Ukraine's Warning to the World's Other Military Forces
Relying on its own resources, Ukraine has just carried out what might be the most complex, elaborately planned, and cost-effective military operation of its current war with Russia. Yesterday, the Ukrainians used drones to attack, almost simultaneously, at least four Russian airfields separated by thousands of miles. Among them were two airfields just inside Russia, but the targets also included Olenya air base, above the Arctic Circle, and, remarkably, Belaya air base, in Siberia, which lies just over the border from Mongolia.
The attack showed how much audacity, ingenuity, and effectiveness the Ukrainians can bring to their own defense when Western leaders aren't pressuring them to hold back. It also revealed the vulnerability of the large, expensive planes and other hardware treasured by major powers around the world.
Images circulating immediately after the attacks appeared to show that Russian aircraft had been hit with remarkable accuracy at some of their most vulnerable points. The Ukrainians seem to have placed relatively small drone swarms in cavities built into the top of trailer trucks. Then, when the trucks were close to the targets, the trailer roofs opened up, and the swarms of drones flew out, surprising and overwhelming Russian defenses. Even how the drones themselves were operated represents something notable. In many cases, they seem to have been flying courses preprogrammed via the open-source software ArduPilot, which has proved effective in navigating unmanned aerial vehicles for hundreds of miles and precisely reaching targets.
Although details remain limited, the operation testifies to how rapidly drone technology is evolving. Human operators might well have been observing some of yesterday's flights and been in a position to take control if necessary, but some of the vehicles may have operated outside of human authority, flying preprogrammed courses. Ukrainian officials have said that some of the drones were basically AI-trained to recognize the most vulnerable parts of Russian aircraft and automatically home in on those areas.
[Read: Ukraine's new way of war]
The Ukrainians have claimed that more than 40 advanced Russian aircraft were hit and that at least 13 were destroyed. How much of the damage is reparable is not yet clear. Kyiv boasted of destroying more than a third of Russia's large Tu-95 bombers, which have been a primary launch system for the large volleys of missiles that regularly strike Ukrainian cities. The Tu-95s are literally irreplaceable: Russia has no production facilities making more of these aircraft, and it has not yet designed a successor to the model. Yesterday's attack also appears to have damaged a large number of Tu-22 M3 bombers and probably one A-50 command aircraft, the Russian equivalent of a U.S.-made airborne warning and control aircraft. The total cost of Russian losses likely runs into several billion dollars.
In contrast, the cost of one of the Ukrainian drones used in yesterday's attack has been estimated at about $1,200—so that even if the airfields were attacked with 100 drones each (a seemingly high estimate), the total cost of the drones used would have been less than $1 million. I struggle to think of a recent military operation where one side suffered so much damage at so little cost to the other.
In one sense, the Ukrainian attack represents a culmination of what we have seen happen since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022: Seemingly outmatched by Russia's much larger military, Ukraine has used drones and other improvised equipment to destroy tanks, large warships, bombers, and other large legacy systems. Military planners and many outside commentators have been too slow to acknowledge the significance of Ukraine's defensive tactics, but the most recent attacks plainly show the need for major changes in how all militaries are constructed and trained.
For the United States and other major Western militaries, Ukraine's use of trucks parked outside secure areas near military sites will pose uncomfortable questions. How closely do they—or can they—monitor all the truck traffic that streams past their bases? Do they know what happens in every nearby property from which an adversary could hide drone swarms and then launch them with no warning? For many years now, for instance, Chinese interests have been buying large amounts of farmland right next to important U.S. military bases. They could be growing soybeans, but they could also be staging grounds for drone swarms that would make the Ukrainian attacks look minuscule.
Meanwhile, in Europe, military bases have in the past few years been regularly overflown by a large number of unknown drones, which are presumably gathering intelligence. Whichever power is responsible obviously has the ability to deploy a larger number of drones in kinetic attacks. The Ukrainians are showing U.S. and European militaries that better security against drone flights is long overdue.
