The Times: Ukrainian instructors train British forces to counter Russian drones
Ukrainian military instructors with combat experience have been secretly sent to the UK to train the British armed forces to counter the tactics of drone warfare used by Russia in its war against Ukraine.
Source: The Times
Details: The Times reported that as part of Operation Interflex, which involves training the Ukrainian military in the UK, Ukraine has secretly sent experienced drone instructors to pass on to their British counterparts their unique combat experience gained in the war against the Russians. Special emphasis is being placed on training the British armed forces in the latest tactics of Russia's use of drones on the battlefield to help them better prepare for the coming war.
Instructors from Ukraine are also helping to integrate drone training into the basic training of recruits, which allows military education to be adapted to the realities of modern warfare.
Colonel Alistair Carns, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Veterans and People, has stressed the importance of this exchange in a series of posts on X.
Quote from Carns: "The lessons from Ukraine are applicable now and have huge relevance for every theatre of war."
Carns stressed that technologies already exist that allow unmanned systems to move independently into the area of operations and detect, select, track and engage targets – both autonomously and with the participation of an operator.
Carns noted that troops must be prepared to use drones on all fronts.
Quote from Carns: "Drones now cause more casualties than artillery in Ukraine…so if we are not training our men and women on drones (doctrine, concepts, offence defence) it would be similar to not training our men and women on artillery prior to WWI = unthinkable.".
Palmer Luckey, chairman of the US defence company Anduril which specialises in drone production, said that in his opinion, Pandora's Box has already been opened when it comes to autonomous weapons.
Professor Michael Clarke, former director general of the Royal United Services Institute, said "We have been coming to this point for a long time."
For reference: As is known, Ukrainian forces' exercises in Europe are mainly conducted within two programmes – Interflex, led by the UK, and the EU-led EUMAM initiative.
Operation Interflex was initiated in the autumn of 2022 and involves more than 10 countries that provide training for Ukrainian servicemen in the UK.
As of November 2024, 50,000 Ukrainian servicemen had been trained as part of the operation.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: Despite all the uncertainty, the S&P 500 is flirting with record highs — strange times
Have we gone back in time? It certainly seems on the markets front. Just look at the S&P 500 and you will think that it's back in February — before U.S. President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, before the White House's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," and before the war between Israel and Iran. On February 19, the broad-based index closed at an all-time high of 6,144.15. Yesterday, it ended the trading session at 6,092.16. That's a difference of less than 1%. A light breeze (or rogue social media post from the sitting U.S. president) could push the S&P 500 beyond that level. In another sign investors seemed to be back to the days before trade and geopolitical uncertainty, Nvidia's again in the headlines after it surged 4.3% to close at a new high, a symbol of the optimism surrounding artificial intelligence that drove much of 2024's market gains. What's strange is that the market appears to have shrugged off heavy loads that have been weighing it down since March. Tariff worries still persist. Trump on Wednesday threatened Spain that he would "make them pay twice as much" in a trade deal because the European country is resisting an increase in spending on defense. The war between Israel and Iran, though currently paused thanks to a ceasefire, is not conclusively over. And that truce appears fragile — it was almost broken just hours after it kicked in. Who knows how the planned U.S. talks with Iran next week will go. (Hopefully not as badly as the shouting match in the Oval Office when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was there.) Nostalgia is alluring. But that allure can be dangerous. The S&P 500 is at the cusp of a new high. The index, however, ended Wednesday little changed. Tech stocks rose, with many hitting intraday highs. The Stoxx Europe 600 index fell 0.74%, despite European defense stocks climbing on news of a NATO deal. Trump threatened Spain with a tough trade deal. The U.S. president made those comments at NATO's annual summit after the alliance's allies — barring Spain — agreed to meet a defense spending target of 5% of gross domestic product by 2035. Tesla sales in Europe plunged in May. Elon Musk's electric vehicle company recorded a 27.9% year-on-year drop in sales within the European Union, Britain and the European Free Trade Association, as consumers in the region switched to Chinese EVs. Nvidia's the most valuable company again. Shares jumped 4.3% on Wednesday and closed at a record — the first time it's done so since January. The chipmaker's market capitalization is now $3.77 trillion, inching ahead of Microsoft and Apple. [PRO] Investors are holding their breath. The U.S. market seems surprisingly resilient to trade friction and geopolitical instability. In fact, the S&P 500 seems on track to close at a fresh record. But risks that could knock it off course remain. What's next as the British pound hits its highest in more than three years? The British pound is hovering at its highest level in more than three years — and analysts are divided on the potential for further upside. According to Janet Mui, head of market analysis at RBC Brewin Dolphin, much of the pound's upward trajectory has more to do with underlying dollar weakness than faith in sterling itself. Moreover, the outlook for the British pound is not overly compelling in the coming months, Mui said, but noted that geopolitical developments could catalyze further upward movements in the longer term.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The US and Iran have had bitter relations for decades. After the bombs, a new chapter begins.
