Map Shows Ukraine's Crippling Strikes on Russia's Microchip Plants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Ukraine targeted a technology plant close to Moscow overnight, Kyiv's military said on Thursday, the latest in a run of attacks on Russian microelectronics plants since the beginning of the year.
The assault was launched on the Rezonit facility roughly 25 miles, from the center of the Russian capital city, Andriy Kovalenko, an official with Ukraine's national security and defense council, said on Thursday.
The site was a "bold target" for Ukraine, Kovalenko added. Ukraine's military, confirming the overnight attack, said the Rezonit plant was an "important facility" for Russia's industry, supplying its military.
Why It Matters
Kyiv has repeatedly targeted Russian facilities pumping out microelectronics and components key for some of the country's most advanced weapons, including next-generation missiles.
What To Know
Russia's Defense Ministry said it had destroyed three Ukrainian drones over the broader Moscow overnight. The mayor of the city of Moscow and the governor of the Moscow region had not commented at the time of writing.
The extent of the damage is not clear, but footage circulating online on Thursday appears to show at least one bright flash and plumes of smoke at the site. Newsweek could not independently verify the footage and has reached out to the Russian Defense Ministry for comment via email.
The microelectronics made at the Rezonit plant are used for flight control, navigation and guidance systems in Russia's Iskander missiles, Kalibr and Kh-101 cruise missiles, as well as Russian drones and artillery systems, Kovalenko said.
Ukraine said on May 21 it had attacked the Bolkhovsky semiconductor plant in Russia's Oryol region, southwest of Moscow, with ten drones.
Kyiv's military described the site as one of Russia's major suppliers of semiconductors and microelectronics, key for producing Iskander and Kinzhal missiles, as well as Russia's aircraft.
Russia has frequently fired Iskander missiles at Ukraine and debuted the Kinzhal, one of the Kremlin's "next generation" weapons, during the conflict. Russia claims the missile is hypersonic and impossible to intercept. Ukrainian and Western intelligence suggests advanced U.S.-made air defense systems have shot down Kinzhal missiles in Ukraine.
A week later, Kyiv said it had struck a microelectronics plant, named as the Mikron facility in Zelenograd, near Moscow.
Ukraine's Kovalenko said Russia's Kremniy-EL microelectronics plant in the Bryansk region bordering Ukraine was attacked in late April.
Russian state-controlled media reported in January the Bryansk plant suspended operations after six Ukrainian drones homed in on the site.
What People Are Saying
Ukraine's military said on Thursday its forces had "struck an important facility of the Russian aggressor's military-industrial complex."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
'Mass Layoff' Provision in Trump Bill Sparks Alarm: 'Deeply Concerning'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A provision in the Senate budget bill would allow for millions of dollars to go directly toward President Donald Trump and the administration's ability to lay off federal workers without the consent of Congress. It is a move that Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, called "deeply, deeply concerning." The provision, written by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would give $100 million to the Office of Budget Management (OMB), according to Government Executive. The office is run by Project 2025 author Russ Vought, a proponent of mass government layoffs, which are a central tenet of Project 2025. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Olinsky referenced the lawsuits by federal employees fired by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, telling Newsweek: "[This bill is] exactly the kind of thing that the president has been trying to do, I would say, illegally, as he seeks to shut down departments or agencies, or limit [agencies] to a handful of staff down from 1000s and do large mass layoffs and other kinds of cuts to entire functions or programs." Those in favor of the bill have said: "Any president should have the ability to clear the waste he or she has identified without obstruction." Newsweek contacted Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, via email for comment. Why It Matters Many of the people affected by mass federal layoffs initiated by DOGE at the start of Trump's second term are now in court as they were made without congressional approval. The provision would allow for federal employees to be fired with little to no legal recourse. Olinsky told Newsweek that it would lead to current and future distrust in the government by federal workers. Federal work used to be a lesser paid but significantly more stable line of work. If the provision passes, federal work will be seen as a much less realistic plan for long-term employment and will result in bright and capable Americans choosing to work in the private sector. What To Know The provision of the bill, which is the Senate's version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House, appears in a section about government spending and reorganization by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It would revitalize a provision last used in 1984 that allows the president to reorganize the federal government. However, Olinsky explained to Newsweek that it differs from the 1984 provision in one significant way. "Those previous reorganization authorities that were granted to the president still had a role for Congress," he said. Congress then had a certain amount of time to either approve or disapprove of the plan, and that determined whether the president's plan could go into effect. "In the current reorganization language, it says that most of the statute that's currently on the books, or that was on the books through 1984, will not apply," Olinsky said. "And it basically says the president can put together a reorganization plan, and as long as it's making government smaller, it is deemed approved. "So, there would be no further review by Congress, no further action. It would simply be automatic. It is approved by this language without [Congress] having seen it first. That is dramatically concerning to me." Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Olinsky added: "The executive actions that the Trump administration has been taking are absolutely taking Project 2025, the most extreme parts of it, and putting them into effect. And, actually going much further in many cases." Project 2025 says that the president should be able to " employees." It speaks in broad terms about federal employees, whom its authors see as part of the "federal bureaucracy." "Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people, but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government "of, by, and for" the people," Project 2025 says. Olinsky said that people fired as a result of DOGE cuts could continue their suits in court, but anyone fired under the new provision would not have a case against the government. He said the only means of legal recourse for fired employees would be if mass firings reduced the government's ability to monitor enforcement functions. For example, if the White House fired every member of an agency that oversaw labor standards, someone could potentially sue and say their firing undermined government enforcement work. Other critics of this move say it directly undermines Congress' ability to govern, as government spending is one of Congress' primary responsibilities. Olinsky said there is a chance the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision defies the Byrd Rule, which says that all reconciliation packages have to focus on budget issues and cannot stray into other parts of government. Olinsky believes the provision violates the Byrd Rule, but whether enough members of the Senate and/or the parliamentarian believe the same is "an open question," he said. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, told Newsweek: "This [bill] would basically give [Trump] carte blanche to refashion the entire federal government in ways that he likes. "Now, even under this language, it basically means you have to make the government smaller, not larger. But there's a lot of playing you could do to assist with [Trump's] priorities and stifle functions of government that he just doesn't like. "This should be deeply, deeply concerning to anyone." The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: "This provision would reestablish the authority for a president to reorganize government as long as these plans do not result in an increase in federal agencies and the plan does not result in an increase in federal spending." What Happens Next The House does not have a similar rule, so if the provision remains in the Senate version of the bill, it cannot be removed through a parliamentarian complaint to the Bird Rule by the House.
Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Pilot Reveals What Those 'Dings' You Hear After Takeoff Really Mean
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A pilot on TikTok has explained what all the "dings" mean when your plane is taking off and landing in a viral video. Peter Cappio, a New York City-based pilot with the handle @ drew more than 2.1 million views of his video within five days, in which he said that the dings are, "nothing to be scared of," and are, "very, very normal procedures on most every airline." 'Sterile cockpit' According to Cappio, the dings happen when pilots are climbing through or descending through 10,000 feet (3,048 meters). For pilots, the 10,000-foot marker is an important one. Stock image: Airline pilot gives a thumbs up gesture. Stock image: Airline pilot gives a thumbs up gesture. Photo by Svitlana Hulko / Getty Images "10,000 feet is a significant altitude in the aviation world and signifies when you're in and out of sterile cockpit," Cappio said. "Sterile cockpit is when the pilots are only supposed to concentrate on the particular flight and only conversations that are required for the flight, meaning no small talk, no looking out the window, no doing anything, but focusing on the task at hand." The dings are for flight attendants, letting them know when they need to handle things on their own for a bit. Cappio continued: "If there's something that happens in the cabin that they need to alert the pilots on, for example, if someone takes out a vape or something like that, is it critical for them to know at that time?" 'Critical phase of the flight' According to Cappio, pilots are "super busy" with air traffic control procedures at the time. "It's a critical phase of flight," he said, "So they double-ding the flight attendants, let them know, 'Hey, we're no longer in sterile. "If you need to call us to just say hi, or check up on us, see if we want coffee or snacks, or let us know that the person in 15B smells, whatever it may be, that's the time to do it. "But not before those double chimes and not after those double chimes when we're coming into landing." 'Fear of the unknown' In an email to Newsweek, Cappio said people generally keep their concerns about flying to themselves but, "media coverage, social media [and] fear of the unknown," all play a role. "People don't know/understand flying, planes [and] pilots, so that scares them," he added. Cappio said he has started a counseling service where passengers can book time with him and talk about their concerns about an upcoming flight. "Flying is safe and if they want a more behind the scenes look to see what it's like so it's less scary, follow me," he said. 'We chill' TikTok users generally appreciated the insights, amid more than 1,200 comments. "I always thought it was a notification that snacks are coming soon," one person quipped, to which Cappio responded: "That too!" "My anxiety is maxed out until I hear those first two dings and then I immediately relax," an individual shared. "I like knowing the flight attendants are moving around and you turned on the WiFi—it gives 'we chill' vibes." Other users, however, had some advice for pilots. An air traveler wondered: "Do pilots know that when they speak to us, their mic is often turned down too low and we can't hear them?"
