soldiers

Something unusual happened in Chernobyl when the Russian soldiers arrived. The cameras that monitored the animals have never stopped recording

by

In April 1986, just a few days after the Chernobyl accidentSoviet scientists feared that radiation had turned the area into a biological desert for generations. Occurred exactly the opposite. With the disappearance of human activity, the forest recovered the lost ground and the exclusion zone ended up becoming one of the largest wildlife refuges in Europe. The animal cameras that recorded the war. I told it this week in a report The New York Times. When Ukrainian conservationist Svitlana Kudrenko installed dozens of camera traps throughout the Chernobyl exclusion zone in 2020, her goal was much more routine: to study how populations of wolves, lynxes, deer, foxes and other species that had thrived after decades without human presence were evolving. Two years later, Russia invaded Ukraine and turned Chernobyl into an improvised military base. The soldiers arrived, the tanks went through the forests, the explosions began… and the cameras never stopped recording. An unprecedented experiment. The Russian occupation barely lasted a little more than a month, but it left behind a extraordinary scientific opportunity. Because the cameras continued to operate throughout the invasion, the researchers were able to compare the behavior of eleven species before, during and after the passage of the troops. In addition, they crossed these images with testimonies from people who remained in the area and with satellite data capable of detecting fires, building an almost real-time portrait of how fauna responds to a war. The uneven reaction of the animals. One of the most interesting findings was that did not exist a universal answer. Roe deer, especially shy animals linked to the forest, began to appear much less as the intensity of military activity increased. Red deer, on the other hand, were detected more frequently, probably because They fled from open areas where tanks, vehicles and explosions were concentrated, thus increasing the chances of being recorded by cameras. The war changed the forest’s schedules. The differences were not limited to the number of animals observed. red deer They modified their routines and they began to be more active during the day and less at night. Foxes and hares also reduced part of your activity night, although the latter reappeared precisely on the days when the satellites detected fires, an indication that they were trying to escape the fire caused by the fighting. Spaces that did not move. On the contrary, not all the inhabitants of Chernobyl reacted in an obvious way. Researchers found few changes in species like wolves or Eurasian lynxesalthough recognize that the conclusions are more limited because they were photographed much less frequently. They also propose another possibility: The enormous size of the exclusion zone and the scarce human presence accumulated over decades perhaps cushioned part of the impact that a similar conflict would have had on a much more altered ecosystem. The war left another invisible victim: nature. The study, published in Science magazinedoes not aim to measure the total ecological damage of the invasion, but rather to observe how the fauna reacted while everything was happening. Even so, its authors remember that armed conflicts also destroy habitats, cause fires, introduce pollution and increase the mortality of numerous species. As resume ecologist Kaitlyn Gaynor, animals are involuntary spectators of human wars and we still know very little about the consequences that these episodes leave on them. Chernobyl and the paradox. For decades, the exclusion zone symbolized the biggest nuclear disaster of history. Then it became an unexpected refuge for wildlife. Finally, the Russian invasion added a third, equally improbable chapter: a natural laboratory where the very cameras installed to study animals ended up recording one of the few involuntary experiments on how an entire ecosystem responds when war breaks out in the middle of the forest. Image | Ministry of Defense In Xataka | The men who closed the new Chernobyl hole: “Destiny gave us an opportunity to test ourselves to the limit” In Xataka | We had been wondering for years why the Chernobyl wild boars were so radioactive. The answer was not in the accident

Ukraine no longer wants to send soldiers to the front. His answer is an “unpublished Frankenstein”: robot-tanks with machine guns

