Russia's Victory Day Parade: Putin's power play making EU & West nervous
Published on May 07, 2025 12:58 AM IST
This Friday, Russia celebrates Victory Day—marking 80 years since the Soviet Union's triumph over Nazi Germany. But the meaning of this day has shifted. What once symbolized military valor now echoes geopolitical defiance. In 2025, the parade in Red Square is more than a tribute to history; it's a global message. Vladimir Putin has extended invitations to major world leaders—even as some decline or fall ill. Others tread carefully. Why is Europe suddenly so jittery about a Russian celebration? Is the Kremlin using this symbolic day to showcase new alliances? And what message does a high-security parade, lacking key Western guests, really send? This episode of Grey Zone with Ananya Dutta decodes the theatre, the diplomacy, and the message behind Moscow's most watched holiday. Because in today's world, history isn't just remembered, it's weaponized.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump says it might be good to let Ukraine and Russia ‘fight for a while'
During a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, President Donald Trump remarked that it might be better to allow Ukraine and Russia to 'fight for a while' before stepping in to separate them and pursue peace. Comparing the conflict to a quarrel between two young children who despise each other, Trump said he had conveyed this analogy to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their phone conversation the previous day. Chancellor Merz, seated alongside Trump, emphasised their shared condemnation of the ongoing war, describing it as 'terrible' and highlighting Trump's role as a key figure capable of ending the bloodshed. However, Merz was clear that Germany firmly supports Ukraine, noting that Kyiv targets only military objectives and not Russian civilians. 'We are trying to get them stronger,' he added. This marked the first in-person meeting between the two leaders, who exchanged pleasantries including a gift from Merz to Trump—a gold-framed birth certificate of Trump's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Germany. Their discussions were expected to cover a range of issues including the war in Ukraine, trade relations, and NATO defence spending. Since assuming office on 6 May, Merz and Trump have spoken several times by phone, with German officials describing the relationship as 'decent' and Merz seeking to avoid the antagonism that characterised Trump's dealings with his predecessor, Angela Merkel. Merz, a conservative with a strong business background and former rival to Merkel, has been active in diplomatic efforts surrounding Ukraine, travelling to Kyiv shortly after taking office and hosting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Berlin last week. A White House official indicated that Trump planned to raise topics such as Germany's defence spending, trade, Ukraine, and concerns over 'democratic backsliding,' suggesting that shared values like freedom of speech have deteriorated in Germany and should be restored. Merz responded by saying he was open to discussing German domestic politics but stressed that Germany generally refrains from commenting on American internal affairs. Under Merz's predecessor, Olaf Scholz, Germany became the second-largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Merz has pledged to maintain this support and recently committed to assisting Ukraine in developing long-range missile systems free from range restrictions. Despite his comments on letting the conflict play out, Trump did not rule out sanctions, warning that 'when I see the moment where it's not going to stop … we'll be very, very tough,' signalling that sanctions could be imposed on both Ukraine and Russia. Domestically, Merz's government is intensifying efforts to strengthen the German military, a campaign initiated by Scholz following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Trump, who criticised Germany during his first term for failing to meet NATO's 2% GDP defence spending target, is now demanding that allies increase their contributions to at least 5%. The upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month is seen as a crucial opportunity for Germany to commit to this higher spending level.
