Chechen scholar: ‘Both in Chechnya and Ukraine, there's a similar sense of Russian desperation'

For most people today, the word Chechnya immediately brings to mind Ramzan Kadyrov, the authoritarian leader who governs the region as a loyal vassal of Vladimir Putin. It evokes images of a turbulent, fear-stricken state at the mercy of the Kremlin's whims.
Yet, Chechnya's story is far more intricate. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chechnya — like many former Soviet republics — sought independence from Moscow. This pursuit led to two brutal wars in 1994-1996 and 1999-2000 that devastated its population and left lasting scars.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leaders like President Volodymyr Zelensky have drawn parallels between Russia's tactics in Chechnya and Ukraine. Many see the war in Ukraine as part of a broader pattern of Russian aggression that has affected multiple nations and shattered countless lives.
This is why some pro-democracy Chechens – including those who have been fighting on the side of Ukraine against Russia — recognize that the outcome of the war in Ukraine could shape the prospects for Russia's decolonization and the future of their own national liberation.
The Kyiv Independent spoke with Chechen political scientist Marat Iliyasov about the lead-up to the Chechen wars, their consequences for Chechnya's cultural identity, and what lessons the world can take from this dark period as Ukraine's future remains far from certain amid Russia's ongoing aggression.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The Kyiv Independent: How did the Chechen wars start?
Marat Iliyasov: The first Russo-Chechen war, which began in 1994, was the first armed conflict that Russia was directly conducting in the post-Soviet space. It was likely a harbinger of the resurgence of Russian imperialism.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was largely seen as a democratizing state. However, this war showed that wasn't the case. Despite this evidence, many refused to believe in Russian imperialism. People wanted to hold on to the idea that Russia had shed its imperialist mindset, inherited from the Soviet Union.
The attack on Chechnya was likely meant to serve as an example to others seeking full decolonization, wanting to break free from imperial control.
Of course, Chechnya wanted to seek this peacefully. And even when war started looming, Chechen leadership at that time tried to prevent it. They made several attempts at negotiations, they tried to keep in touch with the Russian administration. However, the pro-war faction within the Kremlin was stronger at that moment, and they chose to begin rebuilding the empire.
This rebuilding started with Chechnya, which helped to formulate a frame that Russia used later in other wars. Putin used a very similar rhetoric before attacking Ukraine. Same as in Chechnya or Georgia, his 'goal' was 'to protect Russians.'
After the Second Russo-Chechen War, Russia was inspired by its success and continued with the attacks. Next came Georgia and then Ukraine. Indeed, if it worked for Chechnya, why should it not work for others? But what encouraged Putin even more was international silence. Chechens were left alone in their fight. Georgians were also sacrificed. Ukraine is receiving international help, but it is a question of how long.
What is important to realize is that the imperial mindset that had been ingrained in Russians during the Soviet times is still present. It was present even earlier, when Russia was mistakenly viewed by the West as a democratizing country, but everyone wanted to believe that it had passed.
Russia's attacks on Chechnya serve as a powerful example for others. As we later learned, no former Soviet republic — aside from the Baltic states — has been treated as an entity deserving of its independence. Nearly all the countries that are recognized as independent today, including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and others, have faced the same denial of sovereignty that Chechnya did. Chechnya, in many ways, was the harbinger of what was to come.
The Kyiv Independent: Dhokhar Dudayev was president of Chechnya when the country declared its independence — in 1996, Russia assassinated him. What was he like as a leader? There's this clip of him that went viral on Ukrainian social media, where he was saying decades ago that a war between Russia and Ukraine was inevitable. But I think most people don't realize how important he was for Chechnya's independence movement.
Marat Iliyasov: When Chechens were deported to Central Asia in 1944, the entire ethnic group was labeled as enemies of the people. Because of this stigma, they were later often denied promotions to high positions or any significant advancement.
Therefore, when Dzhokhar Dudayev was promoted to the rank of a general, it was a big deal for all the Chechens. He was the first Chechen to become a general (in the USSR). He achieved this rank within the Soviet Union, which was a remarkable accomplishment. While some other Chechens also rose to high positions, they remained loyal to the Soviet state. Dudayev, however, likely always harbored a nationalist mindset, seeing the Soviet Union as nothing more than an empire — something he understood all too well.
When the opportunity arose and nationalism began resurging across the Soviet Union, Dudayev chose to serve his people. He was a strong and respected leader, admired for his achievements, character, strategic mindset, foresight, and analytical abilities.
He understood the imperial mindset of Russia and its leaders very well. When he took over the leadership of the Chechen National Front and the independence movement, he made it clear what would happen next. He knew how the Soviet leadership thought and (how the Russian leadership) still thinks today. Nothing has changed since then. Dudayev saw the areas where Russia could exploit people's vulnerabilities, and he pointed them out. He highlighted places like Crimea, Ukraine, and others, saying that these places will be exploited by Russia — and this happened.
