Are you wondering how M&A experts in Dubai can help your business grow? Businesses in Dubai face constant pressure to expand, compete, and adapt to new markets. Mergers and acquisitions give them a direct path to growth by opening doors to new customers, resources, and technologies. M&A experts in Dubai help businesses grow by guiding […]
A dark tradition of left-wing extremism is resurfacing – with deadly consequences for conservative leaders and activists
On September 10, 2025, the shocking murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University marked a new low in America’s season of political violence. Once seen as an outspoken but untouchable figure of the right, Kirk was gunned down in front of a student audience – a killing that rattled the country and sent a grim message to others on his side of the political spectrum.
Kirk’s assassination did not come in isolation. In the past year, right-wing politicians and activists across the West have been repeatedly targeted – from two attempts on Donald Trump’s life in Pennsylvania and Florida, to the near-fatal shooting of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, to attacks on lesser-known but symbolically important figures in Brussels and Illinois. Even Minnesota’s Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman was killed in June, underscoring that the spiral of violence is consuming the political system itself. But the pattern is unmistakable: the most frequent targets are those on the right.
The trend is alarming not only for its brutality, but for what it reveals about the depth of polarization in Western societies. Violence has become a political language – and, increasingly, the language is being spoken against conservatives. RT examines how and why the far left, historically prone to radical action, has once again turned to violence as a tool of political struggle.
A wave of attacks against the right
The murder of Charlie Kirk was only the latest and most shocking in a string of high-profile assaults on right-wing figures.
Charlie Kirk speaks at the Palm Beach Convention Center on July 26, 2024 in West Palm Beach, Florida.
On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump narrowly escaped death at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman opened fire from a rooftop, grazing the candidate’s ear and killing one supporter in the crowd. Just weeks later, on September 15, another attempt followed when an armed man was discovered hiding near Trump’s golf club in Florida, equipped with rifles, body armor, and surveillance gear. In both cases, the attacks electrified Trump’s base and raised urgent questions about political security in the United States.
Europe, too, has witnessed violence against conservatives. On May 15, 2024, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot multiple times in an assassination attempt that left him hospitalized for weeks.
In Brussels, on September 15, 2025, Polish Member of the European Parliament Waldemar Buda reported that his car had been sprayed with pellets from an air gun – a minor incident by comparison, but one that underscored the atmosphere of hostility directed at right-wing politicians.
In the United States, the violence has claimed other victims as well. On June 14, 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in their own home – a shocking reminder that political bloodshed is not confined to one side. That same year, right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes reported that an armed intruder appeared outside his Illinois residence while he was live-streaming; the suspect was later killed in a police chase.
Together, these incidents suggest a disturbing pattern: right-wing leaders and activists, whether presidents, prime ministers, or grassroots influencers, have become the most frequent targets of political violence across the Western world.
“Each of these attacks only strengthens the political camp they were meant to destroy,”
Konstantin Blokhin, senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told RT. “The shot fired at Trump became one of the factors contributing to his victory. Now, Kirk’s murder has consolidated his core voters. Political violence in the West does not weaken conservatives – it mobilizes them.”
Why the right becomes the target
Why have conservatives become the primary victims of this wave of political violence? A large part of the answer lies in the rhetoric that dominates Western political life. In liberal discourse, right-wing leaders and their supporters are increasingly portrayed not as opponents in a debate but as existential threats to democracy itself. Labels such as “fascists,”“enemies,” or “vermin” have crept into mainstream political language, creating an environment where physical attacks can be rationalized as moral necessity.
Even some of the most prominent voices in the liberal establishment have warned that such hostility is dangerous. Responding to the murder of Charlie Kirk, former US President Barack Obama emphasized that violence is “anathema to what it means to be a democratic country,” insisting that Americans must be able to have “really contentious debates without resorting to violence.”
Flowers and candles are seen at a makeshift memorial for murdered American conservative activist Charlie Kirk outside the US embassy as its flag hangs at half-staff on September 14, 2025 in Berlin, Germany.
At the same time, Obama suggested that Republicans had deepened divides by rushing to frame enemies after the killing. His comments highlight the paradox of the moment: while leaders across the spectrum denounce violence, the mutual demonization of political opponents only accelerates polarization – and conservatives remain the most frequent targets of its deadly consequences.
