• American Airlines briefly grounded all of its US flights over a technical issue.
• The airline told BI that an issue impacted the systems needed to release flights.
• After an hour, a nationwide groundstop issued by the FAA was lifted.

American Airlines grounded all of its flights across the US for an hour on Tuesday, saying it was experiencing technical issues as airlines gear up for the Christmas travel rush.

The Federal Aviation Administration said in an advisory statement early on Tuesday morning that the airline's flights across the US were grounded. An update around an hour later said the nationwide groundstop was canceled.

American Airlines told Business Insider in a statement that a "vendor technology issue briefly affected flights this morning. That issue has been resolved and flights have resumed.

"We sincerely apologize to our customers for the inconvenience this morning. It's all hands on deck as our team is working diligently to get customers where they need to go as quickly as possible."

The airline said the technology issue impacted the systems that are needed to release flights and said the ground stop lasted approximately one hour.

It said customers can find information on their flights through the airline's app and website.

The extent of the resulting disruption is unclear.

American Airlines did not make a general comment while the incident was happening but replied to users on X. In one post, it said "We're currently experiencing a technical issue with all American Airlines flights. Your safety is our utmost priority, once this is rectified, we'll have you safely on your way to your destination."

The issue prevented the airline from calculating weight and balance requirements for its flights, Bloomberg reported.

At an early-morning check-in line at Denver International Airport, the scene was quiet despite the unfolding delays.

Morgan Goldwich, a Business Insider staffer headed home for the holidays, said an AA employee was telling passengers they expected the grounding to be lifted soon. Shortly after, it was.

Users on X said they were made to get off their planes on Tuesday morning.

The disruption comes on Christmas Eve, one of the biggest travel days of the year.

The Transportation Security Administration said it expected to screen almost 40 million people through airports over the holidays, more than a 6% increase from last year.

• A strike by Starbucks baristas is expanding, their union said.
• The strike is due to expand to more than 300 locations on Tuesday, it said.
• The strike began over what the union previously told BI were issues over pay and unresolved cases related to labor disputes.

A strike by Starbucks workers will expand to more than 300 locations on Tuesday, a union that represents the company's baristas said.

Starbucks Workers United said on Monday that walkouts by workers would reach new locations like Atlanta and Buffalo, as well as other locations that had not been announced, The Washington Post reported.

That means some stores in the US's largest coffee chain will be affected on Christmas Eve.

Starbucks workers began striking on Friday over what the union previously told BI were issues over pay and unresolved cases related to labor disputes.

The union said on social media that the company proposed no new wage increases for union baristas and had backtracked on a path it had agreed to with workers regarding collective bargaining and pay organizing.

"The company says they have world-class benefits and pay, but for many workers, that's not the reality," it said. "Starbucks workers often struggle to get hours to qualify for benefits, and annual raises don't match the rate of inflation."

It asked people: "While we're on strike, support workers by NOT buying from Starbucks."

More than 60 locations have temporarily shuttered because of the strikes, the Post reported.

Philly Workers United, a food service workers union, said on X on Monday that five union Starbucks locations across Philadelphia had closed the day before.

Baristas have also gone on strike in locations including Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Columbus, Denver, and Pittsburgh, as BI previously reported.

The union has also shared footage of workers striking in Texas, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon.

The union said on X that the strike would "escalate each day through Christmas Eve... unless Starbucks honors our commitment to work towards a foundational framework."

The Washington Post reported that baristas are expected to return to their jobs on Christmas or the following day.

It is not clear if strikes will later resume.

A Starbucks spokesperson told BI earlier this week that the company "offers a competitive average pay of over $18 per hour, and best-in-class benefits."

They said the company also offered competitive benefits, including "health care, free college tuition, paid family leave, and company stock grants."

The spokesperson said that "no other retailer offers this kind of comprehensive pay and benefits package."

"Workers United proposals call for an immediate increase in the minimum wage of hourly partners by 64%, and by 77% over the life of a three-year contract. This is not sustainable," they added.

The company also said in a public statement that union delegates "prematurely ended" the bargaining session this week and that it was "disappointing they didn't return to the table given the progress we've made to date."

The company wrote, "We are ready to continue negotiations to reach agreements. We need the union to return to the table."

Shay Mannik, a striking barista in Denver who has worked at Starbucks for two years, told Business Insider, "We've been in contract negotiations with Starbucks for several months now, and things have been going smoothly up until this point — when they have now refused to offer us a viable economic package."

"They just have not been offering us anywhere close to a living wage."

Starbucks has 11,161 self-operated stores and 7,263 licensed stores in North America, BI previously reported, making stores with striking workers a small percentage.

But the union said it was still the largest ever strike against Starbucks.

The union said last week that an "overwhelming" 98% of union partners had voted in favor of the strike authorization.

In a recent post on X, the union wrote: "Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol makes ~$50,000 an HOUR and commutes to work via private jet."

"All while baristas nationwide are struggling to pay their rent and get the hours they need to qualify for benefits," it added.

Brian Niccol became CEO of the company in September and has spoken about wanting to improve conditions for the company's baristas.

He recently announced a new parental leave policy for employees in the US, which is due to increase paid leave for parents from March. It applies to store employees averaging at least 20 hours of work a week.

• Cholocate brand Cadbury has lost its royal warrant, which signified its use by the royal family.
• Cadbury was awarded its warrant by Queen Victoria in 1854 and held it for 170 years.
• The brand has been owned by US company Mondelez since 2010.

Cadbury, a storied chocolate maker, has lost its royal warrant from the British monarchy for the first time in 170 years.

The warrant, which symbolizes that a company supplies goods or services to the royal family, was initially awarded by Queen Victoria in 1854.

But Cadbury was absent from the list that was updated by The Royal Warrant Holders Association this month.

The company had held its warrant uninterrupted for 170 years, according to The Telegraph.

The chocolate maker has a long history and huge popularity in the UK. According to trade publication The Grocer, its Dairy Milk was the most popular chocolate brand in the UK in 2024.

MailOnline reported that companies that didn't have their warrants renewed were notified by letters, but that, per protocol, the letters didn't give a reason.

Cadbury was bought by US conglomerate Kraft in 2010, with Kraft's food division later becoming Mondelez.

The Royal Warrant Holders Association said on its website that businesses can apply for a warrant if they have regularly supplied goods and services to the Royal Household for at least five of the last seven years and meet other criteria, such as sustainability.

It said companies can lose their warrant if their products or services are no longer made, orders have fallen, the company has gone bankrupt, or if "there is a significant change in the control or ownership of the Royal Warrant-holding company."

The association added a warrant is typically granted for up to five years, and that the company is reviewed a year before its warrant is set to expire.

Mondelez and the Royal Warrant Holders Association didn't respond to a Business Insider request for comment.

But a Mondelez spokesperson told the BBC: "Whilst we are disappointed to be one of hundreds of other businesses and brands in the UK to not have a new warrant awarded, we are proud to have previously held one, and we fully respect the decision."

Brands with a royal warrant often feature the royal coat of arms on their packaging. The coat of arms shows a lion representing England and a unicorn representing Scotland holding a shield featuring symbols of other parts of the UK.

At the bottom of the shield is a description of which royal family member granted it.

