The drone strike of Ukraine on Russia Spurs Global Military Rethink evokes concern about American readiness

The drone attack of Ukraine on Russia last weekend was a technological and intelligence game change. It will not only reform how the United States passes its army, but also how the whole world does – allies and opponents.

While defense specialists examined the performance in the days since the attack and Ukraine celebrated the success, the question remains: how is the US to use and ward off this emerging technology in warfare?

Not good enough, former Utah Rep. Chris Stewart to The Deseret News.

Stewart spent 14 years as a pilot at the Air Force and served in the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence while he was in the House of Representatives.

He argued that the attack by President Volodyymyr Zenskyy, who lasted more than a year and a half to plan, was “brilliantly planned” and “brilliant executed”.

It was a “dramatic event” that will reform military thinking worldwide, said Stewart.

The attack

On 1 June, more than 100 Ukrainian drones focused on military airports and war aircraft in Russia that kept equipment used in the more than three years of war.

Zenskyy shared a thread online in honor of the success of his army in the mission, nicknamed ‘Spider Web’.

The attack was unique because it showed that Ukraine the ability to carry out a successful mission without carrying out intelligence aid, it struck deep in Russian territory, destroyed billions of dollars in Russian equipment and came at a very low costs for Ukraine.

The attack consisted of 117 unmanned drones, each with a drone operator. Drones were smuggled in Russia and placed in wooden containers with remote lids. The drones ‘then left to touch their goals’, which were at four different Russian airports, said the Ukraine security service.

Ukraine said that 41 Russian planes were struck by their drones, making Russia an estimated $ 7 billion. Zenskyy praised that one of the intended locations was right next to one of the FSB Russian security service offices and Russia had suffered ‘considerable losses’.

Zenskyy said that Ukraine will “fully and unconditionally -the Fires” will continue to propose and will work on peace with Russia, but the attack on 1 June may have pushed further away from the negotiating table.

Stewart argued that the attack, although largely successful in its goal to focus on some of the valued assets of Russia, is also a ‘destabilizing event’.

“It was an attack, direct attack on an active that Vladimir Putin regards his highest priority and I am a bit worried about the implications,” he said, later adding it, “I am not saying that Zenskyy should not have done it, I just say … one of the results for that it is going to make it much.”

President Donald Trump – who apparently was not aware of the Ukraine attack in advance – spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

According to Trump, Putin said he would respond to the drone attack. It was a ‘good conversation’, but not one that would lead to immediate peace, Trump said.

Hours later Russia met the Ukrainian city of Pryyluuk and killed at least five people, including a 1-year-old child.

On Friday, Russia launched one of the largest air strikes of the war and bombarded six Ukrainian regions. The attack included 407 drones and 33 rockets. It killed four people, Ukraine said.

While Ukraine is balanced from his front lines and cities, his counter -offensive against Russia continues and tries to conclude a peace agreement, the escalation raises questions about what the recent attack means for the United States and its opponents.

The emerging technology and the problem

Stewart noted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been interesting to look at, because in some respects they are fighting a war in the Second World War by Trench Warfare, but the use of unmanned drones on the battlefield has escalated to fight for the Second World War levels.

The drones used by Ukraine are in no way ‘advanced weapons’, Stewart pointed out. They are not much different than drones flying in the park at the weekend. However, if they are used strategically, they can cause ‘enormous damage’, as seen by Russia.

“Last Friday, could you have imagined what happened in Russia at the weekend? And the truth is that nobody did. And that is just an example of, we don’t really know how this will change and implemented and we are probably not as prepared as we should be,” said Stewart.

He also emphasized how Russia and Ukraine ‘jumped’ each other during the war. When Russia develops a drone with a new possibility, Ukraine will develop a superior weeks later, and so on. The technology itself quickly evolves in the war, said Stewart.