A B-2 bomber arrived at Whiteman Air Force Base Mo., on Sunday, the same aircraft used to carry out the US's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend. David Smith/Associated Press This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar and the The U.S. attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries: Advertisement Why did Trump offer blessings all around? In the first blush of a ceasefire agreement, even before Israel and Iran appeared to be fully on board, Trump exulted in the achievement. 'God bless Israel,' he posted on social media. 'God bless Iran.' He wished blessings on the Middle East, America and the world, too. When it became clear that all hostilities had not immediately ceased after all, he took to swearing instead. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f— they're doing,' he said on camera. Advertisement In that moment, Trump was especially critical of Israel, the steadfast U.S. ally, for seeming less attached to the pause in fighting than the country that has been shouting 'Death to America' for generations and is accused of trying to assassinate him. Why did U.S.-Iran relations sour in the first place? In two words, Operation Ajax. That was the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA, with British support, that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and handed power to the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Western powers had feared the rise of Soviet influence and the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. The shah was a strategic U.S. ally who repaired official relations with Washington. But grievances simmered among Iranians over his autocratic rule and his bowing to America's interests. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, with a heavy escort, as he entered a car to leave the airport in Tehran in 1979 after arriving back in the country. FY/Associated Press All of that boiled over in 1979 when the shah fled the country and the theocratic revolutionaries took control, imposing their own hard line. How did the Iranian revolution deepen tensions? Profoundly. On Nov. 4, 1979, with anti-American sentiment at a fever pitch, Iranian students took 66 American diplomats and citizens hostage and held more than 50 of them in captivity for 444 days. It was a humiliating spectacle for the United States and President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a secret rescue mission months into the Iran hostage crisis. In Operation Eagle Claw, eight Navy helicopters and six Air Force transport planes were sent to rendezvous in the Iranian desert. A sand storm aborted the mission and eight service members died when a helicopter crashed into a C-120 refueling plane. FILE - Remains of a burned-out U.S. helicopter lis photographed in the eastern desert region of Iran, April 27,1980, one day after an abortive American commando raid to free the U.S. Embassy hostages. (AP Photo, File) Uncredited/Associated Press Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 and remain broken. Iran released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. That was just long enough to ensure that Carter, bogged in the crisis for over a year, would not see them freed in his term. Advertisement Was this week's U.S. attack the first against Iran? No. But the last big one was at sea. On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Navy sank two Iranian ships, damaged another and destroyed two surveillance platforms in its largest surface engagement since World War II. Operation Praying Mantis was in retaliation against the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf four days earlier. Ten sailors were injured and the explosion left a gaping hole in the hull. Did the U.S. take sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Not officially, but essentially. The U.S. provided economic aid, intelligence sharing and military-adjacent technology to Iraq, concerned that an Iranian victory would spread instability through the region and strain oil supplies. Iran and Iraq emerged from the 1980-1988 war with no clear victor and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, while U.S.-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after. What was the Iran-Contra affair? An example of U.S.-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't. Retired Air Force Major Gen. Richard Secord recieved some advice from his attorney Thomas Green while testifying on Capitol Hill before a congressional committee holding hearings on the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987, LANA HARRIS/Associated Press Not long after the U.S. designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 — a status that remains — it emerged that America was illicitly selling arms to Iran. One purpose was to win the release of hostages in Lebanon under the control of Iran-backed Hezbollah. The other was to raise secret money for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in defiance of a U.S. ban on supporting them. President Ronald Reagan fumbled his way through the scandal but emerged unscathed — legally if not reputationally. How many nations does the U.S. designate as state sponsors of terrorism? Only four: Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. The designation makes those countries the target of broad sanctions. Syria's designation is being reviewed in light of the fall of Bashar Assad's government. Advertisement Where did the term 'Axis of Evil' come from? From President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. He spoke five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the year before he launched the invasion of Iraq on the wrong premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He singled out Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq and said: 'States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.' In this January 2002 photo, former President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill. DOUG MILLS/Associated Press In response, Iran and some of its anti-American proxies and allies in the region took to calling their informal coalition an Axis of Resistance at times. What about those proxies and allies? Some, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are degraded due to Israel's fierce and sustained assault on them. In Syria, Assad fled to safety in Moscow after losing power to rebels once tied to Islamic State terrorism but now cautiously welcomed by Trump. In Yemen, Houthi rebels who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledge common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the U.S. and Britain. In Iraq, armed