russia – Page 2 – Air Marshal's Perspective

July 2, 2025

692: UNFINISHED RUSSIAN OBJECTIVE: REGIME CHANGE IN UKRAINE

My article was published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on June 30, 2025.

Since Russia launched its special military operation on February 24, 2022, its primary strategic objective was widely understood to be the overthrow of Ukraine’s government and the installation of a pro-Russian regime. This goal has proven elusive, rooted in Moscow’s desire to reassert influence over its neighbour and prevent Ukraine’s integration with the West. Over three years into the conflict, Russia has not been able to achieve regime change. There are possibly multifaceted reasons behind it, encompassing military, political, economic, societal, and informational dimensions.

Analytical Perspective

Strategic Miscalculations: Flawed Assumptions. At the heart of Russia’s failure lies a cascade of flawed assumptions. Before launching the invasion on 24 February 2022, Moscow wrongly believed that the Ukrainian society was deeply fractured along ethnic and linguistic lines. Secondly, the Zelensky government lacked legitimacy and would collapse under pressure. Lastly, NATO and the West would not intervene decisively. These assumptions led Russia to pursue an audacious plan aimed at rapidly occupying Kyiv, decapitating Ukraine’s leadership, and presenting the world with a fait accompli. However, Russian intelligence had gravely underestimated both the unity and the resilience of Ukrainian society. When the war began, the anticipated internal collapse did not materialise; instead, Ukraine mobilised as a unified nation.

Ukrainian Resilience and National Unity. One of the most critical factors thwarting Russia’s ambitions has been the extraordinary resilience of the Ukrainian people and their government. From the outset, Ukraine’s people displayed unwavering resolve. Ukrainian society mobilised rapidly, with civilians joining territorial defence units, volunteering in humanitarian efforts, and supporting the military. The war has forged a stronger national identity, with polls consistently showing overwhelming support for Zelenskyy’s government and rejection of Russian influence. This societal cohesion has made installing a pro-Russia regime more difficult, as any pro-Russian government would face relentless resistance and lack legitimacy.

Russian Military Miscalculation: Collapse of the Hostomel-Kyiv Blitz. Russia’s regime-change ambitions were staked on the success of a swift airborne operation. Russian forces did seize Hostomel Airport, located just outside Kyiv, to establish an air bridge for further troops. However, Ukrainians were able to repel the assault, destroying incoming aircraft and delaying Russian reinforcements. With the Hostomel plan thwarted, Russian ground forces were left advancing slowly on narrow roads with overstretched supply lines and inadequate logistics. Russians had to change their strategy and the plan at an early stage.

Western Support. The unprecedented scale of Western support for Ukraine has been a pivotal factor. NATO countries, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in military, financial, and humanitarian aid. Advanced weaponry, including HIMARS rocket systems, ATACMS missiles, Patriot air defences, and Leopard tanks, has enabled Ukraine to counter Russian offensives and launch successful counterattacks. Beyond material support, Western intelligence-sharing and training programs have enhanced Ukraine’s operational effectiveness. On the other hand, sanctions on Russia, targeting its energy exports, financial systems, and military-industrial complex, have dented Moscow’s ability to sustain the tempo of the war.

Geopolitical and Terrain Challenges. Ukraine’s geography has posed significant challenges for Russia’s regime change ambitions. Over 600,000 square kilometers of Ukraine is Europe’s second-largest country, with diverse terrain ranging from open steppes to dense urban centers. Controlling such a vast area requires substantial manpower and resources. Urban warfare, particularly in cities, favours Ukrainian defenders, who benefit from local knowledge and fortified positions. Russia’s territorial gains have been concentrated in eastern and southern regions, such as parts of Donbas, and Crimea, but these areas represent only a fraction of Ukraine. Stretching its forces across multiple fronts has diluted Russia’s ability to consolidate control or advance toward Kyiv, the political heart of Ukraine.

Russian Internal Constraints. Russia’s domestic challenges have further undermined its war effort. The invasion has strained Russia’s economy, with sanctions disrupting trade, freezing foreign reserves, and limiting access to critical technologies. While high energy prices initially cushioned the blow, long-term economic decline and inflation have eroded public support for the war to an large extent. Political dissent, though suppressed, persists among some of Russia’s factions. These internal pressures have constrained Russia’s ability to escalate the war or sustain a long-term occupation of Ukraine.

