Russian arms makers make big showing at Arab defense fair
The massive stand is in contrast to the footprint at recent shows, where Russian arms makers have kept a low profile or – in the case of European exhibitions – weren't admitted at all because of the invasion of Ukraine.
With over a dozen Russian exhibitors, many of whom pitched upgraded variants of their weapons, the 2025 IDEX setting was noticeably different from the 2023 edition, when Russian companies were not even listed on the show's official website – though they still had space in a separate pavilion outside the main hall.
This time around, Russian exhibitors were placed in one of the busiest halls of the show here, alongside major regional players such as Saudi Arabia's Military Industries and Qatar's Barzan Holdings.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 fundamentally altered its arms export industry, which saw a significant revenue plunge.
By the end of 2024, the Washington-based think tank Jamestown Foundation found that Russian weapons transfers had declined by 92% from 2021 levels, primarily due to the redistribution of national resources to support the Ukraine invasion and higher interest rates resulting from international sanctions.
Rosoboronexport, the state agency responsible for military trade, has maintained a business-as-usual composure, stating record level of orders for 2024.
Weeks before the exhibition here, Russian companies tried to create buzz around new products, reaching out to Western journalists and publishing press releases in English.
Among them is the Kalashnikov Group, which announced in mid-January that it would be unveiling a new Kub-2-E strike drone equipped with guided munitions as part of a drone-swarming concept and two new rifle designs.
The drones will be deployed by Russian troops from launchers mounted on armored vehicles, designed to target lightly armored military equipment, air defense systems, and helicopter basing sites, per a company press release.
According to the Institute of the Study of War, an American research organization for military affairs, Russia's objective in showcasing these technological adaptations here is 'to introduce innovations to optimize systems for use in Ukraine.'
Sam Bendett, advisor at the Washington-based Center for Naval Analyses think tank, said Russian defense companies are increasingly trying to capitalize on the claim of combat-proven equipment in the invasion of Ukraine.
Russian officials here also showcased an export variant of the T-90 Proryv main battle tank, which was placed at the centre stage of its pavilion and attracted a significant amount of attention from visitors on the opening day of the show here.
It was equipped with different types of protection against first-person-view drones, which have proven increasingly difficult to defend against across the battlefield.
Moscow has touted the capabilities of the platform in the Middle East since 2015, with little success. The tanks are reported to have suffered heavy combat losses in Ukraine, with open-source intelligence analysts having recorded at least 124 destroyed, according to the Dutch-based equipment tracking group Oryx.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump, FCC want to reshape the media landscape starting with CBS
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump and the Federal Communications Commission have vowed to force American broadcast media outlets to make significant changes. CBS may be just the beginning. "President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape," FCC Chair Brendan Carr told CNBC Friday. "The media industry across this country needs a course correction." On Thursday, the FCC voted 2-1 to approve the $8.4 billion merger between CBS parent Paramount Global and Skydance Media after Skydance agreed to ensure CBS news and entertainment programming is free of bias, hire an ombudsman for at least two years to review complaints and end diversity programs. Trump has repeatedly attacked broadcast networks for what he perceives as unbiased news coverage and called on Carr to rescind their licenses. "The new owners of CBS came in and said, 'It's time for a change. We're going to reorient it towards getting rid of bias," Carr said. "At the end of the day that's what made the difference for us." Carr's comments suggest the FCC will ramp up efforts to rid mainstream media of what he and President Trump consider a deep and enduring liberal bias, creating an opening for more conservative views among the biggest media companies. The FCC regulates broadcast media outlets, which use the public airways and are required to act in the public interest. Carr has cited the public interest standard in seeking the changes at CBS. Democratic FCC Commission Anna Gomez accused Paramount of "cowardly capitulation" to the Trump administration. She also said the FCC was imposing "never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law." Earlier this month, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a $20 billion lawsuit filed by Trump, claiming CBS News' "60 Minutes" deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Paramount did not admit wrongdoing. Some Democrats have called the payment a bribe and vowed to investigate. "Trump demands allegiance from everyone around him and it's disgusting to see companies like Skydance and Paramount bowing to his endless and illegal demands," Representative Frank Pallone said. Soon after being designated chair by Trump in January, Carr reinstated a "60 Minutes" complaint, as well as complaints about how Walt Disney's ABC News moderated the pre-election televised debate between then-President Joe Biden and Trump and Comcast's NBC for allowing Harris to appear on "Saturday Night Live" shortly before the election. Disney and Comcast did not immediately comment Friday. Carr told Reuters Thursday the FCC is not closing its investigation into the "60 Minutes" interview. The FCC has required companies like T-Mobile and Verizon to end diversity programs before approving deals. Carr in February told Comcast he was opening a probe into its diversity efforts. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House ethics panel tells Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pay more for Met Gala attendance
Congress Ethics WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Ethics Committee on Friday told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make additional payments for her attendance at the 2021 Met Fashion Gala, where she drew attention for wearing a dress adorned with the message 'tax the rich." The ethics panel, which found the New York Democrat had underpaid for some of the services and clothing for the event, also issued reports Friday on unrelated ethics allegations against Reps. