Latest news with #MaxBoot
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
‘A psychological victory': 3 writers discuss Ukraine's drone strikes
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. On Sunday, Ukraine launched surprise drone strikes that targeted strategic bombers parked deep inside Russian territory. Ukrainian officials claimed the strikes damaged or destroyed dozens of planes. This development feels like a game changer, but how exactly? I sat down with two of my colleagues, Max Boot and Jim Geraghty, to discuss if Ukraine's sneak attack on Russia could change the outlook of the war. — Damir Marusic, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Do you think the strikes change things, practically, on the battlefield? What lessons, if any, do you think Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken away from them? Max Boot It probably won't be a big change on the battlefield but it will certainly hamper Russia's ability to fire missiles at Ukrainian cities. This is not a game changer but it's a significant operational and psychological victory for Ukraine. I doubt the message will get through but it should help convince Putin he is not going to win this war. Jim Geraghty I'm sure any alleviation of Russia's ability to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine will be welcomed, but I agree with Max, this is primarily a psychological and symbolic blow to Putin and the Russians. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jim On my second trip to Ukraine, I spoke with Akhmed Zakayev, the prime minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, the Chechen government in exile; Chechens are fighting against the Russians in Ukraine. He told me, 'Russians like to fight wars on other people's territory. They hate to fight wars on Russian territory.' Putin won't feel any pressure to cut a deal until the elites in Moscow and St. Petersburg feel the consequences of the war. Strikes deep in Siberia send a strong signal that no spot in Russia is safe from Ukrainian retaliatory strikes. Damir Ukrainians have long argued that hitting Russia hard does not lead to further escalation — that the support of the West is enough of a deterrent. Do you expect Russia to escalate after this, or will it just be more of the same grind? Max Short of nuclear weapons (which I don't expect) there is not much Putin can do that he hasn't already done. Russian hard-liners keep demanding carpet bombing of Ukrainian cities. The reason Putin isn't doing that is not because he's a closet humanitarian: It's because Ukrainian air defenses are too strong. Of course, the Kremlin will claim some big air attack on Kyiv as 'revenge' but they've been mounting air attacks since the start of the war. It's not like Putin would be going easy if the Ukrainians weren't hitting back. Jim Agreed. One of the many problems of fighting a war with maximum brutality is there's not much room to escalate in response to the enemy's actions. Damir The Ukrainians had been planning this strike for more than 18 months, and the United States knew nothing about it. Max, you mentioned there was a message for Putin there. Was there a message for the United States, and specifically the Trump administration, here as well? Jim That this was the finest operational secrecy since the Dallas Mavericks traded Luka Doncic to the Lakers. Max 😂 Max I think the message is that the Ukrainians don't trust the United States. They have scar tissue from all of the overly restrictive limitations imposed by the Biden administration on the use of U.S. weapons, so they are using drones not only because they are so effective but also because they are made in Ukraine. Of course, the level of mistrust between Kyiv and Washington has gone up exponentially since President Donald Trump came to office. The Ukrainians know they are dealing with an American president who has a soft spot in his heart for the war criminals in the Kremlin. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jim Hey, if Trump wants to get back into the inner circle of Ukraine's operations, I'm sure Kyiv would loop him in on the memos in exchange for some more Patriot missiles. Damir Max, you wrote a terrific piece over the weekend about what these strikes mean for the future of warfare — that the era of the drone is upon us. Zooming out, what do you guys think this means for the defense of Taiwan, for example? Max This attack confirms the lesson we've been learning for more than three years in Ukraine: Drones are the future of warfare. In the war's early days, more than 70 percent of the casualties were being inflicted by artillery. Now 70 percent are being inflicted by drones. This is a lesson that every nation in the world, including Taiwan, needs to take onboard. Taiwan needs to crank up drone production to make it too difficult for China to invade. The U.S. also needs to crank up production. As I noted in a recent column, the U.S. can only manufacture about 100,000 drones a year. Ukraine made 2.2 million last year and is aiming to make 4.5 million this year. We've fallen behind in the drone revolution. Jim Like Max, my first reaction was 'Wow, this is an amazing accomplishment for the Ukrainians. The Russians must feel like a Ukrainian drone could hit them anytime, anywhere.' My second reaction was, 'Whoa, wait a minute, how secure are our air bases from an attack like this?' My guess is: not particularly protected. Although, when I visited Kyiv earlier this year, a lot of European allies were in town, looking for drone warfare lessons and suppliers from the Ukrainians … Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Jim, regarding our own security, that's exactly what popped into my mind. Remember those stories about Chinese entities