Russian arms giant exposes German armor's weaknesses
The state-owned defense conglomerate based its assessment on an analysis of a Leopard 2A6 tank captured from Ukrainian forces. Engineers found weaknesses in the tank's armor and internal structure, according to a company statement on Monday.
'The survivability of the tank may be insufficient in modern warfare, for example, amid attacks from various directions with drones and modern man-portable missiles armed with high-explosive anti-tank charges,' Rostec said. The tank's defenses are configured to counter 'classical' anti-tank weapons more common in past decades, the company added.
Rostec pointed to several battlefield incidents during the Ukraine conflict in which German-made tanks were defeated, including a recent example publicized by the Russian Defense Ministry showing drone strikes against a Leopard model. It noted that many of the armored vehicles sent to Ukraine by Germany are older Leopard 1 variants, which it described as 'largely inefficient.'
By contrast, the company said Russian tanks deployed in the conflict have been upgraded to withstand drone attacks and advanced anti-tank missiles. Rostec cited cases where Russian tanks continued to operate after taking multiple hits.
In April, German media reported that some weapon systems sent to Ukraine have performed poorly. The conclusion was based on remarks by a deputy military attaché in Berlin's embassy in Kiev, who reportedly detailed Ukrainian complaints to Bundeswehr officials in January. The official was said to have described the Leopard 2A6 as expensive to maintain and nearly impossible to repair on the battlefield.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has vowed to increase military spending with the goal of making the Bundeswehr 'the strongest conventional army in Europe.' The new government plans to increase defense funding from the current level of around 2% of GDP to 3%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Trump tells Zelensky not to attack Moscow
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he told Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky not to target Moscow with military strikes. The statement comes in response to media speculation that he had encouraged Kiev to carry out long-range missile attacks deep into Russia. The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that Trump had privately asked Zelensky whether he could hit Moscow and St. Petersburg if Washington supplied long-range weapons. Zelensky reportedly replied that he could. Asked by reporters whether Zelensky ought to fire missiles at Russia's capital, Trump replied 'No, he shouldn't target Moscow.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the FT of twisting the president's words, saying it is 'notorious for taking words wildly out of context to get clicks because their paper is dying.' Leavitt insisted that Trump was 'merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing,' stressing that the president was 'working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also weighed in on the report, noting that 'as a rule, all of this usually turns out to be fake.' He added, however, that 'sometimes there are indeed serious leaks, even in publications we once considered quite respectable.' The FT report followed on Trump's ultimatum to Moscow, in which he threatened to impose 'severe' secondary tariffs on Russia's trade partners if no progress towards peace is made within 50 days. Trump also announced future deliveries of advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, which are to be funded by European NATO members. Since taking office in January, Trump has maintained that he wants the neighboring countries to make peace and has had several phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin that were focused on settling the conflict. Moscow says it remains open to negotiating with Kiev but has yet to receive a response on when new peace talks will take place. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul so far this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to carry out large-scale prisoner exchanges. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Tuesday that EU and NATO leaders have put Trump under 'improper pressure' to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here's the fundamental difference between Russian and US strategy towards Ukraine
Donald Trump's recent comments on Ukraine were highly anticipated, especially given his habit of surprising even those who consider themselves seasoned observers. His remarks on 14 July, delivered alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, were characteristically loud but ultimately underwhelming. That in itself should not be surprising. Over the past six months, Trump's style on major international issues has followed a familiar pattern. Ukraine is no exception. At the heart of Trump's approach lies a calculated strategy of noise. He generates maximum bluster to create the impression of strength and decisiveness. What follows is not action, but an endless repetition of simple slogans. Clarification is deliberately avoided, the aim being to appear both consistent and unpredictable. Behind this theater lies a reluctance to become truly entangled in any foreign conflict. Trump wants short, manageable involvement with low costs and quick exit ramps. Above all, he is not willing to challenge the mainstream consensus in Washington as deeply as he claims. For all the bluster, Trump remains tethered to the very 'Deep State' he rails against. The Israel-Iran confrontation earlier this year offers a textbook example. One dramatic strike on Iranian nuclear sites gave the impression of a bold move. It satisfied different parts of Trump's base, pleased Israel, and sent a message to Tehran – without triggering a regional war. Trump got to claim a geopolitical 'win' and was once again floated as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate. But for all the headlines, little actually changed. Iran's nuclear program continues, and the political dynamics of the region remain largely intact. Still, Trump presented it as a major American contribution to world peace. The problem is, Ukraine is not the Middle East. It is far more complex, and Trump appears