Developments in Russia-Ukraine War: Operation Spiderweb
Despite a series of low-level talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul, there was no headway which could lead to a drawdown of the war. Despite the failure of talks, Ukraine received a major moral and military boost with the success of its Operation Spiderweb deep inside Russia. The operation involved Ukraine massively hitting strategic airbases deep inside Russia with Ukrainian drones. The Ukrainian strikes exposed severe vulnerabilities in Russia’s air defences and have also revealed Ukraine’s strategizing capabilities.
The devastation caused to Russia’s bomber fleet – which includes aircraft capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear weapons – is such which Russia will hardly be able to rebuild with ease. While Ukraine claims that up to 40 aircraft carriers were destroyed, Russia says that damage was caused only to a few. Open-source satellite assessments place the figure between 10 to 12. However, this number is also significant, as the aircraft damaged made up around 20 percent of Russia’s operationally ready long-range aviation, with the capability to carry heavy payloads deep inside other countries and constituted around 10 percent of Russia’s strategic nuclear delivery systems.[1] They were used by Russia in its attacks deep inside Ukraine. Their destruction is likely to compromise Russia’s ability in the war. Furthermore, the bombers that were damaged were also Soviet-era ones which are no longer in production. While the damage caused to Russia runs into approximately USD 7 billion, Ukrainian drones – around 117 that were used – merely cost a few hundred million dollars.
The Ukrainian operation was based on at least 18 months of planning. During this period, Ukraine hid drones inside trucks and smuggled them inside Russia, to hit military airfields in Russia thousands of kilometres away from Kyiv. With this operation, Ukraine has decisively set a new normal in the war, in which Kyiv has signalled its capabilities to strike targets deep within Russian territory, even without the use of western weaponry. Ukraine’s strike and Russia’s anticipated inability to replace the damaged bomber fleet shows that the continuation of the war is becoming increasingly costly for Moscow.
This will likely have long-term implications for Russia in terms of other aspects also. Russia will now massively increase internal surveillance, which will compromise smooth civilian and military logistical supply chains, and impact normal functioning, war preparedness and even lead to inflation. It will also erode trust within the Russian society, with even pro-government people already questioning the establishment. The latter is particularly significant as it shows the psychological impact of the Ukrainian operation. Through it, Ukraine has revealed its capabilities in asymmetric warfare, turning Russia into a self-doubting territory, regardless of the exact number of physical systems destroyed.
Israel-Iran War
A major Israeli attack on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities and resulting in the elimination of its major military commanders and nuclear scientists precipitated in a 12-day war between Israel and Iran. Even the United States entered the war at a later stage to cause heavy damage and near-destruction of Iran’s highly fortified underground nuclear facilities at Fordow, using its heavy bunker buster bombs. Israel’s attack on Iran has come as a precipitation of the long preparation and groundwork laid since 2023 when Iranian proxy, Hamas, attacked Israel. After that, Isreal carried out a series of high-profile and thorough attacks on Iran and its regional proxies, besides waging a perpetual war against Hamas in Gaza. These attacks included assassinations of high-ranking Iranian, Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, the notable bombing of Iranian embassy in Damascus, the direct airstrikes on Iran, and the famous pager attacks on Hezbollah which thoroughly decapitated the organization to a point of no return. In 2024, Israel, during its direct engagement with Iran, took out many Iranian missiles defence systems, leaving Iran’s nuclear facilities vulnerable to future attacks.
In this manner, Israel’s military actions, combined with the Gaza war, over the past nearly two years, have resulted in a near total dismantling of Iran’s ‘forward defence’ network of proxies which have guaranteed Iranian security in the Middle East. The biggest dent in Iranian security in the region came, however, with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Syria, under Assad, had acted as a critical link between Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah to transfer weapons. Along with Iraq, Syria’s control through the Assad regime had enabled Iran to wield extensive regional power. The fall of Syria to the Sunni Islamists allied to Turkey was the last straw.
It was at this moment of vulnerability that Israel finally attacked Iran. This attack was the heaviest military blow to the Iranian state ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This was also the most opportune moment to attack Iran, especially as, unlike the previous US administrations, the Trump administration had given a greenlight for the same. The fact that the attack came amid a failing US-Iran nuclear dialogue and immediately after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) red-flagged Iran’s failure to rein in its nuclear development, set the ground for Isreal to justify its attack. The grounds were Iran’s refusal to surrender its nuclear programme and arsenal.
