Over 80k aerial targets shot down during conflict with Ukraine
Russian forces have shot down more than 80,000 aerial targets during the conflict with Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has revealed, adding that the country is seeking to create a universal anti-aircraft system capable of intercepting any incoming projectile.
Putin made the remarks on Thursday while meeting with senior civilian and military officials to discuss Russia's armament plans for the period between 2027 and 2036.
The conflict with Ukraine has been marked by the rapid development of aerial weaponry, the evolution of its role and the tactics of its use, Putin noted.
'The new state armament program should ensure the creation of a universal air defense system that is capable of operating in any conditions and effectively destroying aerial strike weapons regardless of their type,' the president stated.
The 80,000 figure includes some 7,500 sophisticated munitions, such as tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and projectiles fired by multiple rocket launchers, Putin noted, adding that nearly all such weapons destroyed had been supplied to Kiev by the West.
However, drones constitute the vast majority of aerial targets intercepted during the conflict. According to the latest figures by the Russian Defense Ministry, more than 63,000 Ukrainian UAVs of all types have been destroyed amid the hostilities.
'The fight against various types of unmanned aerial vehicles required new approaches and non-standard solutions. This field remains particularly relevant,' the president stressed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia's surprising role in the Israel-Iran conflict that you might not know about
During a recent visit to Turkmenistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with his counterparts and addressed students at the Institute of International Relations in Ashgabat. Among the central themes of his remarks was the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel – a confrontation that not only affects global geopolitics but also directly impacts the security dynamics of Central Asia. For Turkmenistan – which shares over 1,100km of border with Iran and has its capital just miles from that border – the growing tension poses serious risks. Beyond humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a wider war could awaken dormant radical networks and destabilize fragile domestic balances. These risks extend beyond Turkmenistan to other southern former Soviet republics that maintain close political and military ties with Russia. Against this backdrop, Lavrov's call for de-escalation and regional stability carried added weight. For Moscow, Iran is not just a partner – it's a pillar in the buffer zone securing Russia's southern flank. Instability in Tehran could ripple across Central Asia, threatening Russia's near-abroad. In January of this year, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement, institutionalizing bilateral ties and hinting at a future formal alliance. Tellingly, just days after Israeli airstrikes targeted Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi flew to Moscow, met with President Vladimir Putin, and held talks with Lavrov. He later described the visit as marked by 'complete mutual understanding' and emphasized Russia's support in an interview with the news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed. Russia, along with China and Pakistan, has since pushed a new UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and a pathway to political settlement. As Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia noted, the resolution aims to stop further escalation. Yet Moscow has been careful in its public rhetoric. At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin avoided inflammatory language toward Israel, instead stressing the need for a diplomatic solution acceptable to all sides. This cautious tone reflects Russia's balancing act: deepening ties with Tehran while maintaining working – and in some cases warm – relations with Israel, including in military and humanitarian channels. That dual posture allows Russia to position itself as a potential mediator, should either party seek a negotiated outcome. On June 13, as Israeli airstrikes intensified, Russia quickly condemned the attacks and voiced strong concern about violations of Iranian sovereignty. Putin went further, calling US behavior in the region 'unprovoked aggression.' Moscow's message was clear: it opposed outside military interventions – full stop. Days before Araghchi's trip, Putin publicly revealed that Russia had offered Iran expanded cooperation on air defense systems, an offer Tehran had not pursued. Far from a rebuke, it read as a nudge: if the strategic partnership is real, Iran needs to meet Russia halfway. Moscow remains open to closer defense collaboration, including integrating Iran's air defense into a broader regional security framework. In retrospect, had Tehran taken up the offer earlier, it might have been better prepared to repel the strikes. For Russia, security is measured not in rhetoric, but in results – and it expects its partners to act accordingly. Crucially, the 2025 strategic agreement between Moscow and Tehran does not entail mutual defense obligations. It is not the Russian equivalent of NATO's Article 5, nor does it mandate automatic military assistance. As Putin clarified, the pact reflects political trust and coordination – not a blank check for joint warfare. In fact, the treaty explicitly forbids either side from supporting a third party that launches aggression against the other. Russia has held to that standard – refusing to engage with perceived aggressors, while voicing diplomatic solidarity with Iran and condemning destabilizing actions by the US and Israel. In short, the architecture of the partnership is built on sovereign respect and strategic equilibrium – not entangling commitments. It centers on military-technical cooperation, coordinated diplomacy via BRICS and the SCO, and shared interest in regional stability. But it stops short of dragging Russia into wars that don't pose a direct threat to its national security. One development drew particular attention: just after Araghchi's Kremlin visit, US President Donald Trump abruptly called for a