Sponsored by Bertin Exensor
www.exensor.com
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Military And Security Developments
Apr 25.
Ukraine: Failure to reach debt restructuring deal will possibly increase short-term default risks. On 24 April, the Ukrainian government announced that it had failed to reach an agreement with a group of private debt holders to restructure USD 2.6bn of debt. This debt is linked to so-called GDP warrants, a financial instrument that grants debtholders the right to additional payments when the country’s economy achieves over 3% annual GDP growth. Given that Ukraine’s GDP grew by 5% in 2023, surpassing this threshold, this has triggered additional payments on the debt. Kyiv is required to pay USD 600m by the end of May. The government rejected the creditor group’s proposal to accept a quarter of the upcoming payment in bonds instead of cash. Instead, it proposed either swapping the GDP warrants for restructured sovereign bonds or suspending payments for the 2023–2026 period, with partial compensation in the form of new bonds. We assess that failure to reach a deal will heighten short-term default risks, though there remains a realistic possibility that both parties will reach an agreement, as was the case during last year’s restructuring of USD 20bn of debt.
Apr 24.
KEY DEVELOPMENTS
• OFFENSIVES: The Easter ‘truce’ called by Russian President Vladimir Putin was repeatedly violated; it was likely designed primarily to present Russia as a credible proponent of peace to US President Donald Trump
• KURSK-SUMY: Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov stated that Russian forces have retaken 99.5% of the territory previously held by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk oblast; however, clearing operations are ongoing
• STRIKES: Overnight on 23-24 April, Russia launched a high-intensity missile strike against Ukraine targeting the capital Kyiv, killing eight people and injuring over 80
• FORECAST: Moscow is unlikely to have altered its maximalist war aims despite comments given to the FT that Russia’s President Putin is willing to halt fighting in Ukraine along the current frontlines
• OFFENSIVES: On 19 April, Russian President Vladimir Putin unilaterally announced a 30-hour unilateral ‘Easter truce’ in Ukraine, though both sides accused the other of violating the pause in hostilities on thousands of occasions. While Russia did not conduct long-range strikes overnight on 19-20 April, we assess that the move was primarily intended to portray Russia as a proponent of peace, particularly to influence US President Donald Trump, rather than representing a sincere goodwill gesture. In line with our assessment, Ukrainian military officials reported that Russian forces exploited the truce to reposition units and prepare for renewed offensives along multiple areas of the frontline, particularly in the Lyman sector, located in northern Donetsk. However, the short duration of the truce and the repeated violations thereof mean that Russia is unlikely to have gained any significant advantage.
• BAKHMUT: Over the past week, Russian forces have achieved slow but steady advances in the direction of Toretsk (along the southern portion of the Bakhmut axis). Geolocated footage posted between 19-23 April indicates that Russian forces recently advanced in western Toretsk, into the south-western outskirts of Toretsk, in the waste heap located immediately to the north of Toretsk and into eastern Dachne. Additionally, geolocated footage published on 23 April indicates that Russian forces have captured the small settlement of Sukha Balka, which is located to the south-west of Toretsk. Finally, geolocated footage posted on 19 April indicates that Russian forces also advanced east of Shcherbynivka, which is located to the west of Toretsk.
• DONETSK: In recent days, Russian forces have made progress in the Pokrovsk sector, primarily through assaults involving small infantry groups. Geolocated footage from 23 April shows recent Russian advances along Moskovska Street in central Yarsivka, located to the north-east of Pokrovsk. On 22 April, the spokesperson for a Ukrainian brigade operating in the sector stated that Russian assaults mainly consist of small infantry units. Previously, another Ukrainian military source operating in the area reported that Russia has exhausted its reserves of heavy vehicles, prompting its forces to increase the use of buggies and motorcycles. Ukrainian drone units have successfully targeted Russian heavy equipment, likely contributing to Russia’s depletion of armoured vehicles.
• DONETSK: Russian difficulties, particularly to the south-west of Pokrovsk, also reflect Ukraine’s ability to conduct successful localised counter-attacks. On 17 April, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi stated that Ukrainian forces had retaken around 6.2 square miles (16 sq km) of territory around Pokrovsk in recent weeks. While degraded Russian heavy vehicle capabilities likely account for the slower pace of advance in the south-west of Pokrovsk, this is also possibly due to Russia increasingly focusing its operations to the north-east of Pokrovsk along the Pokrovsk–Kostiantynivka axis. Meanwhile, further south, Russian forces made confirmed advances north-west of Rozlyv as of 22 April, which is located to the south-west of Kurakhove.