&w=3840&q=100)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
How Does Pakistan Keep Getting Loans? Unpacking The Dirty Secrets Behind The Global Funding That Shields A Failing State
New Delhi: Pakistan is broke. Its economy is shattered. Foreign reserves are vanishing. Yet it keeps getting blank cheques. Weeks after the International Monetry Fund (IMF) handed it over $1 billion in emergency funds plus an additional $1.3 billion in loans, the nuclear-armed state got another $800 million from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). India protested. The world ignored. And it is not the first time. Why does a nation with internal chaos and globally infamous for harboring terrorists keeps getting rewarded? Despite global acknowledgment of Pakistan's double-faced policies – begging for aid while exporting 'jihad' – the money keeps flowing. So what makes Pakistan the global community's 'spoiled child with a nuclear button'? The answer is not economic. It is political, strategic and dangerously hypocritical. Let's get this straight: Pakistan is not getting loans because it deserves them. It is getting them because the world is afraid of what will happen if it collapses. Its economy is in tatters. Pakistan's forex reserves dipped in 2023 below $3 billion – barely enough for three weeks of imports. The 2022 floods cost the country more than $30 billion in damages. 1. Too Nuclear to Fail: Pakistan's debt has ballooned to over $130 billion. If it defaults, global banks lose billions. It is financial blackmail that is working. 2. Location: Sitting between China, Afghanistan and Iran, the country holds strategic real estate. The West, especially the United States, does not want it slipping entirely into China's orbit. 3. A Loan with Strings: These are not freebies. IMF and ADB loans come with demands – raise taxes, cut subsidies and sell public assets. Western companies often swoop in to buy the leftovers. Global lending institutions like the IMF and the ADB may present themselves as neutral bodies, but their actions suggest otherwise. They claim to operate on technical grounds, but do not blink twice when handing over billions to a country that fuels terrorism in Kashmir and harbors global fugitives. And where is India in this equation? Despite protests after attacks like Pahalgam, New Delhi's influence is minimal. India's voting share in the IMF is small compared to the United States and Europe. Meanwhile, Pakistan's removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in 2022 made getting loans even easier. The United States sees Pakistan as a pawn in its Afghanistan endgame. China, through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is turning it into a client state. Loans are just the leash – a way to pull Pakistan closer when needed and push it when not. Who Really Benefits? Not the people of Pakistan. Experts like Sushant Sareen argue these loans fatten the Pakistani military, not fuel reforms. Former diplomat Kanwal Sibal warns that the IMF funding indirectly supports terror. Even former Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani admits that the IMF is an ICU for Pakistan, not a cure. These loans do not save Pakistan. They sustain it just enough to remain a useful mess. A mess that is allowed to fester because it serves the interests of those who pretend to fix it. Pakistan is not only playing the victim, it is gaming the system and the system is letting it.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Russia's Pearl Harbor? Ukraine's Operation Spider Web an attack of astonishing ingenuity
On June 1, Ukraine launched one of its largest ever drone-based operations on Russia, striking five airbases deep inside Russian territory. Following this, the Russian Defence Ministry said in a statement, "Today, the Kyiv regime staged a terror attack with the use of FPV drones on airfields in the Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur Regions. All terror attacks were repelled. No casualties were reported either among servicemen or civilians. Some of those involved in the terror attacks were detained.' Ukraine, however, stated that at least 40 aircraft had been damaged, specifying that these included nuclear capable Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers earlier used to 'bomb Ukrainian cities'. Russia's Defence Ministry only confirmed that 'several aircraft caught fire.' Two of the airbases struck, Olenya and Belaya, are around 1,900 kilometres and 4,300 kilometres from Ukraine. The first is located in the Russian Arctic and the other in Eastern Siberia. The operation is also one more example of just how rapidly technology and innovative thinking are changing the battlefield. Operation The Ukrainian media claimed that the large-scale special operation was conducted by the SBU, Ukraine's Special Security Service. The planning and preparation started 18 months ago. Russia has highly capable air defence systems and so, it was impossible to strike it from Ukraine. Hence, a plan was made to hit Russia from within Russia, thereby bypassing its air defence wall. The operation has been launched under a special operation, code-named "Pavutyna" or "Spider Web", aimed at degrading Russia's long-range strike capabilities. Ukraine reportedly planned the attack for a year. The drones were packed onto pallets inside wooden containers with remote-controlled lids and then loaded onto cargo trucks, with the crates being rigged to self-destruct after the drones were released. These cargo trucks then smuggled the drones into Russia, blending with normal Russian highway traffic. The trucks were camouflaged with wooden structures, likely posing their payload as cargo shipments, such as lumber or construction materials. Some of these may also have had false license plates or forged documents to pass Russian checkpoints unnoticed. As an added advantage, Russia's vast road network and relatively porous internal transport system make it hard to monitor every vehicle. The trucks were then apparently driven to locations near airbases by drivers who were seemingly unaware of their cargo. Finally, the