“If you go back three years, if you had talked about how drones will influence the war in Ukraine, everyone would have shrugged his shoulders and said,” Well, I don’t know for sure, “whether they would have said,” Well, probably not much, “he said.” And the answer to that question is it enormously. “

During a briefing on Tuesday, the Pers Secretary of the White House Karoline Leavitt said that the drone attack of Ukraine “absolutely” raises questions about the security of the United States. She pointed to Trump’s “big, beautiful account” and the expansion of defense financing to strengthen the US Army while investigating how to respond to the rise of drone use.

“The president has a complete concept, I can tell you because I talked to him about the future of warfare and how drones are a lot of it, and I will not keep our policy team ahead, but I think you can expect some executive action on that front in the very near future,” she said.

Evelyn Farkas, a former American deputy assistant -Secretary of Defense, said she believes that the United States does not have the opportunity to protect against swarms of drones, as an opponent starts an attack. It is something that the Ministry of Defense should look at, both in its own country and on the overseas base, she said.

But strengthening American military operations should start production. Most drones are produced abroad, also by American opponents such as China.

“Now that they have used them as a strategic effect, it will be even more urgent for the United States to improve drone capacity and invest in drones,” said Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute.

The attack on weekends proved that although Drone warfare is not entirely a new operational tactic, the strategy behind its use has changed the game.

Stewart argued that the attack also proved that there are two major problems that the US is confronted with, because it says on the sidelines of the current war: Drone defense and implementation plans must be drawn up and the supply chain must be less dependent on China.

China, noted Stewart, has also been successful in buying land near American military installations worldwide. Commanders have probably spent in recent days assessing assets after they saw Ukraine drones launching in a very short distance in Russian bases, he said.

“They were not really worried about the plane that was on their asphalt, and it turned out that they should have been, right?” He said about the Russian army and later added: “I think people are now looking at it differently than they do.”

The future of warfare

The US Army has said it should invest in drones, usually called unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. Secretary of the army Dan Driscoll said in a post online that modernization is crucial for American national security.

“Investing in UAS is not optional – it is essential for dominance of the battlefield, improving precision and protecting soldiers,” he said.

Air Force Gen. David Allvin emphasized the need for technological progress and investments, indicating the attack of Ukraine.

“In the current environment, not every active/expensive should be an active. See what Ukraine just did,” he said in a post online. “We can’t afford to walk on this type of assets that generate deadly effects.”

Hoover Institution Fellow Jacquelyn Schneider has long argued that the US should invest in cheap technology to promote its army.

In an OP-ED from 2023, she expanded her research and argued that the US Army ended up in a paradox. The chased upcoming technology that made weapons so expensive that upgrading would be difficult for them. It left the Pentagon with a stock that was “neither good enough nor big enough” for his plans, Schneider argued.

“The United States also have the technology under the prioritization that would take up the costs of logistics, maintenance and supplement, instead opting for high -tech weapons together with fragile and outdated software,” she wrote.

Schneider said that the US must “urgently” prioritize that would lower the war expenses and admit that it cannot replace all its systems. High-cost technology must be supplemented with cheaper options, she said.

“If the United States hope to persist against Russia in the short term and China, this must take into account the economic impact of technology, even if the technological benefit pursues,” Schneider wrote.

Farkas agreed. The United States has an unmistakable problem by having “very expensive systems that are now vulnerable to foreign drones,” she said.

War is a ‘big gas pedal’, Stewart said about technological progress. It simply depends on whether the American army will use it well, he argued.

“The problem on the side of the defense spending is that we just don’t spend the money we should. The bigger problem is, do we spend it right?” He asked. “It doesn’t do us much to buy $ 50 million Predator drones if we now know that a $ 500 plastic drone can almost do the same.”

Stewart said that one of his greatest worries after the Ukraine attack is how the US will respond. It is an urgent problem for industry and the Pentagon, because it is struggling with rapidly evolving technology and the price tag of modern warfare.

“Shall we spend it in the right way and do we keep up with the technology?” He asked and said he hopes that the administration will be asked to ask those questions after the Ukraine attack.