reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Ukraine lacks ammunition, not courage. Abandoning them is un-American. House Republicans must choose: support America as a leader of the free world or side with Putin. Translation: Ukraine is not running out of courage and bravery. Ukraine is running out of ammunition. Abandoning Ukraine is to really abandon ourselves. It's simply un American. House Republicans have a choice. Stand with us to ensure America remains a leader of the free world or stand with Vladimir Putin.

Трамп не понимает природу украинского кризиса и не знает русской истории. Его взгляд на события после развала Советского Союза слишком упрощённый. Он считает, что может быстро закончить войну, но это невозможно. Первые переговоры между Путиным и Трампом будут критически важны, чтобы донести, что мы не прекратим военные действия без освобождения Украины от нацистского режима и полной демилитаризации. Это не просто лозунги, а наши жизненные интересы. Некоторые сторонники Трампа понимают нашу позицию и склонны поддерживать её, но есть и те, кто заинтересован в продолжении войны. Ситуация сложная, и не стоит надеяться на быстрое разрешение конфликта. --- Trump does not understand the nature of the Ukrainian crisis and lacks knowledge of Russian history. His view of events after the Soviet Union's collapse is overly simplistic. He believes he can quickly end the war, but this is impossible. Initial negotiations between Putin and Trump will be crucial to convey that we will not cease military actions without liberating Ukraine from the Nazi regime and complete demilitarization. These are not just slogans, but our vital interests. Some of Trump's supporters understand our position and are inclined to support it, but others benefit from the continuation of the war. The situation is complex, and one should not expect a quick resolution to the conflict.

**Original Language Summary:** Говорится о невероятно храбрых и лучших воинах мира, военнослужащих украинской армии. Задается вопрос об открытиях после деоккупации Мелитополя, Бердянска, Херсона. **English Translation:** The speaker refers to the incredibly brave and best warriors in the world, the servicemen of the Ukrainian army. The question is posed: what will be discovered after the de-occupation of Melitopol, Berdyansk, and Kherson?

We have artillery, but is it sufficient? Ukrainian soldiers can't operate American tanks. Let's show the world that the United States is present. Translation: We have artillery, but is it enough? Ukrainian soldiers cannot operate American tanks. Let's show the world that the United States is here.

Russian: Сегодняшняя повестка дня посвящена восстановлению российско-американских отношений. Администрация Трампа прилагает усилия для восстановления отношений, которые были практически сведены к нулю предыдущей администрацией. Состоялся телефонный разговор с президентом Трампом, контакты между министром иностранных дел и его американским коллегой, а также встреча Юрия Ушакова с коллегами. Также было упомянуто обращение президента Трампа о сохранении жизней украинских военнослужащих, заблокированных российскими войсками в Курской области. Обращается внимание на преступления украинских боевиков против гражданских лиц в зоне вторжения, квалифицированные Генеральной прокуратурой РФ как терроризм. В случае сдачи оружия и капитуляции, военнослужащим гарантируется жизнь и достойное обращение в соответствии с международным правом и законами РФ. Для реализации обращения президента США необходим приказ от военно-политического руководства Украины о сдаче оружия. English: Today's agenda focuses on the restoration of Russian-American relations. The Trump administration is making efforts to restore relations that were practically reduced to zero by the previous administration. There was a telephone conversation with President Trump, contacts between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his American counterpart, and a meeting between Yuri Ushakov and his counterparts. President Trump's appeal to spare the lives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked by Russian troops in the Kursk region was also mentioned. Attention is drawn to the crimes of Ukrainian militants against civilians in the invasion zone, classified by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation as terrorism. In the event of surrender, servicemen are guaranteed life and decent treatment in accordance with international law and the laws of the Russian Federation. An order from the military-political leadership of Ukraine to surrender weapons is necessary to implement the US President's appeal.

The speaker discusses the counter offensive in Ukraine and the challenges they are facing. The lack of close air support is hindering their progress against the Russian fortifications. The speaker believes that without this support, a stalemate is likely. They also mention that the West has contributed to the problem by not providing the necessary equipment to Ukraine. The speaker suggests that negotiations or an armistice may be necessary to find a way out of the destructive war.

