Indian Strategic Studies: 06/09/25

9 June 2025

Military’s Popularity Surge Reshapes Pakistan’s Political Landscape After India Clashes

Umair Jamal

The Pakistani military’s popularity has surged in recent weeks, particularly after the recent clashes with India. The four-day clashes have been widely perceived in Pakistan as a victory that people believe only became possible due to the military’s firm response to the Indian attacks last month.

Pakistan’s civil-military equation has entered a new phase with the military’s image restored and public sentiment firmly behind it. A recent survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan found that 93 percent of respondents felt their view of the military had improved following the clashes with India.

Pakistan’s Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir was promoted to the rank of field marshal following the country’s conflict with India. The government said that the decision was made in “recognition of the strategic brilliance and courageous leadership that ensured national security and decisively defeated the enemy.”

Billboards with pictures of Munir’s face now tower over cities and towns across Pakistan. His images have been put up on lamp posts and bridges, with some banners reading: “You are our savior!”

This sudden shift in the fortunes of the Pakistani military concerning its approval ratings follows a couple of challenging years.

The last two years saw the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the party of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, target the military leadership for allegedly seeking to marginalize them.

In recent years, the military’s role in Pakistan has predominantly been viewed in a domestic context rather than as a means to counter external threats, especially from India.

ISKP Declares War Against Baloch Separatists

Abdul Sayed and Riccardo Valle

The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) has confirmed that it has operational bases in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and has formally declared war against Baloch separatist groups, following what it claims were attacks on its camps. The announcement signals a potential escalation in ISKP’s attacks across the Pakistan-Afghanistan region.

According to ISKP, Baloch separatists launched an assault on its camps in the Mastung district of Balochistan in March, resulting in the deaths of 30 ISKP members stationed there. In response, the group has issued threats of retaliatory attacks targeting both the separatists and their supporters. ISKP further accused Baloch separatist factions of forming an alliance with the Afghan Taliban, declaring them, like the Taliban, as its primary adversaries.

ISKP made its declaration of war against Baloch separatists and acknowledged the existence of its bases in Balochistan through a 36-minute Pashto-language video titled “The Mastung incident and the conspiracy of the infidels,” released by ISKP’s Al-Azaim Media on May 25.

The confirmation of an ISKP operational presence in Balochistan marks a significant admission, shedding light on the group’s efforts to survive in the region following the Taliban’s 2021 return to power in Afghanistan. The recent video highlights several key aspects indicating a shift in ISKP’s strategic approach, as it seeks to reestablish itself after being forced to flee Afghanistan due to Taliban offensives.

This piece presents a critical analysis of the discussions featured in the Al-Azaim video, followed by an analysis of Balochistan’s emergence as a new sanctuary for ISKP in the region since 2023, as well as an overview of the group’s evolution in the province.

Trial by fire: Chinese laser weapon reputedly in Russian service

Gabriel Honrada

China’s battlefield lasers have arrived in Ukraine and may soon shape a drone-saturated future war over Taiwan.

Last month, The War Zone (TWZ) reported that Russia has reportedly deployed a Chinese laser weapon system to counter Ukrainian drones, according to pro-Russian Telegram sources.

A video posted this May shows a system resembling China’s Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, previously supplied to Iran.

The footage depicts Russian troops operating the system from a vehicle, followed by its deployment and engagement of aerial targets, including drones visibly catching fire midair.

The Nomad special forces unit is reportedly utilizing the system, with Russian analysts deeming it a significant advancement over previous counter-drone technologies.

While the exact specifications remain unclear, experts suggest that the system is a variant of the Low-Altitude Laser Defending System (LASS) manufactured by China’s Academy of Engineering Physics.

The incident underscores deepening military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran, raising concerns over China’s expanding arms exports amid ongoing conflicts. China has denied direct involvement and claims neutrality.

The video’s emergence comes amid broader developments in laser air defense technology, including Israel’s Iron Beam system, deployed against Hezbollah drones.

Europe Doesn’t Have a China Card

The first hundred days of Donald Trump’s second presidency have turned out worse for Europeans than expected. In addition to Vice President JD Vance’s ideological crusade against European liberals, there are fears that the United States will abandon Ukraine and frustration and concern over Trump’s initiation of unprecedented tariffs on European countries. In the wake of these disruptions, it is not surprising that the gaze of some European politicians has wistfully turned toward China,

which is perceived by some as a potential hedge against an unpredictable United States. Brussels, for example, recently started negotiations with Beijing on reducing European tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for China lowering its tariffs on European goods and lifting export restrictions on rare-earth elements. And after Chinese leader Xi Jinping declined to travel to Europe for a 50th anniversary summit on EU-Chinese ties, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, skeptical yet pragmatic in dealing with China, announced she will travel to Beijing in late July.