Alienating the Ukrainian Population. Russia’s offensive and punitive tactics have obliterated any chance of winning Ukrainian support for a pro-Russian regime. Deliberate attacks on infrastructure have fuelled hatred toward Russia and unified Ukrainians against Moscow’s agenda. The Kremlin’s narrative about “denazifaction” of Ukraine has not resonated well with Ukrainians. The absence of a viable pro-Russian political base in Ukraine has left Russia with no credible allies to prop up a pro-Russian government.

Dominance in the Information War. Ukraine has done well in the information domain, maintaining global sympathy and domestic morale. Russia, by contrast, has maintained a low-key approach to control the narrative. Its state-controlled media dominates domestically but has little sway abroad. This information asymmetry has reinforced Ukraine’s legitimacy while undermining Russia’s ability to justify regime change.

The Evolution of the Conflict. As the war has evolved into a protracted struggle, Russia’s initial goal of regime change has become increasingly unattainable, and Moscow has pivoted to territorial objectives. The limited military operation has evolved into a long-drawn-out slug match, with Ukraine periodically launching counter-offensives and Russia resorting to punitive action with long-range weapons. The prospect of a frozen conflict or negotiated settlement looms, but both sides are sticking to their terms.

Conclusion

Russia’s inability to achieve regime change in Ukraine results from a confluence of factors: Ukrainian unity and resolve, Russian strategic miscalculations, continued Western support, geographical challenges, and Moscow’s internal constraints. These elements have transformed the conflict into a grinding stalemate, with Ukraine’s government not only surviving but emerging as a symbol of resistance. As the war continues, Russia’s prospects for overturning Ukraine’s leadership remain dim.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

Link to the article on the website:-

Unfinished Russian Objective: Regime Change In Ukraine

References:-

Charap, S., & Colton, T. (2022). Everyone loses: The Ukraine crisis and the ruinous contest for post-Soviet Eurasia. Routledge.
D’Anieri, P. (2023). Ukraine and Russia: From civilised divorce to uncivil war (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Galeotti, M. (2023). Russia’s war in Ukraine: The end of the beginning? Foreign Affairs, 102(4), 48–59.
Kofman, M., & Lee, R. (2022). Not built for purpose: The Russian military’s ill-fated force design. War on the Rocks.
Kuzio, T. (2024). Russia’s war against Ukraine: The whole story. Routledge.
Plokhy, S. (2023). The Russo-Ukrainian war: The return of history. W. W. Norton & Company.
Sasse, G., & Lackner, A. (2023). War and identity: The case of Ukraine. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 36(1), 1–19.
The Economist. (2024, December 12). How sanctions are reshaping Russia’s economy.
SIPRI Yearbook 2025. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 2025.
Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Russian Offensive Campaign Assessments, 2022–2025.
RAND Corporation. “The Russian Way of War: Doctrine, Logistics, and Constraints.” RAND Reports, 2023–2024.
BBC News. “Ukraine War: The Battle for Hostomel Airport.” BBC Special Report, March 2022.
European Union External Action Service (EEAS). EU Support to Ukraine: Ukraine Facility and Sanctions Against Russia, 2024–2025.
The Economist. “Why Russia’s Regime Change Strategy in Ukraine Has Failed,” April 2025.
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). Lessons from the Ukraine War: Air Superiority and ISR, 2023.
New York Times. “Inside Ukraine’s Counteroffensives,” October 2022–June 2025 Special Reports.
Jane’s Defence Weekly. Russia-Ukraine Conflict Technical Assessments, 2022–2025.

June 25, 2025

688: INNOVATION: THE NEW AGE WEAPON IN MODERN WARS

My Article was published on “The Eurasian Times” website on 22 Jun 25.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of 21st-century conflict, innovation has emerged as the cornerstone of modern warfare. Nations and non-state actors leverage cutting-edge technology and unconventional tactics to achieve strategic objectives with unprecedented precision, stealth, and impact. Three recent examples, Israel’s drone attack in Iran, Ukraine’s drone assault on Russian military targets, and Israel’s explosive pager attack on Hezbollah, illustrate how innovation is reshaping the battlefield. Executed with remarkable ingenuity, these operations highlight the shift toward asymmetric, hybrid warfare that combines advanced technology, covert intelligence, and psychological operations. The innovative aspects of these cases must be explored to understand their strategic implications and the broader challenges they present for global security.

Israel’s Drone Attack in Iran: A Master Class in Covert Precision

In June 2025, Israel executed a series of drone strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile launchers, and military infrastructure, showcasing a new paradigm in covert warfare. Unlike traditional airstrikes, Israel reportedly activated a network of “kamikaze” drones pre-positioned inside Iran, bypassing the country’s sophisticated air defence systems. This operation, attributed to the Mossad and Israeli Air Force, underscores several innovative aspects of modern warfare.