Speaker 0: We have an important service today. Speaker 1: We, the wolves, are defending our Ukrainian land. I had a meeting with friends and partners in America, but the government there cannot recommend the Ukrainian infantry. Today, we are protecting our Ukrainian people with a new kind of army. As the president, I want to command them with pride.

"This is a NATO army that's manned by Ukrainians and by foreign mercenaries." "There’s a large number of them apparently participating in this current offensive." "So they're an active participant in this conflict, and I don't think you'd have them in these numbers if there wasn't a green light given to them by their respective governments." "There's been an internationalization of this fight." "The army that's fighting Russia right now in Ukraine is no longer a Ukrainian army." "it's a NATO army... supported by NATO intelligence, by NATO communications, by NATO command staffs, by NATO logistics." "the international legion has always been in in this fight."

Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.

Original: Есть все основания полагать, что мы их добьем. Я думаю, что только должно прийти осознание того, что происходит у самого украинского народа. А то, что наши вооруженные силы набирают обороты, действуют все более и более эффективно. Translation: There is every reason to believe that we will finish them off. I think that the Ukrainian people themselves must come to realize what is happening. And the fact that our armed forces are gaining momentum and are acting more and more effectively.

The speaker asserts that the Russian army of 2022 differs greatly from the present army due to combat experience. They claim that the experience gained across all units during the special military operation distinguishes the Russian army from all others, and any other army would suffer huge damage trying to gain that experience. The speaker believes that currently, Russia has the strongest, most professional army globally. They state that aside from the Russian and Ukrainian armies, no other army truly knows how to fight, because until an army engages in real war, combat challenges remain hidden. The speaker says that Russia has processed all of this over the past three years and is advancing technologically.

General Roman Shcherbak spoke about the Ukrainian army. He mentioned the stereotypes surrounding it.

Лидеры украинства осуждают русские высказывания как расизм, предупреждая, что такие слова могут привести к войне. Западные союзники начинают сомневаться в помощи, видя войну между "варварами". Предупреждается, что никто не избежит мести россиян. Необходимо уметь воевать на информационном фронте и слушать умных людей, чтобы избежать катастрофы. Translation: Ukrainian leaders condemn Russian statements as racism, warning that such words could lead to war. Western allies begin to doubt their support, seeing a war between "barbarians". It is warned that no one will escape Russian retaliation. It is necessary to know how to fight on the information front and listen to smart people to avoid disaster.

Speaker 0 welcomes the guest, a war studies professor, and mentions Ukraine's frustration with the slow progress. Speaker 1 agrees and highlights the recent success on the southern front. They discuss the possibility of a breakthrough and mention that Ukraine is advancing towards the second line. Comparing the strength of both armies is difficult, as Ukraine keeps their current strength undisclosed. Russia, on the other hand, is estimated to lose between 500 and 700 soldiers daily. Speaker 1 explains that Ukraine is more cautious with their troops compared to Russia, who prioritizes their objectives over human lives. The current strength of the armies remains unknown, and the situation continues to be monitored. Speaker 0 thanks the guest, and they conclude the conversation.

If the Ukrainian military doesn't stop the Russian invasion, it won't be long before our NATO forces have to fight the Russian army crossing the border.

