A new investigation into the activities of Google, Meta and other technology companies has intensified scrutiny of EU plans to revise data-protection legislation, placing Ireland and Germany at the centre of a dispute over corporate influence and European digital sovereignty.

European technology policy has become the focus of a dispute over corporate lobbying after researchers documented extensive contacts between major technology companies and political decision-makers during negotiations to revise EU data-protection rules.

An investigation published on 28 October by Corporate Europe Observatory and the German transparency organisation LobbyControl alleges that leading technology companies mounted a coordinated campaign to influence European governments and legislators.

The findings come one week after EU member states agreed a negotiating position on the Digital Omnibus, a legislative package intended to simplify aspects of European data-protection, privacy and cybersecurity regulation.

The campaigners argue that the proposed changes risk weakening existing safeguards in order to accommodate the commercial requirements of artificial intelligence developers.

Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has rejected suggestions that its handling of the legislation was improperly influenced by technology companies.

The dispute exposes a fundamental disagreement over the balance between commercial innovation and the protection of personal information.

The scale of the lobbying campaign

According to LobbyControl’s investigation, non-European technology companies recorded 103 meetings with representatives of Germany’s federal government between May 2025 and September 2026.

Google accounted for 28 meetings, Microsoft 18, Amazon 16 and OpenAI 11.

Germany’s Digital Minister, Karsten Wildberger, participated in 18 meetings with representatives of major technology companies, the researchers reported.

In Ireland, the organisations identified extensive engagement involving Meta, Google and politicians ahead of the country’s assumption of the EU Council presidency in July.

Their findings indicate that Meta engaged with 41 Irish parliamentarians over the Digital Omnibus, while Google recorded 30 meetings.

The researchers also identified 655 lobbying meetings concerning the legislation involving members of the European Parliament.

According to their analysis, approximately 83 per cent represented business interests, compared with 11 per cent involving civil society organisations or trade unions.

These figures demonstrate the intensity of corporate engagement, although the existence of lobbying meetings does not, by itself, establish that particular legislative provisions were adopted because of that activity.

Why the Digital Omnibus matters

The legislative package forms part of a broader European Commission initiative to reduce administrative burdens and improve competitiveness.

Its provisions address several areas of digital regulation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, commonly known as GDPR.

The proposals seek to simplify compliance obligations, clarify the treatment of personal information and revise rules governing certain forms of data processing.

One particularly contentious issue concerns the use of personal data in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems.

AI developers require large quantities of information to train and improve their models. However, the collection and processing of personal information remain subject to European legal safeguards.

Technology companies have argued that regulatory complexity can discourage investment and make it more difficult for European businesses to compete internationally.

Privacy campaigners maintain that simplifying regulatory procedures must not become a mechanism for reducing substantive protections.

The disagreement concerns not merely administrative paperwork but the legal circumstances under which companies may process information relating to identifiable individuals.

Ireland rejects allegations of improper influence

Ireland occupies a particularly sensitive position in the debate.

The country hosts major European operations of several American technology companies, including Google and Meta, and has substantial economic interests in the digital sector.

At the same time, its presidency of the EU Council requires it to coordinate negotiations between member states.

According to RTÉ’s reporting on the investigation, the Irish government strongly rejected the allegation that it had weakened data safeguards in response to corporate pressure.

A presidency spokesperson emphasised that Ireland’s responsibility was to facilitate agreement between member states and that the negotiating mandate approved on 21 October enjoyed broad support.

The Council has presented the proposed changes as a means of reducing compliance costs while preserving established privacy protections.

In its official statement, the Council said its mandate retains the existing definition of personal data and introduces additional provisions governing pseudonymisation.

It also includes safeguards relating to sensitive information used for biometric verification and AI systems.

These details are significant because they demonstrate that the negotiating text contains protections alongside proposed simplifications.

Germany’s role in the negotiations

Germany has also emerged as an important participant in the controversy.

The investigation points to close contact between the German government and international technology companies during discussions about the future of European digital regulation.

Berlin has supported reducing administrative restrictions that it considers obstacles to innovation and the development of competitive AI technologies.

For Germany, the issue is connected to wider concerns about industrial competitiveness, investment and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology suppliers.

Yet an unresolved question remains.