The tradition of left-wing violence
Political violence against conservatives is not an invention of the 21st century. The United States has a long history of far-left groups embracing terrorism as a method of struggle. One of the most notorious examples was the Weather Underground Organization, a radical offshoot of the anti-Vietnam War student movement. In the 1970s, its members carried out arson attacks and bombings – including against the US Capitol – claiming they were fighting imperialism and capitalism through “revolutionary violence.”
Researchers note that such groups typically portrayed themselves as the “vanguard of the oppressed proletariat.” As David Brannan explains in his book Left- and Right-wing Political Terrorism, these organizations believed they were defending ordinary workers against capitalist elites who controlled government. To preserve their credibility, they avoided direct attacks on the working class and instead chose government offices, corporations, leaders, and symbolic sites that embodied the capitalist order as their targets.
Demonstrators stand in protest against the Sons of the Confederate Veterans annual Memorial Day at Stone Mountain Park on April 19, 2025 in Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Today, this tradition has found a new ideological language. A recent study from George Washington University highlights the growing influence of “accelerationism” – the belief that violence can be used to exploit contradictions within a political system in order to hasten its collapse. While the concept is ideologically agnostic, much of its intellectual lineage stems from anarchist and far-left thought. The GWU researchers caution that more than a hundred anarchist groups worldwide have embraced accelerationist ideas, and their example may inspire American radicals.
Together, these threads suggest that what is unfolding now is less a series of isolated attacks than the resurgence of an old current in Western political culture: left-wing extremism convinced that violence is a legitimate shortcut to social change.
Violence that deepens the divide
Every major act of political violence now lands like a shockwave, not only claiming lives but reshaping the political landscape. Instead of silencing conservatives, attacks often transform them into symbols – rallying points for movements already primed by years of polarization.
After the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, images of a bloodied Donald Trump spread instantly across the world, turning him into a near-martyr figure for his base. Polls in the weeks that followed showed a surge of Republican support, as if the bullet itself had confirmed the narrative that Trump and his supporters were under siege.
Secret Service tend to US President Donald Trump onstage at a rally on July 13, 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The murder of Charlie Kirk has carried the same emotional charge, uniting conservative activists around the sense that they are being physically targeted for their beliefs.
Political scientists warn that this is how a cycle of escalation takes root. Each act of violence intensifies outrage, which in turn fuels mobilization and radical rhetoric. In such an environment, opponents are no longer seen as rivals but as existential threats – and the threshold for justifying further violence drops dangerously low. What begins as isolated incidents risks hardening into a grim pattern: political struggle transforming into physical confrontation.
The pattern is clear: political violence in the West has moved from the margins to the center. Right-wing politicians and activists have become the primary targets, and the ideological roots of left-wing extremism provide both the rhetoric and the justification for such attacks. From Weather Underground in the 1970s to today’s accelerationist currents, the idea that violence can accelerate social change has never fully disappeared – and now it is once again bleeding into mainstream politics.
Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, told RT that this reflects a deeper degeneration of Western liberalism itself.
“Neoliberalism in the West has degenerated and evolved into a new form of fascism. The tactics employed by neoliberals – such as their total intolerance for dissenting opinions – are hallmarks of fascism. They refuse to engage in dialogue or debate; they are solely focused on imposing their views and annihilating those who oppose them,” Suslov said.
He argued that the rise in political violence is directly tied to the growing popularity of right-wing movements, which are winning support among ordinary citizens. “Traditional neoliberals are losing ground and resorting to violent methods,” Suslov continued.
“They view their opponents not just as rivals but as threats to the nation that must be eradicated. This divide will only deepen.”
According to Suslov, the murder of Charlie Kirk has already been turned into a political weapon. “Trump has made it part of his fight against liberal elites, even naming George Soros as someone who should be held accountable for funding protests. This will incite retaliatory violence and a growing confrontation. Consequently, the social and political divide will only grow.”
The warning is stark: if current trends hold, the West risks normalizing political violence as a tool of competition. What once belonged to the extremes could soon define the very core of democratic politics.