Speaker 0 argues that many narratives about the Russia–Ukraine war lack internal logic. They say that claims Ukraine is “winning” are supported by evidence such as Russians taking massive casualties and Ukrainians recapturing territory. However, they point to reported exchanges of dead soldiers (including reparation of remains and prisoner-related dead exchanges) where the ratio is often described as around 1 to 20 or even 1 to 40, which they say implies far more dead Ukrainian soldiers than Russian soldiers and “doesn't really make any sense.” They also argue that if casualties were higher overall, the ratios would be reversed. Speaker 0 adds that advocates using these claims “get away with it.” Speaker 1 responds by focusing on casualty figures. They reference a New York Times piece that presented relative casualty numbers—killed in action plus wounded—and also separate killed-in-action counts for both sides. Speaker 1 says the New York Times article was based on a CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) study in Washington, D.C., which estimated roughly 450,000 Russians dead and between 125,000 and 150,000 Ukrainians dead. Speaker 1 uses the Ukrainians’ high-end figure of 150,000 against 450,000 for Russians, producing a “three to one ratio” (three Russians dead for every Ukrainian), and says this cannot be the case. They argue that the main battlefield killer is artillery and that estimates suggest Russians held an advantage in artillery throughout most of the war, ranging from 5 to 1 to 7 to 1 or 10 to 1. They also point to Russian smart bomb inventories as a reason Russians have been able to strike Ukrainian forces more heavily, while saying Ukrainians have virtually no smart bombs deployed against Russians. Speaker 1 further disputes the idea that differences in casualty totals can be explained by posture. They say Ukrainians have been on the offensive for much of the war, citing the Kursk offensive and a June 4, 2023 offensive described as aiming for a blitzkrieg that would reach the Sea of Azov and cut Russian front lines in half. Speaker 1 also cites major Ukrainian offensives in Kherson and Kharkiv in 2022 after noting Russian defeats. They argue that because Ukrainians have frequently conducted offensive operations—and because offense generally produces higher casualties than defense—those numbers do not align with how casualties should look. Speaker 1 says they expect that Ukrainians likely lost around a million men killed in action rather than 150,000, and that the lower figure is “ludicrous.” They add that these casualty narratives are reported and then used by various people to decide what should be done “moving forward,” including arguments for escalating support to “clobber the Russians” and end them as a great power. Speaker 1 concludes by saying elites have told themselves a story they believe and continue “march[ing] forward based on these false narratives.”

**Original Summary:** Опыт ведения специальной военной операции изучают все армии мира и лидеры отрасли вооружений. Необходимо быть на шаг впереди, как это получалось в последнее время, и уверен, будет получаться в будущем. **English Translation:** The experience of conducting the special military operation is being studied by all the world's armies and leaders in the arms industry. It is necessary to be one step ahead, as has been the case recently, and it is believed this will continue in the future.

**Original Language Summary:** Все истории и легенды об информационной антиукраинской войне в России – неправда. Спикер подтверждает, что находится здесь второй день, и отмечает, что "бендеровцев" уже немного недолюбливают. **English Translation:** All stories and legends about an anti-Ukrainian information war in Russia are untrue. The speaker confirms being there for the second day and notes that "Banderites" are already slightly disliked.

The speaker highlights the Kupiansk direction, noting that many Russians talked about Kupiansk, and that they see results. The speaker greets the soldiers and thanks every unit, and everyone who fights and destroys the occupier. It is emphasized that today it is extremely important to achieve results on the front so Ukraine can achieve results diplomatically, and that this is how it works. The speaker states that all our strong positions are strong positions in the discussion about ending the war. Gratitude is extended to every warrior, with pride in them and thanks to all ground forces. Today is exclusively their day. The closing phrases are “Glory to Ukraine!”