Hundreds of brands risked losing their royal warrants after Queen Elizabeth II's death in September 2022.

At the time, if they wanted to keep their warrant, they had to prove that the royal family still used their products.

Food brands that still have a royal warrant as of the latest update include Nestlé UK and Heinz Foods UK, as well as chocolatiers Bendicks and Prestat.

Cadbury was founded in Birmingham, England, in 1824 and makes products that are sold around the world, including Dairy Milk, Creme Eggs, and Mini Eggs.

Some changes have taken place since the company was bought by Mondelez, including the first changes to its Dairy Milk recipe in a century.

• Trump said the US should take control of Greenland, reigniting an old position of his.
• This came shortly after he also suggested the US could take over the Panama Canal.
• In 2019, Trump said the US should buy Greenland, an idea swiftly rejected by the island and Denmark.

President-elect Donald Trump has resurfaced an old position of his, that the US should take over Greenland, just hours after also threatening to take over the Panama Canal.

Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday that "for purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."

He made the comments in a post announcing the PayPal cofounder Ken Howery as his choice for US Ambassador to Denmark.

Greenland, the world's largest island, is an autonomous dependent territory of Denmark, which is a US ally and NATO member.

Trump's pronouncement came just hours after he threatened to take control of the Panama Canal, the man-made waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday that "the fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the US."

He added, "This complete 'rip-off' of our Country will immediately stop."

In a separate post, Trump wrote: "If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question."

"To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!" he added.

The US transferred control of the canal to the Panama Canal Authority in 1999 under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter.

Panama charges fees for each vessel going through the canal, making it an important economic driver for the country.

Greenland, too, has strategic value. In addition to its own natural resources, it has proximity to the Arctic, where countries such as Russia are vying to gain resources and control.

Trump expressed an interest in the US buying Greenland in 2019, during his first term in office. Greenland's government quickly rejected the idea, saying that it wasn't for sale.

• Ukraine said it stopped a Russian spy group gathering information on its F-16 fighter jets.
• The group wanted to find out details on the airfields F-16s may be using, it said.
• Ukraine said the group's leader was detained and other members indicted.

Ukraine said it disrupted a Russian spy ring that was collecting information on the F-16 fighter jets it was given by its Western allies.

The Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, said on Tuesday that it had neutralized a network of Russian spies that was gathering information about military targets, including its F-16s.

According to the SBU, the group was tasked with trying to discover the locations of military airfields where F-16 fighter jets might be kept, as well as the locations of Ukraine's air-defense systems and companies that make electronic warfare systems to counter Russian drones.

It said the group was working across five regions in Ukraine and was deployed by Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU.

It is not clear how much information, if any, the group was able to gather.

The SBU said its operation exposed 12 Russian agents and their informants.

Some of them were deserters who had left Ukraine's military and were recruited by Russia while hiding from punishment, it said, adding that they used their contacts, like Ukrainian soldiers in front-line areas, to try to gather intelligence.

Ukraine's Prosecutor's Office said one deceitfully recruited three soldiers he knew by pretending to work for Ukrainian intelligence, Pravda reported.

The SBU said agents who received the information would then go to the area of potential targets to gather extra intelligence.

According to Radio Free Europe, the group's organizer was detained and prominent members were indicted on charges related to state treason and the unauthorized disclosure of military information about the movement and location of Ukrainian forces.

Other members of the group could also face charges, the report said.

The SBU said suspects could face sentences ranging from eight years to life in prison, with their property confiscated.

The F-16s are the most powerful jets in Ukraine's arsenal, making them a major military and propaganda target for Russia.

Ukraine began receiving F-16s this summer, after repeated requests for the planes. Air warfare experts say the jets are a major boost to Ukraine's defenses, helping it protect cities and other targets from Russian drone and missile attacks.

Russia began targeting Ukrainian bases where F-16s could be kept before the first ones arrived, but there have been no reports of it successfully hitting bases when the jets have been present.

Despite their perceived importance, experts say Ukraine is not receiving enough F-16s to make a major difference, and it can't use them to launch raids or go on the attack unless it gets more.

The F-16s being given to Ukraine are also decades old — and are less powerful than Russia's best jets and the most advanced planes deployed by Ukraine's allies.

• Taiwan has received 38 Abrams tanks from the US, with more tanks to come.
• It was Taiwan's first delivery of a new type of US tank in 30 years.
• China has stepped up its military aggression toward Taiwan, and some fear an invasion.

Taiwan has taken delivery of its first-ever Abrams tanks from the US, and its first delivery of a new type of US tank in three decades.

Taiwan's defense ministry said on Monday that the country had received 38 Abrams tanks from the US, according to AFP.

Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense shared pictures of tanks being moved on cranes, with the message: "Heavy Armors Have Arrived!"

The M1A2 Abrams is an advanced and heavy battle tank and is considered among the best tanks in the world.

Their arrival is likely to anger China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory.

According to Taiwan's semi-official Central News Agency, the last tank delivery from the US to Taiwan began in 1994.

However, the US approved the possible sale of 108 Abrams tanks to Taiwan in 2019.

CNA reported that in addition to the 38 tanks already delivered, 42 are due to arrive next year, and 28 in 2026.

Taiwan's tank force currently consists of much older models, the Taiwan-made CM 11 Brave Tiger and US-made M60A3 tanks, according to AFP.

But Taiwan has increased spending on its military in recent years, as China has stepped up its military threats against the island.

These threats include large-scale military drills and almost daily incursions into Taiwan's air defense identification zone.

While Taiwan has boosted its defense spending, with a record budget next year of $19.74 billion, China is far larger, both as a country and as a military force.

US officials have said that China could be in a position to invade Taiwan by 2027.

But that doesn't mean any invasion would be easy.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would depend on seizing its ports, as BI reported earlier this month.

Chinese military journals "argue that the success or failure of an invasion of Taiwan likely would hinge on whether Chinese amphibious-landing forces are able to seize, hold, and exploit the island's large port facilities," naval analyst Ian Easton wrote in a new book published by the China Maritime Studies Institute at the US Naval War College.

Chinese analysts worry that Taiwan will turn its ports into fortresses against sea assault.

China is also closely monitoring the effects of Western sanctions on Russia in order to prepare for a possible invasion of Taiwan, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, citing people familiar with the matter.

Meanwhile, Lin Jian, China's foreign ministry spokesman, urged the US on Monday to "stop arming Taiwan" and said the US should stop "supporting Taiwan independence forces," per AFP.

Taiwan's attempt "to seek independence through force and foreign help is doomed to fail," he said, adding: "China will firmly defend its national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity."

• A Russian drone and missile designer was assassinated near Moscow, reports say.
• Multiple Ukrainian media outlets reported that Ukraine was involved, citing security sources.
• One source said anyone who develops Russia's military power "is a legitimate target" for Ukraine.

A senior Russian official who worked at a company that designs drones and missiles was killed in a Ukrainian operation near Moscow, according to reports.

A source in Ukraine's security services told Ukrainian outlet Pravda that Mikhail Shatsky was assassinated in a special operation by Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, the country's military intelligence service.

A source told the Kyiv Independent that Shatsky was shot dead near Moscow in an attack that was likely orchestrated by Ukraine's military intelligence agency.