For Ukraine's doubters, these attacks should lead to a period of quiet reflection. President Donald Trump has insisted that Ukraine has 'no cards.' The New York Times editorial board recently implied that Ukraine is unlikely to produce a military breakthrough that can change the basic course of the war. But pessimism about Ukraine's capabilities is ahistorical and wrongheaded.
[Thomas Wright: Trump's basic misunderstanding about the war in Ukraine]
For three years, the Biden administration simultaneously supported Ukraine and discouraged major attacks on Russian soil, for fear of provoking Vladimir Putin too much. That constraint no longer exists, now that Trump has written off Ukraine and appears eager to end the war on Putin's terms.
Until now, Ukraine has had only a limited ability to launch attacks as ambitious as the one it just executed. If Ukraine's remaining allies help arm it properly to undertake similar operations at scale, it can still win the war.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Responds to Putin Ally's Iran Nuclear Threat
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump has fired back at Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and an ally of Vladimir Putin, for saying the U.S. president "has pushed the US into another war" and that countries are "ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump said: "Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the "N word" (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran? Did he really say that or, is it just a figment of my imagination? "If he did say that, and, if confirmed, please let me know, IMMEDIATELY. The "N word" should not be treated so casually. I guess that's why Putin's "THE BOSS." This is a breaking news story—more to follow.
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
As it attacks Iran's nuclear program, Israel maintains ambiguity about its own
Israel is one of just five countries that aren't party to a global nuclear nonproliferation treaty. That relieves it of international pressure to disarm, or even to allow inspectors to scrutinize its facilities. Critics in Iran and elsewhere have accused Western countries of hypocrisy for keeping strict tabs on Iran's nuclear program — which its leaders insist is only for peaceful purposes — while effectively giving Israel's suspected arsenal a free pass. On Sunday, the U.S. military struck three nuclear sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's program. Advertisement Here's a closer look at Israel's nuclear program: A history of nuclear ambiguity Israel opened its Negev Nuclear Research Center in the remote desert city of Dimona in 1958, under the country's first leader, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. He believed the tiny fledgling country surrounded by hostile neighbors needed nuclear deterrence as an extra measure of security. Some historians say they were meant to be used only in case of emergency, as a last resort. After it opened, Israel kept the work at Dimona hidden for a decade, telling United States' officials it was a textile factory, according to a 2022 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an academic journal. Advertisement Relying on plutonium produced at Dimona, Israel has had the ability to fire nuclear warheads since the early 1970s, according to that article, co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, and Matt Korda, a researcher at the same organization. Israel's policy of ambiguity suffered a major setback in 1986, when Dimona's activities were exposed by a former technician at the site, Mordechai Vanunu. He provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to The Sunday Times of London. Vanunu served 18 years in prison for treason, and is not allowed to meet with foreigners or leave the country. Israel possesses dozens of nuclear warheads, experts say Experts estimate Israel has between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, although they say the lower end of that range is more likely. Israel also has stockpiled as much as 1,110 kilograms (2,425 pounds) of plutonium, potentially enough to make 277 nuclear weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organization. It has six submarines believed to be capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles believed to be capable of launching a nuclear warhead up to 6,500 kilometers (4,000 miles), the organization says. Germany has supplied all of the submarines to Israel, which are docked in the northern city of Haifa, according to the article by Kristensen and Korda. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East pose risks In the Middle East, where conflicts abound, governments are often unstable, and regional alliances are often shifting, nuclear proliferation is particularly dangerous, said Or Rabinowitz, a scholar at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a visiting associate professor at Stanford University. Advertisement 'When nuclear armed states are at war, the world always takes notice because we don't like it when nuclear arsenals ... are available for decision makers,' she said. Rabinowitz says Israel's military leaders could consider deploying a nuclear weapon if they found themselves facing an extreme threat, such as a weapon of mass destruction being used against them. Three countries other than Israel have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea has withdrawn. Iran has signed the treaty, but it was censured earlier this month, shortly before Israel launched its operation, by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog — a day before Israel attacked — for violating its obligations. Israel's policy of ambiguity has helped it evade greater scrutiny, said Susie Snyder at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote adherence to the U.N. treaty. Its policy has also shined a light on the failure of Western countries to rein in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she said. They 'prefer not to be reminded of their own complicity,' she said.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Russian Newspaper Gives Donald Trump New Nickname
