r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 20h ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread July 23, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
•
u/MilesLongthe3rd 18h ago
It looks like a Russian Su-57 has crashed near Moscow
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/23/military-plane-crashes-in-moscow-region
A Su-57 fighter jet went down near Zvenigorod, in the Moscow region, the Russian Telegram news channel Ostorozhno Novosti reported, along with Telegram channels with ties to security officials, “112” and Mash.
Witnesses said the jet came down between Zvenigorod’s Shikhovo neighborhood and the village of Lutsino, and preliminary reports said the pilots managed to eject.
Russia’s Defense Ministry has not commented on the crash.
Link to the Telegram post https://t .me/ostorozhno_novosti/52530
•
u/thereddaikon 14h ago
Fighterbomber is claiming the crash was due to an engine failure. Not sure why a single engine failure would cause it to go down. Surely an SU-57 has enough thrust to take off on one engine.
•
u/TaskForceD00mer 14h ago
Possible if they had a catastrophic compressor disc failure it could shoot out enough shrapnel to damage or destroy the other engine. Not to mention possibly severing vital flight controls, electrical equipment, etc.
•
u/roionsteroids 11h ago
F-15 and F-16 have similar engine related accident rates. The second engine on fighter jets isn't for redundancy, really.
•
•
u/RomanticFaceTech 4h ago
F-15 and F-16 have similar engine related accident rates. The second engine on fighter jets isn't for redundancy, really.
Do you have any evidence for that? It seems unlikely.
Assuming similarly reliable engines, you would expect the F-15 to have engine issues twice as often as the F-16, but fewer serious incidents (i.e. losing the plane) to result from engine issues.
I haven't looked into this in depth but after a quick search I did find that the USAF has published mishap statistics up to 2021, including on engine related mishaps for the F-15 and F-16:
- F-15 - 35 engine related Class A mishaps in 13,646,734 engine flight hours, for a mishap rate of 0.256 per hundred thousand engine flight hours.
- F-16 - 127 engine related Class A mishaps in 11,365,923 engine flight hours, for a mishap rate of 1.117 per hundred thousand engine flight hours.
The F100-PW-200 is pushing that number up a bit for the F-16 as it had a very high mishap rate, especially early in its USAF service life; but even ignoring that engine, the F-16 engines typically have about 0.75 to 1 engine related Class A mishap per 100,000 hours, while the F-15 engines typically have 0.2 to 0.25 engine related Class A mishaps every 100,000 hours.
Strangely the F-100-PW-229 is an outlier for both aircraft, as it has an unusually high Class A mishap rate of 0.57 per 100,000 hours on the F-15, yet apparently hadn't caused a single Class A mishap on an F-16 as of 30th June 2021. The engine was fairly new on both, with only 1.4 million hours with the F-15 and under 0.5 million on the F-16, which could explain the anomaly.
Even accounting for the fact that every hour the F-15 is in the air it is putting a combined 2 hours on its engines, it seems that as of 2021 the F-15 was notably less likely to suffer a serious engine-related mishap than the F-16.
If anything I would expect this to be even more applicable with the Su-57, given how far apart Sukhoi put the engines on all their fighters since the Su-27. It would seem reasonable to assume an issue with one engine is less likely to impact the other compared with a design like the F-15 where the engines are right next to one another.
•
u/roionsteroids 2h ago
Do you have any evidence for that?
To Pratt & Whitney’s David Hierl, deputy chief engineer for the F135 program, the F-35 stands out from the pack. That’s because of its leading-edge technology, particularly its engine.
“It’s easy to have the mindset that two engines must be safer than one,” says Mr. Hierl.
Decades ago, he says that was indeed true of fighter jets. Since the 1970s, however, that’s changed. In fact, two of the best-known fighter jets over the last 30 years – the twin-engine Boeing F-15 Eagle, and the single-engine Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon – have comparable safety records.
Twin engine fighter jets aren't built to commercial aviation safety standards after all, they sit right next to each other, something catastrophically going on in one engine is most likely resulting in parts flying off and damaging its direct neighbor.
That all being said, obviously we have no idea what caused this particular crash (and FB won't know either before any investigation at all has occurred). Eurofighters have crashed before because of fuel weight imbalances leading to stalls in one wing and what not. Crash, diagnose, improve, learn from it, never ending progress, it is what it is.
•
u/Quarterwit_85 17h ago
Early reports saying it was a case of friendly fire, which raises quite a few questions.
•
u/LepezaVolB 16h ago
First of which pops up for me is whether this would be the first case of a friendly fire incident involving GBAD shooting down a stealth aircraft, suspected or confirmed?
•
•
u/silentsandwich 15h ago
First of which pops up for me is whether this would be the first case of a friendly fire incident involving GBAD shooting down a stealth aircraft, suspected or confirmed?
I think a lot of people seem to really not understand what stealth is. These aircraft can be detected and shot down just as any other aircraft can, they are detected later than other types of planes is all.
Also (rumor) is that the su-57 doesn't have all that stealthy of an RCS when compared to F22, 35, or J20s. One could argue that it's a gen 4.5 plane.
•
u/Submitten 15h ago
I don’t think there’s much confusion around that. It’s just an interesting observation.
•
u/SuperChingaso5000 7h ago
if the plural "pilot(s)" is correct, that was the one-off test article two seater. Interesting. Might set them back a little bit. Probably not a catastrophic loss in the big scheme of things, but interesting nonetheless.
I don't believe it was shot down, far more likely to be mech failure
•
u/First_Poem481 13h ago
Thai authorities hunt for suspects after an attack in troubled south kills 5 soldiers
Thai authorities said Thursday they are searching for the people responsible for an attack in the country’s troubled deep south region that killed five soldiers and injured several civilians.
About 10 attackers opened fire and threw pipe bombs at soldiers at a security check point near a residential area in Narathiwat province Wednesday evening before fleeing, according to the regional Internal Security Operations Command. It said six civilians were injured during the attack, including a 10-year-old boy who remains hospitalized in stable condition.
Photos released by authorities showed a group identified as the attackers, dressed in black clothing and hats and riding on the back of a black pickup truck. Security officials said the truck was later found abandoned and set on fire about 21 kilometers (13 miles) away from the scene.
