The Guardian view on Ukraine's spectacular attack: 21st-century tactics still require support from allies
Since Donald Trump scolded Volodymyr Zelenskyy with the words 'You don't have the cards right now,' Ukraine has been keener than ever to demonstrate that it has a few up its sleeve. On Sunday it showed its hand with an extraordinary, audacious drone attack on multiple bases deep inside Russia, which it says damaged 41 aircraft.
Operation Spiderweb, which saw the smuggled drones released from their hiding places in wooden sheds and remotely piloted to their targets, was swiftly followed by another attack on Crimea's Kerch bridge using underwater explosives. Kyiv – often coy in such cases – was unusually swift to claim both incidents, but has not taken responsibility for two railway bridge attacks which Russia says led to the deaths of seven passengers at the weekend.
There is obvious satisfaction in hitting Russian bombers and surveillance planes used against Ukrainian civilians, and Spiderweb's unexpected method will surely force Russia to think harder about defence. But the greater significance lies in its potential impact on domestic morale and international support. Ukraine has repeatedly surprised both its enemy and its allies throughout this war. Unexpected successes such as the Kursk incursion have changed the narrative at critical moments. Meticulously planned, and reportedly 18 months in the making, the latest operation must make Russia wonder what else may be on the way.
It was also spectacular enough to make Mr Trump pay attention. The US president reportedly judged the attack to be 'badass'. But his cosy phone chats with Vladimir Putin appear to be locking in his tilt towards Moscow. On Wednesday he said that, in a 'good' conversation, Mr Putin had said he would have to respond. It did not appear to have occurred to the US president that discouraging retaliation might be desirable. He should be challenging Kremlin talking points instead of amplifying them. If Ukraine hoped to dispel the nuclear spectre which Russia has repeatedly summoned up, Mr Trump seems to be still in its thrall – with some of those around him talking up the threat again.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies argued in a report this week that Russia's military performance has been notably poor in this war, with gains coming at a strikingly high cost in terms of both equipment and personnel – hitting an estimated million casualties this summer. But Russia still has many more cards. It continues to grind out its advance, and in late May it launched its largest drone and missile assault on Ukraine to date. Its war of attrition may look old-fashioned compared with Kyiv's innovations, but it still hurts. Meanwhile, talks in Istanbul have produced agreement on a prisoner exchange but no movement towards peace.
There appears to be growing support in the US Senate for further sanctions on Russia, but Lindsey Graham is unlikely to move without Mr Trump's acquiescence, and there is little sign of progress in the House. Pete Hegseth did not attend the session on Ukraine at Thursday's gathering of defence ministers ahead of this month's Nato summit – a telling absence, though the Pentagon blamed scheduling issues. Kyiv needs and deserves increased support from Washington, but damage limitation looks like a more realistic aspiration.
Ukraine continues to surprise, and to shift its approach as circumstances demand. Unfortunately, there is little sign of the US president, capricious as he is, changing course on this conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump says he should get Nobel Peace Prize - hours before US bombs Iran
Donald Trump reignited his claim for the Nobel Peace Prize, asserting his pivotal role in resolving various global conflicts. Hours before the US bombed nuclear sites in Iran's Furdow, a reporter questioned the US President about a suggestion from Matt Gaetz regarding peace efforts between Israel and Iran. Mr Trump highlighted his involvement in the India - Pakistan conflict, saying, 'I mean the big one is India and Pakistan. You could, I should have gotten it four or five times.' While Pakistan has publicly thanked Trump for his intervention in the ceasefire, India has consistently maintained its stance, affirming it would 'never accept third-party negotiation.'