drones were launched and set upon their targets. Roofs of the wooden cabins carried by the trucks were opened by remote control, with the drones being simultaneously launched to attack Russian air bases. Once launched, these aerial vehicles relied on GPS/inertial guidance systems to fly autonomously toward distant Russian airbases. The drones were adapted to first-person-view (FPV) multirotor platforms, which allows the operator to get a first-person perspective from the aerial vehicle's onboard camera. Apparently, Ukraine used NATO-supplied satellite data and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) to identify the exact positions of Russian bombers, gaps in radar coverage, and safe launch zones deep inside Russia. Videos circulating online show the drones emerging from the roof of one of the vehicles involved. A lorry driver interviewed by Russian state outlet Ria Novosti claimed that he and other drivers tried to knock down drones flying out of a truck with rocks. "They were in the back of the truck and we threw stones to keep them from flying up, to keep them pinned down," he said. Using 117 drones, Ukraine was able to reach regions thousands of kilometres from the front, compared to its previous attacks,which generally focused on areas close to its borders. Once the drones were launched from within their territory, Russia's defences had very little time to react, as the aerial vehicles bypassed border surveillance. The SBU stated that the strikes had managed to hit Russian aircraft worth $7billion at four airbases. The cost curve, using relatively cheap systems to destroy billions of dollars' worth of Russian combat power, has also been turned on its head. Evaluation The idea behind Operation 'Spider Web' was to transport small, first-person-view drones close enough to Russian airfields to render traditional air defence systems useless. President Zelensky said the attack 'had an absolutely brilliant outcome' and dubbed it as 'Russia's Pearl Harbor', one that demonstrated Ukraine's capability to hit high-value targets anywhere on enemy turf, dealing a significant and humiliating blow to the Kremlin's stature and Moscow's war machine. 'Our people operated across several Russian regions in three different time zones. And the people who assisted us were withdrawn from Russian territory before the operation, they are now safe,' the Ukrainian President stated. Dr Steve Wright, a UK-based drone expert, told the BBC that the drones used were simple quadcopters carrying relatively heavy payloads. However, in his view, what made this attack "quite extraordinary" was the ability to smuggle them into Russia, and then launch and command them remotely. This, he concluded, had been potentially achieved through a link relayed through a satellite or the internet. Although the full extent of the damage from these Ukrainian strikes is unknown, the attacks showed that Kyiv was adapting and evolving in the face of a larger military with deeper resources. As per Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute, 'If even half the total claim of 41 aircraft damaged/destroyed is confirmed, it will have a significant impact on the capacity of the Russian Long-Range Aviation force to keep up its regular large-scale cruise missile salvos against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.' Conclusion This will undoubtedly go down as one of the most sophisticated covert operations of the Russia-Ukraine War so far. Ukraine, though outgunned by Russia, has responded by developing a cheap and sizeable inventory of attack drones. The innovative use of these drones has now been clearly exhibited, showcasing the strategic value of this asset. Nations treat their airspace as sovereign, a controlled environment that is mapped, regulated, and watched over. Air defence systems are built on the assumption that threats come from beyond national borders. Operation 'Spider Web' exposed what happens when countries are attacked from within. The drones flew low, through unmonitored gaps, exploiting assumptions about what kind of threat was faced and from where. In low-level airspace, responsibility fragments and detection tools evidently lose their edge. 'Spider Web' worked, not because of what each drone could do individually, but how the operation was designed. The cost of each drone was low but the overall effect was high. This isn't just asymmetric warfare, it's a different kind of offensive capability for which nations need to adapt. Beyond the battlefield, the impact of this operation is perhaps even more significant. What 'Spider Web' confirms is that the gaps in airspace can be used by an adversary with enough planning and the right technology. They can be exploited not just by states and not just in war. The technology is not rare and the tactics are not complicated. What Ukraine did was to combine them in a way that existing systems could not see the attack coming. Drones in low-level airspace are now a universal vulnerability and a defining challenge. It is difficult to keep out drones with unpredictable flight paths. The operation showed how little the margin for error is when cheap systems can be used precisely. As demonstrated, the cost of failure can be strategic. Though the consequences of the attacks on Russian military capabilities are difficult to estimate at this stage, their symbolic significance is important for Ukraine, as it has been facing setbacks on the battlefront. Ukraine, which has banked on expanding the use of domestically produced drones during the ongoing conflict, has now surprised Russia and the world with this new approach. However, the attacks are unlikely to alter the political calculus of President Putin or change Russia's belief that it holds an advantage over Ukraine, and that it sees a weakening resolve in some of Ukraine's allies. There is no doubt that this attack will go down as one of the finest out-of-the-box ideas of this conflict rendering the entire air defence system sterile and raising huge questions regarding the management of airspace with repercussions far beyond the conflict.
