war

It is proof that China has won the robot vacuum war

by

Already it was seen coming for a long time: iRobot is sinking and bankruptcy is knocking on the door. The one that pioneered robot vacuum cleaners has been going through difficulties for years and their current situation is critical: they have admitted that they barely have cash to operate and there are no more ways to earn income. It looks very bad. what has happened. iRobot has published the third quarter results of the year and paint a very gloomy scenario. Revenue was $145.8 million, down 33% in the United States, 13% in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) and 9% in Japan compared to the same period last year. The serious thing, according to its CEO, is that due to “market difficulties, production delays and unforeseen interruptions in shipments” the use of cash increased and right now they only have 24.8 million dollars and no additional source of income in sight. Why is it important. iRobot was the one who started the robot vacuum cleaner market in 2002 with the first Roomba model. In 2016 They were market leaders. with a share of 64%, but the emergence of more competitors meant that the pie began to be shared more and more, reducing its portion. iRobot reached its peak valuation in 2021 and from there it was downhill and without brakes. In 2022 Amazon threw her a lifeline and tried to buy herbut regulatory problems in the European Union they caused the agreement to end up being diluted. Its fall is not only important because it was the company that inaugurated the sector, which made us call robot vacuum cleaners ‘Roomba’, it is also confirmation that Chinese companies have conquered the sector. Possible bankruptcy. In a document addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission Last October, the company warned of its critical situation and opened the door to bankruptcy as soon as December 1st. The reason is that it has a credit agreement with The Carlyle Group and has two key requirements: to demonstrate that the company can continue to operate and to maintain a minimum of core assets, something they cannot currently meet. The problem is that they have already received two extensions and the deadline is December 1. They need another extension or sell the company, but they have no buyer. What’s wrong with my Roomba. In statements to The VergeiRobot says the company continues its daily operations, including support for its products. However, if the company closes and the cloud stops working, it will mean that the Roombas will lose their online connectivity. That is, they cannot be controlled from the mobile phone with the app, but they will continue to work using the buttons. It’s already happened. Even if iRobot goes bankrupt, its cloud services may continue for a while, the question is for how long. This is what has happened with Neato vacuum cleaners. The company closed in 2023 and their cloud continued to function, until a couple of weeks ago when they announced that they turned it off permanently. Neato vacuum cleaners only work in manual mode and it is no longer possible to use the app to control the robot or create cleaning routines. Image | Xataka In Xataka | Dyson is late to the robot vacuum party. Your ace in the hole is an AI that identifies and removes difficult stains

The war in Ukraine has crossed a red line in Europe. They are no longer drones violating airspace, they are nuclear plants

by

Ukraine has once again placed the nuclear alarm at the center of the European conflict after denouncing that Russia is deliberately attacking the electrical substations that feed the Khmelnitsky and Rivne power plants. According to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, drone attacks are not isolated incidents, but planned operations to endanger continental nuclear security. It happens that drones are reaching European power plants. The drone offensive. Over the past weekend, Moscow launched more than 450 drones and 45 missiles against various regions of Ukraine, causing at least seven dead and damage to critical infrastructure. In Dnipro, a drone hit a residential building, killing three people, while other attacks occurred in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia. kyiv accuses Russia of instrumentalizing the atomic risk as a psychological weapon and trying to cause an accident in plants that still depend on external electricity supply to avoid a collapse of the cooling system. Nuclear risk. In parallel, Moscow is advancing with its own nuclear agenda: the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, confirmed that the Kremlin is working on proposals for a possible nuclear test on the direct order of Vladimir Putin, a response to US President Donald Trump’s recent statement that Washington could resume their own tests. The atomic stress between both powers, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, has plunged Europe into a scenario of unprecedented vulnerability since the Cold War. The epicenter of the threat: Belgium. While Ukraine try to contain the Russian offensive on its own territory, Western Europe has begun to feel the echoes of a hybrid war that expands beyond the front. In Belgium, one of the countries with the highest density of critical infrastructure on the continent, there has been a wave of raids of drones over strategic installations. The most alarming took place at the Doel nuclear power plant, located next to the port of Antwerp, when three drones were initially detected at dusk on November 9, which were later confirmed as five different devices flying over the complex for almost an hour. The energy company Engie, which manages the plant, assured that operations were not affected, but authorities activated the National Crisis Center and reinforced security in the area. Belgium nuclear plant near Doel And more. Hours before, air traffic at Liège airport was had suspended briefly after multiple reports of drones, and in the previous days both Brussels airport and the Kleine Brogel air base (where NATO nuclear weapons are stored) had been targeted of similar sightings. Research points to a coordinated pattern affecting several northern European countries, including Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, where unidentified aerial intrusions have also been reported. Suspicions of espionage. Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken has linked sightings with possible foreign espionage operations and pointed to Russia as the most plausible suspect, although without conclusive evidence. The country’s intelligence services consider that drones could be part of a recognition strategy aimed at evaluating the European response capacity to combined attacks on critical infrastructure. The accumulation of incidents led the Belgian government to convene a National Security Council, after which the Minister of the Interior, Bernard Quintin, assured that the situation was “under control”although he recognized the seriousness of the incursions. The United Kingdom, France and Germany announced sending specialized personnel and equipment to assist Belgium in the detection and neutralization of hostile drones, a gesture that underlines the shared fear that the border between visible war and covert war is becoming dangerously blurred. Technological epicenter. Faced with this new dimension of the conflict, Ukraine has positioned itself as a key actor in the technological response. President Volodymyr Zelensky advertisement the upcoming opening of defense production offices in Berlin and Copenhagen before the end of the year, with the aim of strengthening industrial cooperation on drones and electronic weapons. These “export capitals”, according to his wordsthey will finance the domestic production of scarce equipment and help European allies build their own defensive systems. kyiv, which has made the use of drones one of the pillars of its military strategy, now offers your experience to countries that are beginning to suffer firsthand the effects of the Russian hybrid war. Ukraine as a test. In parallel, Ukrainian creativity in the improvised field of defense is reflected even in unusual solutions: old fishing nets French drones, made from horse hair, are being reused to create tunnels where the propellers of Russian drones become trapped. In contemporary warfare, technology intersects with craftsmanship, and ingenuity has become a form of national survival. Nuclear vulnerability. The incidents in Belgium and Ukraine reveal the same constant: the European nuclear infrastructure (plant, wiring, energy, logistics) has become a target symbolic and strategic. The attacks on Ukrainian substations that feed power plants and the drones that fly over Belgian reactors expose the fragility of a continent that depends on complex systems where any sabotage can multiply its effects. The threat no longer comes only from missiles, but from invisible swarms of drones, of disinformation, of political and technological engineering that undermines stability from within. Russia, faced with isolation and with a still powerful military industry, seems willing to use this asymmetry as an instrument of prolonged pressure. The European responsestill fragmentary, is beginning to be articulated between military cooperation, technological innovation and civil defense. Plus: the lesson left by this sequence of attacks and suspicions seems clear. In the Europe of 2025, the border between energy security and military security has fadedand the future of continental stability could depend less on the size of armies than on how quickly a drone is detected on radar before reaching a nuclear power plant. Image | Trougnouf, Wwuyts In Xataka | The latest tactic of the Russians in Ukraine breaks with the previous one: they have gone from appearing “out of nowhere” to directly disappearing In Xataka | Orion was the Russian version of the US’s most lethal drone. Ukraine can’t believe it when it opens: it’s not a version, it’s the work of the US

