International

Ukraine faces war bleak future as drones open new battlefront

Published

2 years ago

July 25, 2024

Ukraine faces war bleak future as drones open new battlefront

The black box sits on the army truck dashboard like a talisman, its tiny screen lighting up with warnings when Russian drones are above us. We are driving fast along a country road in the darkness near the front lines outside Kharkiv.

Like many in this war, the soldiers inside have come to revere the little cube they call “sugar”; it warns of the unseen dangers above.

On the vehicle’s roof are three mushroom-shaped antennas that make up separate drone-jamming equipment. The car emits an invisible aura of protection that will thwart some, but not all, of the Russian attack drones patrolling the skies above this battlefield.

“It has detected the Zala Lancet Russian drones,” says Senior Lt Yevhenii, 53, from the front passenger seat, describing one of the most powerful long range Russian drones and its targeting drone. “Is that why we’re driving so fast?” I ask, aware that the drone-jamming antenna is useless against a Lancet.

“We’re not a priority for them, but it’s still better not to slow down because it’s very dangerous,” says Yevhenii, from the Khartia Brigade of Ukraine’s National Guard.

The jamming equipment blocks roughly 75% of frequencies that drones use to communicate with their operators, but some like the Lancet are difficult to block because they are entirely autonomous once their target has been marked. Because of the Lancet’s power, it tends to be used on larger targets, such as armoured vehicles or infantry positions, the Ukrainians say.

Almost none of this technology was here in Ukraine a year ago; now it is commonplace. Drones, which were once peripheral to the war are a central component for both sides, alongside infantry and artillery as Ukraine struggles to hold back Russian advances.

Ukraine has been thrown into the bleak future of war, where within minutes individual soldiers, fast-moving vehicles and trench positions can be precisely targeted. Drones have civilians in their sights too: about 25 from Russia attacked Kharkiv on Tuesday night, although most were intercepted.

READ ALSO:

Ukraine’s army is fighting back with its own drones, and there are dozens across this stretch of front line. One Ukrainian soldier tells me every day they kill 100 Russians.

The last images from drone cameras are usually of men panicking, their arms flailing, weapons firing before they are killed. The brigade’s 37-year-old drone commander, who goes by the call sign Aeneas, says that without shelter in a building there is little chance of survival – for Russians, and his men too.

“It’s the new way or a new path in modern war. In 2022 it was only infantry war and today one half is only a war of drone, a battle between Russian drones and ours,” he says.

The move to drone warfare is a combination of necessity and innovation. Drones are in plentiful supply, even though when armed they lack the explosive fire power of artillery.

Ukraine has consistently run short of artillery shells, and its allies have been slow to produce and supply them. But a Drone Coalition of Ukrainian allies has pledged to supply the country with a million drones this year.

Russia has made its own innovations on the battlefield too, using an older technology, and the village of Lyptsi, just six miles (10km) from the Russian border, has paid the price.

It was devastated by glide bombs – Soviet-era “dumb bombs” fitted with fins and a satellite guidance system. Some are as large as 3,000kg (6,600lbs) and, when launched from aircraft, glide onto Ukrainian infantry positions and towns to highly destructive effect.

One woman named Svitlana, who was driven out of Lyptsi by these attacks, told us: “Everything was exploding all around. Everything was burning. It was scary there. It was impossible to even get out of the cellar.”

Aeneas takes us on a tour of his drone teams, embedded along the front line in Lyptsi. Every vehicle we encountered near there was fitted with drone-jamming equipment; but the jammer’s protection ends when you exit the vehicle.

It’s dangerous to be caught out in the open, so we follow Aeneas running across the rubble for cover. All the while the BBC’s own drone detector calls out calmly into an earpiece: “Detection: multiple drones, multiple pilots. High signal strength.”

Out of breath, we make it to the drone unit’s underground base beneath a ruined building, where we are introduced to two operators, Yakut and Petro. There are drones on every surface, next to a frying pan with their evening meal. They get through many hundreds of drones in a month, as most are single-use and detonate on their target.

Their weapon of choice is the First Person View (FPV) drone, which carries a payload of between 1kg (2.2lbs) and 2kg of explosive, packed with shrapnel. The drones are modified off-the-shelf models which have cameras to send video back to their remote operators. “We call them celebration drones in Ukraine. They were used to film weddings and parties before the war,” Aeneas says.

READ ALSO:

I watch on a screen in real time beside Yakut who is fixed in concentration flying a drone manually to a target, across open fields and woodland. “He knows every puddle, every tree in the area,” Petro says.

The FPV drone approaches a building where a Russian soldier is believed to be hiding. It flies through an open window and detonates, the operator’s screen turning to static as the signal is lost. At the same time, another drone team is targeting a Russian Tigr light-armoured vehicle and scores a direct hit, captured by a second surveillance drone that’s watching from above.