Beijing, meanwhile, is playing its cards well and positioning itself as a more reasonable and cooperative great power than Washington. This is a change from Trump’s first term, when China overplayed its hand and embraced an aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy that backfired. Now, not a day passes in which Chinese officials do not underscore how they share their European counterparts’ desire to protect

the multilateral trading system from Trump’s disruptions. Xi, for instance, has noted that China and Europe are “two major forces for building a multipolar world, two major markets supporting globalization, and two major civilizations championing diversity.” China has even proposed reviving the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, which was put on ice in 2021 after Beijing sanctioned several members of the European Parliament who were critical of China.

If implemented, the CAI would replace the bilateral treaties that regulate how Chinese investors are treated in European countries and help create a level playing field for European businesses in China.

U.S. trails China in race to utilize biotech on the battlefield

A critical avenue of U.S.-China competition has slipped under the public's radar despite its potential outsize impacts on economies, militaries and weaponry: biotechnology.

Why it matters: Better body armor, dynamic camouflage, foods synthesized in trenches, super soldiers, landmine-detecting bacteria and sabotaged materials shipped to the enemy are all promises of this field.And a new report concludes that Beijing is ascending to biotech dominance, at great risk to Washington.

Driving the news: The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology filed that report to Congress this month after two years of research and debate.Commissioners include Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), also a member of the intelligence committee; Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO; and Michelle Rozo, a vice president at In-Q-Tel and former principal director for biotechnology at the Pentagon.

Here's a taste of the report's many findings, recommendations and warnings:China is sprinting ahead after prioritizing biotech 20 years ago. The U.S. must course correct in three years.

Washington should dedicate $15 billion minimum over the next five years to supercharge the sector.

Beijing's advancements are fueled by military-civil fusion. But the U.S. "should not try to out-China China; that is a losing strategy."

There is "every reason to believe" the Chinese Communist Party will "weaponize biotechnology." Drone warfare "will seem quaint" the day the People's Liberation Army debuts genetically enhanced troops.

Opportunities for greater collaboration already exist, namely through NATO's innovation accelerator, DIANA.

Congress should require the Defense Department to incorporate military-relevant biotech into wargaming and exercises

Ukraine’s Attack Exposed America’s Achilles’ Heel

W.J. Hennigan

It turns out Volodymyr Zelensky did have another card to play.

Ukraine’s astonishing drone attack on military airfields and critical assets deep inside Russia on Sunday blindsided the Kremlin, destroyed at least a dozen strategic bombers and marked a seismic shift in modern warfare.

The mission, called Operation Spider’s Web, was a fresh reminder to leaders of the world’s most advanced militaries that the toughest threats they face today are not limited to their regular rivals with expensive gear. Instead, swarms of small, off-the-shelf drones that can evade ground defenses can also knock out billions of dollars of military hardware in an instant.

What happened in Russia can happen in the United States — or anywhere else. The risk facing military bases, ports and command headquarters peppered across the globe is now undeniably clear.

We don’t yet know if the operation will affect the Trump administration’s push for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, but it nonetheless delivered a tactical defeat to Russia’s military and will put pressure on President Vladimir Putin to respond. And what is almost certain is that the innovative use of inexpensive technology will inspire other asymmetric attacks that inflict serious damage against a well-heeled adversary.

Mr. Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, called the attack, which was planned by Ukraine’s Security Service, his country’s “longest-range operation.” By smuggling more than 100 explosive-laden quadcopter drones across the border in cargo trucks, Ukraine managed to evade air defenses and then fly the drones undetected above four Russian bases, where they damaged or destroyed what Ukrainian officials said were more than 40 high-value aircraft used in the assault on Ukrainian cities. Those involved with the attack left Russia before it began, Ukrainian officials said. The operators could watch live video and hover the aircraft above their targets before steering them into a nosedive.

Small Craft, Big Impact: Ukraine’s Naval War and the Rise of New-Tech Warships

David Kirichenko

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shocked the international order. What surprised the world even more was Ukraine’s ability to resist. While many in the West believed Ukraine would only hold out for a few weeks, the war has now entered its fourth year.