It was not prophetic, and he was not a fortune teller, either. But he clearly saw Russia's strategic goals and realized its capacity. He saw that Russia's leadership did not change much. The same people who, just a year earlier, were part of the Communist Party and the Soviet elite — the so-called last empire — were still in power. They had simply changed their clothes and hats, presenting themselves as those willing to democratize Russia. But in reality, they weren't seeking democracy. As Gorbachev famously called his policy, "restructuring," they were pushing for changes that would help them rebuild their empire and regain power.
Dudayev was a symbol of Chechen independence and the fight for that freedom. Unlike many other leaders around the world, he didn't run away or hide, when the war started. He had the opportunity to do so, but he didn't shy away from war and this is something that makes every Chechen proud of him.
Similarly, Zelensky, who was also offered a chance to leave the country, stayed and fought. This deserves great respect. Both Dudayev and Zelensky chose to fight for their people, and that makes Chechens and Ukrainians proud.
The Kyiv Independent: Historically, under the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, anything that wasn't Russian was often marginalized by the authorities and, during darker periods, even outright banned. In the context of the Russian Federation today and its control over Chechnya, how much is Chechen culture allowed to thrive, or is it still subordinated to Russian culture?
Marat Iliyasov: The situation in Chechnya is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, there's a rigid framework imposed by the state — the Russian Empire's influence — that can't be openly challenged. Yet, to some extent, Chechen culture operates outside this framework. In some ways, Chechen culture has room to thrive.
One reason is that very few Russians remain in Chechnya, making it a largely homogeneous society today. To be clear, I'm not advocating for homogeneity in general, but this creates an environment where Chechens can freely use their language and express their cultural identity. This stands in stark contrast to the Soviet era when speaking Chechen was prohibited.
So in that sense, yes, Chechen culture does have room to grow. However, there's another layer to consider: the restrictions imposed by local authorities that come alongside the overarching Russian influence.
It is important to understand that Russia and Russian interlocutors in Chechnya demand Chechen loyalty, but Chechen identity is largely built on resisting Russian imperialism. For over 200 years, generation after generation of Chechens have lost lives in the struggle for independence from the Russian Empire.
Almost every Chechen family, including the Kadyrovs, has suffered losses due to clashes with Russia. Everyone experienced losses during the deportations and the conquest of the Caucasus. This shared history shapes Chechen identity.
Every Chechen lost someone during the last two wars as well, and this collective trauma weighs heavily on the population. Meanwhile, Russia enforces a strict expectation of loyalty. But when Chechen identity is rooted in resistance to Russian rule, this creates an inherent conflict. So, what's happening in Chechnya now?
To maintain power and secure their positions, Kadyrov and the local administration are actively reshaping this identity. The legacy of resistance built over hundreds of years is being redefined through Kadyrov's rhetoric and oppressive measures. Those who don't comply face punishment.
They're putting significant effort into reshaping Chechen identity. A whole new generation is being raised with a different understanding of their roots. However, they're not entirely succeeding. Many Chechens live outside the republic and offer an alternative perspective to those growing up inside. Those with a critical mind can easily spot the lies, and recognize what aligns with true Chechen identity and what doesn't.
Religious authorities also promote this new narrative. Religion holds significant importance in Chechen culture, making this approach especially influential in reshaping identity.
Today, the Mufti of Chechnya and the entire apparatus of the Muftiate — mullahs, imams, and other religious authorities — promote a narrative along the lines of, 'Look, you can practice Islam now. Isn't this what you wanted? Kadyrov and Russia have provided this for you.'
Additionally, they're using propaganda to undermine the idea of Chechen independence, highlighting how difficult it was during the times of leaders like Dzhokhar Dudayev and Aslan Maskhadov. Yes, it was a challenging period, and ordinary people certainly suffered — poverty was widespread, and the situation was tough. But in the post-Soviet era, it wasn't much better anywhere.
Will these efforts succeed? It is questionable. Ultimately, it depends on the political situation. If Russia continues to dominate, if it wins the war in Ukraine, and if it maintains its empire, it's possible that two or three more generations of Chechens could become loyal to Russia. After all, no one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union, and many didn't think about disobeying it after four generations raised under Soviet rule.
But despite all of that, the seed of resistance, the understanding of true identity, remained. It was there in the Baltic States, in the South Caucasus, in Central Asia, in Ukraine, and in Chechnya. People knew who they were. And while the Soviet Union didn't succeed, Russia is a much weaker state than the USSR ever was.