• KHARKIV: Nothing significant to report
• KURSK-SUMY: On 19 April, Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov stated that Russian forces have retaken 99.5% of the territory previously held by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk oblast. In recent days, Russian forces have made further progress in pushing Ukrainian forces out of the region. Geolocated footage posted between 17 and 22 April indicates that Russian forces have advanced to the northern outskirts of Gornal, east and south of Oleshnya, all of which are located to the south-west of Sudzha. The geolocated footage also indicates that Russian forces recently advanced south of Guyevo, which is located to the south of Sudzha near the international border. It is therefore likely that Russian forces are currently engaged in clearing operations as the vast majority of the oblast has returned to Russian control.
• OSKIL-KREMINNA: Nothing significant to report
• SOUTHERN: Nothing significant to report
• STRIKES: On 20 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed a 30-day halt to long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure in both Russia and Ukraine. While Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow remains open to discussing the topic, President Vladimir Putin also accused Ukraine of using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This statement likely indicates that Moscow is unlikely to agree to Zelensky’s proposal. We assess that civilian infrastructure across Ukraine will remain exposed to the threat of direct Russian strikes as well as collateral damage resulting from Russia’s long-range attacks.
• STRIKES: Meanwhile, with Russia having unilaterally declared the end of the moratorium on strikes on 18 April, Moscow will possibly resume targeting energy infrastructure. However, given the extensive damage already inflicted on these facilities and the end of the heating season in Ukraine, targeting energy infrastructure likely no longer carries the same strategic value as it did during the heating seasons earlier in the conflict.
• STRIKES: Over the past week, Russian forces have launched three combined missile and drone attacks, alongside routine drone-only assaults. The combined attacks on 18 and 19 April included in all seven and eight missiles (both cruise and ballistic), respectively, along with a large number of drones on each occasion. Overnight on 23-24 April, Moscow launched a high-intensity attack involving in all 59 cruise missiles, 11 ballistic missiles, and 145 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Ukraine achieved a relatively high interception rate, shooting down 41 cruise missiles, seven ballistic missiles, and 64 UAVs. However, the attack resulted in the deaths of eight people and injured more than 80 others in Kyiv, which was the main target.
• STRIKES: On 23 April, Ukrainian forces co-ordinated a drone attack targeting a drone manufacturing facility in Yelabuga, located in Russia’s Republic of Tatarstan. This was confirmed by Ukraine’s General Staff. The plant has a production capacity of about 300 pieces of various UAV types per day. The attack occurred as Moscow continues to steadily increase its drone attacks.
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS
• MINERALS: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko on 23 April, during which Bessent emphasised the need to sign an economic resources deal as soon as possible. US President Donald Trump stated on 17 April that Ukraine and the US may possibly sign the agreement later on 24 April. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Deputy Economy Minister and Trade Representative Taras Kachka said on 18 April that a new round of negotiations on the agreement would begin in Washington DC on 24 April. Kachka emphasised that the deal has not yet been finalised, with several legal and technical questions still unresolved. Recent developments have modestly increased the likelihood of the deal being signed in the near term. However, the fact that the deal previously collapsed when it was close to signing renders this prospect more uncertain.
• MINERALS: Additionally, on 17 April, Ukraine and the US signed a memorandum of intent to conclude the deal between their respective governments. According to the document, the two sides aim to complete discussions on the deal by 26 April and sign it soon after. The memorandum provides little detail about the terms of the eventual deal. However, it acknowledges that the US respects Ukraine’s intention to avoid conflicts with Kyiv’s obligations as part of the EU accession process or agreements with international financial institutions and other partners. This, therefore, implies that the US has possibly softened its stance (or will consider doing so) on elements that would disadvantage Ukraine in relations with other partners or its EU membership ambitions. We assess that this will possibly make the deal more attractive to Kyiv to sign in the near term.
• MINERALS: However, details of the memorandum infer that the US still seeks to recover the cost of past aid to Ukraine. It mentions that Washington DC has provided significant financial and material support to Kyiv since the onset of the full-scale invasion in February 2022. There is no indication in the memorandum of how much the US wants to reclaim as part of this agreement, though it reportedly lowered this figure in recent discussions (see Sibylline Ukraine Update – 17 April 2025). Therefore, it is possible that this issue is among points of the deal that the two sides are yet to resolve fully. However, the Trump administration remains unlikely to completely abandon this provision of the deal, given its transactional approach to Ukraine aid.