Less than 150 kilometers from Taiwan, the US does not stop accumulating missiles. It’s the closest thing to preparing for war.

by

For some time now, the Taiwan position in it strategic balance global has become one of the main axes on which power competition is articulated between the United States and China. The island not only represents a point political identity for Beijing or a symbol of democratic commitment for Washington, but also a decisive geographical node in the military architecture of the Pacific. and then there is a narrow between both. The distances. Maritime access to the island, the air routes that surround it and the narrow strip of water that separates it from the Philippines and Japan define a good part of the board in which it is decided how far project Chinese strength and to what extent it can be contained from the outside. Thus, the crisis that is emerging is not made solely of declarations or doctrines: It is made up of specific islands, narrow maritime corridors, and political decisions made in small communities that suddenly become geopolitical borders. The war strait. It counted on a extensive Reuters report that the chain of continuous military exercises and the missile deployment anti-shipping in the northernmost islands of the Philippines reveal a US strategy that assumes that control of the Western Pacific straits is decisive in preventing the Chinese navy from operating freely in the open sea. And at that point, the province of Batanesuntil a few years ago a quiet territory dedicated to fishing and subsistence agriculture, has become a point of critical importance, due to its position in the extreme south from Bashi Channelthe narrow sea lane that connects the South China Sea to the western Pacific. Bashi is located between Mavulis Island and Orchid Island The arrival of an arsenal. The establishment of a rotating military presencebut practically permanent, with deployments of mobile missile systems capable of blocking the passage of surface ships, has transformed this territory into an essential component of the so-called First Island Chainthe containment line that the United States, Japan and the Philippines intend to maintain to limit China’s ability to influence beyond its coastal waters. Local populations, aware of the historical precedent from 1941live in fear of seeing how their daily lives can be suddenly interrupted by the logic of deterrence or escalation. Liaoning exercises in the Pacific The uncertainty of the Philippines. The Manila government operates in the paradox of a country that does not want to be dragged into a war, but that recognizes that geography makes inevitable any implications in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has unambiguously reopened military cooperation with the United States, granting expanded access to bases in Luzon and reinforcing the number and duration of joint exercises. Given the possibility of an attack or a blockade on Taiwanthe Philippines is preparing not only for defense operations, but for the forced return of tens of thousands of Filipino workers from the island. The prospect of a sudden influx of refugees, disruptions to supply routes and the need to operate under conditions of scarcity have led provincial authorities to raise contingency plans agricultural and logistical processes that return daily life to a state of cautious alert. China and reunification. For Beijing, the Taiwan question is presented as an internal matter which does not allow external negotiation. The Chinese leadership maintains that reunification is a historic address that sooner or later it will come to fruition, and that any foreign intervention constitutes an unacceptable violation of its sovereignty. Hence, the US military presence in the Philippines, the deployment of missiles and the intensification of exercises are interpreted by China not as defensive measures, but as deliberate attempts to restrict their margin of action and condition their ability to respond. The increase in Chinese naval operations through from Bashi Channelthe presence of aircraft carrier groups in the western Pacific and low-intensity pressure tactics against Philippine patrols are part of a carefully calibrated game of signals. Washington’s ambiguity. This week, Donald Trump has reiterated that Xi Jinping knows the consequences of an attack on Taiwan, while refusing to specify whether the United States would intervene militarily. This gesture of opacity, faithful to the doctrine of strategic ambiguity, seeks to simultaneously maintain deterrence against Beijing and the control over decisions of Taipei, preventing the island from declaring formal independence that could accelerate the clash. The difference with respect to the previous government’s approach is one of tone rather than substance: if Biden tended to explicitly verbalize the defense of Taiwan, Trump shifts the emphasis toward risk perception by Chinese leaders. Ambiguity not only preserves diplomatic margin; It also avoids automatically locking the United States into open war if an unexpected escalation occurs. Key islands. As it is, preparation for a possible conflict over Taiwan is not happening in abstract power centers, but in island territories where daily life depends on supply ships and where every Pacific wind brings with it the memory of past conflicts. The expansion of presence US military in the Philippines, Chinese pressure to break the limits imposed by the island chain, and Washington’s calculated ambiguity form an unstable balance that is already changing life in those communities. The future of the region will not be decided only in great summits diplomatic, but in the capacity of a few narrow territories to become a barrier, access or trigger for a greater change in the global order. Image | PiCryl, BORN, rhk111, Army Map Service In Xataka | China has asked Russia for an airborne battalion and training. That can only mean one thing: they are preparing a landing In Xataka | The US studied what would happen if it went to war with China: now it has begun a desperate race to duplicate missiles