Ukraine has not taken responsibility for the attack.

Shatsky's body was reportedly found in the southeastern Moscow suburb of Kotelniki earlier this week.

According to Ukrainian outlet Hromadske, Shatsky was the deputy general director of Mars, a company that's part of Russia's state-owned nuclear agency Rosatom.

The outlet said he worked on the modernization of Russia's Kh-59 and Kh-69 guided aircraft missiles and helped develop new drones.

He also worked on introducing AI into Russian drones and spacecraft, Hromadske reported.

The Moscow Times and the Kyiv Independent both reported that Shatsky was a designer at Mars and head of software there.

A source told Kyiv Independent that Shatsky was seen as the main proponent of incorporating AI into Russian drones, aircraft, and spacecraft.

A security forces source told Hromadske that "anyone in any way involved in developing Russia's military-industrial complex and thus supporting Russian aggression against Ukraine is a legitimate target," according to a translation by The Moscow Times.

Russian drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, infrastructure, and military assets have been devastating throughout the war, and Russia has also used Kh-59 and Kh-69 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets.

Ukraine has in the past been linked to the deaths of multiple pro-war figures but has commented on few of them, though a Ukrainian official said the country was behind the death of a Russia-backed lawmaker in a car bomb explosion in eastern Ukraine last year, in a rare response to such an event.

Ukrainian military intelligence didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

• The grinding Ukraine war has seen a rise in hit-to-kill drone interceptions of other drones.
• Kyiv and Moscow are increasingly using drones to take out enemy systems above the battlefield.
• This new tactic is pushing Ukraine to develop drones specifically for interceptor roles.

In the contested skies above Ukraine, a new kind of warfare is rapidly emerging as drones are increasingly sent on new attack missions. Their targets aren't armored vehicles or fighting positions — they are other drones.

Combat footage from the war in Ukraine has repeatedly captured these hit-to-kill intercepts in which a cheap drone slams into another unmanned aircraft. This practice is a cost-effective air-defense option that both the Ukrainians and Russians are using and intently pursuing.

Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's minister for digital transformation, posted on Telegram in April that his country was on the hunt for interceptor drone solutions to shoot down Russian surveillance assets, the front-line eyes for strike drones and Russian artillery, "without wasting air defense assets."

Nataliia Kushnerska, a senior executive in Ukraine's defense industry, told Business Insider that using uncrewed systems in this way "marks the emergence of an entirely new segment of modern warfare — drone-on-drone combat."

A new tactic in the evolving drone war

Drones have dominated the battlefield throughout much of the Ukraine war, being used for land, sea, and air missions. Cheap first-person view (FPV) drones are frequently used to carry out pinpoint strikes on enemy armor and troop positions, while larger systems collect intelligence.

But as the war has dragged on, drones have increasingly been used in an air-defense role to take down enemy uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) carrying out reconnaissance and attack missions. These aerial engagements can, at times, resemble the fierce dogfights of the World Wars.

An outfit that makes combat FPV drones posted in August that its modified drones had taken out 100 Russian UAVs. The Wild Hornets, as the operation calls itself, shared footage of some of the interceptions.

Kushnerska, the chief operating officer of Brave1, a Ukrainian government platform that facilitates innovation within the country's defense industry, said interceptor drones have become "one of the innovations of this war."

The tactic, she said, makes it more difficult for Russia to operate its drones deep behind the front lines and collect data to facilitate missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian positions, which has been a real challenge for Ukraine as Russia pushes to expand its reconnaissance strike complex. This also awards Kyiv more flexibility to carry out its military operations and maneuvers.

Kushnerska said Ukraine was the first to use drones to intercept Russian reconnaissance UAVs, but Moscow has since adapted to the tactic and found ways to evade the interceptors. Now, efforts are underway to improve the systems so they remain effective.

It is the latest iteration of what a senior Ukrainian official previously described to BI as a cat-and-mouse game between Kyiv and Moscow, where each side is constantly attempting to one-up the other in developing drones and other war-related technology.

Samuel Bendett, an expert on drones and Russian defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses, told BI Moscow is similarly using FPV drones to take out Ukrainian systems and that Russia has also equipped its drones with defenses against interceptor drones, such as electronic-warfare jamming systems.

Bendett said that the Ukrainians "have gotten very successful in fielding their FPV drones against Russian ISR assets, and the Russians have gotten successful, up to a point, with using their FPV drones to go after Ukrainian heavy quadcopter UAVs."

Interceptor drones are limited in range and altitude and often carry less explosive power than more traditional air defenses like missiles. Drones provide Ukraine and Russia with an alternative way to take down aerial threats, one in which the cost of the intercept is often less than that of the system being targeted.

Kushnerska said an interceptor drone typically costs between $2,000 and $4,000. An air-defense missile, on the other hand, could cost hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of dollars. Using drones reduces dependency on more expensive munitions and frees up Ukraine's air-defense units to focus on the bigger threats like Russian aircraft and more deadly cruise and ballistic missiles.

Pursuit of more interceptor drones

For the Ukrainian soldiers tasked with intercepting Russian drones, it's a dangerous mission.

One drone operator in the Ukrainian military told BI that he operates from trench shelters very close to the front lines. He said the pilots are priority targets for Russia, which will use "every single thing at its disposal" to take them out.

The Ukrainian operator said that drone-on-drone combat is increasing. He said he sometimes uses interceptor drones up to five times a week. But Ukraine needs more of them.

Kyiv has taken steps to procure more of these interceptor drones. Last month, for instance, a Ukrainian drone engineering company announced it had completed testing for a new FPV drone designed to take down Russian reconnaissance UAVs, like the Orlan, and was ready for military use.

But there's still more to be done. Valeriy Romanenko, a former air-defense officer who's now a researcher at Ukraine's State Aviation Museum, told BI that Kyiv's interceptor drones are good for slower reconnaissance UAVs at lower altitudes.

However, he said, Kyiv ultimately needs faster interceptor drones to take down Russia's deadly attack drones, like the notorious Shahed-136. In October alone, Moscow fired around 2,000 of these systems at Ukraine, according to Western intelligence.

The Wild Hornets have been working on a new "Sting" UAV to effectively combat the Shaheds, but it's a work in progress.

This hit-to-kill intercept tactic has implications well beyond Ukraine and could be used in future conflicts, too. Mick Ryan, a retired Australian Army major general and strategist, said the use of drones for interceptions will likely be a lasting element of military operations.

"This is a trend that's here to stay unless there is some fundamental breakthrough in very low-cost anti-drone systems, and we're not seeing that at this point," he told BI. "I think this is an enduring kind of capability that many militaries should be looking at."

On April 27, 2023, Diana Kulyk's father told her he was leaving the next day to start training to fight Russia. She was filled with dread but knew she needed to act. Her hands shaking, Kulyk, a 24-year-old only child, tried to type the perfect tweet that would convince her roughly 20,000 followers to donate more than $3,000 for equipment that would help keep her father alive.