• AID: Reports emerged on 18 April that there is ‘virtually no serious discussion’ underway in the Trump administration about providing another aid package to Ukraine when previously authorised support runs out. Meanwhile, the US reportedly has not even reassured European officials that it will continue intelligence sharing with Kyiv. While we cannot confirm this, prior to President Trump’s victory in November 2024, we assessed that aid to Ukraine would highly likely diminish significantly under his presidency. The provision of large-scale aid packages to Ukraine, as seen under Trump’s predecessor, former president Joe Biden, is unlikely in the medium term. However, increasing (or fully terminating) aid for Ukraine remains a tool at the US’ disposal for influencing progress towards ending the war.
FORECAST
CONCESSIONS: Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly proposed halting fighting in Ukraine along the current frontlines as part of efforts to reach a peace deal with the US. The Financial Times (FT) reported this on 22 April, citing unspecified people familiar with the matter. The report is allegedly based on a conversation President Putin allegedly had with President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff earlier this month.
Putin also reportedly suggested that Moscow could potentially relinquish claims to areas of four partially Russian-occupied Ukrainian regions under Kyiv’s control, though we assess that Moscow is unlikely to have genuine intentions of doing so. Of the four Ukrainian regions Russia annexed in September 2022, Russia occupies approximately 66% of Donetsk oblast, around 73% of both Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts and almost the entirety of Luhansk oblast (99%). The FT article describes the proposal as the ‘first formal indication’ that Putin has given since the early phases of the war that Russia could scale back its maximalist demands to end the conflict. While we cannot confirm the veracity of the reports, Russia is highly unlikely to be willing to entertain significant concessions (especially concerning territory) to end the war at present.
Although the development is notable, Moscow is unlikely to have abandoned its claims to these territories officially and remains unlikely to. The identity of these insiders remains unknown; recent statements from the Kremlin contradict the content of the article. In an interview with French media published on 23 April, the Kremlin press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, reiterated that these four Ukrainian oblasts are enshrined in Russia’s constitution as its territory. Additionally, Peskov ordered the Ukrainian army to lay down their weapons and withdraw from the areas, actions which he said would immediately end military operations. Peskov also reiterated Russian war goals as including Ukraine being a neutral state and the need to ‘recognise the reality of the territories’. Such comments indicate that Russia’s objectives in Ukraine remain unchanged and are highly unlikely to soften in the near term, especially while Russia continues to perceive that it has the advantage on the battlefield.
Irrespective of whether Putin did indeed make such comments or not, the comments given to the FT are likely timed to further Russian information operations that allege that it is Ukraine which impedes peace. Trump and senior officials in his administration have voiced growing open frustration at the lack of progress towards ending the war in recent days. Most notably, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated on 18 April that the US is prepared to walk away from efforts to broker a peace deal unless there are clear signs of progress. The comments followed reports the day prior by Bloomberg that the US wants to secure a full ceasefire in Ukraine within weeks. In this context, the timing of the comments (to the FT) is likely designed to portray Ukraine as unreasonable and to improve Russia’s favour with the US.
We assess that Putin will possibly have suggested freezing the frontline, knowing that provisions in Ukraine’s constitution will be an obstacle regarding the ceding of territory. Reports emerged on 22 April that the Trump administration’s ‘final offer’ for a peace framework includes the US recognising Crimea as part of Russia. It would also provide for the de facto recognition of Russia’s control over nearly all territory occupied since the full-scale invasion in Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. This aligns with earlier reports detailing the US’ supposed openness to recognising the Crimean peninsula as Russian territory. Zelensky stated on 22 April that Ukraine will not legally recognise Crimea as Russian and cited that such a move would violate the country’s constitution.
The Ukrainian constitution stipulates that Crimea is an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine, while other articles enshrine the territory of Ukraine within its present border as indivisible and inviolable. It also states that issues of altering Ukraine’s territorial composition are to be resolved exclusively via referendum. The required constitutional changes and a referendum would prevent a swift resolution to territorial claims. Putin’s reported offer of a freezing of the frontline is highly likely cognisant of this. Knowing these dynamics, this is possibly why the Russian president may have proposed such an arrangement, knowing the limited likelihood of this happening in the near term. This would likely provide Russia with room to reinstate maximalist demands at a later date in negotiations and intensify military operations in the meantime in the absence of a ceasefire.