buying up land near our military installations? At the time, I assumed it was about espionage, but since this weekend, I wonder if there might be other reasons. Max Counterdrone warfare has to become an urgent priority for every military in the world. The Ukrainian attack revealed the vulnerability of airfields (and other installations) all over the world to similar sneak attacks. It used to be that you needed to build long-range missiles to have long-range strike capacity. No longer. Now you can achieve the same result with ultracheap drones that can be reconfigured to carry explosives in a ramshackle workshop; terrorist groups could easily manufacture them. If we aren't worried, we aren't paying attention. Damir And it's not just military airfields, right? Civilian defense has to be in the mix — power stations, airports, data centers … Jim Okay, I wondered if this was a silly thing to bring up, but in the 2013 … er, cinematic classic featuring Gerard Butler, 'Olympus Has Fallen,' the North Koreans launch a devastating attack on the White House using machine guns hidden in garbage trucks. It seemed cheesy and implausible at the time, but the scenes at those Russian airfields must have felt like that — ordinary trucks opening up and unleashing an arsenal upon unsuspecting targets nearby. Every military and spy agency around the world is looking at the Ukrainian operation and asking, 'If they can pull that off, why can't we?' Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Final question: Do you think that efforts such as Trump's Golden Dome missile defense project are now less of a priority? Should there be a pivot? Jim The threat from ballistic missiles isn't mythical, but I think there will be a lot of fair questions about why we would spend so much on large missile defense and not take action to defend against smaller, lighter, cheaper drones. Max I've long thought that Golden Dome was a monumental boondoggle that will not achieve its objective of space-based missile defenses. We should be spending that money on drones and drone defenses. That is the real future of warfare.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
What ‘Russia's Pearl Harbor' Says About Trump's Golden Dome
Almost like it was a premonition, military analyst Max Boot warned in a Saturday Washington Post op-ed that the future of warfare wouldn't be fought with massive space-based missile shields, but with swarms of cheap, expendable drones. Less than 24 hours later, Ukraine delivered the proof. In the early hours of Sunday morning, Ukraine's intelligence service launched Operation Spiderweb-a coordinated drone strike on five Russian air bases, including two located deep in Siberia, thousands of miles from the Ukrainian border. The drones, smuggled inside wooden cabins on tractor-trailers and deployed remotely, reportedly disabled or destroyed up to a third of Russia's long-range bomber fleet. Some military commentators compared it to another infamous Sunday surprise-Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Russian officials rejected the analogy, insisting the damage was far less severe than Ukraine claimed. Also unlike the Japanese surprise attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Ukraine was already in a defensive war with Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky oversaw the operation perdsonally and said it cost only tens of thousands of dollars, but may have caused at least $7 billion in damage. Reports said and videos confirmed the drones flew toward their targets, hitting Russia's nuclear-capable bombers and at least one A-50 spy plane. It also served as a prime example-a stark demonstration of how asymmetrical warfare can upend traditional power dynamics. Ukraine's display of drone warfare came just days after President Donald Trump championed his "Golden Dome"-a $175 billion proposed space-based missile defense system his administration says will shield the U.S. from hypersonic and intercontinental threats by 2029. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the project could cost as much as $830 billion over 20 years to complete, assuming it is even physically possible. Standing alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House, Trump declared, "An architecture has officially been selected... It will be the most advanced missile defense system ever devised." The plan envisions a web of satellites equipped with sensors and interceptors, including space-based lasers. Modeled partly on Ronald Reagan's failed Strategic Defense Initiative - known then as "Star Wars" - the Golden Dome echoes Cold War-era visions of layered missile defense from orbit. But critics argue it's no more realistic today than it was four decades ago. Chatham House, a London-based independent policy institute, warned that the Golden Dome "risks exacerbating global instability and accelerating strategic competition." Julia Cournoyer, a research associate with Chatham's International Security Programme, wrote that "a system that aspires to make the U.S. invulnerable to missile attack would almost certainly be seen by its adversaries as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence." With drone swarms now capable of crippling billion-dollar military infrastructure for a fraction of the cost, military analysts who spoke to Newsweek say the United States must reevaluate whether its missile defense priorities are geared for the future-or stuck defending a past that no longer exists. Defense experts also say the Golden Dome fails the most basic test: relevance. "Forget Trump's hugely expensive, impractical Golden Dome shield. Drones are the future of warfare," Boot wrote in a separate Washington Post opinion piece. He pointed to Ukraine's goal of producing 4.5 