Drones are the main weapon in the war in Ukraine – this fact is pretty much set in

Ukraine is linking the future of its air force with widely used, proven fighter jets from NATO countries.

Due to foreign aid coming from many different countries and their own domestic ingenuity, Ukraine now operates probably

After a particularly hard time, it appears that Russia has at least partially stabilized its fuel supply situation.

The Production Gap The Pentagon official building America’s domestic drone industry says the effort is still in its

Ukrainian manufacturer F-Drones has delivered its first batch of F10 FPV drones to the U.S. military under the Pentagon’s Drone Dominance Program. The initial shipment consists of 2,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, making the F10 the first Ukrainian drone authorized for export to the United States as part of the initiative. According to Militarnyi, the first […]

The post Ukrainian F10 Drones Arrive in United States: Pentagon Receives the First 2,000 UAVs from F-Drones appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

Statistics in a huge war is a tricky business. Estimates of losses vary widely, and each source relies

In March 2021, while serving as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, I hosted a discussion with General Chance Saltzman, now Chief of Space Operations for the United States […]

The post The new space wars: lessons from Ukraine and the Middle East appeared first on SpaceNews.

Tensions along NATO’s eastern flank have been rising for months. Intelligence services in the United States, the United

Ukraine could deploy combat laser systems against aerial targets within the next 2–3 months, according to Brigadier General Andrii Lebedenko, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The development of these systems is being carried out by specialists within the Armed Forces in cooperation with private Ukrainian defense companies. The experimental system, named “Tryzub” (“Trident”), […]

The post Lasers Against FPV Drones: Ukrainian Armed Forces Prepare to Deploy Next-Generation Air Defense Systems appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

Ukraine has employed domestically developed guided rocket-assisted aerial bombs to strike enemy targets at ranges of up to 200 km. In terms of overall concept, the weapon has been compared to a simplified version of the Tomahawk cruise missile. Ukrainian defense manufacturers continue to expand the country’s portfolio of long-range strike capabilities by introducing guided […]

The post Deadly Upgrade: Ukrainian Forces Receive Indigenous Rocket-Assisted Aerial Bombs with a 200 km Range appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

For decades, Washington has assumed that military aid translates into political influence. If the United States provides the weapons, intelligence, training, and diplomatic backing that keep an ally fighting, conventional wisdom suggests it should also have considerable leverage over when, and how, that war ends.

Yet, a sweeping new analysis published by the Brookings Institution and authored by Dr. Dafna Rand, a senior fellow at Brookings, the Federation for American Scientists, and the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the opposite has increasingly become true.

Whether in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, or Afghanistan, the U.S. has repeatedly discovered that sustaining an ally’s war effort is often far easier than steering its ultimate direction. Instead of conclusive victories followed by lasting peace, modern conflicts are increasingly settling into drawn-out stalemates, frozen conflicts, or recurring cycles of violence that resist outside pressure—even from Washington.

Dr. Rand’s report examines one of the defining strategic dilemmas confronting American foreign policy in the 21st century: why the world’s most powerful military and diplomatic actor has struggled to shape the decisions of partners whose war efforts depend heavily on U.S. support.

Drawing on more than 30 interviews with senior American officials involved in decision-making throughout four major conflicts, alongside hundreds of government documents, the analysis shows recurring patterns that appear independent of geography or the adversary involved.

“Wars, whether between or within states, are not ending in the 21st century,” Dr. Rand writes. “Frozen conflicts, on-again-off-again fighting, and stalemates have become the norm.”

Dr. Rand argues that this changing nature of warfare has profoundly changed the assumptions underpinning American security strategy.

Following the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington increasingly shifted toward supporting partners rather than committing large numbers of U.S. troops directly to combat. The expectation was that supplying allies with military assistance would provide the United States with considerable influence over battlefield strategy and political consequences.

Instead, Dr. Rand says that American leverage consistently diminishes as conflicts drag on.

One of the study’s central conclusions is that Washington and its partners frequently begin wars without agreeing on what victory actually means. At the outset of each conflict examined—including Ukraine’s defense against Russia, Israel’s campaign against Hamas, the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, and America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan—American and partner governments shared broad objectives, though often failed to establish detailed political end states.

That omission, Dr. Rand argues, becomes increasingly costly as wars continue.

Early battlefield success frequently encourages partners to pursue more ambitious goals than originally envisioned. At the same time, Washington gradually becomes more interested in negotiated settlements as financial costs mount, domestic political support declines, and wider strategic priorities begin competing for attention.

