By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Andrew Rettman, EUobserver’s foreign editor since 2005, specializes in foreign and security affairs. A Polish national raised in the UK and currently residing in Brussels, his expertise is reflected in his contributions to prominent publications such as The Guardian, The Times of London, and Intelligence Online. His background provides a unique perspective on European affairs.
Read the original article here
Leaked information reveals a disturbing collaboration between Russian academia and various firms, actively contributing to the construction of Putin’s drone army. The design of these drones, incorporating elements suggesting a Chinese origin and utilizing components potentially sourced from China, raises questions about Russia’s true technological capabilities and its reliance on external support for military development. The implication is that Russia’s “stronka” narrative is a fabrication, and its reliance on outside help casts a serious shadow over its military might.
This raises significant concerns about the ethical and practical implications of this partnership. The potential vulnerability of these drone factories to long-range missile strikes – a perfectly legal military target – further highlights the precarious nature of this military build-up. The notion of Russian academia’s involvement seems paradoxical, considering the widely held view that their current state hardly qualifies as “academia” in any meaningful sense. The comparison to the Three Stooges’ comedic chaos isn’t entirely unwarranted, given the apparent ineptitude and reliance on potentially inferior components.
The leaked information also hints at a significant internal struggle within Russia. Speculation suggests the potential for a coup involving these very drones, a desperate attempt to overthrow Putin from within his own military machine. This highlights a deep-seated discontent within the ranks and a simmering lack of faith in Putin’s leadership. However, other perspectives temper these optimistic expectations, arguing that such a rebellion remains highly unlikely. The belief that Russians, characterized as “strong and silent,” may remain passive and compliant in the face of such oppression seems entrenched.
The apparent reliance on questionable components and design also begs the question of Russia’s true technological prowess. While acknowledged that Russia boasts capable engineers, the overall picture paints a less optimistic view of their capabilities. The speculation also touches upon the wider implications of the conflict, encompassing potential consequences like brain drain, generational trauma, economic collapse, and the complete erosion of Russia’s intellectual property. This is not a matter of mere military hardware; it’s a comprehensive breakdown of a nation’s capabilities and future.
The information raises concerns about the human cost of this conflict, with discussions touching upon the mass indoctrination of Ukrainian children for war, and the scale of atrocities committed by the Russian regime. There are comparisons drawn to the Nazi regime, albeit controversial ones, emphasizing the scale of the current situation and the active support these crimes receive within a large portion of the Russian population. This comparison is not intended to equate the two regimes, but to underscore the immense scale of the current human rights violations. There is a critical discussion about assigning collective responsibility, cautioning against this dangerous line of thinking.
However, it’s important to consider the context of these criticisms. The comparison to the Nazi regime, while powerful, is not without its complexities and potential for misinterpretation. The experience of those born in less fortunate circumstances should be taken into account, recognizing that many individuals are trapped in situations beyond their control. Nevertheless, this doesn’t excuse the active participation in, or support for, war crimes; individual responsibility and accountability remain paramount. This understanding doesn’t diminish the horrors of the Russian actions but provides a more nuanced perspective on the motivations and circumstances of various actors.
The leaked information also brings into focus the effectiveness of Russian propaganda, highlighting its similarities to Nazi techniques, and the effectiveness of both censorship and disinformation in controlling the narrative. The comparison points to a calculated approach that, like in Nazi Germany, targets various groups—soldiers, officers, and the general population—with different methods of propaganda, creating a range of responses and facilitating control. This carefully crafted information war further complicates the discussion and emphasizes the depth of the challenges faced in addressing this conflict. The overall picture of Russian academia and industry supporting the creation of this drone army is complex, raising ethical concerns, technological questions, and highlighting the far-reaching implications of the current war.