The men stay on these positions, flying missions day and night, for up to five days at a stretch and spend as little time outside as possible. Their biggest fear is glide bombs: one landed nearby earlier that week, and the whole building shook. What happens if there’s a direct hit? I ask Petro. “We die,” he replies.

Aeneas shows me a recording from earlier in the week: a Russian soldier is caught in the open and the unit’s drone has him in its sights. The soldier notices it and runs for cover, hiding in a drainage culvert by the roadside. Slowly the drone lowers to its level, checking one side of the drainage pipe, then going around the other side, where the soldier is hiding. It detonates and the man is blown out, dying by the roadside. “He was divided into two parts,” explains Aeneas.

The operators are cool and dispassionate, almost clinical in their targeting and killing. They are as far as three miles (5km) away from their targets, one step removed from the immediate blood and guts of the battlefield. But encountering these weapons on the frontline is nerve-wracking.

A few days later, after dark, at an infantry trench close to Russian positions, a unit commander tells me he believes the Ukrainians have the upper hand in drone warfare, the Russians the advantage with glide bombs.

Russia also has the advantage in drone numbers: six for every Ukrainian one, although the drone teams I was with say they have the technological edge and are quicker at finding ways to counter-attack and jam Russian drones.

The trench is in a wooded copse, surrounded by fields, a thick canopy of trees provides cover.

But as we are speaking a Russian FPV drone is detected and begins to move closer to the position. The few dim lights, mostly phone screens, are turned off in the trench, and the men sit silently as the drone’s approach gets louder. We hold our breath as it hovers overhead. For what seems like an age, no one dares move. But then the drone moves on, in search of another target.

The largest drone in the brigade’s arsenal is the Vampire, which with its six rotors is the size of a coffee table. Again we join Aeneas on another mission in Lyptsi after dark, under the sound of constant artillery fire, where we meet the heavy bomber team. They work to attach the bomb to the drone.

“Ten kilograms, the Russians call this drone the Bogeyman,” says Aeneas. It’s payload is powerful enough to take out their intended target, a Russian command post, they say.

As the men work, a Russian drone makes a number of passes overhead: each time it does, the soldiers retreat into the basement, wait for the all-clear, then resume the assembly. As the drone takes off into the night in a cloud of dust, they watch its progress again from a second surveillance drone.

Just then, with barely any warning, we see on the drone’s thermal camera three Russian glide bombs detonating over the Ukrainian position, over a kilometre away. The shock waves are visible: seconds later they reach our location and the house around us shudders violently.

Ukraine’s allies know that by supporting the drone effort, they are helping the country’s cause, but it isn’t simply an act of charity.

The head of the British military, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, has said that the UK’s armed forces can learn from Ukraine how to fight future wars. He said in a speech on Tuesday that he wants the Army to have “battalions of one-way attack drones”.

Aeneas and his men know this. As we leave their position, a Russian drone returns and we drive off at speed into the darkness. In the truck he tells me: “No one is fighting war this way – they are learning from us. This will be the future war.”

Ukraine faces war bleak future as drones open new battlefront

BBC

International

Netanyahu Calls UK ‘Islamic Republic of Britain,’ Sparks Outrage Over Islamophobic Remark

Published

12 hours ago

August 14, 2026

Trends Admin

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu Calls UK ‘Islamic Republic of Britain,’ Sparks Outrage Over Islamophobic Remark

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked a diplomatic firestorm after referring to the United Kingdom as the “Islamic Republic of Britain” during a podcast interview, drawing sharp condemnation from British Jewish leaders and former government officials while underscoring growing tensions between the two long-standing allies. Netanyahu made the remarks during an appearance on the Israeli podcast Melech Blitzer Haim, which aired on Thursday, August 13, 2026. The Israeli leader was discussing British media coverage of Israel, contrasting what he described as the “positive” reporting by journalist Randolph Churchill during the 1967 Six-Day War with the current British political climate.

“Try finding that in Britain today. What’s called ‘the Islamic Republic of Britain’,” Netanyahu said, according to translated comments published by Israeli media.

When the podcast host asked whether “all of Europe isn’t already like that,” referring to demographic changes and the growth of Muslim communities across the continent, Netanyahu responded, “Yes.” He then invoked remarks previously made by US Vice President JD Vance, stating: “Someone said that the first Islamic republic with nuclear weapons will be the Islamic Republic of Britain… so we’re making sure there won’t be another one in Iran.”

READ ALSO:

The remarks were immediately condemned by British and Irish Jewish leaders, who accused Netanyahu of using divisive and irresponsible language at a time of heightened social tensions. “At a time when antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred and social division are causing real fear across our country, language of this kind is dangerous and irresponsible,” said Rabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Lev, co-leads of the Movement for Progressive Judaism. “Prime Minister Netanyahu does not speak for British Jews. His words do not represent us.”