Ukraine has relied on agility and innovation – especially in its use of drones and battlefield technology – to fend off Russian forces. This technological edge has extended beyond land warfare to the sea.

Over the past few years, Ukraine’s growing use of naval drones has pushed both sides to rapidly adapt, accelerating the race for countermeasures and maritime innovation. NATO would do well to study Ukraine’s approach as it prepares for the future of warfare at sea. Rear Admiral James Parkin, the Royal Navy’s director of development, notes that in 28 maritime battles,

the larger fleet won all but three. Parkin believed that larger fleets win, but Ukraine has changed that paradigm, for now. The future of naval warfare is here and Ukraine is demonstrating what the future looks like.

Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief and current ambassador to the U.K., stated, “I have repeated many times that the nature of modern warfare has changed and continues to change.” Zaluzhnyi added, “The nature of modern warfare is far from what NATO is now operating.”

Trial by fire: Chinese laser weapon reputedly in Russian service

Gabriel Honrada

China’s battlefield lasers have arrived in Ukraine and may soon shape a drone-saturated future war over Taiwan.

Last month, The War Zone (TWZ) reported that Russia has reportedly deployed a Chinese laser weapon system to counter Ukrainian drones, according to pro-Russian Telegram sources.

A video posted this May shows a system resembling China’s Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, previously supplied to Iran.

The footage depicts Russian troops operating the system from a vehicle, followed by its deployment and engagement of aerial targets, including drones visibly catching fire midair.

The Nomad special forces unit is reportedly utilizing the system, with Russian analysts deeming it a significant advancement over previous counter-drone technologies.

While the exact specifications remain unclear, experts suggest that the system is a variant of the Low-Altitude Laser Defending System (LASS) manufactured by China’s Academy of Engineering Physics.

The incident underscores deepening military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran, raising concerns over China’s expanding arms exports amid ongoing conflicts. China has denied direct involvement and claims neutrality.

Catastrophe on the Roof of the World

It is impossible to know the full extent of China’s destruction of the Tibetan Plateau, not least because the area is off limits to international observers. But there is no doubt that the region’s ecosystem is becoming increasingly fragile, with far-reaching social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences.

TOKYO – The Tibetan Plateau is home to vast glacial reserves, which amount to the largest store of fresh water outside the Arctic and the Antarctic. It is also the source of ten major Asian river systems – including the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of mainland China, the Mekong, Salween, and Irrawaddy rivers of Southeast Asia,

and the Indus and Brahmaputra of South Asia – which supply water to nearly 20% of the global population. And, now, it is the site of a slow-burning environmental calamity that is threatening the water security, ecological balance, and geopolitical stability of the entire Asian continent.

STEPHEN S. ROACH thinks pursuing a global minimum tariff while also penalizing China increases the risk of a global recession.

For over two decades, China has been engaged in an aggressive and opaque dam-building spree, centered on – though not limited to – the Tibetan Plateau. Yet China’s government has refused to negotiate a water-sharing treaty with any of the downriver countries, which must suffer the consequences of their upstream neighbor’s whims.

Already, Chinese-built mega-dams near the Plateau’s border have brought water levels in the Mekong River to unprecedentedly low levels, with devastating effects on fisheries and livelihoods across Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. As the Mekong Delta in southern Vietnam retreats – driven partly by Chinese dams – rice farmers are being forced to abandon their traditional livelihoods, instead farming shrimp or growing reeds.

.

The Trump Doctrine

For a long time, the United States sought to promote democracy and respect for human rights, annoying some and inspiring others. Those days are now gone, in some ways for better, but mostly for worse.

NEW YORK – US President Donald Trump’s second administration is barely four months old, but already there are signs of an emerging foreign policy doctrine. And like so much else about his presidency, it represents a striking departure from the past.

STEPHEN S. ROACH thinks pursuing a global minimum tariff while also penalizing China increases the risk of a global recession.

Doctrines play an important role in American foreign policy. With the Monroe Doctrine, announced in 1823, the United States asserted that it would be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere and would prevent other countries from establishing competitive strategic positions in the region. At the outset of the Cold War, the Truman Doctrine pledged US support to countries fighting Communism and Soviet-backed subversion.