The geopolitical irony that we are experiencing in the chip war has an unexpected beneficiary: Russia

by

The technological and trade war between the United States and China continues to open new fronts of debate. The last one, derived from the singular Nexperia situationis beginning to point to a future in which European decoupling from the Chinese chip industry may end up having an effect that is especially disturbing. Or dad, or mom. The strategic semiconductor sector has become the absolute focus of this trade war, and here Europe has traditionally been a security ally of Washington, but at the same time a key economic partner of Beijing. The problem is that the old continent has been forced to choose sides. US pressure for technological “decoupling”, coupled with concerns about national security, has forced the European Union to harden its stance towards Chinese investments and companies. Risk for Europe. This European effort to decouple its chip industry from China, far from shielding the continent’s security, could end up being counterproductive and self-destructive. With this decision, Europe would be assuming enormous economic and supply chain costs to align with Washington, putting at risk the future of its own industries, such as automotive or electronics, which are highly dependent on the Chinese market and production. The Nexperia case. The recent epicenter of this conflict is the aforementioned Nexperia case. In late September, the Dutch government invoked an old national security law to take effective control of Nexperia, a Dutch automotive chip company. That company is actually owned by the Chinese firm Wingtech, and the intervention marked a dangerous turning point, transforming China’s acquisition of technology from an economic issue to one of geopolitical security. Beijing’s revenge. The Chinese government did not sit idly by. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce banned the export of certain finished Nexperia components from China to Europe. Those reprisals They stopped the delivery of key partsthreatening to provoke a new chip crisis in Europe, and especially affecting to automakers in Germany and other countries that depend on that supply. Russia rubs its hands. If China’s chip industry is forced to operate under strict separation from European markets (decoupling), and Europe ceases to be a viable destination or supplier, China could find it easier to supply those chips to Russia, which desperately needs them for its weapons programs, especially in the wake of severe Western sanctions. Strategic irony. The situation is paradoxical. European “security” actions aimed at containing Chinese influence may end up resulting in a transfer of technological supply capacity to Russia. Thus they would inadvertently strengthen the war machine of what is Europe’s most immediate adversary in the Ukrainian conflict. History repeats itself. In reality, the curious thing is that it is suspected that all these events are part of a historical pattern. Europe is dragged into a conflict by the US (first Iraq, then Afghanistan, now this decoupling) only for Washington to withdraw or change focus later, leaving Europe alone to bear the impact of broken supply chains. It does not appear that there was much strategic thinking on the part of the EU and the Netherlands when making that controversial decision with Nexperia. USA also wins. This dynamic seems to further strengthen the leading role of Washington, which if it pushes Europe towards decoupling, not only restricts a rival (China) but also causes European countries to massively increase their defense spending. An expense that would obviously fall on the US military industry. a crossroads. Europe faces a colossal strategic problem. Its security depends on the US, its economy is closely linked to China, and at the same time it seeks its own autonomy. Restrictions on semiconductors put Europe at risk of sacrificing its own long-term economic prosperity in favor of a strategy that could be abandoned by its main ally. Long term consequences. If this trend that began with the Nexperia case is consolidated, European value chains dependent on Asia will be destroyed, in addition to an increase in inflation due to the cost of decoupling and a possible strengthening of relations between China and Russia. What is happening with Nexperia is no longer just a corporate dispute, but the symbol of an EU that is being governed without a clear vision of its own long-term interests. Image | Nexperia | Kremlin In Xataka | China is taking a giant step in its quest for technological self-sufficiency: its own EDA software

