and gas operations. pic.twitter.com/Ndr5bRAYV5
There is also video of one of the USVs being destroyed before it could reach its target.
Ukrainian sea drone sails into Sochi port in fascist Russia – appears to be hit by machine gun or cannon fire. https://t.co/GaCZHPu1DJ
— Euan MacDonald (@Euan_MacDonald) September 3, 2026
Starting at about 6 a.m. local time, Sochi Mayor Andrey Proshunin declared an emergency.
“ATTENTION! THREAT OF A USV ATTACK IN SOCHI,” he warned on Telegram. “All forces and resources are working to defend the city. Take shelter in a safe place, remain calm.”
About a half hour later, Proshunin issued an all-clear notice, but did not provide any details about what happened.
There was no immediate response from the Kremlin.
Ukraine has carried out long-distance USV attacks on Russian Black Sea targets in the past, including one in 2023 on the Ropucha class vessel Olenegorsky Gornyak, located in Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. A major Russian port on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, it sits roughly 420 miles from Ukrainian-held shores. Sochi is about 110 miles southeast of Novorossiysk, meaning the USVs in today’s attack would have had to travel an even longer distance if launched from Ukrainian-held shores. However, the launch point of the Sochi USV strike is not publicly known and there is always the possibility that a mothership could have been used.
The attack occurring during broad daylight is also interesting, as Ukraine has often taken advantage of the cover of darkness for USV strike operations on port facilities.
You can see a video of that strike below:
Footage of the Ukrainian USV hitting the Russian Ropucha class LST. pic.twitter.com/ksLP9PZfE5
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 4, 2023
The strike on the Nefrit is the latest in Ukraine’s long-running drone boat campaign in the Black Sea. This onslaught has already kept Russia’s Black Sea Fleet (BSF) at bay, forcing it to retreat from Crimea to Novorossiysk. Ukrainian USVs have also damaged enemy military facilities in occupied Crimea and the Kerch Bridge.
The Houthi rebels of Yemen actually pioneered the operational use of kamikaze USVs years ago. We first reported about this capability in January 2017, when an explosive-laden Houthi USV struck a Saudi frigate. Before that, Iran developed various crude kamikaze USVs and those capabilities soon migrated to their Houthi proxies, which put them to use in the Red Sea for the first time.
In July, the U.S. military used USVs as combat weapons for the first time, striking Iranian targets in Bandar Abbas. The following video shows that attack.
Yesterday, using multiple one-way attack surface drones, CENTCOM forces successfully struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran. Three Corsair unmanned surface vessels hit the port at Bandar Abbas Naval Base, marking the first time American forces have employed sea… pic.twitter.com/bOM2kmgRxz
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 13, 2026
It may be a day or so before we get a better picture of the extent of the damage to the Nefrit. Regardless, the attack itself is another sign that Ukraine can reach targets with sea drones far from its own shores.
All across the battlefield, Ukrainian forces are largely holding off continued Russian attacks or are making small advances. Overall, in August, “Russian forces advanced or infiltrated into about 123.53 square kilometers — an average pace of 3.98 square kilometers per day,” according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). “Russian forces’ main territorial gains in August 2026 have been in the Fortress Belt area, Donetsk Oblast. Even there, Russian forces managed to achieve only marginal tactical gains and have thus far failed to complete the seizure of Kostyantynivka.”
Here are some key takeaways from the ISW assessment.
MORE
— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) September 2, 2026
Air traffic around Moscow continued to be disrupted on Thursday as Russian authorities responded to another large-scale Ukrainian drone operation, according to EU Today. The disruptions came two days after President Volodymyr Zelensky warned international airlines and insurers that Russian airspace was becoming increasingly unsafe for civilian aviation due to Ukrainian drone attacks.
Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said that 548 drones had flown towards the wider Moscow region between 8 a.m. on Wednesday and midday Thursday local time. However, Russian authorities claimed that most were intercepted before they could reach the Moscow area while 143 were destroyed on approaches to the Russian capital.