Although the US is increasing pressure to reach a ceasefire quickly, this is almost certainly felt more acutely by Ukraine. Reports emerged on 18 April that three unnamed European diplomats who had recently engaged with Rubio felt that his frustration at the ailing progress towards ending the war was mostly with Ukraine. They also said Rubio did not mention increasing pressure on Russia. Although we cannot confirm this development, public statements from Trump and his administration indicate that the frustration is (at least openly) directed more towards Kyiv than Moscow. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on 23 April that Trump’s patience is ‘running very thin’ with his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky. Such messaging is possibly aimed at intensifying the pressure on Ukraine to accept a US-brokered deal in the near term with less favourable terms for Kyiv.
We assess that US pressure on Ukraine to make significant concessions will highly likely continue to drive tensions between Kyiv and the Trump administration. Rubio and Witkoff declined to attend peace talks in the UK, in the capital London, scheduled for 23 April. This meeting was then downgraded to a lower level after top US and European diplomats decided to miss the event. Meanwhile, Witkoff is expected to meet with Putin in Moscow for their fourth meeting on 25 April. The Washington Post (WP) implied that the non-attendance of Rubio and Witkoff was linked to Kyiv’s refusal to accept talks of territorial concessions without an initial truce. Concurrently, the Trump administration’s consideration of US recognition of Crimea will highly likely further divisions between European leaders and Washington DC. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, stated on 22 April that the bloc will not recognise Crimea as part of Russia. Such discussions regarding territory will likely place European leaders in a difficult position as to whether to align with the US or support Ukraine.
Aside from territorial issues, Trump’s supposed ‘final offer’ peace deal reportedly presented last week outlines significantly greater concessions for Russia than Ukraine. Russia would receive a pledge that the US would not support Ukraine becoming a member of NATO, therefore scuppering Kyiv’s prospects of joining the alliance in the foreseeable future. Russia would also enjoy sanctions relief from punitive measures imposed since 2014, as well as opportunities for more economic co-operation with the US, particularly in the energy and industrial sectors. A lifting of over a decade’s worth of sanctions would represent a significant concession for Russia from the US. However, it is highly unlikely that European partners would adopt a similar stance in the foreseeable future. That said, the reported inclusion of such a provision implies that the US is interested in easing Russia’s economic isolation and re-setting relations.
For Ukraine’s part, Russia would have to return a small part of Kharkiv oblast that it currently occupies. Ukraine would also receive navigation rights in the Dnieper River and assistance in post-war rebuilding, though it is uncertain where the funding would come from. Ukraine would also receive assistance from European military forces as a ‘robust security guarantee’ following a ceasefire, but the US would not be involved in this. The US is reportedly not advocating for a reduction in Ukraine’s military capabilities, nor is it opposed to a European peacekeeping force being in the country. Russia will highly likely consider a promise that Ukraine will not join NATO as having achieved one of its key war aims. Meanwhile, Ukraine will view this as a significant disadvantage in ensuring the country’s security against future renewed Russian aggression.
Apr 22.
*Russia-Ukraine: Claims of truce violations underscore that wider ceasefire is unlikely in near term. On 19 April, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a 30-hour unilateral ‘Easter truce’ in Ukraine, beginning 1800hrs that day; it was reportedly due to last until 0000hrs on 21 April (all times Moscow). Both sides reported that the other violated the declared temporary cessation of hostilities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Russian forces had breached the ceasefire approximately 3,000 times. Meanwhile, the Russian defence ministry alleged that it recorded around 4,900 violations by the Ukrainian side. Putin’s surprise truce declaration was highly likely aimed at creating the impression that Russia is sincere about peace for the benefit of US President Donald Trump, rather than being a genuine goodwill gesture. Remarks in recent weeks have indicated growing and open frustration within the Trump administration at the lack of tangible progress towards peace. Following Putin’s declaration of the truce, Ukraine proposed a moratorium on long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure for 30 days (with the possibility of the measure being extended). Ukraine previously agreed to an unconditional full 30-day ceasefire in March, which Russia refused. We assess that a longer and more comprehensive ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine remains unlikely in the near term; Moscow is highly likely to continue waging war in an attempt to achieve its maximalist objectives in Ukraine militarily.