Furthermore, it is also significant that the attack took place in a planned and graded manner. Israel only attacked Natanz, and left out Isfahan and Fordow, giving the US the space to warn Iran that there is still time to surrender and make the dialogue fruitful. Eventually, after a prolonged war between Iran and Isreal, in which both sides suffered casualties, the US finally intervened to bomb Iran’s other critical nuclear sites. The aftermath of the US attack has left unanswered questions around the extent of damage done to Iran’s fortified underground nuclear facilities and the future course. While the Iranian nuclear programme has not been destroyed – and the 400 kg of enriched uranium has been hidden by the regime – yet the critical centrifuges needed to develop the nuclear arsenal have been heavily damaged. Iranian retaliation came in the form of attack on US bases in Qatar, the biggest in the Middle East. However, Iran had already warned the US, and there were no casualties. The events showed that both sides wanted a quick end to a war which was becoming increasingly unsustainable.
In terms of the long-term implications, this war has set a significant new normal in the Middle East. Instead of seeing it in isolation, it must be looked at in the context of the systematic weakening of Iranian capabilities by Israel over a long period of time. This has been the result of an efficiently developed network of spies and hidden weapons and other decoys that Israel planted within Iran. It is because of Israel’s deep hand within Iran that even in the present war, it could efficiently eliminate the top leaders and scientists of Iran at the very outset. The damage done to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been palpable. While Iran obviously retaliated and Israel had to bear a substantial brunt of that retaliation, Isreal had already scored its objectives of damaging Iran beyond repair. In the immediate term, Iran now has very few options before it. Without the necessary material infrastructure – help from Moscow and Beijing was not forthcoming – it will take the regime time to rebuild its nuclear programme. It has little choice but to continue negotiations with the US. In the meantime, it will also have to contend with deep-rooted domestic discontent against the regime.
Technology Update: AI-Cyber-Nuclear Nexus
The debate around AI-powered cyberattacks and their paralyzing impact on countries’ nuclear infrastructure is increasingly gaining ground in strategic circles. Till now, there has been a broad consensus – agreed between China and the United States – on the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons, and to avoid integrating AI with nuclear use. This now seem to be unravelling, as countries seek the integration of artificial intelligence into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. This, in turn, has the potential to trigger a larger nuclear arms race, and will also increase the risk of nuclear escalation. This harkens back to China’s larger threat perceptions around the AI-cyber-nuclear nexus, which Xi Jinping had flagged in 2014 when he said, “Without cybersecurity, there is no national security.” There is, therefore, a perceived need to prevent AI-powered cyberattacks which can paralyze the nuclear arsenal.
As AI technologies become increasingly embedded in critical nuclear infrastructure, it will also increase the potential for miscalculation, system vulnerabilities, and unintended escalations. AI can analyse vast amounts of data to systematically detect and exploit weaknesses in target systems. AI-enabled malware can also be created. Such malware can automatically alter its code to evade detection and exploit the system’s vulnerabilities. This could lead adversaries to exploit weaknesses that could disrupt nuclear infrastructure. It could also enable terrorists to sow discord among nuclear-armed countries. Furthermore, the speed at which AI-enabled cyberattacks can paralyze nuclear weapons systems could increase pressures to use nuclear weapons in a crisis early on. Finally, AI can also be integrated into conventional weapons systems – particularly those based on drones, and long-range and precision capabilities – which can then pose a threat to nuclear weapons.
China has already noted the Bush and Obama administrations’ early efforts to use cyberattacks to sabotage North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. With China as the main adversary, such threat perceptions are occupying lot of space in strategic debates in China. As the United States shows signs of AI integration into its NC3 infrastructure, China too is exploring similar options. China has identified U.S. decisions to integrate AI into its NC3 system as threatening the former’s second-strike capabilities, leaving it with no option but to do the same.
One of the major consequences of such an arms race will be the questions around the reliability of AI. There is a very real danger that AI models may produce unreliable outputs that could lead to failures in sensitive nuclear weapons systems. More maliciously, actors can use AI to create deepfakes that can mislead another country. Such deepfakes can contribute to serious strategic misjudgement and precipitate in quick instability. AI models may also be susceptible to data fudging of the kind when adversaries deliberately expose or hide information from the AI model. Based on the limited inputs given to the AI model, it will weigh the information to create analysis or predictions, causing the model to draw incorrect conclusions.
- Submarines account for 30 percent of the nuclear fleet, while land-based systems make up around 60 percent of the nuclear fleet. ↑