More recently, the Carter Doctrine signaled that the US would not stand by if an outside force sought to gain control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region. The Reagan Doctrine promised assistance to anti-Communist, anti-Soviet forces and countries. George W. Bush’s Freedom Doctrine, among other things, made clear that neither terrorists nor those who harbored them would be safe from attack.

What these and other doctrines have in common is that they signal to multiple audiences critical US interests and what the US is prepared to do to advance them. Doctrines are intended to reassure friends and allies, deter actual or would-be enemies, galvanize the bureaucracy tasked with national security matters, and educate the public.

As Trade Talks Stall, Trump Tightens Pressure on China

Linggong Kong

Although China and the United States reached a 90-day truce on tariffs during talks in Geneva on May 12, trade negotiations between the two countries are still ongoing. As many observers have noted, deep-rooted and structural differences between the two sides continue to cast a shadow over the prospects for any meaningful agreement.

On May 29, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent told reporters that trade talks with China had stalled. He suggested that a phone call between the two leaders might be necessary to break the deadlock. That same morning, President Donald Trump took to social media to accuse China of failing to honor his goodwill and having “totally violated its agreement with us.” Trump indicated he was very frustrated, writing “So much for being Mr. Nice Guy!”

As talks have hit a wall, the Trump administration has taken several steps outside the negotiating table to increase pressure on Beijing. These include tightening restrictions on tech exports to China and stepping up scrutiny of Chinese students applying for U.S. visas. While these measures are in line with Trump’s hardline stance on China, they also appear to be calculated moves aimed at boosting the United States’ leverage at the negotiating table.

In response, China may consider countermeasures such as restricting rare earth exports or strengthening ties with the European Union to push back against U.S. pressure and expand its own diplomatic room to maneuver.

Uncertainty and Friction Hang Over China-U.S. Trade Talks

The United States and China face deep-rooted, structural conflicts over trade issues such as currency manipulation, export subsidies, and other non-tariff barriers. Any negotiations between them are inherently difficult, and the outlook is far from optimistic.

What Trump really wants from Canada

Machias Seal Island is a tiny dot on maps of North America. But the fogbound rock is significant for its location in an area known as the "Grey Zone" – the site of a rare international dispute between Canada and the United States.

The two neighbours and long-time allies have each long laid claim to the island and surrounding water, where the US state of Maine meets Canada's New Brunswick province – and with that claim, the right to catch and sell the prized local lobsters.

John Drouin, a US lobsterman who has fished in the Grey Zone for 30 years, tells of the mad dash by Canadian and American fishermen to place lobster traps at the start of the summer catching season each year.

"People have literally lost parts of their bodies, have had concussions, [their] head smashed and everything," he says.

The injuries have been caused when lobstermen have been caught up in each other's lines. He says one friend lost his thumb after it became caught up in a Canadian line, what Mr Drouin calls his battle scar from the Grey Zone.

Canada and the US have disputed the sovereignty of the 'Grey Zone' since the 1700s

The 277 square miles of sea around Machias Seal Island has been under dispute since the late 1700s – and in 1984, an international court ruling gave both the US and Canada the right to fish in the waterway.

It has stood as a quirk – an isolated area of tension in what had been, until now, an otherwise close relationship between the two countries.

The Deep State’s Drone Attack Was Aimed To Escalate The Ukraine War And Deny Trump His Nobel Peace Prize – OpEd

David Stockman

POTUS better wake up. Quick. The Deep State is in the midst of f#cking him yet again.

We are referring, of course, to Sunday’s utterly reckless attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent, allegedly by the Ukrainian military. Yes, the one that’s so feeble and incompetent that thus far it has lost one-fifth of its territory—despite upwards 150,000 dead soldiers according to Col. Douglas Macgregor and more than $200 billion of US and European military and economic aid.

That is to say, the Sunday drone attack according to Zelensky himself was nearly 20 months in the making. So it was surely hatched, kitted, trained and pre-positioned with heavy duty support from US covert operations and then actually triggered, launched and guided by US intelligence assets.

Stated inversely, it appears that forces which were most surely not the bedraggled Ukrainian military operating in rogue fashion attacked the heart of Russia’s nuclear deterrent. And yet and yet: It is likely that the Donald was also not honestly informed ahead of time!

