Ukraine's massive drone attack deep inside Russia highlights how they have changed battlefield tactics
Dubbed operation 'Spiderweb,' Ukraine's audacious drone attack Sunday on four Russian air bases — one of them deep inside Siberia — has brought the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in modern warfare sharply into focus.
While accounts differ on the extent of the damage caused by the drones, which were reportedly smuggled to the perimeter of the bases in the backs of trucks, Ukraine's security service, the SBU, put the estimated cost to the Kremlin at $7 billion. Russia has said little about the attacks, although the country's defense ministry acknowledged in a statement that some planes caught fire.
The strikes have highlighted the increasing importance of drones for both Russia and Ukraine in the war, which entered its fourth year in February. And experts told NBC News that both sides are increasingly turning to cheap, commercially available first-person view or quadcopter drones that can often be purchased from online retailers and easily converted into deadly weapons — simple technology that is having a huge impact on the battlefield in Ukraine and further afield.
Their use is 'going to become very, very common,' Robert Lee, a senior fellow at the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute think tank, told NBC News in an interview.
Drones were used when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime was overthrown in December, he said. 'They're here and because they're ubiquitous, because they are quite useful and they're demonstrating that every day in Ukraine,' he said.
'There's no doubt that they're going to be used by all sorts of groups, whether it's criminal groups or terrorist groups, and they pose a quite significant threat,' he said, adding, 'I think we're a little bit behind the power curve on this and actually getting ready to counter them.'
Targeting civilians
As she was riding her bicycle to a cosmetology appointment in Antonivka, a rural community in Ukraine's southern Kherson region, Anastasia Pavlenko, 23, said she noticed a drone 'hunting' her.
'It took off, followed me and I zigzagged on the bike,' the mother of two said of the September attack, adding that a second drone suddenly appeared with 'a shell attached to it.'
Despite her best attempts to escape, she said the second drone dropped the shell 'right on my head' and it bounced down onto her thigh and exploded on the asphalt next to her.
'Blood was coming from my neck, and there were fragments under my ribs,' Pavlenko said, adding she somehow managed to keep cycling and take cover under a bridge where she screamed for help until she started to lose consciousness.
'I just had a small purse, shorts, a T-shirt and long loose hair, so it was clear that I was a girl,' she said, adding that she was not wearing military colors or carrying any weapons when she was hit.
Doctors were unable to remove shrapnel fragments from her neck, ribs, or leg, she said, adding she had been unable to return to work at her coffee shop because she 'can't handle physical stress.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
4 men jailed over £6.5m NHS Scotland corruption and bribery
Alan Hush, 68, Adam Sharoudi, 41, Gavin Brown, 48, and Gavin Cox, 60, were convicted following a trial at the High Court in Glasgow, which followed an investigation at health boards across Scotland. The offences, which took place between 2010 and 2017, included bribery, corruption, and other offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Hush and Sharoudi were additionally convicted of charges of fraud. Sharoudi and Brown, directors of Ayrshire-based telecommunications firm Oricom Ltd, were jailed for eight years and seven years respectively when they were sentenced at the court on Thursday, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said. READ MORE: Douglas Ross accused of 'bullying witnesses' in key Holyrood committee Hush, who was the telecommunications manager at NHS Lothian, was sentenced to eight years in jail, while Cox, who was head of IT and infrastructure at NHS Lanarkshire, was jailed for six years. In a sentencing statement later published online, Lord Arthurson said: 'The public are entitled to expect that their fellow citizens will not seek to subvert public officials in the diligent exercise of their duties, and public officials in their turn should know that succumbing to bribery will result in the handing down by the court of immediate and significant custodial terms. 'The reach and character of the corruption and in particular the corrupt relationships engaged in by all of you, when considered as a whole, was on a grand scale.' The trial at the High Court in Glasgow lasted 65 days. Sineidin Corrins, deputy procurator fiscal for specialist casework at COPFS, said: 'This is an outstanding result for justice in Scotland. 'As prosecutors, we have shown an unwavering commitment to pursuing and investigating this matter. This was a betrayal of public trust. (Image: PA) 'These four men colluded to create a sophisticated criminal scheme. The public will rightly be shocked by the scale of their criminality. 'The scale of this offending against our public health service is particularly egregious. 