“Temporary restrictions were again imposed at Moscow’s principal airports,” EU Today noted. “Vnukovo and Domodedovo stopped arrivals and departures for periods during the operation, while Sheremetyevo handled flights under additional restrictions. The measures produced cancellations, delays and diversions extending beyond the periods in which individual airports were formally closed.”
The disruption “had already become extensive on Wednesday,” the publication added. “Flight-tracking data showed 21 cancellations and 235 delayed services at Sheremetyevo, Russia’s largest airport, while Vnukovo recorded 22 cancellations and 94 delays.”
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) September 3, 2026
"Temporary restrictions on the arrival and departure of aircraft have been introduced," Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsia) said.https://t.co/BAlAASaDv5
Putin on Thursday said there is a chance of resolving the “Ukrainian conflict” but Kyiv’s campaign to shut down Russian airspace is “complicating the negotiation process.”
Russia and Ukraine themselves must reach an agreement, while other countries can only support and assist, the Russian leader added, according to a translation from former Ukrainian government official Anton Gerashchenko.
Russia is in contact with the White House and President Donald Trump “is committed to positive and constructive engagement,” Putin proclaimed. “Russia has many friends in the United States. One of them is Steven Seagal, the ‘best envoy of peace.'”
Putin said there is a chance of resolving the "Ukrainian conflict" but Ukraine's threats to shut down Russian airspace are "complicating the negotiation process."
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) September 3, 2026
Comment from me: Putin's orders to attack Ukrainian energy infrastructure aren't complicating anything, it seems… https://t.co/QYJ3AKXjou pic.twitter.com/C1NKz3V7cH
A Russian drone strike on an Odesa apartment building injured at least 17 people, including three children, Zelensky stated on X.
In Odesa, emergency services continue working at the site of a drone strike on an apartment building. Damage to apartments from the 10th through the 17th floors left 17 people injured, including three children. Efforts are also ongoing to deal with the aftermath of the strikes in… pic.twitter.com/FWAmFNJSYp
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 3, 2026
Overall, Ukraine says its air defenses downed or suppressed 135 of 163 Russian drones launched overnight, including Shahed-type UAVs, about half of which were jet-powered. Russia also used S-8000 Banderol, Gerbera and decoy drones. Hits were recorded at 15 locations and debris fell at four.
Ukraine says air defenses downed or suppressed 135 of 163 Russian drones launched overnight, including Shahed-type UAVs, about half of them jet-powered. Russia also used S-8000 Banderol, Gerbera and decoy drones. Hits were recorded at 15 locations and debris fell at four.… pic.twitter.com/JyxTS6QBzL
— NOELREPORTS
Russia has been increasingly using jet-powered drones to attack Ukraine. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry released video it says shows troops from the 208th Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade downing one of those drones. The jet powered Shahed-like one-way attack drones fly higher and faster than their propeller-driven cousins, making them harder to intercept by more cost effective and plentiful means, such as Ukraine’s many drone interceptors. Instead, much more expensive and increasingly scare missile must be used in some circumstances.
— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) September 3, 2026
Jet-powered Russian strike drones intercepted on September 2.
What appears to be the first video of Ukrainian troops using Cold War-era Leopard 1 tanks with turrets swapped out for the Rheinmetall Skyranger 35 short-range air defense system has emerged on social media. The @deaidua X account that tracks German war materiel donations to Ukraine said the 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment recently took delivery of this system, designed to be a highly mobile counter to a range of aerial threats.
The Skyranger 35 “is equipped with a KDG 35/1000 revolver cannon in 35 mm x 228 caliber with a firing rate of 1,000 rounds per minute,” according to Rheinmetall, which began delivering these to Ukraine in January. “It has an effective range of up to 4,000 meters and a high degree of commonality with the Oerlikon Revolver Gun Mk 3. Thanks to AHEAD technology, the Skyranger 35 is airburst-capable. In the future, it will also be possible to equip it with modern guided missiles.”
It seems that Ukraine's 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment which belongs to the Ground Forces has taken delivery of the first Skyranger 35 SPAAGs mounted on a Leopard 1 chassis made by @RheinmetallAG.