After all, when Trump had his “Putin’s gone crazy” outburst a few days ago he didn’t even know—by his own public admission—that a swarm of Ukrainian drones had attacked Putin’s helicopter while the latter was being transported inside it. And again, given the in-depth layers of protection around Putin, there is not a snowball’s chance in the hot place that the Ukrainian military pulled off this near-miss on Russia’s demonized dictator without heavy duty intelligence support from the US.

Sleepwalking Into the Next World War

Madness, madness,” says Count Sergei Witte, elder statesman and advisor to Czar Nicholas II, when Nicholas follows his generals’ advice and orders the mobilization of millions of Russian soldiers in late July 1914, in the dramatic movie Nicholas and Alexandra (1971). Witte in the movie is played brilliantly and accurately by Sir Laurence Olivier,

who foretells the tragedies that will befall the Romanovs and Russia if the general mobilization leads to war. But the Czar ignores the elder statesman and joins Europe’s other “sleepwalkers” (Christopher Clark’s term) in the descent toward world war.

In America, President Woodrow Wilson at first resisted calls (by former President Theodore Roosevelt and others) for the United States to become a belligerent in the Great War, but in 1917 he and Congress committed this country to the conflict, and in a relatively brief period of time we sustained roughly 320,000 casualties,

including more than 100,000 dead. The outcome of the war settled nothing, which is why we were at it again twenty years later, and this time we suffered more than a million casualties, including more than 400,000 dead.

The geopolitical outcome of the Second World War was to replace one murderous, expansionist totalitarian dictatorship (Nazi Germany) with another (the Soviet Union), and soon we were waging Cold War all over the world and fighting hot wars in places like Korea and Vietnam, with a combined American casualty total of nearly a half-million, including more than 90,000 dead.

The common denominator in all of these wars is that great powers were involved to varying degrees, which explains the high casualty figures noted above. The deeper the United States becomes involved in the Ukraine war, the greater chance that we will sleepwalk our way into a wider, great power conflict.

Peace in Ukraine and the Realities of Geopolitics

Stephen J. Cimbala & Lawrence J. Korb

Donald Trump campaigned for his second term in the White House on the assumption that he could settle the war in Ukraine within a very short time after having reassumed the Presidency in January 2025.

Trump’s optimism was based on his self-confidence as a deal maker and his expectation that personal rapport with Vladimir Putin could cut through the obstacles to any agreement between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Toward this end, Team Trump unleashed a blitz of diplomatic exigency and public relations intended to force Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table.

In addition, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that they expected prompt compliance with their wishes by Zelensky and Putin for direct negotiations and immediate progress toward a final agreement. In an embarrassing televised confrontation between Trump,

Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance with Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump and Vance scolded Zelensky for his alleged insincerity with respect to their mandate for peacemaking.

The expectation that a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine could be arranged expeditiously by forcing a diplomatic solution on Kyiv and Moscow has now been put to the test and come up short. Regardless of good intentions in Washington, neither Ukraine nor Russia is willing to call it quits on the battlefront. For Ukraine,

Russia’s continued occupation of about 20 per cent of their national territory is unacceptable, and the devastation inflicted on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure will live long in their collective memories. For Russia,

and especially for Putin, this war is also existential, not just expedient. Putin lives in a cocoon of denial that Ukraine is a sovereign country and a unique culture. Instead, full of balderdash concocted by his favorite philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, Putin sees the incorporation of Ukraine into Mother Russia as history’s inevitable destiny.

Small Craft, Big Impact: Ukraine’s Naval War and the Rise of New-Tech Warships

David Kirichenko

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shocked the international order. What surprised the world even more was Ukraine’s ability to resist. While many in the West believed Ukraine would only hold out for a few weeks, the war has now entered its fourth year. Ukraine has relied on agility and innovation – especially in its use of drones and battlefield technology – to fend off Russian forces. This technological edge has extended beyond land warfare to the sea.

Over the past few years, Ukraine’s growing use of naval drones has pushed both sides to rapidly adapt, accelerating the race for countermeasures and maritime innovation. NATO would do well to study Ukraine’s approach as it prepares for the future of warfare at sea. Rear Admiral James Parkin, the Royal Navy’s director of development, notes that in 28 maritime battles, the larger fleet won all but three.

Parkin believed that larger fleets win, but Ukraine has changed that paradigm, for now. The future of naval warfare is here and Ukraine is demonstrating what the future looks like.

Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief and current ambassador to the U.K., stated, “I have repeated many times that the nature of modern warfare has changed and continues to change.” Zaluzhnyi added, “The nature of modern warfare is far from what NATO is now operating.”