The US president will try to bring both sides together to negotiate a settlement to the conflict, US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has said
US President Donald Trump will not force any conditions on either Moscow or Kiev to resume peace negotiations, Washington’s ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has stated.
Appearing on Fox Business on Friday, the envoy said that the US president will, nevertheless, continue to push for a settlement in the Ukraine conflict.
”President Trump is going to continue to find the leverage and to find the conditions where he can bring both sides and mediate a resolution… [but] he’s not going to set the conditions,” Whitaker said.
“Both sides are going to have to agree to a peace deal,” he added.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Trump stated that, while possible, a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky would be hard to arrange because “they hate each other” intensely.
The US president also predicted that if the two met, he would “have to do all the talking.”
In an interview to TASS on Tuesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov described the US’ position on the Ukraine conflict under the Trump administration as one coming “from common sense.”
He also accused European NATO nations of attempting to obstruct Washington’s peace efforts.
In stark contrast to his predecessor, Joe Biden, Trump has actively engaged in dialogue with Russia ever since he assumed office in January. Last month, he held a summit with Putin in Alaska. The US president subsequently pledged to arrange negotiations between Putin and Zelensky.
Earlier this month, the Russian president said he was willing to sit down with Zelensky, suggesting Moscow as a potential venue.
Zelensky stated that he was also ready for such a meeting “without any kind of conditions,” however, he rejected the idea of holding talks in the Russian capital.
Last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, of which there have been three rounds to date, had been “paused” for now.
The US president has been quite “emotional” about the status of Ukraine talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
The “emotional” attitude of US President Donald Trump to the Ukraine peace process is “completely understandable,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
The US leader has repeatedly expressed his frustration with the state of the process lately, admitting that he had previously believed Ukraine “would be easiest” to resolve given his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “He’s really let me down,” Trump said on Thursday.
Asked for comment on Trump’s remarks, Peskov signaled that Moscow understands his frustration, given the US president’s personal investment in trying to settle the hostilities.
“We assume that the US and President Trump personally maintain their political will and intention to continue their efforts to facilitate a settlement in Ukraine. Therefore, of course, President Trump is quite emotional, so to speak, about this issue. This is completely understandable,” Peskov told reporters on Friday.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov touched upon Trump’s remarks in an interview with Russia’s Channel One, suggesting his disappointment stems from his business-like approach to politics. The US president is “a man of action, deals, and business, as he himself constantly emphasizes,” Russia’s top diplomat said.
“When President Trump says he’s disappointed… it’s partially explained by the fact that he wants quick solutions,” Lavrov stated. “In some areas, this may work; in others, it’s unlikely.”
In recent weeks, the US president voiced his displeasure with the lack of progress in negotiations, threatening new sanctions on Russia. In the past few days, he has repeatedly reaffirmed his willingness to impose more restrictions on Moscow, but urged Washington’s European partners to halt their purchases of Russian oil first.
“I’m willing to do other things, but not when the people that I’m fighting for are buying oil from Russia,” Trump said on Thursday.
Only vetted individual Russian and Belarusian athletes under a neutral flag will be allowed to participate, the committee has said
Russian and Belarusian teams will remain barred from the 2026 Winter Games in Italy, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has declared. The ruling extends existing sanctions, with only vetted athletes allowed to compete individually under a neutral flag.
Both Russia and Belarus were barred from the Olympics after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, which also led to their exclusion from other major sporting events. The IOC later made exceptions, allowing some athletes to participate in the Games as individuals under neutral flags, including at the Paris Olympics in 2024, while national teams have been banned.
”Teams of athletes with a Russian or Belarusian passport will not be considered,” the IOC said on Friday.
Instead, only vetted competitors from the two countries may take part as individuals under a neutral flag. As in Paris, a commission will assess each case, barring those who “actively support” the conflict or serve under contract with the Russian or Belarusian military or security services.
IOC President Kirsty Coventry told reporters: “The Executive Board will take the exact same approach that was done in Paris [2024 Olympics]. Nothing has changed.”
Coventry, who was elected earlier this year, has said she opposes banning nations from the Olympics due to armed conflicts.