Dmitry Sims junior hosts lieutenant general Abty Alaudinov, hero of Russia, hero of the Chechen Republic, hero of the Donetsk People’s Republic, commander of the Akhmet Special Forces, and deputy head of the main military political directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The conversation centers on the current phase of the conflict, Russia’s strategy, the role of Western support, and comparisons with Israeli actions in Gaza and other theaters. Key points and claims: - Russia’s combat capability and strategy - Alaudinov states that “overall, all troops of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Defense are engaged in active offensive operations across all sectors where we’re positioned,” with the most intense fighting around Pokrovsk, seen as the key point to break through to operational space. He notes progress in sectors where the Ahmad (Akhmet) special forces operate and emphasizes a broader offensive plan while maintaining an “active defense” to engage the entire front line and stretch the enemy’s resources. - He asserts that “only Russia is advancing” along the 1,000-kilometer line of contact and attributes slower offensive tempo to preserving personnel and avoiding a sharp breakthrough that could trigger NATO involvement. He argues the primary damage comes from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on both sides, and contends a rapid thrust would yield enormous losses. - Perceived signs of enemy strain - The speaker describes Ukraine as gradually crumbling under pressure, with Pokrovsk, Kupiansk, and the surrounding agglomeration “gradually falling apart.” He claims Russia liberates one or two settlements daily and that NATO support—drones and equipment—has not changed the overall dynamics; Ukraine cannot hold the front despite the influx of foreign weapons. - Western/NATO support - Alaudinov asserts that NATO testing is ongoing on Ukraine with drones, weapons, electronic warfare, etc., and that Trump’s shifting rhetoric does not reduce the flow of weapons or support. He contends that American support persists even as political statements change, and he notes deep American-NATO involvement via think tanks, satellites, and arms supplies that reach the front. - Drones and the changing nature of war - He emphasizes drones as the central element of modern warfare, while not negating the continued relevance of artillery and tanks. He argues: “a tank worth millions of dollars can be destroyed by a drone that costs $500,” and stresses the need to compete economically in war, deploying cheaper, effective unmanned systems to exhaust the enemy’s resources. - He claims Russia has a layered drone system for deep reconnaissance and strike with various warhead levels, ranges, and maneuverability, enabling operations from closest to farthest sectors and allowing “all targets” to be hit today. He asserts Russia is ahead of NATO in unmanned aviation. - Mobilization and tactics - Refuting Western depictions of “meat assaults,” he notes Russia conducted only one mobilization (300,000) and has continued advancing, while Ukraine has mobilized for years and still struggles. He attributes Ukraine’s resilience to nationalist formations behind mobilized troops, and he suggests that without NATO support, Ukraine would not sustain the front for many days. - Mercenaries and comparisons to Israeli actions - He characterizes Western mercenaries as having arrived with false expectations and being killed off in large numbers; Ukrainians are described as having strong spirit, but NATO soldiers lack endurance in the same way. Israeli mercenaries are described as capable in some contexts but not decisive against Russia. - On Gaza and the Israeli army, Alaudinov accuses Israel of “a fascist state” with tactics that spare no one, arguing Russia fights only those who fight with weapons and does not target women, children, or elders. He contrasts this with alleged Israeli actions in Gaza, saying Israel has no tactics and destroys civilians. - Nuclear considerations and doctrine - He asserts Russia is a nuclear power with substantial combat experience and advances in missiles like Zircon that could sink carriers, arguing NATO did not account for Russia’s capabilities when initiating the conflict. He presents a broader critique of Western policy and the so-called “deep state,” alleging far-reaching political dynamics involving Israel, Epstein, and compromise among Western leadership. - Closing perspective - The discussion closes with the host thanking Alaudinov for the detailed analysis of the operation and broader geopolitical commentary, including views on Israel, Gaza, Iran, and U.S. roles.

Искусственный интеллект стал модной темой, и его обсуждают на всех совещаниях. Возможности использования искусственного интеллекта колоссальны, особенно в военном деле. Тот, кто быстрее освоит эти технологии, получит огромные преимущества на поле боя. Есть и другие идеи и разработки, о которых поговорим позже. Сейчас нужно начать работать по плану. **English Translation:** Artificial intelligence has become a fashionable topic, discussed in every meeting. The possibilities for using artificial intelligence are colossal, especially in military affairs. Whoever masters these technologies faster will gain huge advantages on the battlefield. There are other ideas and developments that will be discussed later. Now we need to start working according to the plan.