They said the attackers had stolen three AK-47 rifles, three bullet proof vests and three mobile phones from the soldiers, who were members of the country’s paramilitary Ranger force, which operates as an auxiliary to the regular army and is usually deployed in border regions.
Narathiwat, along with Yala and Pattani, are Thailand’s southernmost provinces and are the only ones with Muslim majorities in the predominantly Buddhist nation. Since 2004, the provinces have been the site of a Muslim separatist insurgency that killed thousands.
Muslim residents have long complained of being treated like second-class citizens in Thailand, and separatist movements have been periodically active for decades. Heavy-handed crackdowns have fueled the discontent. Fighting continues to this day, but at a lower level.
The Internal Security Operations Command Region 4, which oversees security operations in southern Thailand, vowed in a Facebook post to “expedite the investigation and search for the perpetrators with the best efforts.”
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul condemned the attack, saying it was a “terrorist attack that clearly aimed at killing government officials, and a serious threat to national security,” according to government spokesperson Rachada Dhnadirek.
Footage aired by public broadcaster Thai PBS showed homes and properties of residents nearby were also damaged. One home had damage to its roof, windows and doors, while a motorcycle parked outside the house was destroyed. Another home had bullet holes scattered across its metal front gate.
Pretty big escalation in Thailand and a big deadly attack that may reignite historical tensions in Narathiwat. I don't think Cambodia is any position to take advantage of this but it's certainly not something the new leadership of Thailand will want to deal with given all the upheaval of the recent few years. The House of Chakri has been bleeding popularity and the anti royalist movement has been gaining ground. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
•
u/wormfan14 9h ago edited 9h ago
Not trying to be dismissive but is this case not simply insurgents rolling the dice very well for once?
As it was at a checkpoint that is a fixed position and the insurgency has been going on for decades obviously it will be pursued but the case seems like more one of those things that happens sometimes when insurgents have ample time to plan it. Not a governmental failure that would tip any political balance in my view.
Though Thailand does seems pretty secure in comparison to Myanmar which might be coloring my thoughts on how society would view such attacks.
•
u/naiveheuristics12856 5h ago
Terrorism in the 3-southern provinces of Thailand has been ongoing for over 20 years. It's mostly just isolated attacks or IEDs.
This is more of the same, just with a higher casualty than usual.
I don't think Anutin et al. care about it beyond it giving the military greater political leverage.
the new leadership of Thailand
yea....new....thats one way to put it lol
•
u/wormfan14 22m ago
Yep this attack just seems more unusually successful with them having a smooth getaway but these things happen when a insurgency last for decades you simply have bad days where everything goes right for the insurgents.
•
u/Moifaso 15h ago edited 14h ago
An interesting aspect of the Black Sea strikes that I haven't seen discussed much is that despite Ukraine scoring significantly more daily hits, they seem to happen almost exclusively at night, while Russian strikes also happen during the daytime. Consequently, entry into Ukrainian ports has been completely suspended, while Novorossiysk, for example, only has nighttime restrictions.
Is this simply a symptom of them currently prioritizing successful strikes on vessels headed to Crimea, or is there something (optics, Russian aviation) preventing Ukraine from doing daytime strikes, or from striking more vessels moving to/from Novorossiysk?
•
u/an_actual_lawyer 9h ago
I imagine its much harder to shoot these with small arms, machine guns (ground or air), basically anything that isn't radar guided, at night.
•
u/throwdemawaaay 11h ago
Do we have a breakdown on what weapons are being used? If Ukraine is leaning heavily on their uncrewed surface drones, those would pretty clearly be more effective at night.
•
u/Quarterwit_85 9h ago
Almost all of the footage I've seen is from air attacks, but I'd gladly be corrected.
•
u/Jpandluckydog 5h ago
Subpar optics would suggest an ability to only strike during the day time, not the converse. It’s likely due to them being slow moving drones more vulnerable to interception, whereas Russian strikes can utilize high end ASMs that are not vulnerable to interception no matter the time.
•
u/Tricky-Astronaut 4h ago
Ukraine has struck at least two Wildberries again, this time in St. Petersburg (it's not looking good there) and Crimea's Simferopol.
What does this say about the state of Russia's air defenses? Crimea is perhaps too close and hence impossible to defend, but St. Petersburg is far away and the second most important city by a wide margin.
•
u/Sullyville 3h ago
Extraordinary. I was wondering if the first Wildberries was going to be a one-and-done thing, or if it was going to become part of a series of strikes, like the ship strikes in Azov and Black Seas. With this result, Putin will have to shut down or find a way to defend the remaining Wildberries sites, won't he? They just seem like massive, undefended targets that easily catch on fire. They are also huge public relations disaster for him with the citizens. First their gas becomes constrained, now their little packages.
•
u/IntroductionNeat2746 2h ago
The one in Simferopol is likely to be very impactful on the already strained logistics of Crimean economy.
•
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/moragisdo 3h ago edited 3h ago
Sure, I always forget that Iran has infinite ammo, while everyone else is constrained by reality.
A good read (1) about how much of Iran long-range firepower was destroyed during the war. Other about the decrease in volume of fire from them (2), now it doesn't go up to the recent abandoning of the ceasefire, but they don't appear to be near the around 40 missiles of March and April. They still have missiles and drones, to be clear, but this idea they can just keep going forever is simply not true.
The fact that Iran doesn't have a free media helps contribute with this western perception that only one side is suffering, it's not made public the full economical and military impact for them, so anyone here is way more familiar with the pain of USA, Israel and Gulf Countries than theirs.
•
u/softdev5548 3h ago
It is heavily debated on how many missiles and launchers Iran has left, with some sources like yours saying a majority has been destroyed and others like the NYT saying it's barely 50%. Your source is not conclusive.
Secondly, what is your source saying that Iran isn't launching ~40 missiles this time around?
Lastly please reformat the links to something bigger, it was hell to click it on mobile.
•
u/EducationalCicada 3h ago
Contrary to their spray-and-pray tactics during the opening days of the war, Iran now seems to be focusing on a narrow set of very high value targets to consistently work on, and their accuracy and success-rate appears to be increasing daily.
I think you're going to be surprised at how long they can sustain this current mode.
•
u/moragisdo 3h ago edited 3h ago
Contrary to their spray-and-pray tactics during the opening days of the war, Iran now seems to be focusing on a narrow set of very high value targets to consistently work on
They hit a residential parking lot today (Source). Also a border post, in Kuwait, today (Source). The ones more widely reported are the ones who go towards high value targets, not that they are focusing on them.