The Kyiv Independent: We know that there are Chechens currently fighting on the side of Ukraine against Russia, which is a very interesting example of how some Chechens are taking steps toward the decolonization of Russia. To what extent can resistance exist within Chechnya itself, beyond these passive efforts to preserve language and culture?
Marat Iliyasov: I believe a large portion of the population is unhappy and would support any form of resistance. However, Kadyrov is strong. He has built a powerful police force capable of suppressing any dissent. Everyone knows that those who oppose the Kadyrov regime will face severe punishment. As a result, those who want to resist often isolate themselves from their families, because Kadyrov's system punishes the families of those who defy him.
For those who cannot live under the regime, who refuse to accept it, or who cannot bring themselves to comply, the psychological toll is immense. It's incredibly difficult to endure the humiliation imposed by the regime. As a result, these individuals often try to separate themselves from their families, presenting themselves as lone rebels. This situation mirrors what happened during the final years of the Russian Empire, when people didn't want to involve anyone who wasn't brave enough or willing to sacrifice their relatives — or even their own lives. They chose to fight alone, as individual rebels against the Tsarist Empire.
Today, the situation is very similar, and the potential for resistance is significant. However, it can't truly take shape due to the suppressive mechanisms in place. Dissent exists, but an actual fight is nearly impossible. One of the major factors at play is the knowledge that if Chechnya were to rebel against Kadyrov, even if such a rebellion were successful, Russia would intervene with more troops to support Kadyrov. This would effectively spark a third war in just three decades, which feels all too close.
People haven't forgotten the suffering and loss they've endured. No one is willing to face that again — at least for now. However, once a new generation grows up without the same fear of Russia, there may be room for new leaders to emerge. Perhaps there will even be rebellion within Kadyrov's inner circle. It's hard to say what will happen, but one thing is certain: there is definitely an underground movement, and the waters are boiling.
The Kyiv Independent: President Zelensky, among others, has drawn comparisons between the Chechen wars and Russia's actions in Ukraine today. To what extent do you agree with this comparison, and what lessons should we learn from the similarities?
Marat Iliyasov: Definitely. I don't see a significant difference in tactics. Both situations involve attempts to first eliminate the leadership of so-called separatists. In Chechnya, for example, there were people presented as opposition to Dudayev, but they were essentially backed by Russia. Similarly, in Ukraine, (made-up) regions like 'Novorossiya' were promoted as an alternative to (Kyiv), but this also failed to materialize.
Then, there was the attempt at a lightning war — a Blitzkrieg strategy — which didn't succeed in either case. Both in Chechnya and in Ukraine, there's a similar sense of desperation. It's the desire to retaliate after failing to achieve success in a "decent" or "just" war. When you engage in a battle that's not a secret, when you openly face off with each other, it mirrors the kind of duels that might have happened in the Middle Ages, where each side claims to be the strongest.
However, there was no fair fight. And when they lost, what followed was a desperate violence of psychologically unstable and inferior people, who cannot fight fairly. This violence manifested itself in the massacres in Bucha, Samashki, Aldi, and Mariupol.
I think this is driven by desperation, and in a way, it's quite cowardly. When people can't succeed in a direct confrontation, they resort to these tactics. This pattern repeats itself in both situations. Russian troops have used civilians as human shields to protect themselves, fearing open combat with Chechens. A good example of this is the 1995 hostage crisis in Budyonnovsk, orchestrated by Shamil Basayev. It was that very crisis that ultimately brought people to the negotiation table.
Chechens weren't killing their hostages. Russians did it. But everyone remembers this attack as a terrorist attack. Yet, few remember how Russian forces used to take hostages from hospitals in Chechnya during the war. That's rarely talked about, and no one is held accountable for it.
The final parallel is the war of attrition happening now in Ukraine, just as it did in Chechnya. Fortunately, Ukraine is a larger, recognized state with Western support, so there's hope. So, as Dudayev predicted, maybe this will eventually bring an end to Russia's imperial mindset, and perhaps even lead to a more democratic Russia.
That's my hope, at least, though it's hard to fully believe in it. But still, it's something to hope for.
Hey there, it's Kate Tsurkan, thanks for reading my latest interview. I remember seeing news about the wars in Chechnya when I was growing up in the U.S., but I was just a kid, too young to realize the gravity of what was truly happening. Talking with Professor Iliyasov and reading more about what happened, it's so clear how Russia's tactics to achieve their colonial ambitions never changed – breaking ceasefires that they themselves proposed, deliberty targeting civilians. It's a tragedy what happened to the Chechen people, and we can't let that happen to Ukraine to. Don't let Russia's long history of crimes be forgotten. It you appreciate reading about this sort of thing,
Read also: Decolonizing Russia — what it means and why it matters
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