Measures designed to assist European innovators may also benefit established American companies whose extensive computing infrastructure and data resources give them advantages over smaller competitors.

Consequently, easing restrictions does not necessarily guarantee a stronger European technology industry.

The European Parliament holds the next decision

The Council’s negotiating position does not make the Digital Omnibus law.

The European Parliament must establish its own position before negotiations between the institutions can determine the final legislation.

Parliamentarians will therefore have an opportunity to examine the treatment of personal data, the safeguards attached to AI development and the relationship between regulatory simplification and individual rights.

The lobbying investigation is likely to become part of that debate.

Its central political significance lies in the competing interpretations of European technological sovereignty.

For governments seeking investment, regulatory flexibility may provide an instrument for improving Europe’s international competitiveness.

For privacy organisations, the same flexibility could increase the influence of companies already dominant in global digital markets.

The outcome will help determine whether Europe’s future digital framework preserves the existing balance between commercial data use and individual protections, or establishes a different relationship between the two.

• Microsoft is offering buyouts to around 60,000 employees.
• Chris Williams, former Microsoft VP of HR, said waiting for a better offer may or may not backfire.
• He shared what employees who are offered a buyout should consider and what they may not realize.

Microsoft is offering buyout packages to some 60,000 employees, or more than 25% of the workforce. That's a huge number in any terms, and it sent a signal and shock wave through the industry this week.

I'm the former VP of HR for Microsoft, and although I've been away from the company for some time and have no insider information, having been on the inside at Microsoft and in the industry for 50 years, here is what Microsoft employees should be considering — and what they may not realize about taking a buyout offer.

Your buyout offer may or may not be the best offer you get

During a buyout, position, tenure, level, and other factors are taken into account for each bespoke offer. The offer is likely to include compensation, benefit continuation, and possibly some acceleration or continuation of equity vesting.

That said, Microsoft might not offer more generous buyouts than severance packages, but companies usually offer better terms to people who take a voluntary separation than people who get laid off. That is not only to induce employees to go voluntarily, but also because the costs to the company are less if these workers voluntarily leave. There is less legal risk, time, and expense. It's also simply easier for the company to manage.

If you're offered a buyout, I usually find it could be the best offer you'll get. If it's not, you could be settling for the same offer as someone in a layoff and miss out on collecting unemployment.

A buyout can force some very hard career choices

If you get a buyout offer, looking at your budget should be your next step. Does the offer provide you with enough to retire? Enough to support an extended job search? The buyout can be a good forcing function for some very hard career choices.

Spend time looking at your cash flows, and pay particular attention to benefits. For many, healthcare costs are a substantial part of their budget. Weighing the buyout offer against continued coverage is often a tipping point in the decision.

Also consider any equity vesting dates you may have. Compare when you might vest with and without the offer, as those dates can mean a significant change in your investments. Whether you should take the buyout is highly dependent on both the offer and your situation. If you had retirement anywhere in sight, this offer might be just the trigger you need to move on. Perhaps the best offer you'll ever see.

However, if you need to continue working, there's a great deal more to consider.

Taking a buyout can give you a head start in a tough job market

The tech industry job market has been rough for the last year or so, and shows all the signs of getting worse. If the buyout doesn't afford you the ability to retire, you should plan on an extended period of job searching, maybe six months or more. It's tough out there. Be prepared.

One thing to consider if you need to continue working is that taking the buyout might give you a short head start in the job market. Assuming Microsoft and others follow this up with more layoffs like they did the last time, the technical job market will be flooded with quality people. Of course, you can search for a job while you have one, but taking the buyout gives you time for a full-time job search.

In any case, if a job search is in your future, don't delay. This market shows no sign of getting better.

Finally, if you're offered a buyout, don't ignore it. It's a sign. I'd read it as a clear signal from the company about your value, at least from their perspective. You can bet on the odds, but if follow-up layoffs happen, I'd bet that those who declined the buyout are somewhere on that list.

Buyout or not, some things to do

This buyout is the latest signal of a broad realignment of the job market, at least in the tech sector. Even if you aren't offered it or don't think you're at risk of later layoffs, you'd be wise to keep all your options open.

Get your résumé up to date. Spend time honing it, emphasizing the clearest set of skills you can. When a market is contracting, the safest bet is having a particular skill someone is looking for. When times are tight, the generalist is often the first person let go.