to know it. His instinct is to avoid the problem altogether. But he can't. The conflict is now a central issue in US-European relations, and Trump's own supporters are split between isolationists and hawks. He knows he cannot ignore Ukraine outright. Nor can he allow Biden's war to become his. This explains the repeated emphasis in his 'It's Not My War' speech. He said it three times. So, what did Trump actually propose? Not much. He suggested that America's European allies should send Ukraine their old weapons systems – especially Patriot batteries – and then buy new ones from the United States, paying '100 percent.' That, for Trump, is the core of the plan: turn war into business. The logic is simple and familiar. Europe gets rid of its aging stock, Ukraine gets support, and America gets orders. But the practicalities remain vague: what systems, what timeline, what delivery mechanisms? These were left unclear. Then there's the question of exerting economic pressure on Russia. Trump approved a plan to impose 100 percent tariffs on Russian exports to third countries. This is a more moderate version of Senator Lindsey Graham's 500 percent threat. The idea is to squeeze Russia economically without enforcing a full embargo. But here, too, the scheme is light on details. The White House will issue the duties and can cancel them at will. Implementation will be delayed by 50 days – standard Trump trade deal tactics. Nothing is final. Everything is leverage. The real message is that Trump is still negotiating. He can't reach a deal with Putin, but he wants to pressure Moscow without entering into an open confrontation. He still refuses to personally attack Putin, saying only that he is 'very dissatisfied' and 'disappointed.' That signals he is keeping his options open. He wants credit for any peace that might emerge but is unwilling to own the risks of deeper engagement. Trump also repeated his claim to being the world's premier peacemaker, listing off a string of supposed triumphs – India-Pakistan, Israel-Iran, Serbia-Kosovo, Gaza ('well, almost'), the DRC and Rwanda, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Egypt and a 'neighboring country' (apparently forgetting the name of Ethiopia). These boasts reflect the core Trump method: declare success, repeat it often, and rely on public attention spans being short. Despite the showmanship, the risk of American entanglement in Ukraine remains high. The measures Trump has announced will not meaningfully shift the military-political balance, but they may prolong the war, at increased cost. Meanwhile, the channel of negotiation opened by Trump's call to Putin in February appears to be closing. Trump is reportedly irritated with Moscow, but Russia has not moved an inch. Nor does it plan to. Putin sees no reason to adapt his position simply to accommodate Trump's political timetable. There are rumors that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivered some new proposals to Senator Marco Rubio in Malaysia. But based on past experience, these are almost certainly familiar Russian talking points in new packaging. Moscow's approach to resolving the Ukrainian crisis has remained unchanged for over three years. Trump's rhetoric won't alter that. From the Kremlin's perspective, Washington no longer has the capacity to engage at the same level as it did in 2023–2024. The political will, financial resources, and strategic bandwidth simply aren't there. Half-measures from the US won't deliver results, though they may prolong the conflict. That is unfortunate, but not sufficient cause for Moscow to adjust its course. Trump, for his part, doesn't want to stay on the Ukraine file. He wants to move on – and fast. Many in the Pentagon share that view. But the war will not end just because Washington wants to focus elsewhere. Neither side has a clear long-term strategy. What remains is inertia – and inertia, for now, is stronger than article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky withdraws Ukraine from landmark anti-mine treaty
Ukraine officially suspended its participation in the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention on Tuesday. The respective bill was passed by the country's parliament and signed into law by Vladimir Zelensky. The landmark agreement, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, bans the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Ukraine joined the treaty in 1999 and ratified it in 2005. In announcing the decision, Zelensky claimed that it was necessary to withdraw from the convention to reach 'at least parity' with Russia. Russia, as well as the United States, China, and several other countries, had never been a signatory to the treaty. Kiev has never been fully compliant with the Ottawa Treaty, as it failed to destroy the vast stockpiles of anti-personnel mines that it inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukrainian forces have been actively using the banned munitions since the early stages of the conflict in Donbass, which erupted in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup. Ukrainian troops have often been seen deploying various anti-personnel mines, including Soviet-made MON-family directional mines, as well as the notorious scatterable PFM-1 'petal' mines. The latter munitions, which are deployed through multiple rocket launcher-fired projectiles, have been repeatedly shot into densely populated civilian areas. According to the Ottawa Treaty, a party to the agreement is allowed to withdraw from it 'six months after the receipt of the instrument of withdrawal by the Depositary,' i.e. the UN Secretary-General. If the country is engaged in an armed conflict when this period ends, the withdrawal will not take effect until hostilities cease. Ukraine's withdrawal from the treaty, first announced by Zelensky on June 29, has been criticized by human rights groups. The use of anti-personnel mines only inflicts more casualties 'over the short and long term,' Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, told the Kyiv Independent. 'Given that Ukraine is in the midst of a war, this is a symbolic move aimed at giving Ukraine political cover to flagrantly violate long-standing prohibitions on developing, producing, and using anti-personnel mines,' she stressed.