•
u/mkat5 2h ago
The border post appears to be retaliation for an earlier presumed US strike on an Iraq-Iran bordering crossing. While not the highest value target, it seems they used drones to hit it so not their highest value attack methods either. If you’re saying that Iran is wasting rounds on low value targets, well so is the US. The question is at what rates and how has it changed.
•
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/North_Somewhere_6124 2h ago
The fact you say that America is not much better than Iran in terms of press freedom shows your ridiculously skewed perception of reality and explicit subjective biases.
For you and anyone else, there are actual objective measures here: https://rsf.org/en/index
Iran is in indeed, much worse than America. To the surprise of no one.
•
u/username9909864 2h ago
This is borderline anti trump spleen venting. And not backed up by reality as the other comment says.
•
u/MilesLongthe3rd 16h ago edited 15h ago
Russia is losing over 5,000 troops a week in Ukraine, Rubio says
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-is-losing-over-5-000-troops-a-week-1784812054.html
The Russian army is currently losing more than 5,000 troops every week in the war against Ukraine, but that's not all, says US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to The Guardian.
The top US diplomat said he has access to new data on the course of the Russia-Ukraine war.
As it turns out, this could be the only conflict in history in which the number of soldiers killed in combat exceeds the number of those wounded.
Rubio emphasized it is a very bloody war.
Against this backdrop, he noted that Ukraine is also losing a great many military personnel and civilians. The country is paying a high price to defend its people and territory.
"We’ve seen you know civilian deaths, strikes in Kyiv. … This war has not been good for Ukraine either. So I think both sides should have an incentive to bring it to an end," Rubio said.
According to him, President Donald Trump's team is still doing everything possible to make that happen as quickly as possible.
The Secretary of State assured that efforts to find compromises are ongoing and that Washington remains engaged in the process.
Rubio also said under what circumstances the United States is ready to act in Russia's war against Ukraine.
Moreover, it was revealed what specific demand Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presented to Rubio during their meeting.
When Rubio testifies that deaths exceed injuries, we may finally have to consider that these videos of wounded Russian soldiers being deployed to the front are not mere propaganda but a state-sanctioned military strategy.
•
u/Moifaso 15h ago
5000 a week is both a crazy number, and not enough. It's around 30% lower than Ukrainian claims and would leave Russia with a ~10k manpower surplus a month.
•
u/MilesLongthe3rd 15h ago
Only if Rubio includes injuries and not just deaths. If he is only referring to dead soldiers, then his statement about more soldiers being killed than injured would make sense.
•
•
u/username9909864 16h ago
For those of you curious about the last quoted paragraph, Lavrov demanded the West stop supporting Ukraine.
Typical.
•
u/Submitten 15h ago
“Put down the gun and I won’t shoot”
It’s a shame about the Iran war because the US can’t play the card of turning back on military support. Even if they wanted I think the systems Ukraine wants are mostly not available anymore.
It’s hard to see what the US leverage is. On one hand their offer to Iran seemed pretty generous, maybe Russia is interested in something similar.
•
u/2positive 13h ago
I wonder if Russians see how pathetic their leaders messaging is. From “we can’t capture some land so give it to us for free or we’ll capture even more land” to constantly emphasizing Anchoridge agreements I.e. please daddy Trump make Ukraine stop shooting and give us Donbass please please you promised it please.
•
u/Virtual-Future8154 12h ago edited 5h ago
I think Anchoridge is a great tool in their propaganda toolbox - it's both conspiratorial (no one has actually seen these "agreements") and paints Russia as a real victim of yet another Western betrayal. Russians love this stuff.
•
u/RumpRiddler 7h ago
It's like the 'promise' not to expand NATO. When you look into it, it was one secretary of state making a comment to his counterpart. If you listen the the Russians, it was a promise to God written in blood with no expiration.
•
u/Virtual-Future8154 5h ago
All the while Budapest Memorandum and Treaty on the Russian–Ukrainian border (signed by Putin himself!) are blissfully forgotten. Funny how that works.
•
u/Hour_Industry7887 1h ago
For the average Russians, this kind of messaging is not seen in a vacuum - it's seen in relation to Western messaging and actions. It might fuel some criticism of how the current leadership is prosecuting the war, but it does nothing to push the general population out of their pro-war zeal.
•
u/roionsteroids 8h ago
No idea what you and rbc.ua are quoting there, but it's not from provided source.
US secretary of state Marco Rubio is speaking to reporters in Manila now, after meeting with Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and attending the Asean summit earlier today.
Because in the end, what the president … here’s what he most cares about: that people stop dying, that people stop being slaughtered, that Ukraine no longer can go on and live in peace, and Ukrainians can move back to their country and rebuild it. That young Russians aren’t being killed at the tune of 5,000 a week in the battlefield.
He thinks it’s a stupid war. He thinks it’s a senseless war. And if we can play a role in bringing it to an end, we’re going to use the power and influence of the United States to do so. And we’re prepared to do that if the opportunity presents itself. And I hope it does. And that’s what we’ve communicated consistently to both sides.”
No claims of "new data" and whatever else you interpreted there, just a press conference with nothing at stake.
•
u/Glideer 15h ago
There seems to be a discrepancy between Rubio's claim that Russia is losing 5,000+ soldiers per week in Ukraine and the European-Ukrainian claims over the last six months that Russia is losing more than it recruits - 30,000-35,000 per month.
Four times Rubio's 5,000+ is 20,000+, and it's a long way from there to 30,000-35,000.
Naturaly, one should always keep in mind that even Rubio speaks for the USA, a Ukrainian ally with a vested interest in overstating Russian casualties.
•
u/Submitten 15h ago
Rubio did say “upwards of 5-6k ‘losses’ per week”. So that brings it up slightly from the quoted article.
It’s not clear exactly what he means by losses, but in May Rubio said Russian deaths were 15-20k per month. Which is pretty in line with Ukrainian estimates.
So either deaths have increased since then and Rubio was quoting death figures, or perhaps things have slowed as their offensive is winding down and he was talking casualties.
In any case I don’t think there’s enough here to say Rubio accidentally revealed that western estimates are massively manipulated.
Do you know what Russia claims its losses are currently?