24 minutes ago

• The Hill

Ex-ambassador to Russia: Putin, Xi will celebrate Trump's ‘preemptive war' in Iran

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul warned on Saturday of how U.S. strikes on Iran could influence U.S. adversaries around the world. In an interview on MSNBC, McFaul said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping would be glad to see the U.S. engaging in 'preemptive' strikes. 'I think we've really got to understand our other interests in the world that might be affected by this attack today. This is a preemptive war. The world does not support preemptive wars. We learned that in 2003,' McFaul said, referring to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was launched based on the theory that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction and threatened America. 'Putin will be celebrating this because he did his own preemptive war in Ukraine and now it's like, well, this is just what great powers do. Maybe Xi Jinping is going to think the same. He's going to say, 'Well, if they can do it here, we can do it in Taiwan,'' McFaul added. Trump announced on Saturday evening that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' McFaul, in the interview, said he wishes the president 'well' in his aim to bring about peace, saying that outcome is possible but not likely. 'I hope he can bring about an agreement as soon as possible. It's happened before — capitulation after an attack like this — so it could happen, but it's not what I'm predicting,' McFaul said. 'The idea that they will now sit down and negotiate with us some long-term deal in the immediate run, I think, is highly unlikely,' he added. McFaul said it's 'good news' that the U.S. strikes, according to Trump, 'totally obliterated' the Iranian nuclear facilities, saying, 'I applaud that.' 'That's good news for today, but we need to think about what are the first, second, third and fourth order consequences after this,' McFaul added. 'Most immediately, they are going to retaliate, and I hope we are prepared to prevent that and prevail against our forces in the region.'