Strategic Innovation. The attack’s success hinged on long-term infiltration. Over the years, Israel allegedly smuggled drone components into Iran, assembling a clandestine arsenal that could be remotely activated. This approach required meticulous planning, blending human intelligence with technological expertise. By launching drones from within Iran, Israel avoided detection by radar systems designed to counter external threats, such as ballistic missiles or fighter jets. The strikes targeted high-value sites, including the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility and mobile missile launchers, disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and retaliatory capabilities with surgical precision.

Technological Edge. The drones were compact, stealthy, and equipped with advanced navigation systems, enabling them to evade Iran’s multi-layered defences. Reports suggest that using AI-guided drones capable of autonomous target selection represents a leap forward in unmanned warfare. This technology allowed Israel to strike multiple targets simultaneously, maximising impact while minimising exposure.

Implications and Risks. While innovative, the operation carried significant risks. Iran retaliated with missile barrages, escalating tensions and raising fears of a broader regional conflict. The covert nature of the attack also sets a precedent for deniable operations, complicating attribution and accountability.

Ukraine’s Drone Attack in Russia: Asymmetric Warfare Redefined

Ukraine’s June 2025 drone attack on Russian military bases, dubbed “Operation Spiderweb,” destroyed over 40 warplanes, demonstrating how resource-constrained nations can challenge superpowers through innovation. By smuggling 117 drones near Russian targets and launching them from within enemy territory, Ukraine showcased the power of asymmetric warfare.

Logistical Creativity. The operation’s success relied on covert logistics. Ukraine transported disassembled drones thousands of miles into Russia, likely using local networks or operatives to assemble and deploy them. This approach bypassed Russia’s border defences and air surveillance, catching military commanders off guard. The drones, described as low-cost and modular, were designed for scalability, allowing Ukraine to mount a large-scale attack with limited resources.

Tactical Impact. The drones targeted airbases, fuel depots, and ammunition stores, inflicting significant damage. By striking deep inside Russia, Ukraine forced Moscow to divert resources to internal defence, creating a new front in the ongoing war. The psychological impact was equally profound, as Russian citizens grappled with the vulnerability of their homeland. This operation highlighted drones as a cost-effective alternative to traditional air forces, levelling the playing field for smaller nations. While a tactical triumph, Ukraine’s strategy risks escalation. Russia may intensify its punitive strikes, targeting Ukrainian cities or infrastructure.

Israel’s Pager Attack on Hezbollah: Cyber-Physical Warfare

In September 2024, Israel executed an unprecedented attack on Hezbollah, using explosive-laden pagers and walkie-talkies to target operatives across Lebanon. This operation crippled Hezbollah’s command structure and marked a new frontier in cyber-physical warfare.

Supply Chain Infiltration. The attack’s brilliance lay in its exploitation of the supply chain. Israel reportedly compromised the manufacturing and distribution of communication devices, embedding micro-explosives in pagers and radios used by Hezbollah. This required years of planning, from infiltrating tech companies to ensuring the devices reached their targets. The operation’s complexity underscores the fusion of intelligence, engineering, and deception in modern warfare.

Precision and Psychological Impact. By detonating thousands of devices simultaneously, Israel disrupted Hezbollah’s operational cohesion with minimal collateral damage compared to airstrikes. The attack killed or injured key commanders, weakening Iran’s proxy network. Beyond physical damage, it sowed distrust among Hezbollah operatives, as everyday devices became potential threats. Retired Mossad agents hailed the operation as a turning point, demonstrating how consumer technology can be weaponised with devastating effect.

The Broader Trend: “Amazon Prime Warfare”

These cases reflect a broader trend toward what can be called “Amazon Prime Warfare,” where small, modular components are delivered covertly, assembled on-site, and used for high-impact strikes. This paradigm shift is driven by AI, robotics, and supply chain manipulation advancements, enabling actors to achieve strategic goals with minimal conventional engagement. However, it also democratises warfare, allowing non-state actors and rogue regimes to adopt similar tactics.

Innovative Elements. This approach combines several innovative elements:-

Cost-Effectiveness. Drones and modified consumer devices are far cheaper than traditional weapons, enabling smaller actors like Ukraine to compete with larger powers.