by

The British inventor Ernest Swinton first proposed using “land ships” to cross trenches and avoid sending infantry directly into fire. That idea gave rise to first modern tank a year later. Now, more than a century later, the logic is the same again: find a machine that can go where a soldier no longer can. A front that is too deadly. The war in Ukraine has entered a point where the simple act of sending men towards the line of contact begins to be too expensive a luxury. The saturation of drones has turned wide swaths of the front into real death zones where any movement is detected and punished almost instantly. This has changed the logic of the battle because it is no longer just about who has more armor or more artillery, but about who can continue hitting without exposing bodies. And here Ukraine is beginning to embrace a radical idea: if the front devours soldiers, perhaps the time has come to stop sending soldiers. The birth of a new “Frankenstein”. The Ukrainian response is as pragmatic as it is disturbing: take weapons systems designed for fixed positions and assemble them about ground robots. In fact, companies like Frontline Robotics They have converted their turret autonomous Buria (a kind of metal arm capable of firing machine guns or grenade launchers) into something new: small armed unmanned vehicles that act as micro-tanks. They are not tanks in the classic sense, but they fulfill part of their function. They move, shoot, seek cover and attack without a human being inside. It is a kind of improvised hybrid, a creature assembled with different parts to survive a battlefield that no longer forgives. The war against Russian infiltrations. The immediate objective of these robots is not major offensives, but something much more specific: hunt small groups of Russian infiltration. Moscow has been exploiting a simple but effective tactic for months: send small teams of infantry that slip between lines, forests and trenches to avoid aerial surveillance and penetrate Ukrainian defenses. They are small movements, difficult to detect and cheap to execute. Ukraine has understood that responding by sending more infantry only feeds that crusher. So now he sends armed robots, controlled from dozens of kilometers away, to intercept them before they go deeper into the line. The classic tank is getting old. There is a compelling reason why this idea is gaining traction: traditional tanks They are suffering greatly. Both Ukraine and Russia have discovered that a multi-million euro armored vehicle can be destroyed by a cheap drone in a matter of minutes. The economic equation has been broken. In that context, an armed terrestrial robot is a brutally logical solution: it costs less, it is manufactured faster and if it is destroyed no one dies. It is a mutation of the armored concept. Less armor, less power, less glamour… but more expendable. And in an industrial war, the expendable is often more valuable than the perfect. Evolution at the speed of war. The most striking thing is the speed with which all this evolves. Frontline Robotics It ensures that it introduces small changes up to twenty times a month and major updates every six months. The battlefield works like real time laboratory. Soldiers send constant feedback, and companies adapt their machines almost on the fly. It is a brutal advantage compared to the bureaucratic slowness of many Western industries. What today is a robot with a machine gunwithin a few months it may be a much more sophisticated system. Put another way, Ukraine is learning faster because it has no choice. Defend without humans. The underlying idea is more than a simple tactical innovation. Ukraine has already used ground robots to evacuate woundedcarry supplies, place mines and clear routes. This year they have made more than 50,000 missionsa gigantic jump compared to just 2,000 the previous semester. But what is truly new is the offensive leap: Russian positions captured only with aerial drones and ground robots, without a single infantry entering first. There has even been surrenders to machines. This paints a disturbing future: entire sectors defended and attacked by unmanned systems, where humans are increasingly distant from the point of impact. The ground war is mutating. What Ukraine is doing with these robot tanks may seem improvised, even almost artisanal, but it contains a transformation a lot more fat. For centuries, conquering land meant sending men into fire. Now start mean send machines. Not because they are better at everything, but because they are sacrificial. And on a front where every meter costs blood, the priority is no longer to advance bravely, but rather preserve lives. For this reason, Ukraine is not simply building new robots: it is testing a new way of waging ground warfare where the soldier is no longer the first piece to move. Image | Frontline Robotics, Oleksandr Klymenko/Ukrinform In Xataka | Satellite images revealed that Russia covered a building with an anti-drone cage. Ukraine turned it into an action movie set In Xataka | The drone war in Ukraine just solved an old military obsession: how to blow up a bridge without tons of bombs

The US has had an idea to reassure Europe. Instead of soldiers, he is going to bring his nuclear weapons very close to Russia

by

In 1983, tens of thousands of women surrounded a British air base to protest the deployment of American nuclear missiles. That mobilization, known in time as Greenham Commonbecame one of the major antinuclear symbols of the Cold War and showed the extent to which the location of these weapons could alter European politics. Less soldiers, more “nuclear”. Europe has been trying to figure out what it really means for months the strategic turn of the United States. The reduction of troops, the withdrawal of some military systems and the increasing priority given to the Indo-Pacific have fueled fears that Washington is progressively moving away from the continent. However, conversations within NATO point to a very different response than expected. Instead of reinforcing the conventional presence, the United States would be willing to expand the deployment of nuclear capabilities in Europe to demonstrate that its commitment to the defense of the continent remains intact. The idea is simple but powerful: if there are fewer American uniforms on the ground, the nuclear umbrella must remain visible and credibleeven “closer.” The closer the interest is to Russia. There is no doubt, the allies most interested in this possibility are precisely those who observe Russia from the first line. Poland has been leading for years the list of candidates to host US nuclear capabilities and some Baltic countries have also shown interest in participating in future deterrence formulas. The invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s continued references to its nuclear arsenal have profoundly changed the perception of security in Eastern Europe. I remembered the financial times that, for these countries, hosting aircraft capable of using US nuclear weapons would have enormous political and military value, since it would turn any threat against them into an issue directly linked to Washington’s strategic credibility. The legacy of the Cold War. The proposal does not involve creating a new system, but rather expanding a mechanism that has existed for decades. Currently Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Türkiye and the United Kingdom participate in the program nuclear delivery of NATO, through which they store American nuclear weapons under exclusive control of Washington and train their air forces to operate within that scheme. This model was born during the Cold War to guarantee that European allies could participate in the Alliance’s nuclear strategy without having to develop their own atomic weapons. More than half a century later, the formula is once again gaining prominence in a continent that watches with concern the deterioration of the relationship with Moscow. Europe seeks to replace some capabilities, but not others. European capitals have assumed that they will have to spend more in defense and rebuild conventional capabilities that for decades were delegated to the United States. From anti-missile systems to strategic transportation to military intelligence, much of the current conversation revolves around how to fill those gaps. However, there is one area that many governments they consider it impossible to replace in the short term: the American nuclear deterrent. Although France and the United Kingdom have their own arsenals, Washington’s umbrella continues to be perceived as the central element of the European security architecture and as the ultimate guarantee against any military escalation. The signal that Washington wants to send. They told in the Times that for now there is no final decision and the conversations remain highly confidential. Still, the mere fact that the possibility is on the table reveals how Western strategy toward Russia is changing. For years the US military presence in Europe was measured in bases, brigades and deployed troops. Now the discussion increasingly revolves around another type of message. While Washington concentrates resources in Asia and requires its allies to assume a greater share of the defensive effortthe signal it seeks to convey is that nuclear protection remains intact. In a way, the new formula to reassure Europe is not to bring more soldiers closer to the Russian borders, but to bring closer what for decades has served as a last guarantee of security: American nuclear weapons. Image | Air Force, SJOERD HILCKMANN In Xataka | Spain’s great fear is not an invasion: it is a slow hybrid war with Morocco against its two most vulnerable cities In Xataka | To become technologically “independent” from the US, the European Union already has a plan: four desperate measures