American Military News

an hour ago

• American Military News

Zelenskyy says Russia 'chooses to kill' as Putin repeats hard-line demands

This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that a massive Russian drone and missile attack on Kyiv, which claimed dozens of civilian lives, is a reminder that Russia is disregarding cease-fire efforts and 'chooses to kill.' 'This strike is a reminder to the world that Russia spurns a cease-fire and chooses to kill,' Zelenskyy said on June 19 while visiting the site of a nine-story building that collapsed as a result of what Ukraine said was a direct missile hit during the intense aerial assault two nights earlier. 'This vile attack, carried out in the middle of the night, claimed the lives of 23 civilians,' he said on X. Five people were killed in other parts of the capital and more than 150 people in Kyiv and elsewhere were wounded in the massive attack early on June 17, emergency services said. At least two people were killed in the Black Sea port city of Odesa. 'I am grateful to all our partners who understand that Ukraine must grow stronger every single day. I thank everyone who is ready to exert pressure on Moscow in a way that makes them feel the true cost of this war,' Zelenskyy added. Zelenskyy's statement came after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed he is ready 'to find a solution' to his war on Ukraine and to potentially meet with the Ukrainian president. However, in his remarks at a meeting with representatives of international news agencies on the sidelines of an economic forum in St. Petersburg on June 18, Putin again repeated some of his maximalist positions in comments to foreign media, giving no sign that he is prepared to make substantial concessions. 'We need to find a solution that would not only put an end to the current conflict but also create conditions that would prevent similar situations from recurring in the long term,' Putin said. The remark echoed his repeated statements that any peace deal must address what he calls the 'root causes' of the war — wording he uses to question Ukraine's right to exist, to choose its security partners, and to maintain a strong military. Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2, the first direct peace talks since the initial weeks of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which Putin launched on February 24, 2022. The negotiations yielded agreements on prisoner swaps and the exchange of bodies of soldiers killed in the war, but produced no progress toward a cease-fire, let alone a peace deal. Russia and Ukraine sent an unspecified number of sick or wounded prisoners home on June 19, the latest in a series of exchanges. Zelenskyy said the exchange brought back Ukrainian soldiers who had fought all along the front lines, including in the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions that were liberated by Ukrainian forces months into the Russian invasion in 2022. 'Most of them had been held captive since 2022… Our goal is to free every single one of them,' Zelenskyy added. Putin said talks could resume at some point after June 22, a date he has previously suggested for a major new swap of prisoners and the bodies of the dead. The Russian leader added, however, that he would only meet Zelenskyy in the 'final phase' of any peace negotiations. Zelenskyy has sought to meet with Putin amid the talks, but the Kremlin says an agreement on a deal must be reached first and Putin repeated his groundless claim that Zelenskyy is not a legitimate leader. 'I am ready to meet with everyone, including Zelenskyy. That is not the issue — if the Ukrainian state trusts someone in particular to conduct negotiations, for God's sake, it can be Zelenskyy,' Putin said. 'I am even ready to meet him — but only if it is some kind of final phase.' The West has slapped sanctions on Russia while NATO has beefed up its forces on its eastern flank since Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Rights groups have alleged major rights violations and war crimes committed by Russian forces during their military operations. Western allies have also widely criticized Putin for his refusal to agree to cease-fire terms put forward by US President Donald Trump. On June 19, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha noted that 100 days have passed since Kyiv accepted Trump's proposal for an unconditional, extendable 30-day cease-fire. Russia has kept up and in some cases intensified its bombardments of Ukrainian cities in recent weeks and is pushing to make further gains at several parts of the long front line, which runs from northeastern Ukraine to the Black Sea shore in the south. Putin's wide-ranging briefing took place as Russian air attacks continued on June 19, with the Ukrainian Air Force saying it shot down or otherwise neutralized 88 of the 104 drones fired by Russia. One person was killed in an artillery barrage on Kostyantynivka, a Ukrainian-held city in the Donetsk region, the head of the city military administration, Serhiy Horbunov, said on Facebook. Five people were wounded in Russian artillery and drone strikes on the Dnipropetrovsk region, authorities said. The Russian Defense Ministry said its forces downed 85 Ukrainian drones over 11 Russian regions and Russian-occupied Crimea. In another sign that he is not ready to make concessions, Putin vowed that Moscow will 'demilitarize' Ukraine through diplomacy or force. At the talks in 2022 and in the recent negotiations, Russia has pushed for radically reducing the size of Ukraine's military, which Kyiv and its backers say would leave it defenseless. 'We will not allow Ukraine to have armed forces that would threaten the Russian Federation and its people,' he said. 'And if we fail to reach a settlement, we will achieve our goals by military means.' Asked about civilian deaths in Russian attacks on Ukraine, Putin repeated Moscow's claim that it does not target civilians, despite ample evidence to the contrary. 'The strikes were carried out against military industries, not residential quarters,' Putin said. The confirmed civilian death toll in Ukraine since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion is over 13,000, according to the UN, which says many of the growing number of civilian casualties have been caused by Russian long-range missile and drone attacks. Officials say the real civilian toll is like higher. Meanwhile, on June 19, Zelenskyy appointed Hennadiy Shapovalov as commander of Ukraine's land force, replacing Major General Mykhaylo Drapatiy, who resigned following a deadly Russian strike on a troop training area.

Business Insider

2 hours ago

• Business Insider

NATO ships are at rising risk. Top commanders tell BI it's time to rethink naval defense.