Work with and expand your network. Have coffee or a Zoom chat with everyone you know. Peers in other companies, even other industries, are invaluable when things get tough. Especially when the world is changing, and predicting the next hot spot is so hard, having as many warm connections across industries is a huge asset.

Don't go asking for jobs as much as keep those connections alive. You never know when someone's manager will say, "We need someone like that." And your friend can say, "I know just the person."

Whether you are offered a buyout, or whether you decide to take it or not, having a network of people to connect with is your single biggest career asset.

What to do if you get a buyout offer

Budget first, and outreach next.

Carefully decide your near- and long-term financial future, and make the decision from hard facts. Then connect with people you know across industries, far and wide. Those connections will be excellent sounding boards and could well provide the path to your next role, or the friends you need in retirement.

When contacted about this story, a Microsoft spokesperson pointed Business Insider to its statement on the official Microsoft Blog, which read in part, "Today, we're introducing a new Voluntary Exit Offer (VEO) to eligible employees within participating organizations." They added that "the VEO is similar to a standard severance offer, which varies by market. The offer includes payment based on completed service and base pay, as well as career transition services, which includes career coaching and job search assistance."

Men before a British court charged under the National Security act over an alleged, attempted Iranian state-backed guerrilla attack.

The post First Alleged RAF Fairford American Base Plotters Appear Before Court appeared first on Breitbart.

On Monday, mexican authorities have reported the presumed death of Jesús González Peñuelas—known as ‘Chuy Peñuelas,’ an alleged operative for the Guasave Cartel—during a confrontation with personnel from the Mexican Navy in Sinaloa. The United States government had offered a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture.

RELATED:

Mexico Arrests Leader of Los Chapitos Criminal Group

Omar García Harfuch, the Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection, stated that González Peñuelas is believed to be one of two individuals who died during an operation near Alfredo V. Bonfil, in the municipality of Sinaloa. The identities of the deceased are still awaiting formal forensic confirmation.

According to the Mexican Navy, the operation was supported by naval intelligence, which helped locate vehicles carrying armed individuals. During the pursuit, two men exited a pickup truck and fled into a brush-covered area, from where they opened fire on the naval personnel.

The naval forces returned fire, and both men were killed in the exchange. Their bodies have been placed in the custody of judicial authorities.

Family members who contacted the authorities suggested that the deceased may be Jesús González Peñuelas and Cesáreo Peñuelas Ruiz—known as ‘El Profe’—who has been identified by federal sources as an alleged associate of González Peñuelas. Official identification will be established through genetic and fingerprint analysis.

The text reads, “Derived from the permanent actions to reinforce operations and advance the pacification of Sinaloa, personnel from the Navy. @SEMAR_mx conducted an operation in the vicinity of the Alfredo V. Bonfil neighborhood, Sinaloa, where they were attacked by members of a criminal cell and repelled the assault.”

During the operation, authorities seized four pickup trucks that had been reported stolen, as well as three long guns, three magazines, and 46 rounds of ammunition. The evidence has been turned over to the Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la República) for further investigation.

According to federal sources, González Peñuelas had led an organization since the beginning of the century dedicated to the production and distribution of methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin. In recent years, the organization reportedly ventured into fentanyl trafficking.

It operated primarily in Sinaloa and Sonora, with connections along the northern border and distribution networks in U.S. states such as California, Texas, Colorado, and Washington. Authorities identified the individual as one of the key operatives for Fausto Isidro Meza Flores—known as “El Chapo Isidro”—the leader of the Guasave Cartel.

Federal sources also indicated that the organization maintained ties to drug trafficker Rafael Caro Quintero, who was extradited to the United States last year.

This development comes amid federal operations targeting criminal organizations in Sinaloa—a state that has faced a wave of violence since September 2024, following the outbreak of a conflict between factions of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Rectors and officials from around twenty Ibero-American universities approved a 25-point agenda in Madrid this Tuesday. The agenda proposes regulating artificial intelligence (AI), defending Spanish and Portuguese as languages ​​of science, and expanding academic mobility within the region.