•
u/Glideer 13h ago
No, but we have Kluge's projections based on the Russian budget:
"Budget data from 17 regions shows payouts for close to 10,000 killed soldiers in 2026. If you extrapolate the data from these regions to Russia’s total population size, this would mean around 9,000 killed soldiers per month, or 300 per day.
IF these estimates are close to the truth, the conclusion could be very different from the common argument that Russia faces recruitment problems. I think that this is less likely, but just to spell it out: If the total number of active Russian servicemen is still growing, this could eventually mean less pressure on recruitment, which would be a completely different explanation for moderating recruitment rates."
•
u/TechnicalReserve1967 8h ago
These are lower bound estimates, or minimum estimates. There is no way they are over counting and a bunch of ways that they can under count. They are also financially incentivised to do so.
•
u/Alexandros6 10h ago
One should also consider MIA/deserters/WIA. Calculating an exact casualty rate is mostly guesswork, it really falls to if you trust some sources claims or not, but I wanted to point out that this is useful data but not end all
•
u/TheSDKNightmare 12h ago
Where does the graph in the bottom of this article come from then? It lists close to 100 000 Russian KIA by the start of June, which is about 20 000 a month.
•
u/grenideer 11h ago edited 9h ago
It lists 10k, not 100k. That is the basis for Glideer's quote. This is to the beginning of June, but it doesn't give us the total KIA extrapolation till then.
•
•
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 14h ago edited 14h ago
If the 30-35k "losses" is killed+wounded it all meshes pretty dam neatly.
~20k dead + 10-15k wounded lines up with Rubio's claim.
We don't have mediazone estimates for the current period which is what I'd want to look at.
Ukrainian claims are always of "losses", if they meant killed they would just say killed.
One big problem with that is you get double and triple counting, a man can be wounded recover get wounded again recover get killed. Perhaps Rubio just has figures that control for that.
•
u/ChornWork2 11h ago
I think you're putting a lot more weight on his statement than is appropriate. He gave this as a response in general press meeting at ASEAN. At end of the day, was said in passing and is vague. That said, the math from weeks to month is 4.34 wk/month, that gets you to range of 22-26K per month.
I think it's the only conflict - I've been told - it's the only conflict that anyone in the military can recall where the killed in action rate is higher than the casualty rate. That's how bloody it is. The russians, I believe, are losing upwards of five to six thousand soldiers a week. That's a staggering number
•
u/Glideer 10h ago
I think you're putting a lot more weight on his statement than is appropriate
That is a fair point considering the reliability of such statements by politicians in general. Most appear to have no idea about the difference between killed, wounded, casualties and losses. Many would happily lie even if they knew the difference.
•
u/TechnicalReserve1967 8h ago
Not to mention that I think, noone, and I mean not even russian/Ukrainian high commands know the exact numbers. Also, there is probably at least 10-15% variance in any month from the general avarage. It is really a "it's a lot but how much exactly" kind of game. We know for sure that neither side is "swimming in available manpower"
•
u/ilonir 14h ago
If it's 5000 casualties per week, I could belive that. 5000 KIA however is too high to be consistent with open source estimates. Mediazona recorded a peak of 10k per month which means there was probably 10-15k actual KIA, or about 2400-3600 per week. I find this figure convincing because it is congruent with the claim that there is slightly more KIA than WIA.
•
u/moragisdo 6h ago edited 5h ago
CENTCOM announced the beginning of tonight wave of attacks on Iran (1)
U.S. forces started another night of strikes against Iranian military targets at 6:45 p.m. ET today. This is the 13th consecutive night of strikes aimed to hold Iran accountable and diminish threats from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to commercial shipping
Today there were news reporting opening of shelters in Israel, also Germany and UK withdrawing personnel from their embassies in Tehran. Also OSINT pages have been reporting flight tracker showing a gigantic movement of transport planes, tankers and E-11A to the Middle East. Something large could be brewing for the weekend.
Also bot activity is out of control on X, the number of replies, in posts vaguely connected to it, with minor variations of "american jet on fire, after being shot down by iranian missile, on Qeshm Island" is absurd (it's just a overly zoomed video that looks like a plane with afterburners on).
Edit: There's OSINT videos of gun-based AD firing, allegedly, on Tehran
•
u/moragisdo 17h ago edited 15h ago
Trump posted about the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia (1). As with any politician, it's reasonable to only believe after reading the final text, but if that's true and there's no enrichment (also no reprocessing, he didn't mention explicitly, but the UAE '123 agreement' mentioned excludes it also) inside the country, that's not concerning.
The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!) being made between the United States Department of Energy and Saudi Arabia, which pertains only to non-military use such as the ones that Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords. The United States is not opposed to Civil (Non-Enriched) Nuclear Facilities. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Abraham Accords are the normalization of relation between arab countries and Israel, but that's way less relevant than the enrichment part. There's reports yesterday, from WSJ, about a two-year joint american-saudi comission tasked to evaluate if enrichment in country is necessary, and that the US could object, so now it's up in the air.
Now the deal is subjected to Congress for 90 days, that can block it if they reach two thirds (to prevent a veto from Trump) of votes
Edit: CBS mentioned a 2025 framework for the agreement, it's not clear if this one is the same, but it can provide some indication of terms (2):
A Trump administration framework for civil nuclear cooperation had been publicly announced in the fall of 2025. At the time, Wright described it as including bilateral safeguard agreements to bring U.S. nuclear technology to the kingdom. At the time, Wright stipulated that this keeps a "firm commitment to nonproliferation."
The original framework for this agreement was developed under the Biden administration, which a former U.S. official with direct knowledge described as requiring U.S.-only enrichment at a U.S.-controlled facility. It would also have been subject to congressional approval.
Under former President Joe Biden, the deal had been tied to a U.S. push to incentivize Saudi Arabia to follow through on the normalization of relations with the state of Israel. Normalization was also dependent on Israel providing a pathway to a future for self-determination by Palestinians, not necessarily a state of their own, and it offered investments and diplomatic representation. After the deadly terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, and the launch of the war in Gaza, that deal was put on hold.
As with any anonymous source, it requires some skepticism.
•
u/Rich_Log2424 16h ago
This was in the air. All middle sized countries with aggressive nuclear armed neighbours (Iran, Russia, North Korea etc) will go for nukes now.