'The systematic abuse of position by public officials, who accepted inappropriate benefits including cash, holidays and entertainment in exchange for contract advantages, strikes at the heart of public trust. 'It serves as a reminder that procurement processes exist to ensure fair competition and value for public money. When these processes are corrupted, all of society bears the cost. 'The prosecutorial journey has been complex and demanding. It required forensic examination of thousands of documents, hundreds of witness statements, and detailed financial analyses to establish the full extent of this criminal activity. 'The digital evidence, particularly text messages and emails exchanged between the accused, proved pivotal in exposing the true nature of these arrangements. 'This was a meticulous investigation and one which reflects the enduring partnership working between specialist Crown Office prosecutors, NHS Counter Fraud Services and Police Scotland, who worked tirelessly over many years. 'Their unflinching dedication to serving the interests of justice, regardless of complexity or duration, deserves recognition.' The four men will now be subject to confiscation action under proceeds of crime legislation to recover monies illegally obtained. Brown and Sharoudi were also banned from being company directors for 10 years.
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
How EU takes bigger defence role is main Europe-US issue, Costa says
BRUSSELS, June 5 (Reuters) - The main issue in relations between the European Union and the United States is the EU taking on more responsibility for its own defence, while the trade dispute is only a distraction, the chairman of EU leaders Antonio Costa said on Thursday. Speaking to reporters ahead of talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at the Group of Seven leaders meeting in Canada next week and a NATO summit in two weeks, Costa said the 27-nation European Union should focus on the main issue. "The main issue is the United States wanting to rebalance the burden sharing on European defence. This is the real main issue," Costa said. "The United States has legitimately decided that they have new strategic priorities and we need to agree with the United States how during the coming years we can rebalance the burden-sharing on European defence in the most fair and effective way with very important concerns: never, never, never undermine the deterrence effect of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty," Costa said. European leaders have been scrambling to boost their defences against a potential Russian attack after the Trump administration made clear since it took office that the U.S. was no longer willing to be the main guarantor of Europe's security. At the same time, the EU and the U.S. are in negotiations on rebalancing their trade relationship, with Washington pushing to reduce its trade deficit with Europe in trade in goods. Washington has already imposed 50% tariffs on EU steel and aluminium and 25% tariffs on cars and car parts, in addition to a 10% tariff on most other goods. The EU is preparing its own retaliation package. "We need to ...focus on the main issue: how to rebalance the burden sharing on European defence. If we start creating other kinds of problems between us, we are only creating irritants, losing the focus on the main issue," Costa said. NATO leaders -- which includes 23 European Union countries -- are to discuss on June 24-26 whether to boost defence spending to 5% of GDP from the current 2% following a call for such higher spending from Trump. Costa said that a few years ago boosting European defence capabilities was seen as undermining NATO, but the same action now was seen as the best way to preserve the transatlantic relationship. He also said the amounts spent on defence were secondary to how they were spent and the best option was for EU countries to coordinate their efforts and spending to create a collective defence capability. "Whether we need to increase spending to 3.5%, 5%, etc is not the question, because we are not looking at a magic number. We need to define ...what are the capabilities we need to build, what are the gaps we need to fill, and how we could invest in these capabilities in the coming years," Costa said. "Nobody is talking about a European army. What we need is to have one, very robust and effective, deterrence and collective defence system. And that's why what we need to do, is invest together ... based on the plans approved by NATO," he said.
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson (SWBI.O), opens new tab and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government. The companies had argued for the dismissal of Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border. Mexico's lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in Mexico. The suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful products. To avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. Mexico in the lawsuit sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico." Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the lawsuit. Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million annually. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4.