— GAU (@deaidua) September 3, 2026
A contract for the delivery of the Skyranger 35 SPAAGs was signed in H2 of… pic.twitter.com/VRWhGx1LCa
A new documentary about Ukraine’s use of the combat-proven National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) air defense system debuts tomorrow.
“Sky Defenders is a new documentary taking audiences inside the increasingly critical battle to protect the skies of Europe and Ukraine,” according to the film’s producers. “Launching globally on Apple TV and Amazon Prime on Sept. 4, the 50-minute film explores the people, technology and strategy behind modern air defense and the race to stop missiles and drones before they reach their targets.”
A new video shows a Russian soldier being attacked by three Ukrainian kamikaze drones simultaneously, underscoring just how dense the drone threat has become to troops near the front.
That kind of attrition is also visible around Pokrovsk, where Ukrainian kamikaze drones are increasingly coordinating strikes against individual Russian infantrymen and small assault groups.https://t.co/HfKBCW7ZOm
— ZSU News (@ZSUNews) September 3, 2026
It’s been more than three years since the Russians captured the town of Bakhmut in the eastern Donetsk region after a long battle that incurred a tremendous toll on personnel and equipment on both sides of the fight. New drone video has emerged showing the city remains in ruins, with blocks and blocks of vacant and destroyed buildings.
A harrowing new video from Bakhmut, filmed in the summer of 2026. The Ukrainian city was captured by the Russians three years ago and has lain in ruins ever since.
— Jürgen Nauditt
In this once-vibrant city of 72,000 inhabitants, there are no longer any shops, schools, kindergartens, cafés,… pic.twitter.com/clFfLu5jkq
That’s it for now. We’ll update this story with new details when they emerge.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post Ukrainian Sea Drones Strike Russian Black Sea Resort Town Of Sochi For The First Time appeared first on TWZ.
The German Navy has demonstrated the launch of Israel Aerospace Industries’ (IAI) LORA ballistic missile from an F125 frigate, with at least two missiles fired from the Sachsen-Anhalt during a test in the North Atlantic last night. The demonstration points to a potentially significant new long-range strike capability for Germany’s surface fleet, should it be adopted.
Video released by the German Ministry of Defense alongside the test shows two LORA launch canisters positioned on the frigate’s flight deck, followed by a missile launching from each container.
— Clemens Speer (@clemens_speer) September 2, 2026
Video: Deutsche Marine pic.twitter.com/eV3yzjrcgg
The launches were conducted as part of the Bundeswehr’s operational experimentation (OPEX) program in cooperation with the Bundeswehr Innovation Center in Erding. Reportedly, two German frigates were deployed to the waters between Ireland and Iceland for the test, and a warning was issued to maritime and air traffic 45 days beforehand.
The test marks a notable expansion of the weapons capabilities demonstrated by Germany’s F125 frigates and could provide a pathway toward a new long-range naval strike capability.
German Navy Inspector General Vice Adm. Jan Christian Kaack described the event in a statement distributed through the Bundeswehr’s official WhatsApp channel:
“With the successful launch of a ballistic missile last night in the North Atlantic, we have made naval history. I am extremely pleased with this achievement. The system can be successfully deployed by our units, and its potential range exceeds anything we have seen before. For the protection of Germany and our allies, this test marks a new chapter in deterrence and defense readiness at sea.”
IAI also confirmed the results of the test, stating that both missiles followed their planned trajectories and struck their targets with high precision.
The exact targets, engagement ranges, flight profiles, and missile configurations used during the test have not been disclosed.
There is no possibility that Sachsen-Anhalt will retain the launchers in their current location, since they mean the F125’s flight deck cannot be used, depriving it of a critical capability. Potentially, they could be installed elsewhere on the vessel, but, moreover, it is unclear if the current experiment will lead to a formal acquisition program.
At the same time, LORA is a substantially different weapon from the anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles normally associated with modern surface combatants.
Available for ship- and ground-launch, the missile is approximately 17 feet long, 25 inches in diameter, and weighs around 3,500 pounds. It follows a quasi-ballistic trajectory and has an officially stated range of approximately 60 to 270 miles. An air-launched derivative has also been developed.