If the war involves electromagnetic catapults, Beijing has a problem

by

In mid-September there was a tense scene in China. It happened on the deck of his brand new Fujian aircraft carrierand all the hopes of his Navy were placed on the reliability of that test: If for decades takeoffs were dominated by steam, his new “monster” was going to do it with electricity. Your electromagnetic catapult confirmed They were very serious. Although now the United States has something to say. Structural limitation. The news have given two former US Navy aircraft carrier officers, who conclude, after analyze images of the Fujian, that the deck configuration of the new Chinese aircraft carrier forces takeoffs and landings to be sequenced instead of overlapping them, which reduces its operational rhythm to approximately 60% of a Nimitz no less than half a century. The explanation. As they say, the angle of support of only 6th compared to 9th of the American ships, the greater length of the landing area (which invades the area where the planes are parked in tip before the catapult) and the position of the two forward catapults intercepting the landing system convert the deck into a plane with kinetic conflict pointswhere moving a recovered aircraft can momentarily block the catapult and disrupt the next sortie. Given this risk of collisions in an extremely dense and fast environment, the only realistic mitigation, according to officialsis to lower the tempo, which is equivalent to a direct degradation of the output generation capacity. Technological leap. He FujianAs we said, it is the first Chinese aircraft carrier with electromagnetic catapultsallowing devices to be launched with more fuel and weapons, increasing radius and hit mass. In fact, only Gerald R. Ford American shares this characteristic. It is a radical leap from Liaoning and Shandongwhich continue with ski jumping and limit weight at takeoff. But the material leap does not imply an immediate doctrinal leap: the deck operational culture (cycles, sequences, discipline of human and mechanical flow under hostile climate) is only achieved through years of operation and “with a blood curve,” as veterans remember. Without that accumulated experience, hardware introduces potential capacity that practice does not yet know how to exploit without a penalty in pace (or risk). Quantitative advantage. we have told before: China launches ships at an accelerated pace, building the largest navy in the world in total numberbut its deficit in aircraft carriers is not countable but rather generational: eleven compared to two in service, and decades of know-how compared to a first cohort that is barely entering the real training phase. The Fujian is the first volumetric competitor of the Nimitzbut according to American commanders, it is born with a deck topology that compromises your cadencewhile Washington operates ten Nimitz with doctrine mature and closes the cycle with the Ford class. That the Nimitz, launched in 1975in its last deployment may still surpass Fujian in rate of departures, illustrates that distance between tonnage and competition. The “intermediate link.” The officials, furthermore, interpret the Fujian as a bridge platform: first introduce the catapult, and then clear restrictions in subsequent generations. The next unit (the Type 004) will adjust, a priori, errors and move geometries to unleash the potential that the Fujian contains but does not release due to its disposition. China already shows the industrial pattern of fix in production: fail, learn and launch an iteration in a few years, something consistent with its naval pattern in other ship classes. In that sense, it would not be entirely correct to say that the Fujian fails: rather it fulfills the function of teaching and learning so that the successor is born without those collars. From steam to electricity. Steam catapults dominated shipborne aviation since the fifties: They use steam pressure to drive a piston that drags the plane. They are huge, but energy inefficient, with control thick acceleration and high maintenance requirements. the arrival by EMALS (Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System), first in the Ford class and now in Fujianreplaces thermal hydraulics with digitally controllable induction force: acceleration can be modulated, reducing the structural fatigue of the aircraft, allowing heavier devices to be launched with less stroke and recovering energy more quickly between departures. The “but”. It turns out that the electromagnetic advantage is conditional: to translate into real power requires a deck architecture, doctrine, rhythms and sequence discipline capable of capitalizing on the new margin. In other words, the first generation system in the hands of a fleet without “deck kilometers” inherits the physical power but far from the operational efficiency that decades of steam they taught to squeeze. The key is time. Ultimately, the background thesis of the veteran Marines is not that the Fujian is an unsolvable error, but that its limitation reveals the real nature of naval aviation warfare: it is not pure engineering but engineering amortized with habit, and where the enemy is not design but the chronology. Although it may seem like it, the combat power of an aircraft carrier is not its displacement or its systems, but rather the cycles per hour and the psychological confidence accumulated to sustain them at night, under storms, with low fuel and/or zero margin. That casuistry, which defines lethal performance, cannot be bought. AND, according to officialsChina still operates in the stadium in which only through years of cover will it be able to convert the physical leap from Fujian in sustained air power output. Image | Ministry of National Defense The People’s Republic of China/ LI GANG/XINHUA, Ministry of National Defense In Xataka | China has just tested the Fujian with three different aircraft. The electromagnetic catapult is no longer theory, it is practice In Xataka | For years the Airbus A380 symbolized European power against Boeing. Today he survives like a colossus without a kingdom

