The Financial Times reported, citing Russian defense industry documents, that Russia agreed in 2024 to supply Iran with 90 APU-L launchers for LMUR/Izdeliye 305 guided missiles under the export codename “K-10.” The system is designed for Mi-28 attack helicopters and has been used by Russian forces in Ukraine. The report emerged as Russian President Vladimir Putin met Iranian security official Mohsen Rezaei, and Iran's army spokesman said Tehran had bought Russian Su-35 fighter jets. Al Jazeera could not confirm whether the launchers have actually been delivered.
Russia and Iran have drawn closer since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The two countries signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty in January 2025 that took effect in October 2025; unlike Russia's pact with North Korea, it has no mutual defense clause. Western intelligence officials say military cooperation has deepened during the US-Iran war, even as President Trump claimed Moscow was doing little to help Iran.
The Financial Times reported that Russia agreed in 2024 to supply Iran with 90 APU-L launchers for LMUR/Izdeliye 305 guided missiles, but delivery has not been confirmed. The primary reporting came from British outlets, not US media.
Ukrainian officials have raised the death toll from a Russian strike on an aid distribution point in Zaporizhia to at least 50, with up to 39 people still trapped, according to Al Jazeera.
BAl Jazeera English just posted that Russia has shipped ninety advanced missile launchers to Iran.
BStop that one at the border.
BThe Financial Times reported Russia agreed in 2024 to supply ninety APU-L launchers for LMUR guided missiles.
BAgreed, not shipped?
BDelivery has not been confirmed. And the primary reporting came from British outlets, not US media.
BSo "has supplied" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
BA contract is not a deployment. Until we see the hardware, Iran doesn't have them.
BBut the deal is concrete—Russian defense industry documents, export codename K-10.
BThese are helicopter-mounted launchers, the kind of equipment Russia has relied on in Ukraine.
BSpecific, serious, and still not shipped.
BDoes that distinction matter to the crew on the receiving end?
BIt matters to news accuracy. If Iran hasn't received a single launcher, the battlefield hasn't shifted.
BOh, come on. The mood shifts. Tehran knows the deal is there.
BTehran knowing is not the same as Tehran firing.
BBut the axis is shifting. Iran's army says it bought Russian fighter jets.
BAnnounced, not delivered.
BAnnounced is still a signal. Putin met with Iran's security official Mohsen Rezaei while this report landed.
BA closer axis, yes. But their partnership treaty from 2025 took effect later that year. There is still no mutual defense clause.
BWhich is a limit on paper, not a prohibition on selling guided missiles.
BIt's a real limit. And it took effect only last month, so this isn't ancient history.
BThat limit didn't stop this deal, and it won't stop the next one.
BWestern intelligence says military cooperation deepened during the US-Iran war. That makes the White House line that Moscow was doing little to help Iran harder to defend.
BI'm not defending that line. I'm saying "supplied" is misleading until we see delivery.
BFine—agreed, not shipped. But agreed is already a problem.
BHanna Notte at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies calls this "operationally helpful but not the game changer."
BOperationally helpful is still more than nothing. Iran can upgrade its helicopter fleet.
BShe also says Russia still has certain red lines in this war, and it's balancing support for Iran against other relationships.
BMoscow is doing just enough to needle Washington, not enough to torch every other relationship in the Middle East.
BMaybe. But if those launchers show up in the Gulf, all that balancing goes out the window.
BThen we'll revisit with the same energy. For now, the correction stands: agreed in 2024, delivery unconfirmed, primary reporting from British outlets.
BSpeaking of the battlefield, a post from TridentX on X claims ISW says Moscow lost territory in October for a second consecutive month.
BAnd no confirmed Russian advances on November third and fourth.
BThat would fit the pattern: losing ground on land, then answering from the air.
BI couldn't find that ISW report in the available sources, so treat it as the account's claim, not established fact.
BFair. The air escalation is real even if the loss claim isn't confirmed.
BRight. Russia keeps hitting Ukraine's energy grid. That part we can see.
BAnd here's another claim moving on X—Kevin posted that Putin is trying to negotiate and Zelensky just violated a ceasefire this morning.
BNo source confirms that. It's exactly the kind of confident claim that falls apart under a ten-second search.
BWe won't air it as fact. But it shows how fast the information war moves.
BWhich is why we check before we air anything.
BThe problem is, that account has an audience that wants the ceasefire story to be true.
BWanting it true doesn't make it news.
BNo, it makes it a claim we check and then drop.
BAnd if the launchers do show up, we'll be first to say it. Until then, the word is "agreed".