A weapon capable of reaching targets hundreds of miles away would give German surface combatants a long-range strike option extending far beyond the range of traditional naval guns and many shorter-range precision weapons.
Its quasi-ballistic flight profile also differentiates LORA from a conventional cruise missile. A ballistic-style trajectory allows the weapon to cover distance rapidly and presents an air-defense challenge different from that posed by a low-flying cruise missile. This type of missile also impacts its target with much greater kinetic energy, making it especially useful for striking more hardened target sets.
LORA uses a navigation architecture combining GNSS satellite navigation with an inertial navigation system and can achieve a circular error probable, or CEP, of approximately 33 feet. IAI also says LORA can be launched within minutes, including from unprepared positions, and can attack a target within its range in less than 10 minutes after a decision to launch.
Back in 2017, as you can read about here, IAI successfully test-fired LORA from a containerized launcher on the back of a truck sitting on the deck of a cargo ship. The missile successfully struck a target on land.
What is less clear is its ability to strike targets at sea.
A long-range anti-surface application would be particularly interesting for the German Navy, although the weapon, in its basic form, has no terminal seeker. This limits the missile to use against targets with a fixed location, rather than autonomously finding and tracking a maneuvering warship during the terminal phase of flight.
In a 2020 test, IAI demonstrated firing two LORA missiles from a ship before hitting separate floating targets at approximately 60 miles and 250 miles. However, striking a static floating target is different from an enemy warship that is maneuvering and potentially employing electronic warfare and air defenses.
Regardless, Germany has an even clearer requirement for land attack capabilities, which LORA is fully capable of fulfilling, as we will return to later.
As for Germany’s F125 frigates, these were designed primarily for long-duration deployments, maritime security, stabilization operations, and other missions requiring a persistent naval presence. Their overall lack of firepower is something we have examined in detail before now.
The latest test involving the Sachsen-Anhalt is in line with the Bundeswehr’s OPEX framework, which is intended to evaluate emerging technologies and operational concepts under realistic conditions before decisions are made about wider adoption.
There is precedent for such experimentation leading to operational capabilities. Israeli-developed systems, including IAI’s Blue Whale autonomous underwater vehicle, have previously been evaluated through German naval experimentation efforts and subsequently moved toward formal adoption.
As well as the four F125 hulls, Germany might look to incorporate LORA from the start on its future F127 multi-purpose frigates and/or its planned Large Remote Missile Vessels (LRMV), uncrewed vessels that will serve as arsenal ship ‘wingmen,’ supporting conventional surface combatants.
It is worth noting that Germany has recently acquired various other Israeli-made missile and rocket systems. These include the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile system — the largest-ever Israeli defense export deal — and the PULS multiple rocket launcher. A German purchase of the land-based version of LORA would also be an option, with the truck-mounted system also able to be launched from ships at sea.
Meanwhile, Germany is a major provider of weapons systems to Israel, among them its most powerful surface combatants and submarines.
The LORA test also reflects a broader European push toward longer-range precision fires.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of ballistic and cruise missiles, while NATO countries have increasingly sought weapons capable of holding targets at greater distances at risk.
Germany has historically possessed comparatively limited deep-strike capability. The Bundeswehr is now working to expand its ability to conduct long-range precision engagement, both independently and within NATO structures. This includes planned procurement of land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a range exceeding 1,000 miles depending on the exact configuration.
Very deliberate NATO messaging right here – interesting to see the alliance using this kind of signalling https://t.co/BYvpzkq0Vq
— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) September 2, 2026
A naval LORA capability could add another layer to that effort and would allow Germany to distribute long-range fires across surface combatants, complicating an adversary’s targeting problem while giving its naval forces a more meaningful role in high-end combat operations. With the security situation in Europe deteriorating, the potential deterrence factor that such a weapon would bring to Germany, and to NATO, should also not be underestimated.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
The post Israeli LORA Ballistic Missiles Fired From German Frigate appeared first on TWZ.
Login