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vance says difference between this Middle East attack and others is that previous presidents were ‘dumb'
Vice President JD Vance has attempted to draw a distinction between Donald Trump 's attack on Iran and George W Bush 's War on Terror by arguing that 'back then, we had dumb presidents.' Speaking to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning, hours after the U.S. launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israel 's Operation Rising Lion offensive, Vance attacked Bush's administration and those of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden without directly naming them. 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he said. 'I understand the concern, but the difference is that, back then, we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing. 'We've gone in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear program back, we're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do.' The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of 9/11 was based on what proved to be the false premise that the dictator was harboring weapons of mass destruction. The war coincided with a period in which the U.S. was also involved in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, which proved to be an even longer commitment that only ended, chaotically, in 2021, helping inspire an aversion to 'forever wars' to which Trump himself has previously given voice. Vance himself enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from high school in 2003. He was sent to Iraq in a non-combat role for six months, an experience that is understood to have left him disillusioned and influenced his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy ever since. Trump's actions on Saturday night have already drawn comparisons with the defining blunder of the Bush era. The vice president's critique of those earlier administrations has, in turn, invited an angry response. 'This is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard any top U.S. official make,' said Michael McFaul, the former American ambassador to Russia under Obama. 'Embarrassing.' Vance's claim in the same interview that 'We're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program' was also met with incredulity. 'As war heats up, the propaganda always gets progressively dumber,' said journalist Michael Tracey. 'Imagine if some other country bombed nuclear installations in the U.S., and then tried to claim they were 'not at war with the U.S.'' On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the bombing raids on Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan sites an 'incredible and overwhelming success' that had 'devastated the Iranian nuclear programme.' Tehran has vowed to retaliate and could do so by closing the Strait of Hormuz, driving up global oil prices, or by targeting American military bases on its doorstep in the Gulf. Trump has since thrown fuel on the flames by declaring on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???'
STV News
33 minutes ago
- STV News
Oil prices rise after US strikes on Iran nuclear sites
Oil prices have risen following the US's strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in a major escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict. The price of Brent crude oil, the traditional benchmark global oil price, was up 2% at $78.52 a barrel on Monday. US crude also jumped, gaining 2% to $75.34 a barrel by midday in Asia. The attacks by the United States on Saturday, which President Donald Trump claimed caused 'monumental damage', raised the stakes in the war between Israel and Iran. The conflict began with an Israeli attack against Iran on June 13 that sent oil prices yo-yoing and rattled other markets. Iran is a major producer of oil and also sits on the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's crude passes. Closing off the waterway would be technically difficult to pull off, but it could severely disrupt transit through it, sending insurance rates spiking and making shippers nervous to move without US Navy escorts. A large container ship sails in the Strait of Hormuz / Credit: AP 'The situation remains highly fluid, and much hinges on whether Tehran opts for a restrained reaction or a more aggressive course of action,' Kristian Kerr, head of macro strategy at LPL Financial in Charlotte, North Carolina, said. Iran may be reluctant to close down the waterway because it uses the strait to transport its own crude, mostly to China, and oil is a major revenue source for the regime. 'It's a scorched earth possibility, a Sherman-burning-Atlanta move,' said Tom Kloza, chief market analyst at Turner Mason & Co. 'It's not probable.' Mr Kloza thinks oil futures will ease back down after initial fears blow over. Ed Yardeni, a long-time analyst, agreed, writing in a report that Tehran leaders would likely hold back. 'They aren't crazy,' he wrote in a note to investors Sunday. 'The price of oil should fall and stock markets around the world should climb higher.' However, Andy Lipow, a Houston analyst covering oil markets for 45 years, said countries are not always rational actors and that he wouldn't be surprised if Tehran lashed out for political or emotional reasons. 'If the Strait of Hormuz was completely shut down, oil prices would rise to $120 to $130 a barrel,' said Lipow, predicting that that would translate to about $4.50 a gallon at the pump and hurt consumers in other ways. 'It would mean higher prices for all those goods transported by truck, and it would be more difficult for the Fed to lower interest rates.' US stock futures fell in response to the attacks. Dow futures dropped 175 points, or 0.4%. S&P 500 futures fell 0.4%, while Nasdaq futures tumbled 0.5%. Defence-related stocks had risen when the markets opened on Monday morning. In Tokyo, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries climbed 0.8% and ShinMaywa Industries, another major weapons maker, surged 1.5%. The Nikkei 225 dropped 0.2%, a lesser drop than other stock market indices, due to larger losses being offset by gains from defence stocks. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