According to Dr. Rand, many officials interviewed expressed regret that these conversations about political objectives, postwar governance, and acceptable settlement terms did not occur before military campaigns gained momentum.

The report also highlights an uncomfortable reality of modern alliances. Although the United States provides enormous military assistance, it does not exercise command over allied governments or their armed forces. As a result, disagreements naturally emerge over strategy, operational design, and acceptable risks.

Ukraine provides one of the clearest examples. Initially, Washington and Kyiv shared an overriding objective of preventing Russia from conquering the country. However, over time, American officials became increasingly divided over whether continued fighting or eventual negotiations better served long-term U.S. interests.

Some officials viewed prolonging the conflict as strategically beneficial because it weakened Russia’s military while strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Others believed diplomatic attempts should have begun earlier, particularly after Ukraine’s battlefield gains in 2022 created what they viewed as an opportunity to negotiate from a stronger position.

Dr. Rand notes that internal disagreements within the U.S. government complicated communication with Ukrainian leaders, in particular regarding expectations for territorial objectives and the role military offensives were intended to play in eventually creating conditions for diplomacy.

The Gaza conflict exposed a different, but related, collection of challenges.

Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks, President Joe Biden’s administration moved rapidly to reassure Israel of unshakable American support while simultaneously urging restraint based on lessons learned from America’s own post-9/11 military campaigns.

Dr. Rand concludes that Israeli leaders largely heard the reassurances while failing to fully internalize Washington’s accompanying warnings about civilian casualties, operational design, and the long-term strategic consequences of an extended campaign.

As the war progressed, American officials increasingly concluded that humanitarian concerns and mounting civilian casualties were not exclusively moral issues but strategic ones as well, arguing that prolonged destruction could ultimately strengthen Hamas’ long-term recruitment and undermine Israel’s own security objectives.

Despite this growing divergence, the report suggests Washington hesitated to use its available leverage aggressively, partly because of domestic political sensitivities surrounding support for Israel.

Another recurring finding centers on American public opinion.

Support for allies often begins overwhelmingly strong immediately after major attacks or invasions. But that support steadily erodes as wars lengthen, casualties mount, humanitarian problems increase, or questions come up regarding the conduct of partner governments.

Dr. Rand says this pattern appears across Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza, and, increasingly, Ukraine.

Importantly, she argues this erosion can occur even when Americans continue believing the underlying cause remains just. Instead, fatigue over prolonged commitments, concerns about costs, or doubts regarding the likelihood of decisive success gradually reshape political calculations in Washington.

Those changing domestic dynamics, in turn, reduce America’s leverage abroad.

Once congressional debates begin questioning military assistance or public enthusiasm declines, allied governments recognize that Washington’s ability to maintain long-term support has become less certain.

Dr. Rand argues this weakens American bargaining power precisely when policymakers most need it.

Among the study’s most significant recommendations is that future administrations should treat leverage as a rapidly diminishing resource.

Rather than assuming influence will expand alongside continued military assistance, Dr. Rand contends the opposite usually occurs. The strongest opportunity to shape an ally’s political objectives exists during the opening weeks of conflict, before battlefield realities, domestic politics, and diverging national interests begin pulling partners in different directions.

To address this, the report proposes forming formal “security contracts,” or a memorandum of understanding, early in future conflicts that clearly define shared political objectives, expected end states, standards for humanitarian conduct, and mechanisms for periodically reassessing strategy.

Dr. Rand also recommends keeping consistent communication across the entire U.S. national security apparatus, warning that mixed signals from different agencies make it easier for partners to ignore American advice or exploit disagreements inside Washington.

Perhaps most notably, the report argues that future administrations should not focus solely on influencing allies. Even in conflicts involving close partners, Washington should simultaneously pursue diplomatic means with adversaries whenever possible, recognizing that negotiated settlements often require engaging both sides rather than relying exclusively on pressure directed at friendly governments.

Ultimately, the analysis shows that the challenge confronting U.S. policymakers goes beyond any single conflict. As interstate wars, civil wars, and proxy wars become increasingly protracted, America’s ability to translate military assistance into political influence may continue shrinking unless it fundamentally rethinks how partnerships are managed from the very beginning of a war.

“The United States must be brutally honest with its partners,” Dr. Rand writes. “The United States must recognize that pressuring its partners to end wars will get harder, not easier, as time passes and the partner grows better able to resist U.S. pressure.”