ceasefire and adopted a noticeably softer tone on Iran. With the exception of a few pointed posts on Truth Social, his messaging turned markedly more measured. Prior to his trip to Moscow, Araghchi emphasized in Istanbul that consultations with Russia were 'strategic and not ceremonial.' He made clear that Tehran viewed the partnership as a platform for sensitive security coordination – not just protocol. Whether by coincidence or not, the shift in US rhetoric suggests Moscow's influence may have quietly shaped the trajectory of events. Russia, after all, is one of the few actors with open channels to both Tehran and Tel Aviv. It's entirely plausible that the Kremlin served as a behind-the-scenes intermediary, securing at least a temporary pause in hostilities. Russia remains a calibrated but consequential player in the Middle East. Accusations that Moscow has failed to 'stand by' Iran are speculative and largely unfounded – both politically and legally. Russia offers solidarity, coordination, and leverage – not unconditional support for escalation. And in a region where words matter as much as missiles, a subtle shift in language from Washington – timed to quiet talks in the Kremlin – may say more than any press release. Diplomacy, after all, often moves where cameras don't.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine in NATO would mean WWIII
Ukrainian accession to NATO would lead to an immediate all-out war with Russia and World War III, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has also cautioned against hastily admitting Ukraine into the EU. Budapest has long opposed Brussels' policies on the Ukraine conflict, including weapons deliveries and sanctions on Russia. It has also urged against integrating Ukraine into NATO and the EU. In a post on X on Saturday, Orban wrote that Ukrainian membership in NATO 'would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day.' He added that the 'EU's reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe.' The Hungarian prime minister described the EU leadership's approach as 'insanity,' vowing not to 'let them turn Europe into a battlefield. Orban's X post came after an interview with Hungarian media on Friday, in which he argued that the admission of Ukraine into the EU would ruin the entire bloc, including Hungary's economy. He previously outlined his concerns over cheap Ukrainian produce undercutting Hungarian farmers. He added that Ukraine's borders and population will remain fluid for as long as the conflict with Russia lasts, making EU membership untenable. On Thursday, Budapest vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev's accession talks. Under EU rules, unanimous approval from all 27 member states is required to initiate the process. According to a communique issued by the bloc, the issue is expected to be brought up again at the council's next meeting in October. Commenting on his country's stance earlier this week, Orban cited the results of a consultative vote in Hungary that ran from mid-April to June 20, which asked: 'Do you support Ukraine's European Union membership?' According to the prime minister, 95% of more than 2 million participants rejected Ukraine's EU aspirations. Earlier this month, Orban insisted that even though the Ukraine conflict is 'unwinnable… war-hungry politicians want us to believe that we must continue the war.' 'We do not want to die for Ukraine. We don't want our sons to come back in a coffin. We don't want an Afghanistan next door,' he said, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. He went on to criticize the increasing militarization of the EU, for which the European Council formally approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing mechanism last month. Moscow has long opposed Ukraine's bid to join NATO, but had until recently maintained a neutral stance regarding its EU ambitions. However, in light of the EU's 'rabid' militarization, senior Russian officials have recently expressed reservations regarding EU membership as well.
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky is ‘politically dead' – Russia's top UN diplomat
Ukraine's 'expired' leader Vladimir Zelensky is 'politically dead' and refuses to step down to avoid accountability for his actions, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia has told RT's Rick Sanchez. In an interview on Sanchez Effect aired on Friday, Nebenzia accused Zelensky of betraying the promises that brought him to power and dragging Ukraine into a wider conflict. He referenced Zelensky's campaign pledge to end the fighting in Donbass, which the Kiev regime and its Western backers derailed by violating the 2014-15 Minsk agreements. 'Zelensky came to power on the promise to end the war in Donbass... He promised one thing, but he turned 180 degrees… Politically, Zelensky is already dead,' Nebenzia stated. Nebenzia said Zelensky is holding on to power to avoid the consequences of prolonging the conflict with Russia and misusing Western funds provided as aid. 'The end of his presidency may entail something for him that he is trying to avoid at all costs: Reporting on the money stolen and the loss of the people whom he failed miserably,' Nebenzia stated. 'So he has all the reasons... to cling to power and not to hold elections.' Ukrainians are our brothers, no doubt about it. But the clique that came to rule them – it is a regime, it is not a government. 'They stole billions of dollars out of the aid they were receiving. That's an open secret,' he said, adding that Kiev has already been asked to report on the aid but has failed to do so. 'I think that when finally it comes to it, the revelations will be very dire.' Zelensky has remained in office since his term expired in May, suspending elections due to martial law. He insists that he has the right to remain in office, though the constitution stipulates that presidential duties should pass to the parliament speaker. Russia has said it is open to talks with Ukraine but questions the legality of any deals made with the current government in Kiev. President Vladimir Putin recently said he would meet with Zelensky but called into question his authority to sign a treaty, as 'the signature must come from legitimate authorities, otherwise, whoever comes after [Zelensky] will toss it to the dumpster.'