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Russian newspaper branded Donald Trump the "President of War" following a U.S. military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. U.S. bombers deployed 30,000-pound "bunker busters" on Iran's underground nuclear facilities, ending days of speculation over whether Trump would authorize direct military intervention for his objective to put "a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror." The developments were published by several state-owned and independent Russian newspapers, including Rossiskaya Gazeta, Komsomolskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moskovsky Komsomolets and Kommersant, according to BBC's Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg. Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, It Matters The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure has far-reaching impact for American security interests, global energy markets and the volatile Middle East region. Israel and Iran are waging direct hostilities, with hundreds killed as both sides launch missiles. The intervention by Washington could define regional stability for years, test U.S. alliances in Europe and the Gulf, and set dangerous precedents over nuclear nonproliferation enforcement. Congressional leaders and protesters nationwide have warned of the risk of a third U.S. war in the Middle East this century. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the strikes as "unprovoked aggression," and coverage in major Russian outlets questioned the long-term fallout for global stability and Russia's regional interests. What To Know Over the weekend, the U.S. launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—using "bunker-buster" bombs weighing up to 30,000 pounds. The attack, dubbed Iran Operation Midnight Hammer, involved more than 125 U.S. military aircraft. Putin on Monday condemned the U.S. strikes as "an absolutely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran." "It has no basis or justification," Putin said, according to Kremlin newswire Tass. Putin made the comments during a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, adding that Russia was "making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people." Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran a front-page headline that read: "Trump has become the president of war" and said the strikes marked a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. Trump "violated his election promise to be the president of peace, not war," the newspaper said. "For the Russian Federation, such a transformation in the White House policy does not bode well. It may mark the end of Trump's peacekeeping efforts in the Russian-Ukrainian [war]," the newspaper added. Rossiskaya Gazeta, a state-run publication, mocked Trump's campaign slogan with the headline: "Trump Makes America Wage War Again." Komsomolskaya Pravda questioned what the attack meant for Russia, quoting a Middle East expert who said: "If this [Iranian regime change] happens, we [Russia] would lose a partner, the Islamic Republic, and be left with a new center of instability affecting not only the Middle East, but also Central Asia and the South Caucasus, regions which are very sensitive for us." Trump floated the possibility of "regime change" in Iran in a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, writing: "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??? MIGA!!!" Moskovsky Komsomolets warned of possible economic repercussions, asking: "The Americans committed aggression against Iran after war raise the price of oil to $200 a barrel?" That's possible because Iran has warned that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, in retaliation for U.S. involvement in its conflict with Israel. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea which handles around 26 percent of global oil trade, making it one of the most strategically important maritime passages in the world. The International Energy Agency notes that any disruption to flows through the strait would have significant consequences for world oil markets. Meanwhile, Kommersant ran a headline with a hint of skepticism: "The U.S. carried out a strike on Iran in order to 'end this war...'." What People Are Saying Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov, on Monday on the situation in the Middle East possibly interfering with dialogue between Russia and the United States: "These are different areas. We have our partnership relations, a strategic partnership with Iran, but we are also working on restoring our relations with the United States. Both are very important areas. "And our dialogue with the Americans also depends, so to speak, on the possibility of reaching a settlement in many other areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will interfere, one will interfere with the other." What Happens Next Iran has repeatedly threatened retaliation for the U.S. strikes. The full extent of the attacks is not yet clear, but Trump claimed Sunday that "the hits were hard and accurate" and "obliterated" Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