Study: Dr. Dafna H. Rand, Why can’t the United States end allies’ wars?, Brookings Institution Foreign Policy at Brookings (2026).

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

Ukrainian forces have tracked down and destroyed a rare and high-value Russian Forpost-R reconnaissance and strike UAV capable of carrying guided munitions. The drone, which can deploy KAB-20 laser-guided aerial bombs, was detected and shot down on July 27, 2026, by operators of the 7th “Topota” Battalion of the 414th Separate Brigade “Madyar’s Birds” while […]

The post Rare Target: “Madyar’s Birds” Shoot Down Russian Forpost-R Guided Munitions Carrier appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

A glimpse of the future of battlefield logistics has gone viral. A video circulating widely on social media in recent days – even drawing the attention of military analyst Rob Lee (@RALee85 on X) – shows soldiers from Ukraine’s 3rd Separate Special Purpose Regiment “Prince Sviatoslav the Brave” receiving a food delivery from KFC in a Glovo-branded paper bag. […]

The post Special Delivery from Ukraine’s SOF: Strike Drone Brings Fast Food to Troops in Glovo Packaging appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

This week, U.S. forces in the Middle East intercepted and destroyed an Iranian Shahed-series drone using an interceptor drone that had previously been combat-tested in Ukraine, according to a U.S. official cited by Business Insider. The engagement marked the first operational use by the U.S. military of the American-developed Merops system to destroy a hostile […]

The post Tested in Ukraine: U.S. Downs an Iranian Shahed Drone for First Time Using AI-Powered Merops Drone appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

Ukraine is taking active steps toward establishing domestic production of critical air defense capabilities through a new cooperation initiative with the U.S. defense company Raytheon. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with a company delegation led by Vice President Joseph DeAntona, after which he announced that Ukraine and Raytheon would work together on the production of […]

The post Ukraine and Raytheon Plan Joint Production of Patriot Interceptor Missiles appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

In the latest twist on battlefield innovations, Ukraine has used both flying drone carriers and drone boats to send ground robots armed with weapons or explosives into battle.

The drone-assisted deployments have enabled slower wheeled robots to bypass tough terrain and Russian defenses, and to carry out an unusual robotic amphibious assault on a contested position. Such tactics also showcase the Ukrainian military’s ongoing experimentation with using drones and robots to offset a Russian military advantage in manpower while also sparing Ukrainian soldiers from making dangerous assaults.

On July 19, a Russian military Telegram channel posted a video showing a Ukrainian hexacopter drone carrying a ground robot suspended below by a cable, according to the Ukrainian government-run news platform United24. The Russian Telegram channel described the Ukrainian heavy bomber drone as deploying a four-wheeled ARK-1 robot armed with explosive anti-tank mines on the ground where it continued toward Russian military positions—and apparently generated plenty of outraged comments from pro-Kremlin social media users.

Read full article

Comments

© Dmytro Smolienko/ Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images

Ukraine presented a new reusable version of the domestically developed An-196 “Liutyi” long-range unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at the Farnborough International Airshow. The platform was displayed equipped with four air-to-surface cruise missiles. This new configuration may indicate the evolution of a platform that had previously been employed as a one-way attack (kamikaze) drone. This is […]

The post From a Kamikaze Drone to a Cruise Missile Carrier: Ukraine Unveils a New Version of the An-196 “Liutyi” UAV appeared first on AERONAUT.media.

One week ago, three widely respected European news outlets published the results of an investigation into what they described as a "joint plan" by China and Russia to "defeat Elon Musk's Starlink."

The story was the product of a long-running inquiry by The Insider, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde. Reporters at those publications said they reviewed a cache of documents detailing growing military cooperation between China and Russia. The documents covered discussions between the nuclear powers on integrated air and missile defense systems, autonomous "swarm" loitering munitions, next-generation armored vehicles, and military aviation, the report said.

According to the papers, the investigation found evidence of a partnership between China and Russia in the field of space weapons far deeper than either country has acknowledged. One particular focus for China and Russia has been developing strategies to counter SpaceX's Starlink satellite broadband network.

Read full article

Comments

© SpaceX

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has carried out another successful special operation, resulting in the destruction of a Russian Tu-95 strategic bomber. At the time of the strike, the aircraft was stationed at Engels Air Base in Russia’s Saratov region. According to a statement published on the SBU’s official Facebook page, the bomber had […]

The post Long-Range Drones in Action: Ukraine’s SBU Destroys a Russian Tu-95 Bomber at Engels Air Base appeared first on AERONAUT.media.