CNN
 — 

So, Russia and Ukraine are still as far apart as ever, with the two warring countries unable to make a significant breakthrough in direct talks in Istanbul.

While there was agreement to exchange more prisoners, Moscow and Kyiv remain deeply divided over how to bring the costly and bitter Ukraine war to an end.

Russia has shown itself to be particularly uncompromising, handing Ukrainian negotiators a memorandum re-stating its maximalist, hardline terms which would essentially amount to a Ukrainian surrender.

Expectations were always low for a Kremlin compromise. But Moscow appears to have eliminated any hint of a readiness to soften its demands.

The Russian memorandum again calls on Ukraine to withdraw from four partially occupied regions that Russia has annexed but not captured: a territorial concession that Kyiv has repeatedly rejected.

It says Ukraine must accept strict limits on its armed forces, never join a military alliance, host foreign troops or aquire nuclear weapons. It would be Ukrainian demilitarization in its most hardline form, unpalatable to Ukraine and much of Europe, which sees the country as a barrier against further Russian expansion.

Other Russian demands include the restoration of full diplomatic and economic ties, specifically that no reparations will be demanded by either side and that all Western sanctions on Russia be lifted.

It is a Kremlin wish-list that, while familiar, speaks volumes about how Moscow continues to imagine the future of Ukraine as a subjugated state in the thrall of Russia, with no significant military of its own nor real independence.

This uncompromising position comes despite two important factors which may have given the Kremlin pause.

Firstly, Ukraine has developed the technical capability to strike deep inside Russia, despite its staggering disparity of territory and resources. The stunning drone strikes recently targeting Russian strategic bombers at bases thousands of miles from Ukraine is a powerful illustration of that. Ukraine, it seems, has some cards after all, and is using them effectively.

Secondly – and arguably more dangerously for Moscow – the Kremlin’s latest hardline demands come despite US President Donald Trump’s increasing frustrations with his own Ukraine peace efforts.

Trump has already expressed annoyance with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who he said had gone “absolutely MAD” after massive Russian strikes on Ukraine last week.

But now, Trump himself is under pressure as a cornerstone of his second term foreign policy – bringing a rapid end the Ukraine war – looks decidedly shaky.

There are powerful levers to pull if Trump chooses, like increasing US military aid or imposing tough new sanctions, such as those overwhelmingly supported in the US Senate. One of the key backers of a cross-party senate bill that aims to impose “crippling” new measures on Moscow, Senator Richard Blumenthal, accused Russia of “mocking peace efforts” at the Istanbul talks and in a carefully worded post on X accused the Kremlin of “playing Trump and America for fools.”

It is unclear at the moment how the mercurial US president will react, or what – if anything – he will do.

But the outcome of the Ukraine war, specifically the brokering of peace deal to end it, has become inextricably linked with the current administration in the White House.

The fact that Putin has once again dug in his heels and presented an uncompromising response to calls for peace, may now force Trump to act.

London
CNN
 — 

Britain will build new attack submarines, invest billions on nuclear warheads and move toward “war-fighting readiness,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday, shortly before the publication of a landmark review of the future of the country’s military.

Starmer’s government said it would build “up to” 12 new attack submarines as part of its AUKUS partnership with the United States and Australia, replacing the country’s current class of seven subs from the late 2030s.

And he will launch a “historic renewal” of the UK’s nuclear deterrent backed by a £15 billion ($20.3 bn) investment, Starmer said in a speech in Scotland on Monday.

The announcements came on the same day as the publication of the long-awaited UK Strategic Defense Review into Britain’s armed services, which outlined how the British military would pursue an “immediate” shift toward greater use of autonomy and AI in the wake of Ukraine’s experiences in its war with Russia.

“When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready, and frankly, to show them that we’re ready to deliver peace through strength,” Starmer said Monday.

But Starmer refused to set out the timeline for his pledge that Britain’s overall defense spending would hit 3% of the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP). The uplift, announced earlier this year, is set to be reached by the end of the next parliament in 2034, but is dependent on economic conditions.

And the prime minister did not set out where the money to pay for the new weaponry will come from; he previously announced cuts to the UK’s aid budget to fund the uplift in defense spending, and he declined to rule out similar moves on Monday.

According to the 144-page review, units in future will be made up of only 20% crewed vehicles, with the remainder of capabilities split between “reusable” platforms, like drones that survive repeated missions, and 40% single-use weapons, like rockets or attack drones.

The Royal Navy is to “move toward a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet,” and the UK’s two aircraft carriers (the largest in Europe) will shift to being used as a base for European – rather than only British – aircraft and drones.

Meanwhile, under the waves, unmanned subs and sensors will police the North Atlantic against Russian military movements.

However, some such capabilities will require a decade of investment and development, Dr Marion Messmer, a senior research fellow at thinktank Chatham House told CNN.

That stretches far beyond the forecast of certain European countries that Russia could be ready to threaten European borders militarily six months to a few years after ending fighting with Ukraine.

Even so, the boosted investment in the UK’s nuclear capabilities as well as potential integration with European deterrence outlined in the document will strike a nerve with Moscow, she said.

