
Russia prepping drones that call home, hide and start fires
The record may not stand for long. The prior record was on May 26, when Moscow launched some 355 drones. The day before, Russia had set a record with 298 Shaheds, which itself surpassed the May 18 tally.
Russia's enormous OWA drone attacks came as a surprise to politicians and the general public, but it's the culmination of years of work by the Russia military. Initially purchased from Iran, Russia began building factories in 2023 to assemble and then manufacture Shaheds (Iranian-designed unmanned drones) in Russia. Greater control over production gave Russia the opportunity to expand the number of Shaheds quickly.
It also helps them gradually upgrade their drones. Investigations into downed Shaheds show that Russia has been coating the drones in carbon, which resists detection by radar by absorbing incoming waves instead of reflecting them back. They have also been adding SIM cards to transmit data back to Russia through mobile networks.
Shaheds also had their warheads upgraded. On May 20, the Ukrainian media reported that Shaheds were using newer incendiary and fragmentation warheads, which start fires and spread large volumes of shrapnel, respectively, to increase their effectiveness.
Russia hit Kyiv with its biggest-ever drone strike a few days ago. These upgrades were simple in order to keep the cost of the drone, its major advantage over a missile, under control. These drones are both inexpensive and long-range.
This means that an attacker such as Russia can launch hundreds every month at targets across Ukraine with little concern about how many are lost along the way. Meanwhile, the defender is stuck figuring out how to shoot all incoming drones down at a reasonable cost indefinitely.
The problem is made even more complicated by the fact that air defence systems are sorely needed at the front line to shoot down hostile aircraft, making it a difficult trade-off.
Adding to the problem is the recent production of decoy Shaheds. While they carry no warhead and pose little threat by themselves, Ukrainian air defense cannot always tell the decoy from the real thing and still need to shoot them down. In late May, Ukrainian officials told the media that up to 40% of incoming Shaheds were decoys.
Consequently, Russia's 472-drone attack reflects all of Russia's innovations so far. These have improved the number of drones that survive, increased lethality, while using decoys alongside armed drones to ensure as many as possible reach their target.
Ukraine shoots most incoming Shaheds down. Even the 472-drone attack still had 382 claimed interceptions, a rate of 81%. However, the relatively high interception rate disguises the Shahed's benefits for Russia.
Shaheds are cheap by military standards, so launching constant attacks is a disproportionate burden for Ukrainian air defence units. Kyiv has mobilized an enormous amount of resources to protect its cities, from mobile units in trucks to counter-Shahed drones that function like a cheaper anti-aircraft missile.
That said, these systems often have short ranges, which means that the savings per interception are somewhat offset by the need to maintain many hundreds of systems across a country as large as Ukraine. Ukraine also has the option of trying to strike Russia's Shahed factories, which they have attempted a few times.
Despite Ukraine's evolving air defense, Russia still sees military benefits to constant Shahed attacks. In a study I contributed to last year, we found that Russia's initial OWA drone strategy in 2022 and 2023 did little to force Ukraine to negotiate an end to the war on terms favorable to Russia.
That may still be the case now, but the volume of drones and the high tempo of attacks means that Russian strategy could well be aimed at systematically exhausting Ukrainian air defenses.
As Ukraine grapples with unpredictable US military support, Kyiv is more vulnerable to running out of ammunition for its more advanced air defense systems. This means that constant Shahed attacks make it more difficult for Ukraine to stop incoming missiles, which carry much larger warheads. Ukraine's drone strike this week.
Of course, Ukraine has its own versions of the Shahed, which it uses to routinely launch strikes against Russian military and oil facilities. Less is known about Ukraine's OWA drones, but they often use many similar features to Shaheds such as satellite navigation.
For Russia's Vladimir Putin, using Shaheds is not all about military benefit. Politically, he has increasingly used Shahed attacks to project a sense of power to his domestic audiences. On May 9, Russia paraded Shaheds through Moscow's streets as part of its annual Victory Day celebrations, which had not been done in years past.
Ukraine has begun employing its own OWA drones as part of the 'Spiderweb' operation to attack military and oil infrastructure across Russia.