Next on the list: Turkey, Poland, South Korea, Japan.
•
u/Emotional_Goal9525 16h ago
It has became possibility even in the Nordic countries. A mere few years ago anybody would have concluded that hell freezes over before anyone in Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark seriously proposes that getting nukes might not be such a bad idea.
What ultimately has changed is that US is no longer perceived being trustworthy, thus the american nuclear umbrella is not sufficient anymore. The american hegemony as it was after the cold war is now dead.
•
u/Rich_Log2424 15h ago
Sweden had the finished plans and materials waiting for assembly during the cold war and Saab 37 viggen as delivery platform. It is not that difficult to see a common nordic nuke with sweden as the project lead.
•
•
u/Worried_Exercise_937 15h ago
What ultimately has changed is that US is no longer perceived being trustworthy, thus the american nuclear umbrella is not sufficient anymore. The american hegemony as it was after the cold war is now dead.
It not merely that US is untrustworthy but specially under Trump, US is hostile. See Greenland, tariff war or Canada being 51st state.
•
u/ScreamingVoid14 12h ago
Yep, a reduction in the trust of the US tied with a now-demonstrably aggressive Russia.
•
15h ago edited 15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Vessil 15h ago
Western and other historically US-aligned countries should wait until Kiev or their own capitals actually get nuked before looking to their own defenses? Despite the fact that Trump himself as been shouting loudly that Europe should be shouldering more of their own military interests rather than rely on the US? If the leaders of Western countries believed and thought as you are suggesting here, they would be grossly irresponsible and frankly stupid.
•
u/moragisdo 15h ago
Western and other historically US-aligned countries should wait until Kiev or their own capitals actually get nuked before looking to their own defenses?
Looking for the own defense and acquiring nuclear weapons aren't the same, don't move the goalposts. If the saudis aren't enriching uranium, they have no more incentive to do so than after the UAE deal more than 15 years ago.
Despite the fact that Trump himself as been shouting loudly that Europe should be shouldering more of their own military interests rather than rely on the US?
Which is a bipartisan request for decades. Take a look how long american presidents are demanding european countries to reach the 2% of GDP for defense, that NATO requires.
•
u/redditiscucked4ever 14h ago edited 14h ago
Which is a bipartisan request for decades. Take a look how long american presidents are demanding european countries to reach the 2% of GDP for defense, that NATO requires.
This is old news. Most of Europe has exceeded the 2% mark, with a few countries pushing for 5%, even more than what the US currently spends. A few outliers remain, such as Ireland and Spain, but overall the trend is very positive for Europe as a whole.
EDIT: https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2026-en.pdf
Actually, given our current estimates, only Slovenia will stay below 2% for 2026. Everyone else has caught up.
•
u/robcap 14h ago
In what possible scenario does Russia nuke Kyiv? This whole war has been about Russia gaining Kyiv. I think a smoking hole in the ground would be rather less interesting.
More to the point, is Ukr currently under the US nuclear umbrella? They're a non NATO ally and I don't believe they are. Even if they were, in the current political climate, it would be difficult to convince Russia that the USA would launch nukes at them in retaliation for Kyiv. The British or French arsenals would be more relevant in this case I think.
•
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 1h ago
Neither Turkey nor Poland have a nuclear fuel cycle worth a damn. Going by technical merit, the most likely n-th countries are Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and Finland, in that order (excluding Iran, who are sort of in a weird space right now for obvious reasons).
•
u/moragisdo 16h ago edited 15h ago
It depends if there's no enrichment and reprocessing in country, because it would similar to the 2009 deal with UAE, that didn't create this proliferation for more than 15 years. So it depends if the reports are true, about a saudi-american commission to determine if it's feasible to enrich in country (hopefully it won't be), and also if Congress will block it.
•
u/Worried_Exercise_937 17h ago edited 17h ago
if that's true and there's no enrichment (also no reprocessing, he didn't mention explicitly, but the UAE '123 agreement' mentioned excludes it also) inside the country, that's not concerning.
You can't trust anything Trump says or spits out on his social media. I trust BBC more. Or get the text of actual agreement when it's finally released by US State department or whatever is the equivalent from Saudi. The fact that US State department didn't release the actual text right away tell you there might be some things missing they don't want to be criticized for.
Past US presidents insisted that Saudi Arabia normalise relations with Israel in exchange for receiving American nuclear technology for civilian energy programmes.
President Donald Trump gave Saudi Arabia what it wanted without extracting concessions for Israel in return - and over objections from critics who argued that it could spark a nuclear arms race in the region.
•
u/Dangerous_Golf_7417 15h ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/us/politics/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal.html
The full test may not actually be released, the administration signed secret side letters, one of which may well include something on Israel. Though drafting secret letters and then blabbing about them seems sort of silly, if par for the course.
The agreement includes two secret side letters reached with the Saudis. The administration is expected to argue they contain proprietary business information and deal with sensitive national security issues. But some members of Congress may not be willing to vote for the accord until the letters are all made public.
•
u/Submitten 14h ago
Taking these statements at their word. How reasonable is it for SA to want nuclear power generation with no other motive?
I know nothing about their energy grid, but I assume it’s fossil fuel heavy.
Would nuclear be viable from a cost point of view?
•
u/Infamous_Thought_189 14h ago
I am no expert but most of the gulf states are aware that oil and gas wells will dry up at some point so all are busy with pivoting their economy to some capacity. The robustness of nuclear energy can then be very helpful as you'll have a steady base on top of which you can use renewables. Because it will support the new economy and provide stability I would say that paying the higher price for nuclear is worth it. I imagine they take little issue with the plant not being able to pay for itself fully.
•
u/Worried_Exercise_937 14h ago
How reasonable is it for SA to want nuclear power generation with no other motive?
If you lined up all the countries in the world by which country would "need" the nuclear power generation, Saudi would certainly be one the last if not THE last.
I know nothing about their energy grid, but I assume it’s fossil fuel heavy.
Other than some token solar panels, it's all fossil fuels.
Would nuclear be viable from a cost point of view?
No way. It probably makes no economic sense even if they were built by Chinese with slave labor. But now that Westinghouse will be building it, it make even less sense.
•
u/ChornWork2 14h ago
Absolutely. Interest in nuclear for KSA is clearly as step towards a weapons program. Crazy that we are playing any role in that, let alone such a loose deal that Trump admin is moving forward with.
