No images? Click here
Weekend Reads
Ukraine’s surprising strikes into Russia have implications for the future of warfare because they illustrate the versatility of unmanned systems. But they also serve as a reminder that operational successes need to serve bigger strategic ideas.
In The Free Press, Aaron MacLean explains what the United States should learn from these strikes—and why supporting such operations serves US interests.
Also, tune in to C-SPAN’s Washington Journal tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. as MacLean discusses these attacks and America’s potential vulnerability to similar operations.
Key Insights
1. Ukraine’s asymmetric success shows that the future of war is now.
To overcome Russia’s advantage in distance and evade its air defenses, the Ukrainians infiltrated cheap drones in trucks, launched them remotely in close proximity to their targets, and apparently leveraged local telecom networks for control—reportedly using some degree of autonomy as well. Some of the targeted aircraft are no longer in production and are thus likely irreplaceable. The Ukrainians say the tab in damaged or destroyed equipment for the Russians is in the vicinity of $7 billion. The cost of launching the attack was certainly orders of magnitude less than that—just as the effective demolition of Russia’s Black Sea fleet cost much less than the destroyed assets themselves. We knew that an anti-navy was a feature of the modern battlefield; logically, an anti-air force was just as plausible.
2. Tactical success only matters if it serves a broader strategic purpose.
Hamas’s successful attacks of October 7 have in the long run been all but suicidal. On the other hand, Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah contributed to a decisive defeat in Lebanon and, as a bonus, the fall of the Assad regime. It is too soon to say what the strategic effects of Ukraine’s raids will be. The most concrete consequence will be to diminish the potency of Russia’s ongoing strategic air campaign against Ukraine. But a number of voices in President Donald Trump’s orbit reacted to the Ukrainian operation with concern and criticism. The raids, given that they targeted elements of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, were escalatory and risked a broader war, these arguments hold.
3. Supporting Ukraine’s ability to damage Russia is in America’s strategic interest.
To the extent that Sunday’s raids might upset Trump and empower those around him who are especially hostile to Ukraine, they come at a risk. But to argue that the targeting of assets that are bombing Ukrainian targets should be avoided because it is escalatory is the same thing as saying that self-defense itself is escalatory. To cheer on the defeat of an invaded country fighting for its own survival certainly seems morally perverse—but the anti-Ukraine elements in Washington are quick to counsel us that such moralizing is what has caused all the trouble in American foreign policy in the first place. As yet undemonstrated is how conceding Eurasia to Sino-Russian dominance would in the long run enhance prospects for American freedom and prosperity.
Go Deeper
In a conflict with the People’s Republic of China, protecting American air assets on runways and at bases will be crucial—as Ukraine’s recent strike demonstrates. Timothy A. Walton and Thomas H. Shugart explain how the US can protect its valuable air assets in a Hudson report.
In the latest Ukraine Military Situation Report, Can Kasapoğlu surveys available intelligence indicators to asses the damage Russia suffered as a result of Ukraine’s drone attacks. Subscribe to the newsletter to stay up to date with the latest from the front lines.
In Friedrich Merz, Trump finally has the partner he needs to forge the transatlantic compact he has so long sought. “He should seize the moment and grasp Merz’s extended hand of friendship,” writes Peter Rough.