is coming back from Russia and bombing its own soldiers

by

In World War II, many armies reused captured enemy tanks simply painting over their own symbols and returning them to combat days later. Eight decades later, the war in Ukraine has regained that same logic… only now the weapons come flying back at night. The night witch changes owners. The Baba Yaga heavy drones had become one of the weapons most feared of the Ukrainian arsenal. Large, slow and capable of transporting mines, projectiles or supplies during night flights, these devices ended up generating such fear among Russian soldiers that they ended up baptizing them with the name of the Slavic folklore witch that stalks its victims in the dark. The problem for Ukraine is that that same psychological weapon is now beginning to return from the other side of the front. Russia is capturing, repairing and reusing quantities Baba Yaga crescents shot down to bombard Ukrainian positions with exactly the same tactics who for years terrorized their own troops. Drone warfare has thus entered a strange phase where weapons no longer only change hands: they also change identity. The problem with heavy drones. Unlike the small, cheap, disposable FPV drones that dominate much of the battlefield, the Baba Yaga are complex platforms and relatively difficult to manufacture. The reason? They need high lifting capacity, flight stability, sufficient autonomy and robust systems to resist electronic interference. Carrying heavy loads for miles requires huge batteries, powerful motors and strong structures capable of withstanding constant vibrations and partial damage. Ukraine managed to develop these systems thanks to a combination of ingenuity, adaptation of commercial technology and decentralized production outside the slow traditional military channels. Russia, on the other hand, has had much more trouble producing a large-scale operational equivalent despite multiple publicly announced projects. Russian electronic warfare finds an opportunity. The Baba Yaga reuse captured reveals the extent to which Russian electronic warfare remains one of its greatest strengths. Many of these drones are shot down not by sophisticated missiles, but by exploiting something much simpler: its repetitive patterns flight and its permanent radio links. Russian systems detect, track and saturate these signals until they cause the devices to lose control and crash relatively intact. Others are killed by conventional fire because, being large and slow, they are much more visible than the small FPVs. Russia has even deployed specialized equipment of snipers specifically dedicated to destroying these drones. The important detail is that damaging a rotor or a support arm is enough to render the device unusable without completely destroying its structure. From the battlefield to the improvised workshop. They counted in Forbes that the increasing number of recoverable drones has allowed Russia develop an ecosystem Surprisingly effective makeshift repair kit. Workshops operated by soldiers and volunteers disassemble captured Baba Yaga, replace damaged parts through 3D printing and install new systems compatible with Russian communication networks. What started as an emergency solution is gradually becoming a stable supply of drones heavy for Moscow. In a way, Ukraine is inadvertently providing some of the raw material that Russia needed to cover one of the most obvious shortcomings in its unmanned aerial arsenal. The phenomenon reminds us that in a prolonged war of attrition, each downed device can end up having a second life at the service of the enemy. The irony of night attacks. The broadcast images by Russian soldiers already show scenes that just a few years ago would have seemed absurd: Ukrainian Baba Yaga launching anti-tank mines, mortar shells and improvised bombs on kyiv positions. Some Russian commanders even talk about them using the same nickname that previously symbolized the night terror of Ukrainian troops. The irony is especially cruel because these drones were conceived precisely as a Ukrainian technological advantage over Russian industrial superiority. Now some are being employed for supply outposts Russians, attack Ukrainian trenches or support night assaults using thermal cameras identical to those used by kyiv. A new phase of drones. All of this reflects a profound change in the logic of modern technological warfare. For years it was assumed that the key was to design weapons more advanced than the enemy. In Ukraine it has been imposing for some time another reality: It also matters who can best recover, recycle and reuse the material destroyed on the battlefield. Russia has found a relatively cheap way to close part of the technological gap with Ukraine without waiting to develop equivalent platforms from scratch. This now forces kyiv to study unprecedented solutions such as anti-handling systems capable of automatically destroying critical components if the device falls intact into enemy hands or even introduce malicious software designed to sabotage Russian networks after the capture of the drone. Image | X, Armed Forces In Xataka | Russia has discovered a brutal way to strip the Ukrainian defense: force it to spend Patriots it cannot replace In Xataka | Russia has found something more important than drones in China: secret training for the war in Ukraine

