10 Comments
User's avatar
Pete W's avatar

Russell, I posted this in another forum yesterday: Could the Ukraine drone attack be like the Deep Seek moment for AI? On one hand, NVIDIA chips; on the other, F-35s from Lockheed Martin.

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

You would think - but then again, short Nvidia has not worked yet....

Expand full comment
Pete W's avatar
2dEdited

… yet. Frankly, I’m not short defense stocks. I’m just not long. Staying away. Same with Mag 7.

Expand full comment
Clement's avatar

Can't say I disagree Russell

In fact legacy defense (General Dynamics etc..) are at risk

1945 marked the beginning of the atomic age, end of direct Great Power confrontation and the start of proxy warfare

But also the start of mass electronic warfare/cryptography/surveillance (remember the breaking of Enigma was just as important as the Manhattan project)

What is next?

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

Quantum computing will change most things again... there were some breakthroughs announced but seemingly quiet again

Expand full comment
Alonzodavilla's avatar

Dear Russell, while i value very much your insights - i m sometime amazed by how you can be influenced by mainstream medias on the UKraine / Russia war… While the (UK logistically supported) coup to the Russian Air forces is clearly negative for Russia leadership, these are planes from the 50s and account for less than 6% of the total fleet. This is clearly not an important blow for Russian army.UK and EU are trying to trigger a massive Russian response to continue this war.

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

Ah the first casualty of war is truth. Maybe you are right about them being old planes - but they would definitely cost more than the drones that destroyed them.

As for the war - it is Russia controlling Ukrainian area - not the other way around, so you have to be deluded to think Russia is being goaded to continue fighting. When you take land - expect fighting. Its a rule that is old as time.

Expand full comment
Fred Crossman's avatar

Colonel Macgregor says the NATO drone damage is exaggerated, as is customary by the Western press.

Expand full comment
Russell Clark's avatar

It still shows the asymmetry between the damage a cheap drone can do to expensive hardware. One jet? Or a 100,000 drones? Which is the better outlay?

Expand full comment
lordprime2's avatar

Must-watch interview of Palmer Luckey of Anduril on drones and the future of warfare (min 17): https://youtu.be/gVXPERyRjOA?si=V3moonXYKAVKg2Sk

Expand full comment