Russian officials have repeatedly accused Western nations of politicizing sport and exerting pressure on sports federations to exclude Russian athletes for political reasons.
Despite restrictions, Russian athletes have continued winning in events. Last month, Russian swimmers took home 18 medals, including six golds, from the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, their first chance to compete since 2016 under IOC rules. The team, competing as neutrals, finished fourth overall.
Moscow has branded the IOC sanctions a perversion of the Olympic Charter, under which the Games are supposed to remain free of politics.
The 2026 Winter Olympics will be held in February in the cities of Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has asked why the Washington Post never alleged Biden exploited George Floyd’s death for political gain
Moscow has dismissed claims by the Washington Post that it has exploited the murder of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk for political purposes. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has suggested that the Western press is guilty of applying double standards.
Kirk, a co-founder of the conservative activist group, Turning Point USA, and a staunch supporter of US President Donald Trump, was fatally shot while speaking to students at Utah Valley University on September 10.
The Post published an article on Thursday that alleged “Russia moved to amplify online conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk’s killing just hours after it happened” in order to incite violence.
Zakharova responded on her Telegram channel on Friday: “I’d like to ask this media outlet whether it published a similar report on how the US under [President Joe] Biden used the death of George Floyd for propaganda purposes.”
Floyd, who was black, died while being detained by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota in May 2020. Democrats were quick to characterize his death as an example of police brutality and racism in the US, while conservatives offered alternative versions as to what caused Floyd’s death. The incident gave a fresh impetus to the Black Lives Matter movement, and accentuated the divide between the right and the left.
The Russian Embassy in Washington also dismissed the newspaper’s claims.
”We consider it unacceptable that this tragedy is being used as a pretext to fuel anti-Russian hysteria,” the diplomatic mission stated.
Earlier this week, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray told reporters that according to the suspected shooter’s mother, Tyler Robinson had drifted to the left politically over the past year. The official also said Robinson was in a romantic relationship with a transgender person.
In the wake of the assassination, President Trump has claimed that the media and left-wing politicians bear partial responsibility for the violent act, citing dehumanizing rhetoric toward conservatives.
Israel’s ground offensive is pushing Hamas to the wall, but also isolating the country abroad and tearing its society apart
Israel has moved into a new phase of the war. Just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had signaled, the IDF has launched a full-scale ground operation aimed at taking control of Gaza City. Netanyahu promised a “powerful and decisive” push; early reports from the ground bear that out.
IDF spokesperson Avichay Adraee said on X that Israeli forces have begun destroying Hamas infrastructure inside the city. Civilians have been urged to leave the combat zone. According to the military, roughly 320,000 residents have already fled, while an estimated 650,000 civilians remain.
Eyewitness accounts indicate a sharp uptick in airstrikes over the past 48 hours – likely the preparatory stage for the ground advance. Until now, Israeli units focused on the outskirts, methodically degrading Hamas defensive positions.
The operation began just hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Israel. As several Western outlets reported, Rubio conveyed Washington’s support for a ground phase but pressed for a short, tightly limited timeline – an effort to minimize reputational costs while maintaining allied solidarity with Israel.
At this stage, Gaza City is effectively the last major stronghold of resistance in the Strip. By military estimates, Israel controls about 75% of the enclave, which heightens the city’s strategic and symbolic weight as the sector’s political and organizational center.
Conditions inside Gaza City are dire. Airstrikes and artillery fire have leveled large parts of the city, hitting schools, refugee camps, and makeshift shelters. A stark example came in late May, when Israeli forces struck the Fahmi al-Jarjawi school, which had been sheltering displaced families. According to Gaza’s civil defense, 33 people were killed – including children – and dozens more were wounded. Israel, for its part, insisted the target was Hamas fighters hiding in the building. The conflicting narratives underscore the depth of the political and information war surrounding the battle.
The city’s infrastructure has been devastated. As of April 2024, damages in Gaza’s municipality alone were estimated at $7.29 billion. Schools and hospitals lie in ruins, while access to water, electricity, and sanitation has collapsed – producing a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe.
For Hamas, the battle for Gaza City is existential. With no strategic reserves left, the group sees the city’s defense as its last chance to maintain a military and political foothold – raising the likelihood of grinding, attritional fighting.