Ukraine and Russia are not only fighting a drone war, but also deception

by

The phrase was literal from a Ukrainian high command. The war they have been fighting since the Russian invasion in 2022 is currently the closest thing to a cat and mouse hunt. In the current asymmetric conflict between Russia and Ukraine, where every night a kind of war is fought over energy infrastructurewhat has put both commands on alert is not only the destructive effect of armed drones, but the massive expansion of cheap decoys that force defenses to be spent. Curiously, Russia and Ukraine have resorted to the same thing: Second World War. Alarm. While the Russian Shahed cause blackouts and the Ukrainian Lyutyi and FP-1 they light refineriesboth parties they use decoys whose objective is to saturate, deceive and exhaust the enemy interception layer, and it is precisely this logic of multiplication (the effectiveness not only of the direct impact but also of the distraction) that turns these decoys (decoys) into a strategic multiplier capable of amplifying an already harmful campaign. The historical precedent. The tactic it’s not new: modern military history contains paradigmatic examplesfrom the shadow analemmas to the jet-decoys of the 20th century. And, of all, the case of the ADM-20 Quail illustrates better than any the conversion of vulnerability into advantage through transient imitators that consume defender resources. The Quail, small and cheap compared to the bomber it simulated, carried reflectors and simple patterns of flight to deceive radars and force the expense of expensive interceptors. Today that principle applies miniature and industrial scale with easily manufactured platforms that, although lacking lethal capacity, force the adversary to decide whether to fire a missile worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or take the risk of missing what could be the real target. A B-52 launching a Quail decoy The Russian range and its role. Moscow, which in 2024 industrialized the shahed of Iranian origin to saturate defensesalso produces lures like the Gerbera and the simple Parodiya; some are volumetric replicas with lower mass and range, others incorporate equipment electronic warfare to scout and mark radar locations, and some even carry small explosives to wound recovery teams. This variety pursues three purposes: inflict material wear on missile and air-to-air missile reserves, reveal defense positions, and complicate radar discrimination with reflectors Luneburg type that make targets the size of larger vehicles appear on the screens. The practical result is an increase in false positives that degrades the efficiency of the defense chain. An Lyutyi The Ukrainian range. Ukraine, later to scale its drone campaign, has combined attack vehicles such as the FP-1 either the Lyutyand with low-cost devices designed in local workshops (plastic tubes, wooden frames, metal foil to increase radar section) to explore corridors and distract responses while the units that cause real damage take another route. When working as “pathfinders”these devices allow Ukrainian planners to plot and verify secure routes, test defense sectors and create temporary penetration windows. In other words, its appeal lies in the reduced cost and ease of production, which makes the lure a repeatable tactical capital. Ukrainian decoy Cost asymmetry. The economy of confrontation is brutally simple: a Shahed of a few tens of thousands of dollars can force a response with air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles whose unit price can multiply to those of the target by factors of tens or hundreds. It we have counted: recent examples, like Sidewinders or similar missiles, reach prices that make them strategically scarce. That cost-benefit ratio tilts tactical and political decisions: waste a critical capability on potential decoys or hold on to it and accept the damage? Its proliferation makes the first option a safe way towards the depletion of stocks and the second in a bet for local resilience and operational trickery. Gerbera Lures Defensive capabilities. Although Ukraine has developed anti-aircraft artillery units and interceptor drones that have proven effective, comprehensive defense continues to depend on missiles and systems that are finite. Electronics, spectrum warfare and mobile units provide mitigation, but the physics of aerial combat continues to offer opportunities to those who have the volume and creativity to saturate. The introduction of decoys with EW components or communications relays adds another layer: they not only distract, but can map defenses, degrade chains and amplify subsequent attacks with greater precision. Foreseeable evolution. The scenario drawn by the combination of attack drones and lures is dynamic: iterative improvement of decoys (more realisticwith greater electronic signatures, with active deception capabilities) will match the technical challenge with costly countermeasures (better discrimination, multisensory sensors, finer intelligence). At a strategic level, the proliferation of these tactics erodes sustainability from the intensive use of conventional interceptors and pressures nations to invest in alternatives: low-cost missiles for home defense, AI-directed interceptors, mobile deployments, and greater reliance on offensive electronic warfare. Meanwhile, in the short term, the Ukrainian tactic of using lures as a multiplier It increases the likelihood of real material damage to critical Russian systems and highlights a legitimate fear in Moscow: that its defenses will be exhausted before the real threat is neutralized. So? If you like, the decoys work like power amplifiers: not only for what they destroy, but for what they force the adversary to burn, reveal or reconfigure. The lesson historic quail applied to mini-UAVs provokes a contemporary dilemma where economics, logistics and homemade innovation can tip the tactical balance. For Russia, the proliferation of Ukrainian decoys represents a operational and symbolic threat: The erosion of advantage in expensive systems and the realization that modern warfare rewards not just direct explosion but the ability to manipulate enemy perception and expenditure, transforming false targets into a strategic weapon in their own right. Image | StahlkocherGASTELLO DESIGN BUREAU, In Xataka | Ukraine accelerates the assault on Russia with an unprecedented army of robots: they are aquatic, carry rocket launchers and are lethal if stopped In Xataka | Ukraine cannot believe what it found inside Russia’s ballistic missiles: déjà vu