(Source: Sibylline)
25 Apr 25. Ukraine may need to give up land to Russia in order to achieve peace, the mayor of Kyiv has said. Speaking hours after Kyiv was rocked by one of the biggest attacks of the war so far, which killed 12 people, Vitali Klitschko said: “One of the scenarios is… to give up territory. It’s not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution.” Mr Klitschko, a former boxing champion, also told the BBC Ukraine would “never accept occupation” by Russia.
Donald Trump responded to the attack yesterday by issuing a rare rebuke to Vladimir Putin, urging him to “stop”. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump’s envoy, will be in Moscow today for his fourth meeting with the Russian president in three months. (Source: Daily Telegraph)
21 Apr 25. Ukraine claims thousands of Russian combat losses during Easter truce. In addition to military personnel, Ukraine claims to have destroyed dozens of tanks and armoured vehicles during the Russian ceasefire. kraine has claimed that Russian combat losses ran to the thousands in the hours prior to, during, and immediately after a 30-hour truce declared by Moscow on 19 April, with both sides moved to accuse each other of violations during the Easter period.
Publishing its daily combat claims over the Easter weekend, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence said that Russia sustained 2,800 combat losses from the 24 hours to 19 September up to the morning of 21 April.
This figure includes Russian forces both killed and wounded in action, which Kyiv now claims to be about 942,000 since 24 February 2022.
These losses, while doubtless inflated, are thought relatively close to the numbers actually sustained by Russia, which has embarked on a new conscription drive to build up its forces, likely to enable combat capable units not deployed into Ukraine to be sent into the warzone.
In addition. Ukraine claimed to have inflicted significant amounts of damage to Russian hardware, citing the destruction of 17 tanks, 16 armoured fighting vehicles, 129 artillery systems, and 239 UAVs, among other platforms, during the Easter weekend.
While it is impossible to immediately verify each side’s claims of truce and ceasefire violations, the level of combat losses points to sustained operations during the Ukraine Easter truce. Ukraine’s claims of Russian losses during Easter are about 75% of what was reported a week earlier, which ran to over 3,700 personnel.
Russia’s military machine has suffered significantly since the 2022 large-scale invasion of Ukraine, with tens of thousands of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and artillery systems destroyed in combat.
Ukraine’s own losses are a closely held state secret but will certainly represent a significant portion of in-service equipment, including losses to vehicles like the M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2 tanks, provided by Western backers. Combat casualties are likely in the hundreds of thousands, with the country looking at ways to incentivise recruitment in 2025.
UK warns of “expansionist Russian nationalism”
Meanwhile, in a 21 April social media post on X, the UK Ministry of Defence has warned of what it termed the “politicisation and militarisation” of Russia’s educational system, citing recent reports of a move by Moscow to place greater emphasis on nationalistic policies among young generations.
In addition, Russia’s 2024 ‘Youth Strategy’ intended to increase the prestige of military service and increase the willingness of the country’s youth to join the armed forces, the MoD claimed.
“It is likely that the politicisation and militarisation of Russian education, coupled with increasing ideological indoctrination of Russian children and young people more broadly, will perpetuate aggressive, expansionist Russian nationalism in the longer term,” the UK MoD stated. (Source: army-technology.com)
23 Apr 25. Cuashub.com said today that Ukraine strikes Russian drone threat at the source. Ukraine’s Air Force carried out a strike on a Russian drone launch site near the village of Tetkino in Russia’s Kursk Oblast on April 19, Ukraine’s General Staff reported. According to the statement, the strike killed up to 20 drone operators. The facility was reportedly used by Russian forces to prepare, equip and launch reconnaissance, strike and FPV drones.
Russian forces have regularly launched large numbers of drones against Ukraine in near-nightly strikes, often targeting civilian infrastructure and residential areas during night attacks.
“Our strike is a tangible response to [Russia’s] actions against the Ukrainian army,” Ukraine’s General Staff said. “No war crime will go unpunished.”
The strike came as Kyiv pushed for a temporary pause in long-range attacks. On April 20, President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed a 30-day ceasefire on drone and missile strikes aimed at civilian infrastructure. The Kremlin has not supported the proposal, which has U.S. backing.