soldiers who return with a different face after a medical leave have been shot

by

A few years ago, a survey carried out among young South Koreans revealed a fact very unusual in any other country: a significant portion of respondents believed that receiving cosmetic surgery as a graduation gift It was something completely normal. In fact, in cities like Seoul, clinic ads take up entire buildings and some neighborhoods. hundreds of centers accumulate specialized a few meters from each other. The hype has now reached the military. An unexpected problem. Yes, the South Korean military is discovering a problem that just a few years ago would have seemed absurd even there: more and more soldiers are returning from leave. with aesthetic operations recent events that directly affect the functioning of military units. The Korean Times said that there is everything from recently operated noses to swollen eyelids or faces still recovering that are forcing officers to exclude soldiers from training, night guards or physical tasks for medical and security reasons. What was once a relatively exceptional thing reserved for the last months of military service has become in a trend much broader among South Korean Generation Z. And the phenomenon reflects the extent to which the country’s aesthetic culture no longer affects only to civilian lifebut also to one of the most rigid and traditional institutions of the State: the army. The aesthetic pressure. Basically, something that we have counted before. South Korea has been one of the world epicenters for years of cosmetic surgery. Eyelid operations, rhinoplasties or facial retouching are part of an extremely competitive culture where physical appearance influences in social relationships, employment and status. What is new is that this logic has fully penetrated young soldiers on active duty. Many apparently take advantage of higher military pay and leave to save and submit to operations while they remain deployed. Some even prioritize surgery over any other personal expense. Gangnam District Clinics Offer specific discounts for the military and use social networks to attract young clients, while online forums are filled with questions from soldiers about recovery times compatible with military life. Clash between military discipline and culture. The problem for the commanders is not only medical, but organizational. When a soldier returns with swollen eyes after eyelid surgery or a rhinoplasty still healing, someone has to cover his guards, exercises or physical duties. South Korean officers they start to describe uncomfortable situations where they must reorganize entire training sessions to avoid risks or possible legal liabilities if a recent operation becomes complicated. Furthermore, some commanders are even receiving parent calls asking for special treatment for their children while they recover from cosmetic procedures. The scene reflects a very profound cultural clash: an army designed around collective discipline and sacrifice that begins to confront much more individualistic values. typical of Generation Z. Absence of clear rules. The Times remembered that one of the biggest problems is that the South Korean army practically has no specific regulation to manage this phenomenon. Military regulations cover medical discharges and injuries, but not situations where a soldier voluntarily decides to have surgery for cosmetic reasons in the middle of service. That leaves officers caught in a difficult position. If they allow certain exceptions, they generate discomfort among other soldiers forced to assume more workload. If they are not allowed and a medical complication occurs, they may face disciplinary or legal responsibilities. The result is an organizational void which is beginning to directly affect the operational preparation of some units. A transformation that worries the army. Beyond the specific surgeries, the case reveals a transformation much deeper within South Korea. If you will, the army is discovering that digital culture, social networks and aesthetic obsession of South Korean society are even changing the way young people live military service mandatory. For many recruits, improving their appearance is no longer something secondary that is left for after the army, but an immediate priority integrated within their own personal and social identity. And that is forcing the armed forces to adapt to a completely new reality: a generation that can accept military discipline, but at the same time still considers it perfectly normal to return from leave with a different face. Image | RawPixel, Unsplash, Republic of Korea Armed Forces In Xataka | Military submarines as “five-star hotels”: this is South Korea’s bid to enter the Western market In Xataka | In 1995, South Korea suffered one of the great architectural disasters of the century. The culprit: the air conditioning