"Hello, this is the most important tweet I have ever written," she began. "I'm Diana Kulyk, daughter of Ruslan Kulyk. My father is a simple man, a baker by profession, a human being full of love and care. The person who took care of me since I came into this world. He needs help." Beneath the text were two images: a selfie of Diana and Ruslan smiling under golden-hour sunlight, and a spreadsheet of equipment she'd determined her father needed for the battlefield, including steel body armor, a tactical headset, a ballistic helmet, and a sleep mat.

Diana had already raised about $30,000 over the previous year to buy protective gear for childhood friends fighting in Ukraine. Within two hours of posting about her father, she had raised enough to buy all 21 items on the spreadsheet. The donors came from all over: Ukraine, the United States, Germany, England.

Watching the donations flood in, Diana was overwhelmed. "It was a really weird moment," she says. "You are so scared, but also you see everyone coming together to help you. It gives you hope."

Diana's efforts are part of an immense crowdfunding movement helping fuel Ukraine's fight against Russia's far larger and more advanced military. The Ukrainian government has its own crowdsourcing platforms, like United24, which has raised more than $761 million to pay for things like ambulances and demining equipment and to reconstruct destroyed buildings. Individual military units are using social media to campaign for the specific gear they need on the front lines. The 79th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, for example, has used Instagram to gather donations for reconnaissance drones, generators, and night-vision goggles. And thousands of volunteers are raising funds to directly supply their loved ones on the battlefield with walkie-talkies, combat boots, Starlink internet satellites, medical supplies, ammunition, tanks, and phone chargers.

People have crowdfunded wars throughout history. In World War II, the Supermarine Spitfire, a British fighter aircraft, was largely financed by bake sales and fundraisers at primary schools. But never have funds been raised so easily, quickly, widely, and strategically by civilians and individual troops, says Keir Giles, a defense expert at the think tank Chatham House. "That's a big advantage," he says. With the modern tools of social media, influencer marketing tactics, crowdfunding platforms, and frontline postal services, "units can campaign for precisely the equipment and weapons they need and have them delivered."

Benjamin Jensen, a war-strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, describes this crowdfunding as a "game changer." People around the world, he says, are directly "buying commercial off-the-shelf capability to enhance combat power on the battlefield," often acting much more nimbly than the military.

Crowdfunding is also increasingly critical. While Western nations have contributed nearly $300 billion worth of aid, Ukraine's military has repeatedly suffered from shortages of key weaponry and defense equipment. Three grueling years in, several countries and leaders are weighing whether they'll continue their support — including the United States and President-elect Donald Trump, a frequent critic of US aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian government said last year that crowdfunding accounted for 3% of the country's total military spending. To win the war, that number may need to climb. But fundraisers are struggling with fatigue among citizen donors and are getting creative to keep up funds and morale.

Before the war, Ruslan Kulyk was a pastry chef who made wedding cakes in Spain, where the family immigrated when Diana was young. When the wedding industry slowed in the winter, he visited family in Ukraine's northeastern Sumy region. On February 24, 2022, he was preparing to return to Spain when Vladimir Putin launched Russia's full-scale invasion. Landlocked and infuriated, he joined his nephew at the military registration office. Recruiters enlisted his nephew but turned Ruslan away. "I wasn't prepared and was 50 years old," he says.

He got a job at a local bakery. He trained hard, dropping more than 50 pounds in 14 months. By the time he went back to enlist, Ukraine was thought to have lost as many as 17,500 soldiers and badly needed more men on the front lines.

After training in Kyiv, Ruslan joined a "storm" brigade, an extremely dangerous type of counteroffensive unit that often operates on the edge of Russian strongholds. Diana and Ruslan talked frequently, but his work often required him to go dark for days on end. For Diana, the wait was terrifying. She scoured the news to see where "the hottest part" of the fighting was, figuring that's where her father would be. "You wake up every day thinking I'm going to have bad news today," she says.

Being able to crowdfund equipment for her father and his fellow soldiers has given Diana a semblance of control to counter the nauseating sense of helplessness. It has also helped save lives.

In the summer of 2023, Ruslan texted his daughter, "I'm going on a mission." Four days later, he called from the hospital. He had been sent to Bakhmut, where a Russian drone had exploded 18 inches from his head, giving him and three of his comrades concussions. One was so severely injured that he had to be wrapped in a tourniquet that Diana had fundraised for. (The soldier's leg was amputated, and he's now with his family.) Diana spent a week with her father as he recovered in the hospital.

When he returned to active duty, Ruslan became a drone operator. Though he was farther from the front lines, he was arguably in even more danger. Drone operators have been very effective: Citing Ukrainian military commanders, The New York Times reported last month that Ukraine's drones accounted for at least 80% of Russian front-line losses. Several Ukrainian drone operators have told Business Insider that because of this, they are disproportionately in the enemy's crosshairs. Ruslan calls drone operators Russia's "target No. 1." This October, while in the Luhansk region, Ruslan used a surveillance drone Diana had raised funds for to spot four Russian soldiers advancing toward his unit, giving Ruslan and his comrades enough time to avert an onslaught.

Diana has raised more than $100,000 for drones, jackets, boots, helmets, medical supplies, trench-digging equipment, and thermal-vision gear. She credits part of her success to "how transparent I am with my situation, with my family." Much of her support comes from partnering with NAFO, the North Atlantic Fella Organization, an online community playing on the NATO name that challenges Russian disinformation, largely through dog memes.

Some crowdfunders encourage donations by sharing stories about themselves or their friends. Some host livestreams or ask followers to celebrate their birthday by donating to a soldier's unit. Others offer services and products: You can get a message written on ammunition to be fired at Russian targets or buy artwork made of bullets, shells, and destroyed Russian equipment and uniforms.

Dimko Zhluktenko, a 26-year-old former IT manager in Kyiv, didn't join the military at the start of the war. "I chickened out in the beginning a bit," he says, and he was taking care of his sick mother. But he knew his tech skills could allow him to help Ukraine in another way. It was obvious to him that the military wasn't getting the resources needed to win the war, so he started buying protective gear for his friends.

He posted about his efforts on X, sharing stories of his childhood friends on the front lines, like Max, who destroyed a bridge to stop a key Russian advance. His followers responded. "Many people started asking, 'How can I send you money?'" he says. By April 2022, Zhluktenko had received so many of those requests that he decided to work on fundraising full time, starting a charity organization to provide "high-tech equipment" that would increase "the efficiency of our forces." He called it Dzyga's Paw, named after his dog. Donors can get merch — like stickers, tote bags, and patches — based on how much they donate. He's raised more than $2.9 million from more than 28,000 individual donations.

Giles says that because the crowdfunding effort is so complex and unregulated, there have been "persistent allegations of fraud" against several groups. To counter that, Zhluktenko has made his organization radically transparent. On Dyzga's Paw's website, among other details about its budget, the organization keeps a daily log of its expenses. In one week in November, for example, it paid two employee salaries ($1,166.89) and bought 15 Starlink satellite receiver kits ($4,884.13), an F13-Retrik uncrewed aerial vehicle ($2,780.36), and paper clips ($0.75).

Zhluktenko is also transparent about who exactly is receiving which equipment and what they're using it for. To motivate people to donate, he constantly shares stories on social media about soldiers like Nazar, who coached a youth soccer team before the war. In a post on X in October advertising a fundraiser, Zhluktenko's organization wrote, "Nazar and his unit need essential equipment—from laptops to portable power stations and signal-boosting antennas for drones to be even more effective."