RELATED:

U.S.-Mexican Student Accepted to 49 Universities

The agreement was reached during the Ibero-American University Knowledge Forum, held at the headquarters of the Instituto Cervantes. It recognizes the autonomous public university as an indispensable pillar for democracy and social cohesion, and calls on governments to provide sufficient and sustainable funding.

“We face numerous challenges in each of our countries that require a collective, cross-cutting effort,” stated Susana Sumelzo, Secretary of State for Ibero-America and the Caribbean. She noted that the agenda will be presented at the XXX Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government, scheduled for next Wednesday and Thursday in Madrid.

A key commitment is the promotion of Spanish and Portuguese as languages ​​for research, scientific production, and teaching. Sumelzo emphasized that both are global languages ​​shared by more than 800 million people and should also serve as languages ​​in which research can be conducted.

The text reads, “Ibero-America adopts the Academic Mobility Charter to facilitate student exchange within the region. The Alicante Declaration also establishes working groups on micro-credentials and faculty mobility.”

Furthermore, the institutions agreed to establish an Ibero-American University Knowledge Network—with this forum serving as its foundational event—and the proposal includes facilitating student mobility and the mutual recognition of academic degrees between countries.

Odir Fernández, Rector of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, highlighted that Spain serves as a benchmark for higher education in Latin America, a fact reflected in the migration of Latin American students to that country. Meanwhile, Jacqueline Sepúlveda, Rector of the University of Concepción in Chile, advocated for the mobility of students and faculty as a means to strengthen research and the intellectual sovereignty of our peoples.

The agenda also calls for shared regulation of AI and stipulates that technological advancement must be subordinate to human dignity, as well as to the sustainable use of water and energy in data centers.

“We need to move beyond universities that are rooted in the 19th century in terms of infrastructure, the 20th century in terms of their faculty, and the 21st century in terms of their students,” Fernández stated, referring to the digital divide.

• An Anthropic manager says Claude has made traditional coding interviews a poor hiring signal.
• His advice to juniors: target business problems and build a focused prototype over a weekend.
• Google and Amazon are also reshaping engineering work and hiring around AI fluency and impact.

Out with the coding test, in with Claude.

That's the shift Felix Rieseberg, an Anthropic engineering manager, says he has made to his team's hiring process, arguing that AI has rendered traditional coding interviews a poor measure of who will succeed at work.

"The coding interview is dead, at least for my team at Anthropic," Rieseberg wrote in a Tuesday post on X. "I've seen enough to know that it no longer provides signal."

Rieseberg elaborated in a blog post, writing that there's "no point" in giving candidates coding challenges or asking them about programming languages like assembly.

"Claude is now better at both," he said of the company's own AI model.

Coding challenges were once a "weak but useful" predictor of success, Rieseberg said, but the most impactful builders on his teams are not necessarily the people who excel at such tests.

"I'm seeing engineers who are comparatively new fly past people who are probably better coders and have been around much longer," he wrote. "Hunger beats tenure."

AI is writing most of the code at Anthropic, and the shift tracks with changes underway at other Big Tech companies. Business Insider's Hugh Langley reported last week that Google is expanding pilots for software-engineering interviews that allow candidates to use Gemini to assess their AI fluency and prompting skills.

Amazon, meanwhile, told engineers on Tuesday to prioritize customer and business outcomes over raw AI usage. The company calls the moment the era of the "Renaissance Developer," in which human judgment and machine intelligence combine to build products faster.

How junior engineers can stand out

The rise of AI coding tools has fueled fears that junior developer roles will become harder to get, as AI takes on work like debugging and building simple features — tasks that once helped early-career engineers learn the ropes.

In his blog, Rieseberg shared advice for junior engineers — or, more broadly, people without organizational status or power. Rather than just clearing backlog tickets, he said they should identify the business problems their company is trying to solve.

Then, they should come up with a bold idea that could materially advance those goals and build a working prototype over a weekend. The project should communicate one compelling idea, he said, rather than bury several good ones inside an overly ambitious product.

Newer engineers should also lean into their outsider perspective. They may be more likely to spot broken user experiences or question ingrained assumptions about what is possible, Rieseberg said.

He pointed to two relatively new Anthropic engineers who built a graphical interface for Claude Code over a weekend; the first public version shipped around eight days later.

Rieseberg said he has not yet solved the problem of how to assess candidates who build effectively with AI.