Ukraine has resurrected one of the oldest tactics of warfare. And he is isolating Russian cities without the need for soldiers

by

One of the many movie scenes that took place during the soviet blockade of berlin occurred in 1948, when the United States and its allies kept an entire city alive using an airlift that landed every few minutes with food, coal and medicine. The operation highlighted a lesson that military strategists never forgot: in any war, sometimes the most important thing is not to conquer a city, but to decide who can continue to supply it. A silent return. For centuries, sieges were one of the tools more brutal and effective of the war. Surrounding a city, cutting off supplies, and waiting for hunger, exhaustion, or lack of ammunition to do the job was a military logic as old as empires themselves. Ukraine is now recovering that same idea, but adapted to the drone era. The big difference is that you no longer need to physically surround a city or send thousands of soldiers to isolate it. It is enough to control the roads, monitor movements and constantly destroy everything that enters or leaves. What is happening around Mariupol It is beginning to look less like a traditional war and more like a medieval siege executed from the air and hundreds of kilometers away. Mariupol as a laboratory. After conquering Mariupol in 2022, Russia turned the city into one of the ggreat logistics centers of its southern front, using its roads and port to move fuel, ammunition, troops and equipment towards Donetsk and Zaporizhia. Ukraine has started to attack precisely that circulation network. Reconnaissance and attack drones patrol the main access routes to the city looking for tanker trucks, ammunition transports or logistical convoys. The logic is extremely simple and very old: There is no need to destroy a fortified position if you can prevent it from continuing to function. According to different military sources and published videos by Ukrainian units, some drones already operate up to 160 kilometers within of territory controlled by Russia, turning entire roads into permanent risk zones for any Russian military vehicle. Turn logistics into the new front. The most important transformation of this strategy is that the main objective is no longer necessarily soldiers, tanks or trenches. They are the supplies. Ukraine is exploiting a classic vulnerability: any army depends on fuel, food, ammunition and constant transportation to maintain positions. The drones greatly facilitate that job because logistics trucks are relatively easy targets: they follow predictable routes, have little protection and often transport extremely flammable or explosive material. Even small ammunition can destroy them completely. That explains why Ukraine is dedicating so many resources to chasing supply vehicles instead of directly attacking fortified positions that are much more difficult to neutralize. From Mariupol to Moscow. The same logic also appears behind the massive drone attacks against Moscow. They remembered in Insider that Ukraine no longer uses only small improvised FPVs near the front. Now deploy long-range platforms such as FP-1 Firepointthe RS-1 Bars or the new Bars-SM Gladiatorhybrid drones between a cruise missile and unmanned aircraft capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers and crossing one of the densest anti-aircraft networks in the world. The objective is not only to cause specific damage, but to force Russia to disperse defensesspending resources and living under constant pressure even far from the front. The attack with more than 120 drones on the Moscow region demonstrates the extent to which Ukraine attempts to transfer the logic of attrition and isolation far beyond the traditional battle lines. A battle for movement. What is really important is that Ukraine seems to be redefining a fundamental idea of modern warfare: it is no longer necessary to completely control the terrain to control the situation. Just control movement. If any road can be surveilled by drones, any convoy can be destroyed and any resupply can end up intercepted, maintaining a position begins to be much more difficult even if the enemy retains numerical superiority. There is no doubt, that profoundly changes traditional military logic. The future sieges They may no longer be represented with circles surrounding cities on a map, but with invisible networks of drones capable of slowly collapsing enemy logistics without the need for major ground offensives. The war in Ukraine is demonstrating precisely that: that today you can isolate a city, wear down an army and force it to abandon positions without moving practically a single soldier. Image | Pexels In Xataka | Once again, Ukraine has opened a missile launched by Russia. Once again, surprising manufacturers have been found In Xataka | Russia has been advancing at a snail’s pace in Ukraine for months. That’s about to change because of one season: summer.

The war in Ukraine has entered such a crazy phase that soldiers are shooting at their own drones