The day before the Ukrainian strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an Easter truce along the front line, stating that Russian troops would refrain from combat during the holiday weekend. President Zelensky later said that Russia had violated the truce around 3,000 times since its announcement. Russian officials have not publicly commented on the reported strike in Tetkino. The strike is one that is becoming increasingly common in the Russo-Ukrainian war, with Ukraine’s ability to target military infrastructure inside Russian territory with cross-border drone and missile attacks constantly improving. https://cuashub.com/en/content/ukraine-strikes-russian-drone-threat-at-the-source/ (Source: https://cuashub.com/)
23 Apr 25. Explosions Rock Major Russian Ammunition Depot in the Vladimir Region. A series of explosions occurred at a major Russian military ammunition depot in the Vladimir region, northeast of Moscow on Tuesday.
The facility, known as the 51st Arsenal of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU), is one of Russia’s largest munitions storage sites.
Videos shared on social media show fire and smoke billowing from the site. So far, no casualties have been confirmed, and the full extent of the damage remains unclear.
Russian authorities have yet to disclose the cause of the incident but unverified reports circulating on social media claim the site may have been targeted by Ukrainian drones or missiles. To date, neither Russia nor Ukraine has confirmed any strike.
According to open-source data, the 51st GRAU arsenal stores over 100,000 tons of weapons, including artillery shells, rockets for multiple launch systems, air defense missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles.
The depot reportedly held weapons like the S-300 air defense missile and the 9M79 “Tochka-U” tactical missile.
Ukraine has previously targeted Russian military facilities, such as ammunition depots and airbases, as part of its broader strategy to weaken Russia’s ability to sustain ongoing military operations. (Source: https://www.sofx.com/)
16 Apr 25. Ukraine announces EW coalition, air defence support and unveils Tryzad laser system. Ukrainian and German defence ministers have jointly announced the launch of the newly established Electronic Warfare (EW) Coalition.
A total of 10 nations, including Ukraine, have joined the initiative which aims to meet the current electronic warfare needs of the Ukrainian army and also establish a foundation for the long-term development of these capabilities. The Coalition’s activities will encompass the procurement of equipment, personnel training, and the development of policies and doctrines within the realm of electronic warfare. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have publicly presented its Tryzub combat laser system for the first time. Announced in 2024, imagery of the Tryzub, named after the country’s trident symbol, was shown at a European defence industry conference entitled “Prospects for Cooperation with the Ukrainian Defence Industry”. Videos depicting the system disabling an FPV drone using a directed energy beam followed across Ukrainian military and news social media accounts. The system is designed to neutralise attack drones, aerial bombs, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles at a range of up to 3,000 metres. Some defence media report that the system can engage larger or faster targets such as helicopters, aircraft, and reconnaissance drones at up to 5,000 metres and blind optical sensors within a 10-kilometre radius. On April 11, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence revealed a series of air defence and other equipment support initiatives from European countries.
For example, Germany will deliver four IRIS-T air defense systems and 300 interceptor missiles in 2025. Germany will also provide 30 missiles for the Patriot system, 15 Leopard 1 tanks, 25 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, and an additional 100,000 artillery shells. In total, additional aid through 2029 will amount to EUR 11bn. The United Kingdom will provide GBP 450m in assistance, including hundreds of thousands of drones, radar systems, and maintenance services for previously supplied equipment. Norway has contributed GBP 100m to finance the aid package announced by the United Kingdom; it also announced EUR 1bn in assistance, including for ammunition and air and missile defence. The Netherlands is allocating EUR 150 m to enhance Ukraine’s air defence. In an April 14 announcement, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence reported a USD 1.6bn assistance package from Sweden, to include air defence and satellite communications. (Source: www.unmannedairspace.info)
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Founded in 1987, Exensor Technology is a world leading supplier of Networked Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS) Systems providing tailored sensor solutions to customers all over the world. From our Headquarters in Lund Sweden, our centre of expertise in Network Communications at Communications Research Lab in Kalmar Sweden and our Production site outside of Basingstoke UK, we design, develop and produce latest state of the art rugged UGS solutions at the highest quality to meet the most stringent demands of our customers. Our systems are in operation and used in a wide number of Military as well as Homeland Security applications worldwide. The modular nature of the system ensures any external sensor can be integrated, providing the user with a fully meshed “silent” network capable of self-healing. Exensor Technology will continue to lead the field in UGS technology, provide our customers with excellent customer service and a bespoke package able to meet every need.
A CNIM Group Company
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-