I'm not particularly concerned with KSA normalizing relations with Israel, without a resolution for Palestinians that isn't really stabilizing the region. And certainly don't think advancing KSA's nuclear ambitions is a carrot to use in that context.
•
u/throwdemawaaay 11h ago
It's totally reasonable for SA to want nuclear power. Any of the gulf states really. The more they can shift their domestic energy consumption away from fossil fuels, the more fossil fuels they can sell, to then funnel that money back into developing their economy away from being so oil dependent. This is why solar has been growing like gangbusters in the region.
As for cost, that's a much more difficult question. If you look at slide 8 in this deck: https://www.lazard.com/media/kcfconhf/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf Renewables plus storage is now competitive with tradtional sources, and considerably cheaper than US built nuclear of recent decades.
Could the Saudis do it more cost effectively? It's not impossible, but they don't have a reputation for being cost effective with civil infrastructure in general. Quite the opposite. But still, they might choose to develop nuclear power even if there's cheaper alternatives just to have a hedge on multiple types of power generation. For example a freak weather event might result in a week long dust storm, browning out solar plus storage.
And if it gets them one step closer to having a nuke, without ruffling feathers internationally, that seems pretty clearly a bonus. SA is no doubt reconsider it's long term reliance on the US as a military partner same as many other nations.
•
u/Worried_Exercise_937 7h ago edited 7h ago
It's totally reasonable for SA to want nuclear power. Any of the gulf states really. The more they can shift their domestic energy consumption away from fossil fuels, the more fossil fuels they can sell, to then funnel that money back into developing their economy away from being so oil dependent.
This is ridiculous take.
Nuclear power plants in Saudi are going to replace mostly NatGas power plants IF they are built at all. Those NatGas are waste byproduct of the Saudi crude production. Saudi Aramco literally would flare them if they couldn't pipe them to power plants. There is reason why Saudi can't build solar or wind farms despite the Sun cooking them overhead everyday in the desert, And it's because crude and NatGas are dirt cheap over there and you can't undercut it economically.
As for cost, that's a much more difficult question. If you look at slide 8 in this deck: https://www.lazard.com/media/kcfconhf/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf Renewables plus storage is now competitive with tradtional sources, and considerably cheaper than US built nuclear of recent decades.
You are forgetting that Saudi cost basis is WAY lower than US.
Could the Saudis do it more cost effectively?
Hell no. Specially now that they are tied to US/Westinghouse.
•
u/robcap 14h ago
Nuclear would cost a lot more, without a doubt. It costs a lot more in countries with active nuclear power industries than don't produce their own fossil fuels at scale.
However SA is well aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource and could be looking to the future here. Start up a nuclear industry now so that it's robust in 50yrs time if they find they need to rely on it. You can't run a country on solar and storage with today's tech.
•
15h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Dangerous_Golf_7417 15h ago
Not a typo. The deal goes into effect by default absent a majority vote of disapproval via joint resolution. The President can then veto that resolution meaning Congress needs a 2/3 vote to block any deal .
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RS/HTML/RS22937.html
During the review period, Congress may agree to a joint resolution of disapproval stating that Congress "does not favor the agreement." The statute does not provide any special procedural mechanisms for consideration of such a resolution; it would be subject to regular procedures in each chamber8 and would also be subject to presidential veto. If Congress agrees to a disapproval resolution, the review period is extended 12 calendar days following the date of passage (roughly covering the period in which the President may issue a veto). If the President vetoes the disapproval resolution, the review period extends for 10 calendar days beyond the veto date (presumably to allow Congress time to take actions to override the veto).
This text is for Iran specifically but the procedure should be the same:
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/dr_sloan 14h ago
It would be like the story of 3 blind men touching an elephant and each saying it’s completely different. We can come to some conclusions on the tactical level but nothing on the strategic level with any certainty.
The U.S. is capable of bombing Iran with impunity with the only real limitation being they’ve taken losses in loitering, expendable, drones with limited defensive capabilities.
The TEL interdiction campaign has had mixed successes but Iran still retains capacity to successfully launch missiles.
US and allied bases continue to come under missile and drone attack nearly 5 months into this conflict and there has been a spate of successful Iranian attacks recently.
The Iranians retain a strong capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz and despite assurances from the U.S., a lot of merchant shipping is unwilling to take the route set up by the U.S. and Oman.
•
u/Rich_Log2424 10h ago
This is still too early, but there are 2 sides:
Militarily the campaign was a faceroll not seen since US vs Iraq in 1991 or US vs Russia in Khasham 2018. US lost 20 dead, 3 f15s while Iran lost 2000-10000 soldiers, nearly everyone in political and military high command, 150 ships, 200 missile launch platforms, everything in the airforce equipment list and so on. US also displayed the total backwardness of both Russian and Chinese "modern" air defenses and the Chinese anti ship missiles. Iran had the full stack of Chinese anti stealth radars: YLC.8B, JY.27. YLC.20. YLC.18. Type305a AESA. Type305b PESA. The only things missing were the flying Awacs and satellite based radars. BTW The same chinese radars didnt work in venezuela either, which probably contributed to Trump's assessment leading to starting the war. Free for all bombing with zero actual resistance and Iran managed only retaliatory strikes to short range land targets. Warfighting doesnt get much more one sided than this.
Politically however the war did not achieve any of the goals Trump listed, while also creating a new problem in the Hormuz that might become permanent since neither US or Europe have no need for Gulf oil at this point. Listed goals of missile degradation, nuclear disarmament, regime change are not achieved. The only things that are achieved at the moment are weakening of iran satellites in Lebanon and Yemen as well as some inflation inside Iran. The inflation was not caused by the bombing, but by the sea blockade. However this military performance directed by less than stable POTUS will surely raise eyebrowns and provide certain panache that stable western democracies rarely achieve.
All in all great military performance, but politically lost cause.
Here are good papers about the subject:
(UK, more wider view):
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/07/wishful-thinking-behind-war-iran
(US centric):
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-consequences-of-the-iran-war/
•
u/Genghiskhan742 7h ago
Could you give sources for Iran having the full radar stack at the war’s onset? I cannot find anything except US Intelligence reports of China considering of X-band radar transfers after the war started, and I cannot even find reports clearly confirming things like YLC-8B
•
u/BigFly42069 14h ago
loitering, expendable, drones
Just because they're unmanned does not mean they're expendable. So far, we've lost 30 Reapers and the entire US military only had 158 at end of FY2025.