Inside Israel, political tensions are mounting. The Hostages’ Families Forum condemned the launch of the operation, warning that “after 710 nights in terrorist hands, tonight could be the hostages’ last.” Street protests against Netanyahu’s policy have become a fixture. Just a week ago, thousands rallied outside his Jerusalem residence, calling for a deal with Hamas to free the captives and halt the fighting.
Polling shows the divide is widening. According to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), about two-thirds of the public supports a deal that would free all hostages in exchange for a ceasefire and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. In short, the campaign carries a double risk for Israel: heavy losses in urban combat and a deepening political crisis at home that erodes confidence in the government.
The international fallout has only sharpened the crisis. At the Arab and Muslim summit in Doha on September 15, leaders leveled some of the harshest charges yet. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, accused Israel of “genocide,” while Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi went further, declaring Israel an enemy despite their 1979 peace treaty. The summit’s final statement urged the global community to “take all possible measures” to halt the operation and reconsider ties with West Jerusalem. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed the same uncompromising line.
The escalation has also dented US credibility. Strikes on Qatar raised questions about Washington’s reliability as a security guarantor. American bases there were supposed to serve as a deterrent, yet the US proved unable to prevent the attacks – or even step in as mediator – undermining trust among its regional partners.
Europe has emerged as an unexpected challenge. Seeking to assert independence from Washington and to boost its standing with the Global South, Brussels has taken an increasingly tough stance toward Israel. Domestic politics also weigh heavily: large communities of Middle Eastern origin in Europe tend to hold strongly anti-Israel views, amplifying public pressure on governments.
Netanyahu, on the defensive, has stressed Israel’s military self-reliance and spoken of “several good conversations” with President Donald Trump. Yet according to The Wall Street Journal, Trump privately voiced disappointment, criticizing Netanyahu for relying too heavily on force when Washington would prefer a negotiated settlement.
Israel thus finds itself squeezed on three fronts: regional pressure from Arab and Muslim states, transregional pushback from the European Union, and alliance strains with the United States.
On the map, the Gaza Strip looks insignificant – a sliver of land just 140 square miles. Yet today it has become the focal point of contradictions that could reshape the entire Middle East and reverberate far beyond.
First, the outcome of this battle will weigh heavily on Israel’s internal stability. Holding Gaza – or failing to – has become not just a military question but a test of political legitimacy, unfolding against a backdrop of mass protests and eroding public trust.
Second, the conflict has spilled past the region. Gaza has become a litmus test for the West. Not long ago, it seemed unthinkable that the Israeli question could drive a wedge between the United States and Europe. Now, Washington prioritizes allied solidarity and containing Iran, while Brussels increasingly asserts itself as an independent pole of power, guided by domestic politics and its positioning in the Global South.
Third, Gaza carries immense symbolic weight. For much of the Arab and Muslim world, it embodies resistance. The way this operation ends will shape the degree of anti-Israeli consolidation in the region and the prospects for Israel’s relations with key neighbors such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf monarchies.
In short, Gaza has become a geopolitical fault line – where the future of the Middle East is at stake, and with it the balance of the global political order.
Somali-born Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar had previously called Republicans “full of sh*t” for lionizing the late Charlie Kirk
US President Donald Trump has slammed Democratic lawmaker Ilhan Omar as “scum” after she narrowly escaped a censure vote in the House of Representatives for making disparaging remarks about slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Trump also brought up unsubstantiated rumors of her marrying her brother in order to become a US citizen.
Omar, who emigrated from Somalia, is the first naturalized US citizen from Africa to serve in Congress. She represents Minnesota’s 5th District and is part of the so-called ‘squad’ of progressive left-wing Democrats that frequently clash with Republicans.
After Kirk’s assassination, she accused Republicans of being “full of sh*t” for praising him as a civil debater and suggested his “hateful rhetoric” was what got him killed. Omar called it “effed up” to claim that Kirk “just wanted to have a civil debate.”
Her remarks drew swift condemnation from conservatives, who accused Omar of inciting more division and pointing out that Kirk had built his platform on engaging in discussions with students across the country about politics, religion, and social issues.