For now, he said he is scanning resumes and portfolios for small prototypes that show "taste, empathy, and principled thinking" — qualities that AI researchers and tech leaders are increasingly putting a premium on in the age of AI.

• A startup founder said that leaner teams may not be the right approach for every company in the AI era.
• Chatbase CEO Yasser Elsaid said he plans to double his 40-person team within six months.
• AI models are "extremely smart and capable, but not fully independent," he told Business Insider.

As some companies race to use AI to shrink their teams, one startup founder is going against the grain by planning to hire more people.

Yasser Elsaid, the founder of customer-service AI startup Chatbase, said the company now has 40 employees and plans to double its team over the next six months.

"I might have been wrong about building with a lean team in the age of AI," Elsaid wrote in a post on X this month.

Elsaid previously embraced smaller teams. In a LinkedIn post in January, he said Chatbase, a San Francisco-based startup that lets companies build AI agents for customer service and support, had stayed at 17 full-time employees for much of its first three years, with most hires in engineering.

However, in comments sent to Business Insider, Elsaid said that he now considers his bet on lean teams "pretty wrong."

"I think it's a big mistake for founders to live in a future that doesn't exist yet," he said.

Elsaid said that more capable coding models, including Anthropic's latest Claude model Opus 5.5, initially made him think Chatbase could get by with fewer people.

But Elsaid said that this conclusion only holds if a startup keeps the same roadmap it had before AI. Rather than accept that code had become a commodity, he decided Chatbase should set its sights higher.

"If building is easier, build harder things," he said. "Most moats in software come from someone doing something hard for longer, and being right. That hasn't gone away."

'Not fully independent'

That view runs counter to a broader push toward AI-powered lean teams.

Block cut nearly half its workforce in February, with CEO Jack Dorsey saying AI and "smaller and flatter teams" were changing how companies are built.

Coinbase, meanwhile, cut 14% of staff in May, citing engineers' ability to ship in days what once took teams weeks; it is now testing smaller AI-native pods and "one person teams."

The same logic has powered the "tiny teams" startup trend: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has predicted a one-person billion-dollar company, while Cursor grew from $1 million to $100 million in annual recurring revenue in under a year with fewer than 50 employees, according to private market research platform Sacra.

But Elsaid said the best models are not yet independent enough to replace people. They still need humans to decide what to build, give them direction, and make sure the result works for customers, he said.

"Code is largely right or wrong: it does what you want or it doesn't," Elsaid said. "But what to build, how it should work and what the experience should feel like is what makes your product different."

He estimated that about 90% of Chatbase engineers' work is now product work: researching, talking to customers, forming an opinion, and turning that into a specification an agent can code.

The rest requires engineers who can understand the code and make sure different AI agents are not working against each other, he said.

Chatbase is also hiring customer-facing staff, particularly in sales and customer success, he said, because enterprise customers still need to be heard and persuaded.

The models are "extremely smart and capable, but not fully independent," he added. "Maybe that changes and one day you won't need humans in the building process at all. But that isn't today."

• Amazon shifts AI focus to business impact, not just raw usage, in new developer guidelines.
• The company warns that AI metrics can create bad incentives, including “tokenmaxxing.”
• Managers are told to examine teams at both the highest and lowest levels of AI adoption.

Amazon just issued new guidelines for software engineers in the AI era: Prioritize business outcomes over raw usage.

Terk Terkowitz, Amazon's vice president and distinguished engineer, said in a memo published Tuesday that AI is changing software development more quickly and fundamentally than earlier shifts such as cloud computing. But engineers should be judged by their impact on customers and the business, he wrote, not simply how much they use AI.

"We all need to embrace this change and take the time to learn, or we risk being left behind," Terkowitz said.

AI coding tools and agents are upending the software industry and changing what it means to be a coder. Amazon calls this the "era of the Renaissance Developer," where human judgement and machine intelligence combine to create new products and services faster and more efficiently.

"This is a time of change for our industry, and a time of change for what it means to be a software engineer," Terkowitz wrote in the memo.

The updated guidelines reflect Amazon's growing effort to make AI adoption part of how it assesses engineers and engineering managers. The company has tracked measures including AI usage, token consumption, and lines of code internally, and used leaderboards to rank teams by some of those metrics.

