World

Russia and Ukraine pummel each other’s defence industry amid land stalemate

Published

2 years ago

January 4, 2024

Russia and Ukraine pummel each other’s defence industry amid land stalemate

Russia launched a relentless barrage of missiles and drones into Ukraine during the last few days of 2023 and into the new year, revealing weaknesses in Ukrainian air defences that allowed dozens of people to be killed and hundreds wounded.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said it was targeting military industry and infrastructure, something Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny confirmed; but many of the missiles landed on apartment buildings, shopping centres and a maternity hospital in city centres.

Even as Ukraine’s allies called for reinforcements in air defence, Ukraine responded punitively, launching drones into the Russian city of Belgorod that killed at least 26 people.

Overall, Russia was able to deliver greater volumes than Ukraine and attack more often, demonstrating the industrial might it has quietly nurtured under a barrage of Western sanctions.

Frustrating war on the ground

This aerial war played out against a static front line, where Russia now seems to have taken the initiative in assaulting Ukrainian positions – a reversal of the situation during last summer’s Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The slight changes on the military map were in Russia’s favour. Russian forces advanced north and south of Bakhmut, overrunning Bohdanivka and parts of Klishchiivka, villages Ukrainian troops won during weeks of bloody battles last summer, and from which they hoped to surround the occupied city.

But despite repeated assaults, Russian forces were unable to dislodge a Ukrainian bridgehead from the village of Krynky on the east bank of the Dnipro in Kherson.

Here, Ukrainian special forces have stolen a march on the Russians in recent weeks, occupying islands in the Dnipro delta along with a chunk of the riverbank, from where they have conducted counter-battery fire. Russian forces have lost 143 units of military equipment trying to pierce Ukrainian defences. Russian commanders have become so frustrated that they have reportedly ordered their troops to walk across Ukrainian minefields – a suicidal tactic known as the “Zhukov manoeuvre”.

Battle of missile factories

Even as these desperate battles played out on the flatlands of Europe’s most fertile country, Russia opened a new chapter in the air war on December 29.

Under cover of darkness, it unleashed a combination of at least 156 drones and missiles against Kyiv, Odesa, Lviv and Kharkiv. Ukraine’s armed forces said it was the largest single aerial attack on Kyiv. Military analysts said it was the largest series of missile and drone strikes against Ukraine in almost two years of full-scale war.

The Ukrainian Air Force shot down 114 of the missiles and drones, but could not prevent Russia from killing 39 people and injuring 159.

Twenty-four hours earlier, The New York Times had published an op-ed by a member of its editorial board, calling for Ukraine to negotiate. “Regaining territory is the wrong way to imagine the best outcome,” wrote Serge Schmemann.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba responded on X: “Today, millions of Ukrainians woke up to the loud sounds of explosions. I would like the whole world to hear these sounds of explosions … in all editorial offices that write about ‘fatigue’ or that Russia is allegedly ready for ‘negotiations’.”

US President Joe Biden, urging Congress anew to pass $61bn in military funding for Ukraine, said, “It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two years of this devastating war, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate Ukraine and subjugate its people. He must be stopped.”

The attack appeared “to be a culmination of several months of Russian experimentation with various drone and missile combinations and efforts to test Ukrainian air defenses”, wrote the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington, DC-based think tank.

Until December 29, Russia had mainly or exclusively used drones, the ISW said, sacrificing these relatively cheap tools to probe aerial defences and figure out optimal flight paths. On this occasion, Russia used just 36 Shahed-type drones and 120 missiles of various types.

The experiment was a success, the ISW said, as Ukrainian forces failed to intercept a wide array of missiles.

The experiment was also the culmination of months of preparation in ramping up missile production. Ukraine’s military intelligence had estimated in November that Russia was able to produce about 100 missiles a month despite sanctions. This meant that Russia spent about a month’s worth of production capacity in a single night, making that scale of barrage unsustainable. It was also economically unsustainable. Ekonomichna Pravda, a Ukrainian business newspaper, estimated the cost to Russia of the drones and missiles at $1.27bn, using Forbes data. Russia’s entire 2024 defence and security budget is $157bn.

Revenge and counter-revenge

The next day, Ukraine said it launched more than 70 drones against Russian military infrastructure and defence industrial facilities near Moscow, Belgorod, Tula, Tver, and Bryansk cities. Russia’s Defence Ministry said it downed 32 drones, suggesting that many made it through.

Twenty-five people were reported killed in Belgorod. Geolocated footage showed smoke over Bryansk city the next day, suggesting Ukraine may have succeeded in hitting the Kremniy EL factory, Russia’s second-largest producer of microelectronics, most of whose output reportedly goes to the military.

Russia responded. On December 31, Ukraine said it shot down 21 out of 49 drones launched by Russia – an unusually small number, possibly because many were directed at Ukrainian front lines rather than civilian areas, Russia’s usual tactic. It also launched six S-300 missiles into central Kharkiv, injuring 28 people, and again attacked at 1am with drones, causing further damage to shops and cafes but not more casualties.

On January 1, Ukraine’s air force said it shot down 87 out of 90 Shahed drones launched from Crimea and Russia, targeting Odesa, Lviv and Dnipro. Later in the day, six Russian missiles hit Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, injuring 28 people.

Many of Ukraine’s allies called for more air defence systems to be provided, but only the United Kingdom pledged any, saying it was sending Ukraine 200 air-launched air defence missiles. “Putin is testing Ukraine’s defences and the West’s resolve, hoping that he can clutch victory from the jaws of defeat. But he is wrong,” British Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said.

Ukraine said it destroyed nine out of 10 Shahed drones launched by Russia overnight on January 1.

Another wave of drones and missiles came overnight on January 2, including 35 Shahed drones and 99 missiles of various types. Ukraine said it shot down all the drones and 72 of the missiles. In an important victory, it managed to shoot down all 10 Kh-47 Kinzhal hypersonic missiles using US-made Patriot air defence systems.

Ukraine responded with another air attack on Belgorod – launching at least 17 missiles and drones, killing one person – on January 2, and launched a dozen missiles and several drones into Belgorod the following day.

If nothing else, the pattern of Russian attacks confirmed Ukraine’s oft-stated position that if left in Russian hands, Crimea would remain a security threat to its southern regions. Many of the drones and missiles that hit Ukraine were launched from the occupied Crimea Peninsula.

“The costs and challenges of Ukraine’s defense vary dramatically if Crimea returns to Ukraine or remains in Russia’s hands,” wrote the ISW in a strategy paper. “If Ukraine liberates the peninsula along with Russian-occupied lines in the south … then the imminent threat to Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Odesa vanishes and the threat to Melitopol is dramatically reduced,” it said.

Related Topics:europe Featured news Russia Ukraine

Click to comment

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

52 minutes ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

2 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.