Dyzga's Paw also shares videos of frontline soldiers expressing gratitude, memes of gear en route to soldiers, and, crucially, footage of the gear donors have funded in action, often captured by drones they've also donated. Zhluktenko says these videos — often of Russian tanks being blown up or Russian soldiers surrendering — are extremely effective marketing: Donors "actually get to see the impact of the equipment they have sent" and how their donations "challenge the myth of an undefeatable Russian army."

Mats Kampshoff, a 25-year-old student in Germany, has given about $600 to Dyzga's Paw and other crowdfunding projects during the war, though he has no personal connection to Ukraine beyond the stories of soldiers he's been following. "Connecting this war effort with a daily life that I can connect to really brought home the point that I don't want this war to be around," he says. Donating feels "more like a logical decision than one based on morals," he says, adding that "it's just the small part that I can do to shape the world in the way that I envision."

In surveys of Ukrainians conducted in 2022 and 2023, almost 80% of respondents said they'd donated to some form of crowdfunding campaign during the war. Most of Zhluktenko's donors are from Europe, the US, Australia, Japan — "any countries Russia would call the collective West," he says. "There are people who have donated for 50-something weeks straight."

Hlib Fishchenko, 25, founded a volunteer organization called Vilni, which he said gets about 80% of its donations from Ukrainians. He raises money for items like excavators that help protect soldiers building trenches; the last one Vilni bought cost about $25,000, which it raised in a month. He said Ukrainian donors understand that they could donate to rebuild a school, or they could donate to help soldiers prevent Russia from destroying schools in the first place. They see their donations as preventive, he said, while some international donors are more willing to fund projects like reconstruction and medical aid.

Receiving donations for equipment is one thing. Getting the equipment to the front lines is another.

Zhluktenko's team goes on a frontline expedition about once a month. Their motto is "Just don't be stupid." In July they were driving toward Kharkiv when they learned of an imminent Russian glide-bomb attack nearby and changed their route.

Organizations and crowdfunders, including Dyzga's Paw and Diana Kulyk, often work with Nova Post, a major Ukrainian delivery company that delivers close to the front lines. Nova Post told BI that it delivers to residents and the military and that it stops only when the military "says that it is dangerous to work and forbids us to open branches." The company said that branches have indoor and outdoor shelters designed so that employees and clients can reach them within 30 seconds and that frontline branches have reinforced doors and windows.

The company's operations have only grown: It told BI it had opened 2,242 branches and two sorting offices and installed 1,853 parcel lockers since February 2022 and that it shipped 30% more parcels in 2023 than it did in 2022.

Experts say the crowdfunding of Ukraine's fight could offer a glimpse into the future of warfare. Major Western militaries are unlikely to start relying on crowdfunding anytime soon, given their extensive resources and stringent procurement policies. But Jensen, the war-strategy expert, predicts that crowdfunding via social media will be vital in "future insurgencies against authoritarian regimes." Giles says he's already seeing "more explicit calls on soldiers to equip themselves," with soldiers in countries like Latvia and Finland, which he says "may be facing Russian aggression next," buying more military equipment themselves.

Giles says this war might be unique in that it has dragged on long enough for these campaigns to develop. But it's also dragged on long enough for some support to wane. Several fundraising groups said they'd seen donations dry up in recent months; fatigue is setting in as the war concludes its third year. In November, an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Bloomberg that the donations he'd received that month through YouTube livestreams had plummeted by two-thirds compared with what he raised in March. The advisor also said he feared that Donald Trump's return to the presidency would further hinder donations. "Floating talks about Trump's promise to end the war quickly and possibly bring peace reduce willingness of people to donate," he said.

One thousand and sixteen days into the war, fighting rages throughout Ukraine's east. Russia controls nearly 20% of the country. While there are no confirmed death tolls and estimates vary wildly, many tens of thousands of soldiers are believed to have been killed on both sides.

Zhluktenko got married in July and then signed a military contract. "Ukraine needs people fighting," he says. "It's impossible to win a war for your freedom without fighting for your freedom." On October 23, his birthday, he posted on X: "My birthday wish this year is survival. I don't need any gifts this year except something that will help me be effective in my military role and to survive." While he's on duty, his wife has taken over Dyzga's Paw.

Diana Kulyk completed another campaign several months ago, raising $48,000 to buy her father's brigade two pickup trucks with night-vision cameras and all-terrain tires. But she says that regardless or whether her dad needs anything, she spends much of her mental energy trying to prepare herself for the possibility of her father's death. She's lost friends in the war. She lost her cousin — Ruslan's nephew, who went to the registration office with him. And she's watched her father lose comrades.

"There is a high chance of it eventually happening, so I have been working on that," she says. "I have a phrase I came up with to tell myself: 'Better to be a man of honor than to live scared.'"

Sinéad Baker is a News Correspondent based in Business Insider's London bureau, writing about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

• November saw Russia hit a new daily average high for its casualties in the war, per the UK MOD.
• It said the losses were "likely reflective of the higher tempo of Russian operations" against Ukraine.
• It was the third month in a row that Russia suffered record-breaking daily losses, it said.

November saw Russia suffer a record daily average for the number of soldiers injured or killed since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to UK intelligence.

The UK Ministry of Defence said in an intelligence update on Thursday morning that "the average daily Russian casualties (killed and wounded) in the Russia-Ukraine conflict reached a new monthly war high during November 2024."

Citing the Ukrainian General Staff, it said that Russia suffered 45,680 casualties in November, up from 41,980 in October, with a daily average of 1,523.

It was the third month in a row that Russian forces suffered record-breaking daily average losses, it said, and the fifth straight month that it had seen its total losses rise.

The increased casualty figures, the UK MOD said, are "likely reflective of the higher tempo of Russian operations and offensives."

According to the MOD, Russia is trying to increase pressure on Ukraine's lines as it tries to push it back on several fronts, notably in Kupiansk, Toretsk, Pokrovsk, and Velyka Novosilka, as well as in the Russian region of Kursk, which Ukraine partially occupied in August.

The losses likely made it the most costly month of the war for Russia in terms of personnel, it said.

The MOD added that Russia's casualties "will likely continue to average above 1,000 a day in December 2024 despite the onset of winter," with continued attacks on multiple fronts.

Russia has been relentlessly trying to push forward on multiple fronts in Ukraine over the past few months, slowly gaining territory, but in a way that warfare experts say is not proportionate to its losses.

Washington DC-based think tank the Institute for the Study of War said in an update on Tuesday that Russia suffered significant losses of people and armored vehicles last month as it "attempted to maintain intensified offensive operations in eastern Ukraine."

It also pointed to Russia's losses in September and October and said the country "cannot sustain such significant loss rates indefinitely in return for gradual, creeping battlefield gains."

George Barros, a Russia analyst at the ISW, told BI in September that Russia's death toll was rising because it had been running a high tempo of operations without really taking a substantial pause since October 2023.

"What we have seen here is a really active Russian military, which has been just sort of sprinting for a very long time and continuing to sprint," he said.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in late October that over 600,000 Russian troops had been killed or wounded in the conflict.