by

In 1943, during a night mission over Europe, several British pilots returned convinced that they had been pursued by strange luminous objects that appeared and disappeared around their planes. Some thought it was a secret German weapon, others thought it was nervous breakdowns caused by the stress of combat. Decades later, that aerial confusion He continues to remember a disturbing idea: there are moments in wars where the problem is no longer just the enemy. A schizophrenic heaven. They counted on Insider that the war in Ukraine has entered such a phaseDrone Aturation that, in many sectors of the front, soldiers no longer know what aircraft flies over their heads or who controls it. The consequence is an almost absurd situation even by military standards: Ukrainian troops shooting against their own drones for pure survival, operators cutting with scissors fiber optic cables without knowing if they belong to the enemy or a friendly unit and electronic warfare systems blocking any signal that appears in the air even if that means disabling their own equipment. The battlefield has become so crowded with small flying devices, jammers and data links that distinguishing between ally and enemy takes mere seconds. If something approaches too quickly, the automatic reaction is to destroy it first and ask later. Disposable drones due to excess. Part of the problem stems from how both sides have transformed the drone into a mass consumption weapon. These are no longer expensive and scarce platforms like those used by Western powers a decade ago, but rather relatively cheap systems manufactured at enormous speed and designed to be constantly lost. Russia and Ukraine consume drones in such gigantic amounts that losses due to friendly fire have been integrated almost as another operational cost. Units expect to lose devices due to interference, coordination errors, enemy jamming or simply because a nervous soldier open fire against any object that buzzes near your position. The result is a combat environment where technological saturation has begun to generate chaos even within one’s own side. The new logic: destroy them before they exist. This uncontrolled explosion in the use of drones is also pushing the war towards a new strategic stage: attack the factories before the devices in flight. Russia and Ukraine have understood that intercepting drones one by one is no longer enough when both produce thousands of systems continuously. That’s why the long range attacks attacks against industrial plants, logistics centers and component manufacturers have multiplied in recent months. Ukraine is hitting Russian facilities linked to Shahed drones, sensors, navigation modules and jam-resistant electronic systems, as Russia seeks destroy Ukrainian workshops where FPV drones or long-range attack devices capable of penetrating hundreds of kilometers into Russian territory are assembled. The logic begins to look less like a conventional war and more like a permanent industrial hunt. Electronics don’t keep up. The problem for both sides is that technological adaptation it moves too fast. Each defensive upgrade generates an immediate modification to enemy drones. Interference systems stop working when faced with fiber optic links. GPS locks lose effectiveness against new navigation modules. Drones incorporate more autonomy, greater processing capacity and increasing resistance to electronic countermeasures. In parallel, Ukraine and Russia they use satellite intelligencepattern analysis and constant recognition to locate production centers, antennas, warehouses and logistics chains. The front already It doesn’t end in the trenches.: continues hundreds or thousands of kilometers behind, inside factories, industrial parks and supply networks that have become priority military targets. A machine out of control. The most disturbing thing is that this dynamic gives the sensation of having partially independent of the soldiers themselves. There is drones attacking dronesautomatic systems jamming any available signal, operators trying coordinate safe corridors so that their own devices are not demolished and entire factories turned into objectives daily to sustain a rate of losses that seems impossible to absorb. If you like, the war in Ukraine is still a war of artillery and attrition, but it is also transforming into something much stranger: an aerial ecosystem saturated with cheap and disposable machines where survival depends on react before identifying. And when an army ends up shooting at its own drones because there are too many devices in the sky to distinguish them, it means that the conflict has crossed a whole new frontier. And crazy. Image | mod-gov-ua In Xataka | Ukraine has found a new way to assault buildings occupied by Russia: sending a robot with a 300-kilogram surprise In Xataka | The war in Ukraine is being filled with “Mad Max” ships: metal screens and nets against FPV drones in the Black Sea

Germany already has its first military plan since World War II. And it’s going to take thousands of soldiers to carry it out.

by

For decades, Germany avoided any gesture that recalled its military past, to the point that even talking about its own strategy generated political discomfort. That reflection had deep roots: on September 1, 1939, the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany marked the beginning of the Second World War and left a mark that conditioned for generations the way in which the country understood the use of force. Almost a century later, that silence begins to be broken, but in a radically different context. A historic turn. Germany has taken a step that breaks decades of strategic caution by presenting its first comprehensive military strategy in the modern era, a 35 page document which bluntly assumes that the European security environment has changed irreversibly. In that sense, the invasion of ukraine has acted as a catalyst for a profound change in German mentality, forcing Berlin to move from a contained role within NATO to a much more active and defining one. For the first time since World War II, Germany not only talks about contributing, but to leadleaving behind his traditional discomfort with military protagonism. Except Washington. Although the official discourse continues to describe the United States as an indispensable pillar, the substance of the strategy points in another direction: Europe must learn to stand on its own. Washington is increasingly looking towards the Indo-Pacific and demands that its European allies greater involvementwhich has led Berlin to prepare for scenarios in which American support is not as automatic or immediate, at the very least. Without saying it openly, Germany is beginning to design a European defense framework where its role does not depend so much on North American coverage, but on your own ability to organize, coordinate and sustain the defense of the continent. The most powerful army in Europe. That’s the idea. The German plan is clear in its ambition: to convert the Bundeswehr into the conventional army strongest on the continent. To this end, a significant increase in troops is proposed, going from about 185,000 soldiers to figures that, adding active forces and reservists, could approach or exceed the 460,000 troops in the coming decades. This growth is not only numerical, but also structural, with a special emphasis on reinforce reserveswhich become a central element of national defense. The idea that emerges is forceful, one in which, if Europe wants to defend itself without depending entirely from the United States, will need a much larger military mass, and Germany is willing to lead that effort. A construction in phases. German rearmament is not considered as an immediate leap, but as a step process which will extend for more than a decade. In a first phase, the objective is to maximize readiness and rapid response capacity, ensuring that forces can operate at any time. Subsequently, it seeks to systematically expand capabilities in all domains, aligning with NATO objectives but with greater operational autonomy. Finally and finally, the horizon points to a deep technological transformationone where innovation, artificial intelligence and new forms of war define military superiority. Beyond the numbers. Yes, because the German strategy also reflects a more complex understanding of modern conflict, where the borders between military, civil and economic are increasingly blurred. Hybrid warfare, autonomous systems and the importance of information control force us to rethink not only how many soldiers or tanks are needed, but what effects they should be able to generate. In this context, the German strategy recognizes key shortcomings in Europesuch as intelligence, surveillance or long-range attack capacity, and proposes correcting them quickly so as not to be at a disadvantage against powers such as Russia. Europe as its own military pillar. The underlying message is difficult to ignore: the defense of the continent is already can’t rest exclusively in the traditional NATO structure as it was understood in recent decades. In this way, Germany wants to position itself like the axis on which a more militarily autonomous Europe could be articulated, capable of deterring and, if necessary, fight for herself. There is no doubt, the approach implies assuming a responsibility that was avoided for a long time, and that now appears inevitable in the face of a more unstable environment and a US ally. less focused on Europe. Human muscle. It is the last of the legs to analyze, because the entire German approach converges on a central idea that is beginning to take shape: if Europe wants to sustain a credible defense without completely depending from the United Statesyou will need mobilize hundreds of thousands of soldiers and rebuild a military base that had been reduced for years. Viewed this way, Germany is not only increasing its own forces, but is leading the way for what could be a continental effort much older. In that scenario, the question may no longer be just whether Europe can defend itself, but rather how much time, resources and personnel it is willing to devote to achieving this. Image | 7th Army Training Command, Pexels In Xataka | Germany was a sleeping military giant: now it has been awakened and it is already surpassing the US in bullets produced per year In Xataka | Germany is experiencing a new “industrial miracle” that it already experienced 90 years ago: that of weapons