Gavin Barwell, a former Downing Street chief of staff under Prime Minister Theresa May, described the remarks as “blatant Islamophobia” and questioned whether Netanyahu could still be regarded as a friend of Britain. “Let’s hope everyone will now shed the pretence some still cling to that this man is any friend of Britain,” Barwell wrote on X. British broadcaster Piers Morgan also weighed in, sharing a clip of the remarks on X and calling Netanyahu an “idiot.” The post attracted hundreds of thousands of views and sparked a wider online dispute, with Israeli Channel 14 correspondent Omri Haim responding: “Yes, he is the idiot. How is Birmingham doing? Don’t come crying when you feel the water boiling, frog.” Israeli opposition politician Avi Dabush, running for the Knesset as a Democrats party candidate, also criticised the remarks, writing on X: “That’s what happens when there’s a horrific diplomatic failure, and an inability to rally countries in the world in favor of our interests.” Dabush noted that Britain is a member of the UN Security Council “six times the size of Israel.”

Netanyahu’s comments come amid increasingly strained relations between Israel and Britain, despite the countries’ traditionally strong ties. Tensions have escalated since the Labour Party returned to power in the UK in 2024. Under former Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain paused free trade talks with Israel and suspended some arms export licences. The UK has also imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli cabinet members Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Last year, Britain joined France and Canada in recognising a Palestinian state.

Current British Prime Minister Andy Burnham recently apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s actions in Gaza, saying the party was too slow to call for a ceasefire. Burnham has indicated he would pursue further sanctions on individuals and entities involved in violence in Gaza and consider measures to ban trading goods with illegal settlements. “We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government,” Burnham said.

Rodwan Abouharb, associate professor of international relations at University College London, described Netanyahu’s comments as a “new low” in UK-Israel relations, while suggesting they could also serve Netanyahu’s domestic political interests as he faces a fractured governing coalition ahead of Israel’s October 27 election. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said on X: “Netanyahu will say anything. This is as ridiculous as stating that Israel is a democracy that abides by the rule of law for all its citizens; or that it has the most moral army in the world.”

Netanyahu Calls UK ‘Islamic Republic of Britain,’ Sparks Outrage Over Islamophobic Remark

International

Iran rejects US claims that Strait of Hormuz has reopened

Published

21 hours ago

August 14, 2026

Trends Admin

Iran rejects US claims that Strait of Hormuz has reopened

Iran has rejected claims by U.S. officials that the Strait of Hormuz has reopened, insisting that the strategic waterway remains closed to normal commercial shipping until its conditions are accepted.

The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), the Iranian body responsible for maritime traffic through the waterway, said repeated statements from Washington did not change the situation.

“Claims and repeated posts by U.S. officials that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer blocked do not change the reality,” the authority said in a post on X.

The PGSA maintained that the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and will not be reopened until Iran’s conditions are accepted.

The latest development followed a claim by U.S. President Donald Trump that the United States had “total control” of the strategic waterway and would maintain that control.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. naval blockade around Iran had created a “wall of steel” and suggested that Tehran lacked the ability to challenge the American military presence.

Iran has rejected the assertion, with its officials continuing to maintain that Tehran controls passage through the waterway.

The dispute comes amid an ongoing confrontation between the United States and Iran, with Washington maintaining a naval blockade of Iranian ports while Tehran has restricted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

READ ALSO:

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington could maintain the naval blockade of Iran indefinitely by rotating military vessels in and out of the region. The United States says the blockade is intended to restrict Iranian shipping while allowing non-Iranian vessels to pass.

Iranian officials, however, have said the Strait of Hormuz will not fully reopen unless the United States changes its position and accepts Tehran’s demands.

Iran’s newly appointed Supreme National Security Council secretary, Mohsen Rezaei, said the United States must end the war, address Iran’s frozen assets and support an end to hostilities across the region, including in Lebanon and Gaza.

Rezaei also said other Iranian demands had been communicated to Washington through mediators.

Meanwhile, Iran and Oman are discussing a possible arrangement for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said any agreement between Tehran and Muscat on a new route would be separate from the question of reopening the strait itself.

That distinction is significant because reports earlier this month suggested that Iran and Oman were close to an arrangement that could facilitate commercial shipping through the waterway. Reuters reported that the proposed deal would not, by itself, lead to the reopening of the strait, as Iran has tied the move to broader issues involving the U.S. blockade and the war.

Despite Washington’s claim of control and Tehran’s insistence that the waterway remains blocked, vessels have continued to move through the Strait of Hormuz in limited numbers.

According to shipping data reported by Reuters, nine commodity vessels transited the strait on Thursday, compared with five the previous day. However, the figure remained below the August average of about 12 vessels a day. Most of the vessels that passed through used routes controlled by Iran.