Deniability and Stealth. Covert operations, like Israel’s drone and pager attacks, allow states to strike without immediate attribution, delaying retaliation and complicating diplomacy.

Hybrid Tactics. Integrating cyber, physical, and intelligence operations creates unpredictable threats, forcing adversaries to rethink defence strategies.

Risks and Challenges. The rise of innovative warfare poses significant challenges for global security. Each attack prompts retaliation, as seen in Iran’s missile strikes following Israel’s drone operation. This tit-for-tat dynamic risks spiralling into broader conflicts. Traditional defence systems, designed for missiles and jets, are ill-equipped to counter combined drone-supply chain attacks. To keep pace, nations must invest in new technologies, such as anti-drone systems and supply chain auditing.

Conclusion

Innovation is undeniably the key to modern warfare, as demonstrated by Israel’s and Ukraine’s ground-breaking operations. Drones, compromised devices, and covert logistics enable precision, stealth, and impact, redefining how conflicts are fought. These tactics empower smaller actors to challenge superpowers, disrupt adversaries, and achieve strategic goals with minimal resources. However, they also destabilise traditional deterrence models, inviting retaliation, proliferation, and ethical controversies.

As warfare evolves, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with restraint. Nations must develop explicit norms for emerging technologies, such as drones and cyber-physical weapons, to prevent escalation and protect civilians. International cooperation is essential to curb proliferation and ensure accountability, particularly when private companies are involved. While innovation drives progress on the battlefield, its unchecked spread risks a future where conflict is ubiquitous, unpredictable, and uncontainable. The lesson is clear for policymakers, military strategists, and global citizens: innovation in warfare is a double-edged sword.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

Link to the article on the website:-

Stunning Innovative Attacks! Everything & Anything Could Be A Weapon Now; Israel & Ukraine Show The Way

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Bergen, Peter, and Alyssa Sims. “How Drones Are Changing Warfare.” Council on Foreign Relations, 29 September 2023.

Binnie, Jeremy. “Israel’s Covert Drone Operations in Iran: A New Era of Warfare.” Jane’s Intelligence Review, 15 June 2025.

Borger, Julian. “Israel’s Pager Attack on Hezbollah: A Cyber-Physical Triumph.” The Guardian, 18 September 2024.

Defence News, “Ukraine’s ‘Operation Spiderweb’ destroys 40+ Russian warplanes using smuggled drones. A game-changer for asymmetric warfare”, 10 June 2025.

Hambling, David. “The Rise of ‘Amazon Prime Warfare’: How Drones and Supply Chains Are Reshaping Conflict.” Forbes, 5 October 2024,

Human Rights Watch. “Civilian Casualties in Israel-Iran Drone Strikes: Legal and Ethical Concerns.” HRW Reports, 20 June 2025,

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). “The Proliferation of Drone Warfare: Implications for Global Security.” IISS Strategic Comments, Vol. 31, No. 4, April 2025.

Sanger, David E., and Ronen Bergman. “How Israel Weaponised Consumer Electronics Against Hezbollah.” The New York Times, 20 September 2024.

Stratcom Analyst. “Iran’s missile retaliation after Israel’s drone strikes shows the escalation risks of covert ops”, 16 June 2025.

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). “Emerging Technologies in Warfare: Drones and Cyber-Physical Weapons.” UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 42, March 2025,

April 5, 2025April 4, 2025

640: NATO’S RELEVANCE IN TODAY’S WORLD ORDER

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949 as a direct response to the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Built upon the principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO played a pivotal role in maintaining transatlantic security during the second half of the 20th century. However, in the post-Cold War era, NATO’s relevance has been increasingly questioned due to shifting global power dynamics, emerging security threats, and internal divisions among member states. While NATO remains a significant military alliance, its ability to adapt to contemporary security challenges will determine its continued importance in the evolving world order.

The Cold War’s End and the Loss of a Defined Adversary. NATO was created primarily to counter the Soviet Union and its communist bloc. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the alliance lost its primary adversary, creating uncertainty about its purpose. The following decades saw NATO struggling to redefine its role as the global security landscape shifted away from Cold War-style confrontations. While NATO expanded its membership and engaged in various global missions, critics argue that the absence of a direct military threat comparable to the Soviet Union has undermined its necessity.

Reduced Military Engagements and Shifting Priorities. In the post-Cold War era, NATO took on out-of-area missions, notably in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, demonstrating its role in global security. However, its military engagements have become more restrained in recent years. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and the reluctance of many European nations to involve themselves in conflicts beyond their immediate borders signal a decreasing appetite for large-scale NATO-led interventions. This shift has raised questions about NATO’s continued role as an active military force or whether it is becoming more of a political and diplomatic entity.