thousands of soldiers converted into Tomahawks that the US no longer has

by

In recent times, the United States has fought many of its wars without the need to deploy large contingents on the front lines, relying on weapons capable of traveling more than 1,500 kilometers with millimeter precision and being launched from thousands of kilometers away. But there is a detail which can be crucial: replenishing that type of weaponry can take years, not weeks. The Tomahawk countdown. The United States has based the start of the conflict on a key advantage: hit at distance without exposing itself, relying massively on cruise missiles Tomahawk. However, that advantage is evaporating at high speed, with more than 850 missiles launched in just one month, a figure that represents a significant part of the total available arsenal and that has led some commanders to openly speak of “alarmingly low” levels. The problem is not only how much has been spent, but how slowly can be replaced: They are manufactured in limited quantities, they take years to produce and their intensive use in multiple recent conflicts has left a stock much more fragile than the official discourse makes it seem. From remote war to direct risk. Because the Tomahawk is not just another weapon, it is the pillar that allows Washington attack without risk pilots or troops in highly defended environments. From that perspective, its wear and tear completely changes the nature of the conflict, because it forces remote attacks to be replaced. for closer operationswhere planes and soldiers are much more exposed. In fact, the very development of the campaign already points to this turn: after the first long-distance blows, the United States has had to resort to more conventional ammunition and to deeper incursions, accepting a level of risk that at the beginning of the war he had managed to avoid almost completely. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Bainbridge fires Tomahawk missiles from the deck while underway in the eastern Mediterranean, in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 3, 2026 A scarcity that conditions. It we have counted before. The accelerated consumption of these missiles not only affects the war in Iran, but also opens a much bigger problem: Leaves the Pentagon with less room for other critical scenarios, especially in the Indo-Pacific facing China. Let’s think that Tomahawks are a of the key pieces for any high-intensity conflict against a similar power, and its reduction poses a obvious strategic dilemma: continue spending them in the Middle East or save them for a possible much more demanding confrontation. In fact, the urgency has reached the point of proposing missile transfers from other regions and put pressure on the industry to multiply production, something that, in any case, it will take years to take effect. The arrival of troops. In parallel to this silent attrition, the United States is moving thousands of soldiers to the region, in a buildup that could exceed 17,000 troops ready to operate near Iran. Although officially it is presented as a measure of pressure or preparation for contingencies, the context reveals another reading– As the ability to hit from afar decreases, the need to have options on the ground. Marines, parachutistsspecial forces and logistical support units are being positioned for missions ranging from securing sea routes to capturing strategic objectives or nuclear facilities. Possible missions, real risks. Because the operations that are being considered are not minor or fast, but complex interventions in highly hostile environments: take key islandssecure points in the Strait of Hormuz or even penetrate Iranian territory to neutralize critical assets such as uranium. Each of these scenarios involves facing missiles, drones, naval mines and prepared local forces, with the added risk of operating in tight areas and under constant fire. Unlike missile attacks, there is no safety distance: once on the ground, troops become concentrated and vulnerable targetsrelying on aerial and defensive coverage that is also under pressure. The turn towards a more dangerous war. Inevitably, the result is a profound change in the logic of conflict: what began as a campaign dominated by technology and reach is transforming into a situation where the human factor returns to the center. If you will also, a key idea aims to clearly prevail, one where the war in Iran is approaching a unprecedented scenario for the United States, and where thousands of its soldiers may have to assume the role they previously Tomahawks played. Not by strategic choice, but by necessity, in a context where the shortage of high-precision ammunition coincides with an accumulation growing number of troops ready to intervene in one of the most dangerous environments in the world. Image | US Navy In Xataka | Iran has achieved something unprecedented in the Middle East: that the US has to abandon its military bases In Xataka | While the US bombs Iran, something unusual has happened: drones attacking the nuclear bases in North Dakota