But the memo warns that using such measures as targets can produce bad outcomes, including "tokenmaxxing" rather than better software or customer experiences.

"Using these metrics could, if used as a target instead of a measure, drive negative outcomes," Terkowitz wrote in the memo.

Amazon has been experimenting with ways to measure and encourage AI use across its engineering organization.

Earlier this year, the company was tracking engineers's use of internal AI tools and some teams used leaderboards tied to measures such as token consumption. The programs created friction among some employees, who worried that pressure to use AI could reward wasteful activity rather than productive work.

The new guidance offers Amazon's clearest public acknowledgment of that risk. Rather than lay out a detailed AI playbook that could quickly become obsolete, Amazon said its revised developer guidelines focus on long-term impact on customers and the business.

Still, the company said AI should be "at the center of software engineering practice" and urged engineers to incorporate the technology into their daily work.

Leaders are expected to use AI tools on production work themselves, understand where they help and where they fall short, and explain that judgment to their teams, according to the memo.

Terkowitz said Amazon has found that metrics such as token use, AI-tool adoption, and code reviews can correlate with the outcomes it values. But he said the measures must be used carefully. More token use can raise costs, while a focus on lines of code can create unnecessary complexity.

He also recommended that managers pay particular attention to teams at both ends of the AI adoption spectrum: those in the bottom 10%, to understand why they are not using AI effectively, and those in the top 10%, to determine whether heavier use is translating into faster delivery.

Terkowitz said Amazon's most AI-forward "frontier teams" have shown stronger productivity and delivery. He also said teams and individuals that are not adopting AI or increasing output metrics are falling behind.

But his memo left room for engineers whose work may not yet benefit from current AI tools. In those cases, he said, employees should document why and work toward a solution by sharing their findings with peers and managers.

"An engineer who can explain where AI does not yet help their work is demonstrating the judgement we are asking for," the memo said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

Machine tools and other equipment from seven countries, led by China, work at Russian plants that make ballistic missiles and their components, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) said on 26 October. The 30 items are a small slice of HUR’s War&Sanctions portal, which lists 1,698 machine tools at 223 Russian plants.

Seventeen of the 30 were made outside China, in Germany, Taiwan, the US, Türkiye, Switzerland, and Italy. One of HUR’s proposals reaches past Russia and China, to the firms that supply parts for Chinese machine tools. The list comes two weeks after the EU blacklisted 1,569 Russian arms suppliers and executives. More than half of those listings hit the ballistic missile supply chain, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. Sanctioning a company, though, does not stop the machines in its workshops.

A Chinese machine at the Iskander plant

HUR’s statement leads with a GX-650 five-axis machining center made by China’s Hyper Machine Tool. Such computer-controlled machines cut complex metal parts from several angles. HUR said it works at the Votkinsk Plant, which the agency described as the maker of 9M723 missiles for the Iskander-M system and the missile section of the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, an air-launched ballistic missile.

Explore further

Kinzhal is 90% identical to Iskander-M: Ukraine’s intelligence identifies 58 companies in production chain

HUR has flagged Votkinsk before. In November 2025, it published hackathon findings showing that Russian companies supplied Chinese and Taiwanese machine tools to the plant after the full-scale invasion began.

Chinese Shtral turning and milling centers work at PEMZ Molot, which builds electronics units for Iskander-M missiles, according to HUR’s statement. At UPKB Detal, which makes altimeters for hypersonic Zircon cruise missiles, HUR found measuring equipment from Germany’s Rohde & Schwarz.

The portal entries paint a broader picture. Only four of the 30 entries list a ballistic missile among the plant’s weapons. Most of the rest list cruise missiles, glide-bomb kits, guided artillery shells, or Geran-2 attack drones. HUR did not publish its evidence, though the portal says partner agencies can request it.

Foreign parts inside Chinese machines

Russian plants use the equipment to make missiles and parts such as altimeters, control surfaces, and gyroscopes, HUR said. The agency noted a growing number of Chinese machine tools, including five-axis models. According to HUR, those Chinese machines contain European, Japanese, and Taiwanese components, from numerical control systems to precision spindles and bearings. In HUR’s assessment, Russia still cannot replace equipment from leading foreign makers with its own.