Ukraine’s Naval Lessons

At the outset of the war, Ukraine’s navy was virtually nonexistent, having lost most of its fleet when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Its only major warship, the frigate Hetman Sahaidachny, was scuttled by Ukrainian forces in February 2022 to prevent its capture. Yet through asymmetric tactics – naval drones, coastal missile strikes, and aerial attacks – Ukraine has transformed the Black Sea battlefield, forcing Russia into retreat and reclaiming strategic control of key waters around Ukraine’s coast.

Strategic Humility — The New Pentagon Doctrine

That was the creed of the first platoon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ever led—and it became the quiet current running beneath his 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue address this past Saturday in Singapore. But what followed wasn’t just a warfighter’s mantra. It was a redefinition of deterrence itself—not as provocation, but as posture. Not as power for its own sake, but as peace through principle.

“Your presence here today sends a strong message about our shared purpose, our shared commitment to peace, our shared dedication to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

Hegseth’s message was clear—the United States is not stepping back from global leadership. The U.S. is stepping forward with clarity, humility, and composure. His speech did not reject strength, it reframed it. Not as the language of domination, but as the scaffolding of peace through shared purpose.

Calm-Assertive Posture

“We do not seek conflict with Communist China. We will not instigate nor seek to subjugate or humiliate... President Trump and the American people have immense respect for the Chinese people and their civilization.”

This wasn’t appeasement. This was deterrence without dehumanization—resolve without provocation. In those lines, Hegseth modeled a calm-assertive posture that rewires what strength sounds like in American statecraft. This was not the rhetoric of zero-sum power. It was the voice of a defense enterprise finally attuned to its moment, which is resolute yet respectful. Prepared, not provocative.

The ‘New Warfare’ Comes of Age: Are We Ready?

James H. McGee

I’m filled with admiration for Ukraine’s daring and imaginative strike this weekend at high-value targets across the length and breadth of Russia. I don’t for a moment believe that, by itself, this one strategic blow will change the outcome of the war, but if the Ukrainians can continue to find fresh ways to extend the scope of the conflict, to inflict damage deep inside Russia, and to force the Russian armed forces to defend as well as attack,

then the entire conflict might well take on a new and entirely different dimension. (RELATED: Russia’s Aerial Assault on Ukraine)

It’s much too early to judge the larger impact of the Ukrainian attack on the outcome of the war, or even, more narrowly, on the currently planned Istanbul negotiations. But it’s not too early to step back and consider what it signifies in terms of an emerging “new warfare,” one capable of challenging the Russians, to be sure, but also one that will surely challenge us as well.

I’m not talking about swarms of weaponized drones, although that’s been the focus of so much of this morning’s commentary. Every day they prove their worth, and the Ukrainians have leapt to the forefront in finding tactical — and now strategic uses — for what were once dismissed as mere toys. But instead of focusing our attention on the tools, no matter how cleverly developed and deployed,

we should focus on the concept of attacking critical facilities, not just military facilities, but also crippling, well-orchestrated strikes at critical civilian infrastructure. (RELATED: Drones: We Aren’t Ready for the Next War)

The Guerrilla Warfare Myth

The Big Question Over Fighter-Like Drones

Bill Sweetman

We’re still feeling our way with this.

The concept of fighter-like drones, called collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), holds much promise to air forces, notably to the US Air Force as it contemplates war with China. But maintaining CCAs in operation isn’t looking cheap and simple.

Air forces may instead drift towards getting some CCA effects with expendable drones that can be treated much like rounds of ammunition.

The Royal Australian Air Force has been working for more than six years with Boeing on a CCA design, the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, but the US Air Force, having started from behind, is now well on its way to launching large-scale production of similar aircraft.

The test aircraft for Increment 1 of the USAF’s CCA program, the General Atomics YFQ-42A and Anduril YFQ-44A, are starting their ground tests and are expected to fly this summer. From what we know,

their principal mission is demonstrating the use of CCAs to carry air-to-air missiles and engage targets that are tracked and identified by pilots in crewed aircraft.

Supporters say simulations and wargames have shown the value of CCAs, which look like small fighters and are faster and more manoeuvrable than other drones. Part of their value is to put more missile shots in the air, from more places and closer to the enemy.

They would present the enemy with a denser mass of threats and targets and increase confusion, reducing losses among crewed aircraft.