There are soldiers with +30 resistance thanks to a briefcase

by

In 1965, the US Army already tested mechanical devices to increase the strength of soldiers. The problem is that they were models so heavy and impractical that they could barely move with them. Today, half a century later, those systems have reduced their size to fit in a suitcase and weigh less than a light backpack. And they are being tested in Ukraine. From the drone to the exoskeleton. we have been counting. The war in Ukraine had become the best example of how drones and remote control they changed the combat modern. For months, the focus has been on gun operators from screens and devices adapted from the civilian world. However, now has appeared a new step that completely changes the approach. Combat is not only controlled remotely, the body of the soldier on the front line is also reinforced. In other words, the scenario begins to seem less like an evolution of classic warfare and more like a transition towards something close to science fiction or the universe of the shooters. Exoskeletons in real combat. Yes, because the Ukrainian forces have begun to test exoskeletons on the Pokrovsk front both in logistical tasks and in combat positions. As far as is known, this is the first time that this type of technology has been used in real war conditions. As? Apparently, the systems are placed on the waist and legswith a structure that runs along the back and reaches the knees. Additionally, they include actuators in the hip that function as mechanical joints. Your goal is reduce physical effort and allow soldiers to operate for longer without losing effectiveness. Two soldiers from the 147th Artillery Brigade showing off their exoskeletons Faster, stronger and less wear. The first data handled by the units is clear. Exoskeletons have reduced the load on the legs around 30%. This has allowed faster movements of up to about 20 kilometers per hour for distances close to 15 or 17 kilometers. There is no doubt, in artillery units this has a direct impact. A soldier can move and load projectiles faster and with less fatigue. The improvement is not just physical. It also increases the pace of work and maintains operational capacity for longer. The key: artillery. This initial use in real combat is no coincidence because artillery crews endure some of the most demanding tasks on the battlefield. Every day they can manipulate between 15 and 30 projectileswith weights close to 50 kilos each. That means moving more than a ton in an intense day. The exoskeletonsa priori, allow us to alleviate this effort and accelerate the rate of fire. From that perspective, in a conflict where the volume of fire continues to be decisive, any improvement in that process has an immediate impact. Light, portable and adaptive technology. Military commanders counted on Insider that one of the most relevant aspects is the format. Each unit weighs around two kilos and can be folded up to fit in a briefcase where to save and deploy. This makes it easier to transport and deploy on the front line. Furthermore, they incorporate artificial intelligence systems that adjust operation in real time based on load and soldier movement. They can even operate in different modes depending on the task, making it clear that it is not just a mechanical reinforcement, but a system that adapts to the user while fighting. From video game to reality. The truth is that, for years, the war in Ukraine has reminded of a video game due to the use of screens, drones and remote control. Now the reference changes diametrically. Exoskeletons bring combat closer to images more typical of popular sagas like Call of Duty or even mechanical chargers that we saw in Alien. We are talking about soldiers who carry more weight, move faster and maintain performance for longer, a real change in how the human presence on the battlefield is conceived. It is no longer theory. Other countries had been testing similar systems for years without deploying them as a standard. For example, the United States has worked on projects how to KNOW either ONYXbut none had come into widespread use. As in the use of large scale dronesemergencies are leading Ukraine to take the step before anyone else by testing them directly in combat. If the results are consolidated, the use could extend to other units beyond artillery. The pattern is the same as with drones: first a test in real war, then broader adoption. Accumulating technology. The change doesn’t mean drones are going away, of course. It means rather that now add new layers. The combat in Ukraine thus mixes remote operators, artificial intelligence, old vehicles and now exoskeletons. There is, therefore, no substitution of technologies, there is accumulation. The result is a battlefield where technologies from different eras coexist and where each advance does not eliminate the previous one, but rather redefines how it is used. Image | Telegram In Xataka | There are four days left for the US to make a momentous decision: whether it wants to turn Iran into its own Ukraine In Xataka | Iran is exploiting the US’s weak point: it is not its F-35s or its Patriot missiles, it is the bill every time they take off

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.