The interview is delayed and then resumes, with discussion shifting to major international developments. On Iran-related negotiations scheduled for Saturday, July 11, Speaker 4 says the Pakistanis believe talks will resume by then, but multiple parties (Iranians, the U.S., Israel) can still disrupt events before that date. Speaker 4 says the first thing to check is whether the parties meet; if they meet, the MOU remains viable. He lists unresolved issues including failure of the United States to fulfill Article 1, efforts to control Iran’s duties under Article 5, Iran not relenting, and the issue of unfreezing assets. Speaker 1 adds that total relief of all sanctions is also still on the table, and raises the ongoing Lebanon issue. On maritime activity near the Strait of Hormuz, Speaker 1 cites a UKMTO statement claiming the southern route is open again for all traffic, with a corridor expanded for day or night travel if ships keep AIS on, radar on, and lights on. The threat level is described as substantial due to mine danger areas and concern about naval forces hailing ships over VHF. Speaker 4 says he is monitoring ship tracking and describes container ships and other cargo vessels returning, with most traffic going through Iranian channels and only one or two via Omani channels. The conversation then turns to a Netanyahu–Trump meeting during the NATO summit context. Speaker 1 relays an Axios report quoting a senior Trump official: Netanyahu made promises about the Iran war that didn’t come to pass, showing trust is broken, and the report’s leak is framed as significant. Speaker 4 references criticism of Netanyahu coming through reports attributed to Barak Ravid. Both discuss that any public warmth may mask deeper concerns, and they emphasize that what matters is what happens afterward. Speaker 1 worries about U.S. decisions that could greenlight Israel in Lebanon and undermine negotiations with Iran due to Israel’s violations of ceasefire and MOU language that Speaker 1 says is tied to Lebanon. Speaker 1 describes conversations with people from Lebanon (Laith Malouf of Free Palestine TV, and Sharmeen Narwani of The Cradle) and explains his focus on what the Lebanese government is thinking. He argues the Lebanese government’s actions contradict the MOU Iran made with the U.S. regarding Lebanon and references leaked clauses that he says require the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah across all Lebanon, which he says could trigger civil war. Speaker 4 replies that the deal represented only a portion of Lebanon’s population, with the rest split among Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Druze. Speaker 1 also relays an Axios item saying Netanyahu urged Trump to reign in Erdogan over increasingly anti-Israel rhetoric, and asked Trump to avoid approving weapon sales that would help Turkey modernize its air force. Discussion includes claims of mutual hostile rhetoric and disagreements between Israel and Turkey, as well as debate over whether economic escalation like oil pressure should occur. A clip of Trump’s comments is discussed, describing threats to attack Iran’s infrastructure and promises about enriched uranium. Speaker 1 then reads Iran’s response, attributed to Muhammad Bagheri, criticizing the threats and urging respect, with a statement that the Iranian people are “strangers to the language of threats” and warning of response “in another language.” Speaker 4 says the language was prohibited in the MOU and frames it as a violation, while Speaker 1 counters that violations may not be expected to be perfect in an MOU context. The transcript then focuses heavily on the scale of Ali Khamenei’s funeral as reported by Al Jazeera and other estimates: Speaker 1 cites projections of 14 to 20 million across Iraq and Iran over the entire period, and gives specific city estimates: Iran 15 million, Qom 2 to 4 million, Iraq 3 to 5 million, and Mashhad 7 to 10 million, with combined attendance projected around 30 to 40 million. Speaker 4 responds that the size indicates Sayyed Ali Mohammed’s unpopularity. Speaker 1 describes a viral post and a quote broadcast on Iranian national television from a person who says they were previously against the government, engaged in protests, and now begs forgiveness, portraying a shift in sentiment after the war. Speaker 4 compares the funeral’s impact to the U.S. unity shift after December 7, 1941, and says it will affect Iranian culture for the next 50 years. Speaker 1 agrees, adding that even critics may mourn and respect due to the defense of the country and the war’s narrative. Israel/Iran-related moral and protest comparisons appear next, including discussion of alleged violence by Israeli police and prisons versus claims about Iranian guards. The conversation then reports a new maritime incident: Speaker 1 says an unknown projectile hit a Qatari-owned LNG tanker, Al-Raqayat, on the port side near the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz, causing fire with no casualties or environmental impact reported. Authorities advise vessels transit with caution, report suspicious activity to UKMTO, and Speaker 1 frames the incident as showing escalation risk despite ongoing negotiations. On Ukraine, Speaker 1 relays comments attributed to Russian spokesperson Peskov calling it “a war,” and Zelensky’s statements about nuclear weapons as a form of security and vulnerability if lacking them. Speaker 1 connects this to reports that Ukraine may consider obtaining a nuclear capability and mentions a large Russian attack allegedly with drones intercepted but few or no missiles intercepted. Trump’s remarks are also discussed, including a claim that a 90-minute call with Putin and efforts by Trump could bring talks to an end, and that NATO summit discussions may help. Speaker 4 responds by shifting to arguments about escalation and retaliation patterns, then provides a long historical breakdown of Russia’s shifts in tactics and force posture: from early invasion framed as special military operation, to mobilizations, shifting operational focus (e.g., Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Pokrovsk), the Kursk invasion, and later expansion across multiple regions. Speaker 4 claims Kyiv has been struck repeatedly and discusses air defense failures, and he asserts Russia has reserves while Ukraine does not. The transcript then returns to military, economic, and political pressures. Zelensky’s Financial Times quote is read: once attacks reach “1,000 flying towards Moscow” Putin will “feel it personally,” and farther from Moscow means closer to ending the war. Speaker 4 counters with skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to match Russia’s scale of attacks, and discusses glide bombs and claimed casualty impacts. Speaker 1 asks about pressure from energy infrastructure strikes and oil market impacts, while Speaker 4 says Russia exports increase, premiums are obtained, and the broader oil-market impact is limited. Additional regional updates include Lebanon: the Lebanese president denies reports of meeting Netanyahu and says he would immediately leave if in the same room while Israeli attacks and violations continue. Speaker 1 also cites a Lebanese government preliminary report placing direct damage from the war between $3 billion and $4 billion, excluding indirect economic losses of $16 billion, and Speaker 4 responds by calling the deaths “priceless.” Yemen is described as a major development: Speaker 1 says Saudi imposed a blockade preventing Iranian airplanes from going to Yemen for the first time in 11 years, and Iran breached it with an Iranian Mahan air flight to Sana’a transporting injured people and a high-level delegation. The conversation frames this as strategically favorable for Iran, with proxy-war consequences and ongoing clashes linked to Houthi activity and Saudi-backed forces. Speaker 4 adds that Yemen heating up could affect Saudi exits through Bab el-Mandab and change logistics depending on where oil is being sold. On Gaza, Speaker 1 discusses claims that Hamas government bodies resigned or were dissolved and describes other circulating reports (from Emirati outlets) saying these were false and that Hamas instead renovated an emergency committee into an interim committee led by Abdul Hadi al-Aqra (as stated). Speaker 4 accepts this alternative framing as more credible, and Speaker 1 says Hamas aims to expand political control in Gaza and the West Bank. Speaker 1 adds news that an International Security Force presence (described as Trump’s “peace” border force) may bring 20,000 personnel mostly from Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, and Albania, while Gaza continues to be bombed. The episode ends with discussion of negotiation prospects: Speaker 1 argues Trump needs a political win after the Iran war and is more optimistic about Ukraine negotiations, while Speaker 4 says Europe may push confrontation with Russia and risks of escalation at sea. Both agree that the conflict’s end may happen while Trump is still president, but not on Trump’s terms, and they conclude after exchanging commentary on future tracking tools and other unrelated remarks.