Evolving Threats: Cyber Warfare, Terrorism, and Hybrid Conflicts. Modern security threats have evolved beyond conventional military conflicts. Cyber warfare, terrorism, pandemics, and economic crises increasingly define global security concerns. NATO has attempted to adapt by enhancing its cyber defence capabilities and counter-terrorism strategies. However, critics argue that these new threats often require diplomatic, economic, and technological responses rather than purely military solutions, making other organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) more relevant in addressing such challenges.

Multipolarity and the Shift toward Asia. The global power structure is transitioning from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar system in which China, Russia, and other regional actors exert significant influence. This shift challenges NATO’s traditional dominance. The rise of China and its increasing military modernisation, alongside new security alliances like AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia), suggest that the Indo-Pacific region is becoming a greater priority for NATO’s key member, the United States (Brookings Institution, 2024). As a result, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus risks diminishing in importance, particularly as Washington recalibrates its strategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific.

Divergent Security Interests among NATO Members. NATO members increasingly have divergent security concerns. While Eastern European countries prioritise the threat from Russia, Western European nations emphasise diplomatic solutions and strategic autonomy. Meanwhile, Turkey pursues its regional agenda in the Middle East, often clashing with broader NATO objectives. These competing interests create friction within the alliance and raise doubts about its long-term cohesion.

Burden-Sharing and Defence Spending Disputes. One of NATO’s most persistent internal challenges is burden-sharing. The 2014 NATO Summit set a target for member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, yet as of 2023, only 11 out of 31 members met this goal (The Economist, 2024). The United States, which contributes disproportionately to NATO’s military budget, has repeatedly criticised its European allies for failing to uphold their financial commitments. These disparities fuel tensions and questions about NATO’s sustainability if burden-sharing remains unbalanced.

NATO’s Provocative Expansion. Since 1999, NATO has added 14 former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states to its membership, exacerbating tensions with Russia. Critics argue that NATO’s eastward expansion has contributed to geopolitical conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. Russia perceives NATO’s enlargement as a direct security threat, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine can, in part, be seen as Moscow’s pushback against NATO’s growing footprint in Eastern Europe. While NATO insists on its open-door policy, some analysts caution that continued expansion risks further escalating tensions with Russia without necessarily increasing European security.

The Rise of Alternative Security Frameworks. As NATO grapples with internal divisions, other international alliances emerge as alternative security structures. Organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) present non-Western frameworks for economic and security cooperation. The European Union (EU) has also pursued greater military autonomy through initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), signalling a potential shift away from US-led security arrangements. If Europe continues to develop independent defence capabilities, NATO’s role as the continent’s primary security guarantor could diminish.

NATO’s Strength: Adaptation and Collective Defence. Despite these challenges, NATO remains the world’s most powerful military alliance, providing collective security and deterrence. Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all and remains a core pillar of transatlantic security. NATO has also adapted to modern threats by creating rapid response forces, strengthening its cyber defence strategies, and increasing cooperation in hybrid warfare tactics. These adaptations ensure that NATO remains relevant in key areas, even as its global dominance faces competition.

NATO’s Future in an Evolving Global Order. NATO’s relevance in the modern world order is contested. On one hand, the alliance remains a critical security framework for Western democracies, deterring aggression and maintaining transatlantic cohesion. On the other hand, shifting geopolitical priorities, internal divisions, and the rise of alternative security alliances present significant challenges to its continued dominance.

Conclusion. Ultimately, NATO’s future will depend on its ability to adapt to new security threats and navigate internal fractures while remaining a key player in global stability. Whether NATO will evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century or gradually cede influence to emerging security frameworks remains one of the most pressing questions in contemporary international relations.

Please Enhance the content further with value addition.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Andersen, L. R. (2021). The challenges of NATO burden-sharing. Global Affairs, 7(2), 185-202.

BBC News. (2023). NATO expansion: What it means for global security. Retrieved from [URL]

Brookings Institution. (2024). NATO and the rise of China: A strategic outlook.

Chatham House. (2021). The future of NATO: Adapting to a multipolar world.

European Parliament. (2022). The EU and NATO: Cooperation and challenges.

NATO. (2023). Cyber security and hybrid warfare initiatives.

Walt, S. M. (2022). NATO’s role in a changing global order. Foreign Affairs, 101(3), 45–58.