Ukraine has opened Russia’s cruise and ballistic missiles. War is impossible if your allies make weapons for you

by

He fed up with Ukraine with the hole that exists around international sanctions it is palpable and numeric. kyiv intelligence has hundreds of reports in your possession that reveal that Russian drones have passed those sanctions for the lining. And not just drones, even in the tanks. The latest: Ukraine has begun analyzing parts of Moscow’s latest cruise and ballistic missiles. And what they found is a deja vu. Clandestine circuit. Three and a half years after the start of the invasion, Ukraine continues to dismantle the last Russian missiles and drones and find tens of thousands of parts inside made in the westthe majority of his “allies” (microcontrollers, sensors, connectors, converters) from countries that have theoretically embargoed the supply: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan. Of course also, Moscow’s allies like china. In fact, Zelensky put in more than 100,000 the foreign components found only among 550 vectors used in a single recent bombing, confirming that the sanctions have not turned off the tap: if anything they have made it more expensive and slowed down, but not dried up. The escape mechanism. It we have counted before. The mode of entry does not require sophisticated espionage, but rather exploiting loopholes in global trade: pieces “dual use” sold to civil actors who then they deviatecomponents placed on the market before sanctions, networks of shell companies and brokers in lax jurisdictions, and triangulated purchases via third countries that do not apply or execute controls. The sanctions gave the West three years to close the gaps, but they also gave Russia (and those who traffic for it) the same time to learn to get around them. In practice, it is a market: if you pay more, there is always someone willing to move the merchandise with layers of opacity sufficient to break traceability. Iran and North Korea. Moscow relies on two veterans of the sanctioning regime: Iran (which has spent decades refining the engineering of commercial border hopping) and North Korea (capable of moving components and complete systems despite being formally embargoed). Cooperation with both not only transfers material: it transfers method. Both logistical routes and corporate and financial camouflage techniques now migrate to the Russian military supply chain. What is possible and what is not. They remembered on Insider that the West hardens the perimeter: compliance guides for companies, “catch-all” to block sensitive exports (even if they are not listed), border inspections, criminal threat to repeat offenders, closures of loopholes when Ukraine identifies specific pieces. But even so, the regime is not airtight: global trade in components is massive, triangulation via third countries It is structural and already exists “pirate” production replacement that replicates or falsifies sanctioned parts. By design, control is reactive: it is as if each new closure encourages Moscow to seek an alternative route. Partial effectiveness. Plus: just because embargoes haven’t cut off the flow doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant. London estimates that the sanctions have deprived Russia of at least 450,000 million of dollars and have multiplied by up to six the price of dual pieces, draining war liquidity and adding temporary friction to the Russian military chain. This, a priori, penalizes rhythms, quality, scaling and maintenance, even if it does not prevent the material from arriving. The structural limit. If you want, the export control It is an instrument of soft power: its real power depends on what the rest of the world is willing to do and tolerate. It can raise the cost, strangle necks, penalize intensities, but it can hardly seal an economy-state Russian size connected to global intermediaries willing to charge for the risk. The result is an industrial war where the blockade is never binary (flows / does not flow), but rather marginal: raising the cost per Russian shot, reducing the cadence, pushing failures due to logistical stress and buy time, but hardly prevent a chip made for a laptop I ended up controlling the guidance of a kamikaze drone over a Ukrainian city. Image | Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation In Xataka | After Cubans and North Koreans fighting alongside Russian troops, new guests have appeared in Ukraine: Chinese In Xataka | In 2023, a pilot from Ukraine had an idea for Star Wars. Not only did it go well: his kamikaze plan has rewritten the war manual

The fight between Ouigo and Renfe goes far beyond the price war. The last battlefield: the workshops

by

Beyond the corridors and the prices proposed by the different companies, the battle between Ouigo and Renfe seems to have no limits. Competitors in Spanish high speed are intensifying their crashes. The last: the use of workshops. But the last crash is by no means the only one. The workshops. The information is brought Chain Being. The media outlet claims to have had access to internal documents in which Renfe accuses Ouigo of carrying out maintenance operations that exceed the marked limits. From Chain Being They point out that Renfe understands that Ouigo is carrying out work that is not permitted in space. The Spanish company understands that the type of repairs carried out there are contrary to the signed agreements and current regulations. It must be taken into account that, for its maintenance operations, Ouigo uses Renfe workshops under a rental contract. However, the contract does not allow any type of activity to be carried out there. Heavy or light. That is, according to the media, the key. Renfe understands that Ouigo is carrying out heavy maintenance work at its facilities, which is not supposed to be allowed. According to the Railway Sector Law, Renfe is obliged to allow access to its facilities (even if it charges for it) so that other companies can carry out light maintenance such as cleaning the vehicles or minor repairs. Renfe assures that the Alstom-Ateinsa workers, whom Ouigo hires to carry out this maintenance, are carrying out heavy maintenance tasks such as replacing parts, fixing breakdowns or changing wiring, always depending on the medium. This contravenes the signed agreements since Renfe would not be obliged to provide said service in its facilities. But, yes, the problem is that the regulations do not clearly specify what is or is not “heavy maintenance.” The problem is that everything is a gray area. The Directive 2012/34/EU on the single railway space, all non-routine activities are classified as heavy maintenance. However the standard EN 15380-4:2021 understands that heavy maintenance will only be understood if parts of the train have to be dismantled. Viability. In Xataka We have contacted both companies but, so far, we have not received a response. What they point out in the radio is that Ouigo assures that denying them access to the workshops would imply that they would not be able to provide the service adequately and, therefore, their two-year viability plan would be at risk. Ouigo points out that they are only doing work on “greasing and controlling levels, leaks and temperatures in the pit”, in words that would be included in the documents. For Renfe this exceeds light maintenance but Ouigo defends that they are within the regulations. The alternative presented by Renfe, according to the documentation, is that Ouigo carries out these actions in its workshops but pays for them accordingly, hiring auxiliary services to be able to carry them out. Beyond the tracks. What is at stake between Ouigo and Renfe goes beyond the typical price war that we see on the roads and corridors. Both companies have clashed over the prices offered by each other but also over the access that Renfe has to the most central stationslike that of Atocha. And not only in Spain. Renfe has tried to return the move in France but has been complaining for some time that there land they are putting all possible suits on the wheels to prevent them from competing on French soil. On this occasion, the problem would lie in Renfe’s technical compliance to be able to operate on French roads. Photo | Ouigo and Renfe In Xataka | In the 19th century, Spain made the strange decision to build its roads in Iberian gauge. Now they are going to be a gift for Renfe in Galicia