Russia doesn't release its own figures.

Rajan Menon, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, told BI that "the kind of fight the Russians have been doing is to say: 'To hell with losses, we are just going to push forward wave after wave after wave.'"

Russia's plan for victory in Ukraine, according to many warfare experts, has been to keep pushing forward with the expectation that Western support for Ukraine will fade and that Ukraine's military will become increasingly fatigued.

Such a scenario could result in Ukraine not having the weaponry it needs to fight, or for it to be pushed into a peace deal that would involve it giving territory and other concessions to Russia.

• A new NATO member has a jet that was designed for war with Russia
• But it has never been used against Russia.
• Giving Ukraine the jet would be a good test that would benefit it and NATO, warfare analysts said.

Sweden's Gripen, a fighter jet built for a war with Russia, is considered a good fit for Ukraine, but the aircraft hasn't been tested the way it could be in this war.

The conflict in Ukraine has been a test bed for weapons on both sides, from Russia's new hypersonic missiles to older systems like the American Patriots, showing their users how they perform in high-end combat. Some systems have underperformed, while others have far exceeded expectations in this tough operating environment.

Not only would giving the jets to Ukraine — which Stockholm has indicated is possible — potentially strengthen its air force, but it could also give NATO insight into how a key capability performs in a real-world combat scenario, specifically one for which it was made.

Helpful for NATO

Sweden initially refused to put its jet on the table for Ukraine, but it has slowly become more open to the idea. The defense ministry said in September that it was acquiring Gripen parts, and in late November, it was reported that those parts were being transferred to Ukraine.

It is, however, unclear if and when Ukraine could receive the actual jets. Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson said recently that his country has been advised to wait until Ukraine is further along in setting up its new American-made F-16 fleet. Concerns have been raised about unintentionally overloading Kyiv with new equipment.

But at some point down the road, there's the possibility Kyiv receives the Gripen, a rugged, capable fourth-generation fighter.

Designed at the end of the Cold War, the jet is operated by about half a dozen countries. It was built to fight Russia's Sukhoi fighter aircraft, but it's never been in that kind of combat.

Tim Robinson, a military aviation specialist at the UK's Royal Aeronautical Society, told BI that the aircraft was designed to fit into Sweden's vision of having a dispersed and mobile air force to counter Russia as a threat. "The idea of keeping on the move, rapid turnarounds, and being very, very hard to destroy," he said.

He said NATO would be interested in seeing how the jet performs against Russia, especially given the aircraft has "quite a good electronic warfare system," which is something that this fight has shown is necessary to defeat Russia.

Air-to-air combat is not common in Ukraine, but George Barros, a warfare expert at the Institute for the Study of War think tank, told BI that "there may be some tactical advantages that Sweden can learn from Gripen's performance against Russian planes." It could also benefit the larger NATO alliance.

Sweden joined NATO in March of this year as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the alliance celebrated the move as one that would help it in the event of a conflict with Russia. That's due to Sweden's geographical location and because its military was built around the Russia threat.

And there are benefits for the jet's manufacturers as well. Michael Bohnert, a warfare expert at the RAND Corporation, said that Saab is in "global competition" with its rivals as countries seek fourth-generation fighters. That means Sweden — as well as France, which has offered Ukraine Mirage aircraft — "both have strong incentives to provide aircraft with high performance and support to Ukraine."

Robinson said that having a jet proven in combat is "definitely a factor when selling military aircraft."

The Gripen was used in Libya in 2011, but it was only for reconnaissance. The models that Ukraine would likely get would be the older C and D models, but if those versions were to do well in Ukraine, it could still help the sale and reputation of newer models now being produced.

Retired US Army Maj. Gen. Gordon 'Skip' Davis, who served as NATO's deputy assistant secretary-general for its Defense Investment Division, told BI the Gripen performing well in Ukraine "would be a great boost for Saab and Swedish defense industry."

He said that "if it does well in Ukraine, then it would be the selling point. But I would also tend to think that it would do well simply because the Swedes themselves have been so focused on Russia as a potential threat and enemy for quite some time."

Helpful for Ukraine

The main reason to send the jets to Ukraine, though, would be to boost its airpower. Barros said that "sending Ukraine more aircraft is a step in the right direction."

War experts have said the Gripen is the jet that is best suited for Ukraine in the long term.

Bohnert previously told BI that "Gripens are a way better fit for Ukraine" than F-16s, as they are "a little more purpose-built" for what Ukraine needs. "Sweden, being under that Russian threat, designed the Gripens to fight this way that F-16s weren't," he said.

The aircraft was designed to work from civilian roads so that it can still function if runways and airbases are destroyed; Russia has targeted that infrastructure during the war. It also requires less maintenance than some aircraft, like the F-16s, which is useful for a country actively at war.

Robinson said "it's almost perfect for Ukraine's needs in a way," but he noted that the jet has drawbacks, like there not being as many in service as F-16s, which means allies could not be as helpful with things like providing spares.

Ukraine's future may rely more on support from Europe as former US President Donald Trump set to take office next year. He has been more critical of support for Ukraine.

A challenge, Peter Layton, a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and a former Royal Australian Air Force officer, told BI, is that the Gripen has some US-made components, which means the Trump administration would likely have to agree to Sweden giving Ukraine Gripens if it tried to do so. For the time being, it remains uncertain if Sweden will ultimately commit the jets.

• Russia is treating the first North Koreans sent to fight alongside it well, Ukraine's president said.
• But Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this was about trying to get more of them to come to fight.
• Ultimately they will be used as "cannon fodder," he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia is treating the first batch of North Korean soldiers sent to aid in its war against Ukraine well, but that it won't last.

Zelenskyy told Japanese news agency Kyodo News on Sunday that Russia was treating the North Korean troops well in order to try to attract tens of thousands more.

But he predicted that the troops would at some stage be sent to the front lines and that it was "indisputable" that Russian President Vladimir Putin would ultimately use them as "cannon fodder."

Officials in the US, Ukraine, and South Korea claim that North Korea has sent thousands of troops to aid Russia.

Zelenskyy said there is evidence that about 12,000 North Korean troops have been deployed so far, and Dmytro Ponomarenko, Ukraine's ambassador to South Korea, said last month that the number of North Korean troops sent to Russia could reach 15,000, with troops rotated out every two to three months.

That could mean around 100,000 North Korean soldiers serving in Russia within a year, he said.

North Korean troops have been deployed in the Russian region of Kursk, where Ukraine made a surprise counteroffensive in August, seizing hundreds of square miles of Russian territory.

Zelenskyy said during the interview with Kyodo News that North Korean troops had been killed there, confirming previous reports.

In June, the Pentagon warned that North Korean troops would be treated poorly by Russia, in response to initial reports that North Korea was considering sending Russia some of its military personnel.

Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said at the time that "if I were North Korean military personnel management, I would be questioning my choices on sending my forces to be cannon fodder in an illegal war against Ukraine."

Russia has been accused of treating its own soldiers badly during the conflict.

Zelenskyy also warned Sunday that the use of North Korean troops during the conflict could be dangerous for Asia, since those soldiers would get trained by Russia and would get knowledge about fighting in a modern war, in areas like using drones.