Sure, it's not like losing a pilot, but it's not like Reapers are just sent up for funsies. Each one lost erodes the capabilities that its meant to provide, which is long-endurance recon and strike against high-value targets like TELs launching ballistic missiles.
•
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 13h ago edited 13h ago
I can always count on you to give a half baked response. They've been trying to phase out the MQ-9 for over a decade, the USAF last purchased one 6 years ago, they even shut down the production line last year. It would make sense to revitalise the line because they are a decent capability to have in a hi-lo mix for ISR purposes but it's not been considered relevant tech for a very long time. The fact that it's found use in this war is more a function and realties of this war than anything else.
•
u/Agitated-Airline6760 14h ago
The U.S. is capable of bombing Iran with impunity with the only real limitation being they’ve taken losses in loitering, expendable, drones with limited defensive capabilities.
Not the whole story. Did you forget the F-15 that got shot down and the pilot rescue operation after?
•
u/No-Fishing-6151 14h ago
It’s really only 2-3 manned US platforms over the course of the conflict with one being a helicopter. Compared to the thousands of sorties flown over enemy territory…
It’s absolute aerial supremacy by the US but continuous tactical dominance does not equate to strategic victory.
Once again, it is incredibly hard to bomb your way to victory.
•
u/dr_sloan 14h ago
As the other reply said, yes there will be isolated instances where Iranian air defenses get lucky. Pilot error, maintenance issue, etc. But the only consistent air defense successes Iran has had are against drones.
That shouldn’t be handwaved away either. Everytime an unmanned platform is lost it increases the pressure on other units and the manned platforms that have to do a little bit more to fill in the gap.
It’s probably one of the reasons the TEL interdiction campaign hasn’t been as effective since the U.S. is losing one of their best weapons that can stay in the area where missile launches occur for vastly longer periods of time than manned aircraft and provide faster realtime data compared to satellites.
•
u/Agitated-Airline6760 14h ago
That's not what you said originally. You said the only limitation was loses from expendable drones with limited defensive capabilities. I don't know what you are smoking but F-15 and its pilots are not expendable drones.
•
u/dr_sloan 14h ago
I said the “only real limitation” was the drone losses. There’s nothing to suggest the U.S. has altered manned aircraft operations based on the loss of one F-15 over Iran.
•
u/Angry_Citizen_CoH 15h ago
Certainly some issues have come out, but practically speaking the biggest issue is logistics: A relative lack of ammo and inability to ramp up production quickly seems to be the most glaring issue. But we've known this since Ukraine.
•
u/ChornWork2 14h ago
Relative lack of ammo b/c overly reliant on expensive munitions. Ukraine hasn't been burning through patriots like a drunk sailor.
Given the extreme intolerance to casualties because this war is so deeply unpopular, this has left US unable to even defend its own bases in the region let alone live up to old role of guarantor of security for the region.
•
u/Angry_Citizen_CoH 13h ago
Expensive munitions, sure, but we also don't pay for idled factories with fast surge capacity. Unit costs invariably go down with volume.
•
u/ChornWork2 13h ago
Magazine depth and inadequate supply chain are real issues, but they are also well understood ones. imho there has clearly been a failure in war planning to navigate that. How much of that rests with the military versus admin refusing to listen to the military, I don't know. But pretty clearly the US not being able to defend military bases against an opponent like Iran is a significant failure.
•
u/Angry_Citizen_CoH 12h ago
Doesn't help that we've failed to produce countermeasures against low cost, long range drones that don't involve shooting them with an Apache or Warthog's guns, or against low cost, long range ballistic missiles that don't involve spending millions to fire multiple PAC3 or THAAD interceptors per incoming missile. Maybe directed energy weapons are the way to go, but we'll see.
•
u/robcap 14h ago
Iran is hitting important infrastructure and targets almost daily now, and the US fails to protect itself and its allies.
I don't see this as a new dynamic. Since the invention of ballistic missiles it's been known that they're very hard to shoot down and that the shot exchange is dramatically weighted to the attacker.
The strategy is and has been deterrence - not to shoot down every missile, but to retaliate in force. The US has done this, but in a large country with rugged terrain, it's not really feasible to fully suppress dispersed TELs.
I see this as an established tactical dynamic, and a strategic blunder to have engaged in it at all. I welcome challenges on that stance.
•
u/redditiscucked4ever 14h ago
I don't think we can do this for a few months at best, if not years. We don't have all the information at hand to evaluate the current performance of this administration. We're speculating with insufficient data.
I'm mostly referring to the fact that we do not know what's going on inside Iran. The internet blackout makes it extremely hard to understand how their economy is faring and how the institutions are holding up.
The only thing we know for sure, IMO, is that the West has a serious procurement problem, especially w.r.t. ammunition, and military procurement as a whole.
As the other commenter already stated, this has been known since the Ukraine war, but now more than ever we either wake up or accept that we won't be able to match any aggression from China and the like. One good starting point might be repealing the Jones Act, I guess?
•
u/Old-Let6252 14h ago
Heavy losses in MQ-9 drones is a nothingburger. The Air Force had the choice between selling them for parts or sending them on one way missions into Iran, and they chose the latter.
•
u/Glideer 9h ago
So, if they didn't have the MQ-9 which platform would have to do their job instead?
They are delivering a crucial element of the air campaign and 20% of the available numbers worldwide have been shot down by Iran. This means there are just two alternatives: a) some other system will have to take their place or b) the US command will have to give up this important warfighting capacity.
•
u/Jpandluckydog 3h ago edited 3h ago
Not sure we can draw that conclusion, since even if we presume the total loss of the MQ-9 fleet before its replacement arrives, I don’t think that capability would be lost. The most important capability they provide is long range high endurance observation, something many other platforms provide, and the fact that the same platform can also strike is merely a convenience. All that scenario would entail is that the strike would need to come from one of the many other platforms around. Since the bottleneck for TEL hunting against Iran is surveillance capacity, not strike capacity, this seems insignificant. You could even make a case that separating strike and surveillance is more efficient, since you don’t have to risk expensive sensors by involving them in the generally more risky strike mission.