As the self-appointed Speaker of the House, Putin stated that Russia's military is more advanced than the US's. He criticized US involvement in Ukraine, suggesting they focus on their own issues. Putin also addressed accusations of spying, emphasizing the need to uncover the true instigators of conflict. He condemned US weapon supply to other countries and criticized media for sensationalizing threats. Putin urged people to turn away from the US government and focus on their own interests.

The speaker opens with well-wishes for health and highlights the Kupyansk direction, noting that Ukraine’s soldiers are achieving results there. He mentions that many Russians have spoken about Kupyansk, and he congratulates and thanks the soldiers for their efforts. He expresses gratitude to every unit and to all who fight and defeat the occupier. He underscores that it is extremely important to achieve front-line results so that Ukraine can achieve results diplomatically, stating that this is how it works and that strong positions in negotiations are essential to ending the war. He extends thanks to every warrior, expresses pride in the soldiers, and declares today as exclusively their day, thanking the troops of the ground forces. He closes with “Glory to Ukraine!”

Die Ukraine darf nun mit gelieferten Waffen militärische Stellungen in Russland angreifen, was bisher kaum möglich war. Dies stellt einen entscheidenden qualitativen Unterschied in der Kriegsführung der Ukraine dar, Stichwort Long Range Fire. Russland greift rücksichtslos zivile Ziele an, was die Ukraine nicht tut. Ein Land, das sich nur im eigenen Territorium verteidigt, verteidigt sich nicht ausreichend. Daher findet die Verteidigung der Ukraine nun auch gegen militärische Infrastruktur auf russischem Staatsgebiet statt. **Translation:** Ukraine is now allowed to attack military positions in Russia with supplied weapons, which was previously hardly possible. This represents a decisive qualitative difference in Ukraine's warfare, keyword Long Range Fire. Russia ruthlessly attacks civilian targets, which Ukraine does not do. A country that only defends itself on its own territory does not defend itself sufficiently. Therefore, the defense of Ukraine is now also taking place against military infrastructure on Russian territory.