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Trump floats regime change to ‘Make Iran Great Again', Deutsche Bank warns Europe has drawn the short straw in escalating conflict
President Trump abruptly escalated U.S. involvement in the Middle East by ordering airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, sparking warnings of 'everlasting' consequences from Iran, heightened tensions over regime change, and immediate volatility in global oil markets. While U.S. officials downplayed intentions of regime change and direct war, analysts warned that the conflict could have serious and lasting economic impacts, especially for Europe, and urged investors to be wary of overreacting to sensationalist commentary amid ongoing uncertainty. This weekend Trump's two week window for a decision on Iran turned into two days, as the U.S. entered the conflict in the Middle East by bombing Iranian nuclear sites. The president had been publicly ambiguous on whether he would take military action, but in a now-familiar pattern from the Oval Office, he surprised global media by confirming that warplanes had struck three separate targets. In response Iran warned of 'everlasting' consequences. And while Trump previously said he would not harm Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, despite knowing where he is, the president has now suggested the Iranian regime should be overthrown. He wrote on his site, Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Almost as soon as Trump made the suggestion members of his own cabinet began briefing to the contrary. Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth told reporters that the mission 'was not, and has not, been about regime change' while Vice president JD Vance denied the U.S. was at war with Iran. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' he clarified. The questions for voters and analysts have inevitably turned to what Iran's 'everlasting' response could be. As Western nations weighed the possibility of Tehran acting to disrupt their economies, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also announced after the strikes that he would travel to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Speaking in Istanbul, Araghchi told reporters Iran had a 'strategic partnership' with Russia, adding: 'We always consult with each other and coordinate our positions.' Closer to home, Iran's parliament also approved plans to shut the Strait of Hormuz which transports about one-fifth of the world's daily global oil production. This is the most immediate concern for analysts, who watched as oil prices jumped to a five-month high when markets opened in Asia on Monday morning, before falling back down with Brent crude sitting at approximately $79 per barrel. But analysts also note that the nations—and indeed the consumers—which may have drawn the short straw in the conflict could be those who were not directly involved in this weekend's action. As Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid notes, the U.S. has turned into a net energy exporter over the past few years, 'so any negative impact would be through deteriorating financial conditions or through higher for longer rates as the Fed have another reason to delay cuts.' Reid continues: 'For Europe though, the impact is potentially more serious. Every $10/bbl increase in oil has the potential to add a quarter of a percent to HICP [the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices used by the EU] within a quarter and if sustained, 0.4pp within a year. 'Growth could be lowered by around 0.25pp if such an increase was sustained.' With geopoliticians charting an uncertain path in the days ahead, economists have warned investors against any knee-jerk reactions. As UBS's Paul Donovan put it in a note seen by Fortune this morning: 'We live in a world of political polarization and soundbite economics. That encourages sensationalism. Deckchair generals will offer extreme opinions on the U.S. attacks on Iran. Both supporters and opponents the attacks are likely to dramatize events. Investors should be cautious of knee-jerk overreactions.' He continued: 'President Trump's ruling out near-term attacks immediately before attacking might be tactical, but their suggestion of regime change in opposition to official U.S. policy causes uncertainty. That raises trust issues relevant to trade negotiations. 'Even modest oil price increases will raise U.S. gasoline prices just as trade tariffs push up other prices, and may add to profit-led inflation too.' That being said, analysts at JPMorgan said investors should buckle up for prolonged volatility. In a note seen by Fortune this morning, JPMorgan's Mislav Matejka wrote Trump's conflicting statements about whether the weekend's strike will be the only action or the beginning of a series of attacks brought 'little certainty.' 'Moreover, we do not see an obvious route to a political settlement to the military conflict, which makes us think the conflict, like the one in Gaza, could last longer than many investors think,' he added. 'Moreover, Iran is both much bigger than Gaza, Syria or Lebanon and, unlike the other three areas that Israel has attacked in the past 18 months, it sits on the Straits of Hormuz. Matejka adds: 'In our view, the global economy/global investors can neither ignore the risks of conflict in Iran the way they can in Lebanon, Syria or Gaza, nor can they ignore the 10% jump in global energy prices.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