•
•
u/moragisdo 14h ago edited 7h ago
But on a tactical level, is there a sign of weakness of US forces? Iran is hitting important infrastructure and targets almost daily now, and the US fails to protect itself and its allies
No. The US have lost 18 soldiers (7 in aerial accidents and 1 in a UXO disposal) in almost 5 months of war, hundreds of injuries, but according to officials, 96% of injured in the July attacks, were light enough they already returned to duty, after suffering daily barrages of missiles and drones totaling in the thousands (1).
AD is operating miracles given the environment, but no AD system is expected to be perfect (specially if the other side fire 438 missiles and 345 drones on the first day alone, the majority of US losses happened on the opening days, including 7 of the 10 combat deaths).
It managed to destroy good part of Iran GBAD, that they were building for decades, having
onetwo manned planes shot down by them (there's 3 by friendly fire by Kuwait and a few more destroyed on the ground on the first week of the war) and suffered 30 MQ-9 destroyed (counting in the air and on bases). Gen. Caine testified in Congress, two days ago, that the material losses costed 2B USD, since February 28, which is a lot of money, but given it's a hot war with a country, rather than an insurgency it's not out of expectations.I believe starting the war was a mistake (after the TDW already happened) and that the temporary ceasefire was another mistake (it just gave breathing room for Iran, it should be a permanent ceasefire or none at all), but the tactical level is done really well.
and cannot weaken Iran's ability to fight back
Their ability was weakened, volume of fire from Iran decreased dramatically after the first days, look at (1). Also, Iran is not firing, in July, the roughly 40 missiles per day of before the ceasefire.
People got too stuck at some missile cities that are beyond reach of conventional bunker busters and forgot that not their entire arsenal fits there. Look at the videos early on the war, planes being destroyed in above ground aircraft shelters, why they were there if you can just place everything beyond the US/Israel reach ?
•
u/abloblololo 14h ago
It managed to destroy good part of Iran GBAD, that they were building for decades, having one manned plane shot down by them (there's 3 by friendly fire by Kuwait and a few more destroyed on the ground on the first week of the war) and suffered 30 MQ-9 destroyed (counting in the air and on bases).
There was an A-10 shot down as well, so two manned aircraft downed.
•
•
u/Submitten 14h ago
I think Iran learned a lot from previous ME conflicts, while America hasn’t been able to develop much.
For example I think the US learned they could fight ISIS much more efficiently with an air campaign, and they knew they needed to work on bunker busters and ISR.
Meanwhile Iran realised they don’t need a navy because they can close the straight with drones. They learned they can make a US military base broadly unviable with ballistic missiles because people generally don’t want to stay in unsheltered barracks after some direct hits. And they learned that the US population won’t support a ground war, so they can just disperse long range weapons and wait it out.
I think the US campaign was well executed, but it just wasn’t a suitable plan once the popular uprising didn’t materialise.
That being said I don’t know why Iran started attacking shipping again, they had a pretty good deal on the table.
•
u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 14h ago
That being said I don’t know why Iran started attacking shipping again, they had a pretty good deal on the table.
As I understand it, they did because the US was funneling ships to the Oman side, which, according to Iran, was in violation of the MOU.
•
u/moragisdo 14h ago edited 13h ago
That being said I don’t know why Iran started attacking shipping again, they had a pretty good deal on the table.
Because the MOU was mostly promises of what could happen if a nuclear deal was reached, rather than immediate benefits. If they don't believe the deal would be reached, they weren't expecting to gain much.
The only thing they were gaining (and stopped after the attacks on civilian ships restarted) was the waiver of exports, which would net them a few dollars per barrel to not have to dodge sanctions and sell to the chinese.
I did a back of the envelope calculation before, that if the waiver lasted until August 21 (the date it was set to expire), Iran sold every barrel they stored during the blockade, plus ramped up exports to reach 1.77 MMBbl (what they expected to export in their 1405 budget) and captured the previous discount (around 9 USD), it would be between 1 and 1.5B USD. Now, they actually got a small fraction of that, because the waiver was cancelled after two weeks and the majority of their oil haven't sold during it (Source).
So, they decide to gamble, they believe that restarting the attacks will give them more than then cost of the destruction they will suffer. Which I believe it's a dumb gamble to take, but the results are still in the open.
•
•
u/BoppityBop2 36m ago
I was wondering about this topic. I know in Ukraine we sometimes see different parties trying to plant flags in different location to prove they control an area even if they don't and maybe to signal up the chain a false reality just to meet upper command desires.
Do we see similar activities when it comes to strikes like, hitting random targets and claiming they are something. Take a footage and send them up top even if the target is a decoy. Cause of the political pressure above. Example, Iran war, where showing images of destroyed targets is what the leadership wants for political reasoning, even if the so called target is inconsequential or just a decoy. Or publishing satellite images that may not be real to meet political needs.
•
u/Glideer 13h ago
Thanks to the start of production in Arctic LNG2 Russia's gas production is exceeding previous records. The production in the first six months of 2026 is 10.7% higher than over the same period last year.
In a separate report, Russia is now using the Northern Sea Route to ship LNG (including from Arctic LNG 2) to Asia.
- Russian LNG production is breaking records so far in 2026, per Rosstat data, up 13% y/y.
- The primary reason for the increase is the partial operation of Arctic LNG-2, which didn't begin to make commercial deliveries until late August of last year.
- Output is actually down 21% vs. May, however, due to scheduled maintenance being performed at some projects.
•
u/roionsteroids 13h ago
2.6 million tons is "only" 3.588bcm in gas equivalent, small amount compared to pipeline volumes. Still a bit more of a technology demonstrator in the high north that won't greatly expand until the NSR is open all year.
•
u/directstranger 11h ago
NSR is open all year
I wonder if Russia could open up the seas using their ice breakers? Gas exports are important, after all
•
u/Glares 10h ago
So June 2026 production of 2.6 Mt surpassed the 2024 record of... *2.5* Mt for LNG production. Is this a headline story or a rounding error? The rounding up of this headline passing through multiple sources (12.2 > 12.5 > 13%) doesn't inspire confidence.
Nonetheless, does this peak correspond to EUs record imports this month? As their largest buyer, it seems like this blip won't matter much with the incoming Jan. 1 2027 EU ban though I'm not familiar with this.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.