Russia's 472-drone attack is unlikely to remain its largest attack for long. Putin has shown a determination to expand the scale and tempo of his drone campaign and resist Ukraine's calls for a permanent 'ceasefire in the sky', but this week Ukraine's drone strategy has shown that prolonging the drone war can also have serious and unexpected effects for Moscow.
So long as the conflict continues, Ukraine's defenders will find themselves facing more, and better, drones aimed at their cities. But increasingly, it looks like Russia must worry about Ukraine's drone capabilities too.
Marcel Plichta is PhD Candidate in the School of International Relations, University of St Andrews
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTHK
5 hours ago
- RTHK
European leaders back three-way meeting
European leaders back three-way meeting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was one of many leading figures to back a Trump-Putin-Zelensky meeting. File photo: Reuters European leaders on Saturday expressed support for a three-way summit between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Russia's Vladimir Putin and US leader Donald Trump, after a US-Russia summit failed to produce a ceasefire. A statement, signed by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, insisted on maintaining pressure on Russia until peace was achieved, including through sanctions. The European leaders also insisted Moscow "cannot have a veto" on Ukraine joining the European Union or NATO. Russia has made clear it will not tolerate Kyiv's membership of the defence alliance. But the leaders said they were "ready to work ... towards a trilateral summit with European support". Friday's Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska ended without the US president extracting concrete commitments from Putin to halt Russia's invasion of Ukraine launched in February 2022. "We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace," said the European joint statement. European leaders had been uneasy over Trump's diplomatic outreach to Putin, arguing that Zelensky should have been involved in the Alaska summit. In a separate statement, Starmer praised Trump's efforts as bringing "us closer than ever before to ending Russia's illegal war in Ukraine". Macron, writing on X, cautioned against what he said was Russia's "well-documented tendency to not keep its own commitments". He called for any future peace deal to have "unbreakable" security guarantees. He also argued for increased pressure on Russia until "a solid and durable peace" had been achieved. The European leaders welcomed what they called "security guarantees" made by Trump without giving details. (AFP)


AllAfrica
5 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump-Putin shake but no deal in Alaska
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there,' Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress.' Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit, where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there would be a land swap, Trump said: 'Those are points that we largely agreed on.' Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernize its defense capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Russia currently occupies almost one-fifth of Ukraine's land. Institute for the Study of War Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the West. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defense technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion, according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the West. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months. Olena Borodyna is senior geopolitical risks advisor, ODI Global This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


RTHK
9 hours ago
- RTHK
Zelensky heads for US after Trump briefs EU leaders
Zelensky heads for US after Trump briefs EU leaders Volodymyr Zelensky says, after being briefed by Donald Trump on the main points of the summit with Vladimir Putin, he will be in Washington on Monday. File photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump had a "lengthy call" with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on the flight back to Washington after the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday yielded no ceasefire, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Zelensky said on Saturday that he will meet Trump on Monday in Washington to discuss "ending the killing and the war". Kyiv, he said, is ready for constructive cooperation and supports trilateral meeting of leaders of United States, Ukraine and Russia. "Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace," he said on X social network. "We support President Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the USA and Russia. Ukraine emphasizes that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this." Zelensky – who is, according to an X post by Axios reporter Barak Ravid on Saturday, planning to meet Trump in Washington as soon as Monday – says Trump informed him on the "main points" of his talks with Putin. Trump also spoke with Nato leaders, Leavitt told reporters on Air Force One. The president disembarked from the plane at 2.45 am Saturday local time, or 2.45pm Hong Kong time, and did not respond to reporters' questions. He spoke with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Polish President Karol Nawrocki, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, European Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podesta said. She gave no details of the roughly hour-long conversation. European leaders held a second call afterwards to discuss the next steps in the Ukraine conflict, she said. There was no immediate comment from Zelenskyy or from other European leaders, who didn't have a place at the table at Friday's summit. Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said on Russian state television on Saturday that a potential trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelensky had not been raised in US-Russia discussions. 'The topic has not been touched upon yet,' Ushakov said, according to Russian state news agency Ria Novosti. (Agencies)