million drones this year at an average cost of $580 each-a scale that dwarfs the Pentagon's current output. For the same $25 billion earmarked for the Golden Dome's first phase, the U.S. could theoretically build more than 43 million drones. "If the Ukrainians could sneak drones so close to major air bases in a police state such as Russia, what is to prevent the Chinese from doing the same with U.S. air bases?" Boot asked. Zachary Kallenborn, a UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] warfare specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Newsweek the Ukrainian attack is "definitely plausible" in other theaters. "They used small drones, probably capable of only carrying a few pounds of explosive," he said. "A similar Chinese drone attack is worth worrying about." National security analysts Benjamin Giltner and Justin Logan of the Cato Institute warned that the program is "costly and unlikely to pull off." Writing in The Spectator, the pair argued and that "modeling U.S. missile defense on Israel's Iron Dome is a mistake." They argue the plan's scale is unworkable and technologically mismatched to the advanced threats it's meant to counter-such as ICBMs flying at five times the speed of sound, armed with multiple warheads and decoys. Trump has also explicitly said the Golden Dome will be modeled on Israel's Iron Dome, though Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey and its missile shield mostly protects against slow moving, unguided rockets and other projectiles. Some in the president's orbit see the Golden Dome as a necessary evolution in national defense. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik called the program a vital step forward. "President Trump's announcement of the Golden Dome represents decisive action and fearless vision to ensure America's defense future," she said in a May 20 press release. "The Golden Dome, incorporating new technologies across land, sea, and space, is critical for countering evolving threats from rogue nations and adversaries." Yet even supporters face questions about practicality and risk. Cournoyer warned that adversaries could respond by escalating their own arsenals, pushing the U.S. and its rivals into a destabilizing arms race. "This arms race could also incentivize the deployment of space-based weapons at a time when space remains dangerously under-regulated," she wrote. "Beijing and Moscow could respond with a range of countermeasures, including expanding their offensive arsenals or developing new delivery systems." The announcement has already made headlines overseas, with rivals like China and Russia reacting sharply. "The United States, in pursuing a 'U.S.-first' policy, is obsessed with seeking absolute security for itself," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning during a May press briefing. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, urged Washington to abandon the deployment of weapons in space and said the Golden Dome would undermine strategic stability. As global threats evolve in line with rapid advancements in technology, the debate continues over whether high-cost missile shields like the Golden Dome can keep pace with the low-cost, high-impact tactics reshaping modern warfare. On Sunday, Ukraine showed the world what the future of warfare might very well look like. And it's not a future that can be easily countered with traditional defense practices. Related Articles Map Shows China's Arms Sales Footprint Around the WorldOperation Spiderweb: How Ukraine's Daring Top Secret Drone Assault UnfoldedRussian Aviation's Darkest Hour Since WWII Gets 40-Second TV News SlotSatellite Images Show Aftermath of 'Pearl Harbor' Strike on Russia 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Washington Post
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Can nuclear powers India and Pakistan ease tensions?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. On Wednesday morning, India launched strikes against Pakistan in retaliation for an earlier terrorist attack in India-administered Kashmir — an attack Pakistan denies it had anything to do with. The two nuclear powers have long fought over control of Kashmir, but these are the first skirmishes between them in six years. Can India and Pakistan quash tensions before more violence erupts? I'm joined by my Post colleagues Rana Ayyub and Max Boot to discuss. 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic So, we all knew India would eventually hit Pakistan after the terrorist attacks in Pahalgam. Now, they have. How worried are the two of you that this will spiral further? Max Boot Only moderately worried. Leaders in both Islamabad and New Delhi are nationalistic, but they are not suicidal. Neither side wants to spark a nuclear war. Since 1945, nuclear weapons have been a force for strategic stability; that's a big reason why World War III never broke out between the United States and the U.S.S.R., and why India and Pakistan have not fought a major war since both countries acquired nuclear weapons. This crisis will certainly test the logic of deterrence, but I don't expect it to break down. 🤞 Rana Ayyub I see a predictable pattern here: provocation, retaliation, international concern, then de-escalation without any resolution. And both countries will play to their domestic constituencies. Unfortunately, we continue to be hostage to our history and the legacy of partition. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Regarding domestic constituencies, that's what seems like the big unknown. The Pahalgam attacks fueled an astounding level of anti-Muslim sentiment on Indian social media. Do you think India's response has satisfied these passions? Rana Any terror attack in India fuels anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks, especially against Kashmiri students. Max I am hopeful that India's strikes have satisfied Indian public opinion, and that the Pakistani response (there are claims of Indian jets being shot down, and France confirmed to CNN that at least one Rafale jet had been lost) will satisfy Pakistani opinion, so we can all move on. Rana But we should not forget that the collateral damage in the fight between India and Pakistan has been the ordinary Kashmiri, whose voices often go unheard in this fog of war. Damir The strikes that hit Punjab in Pakistan proper (not Pakistan-controlled Kashmir) were the first since the 1971 war. And though they were reportedly targeting the headquarters of Islamist terror groups, they demolished mosques. Alongside reports of several dead children, opinion in Pakistan is now likely to be also inflamed. Will authorities be able to contain it there? Rana I have seen several conflicting statements from the Pakistani establishment. The prime minister has claimed that civilians were being targeted, which is partly true. But the chief of the Pakistani militant group Jaish has said that they have lost 12 members. So, India is citing that statement to say that it was precise, not civilian, targeting. Max Public opinion is certainly important, but Pakistani policy is effectively determined by the army, not by elected politicians. The army wants to maintain its public standing as a defender of Pakistan, which justifies its de facto control of the state. Presumably, Gen. Asim Munir, the Pakistani army chief of staff, is less likely to cater to public opinion than Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. But who knows? Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Rana Munir made several hawkish statements regarding Kashmir just before the Pahalgam attack, invoking the 'two-nation' theory. He was extremely unpopular in Pakistan and now will use this opportunity to redeem himself. Damir Yes, I understand Munir's standing has only gone up since this crisis kicked off. Max Which is what you would expect: In most nations, the army's standing goes up in wartime, at least initially. But I doubt Munir wants to be the one responsible for kicking off a nuclear conflict. Damir Let me ask a different question: How would you rate the Trump administration's diplomatic efforts? It appears Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been working the phones. Given how far the United States has drifted away from Pakistan and toward India, just how much influence does the U.S. even have at this point? Max I do worry that the administration is trying to do too many things at once. President Donald Trump is dealing with a million other subjects (including peacemaking with Russia and Ukraine, nuclear negotiations with Iran, and trade talks with the entire world). Even Rubio now has 4 different jobs (including serving as archivist of the United States!). This is the kind of crisis that rewards focused diplomacy on the part of the U.S., but I question how much focus the administration can bring to this crisis. Rana Speaking of Trump, can someone please fact-check him about India-Pakistan history? He has been calling it a 1,500-year-old fight. Max The good news is that the U.S. is far from the only country that has a stake in limiting this conflict. China and Saudi Arabia, among others, also have a useful role to play. And China has more leverage with Pakistan these days than Washington does. Rana Yes, China has been explicit in its support of Pakistan. And Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been meeting leaders of the gulf countries and has managed to garner support. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Max This could be an opportunity for Beijing and Washington to work together to limit the risk of escalation in the India-Pakistan conflict. If so, that would represent a rare area of common ground in the midst of the trade war started by Trump. Rana One aspect that troubled me: No questions asked of the Modi government post-Pahalgam attack over security lapses and intelligence failure in the most militarized zone in the world. I have reported long enough to see the Manmohan Singh government hauled over the coals for similar attacks. Damir Very good point. Final question: Is there a path forward to a less dangerous dynamic between these nuclear powers? Max It would be wonderful if this crisis, once the present passions cool a bit, would lead both India and Pakistan to think about how to de-escalate future conflicts and enhance communication between their two militaries. More ambitious would be if this crisis led to a diplomatic process to resolve the competing claims over Kashmir. (Can Trump add this to Steve Witkoff's ever-expanding portfolio?!?) Rana Unfortunately, like I said in the beginning, this pattern of escalation and de-escalation is likely to continue. We can try our best to be global powers, but our unresolved history will keep getting in the way.
Washington Post
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump is playing all his cards all at once
President Trump wants to take over Greenland and 'clean out' Gaza and is threatening both friends and foes of the United States. Is Trump's shock-and-awe approach a smart tactic, or is he weakening America by alienating our allies? Columnists Dana Milbank, Catherine Rampell and Max Boot discuss the pitfalls of Trump bringing his real estate developer instincts back to the world stage. Read more from our columnists: Max Boot: Why McKinley makes an alarming Trump presidential role model Eduardo Porter: Trump is popular abroad. But will his foreign policy doom humanity? David Ignatius: Trump's Gaza remarks put willing Arab partners on guard