In a Truth Social post on Friday, Trump stated that Omar “tells us how to run America”, while her country of birth Somalia is “plagued by lack of central Government control, persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence.”
Trump also revived unconfirmed allegations that Omar had “married her brother in order to gain Citizenship,” adding, “What SCUM we have in our Country, telling us what to do, and how to do it.”
Following Omar’s comments, Republican Representative Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to censure the progressive lawmaker and strip her of committee assignments for “smearing” Kirk and implying he was to blame for his own murder. On Wednesday, Omar survived the motion by a single vote, 214–213, after four Republicans sided with Democrats to defeat it.
Omar has rejected the accusations, saying she was among the first to condemn Kirk’s killing. A spokesperson said she had “explicitly expressed her sympathies and prayers” to his family and condemned the assassination.
The UAVs could have been disabled and were falling “all over the place,” the US president has said
The drones that violated Poland’s airspace could have been “disabled” and lost control, US President Donald Trump has suggested.
Warsaw has claimed that 19 drones entered the country’s airspace on September 10, accusing Moscow of staging a provocation in order to test NATO’s response. Multiple EU officials, including top diplomat Kaja Kallas, have called the incident a “deliberate violation.”
Trump was asked about the affair in an interview with Fox News on Thursday. The US president refused to say whether the drone incursion was deliberate or not, suggesting the drones could have simply strayed after being subjected to electronic interference.
“You know, I can’t comment on whether it was a mistake or not. They shouldn’t have been there, let’s face it. Supposedly, they were disabled. You know, they disabled drones today. The great attack on a drone is disabling it, and they fall all over the place,” Trump stated, adding that he was very “disappointed” by the incident.
The latest of Trump’s remarks on the incident differed from the statements he’d made earlier this week, when the US president suggested it “could have been a mistake.”
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk doubled down on his accusations against Russia shortly after, insisting the incident wasn’t a mistake. On Friday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that anyone who doubts Warsaw’s narrative is “either the author or an accomplice of Russian propaganda.”
Russian officials have pointed out that drones used during strikes on military installations in Ukraine do not have sufficient range to reach deep into Poland, suggesting the incident could have been a false flag staged by Kiev in a bid to bring NATO into a direct confrontation with Moscow.
Warsaw has refused to cooperate in investigating the drone incident and has dismissed facts provided by the Russian military, Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday. Such behavior proves that Poland is not interested in knowing the truth, she said.
“This is clearly yet another element in a large-scale information campaign aimed at demonizing Russia and mobilizing additional support for the Kiev regime, as well as an attempt to undermine a political settlement of the Ukraine conflict,” Zakharova stated.
The production of certain weapons systems has increased nearly 30-fold, according to the president
Russia’s military industry has enjoyed remarkable growth over the past two years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
He commended the sector on Friday as he toured the Motovilikha Plants, a sprawling full-cycle industrial site located in the city of Perm. The facility specializes in the production of various artillery pieces, including self-propelled and towed howitzers as well as multiple rocket launcher systems.
“For certain types of weapons and some products, our production has increased not by a few percentage points, but several times over,” Putin told workers at the plant, adding that for some, this figure is “almost 30-fold.”
Industry output has not only increased but also improved in quality, the president noted, adding that the weapons systems have become more “modern and in-demand.” Putin expressed hopes that the rapid development of the sector will not subside with the end of the Ukraine conflict.
“I hope and expect that these events related to the special military operation will pass, but the demand for modern armed forces will not end there. On the contrary, we will continue to develop the armed forces, making them modern, compact, and powerful,” the president said.
During the visit to the plant, the president was shown new weapons systems, including those brought from the Ukraine conflict zone for repairs and refurbishment.
They included a Derivatsiya-PVO, an anti-aircraft autocannon built on the chassis of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle, as well as a TOS-2 Tosochka, a system designated as a “heavy flamethrower” which effectively acts as a short-range multiple rocket launcher, designed to fire massive 220mm thermobaric projectiles.
The TOS-2 is a lighter, wheeled version of the tracked TOS-1A system; it has been introduced and actively used in the Ukraine conflict. The particular unit shown to Putin came from the combat zone and bore distinctive shrapnel marks, a video taken of the president’s visit shows.