NATO warships are sailing into a dangerous new era of naval warfare in which the threats are growing fast, two senior alliance commanders recently told Business Insider. From the Black Sea to the Red Sea, the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have exposed key vulnerabilities and shown NATO what its naval forces need to operate in risky environments. Dangers to warships these days include threats like hostile drones, missiles, and other naval vessels, capabilities built on rapidly advancing combat technology. So what does NATO need? Layered defenses, cheaper ways to destroy enemy threats, and deeper ammunition stockpiles. Vice Adm. James Morley, the deputy commander of NATO's Joint Force Command Norfolk, told BI that Ukraine and the Red Sea "have revealed the need to be ready to deal with a higher level of intensity than we had previously scaled for, both in terms of stock and in terms of time on the front line." In the Black Sea, Ukrainian forces have repeatedly used domestically produced naval drones to damage and destroy Russian warships, showing the risks that relatively cheap, asymmetric combat solutions pose to conventional naval forces. Far away, at the southern end of the Red Sea, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have launched missiles and drones at merchant vessels and NATO warships defending international shipping lanes. In its efforts to fend off the Houthi attacks, the US Navy has faced its most intense combat since World War II, US officials have previously said. Morley said NATO warships are at a higher risk because of the number of global actors who are prepared to use military force. Weapons proliferation has given actors who might previously have been unable to threaten advanced navies a new ability to do so. In the case of the Houthis, for instance, the group's missile attacks have raised the level of danger in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to a level not seen in years. The situation is different in Europe, where NATO warships have not been shot at but tensions are running high. There have been several incidents with Moscow that raise the level of risk. 'The mindset needs to be layered defense' Surface warships face an expanding range of threats, from anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles and torpedoes to enemy aircraft and drones. Some weapons now in play only recently saw combat for the first time. The high operational tempo in the Red Sea has informed Western military planners about what limitations they face regarding magazine capacity, weapons inventory, and reloading capabilities. Morley said that as the weaponry that can threaten warships increases, so must the defensive capabilities aboard the vessels in danger. It's important to invest in missile stockpiles and ensure that NATO defense industrial bases can produce enough and ships can carry enough should they sail into a fight. The days "of driving around with a silo of ammunition that never gets used is sadly now in the past," he said, explaining that "ships routinely come back from the Red Sea, for example, having expended ammunition, and they need to be resupplied and then get back out on patrol." US Navy warships, for instance, have expended significant quantities of SM-series interceptor missiles for air defense. Air defense isn't just about numbers. It's also about dollars. The rise of inexpensive strike drones — some just tens of thousands of dollars apiece — as a tool of naval warfare has NATO forces trying to figure out how they can cheaply defeat these threats without wasting a surface-to-air missile costing millions. The aim is to bring the cost difference between the threat and the interceptor much closer to parity. "I think the mindset needs to be layered defense," Morley said. Warships need the expensive, higher-end missiles to deal with sophisticated threats. But breaking the cost-curve challenge means having a range of capabilities so complex interceptors aren't expended on the simple threats. American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, for instance, are kitted with options like the M2 Browning .50 caliber machine guns, Mark 38 turret systems, five-inch artillery cannons, and a variety of surface-to-air missiles. These weapons allow the warships to confront a range of threats, though some options, like the deck guns, come with drawbacks, such as permitting threats to get much closer to warships than desired. Big platforms aren't obsolete Adm. Pierre Vandier, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, who oversees alliance modernization efforts, said emerging technologies, like drones, have created new problems for larger platforms like warships, as has been the case in the Black Sea. Anything that exists on the water could effectively be hit. Vandier identified uncrewed systems as one of the biggest changes in naval warfare over the past decade and said one risk is that a warship could be overwhelmed by a swarm of drones. "You need to find ways on the ships to be protected from that and to engage multiple targets at the same time," he said. That could be kinetic, involving a physical strike, or some alternative, like electronic warfare. NATO is working to incorporate lessons learned from Ukraine and the Red Sea into its combat training. At last month's Formidable Shield 25 exercise, US sailors practiced using the deck guns to shoot down small quadcopter drones that they could face in a swarm attack. They also practiced defending against uncrewed surface vehicles like the ones Ukraine has used to batter Russia's Black Sea fleet. Exercises such as Formidable Shield allow allied navies to practice navigating air defense challenges and learn how to engage cheaper threats with cheaper defenses, thus saving the more expensive methods for the higher-end threats. Despite the growing number of threats to warships, Vandier said the rise of drones doesn't necessarily render them obsolete. Aircraft carriers, the flagships of a fleet, can project force globally with embarked aviation. They travel in heavily defended strike groups, making the carriers particularly formidable and hard to reach for enemy attacks. "To get to a carrier, you have layers," Vandier said. "It's a battle between the shield and the sword. My personal feeling is that the story is not finished for the big platforms. Not yet."