Shia factions controlled or supported by Iran still operate and attract periodic attacks from the United States. What about Iran's nuclear program? In 2015, President Barack Obama and other powers struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear development in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran agreed to get rid of an enriched uranium stockpile, dismantle most centrifuges and give international inspectors more access to see what it was doing. This image released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency shows President Hassan Rouhani has he listened to explanations on new nuclear achievements at a ceremony to mark "National Nuclear Day," in Tehran in April 2018. Uncredited/Associated Press Trump assailed the deal in his 2016 campaign and scrapped it two years later as president, imposing a 'maximum pressure' campaign of sanctions. He argued the deal only delayed the development of nuclear weapons and did nothing to restrain Iran's aggression in the region. Iran's nuclear program resumed over time and, according to inspectors, accelerated in recent months. Advertisement Trump's exit from the nuclear deal brought a warning from Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's president, in 2018: 'America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace. And war with Iran is the mother of all wars.' How did Trump respond to Iran's provocations? In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top commander, when he was in Iraq. Then Iran came after him, according to President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. Days after Trump won last year's election, the Justice Department filed charges against an Iranian man believed to still be in his country and two alleged associates in New York. Coffins of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and others who were killed in Iraq by a US drone strike were carried on a truck surrounded by mourners, in the city of Kerman, Iran, in January 2020. Uncredited/Associated Press 'The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran's assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump,' Garland said. Now, Trump is seeking peace at the table after ordering bombs dropped on Iran, and offering blessings. It is potentially the mother of all turnarounds.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Takeaways from the Trump-dominated NATO summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO's summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday has been described as 'transformational' and 'historic.' 'We're witnessing the birth of a new NATO,' Finland's President Alexander Stubb said. The 32 members of the world's biggest security organization endorsed a plan to massively ramp up defense spending, 'back to the defense expenditure levels of the Cold War,' as Stubb put it, driven by U.S. President Donald Trump and fears of the security threat posed by Russia. Here are some of the takeaways from the two-day meeting in The Hague. The nonbinding spending agreement means a steep budget hike for NATO's European members and Canada that will cost them tens of billions of dollars. It's a major revamp of the way NATO calculates defense spending. Until now, the allies had set a target of 2% of gross domestic product for their defense budgets. Now they'll be aiming for 3.5% by 2035. They'll now be able to include weapons and ammunition they supply to Ukraine in the equation, making the new target slightly easier to reach, but still difficult for Canada and a number of European countries with economic troubles. On top of that, the allies will dedicate 1.5% of their GDP to upgrading infrastructure — roads, bridges, ports and airfields — needed to deploy armies to the front. Money spent on protecting networks or preparing societies for future conflict can be included. Progress will be reviewed in 2029, after the next U.S. presidential election. Not everyone is on board. Spain officially refused the agreement. Slovakia had reservations. Belgium, France and Italy will struggle to meet the new target. The leaders reaffirmed their 'ironclad commitment' to NATO's collective defense clause, Article 5. In recent years, Trump had sowed seeds of doubt about whether the U.S. — NATO's most powerful member — would come to the aid of any ally under attack. Trump had appeared to condition that support on higher defense spending. With NATO's new spending pledge in the bag, he told reporters that 'I left there saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a ripoff. And we're here to help them protect their country.' He added that 'they want to protect their country, and they need the United States, and without the United States, it's not going to be the same.' After Russia invaded Ukraine by launching the biggest land conflict since World War II in 2022, NATO summits have largely focused on providing support to Kyiv. This summit was different. Previously, the emphasis was on Ukraine's membership prospects and on bringing it closer to NATO without actually joining. But the final summit statement this time made no such mention. Instead, the leaders underlined 'their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was at the venue. He dined with other leaders at the Dutch king's residence, held talks with several leaders and spent half an hour or so with Trump. NATO's plan was to focus the meeting only on Trump's pet cause, defense spending. Foreign ministers did meet on the sidelines with their Ukrainian counterpart in an official NATO-Ukraine Council. In a minor win for Ukraine, and for allies needing to persuade citizens that their governments must spend more on defense, Russia was identified as the standout of the 'profound security threats and challenges' facing NATO. If there were doubts that the United States runs NATO, the summit removed them. A very shortened summit and one-page statement were prepared to keep the U.S. president happy and focused. As Trump flew to the Netherlands, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sent a text message gushing about him being on the verge of a great achievement and saying, 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.' Trump posted the message on social media. Rutte said he wasn't embarrassed and that it was all true. After the meeting, Trump said he came to the summit seeing it as a political chore, but he was leaving convinced that the assembled leaders love the alliance, their own countries and, mostly importantly, the United States. He called NATO leaders a 'nice group of people' and said that 'almost every one of them said 'Thank God for the United States.''