The current traffic levels remain dramatically below normal.

The disruption has forced energy companies and traders to explore alternative arrangements. Reuters reported that TotalEnergies’ trading arm, Totsa, was offering Iraqi crude for loading at locations outside the Strait of Hormuz as buyers remained reluctant to send vessels to terminals inside the waterway because of security concerns.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.

Any prolonged disruption threatens the movement of crude oil, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas from major energy producers in the Gulf to international markets.

The continuing restrictions have therefore raised concerns over global oil supplies, shipping costs and energy prices, particularly as the United States and Iran remain unable to reach a lasting agreement.

The crisis has also affected financial markets. Reuters reported that Gulf stock markets were mixed amid concerns over the prolonged disruption, while Brent crude remained elevated as investors assessed the risk of further escalation.

The situation has become increasingly complicated by competing claims over who controls the waterway.

While President Donald Trump maintains that the United States has “total control” of the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian authorities insist that Washington has not taken control of the passage and that vessels must comply with Iranian requirements to transit the area.

For now, the conflicting claims have not translated into a return to normal shipping. Maritime traffic remains restricted, diplomatic efforts involving Iran, Oman and the United States remain unresolved, and Tehran continues to insist that the Strait of Hormuz will not be fully reopened until its conditions are met.

Iran rejects US claims that Strait of Hormuz has reopened

International

Court Throws Out Trump-Era Case Accusing Harvard of Failing Jewish Students

Published

1 day ago

August 13, 2026

Trends Admin

Court Throws Out Trump-Era Case Accusing Harvard of Failing Jewish Students

A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s administration that accused Harvard University of failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment on campus. Boston-based US District Judge Richard Stearns – a Clinton appointee – ruled on Thursday that the government had not presented enough evidence to prove that Harvard was currently violating federal civil rights law. He granted the university’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, dealing a fresh blow to the administration’s broader campaign against elite universities.

The US Department of Justice filed the lawsuit in March 2025, claiming that Harvard’s response to antisemitic incidents following the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was woefully inadequate. Prosecutors argued that the university had shown “deliberate indifference” to the safety of Jewish and Israeli students, allowing anti-Israel protesters to breach campus rules “with impunity”. The administration sought to withhold federal funding and compel Harvard to overhaul its policies on discrimination, free speech, and diversity initiatives.

In his 30-page ruling, Judge Stearns found that the government’s amended complaint relied heavily on incidents from the 2023–2024 academic year – a period marked by intense campus protests over the Gaza war. By contrast, the complaint cited only three incidents from March 2025, which the judge described as “singly and collectively” too isolated and episodic to support a finding of systemic non-compliance. Crucially, Stearns noted that the government did not formally notify Harvard of its alleged Title VI violations until 30 June 2025. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in programmes receiving federal financial assistance. The judge wrote that the amended complaint “is devoid of any factual allegations plausibly establishing that any events that might be construed as evidence of noncompliance occurred after June 30, 2025.” He also emphasised that Congress’s intent with Title VI was “not to penalise a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivise it to bring itself into compliance” – a point that directly undermined the administration’s push to claw back billions in federal research grants.

READ ALSO:

Harvard had consistently rejected the administration’s allegations, arguing that the lawsuit relied on outdated incidents and ignored the concrete steps the university had already taken to address antisemitism on campus. These included strengthening discrimination reporting systems, expanding educational programmes, and revising student conduct policies. In a statement following the ruling, Harvard called the lawsuit “yet another pretextual and retaliatory action by the administration for refusing to turn over control of Harvard to the federal government.” The university reiterated its commitment to protecting all students – Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, and others – from harassment and discrimination, while defending its academic independence and institutional autonomy.

Thursday’s dismissal is the latest setback in a series of confrontations between the Trump administration and Ivy League institutions. Before filing the lawsuit, the government had already frozen $2.2 billion** in multi-year research grants and **$60 million in contract funding to Harvard in April 2025, demanding that the university eliminate antisemitism and roll back certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes. In a separate but related case last year, another federal judge ordered the administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in funding cuts to Harvard, finding that the White House had used antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon responded to the dismissal by saying the administration “disagree[s] with the ruling and [is] assessing next steps” – suggesting a possible appeal.

While the dismissal does not minimise the real and ongoing concerns about antisemitism on US college campuses, it sends a clear legal signal: federal courts are reluctant to intervene without clear, current, and concrete evidence of institutional civil rights violations. The ruling also reinforces the principle that universities – even those receiving substantial federal funding – retain broad discretion over campus discipline, speech policies, and educational mission, provided they act reasonably and in good faith. For students, faculty, and advocates on all sides of the debate, the decision underscores the importance of evidence-based reporting, timely government action, and balanced approaches to protecting religious identity, national origin, and political expression within higher education.