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick or Florida and Henry Cuellar of Texas. In a 31-page report on the allegations against Ocasio-Cortez, the Ethics Committee said she had tried to comply with House rules on accepting gifts but failed by 'impermissibly accepting a gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for her partner and by failing to pay full fair market value for some of the items worn to the event.' As a guest of Vogue, Ocasio-Cortez and her partner received tickets to the gala valued at $35,000, as well as customized clothing, hair and makeup styling and a hotel room to prepare for the high-society event. The congresswoman worked with an attorney to comply with House ethics rules and paid for most of the goods and services with personal funds, but the ethics panel found "the payments were significantly delayed and some payments fell short of fair market value.' In a statement, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Mike Casca, said: 'The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process.' Rep. Mike Kelly The House Ethics Committee issued a formal reproval Friday of Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., following a yearslong investigation into an insider-trading allegation over his wife's purchase of stock in a steel company in his Butler-area congressional district. The panel also said Kelly and his wife, Victoria Kelly, should divest of any stock in the company, Cleveland-Cliffs, before the congressman takes any further official actions related to it. While the committee said it 'did not find evidence' that Kelly 'knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information,' its report also said it 'did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.' However, the report said, 'Representative Kelly's failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the alleged misconduct' and of the investigation itself was a violation of the code of official conduct. The committee did 'not find a clear violation' of conflict of interest. The congressman said in a statement Friday, 'My family and I look forward to putting this distraction behind us." Kelly noted the investigation has 'unnecessarily' lasted for nearly five years, and in the time since the Cleveland Cliffs Butler Works plant faced an uncertain future. 'Throughout this process, I have fought for the 1,400 workers at the plant, I've spoken with these workers, and they appreciate the hard work we have done to fight for those jobs and for Butler,' Kelly said. The investigation was launched after a July 2021 referral regarding allegations the congressman's wife may have purchased stock based on confidential or nonpublic information he had learned during official duties. The Ethics Committee staff reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents, the report said, and interviewed people including the congressman. It found Kelly had advocated for so-called Section 232 tariffs for the product the plant produced even after Mrs. Kelly held stock in Cleveland-Cliffs. 'He took several actions to specifically benefit Cleveland-Cliffs during the time his wife had a direct financial interest in the company,' it said. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick The House Ethics Committee announced Friday it had unanimously voted to reauthorize an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations involving Florida Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. In May, the Office of Congressional Ethics referred several allegations to the House Ethics committee, including claims Cherfilus-McCormick, a Democrat, accepted campaign contributions tied to official actions and requested community project funding for a for-profit entity. The south Florida congresswoman has previously faced scrutiny over her campaign activities and the use of her congressional office. And earlier this year, a Florida state agency sued a company owned by her family, alleging it overcharged the state by nearly $5.8 million for pandemic-related work and has refused to return the funds. In a statement, Cherfilus-McCormick underscored that the ethics panel had not reached any final decision and that the further review does not mean she made any violations. 'I fully respect the process and remain committed to cooperating with the Committee as it works to bring this inquiry to a close,' she said. Rep. Henry Cuellar The House Ethics Committee also reauthorized its investigation into Rep. Henry Cuellar over whether he engaged in multiple illegal abuses of his office. The committee launched its investigation into the Texas Democrat last year after the Justice Department indicted Cuellar on numerous federal charges, including bribery, conspiracy and money laundering. The committee said in its reauthorization that lawmakers are 'aware of the risks associated with dual investigations' and cautioned that 'the mere fact of an investigation into these allegations does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.' Cuellar's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Matt Brown contributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Says His Supreme Court Win Helps Obama—'He Owes Me Big'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump says former President Barack Obama "owes" him "big" after a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 on presidential immunity. Newsweek reached out to the office of Barack and Michelle Obama via online form Friday for comment. Why It Matters The president and former president have been in a public feud this week after Trump accused Obama and his team of committing "treason," alleging the former president manufactured intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Obama's office responded to the accusation in a rare statement, saying in part, "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Obama's spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said. "These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio." The Supreme Court's ruling last year on presidential immunity has broadened the limits of legal protection for presidents, both sitting and former, in relation to their official acts. The decision has had immediate effects on ongoing legal cases involving Trump and has sparked debate about its far-reaching implications. What To Know When asked by a reporter if the Supreme Court ruling would benefit Obama and cover what Trump is accusing him of, the president responded, "It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps him a lot, the immunity ruling, but it doesn't help the people around him at all." The president added, "But it probably helps him a lot ... he's done criminal acts, no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot." Trump then concluded by saying, "He owes me big, Obama owes me big." On July 1, 2024, the High Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their "core" constitutional acts while in office. The ruling stemmed from criminal charges against Trump related to his actions during and following the 2020 presidential election. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that this immunity is essential for the executive branch's independence, and even former presidents are entitled to a presumption of immunity for official acts. President Donald Trump can be seen calling on a reporter during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by... President Donald Trump can be seen calling on a reporter during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) More What People Are Saying Roberts, in the ruling: "It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution." Roberts continued: "And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party." What Happens Next For future presidents of both parties, the immunity standard is likely to serve as binding precedent, making it harder to hold a president criminally liable for actions deemed official. Although Trump signaled that the ruling protects Obama, there is no current investigation that has been announced by the Department of Justice into Obama or his administration over actions during the 2016 election.