His kamikaze plan has rewritten the war manual

by

A year after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a drone instructor had an idea that sounded to science fiction– Pilot cheap quadcopters in order to ram and destroy other drones in mid-flight. Thus, what began as a joke between soldiers, “too much Star Wars”, they saidbecame in less than a year the spine of the Ukrainian defense. The origin. Given the shortage of anti-aircraft missiles and the russian waves of Iranian Shahed who put out cities, Ukrainian engineers and pilots they started redesigning commercial quadcopters to convert them into hit-to-kill interceptors. They were born out of necessity: Winter, power outages, and the inability of conventional defenses to process hundreds of low-cost threats pushed improvisation to become in doctrine. Crowdfunding programs like Come Back Alive and the initiative Dronefall They articulated production, training and logistics, financing and coordinating local manufacturers. How they work and their effectiveness. These interceptors require three conditions: speed and maneuverability to reach targets at hundreds of km/h, vision and guidance systems (from night cameras to semi-automatic guidance) and an explosive charge or kinetic capacity sufficient to destroy the threat upon impact. Models like the sting or variants by Wild Hornets They combine powerful propellers, thermal chambers and light warheads; The tactic is simple in concept, but extremely demanding in execution: detect, locate, launch and maneuver in windows of minutes before the attacker leaves range. Production and economy. lor we have told before, the strategic attractiveness it’s economical: an interceptor can cost between 2,500 and 6,000 dollarsin front of the million per missile of advanced systems. Multiple manufacturers, from Ukrainian SMEs to supported startups by Brave1allow scalability. Ukraine aims to produce hundreds and eventually thousands per dayIn fact, they are already reported thousands of interceptions and programs that connect twenty producers to standardize parts, training and supply. Field operations. Furthermore, the deployment requires a short chain: detection by radar or surveillance, link to a pilot or semi-autonomous system and launch with a very short margin of time (teams report 10-minute windows to intercept). Not only that. The effectiveness depends on the skill of the pilot (specialized courses show low pass rates) and the quality of the data link. When interceptors are not fully autonomous, the human variable remains the bottleneck: well-trained pilots achieve success rates much older. The Sting is much smaller than a typical Shahed drone Diversity of designs. Here the family of interceptors is heterogeneous: there are models that directly impact (ramming), designs with warhead projected at high speed, and guided drones optical sensor similar to small missiles. Plus: some are detachable and transportable in backpacks, and others are mass launchable from containers. This diversity allows the response to be adapted to the profile of the attacker (versus the slowness of a Shahed vs the speed of a Geran-3) and the operational environment. Results and effectiveness. Ukrainian reports speak of massive interceptions: hundreds killed in major attacks and aggregate figures of thousands of kills attributed to programs like Dronefall. Success rates vary (from 30% to 90% depending on the system, the class of the target and the expertise of the crew), but the economic impact is clear: replacing a defense missile with dozens or hundreds of cheap interceptors preserves strategic resources and forces Russia to inflate its operating costs. An interceptor crew prepares a Sting drone from their civilian vehicle Implications. NATO considers interceptors as a valuable complement to traditional layers of defense. The UK has already committed to co-producing interceptors for Ukraine; tests in allied airspace (e.g. trials in Denmark) demonstrate interest in integrating these solutions in territorial defense and protection of critical infrastructure. The main lesson for Europe is the need for cheap and scalable solutions to mass threats, not just high-cost, high-precision systems. Technical limitations. Not everything is optimism: interceptors also face scope problemsresistance to electronic interference and the ability to reach drones at very high altitudes or extreme speeds. The advent of reactor versions of the Shahed (Geran-3) that far exceed the speed of current interceptors forces the improvement race: greater propulsion, better sensor and autonomy, or alternatives such as higher-cost kinetic defense. Furthermore, dependence on human pilots with limited training conditions the sustainability of the effort. The next phase. Given the Russian advance towards faster drones, Ukraine and its partners are already working on new generations: faster interceptors, more robust sensors, semi-autonomous solutions and integrated deployments with radars and missiles depending on the objective. In parallel, non-kinetic defenses are being explored: from lasers to microwaves and EW systems that can complement or replace physical interceptors when speed or altitude exceed their capabilities. Strategic balance. If you will, the most profound change that interceptors introduce It’s doctrinal.: modern air warfare can be won by mass affordable and distributed response, and not just by expensive and one-off systems. Ukraine has shown in this sense that the combination of local manufacturing, civil financing and tactical adaptation transforms a weakness (lack of missiles, especially external) in operational advantage. The final caveat, however, is that this advantage it’s temporary: The adversary adapts, the technology scales, and the survival of the approach requires continued investment in design, production, and training. Image | Wild Hornets In Xataka | The crazy number of drones has turned the Ukrainian sky into the M-30 at rush hour. Identifying the enemy is a danger In Xataka | While Europe builds its Russian anti-drone wall, each nation loads its artillery: some with lasers, others with shotguns

