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

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

Published

7 hours 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.

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

International

Iran Had Detailed Intel on Trump’s Location Before Secret Turkey Escape

Published

18 hours ago

August 13, 2026

Trends Admin

Iran Had Detailed Intel on Trump’s Location Before Secret Turkey Escape

United States President Donald Trump was secretly moved from the aircraft publicly believed to be carrying him out of Turkey after American intelligence agencies detected a credible threat against him, according to reports.

The dramatic security operation reportedly followed intelligence suggesting that Iranian operatives had obtained detailed information about Trump’s whereabouts in Ankara, including the floor of the hotel where he was staying.

The development came amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran and concerns over possible Iranian retaliation against Trump following US military action against Iran.

According to reports, the threat was considered serious enough for the United States Secret Service to activate an elaborate deception operation during Trump’s departure from Ankara.

Rather than allowing the President to leave on the aircraft normally identified as Air Force One, security officials reportedly moved him secretly to a smaller Boeing C-32A military aircraft.

READ ALSO:

Trump was said to have been transferred from the presidential aircraft using an airport catering vehicle, while the larger aircraft subsequently departed as a decoy.

The operation was reportedly designed to make it difficult for anyone monitoring the President’s movements to determine which aircraft was actually carrying him.

The C-32A carrying Trump reportedly flew to Britain, while the larger aircraft, carrying members of the travelling press corps and senior officials, followed shortly afterwards.

The secrecy surrounding the operation was so extensive that some people aboard the decoy aircraft were reportedly unaware that Trump was no longer on board.

The Associated Press reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was aware of the security operation and remained aboard the decoy aircraft. It was unclear whether Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had been fully informed of the change in plans.

Reports said the security concern was linked to intelligence indicating a possible missile threat. A person near the NATO summit was also reportedly observed with what appeared to be a shoulder-fired missile.

However, officials reportedly found no evidence of a fully developed attack plan against Trump.

The reported intelligence about Iran’s knowledge of Trump’s location has nevertheless raised serious questions about the extent to which Iranian intelligence was able to monitor the movements of the US President while he was in Turkey.

The precise source of the intelligence remains classified, and there has been no public release of the underlying US intelligence assessment.

Trump has reportedly defended the decision to change his travel arrangements, saying he followed instructions from his security detail.

The incident highlights the increasingly complex security challenges surrounding the movement of the US President, particularly amid escalating tensions with countries regarded by Washington as potential threats.

The use of a decoy presidential aircraft, combined with the secret transfer of Trump to a less conspicuous military jet, represents an unusually elaborate presidential security operation.

While officials have not publicly established that Iran was preparing an attack against Trump, the reported intelligence about his location was considered sufficiently concerning to prompt one of the most extraordinary presidential travel security measures in recent times.

Iran Had Detailed Intel on Trump’s Location Before Secret Turkey Escape

International

Pentagon Confirms 153 Civilians Killed in US Military Operations in 2025

Published

2 days ago

August 12, 2026

Trends Admin

Pentagon Confirms 153 Civilians Killed in US Military Operations in 2025

A Pentagon assessment submitted to Congress has formally acknowledged that US military operations killed 153 civilians and wounded 243 others in 2025, a sharp increase from the previous year. All documented casualties were linked to three strikes in Yemen during Operation Rough Rider, the US campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

The Pentagon has formally acknowledged that US military operations in 2025 killed 153 civilians and wounded 243 others, according to a report submitted to Congress on August 10, 2026. The figures represent a dramatic increase from 2024, when the Pentagon assessed that two civilians were killed and two were injured by US military operations. The report was submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee as required by Section 1057 of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

The report found that all civilian deaths and injuries recorded in 2025 resulted from three US strikes in Yemen in April 2025. The US Central Command assessed that the three strikes “more likely than not” resulted in civilian harm. The strikes were part of Operation Rough Rider, the US military campaign against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia group, aimed at preventing attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

READ ALSO:

According to the Pentagon assessment, the three deadly strikes occurred at specific locations across Yemen in April 2025. On April 6, a US strike hit a residence near the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, killing five civilians and injuring 25. The April 17 attack targeted Ras Isa Port, where the Pentagon assessed that 80 civilians were killed and 171 injured. Human Rights Watch had separately reported a comparable death toll and raised concerns about the attack’s potential violation of international humanitarian law, noting that port workers were among those killed. A third strike near Saada on April 28 killed between 47 and 68 civilians and injured 68, according to the assessment. Amnesty International’s investigation into the migrant detention centre said the attack killed and injured “dozens” of African migrants and should be probed as a war crime.

The military relied on US intelligence, imagery, and public reporting rather than conducting site visits or interviews to make the assessment. As of February 2026, the US Central Command was still assessing 15 other incidents in Yemen following reports received through non-governmental organisations.

The Pentagon assessment stands in contrast to significantly higher estimates from independent monitoring groups. Airwars, an organisation tracking civilian harm in conflicts, reported that at least 258 civilians may have been killed in Operation Rough Rider. The Yemen Data Project documented at least 238 civilian deaths, including 24 children, and 467 injuries across 339 strikes during the campaign. Officials who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity described the 153 figure as “lowball numbers,” with one calling the report “a fucking joke” and a “total whitewash”.

The report notably does not include casualties from US strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, which the Trump administration has carried out against what it describes as “narco-terrorists”. As of February 1, 2026, the US Southern Command assessed that “there were no incidents in which civilian casualties more likely than not resulted from US military operations in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility in 2025”. However, independent tallies indicate US military strikes on such vessels have killed more than 200 people since September 2025. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International consider such strikes unlawful extrajudicial killings, and the American Civil Liberties Union has cast the administration’s assertions against those targeted as “unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims”.

The disclosure comes as the Pentagon prosecutes a broader military operation against Iran that began in February 2026, and follows significant cuts to civilian harm mitigation programmes. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly overruled top military officials, including then-Central Command chief Erik Kurilla and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown, who pushed against slashing the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence and similar initiatives. Hegseth instead reduced personnel working on civilian harm issues from approximately 200 to fewer than 40, with Central Command’s civilian harm team slashed from 10 personnel to just one. The administration’s 2026 budget proposed the “disestablishment” of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, reducing personnel funding by over $2 million and mission support funding by more than $9.5 million, amounting to roughly a 90 per cent reduction in personnel since March 2025. Congress has since launched investigations into the cuts, with lawmakers accusing the Pentagon of gutting a congressionally mandated effort to reduce civilian harm despite a legal requirement to maintain it. A May 2026 Inspector General report found that the Department of Defense may have violated federal law by defunding and blocking civilian protection efforts.