Mykola Bielieskov, a research fellow at Ukraine's National Institute for Strategic Studies, told BI that even if the soldiers North Korea sends are well trained by their own standards, "I think their training still would be lacking in terms of the modern battlefield they have in the Russia-Ukraine war."

He added: "I think that it's safe to assume that they might be used as expendable infantry or just thrown as a mass of people."

Bielieskov also said that while the estimated number of up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers in Kursk right now was not huge by the standards of the war, it might be enough to make a difference against Ukraine on a single front, if that's how they are used.

Last month, South Korea's defense minister, Kim Yong-Hyun, said that North Korean troops would likely be sent to the war's hot spots.

He said that Russian officers are "likely to send the North Korean platoons to the most dangerous and difficult areas."

According to South Korean intelligence, Russia is paying about $2,000 a month for each North Korean soldier.

But North Korean military experts told BI that the soldiers themselves are not likely to see much of that, with the state likely pocketing most, if not all, of the money.

• The US gave Ukraine permission to strike Russia with US-provided long-range missiles.
• But the late hour on this decision limits the impact.
• Russia has used Western hesitancy and the time provided by delays to move many targets out of range.

President Joe Biden is letting Ukraine strike inside Russia with its long-range missiles as he rushes aid to Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, but the move has come so late that warfare experts don't expect it to make a huge difference.

As the West debated, Russia was given time to prepare while Ukraine was left to fend off attacks with a hand tied behind its back. Even now, there are still some limitations.

George Barros, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in the US, told Business Insider: "It's way too little, years late. It's been a truism that Ukraine has needed the capability to strike the Russian rear for many years at this point."

Targets moved

Ukraine used its MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems, a Lockheed Martin weapon with a maximum range of about 190 miles, to hit Russia for the first time this month. It then followed with Storm Shadows. Damage was done, but this capability would have had more of an effect earlier in the war.

Matthew Savill, a former intelligence analyst at the UK Ministry of Defence who's now a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said that "many of the best targets— helicopters and glide-bomb-armed aircraft attacking Ukrainian cities and troops in the north or in Kursk— have largely moved to airbases outside the range of ATACMS."

Ukraine's military tried to strike those key targets, such as ammunition depots, airfields, and fighter-bombers, with its domestically produced long-range drones to curb Russian glide-bomb attacks, but missiles would have had a greater effect.

A senior Biden administration official told Politico in August that Russia had already moved 90% of the planes that launch glide bombs at Ukraine's civilian infrastructure out of ATACMS range. And a central European defense official told Reuters this month that Russia had moved many of its air assets out of range of Western weapons.

Michael Bohnert, a warfare expert at the RAND Corporation, told BI that Biden's change wasn't "too little, too late" but that "the delay will definitely limit the effectiveness of ATACMS strikes."

"Had Ukraine been able to destroy several squadrons of Su-34 and Su-35 fighters early in the year, then Russia would have significantly less capacity to employ glide bombs against Ukrainian positions and civilians," he said. Ukraine has been hit by thousands of guided glide bombs over the course of the year.

Earlier in the year, ISW had a map that identified nearly 250 potential ATACMS targets inside Russia. Many of those may no longer be viable targets.

A pattern of late aid

The US and other allies have been repeatedly criticized for slowness and hesitancy in giving Ukraine aid and permissions.

Soldiers in Ukraine have said Western aid coming in "tidbits" means they can't plan long-term, not knowing what will arrive and when. One American fighting in Ukraine told BI that "it feels like everything that we've been getting has been either too late or it's just enough to barely hold on."

Ukraine usually gets what it needs eventually, but rarely when it really needs it. And the weaponry, such as F-16s and advanced tanks, are often given in amounts so small that they can't make a substantial difference. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said as much, matching analyst assessments.

The head of NATO has also been critical of member countries, saying they could do more to help Ukraine. There's been a hesitancy that comes from a fear of escalation.

Barros argued that the "Russian red lines are part of Russian reflexive control efforts that seek to trick the US and partners into accommodating Russian interests and counter Russian aggression in wars Russia started."

He said that "Putin is not entitled to a veto over US or NATO policy on the basis that he can threaten us."

Hitting Russia

Biden's decision may be late, and the impact may be limited. But that doesn't mean there won't still be an effect.

Bohnert said that Ukraine could now use its Western weapons to try to "disrupt logistics and mobility of Russian and North Korean forces counterattacking in Kursk," giving Ukraine's forces more freedom of maneuver.

Ukraine advanced into Russia's Kursk region in August, where its military is now fighting Russian and North Korean troops.

Savill said that Biden's decision "still leaves plenty of opportunities to strike military headquarters and ammunition or supply locations supporting Russian and North Korean troops" but that "this would be a reduced impact from when the Ukrainians first requested these weapons."

A rush to help Ukraine

Biden has boosted support for Ukraine ahead of Trump's inauguration by rushing aid out, loosening restrictions, and offering greater financial support.

Trump hasn't announced a plan but has been critical of US aid to Ukraine. Some, including in Ukraine, are optimistic that Trump could end the war. But Trump has also hinted at seeking a peace deal, something that could try to push Ukraine to do things it doesn't want, such as giving territory to Russia.

Savill said of Biden's missile decision that "the impact may be more political, albeit with a narrowing window of opportunity."

He said Ukraine needed to "convince the incoming US administration that they are still worth backing — in President Trump's transactional view, a 'good investment,'" adding that "they will want to convince him to link his and US credibility to a 'winning' outcome, not a major compromise that sees the US 'lose.'"

Politically, "the signs are not positive on this front," he said, as big Trump allies have criticized the ATACMS move, especially after Russia signaled its discontent with an unusual new missile strike.

And realistically, the decision delays on the Biden administration's part have probably hindered Ukraine's ability to show strength for political gain, Savill said. "It is unlikely that the Ukrainians can have a major impact in such a short period of time (under two months) until the next administration is formally in place and with an uncertain but probably small stockpile of ATACMS," he said.

• Russia's invasion of Ukraine is teaching Western militaries a big lesson.
• The West has, for decades, focused on super high quality gear over sheer volume.
• But it needs to invest more in quantity if it wants to defend against Russia, warfare experts said.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is showing the West the value of quantity over quality.

The West, over the past decades, has focused on the quality of military equipment over stockpiles, prioritizing high-tech and specialized gear over sheer volume. But as the saying goes, quantity has a quality of its own.

"We just have not been stockpiling weapons for this kind of long-duration conflict, which, to be frank, Russia and China have been," said former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist.

The result, he said, is the West is not prepared for a large-scale war.

The Western approach

The US reacted to the Soviet Union's huge mass of weapory last century with the mindset that since "we can't achieve the same level of mass. We're going to have to have more technologically sophisticated stuff," George Barros, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, said. That thinking, for instance, is where the Abrams tank came from: a search for heavily armored firepower rather than mass-produced Soviet T-series tanks.

And in the aftermath of the Cold War, Western stockpiles of weaponry diminished and industry shrunk, leaving it less prepared to build large quantities of munitions and equipment. NATO defense spending has largely dropped while China and Russia spend increasingly more.