As Europe fights Russia’s hybrid war, a Spanish invention simplifies how to take down its drones in seconds

by

Europe attends a wave of drone raids that have violated its airspace, closed airports and exposed the fragility of its defenses. Faced with this hybrid and growing threat, the European Union study get up an “anti-drone wall”: a technological network of radars, sensors and neutralization systems designed to shield the continental sky against an invisible, cheap and increasingly closer enemy. In fact, Spain has several developments underway that it is about to test. The awakening of Spain. The advancement of drones in modern conflicts has completely transformed the nature of warand Spain is preparing to face it with an ambitious military modernization plan. The Armed Forces will celebrate from October 20 to 24 the Atlas 25 exercise in Huelva, the largest joint meeting of Land, Air and Navy for defense and attack with drones. There, Spanish observation, interception and electronic warfare systems will be tested, with the participation of the Defense Operations Command and INTA. It is not just a tactical maneuver: it is a awakening demonstration technology of the national industry, in which companies such as Indra, Arquimea, TRC and Escribano seek to position themselves at the core of European defense against an enemy that already dominates the sky with cheap and lethal swarms. Atlas 25: the great showcase. The exercise will serve as a testing ground for solutions ranging from offensive drones like the Q-Slam 40 of Archimeacapable of operating without GPS, to inhibition and defense systems developed by Indra and Escribano. But it will also be an industrial showcase in which Spain will show its capacity for technological integration and public-private cooperation. The war in Ukraine has shown that every platform is vulnerable to surveillance and air attack, and that survival depends on the speed with which new electronic warfare tools are developed. Following the recent incursions of Russian drones into European airspace, the need for this “anti-drone wall” has become a priority. The Atlas 25Therefore, it is not only a military exercise, but a political and strategic gesture that places Spain at the forefront of that continental response. Nexor Nexor full integration. The Army has chosen the Nexor systemdeveloped by TRC, as the cornerstone of its new electronic warfare strategy. We are talking about a new platform modular command and control which centralizes the information from all deployed sensors in a single interface. In recent maneuvers in Ciudad Real carried out by the 31st Electronic Warfare Regiment, Nexor (militarily named like Cerberus) has demonstrated its ability to detect, intercept and inhibit hostile drones or enemy communications, even in crowded electronic environments. He integrated system artificial intelligence and machine learning, and its open architecture allows the incorporation of new sensors or updates without redoing its structure. On a front where every second counts, Nexor promises to reduce the gap between detection and responseoffering the soldier a unified and simplified view of the environment to overthrow drones in fractions of a second. Nexor National product. In other words, with this system that is being tested, Spain takes a step towards technological sovereignty by processing and storing its own data, without depending on foreign codes or transferring sensitive information to allied or competing powers. The collaboration between TRC and the Army has led to a 100% national tool that reinforces the country’s strategic autonomy and anticipates the type of war in which so much waves like data They are as (or more) decisive than missiles. Strategic investment. The Ministry of Defense promotes a program of 646 million euros intended to reinforce the electronic warfare of the Army, awarded to Indra under the protection of article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows certain contracts to be excluded from common regulations for reasons of national security. 60% of the investment will be allocated to light capabilities, with 16 mobile systems equipped with Vamtac vehicles and interoperable sensors. The forecast is that Indra will rely on specialized companies as CRTwhich has worked with the Army to adapt the solutions to their real needs. The objective seems clear: to create a Spanish, scalable and sovereign system, which combines industrial experience with the technological agility that the battlefield demands today. Spain and the new border. There is no doubt, the lessons from ukraine have exposed both the vulnerability of armies against drones and the urgency to adapt to a war where control of the spectrum is as important as that of the land or the air. Atlas 25 comes at a time when Europe is seeking shield your skies in the face of the Russian hybrid threat and in which Spain emerges as a unexpectedly prepared actor. If you also want, the national industry has gone from being a secondary supplier to becoming a tactical innovation laboratorywhere the integration between technology, intelligence and digital sovereignty set the course. If the future of warfare is a fight between algorithms, sensors and autonomous machines, the nation seems willing to not to be left behind. And Atlas 25 will ultimately be the litmus test of that commitment. Image | CRT In Xataka | Europe has found the antidote to Russian drones. So demand for a 100-year-old gun has skyrocketed In Xataka | Europe has decided to take action against Moscow’s hybrid war. So Germany has started hunting for Russian drones

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.