The West's approach proved successful in recent conflicts, but these weren't great power conflicts.

"The American military wants to go out and win fast, and our modern image of the preferred kind of war is sort of Operation Desert Storm," Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and the director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, told BI.

In such wars, he said, "the whole point is you're not going to be slogging it out for months and years on end." Instead, you expect to be successful and fast, he said. "It's sort of like a football team planning to go out and score four touchdowns in the first half just to end the game."

The problem is that thinking like that leads to war planning around a framework that no longer prioritizes surge capacity and replenishment.

"We got lazy," Barros said. "Sure, you have better equipment, but it's horrifically expensive, and you therefore get less of it."

A lesson from Ukraine

Russia has shown in Ukraine that it is willing to continue a grinding, brutal fight even at significant cost, and it appears to have the capacity to keep going.

In any sort of protracted war, like it could be with Russia, "your ability to sustain and protract the war actually becomes key," Barros said. In that situation, having systems that might not be as good but that you have a lot of, "that's actually what's going to make the difference."

The West, he said, can't rely solely on big-ticket items "unless you have a very decisive war immediately right out the gate." If a fight isn't won immediately, factors like who can sustain sufficient artillery fire come into play.

"Assuming that you don't decisively defeat the Russians in the opening phase of the war," Barros said, "you're going to burn through all your ATACMS and HIMARS missiles and artillery ammunition." NATO may fight differently than Ukraine, with more capability, but it is still critical to have mass.

Steps for the West

That doesn't mean scrapping the sophisticated tech like fifth-generation fighter jets and stealthy submarines, but investing more in ammunition and lower-value equipment can't be overlooked.

"You can't exclusively have a relatively small and limited number of highly specialized systems at the expense of not having, at mass, the regular workhorse stuff," Barros said.

To deter Russia and China, "we probably have to, at minimum, go back to Cold War levels of defense expenditure," he said.

O'Hanlon said the West needs to invest more in defense manufacturing while also preserving high-value assets: "Those things have not become unimportant just because we realized that other things are also important."

The good news is that prioritizing those other elements is not expensive. "That's why a country like Russia, with a pretty mediocre GDP, can actually be doing better than we are in some of these areas just because they've prioritized them," he said.

Slow progress

Russia's war in Ukraine and its tremendous demands on the defense industry have prompted a surge in weaponry manufacturing in the West, though one that warfare experts and many lawmakers describe as insufficient.

William Alberque, a warfare expert at the Stimson Center described Western production as "a critical concern that has not been addressed enough," though he said NATO allies were "shifting" in the right direction.

The West has severe backlogs and a lack of manufacturing capacity even when countries are willing to spend. And while it struggles to revive that capability, countries like Russia are boosting production and getting equipment from North Korea and Iran.

Russia has repeatedly threatened the West, and some European NATO members have warned that Russia could attack the continent in the next few years, especially if it wins in Ukraine.

How a Russian attack might look is unclear, and many warfare analysts and military officials speculate that Russia would not want an all-out war with NATO.

But the US and its allies are still closely watching Ukraine, eager to learn lessons for a possible fight, and a key lesson is quantity.

Alberque said the West fell into a "long-term myth" that "you can get away with fewer pieces of incredibly expensive, incredibly advanced equipment in a war with Russia or in a war with China."

Instead, "the number of vehicles you have actually really counts and the quality matters a lot less."

Ultimately, he said, "this idea of having a small number of very, very high technology super tanks or super ships or super planes is gradually falling away. And people are saying: 'Oh, shit. It really is about numbers.'"

• Russia fired what it said was a new type of ballistic missile at Ukraine this week.
• Putin called the missile the "Oreshnik" and said it had a "non-nuclear hypersonic warhead."
• Ukraine described the attack as a "severe escalation."

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday said his military had fired a new type of missile at Ukraine, describing it as a test and also a warning to the West.

Putin called the missile the "Oreshnik" and said it had a "non-nuclear hypersonic warhead" and had hit a military-industrial site in Ukraine's eastern city of Dnipro.

He also said it was capable of traveling at Mach 10 — ten times the speed of sound.

The missile, described by the US as experimental, appears to have the range to hit targets elsewhere in Europe.

Here's what we know about the missile and what it could mean for the war and the West.

An experimental missile

Putin said the "Oreshnik" missile can't be stopped, though he and Russian officials have made similar claims in the past about other weaponry that proved anything but infallible.

Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh called the missile "experimental" as it was the first time it had been seen deployed on the battlefield in Ukraine.

She said it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile based on Russia's RS-26 Rubezh model, and that it had a non-nuclear payload but could be refitted to carry different types of "conventional or nuclear warheads."

Some military analysts contest the RS-26's classification as an intercontinental ballistic missile, arguing it falls between an ICBM and an intermediate-range missile. As BI previously reported, an ICBM has never been used in combat.

Missile experts said the "Oreshnik" appeared to have a MIRV, or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, payload, which can carry multiple warheads.

A larger range

The missile's possible range is important. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, medium-range missiles can travel up to 1,860 miles, while intermediate-range missiles can travel up to 3,410 miles.

The RS-26 has a range of up to 3,728 miles, The Financial Times reported.

Matthew Savill of the UK's Royal United Services Institute told the Associated Press the range was "way beyond any of that seen in the conflict so far and possibly the first ever use in combat."

Meanwhile, former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan described the attack as "a political strike not a military one" but wrote on X that an intermediate-range missile could "be used against almost any target in Europe and the United Kingdom."

The first missile attack, however, was minimal. The local mayor said it had damaged a rehabilitation center, knocking out the windows and destroying a boiler room.

A threat to the West

It's not clear how much of an escalation this latest strike represents in practical terms.

An unnamed US official told the BBC that Russia likely only has a handful of these missiles. And they said Ukraine had already faced significant missile attacks, including ones with much bigger warheads than this.

Jakub Janda, director of the European Values Center for Security Policy, told BI that the move was Russia's attempt to intimidate the West into not giving Ukraine more support at a "critical" time.

"From the Russian side, this is just a cognitive warfare move," he said.

Meanwhile, Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, wrote on X that "using these kinds of missiles, whether RS-26 or a true ICBM, in a conventional role does not make a lot of sense because of their relatively low-accuracy and high cost."

"But this kind of a strike might have a value as a signal."

A nuclear hint

Putin described the strike as a response to Ukraine using US and UK-provided missiles on Russian soil this week.

He said Russia "had the right" to strike countries that gave Ukraine weapons that hit Russia.

But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called it "a clear and severe escalation" and called for worldwide condemnation.

"Russia must be forced into real peace, which can only be achieved through strength," he added.

At the same time, the strike may have been intended to hint at a nuclear threat.

Fabian Hoffmann from the Oslo Nuclear Project told Reuters that Russia chose a missile with a MIRV payload "for signaling purposes" because "this payload is exclusively associated with nuclear-capable missiles."

Ryan, the former Australian officer, said Putin wanted to send a message to Europe about Russia's capacity, and to signal to the US ahead of the presidential transition that it should not give Ukraine advanced capabilities.

But in a statement to BI, NATO spokesperson Farah Dakhlallah said Russia's strike "will neither change the course of the conflict nor deter NATO allies from supporting Ukraine."