The fiscal promise from the UK falls short of defense spending promises from some NATO countries, whose spending has been closely scrutinized by US President Donald Trump.

NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte said last month he “assumed” NATO members will agree on a defense spending target of 5% at June’s NATO summit, a significant increase from the 2% benchmark, which was agreed to in 2014.

Per 2024 NATO data, only Poland’s defense expenditure was above 4% of GDP, although Latvia and Estonia had promised increases to 5%, with Italy promising a hike to between 3.5 and 5% of GDP. The US’ defense expenditure sat at 3.38% of GDP in 2024, making up some 64% of total NATO expenditure.

Just weeks before NATO allies could agree on a significantly higher spending target, “it seems a little risky for the UK government to essentially have boxed itself in” to a 2.5%-of-GDP spending cap, analyst Messmer told CNN.

The UK’s ambition to lead in NATO, doesn’t fit with spending in the middle of the pack among NATO allies, she said.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and the subsequent pressure from Trump’s administration on European nations to boost their own military capabilities – has sparked a race among Europe’s key military powers to boost their readiness and counter the Russian threat should the White House pull its support for Kyiv.

The UK “cannot ignore the threat that Russia poses,” Starmer told the BBC on Monday. “Russia has shown in recent weeks that it’s not serious about peace, and we have to be ready.”

Starmer said Monday he intended to turn the UK into a “battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances, and the most advanced capabilities, equipped for the decades to come.”

Government MP and member of the British Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, Fred Thomas, told CNN that the review was a “bold plan,” and the first since the 1980s that argued for doing more, not less, with the UK’s military.

However, the British military of today is a long way from its Cold War ancestor. At under half the strength of the regular military in 1989, the British army is a shadow of its former self. In 1989, defense spending accounted for 4.1% of GDP.

“If you want to prepare for tomorrow’s war, you need to make sure you’re at least ready for today’s war. And we’re not ready for today’s war,” MP Thomas said.

The planners hope machines will make up for manpower.

As part of the UK military “fundamentally transforming how it works,” the review recommended enabling any sensor and weapon across the armed forces’ arsenal to work in tandem, using AI to predict threats and speed up decision-making.

Combining conventional armored forces with AI and “land drone swarms,” the review boasted of creating a military 10 times more lethal than the British military’s currently is.

Writing in the Financial Times MP Thomas on May 31, the lawmaker criticised the UK’s ministry of defence’s, “deep cultural and structural resistance to change,” but he said he saw reason to hope in the recommendations laid out in today’s review.

At times frank – the review highlighted how a focus on focus on ‘exquisite’ capabilities has masked the ‘hollowing out’ of the Armed Forces’ warfighting capability – the document still offered a somewhat rosy vision of the British armed forces.

This is at odds with much commentary in the British press, which has slammed the dwindling size, troubled and inefficient equipment procurement and failures of conduct plaguing the British military through its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Analyst Messmer advised caution around some of the review’s promises.

“Ten times more lethal is something that sounds good, but I would really want to see more evidence,” she said, “I think it’s more marketing than anything else.”

Given decades of shrinking investment in the British military, questions have been raised over the deterrence that Britain’s conventional and nuclear weapons offer, particularly given its reliance on a US supply chain. In the past eight years, the UK has publicly acknowledged two failed nuclear missile tests, one of them in the waters off Florida, when dummy missiles didn’t fire as intended.

CNN
 — 

Ukraine’s drone attack against Russian airfields was audacious and daring. But most of all, it was meticulously planned and flawlessly executed.

Kyiv struck where it could make a difference, damaging or destroying military aircraft that Moscow has been using to terrorize Ukrainian civilians with near daily aerial attacks.

The Ukrainian Security Service said 41 Russian aircraft were hit, including strategic bombers and surveillance planes, although it is unclear how many were taken completely out of action.

Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said the attack was “a stunning success for Ukraine’s special services.”

“If even half the total claim of 41 aircraft damaged/destroyed is confirmed, it will have a significant impact on the capacity of the Russian Long Range Aviation force to keep up its regular large-scale cruise missile salvos against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, whilst also maintaining their nuclear deterrence and signaling patrols against NATO and Japan,” he wrote in a note.

This is what we know about how the attack unfolded.

The attacks targeted four airfields deep inside Russia, with the farthest one, the Belaya base in Irkutsk region, some 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles) from Ukraine’s border with Russia.

The other targets included the Olenya base near Murmansk in the Arctic Circle, more than 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) from Ukraine; the Diaghilev airbase in Ryazan Oblast, some 520 kilometers (320 miles) from Ukraine; and the Ivanovo air base, which is a base for Russian military transport aircraft, some 800 kilometers (500 miles) from the border.

A visual shared by the SBU, Ukraine’s security agency, also showed another base in the eastern Amur region as a target. It is not clear whether an attack on this base failed or was aborted.

It’s these huge distances from the border with Ukraine that likely made Russia complacent about protecting the sites.

Its most prized aircraft at the Belaya base were regularly parked in plain sight in the airfield, clearly visible in publicly available satellite images – including on Google Maps.

Moscow likely believed the distance itself was enough to keep the aircraft safe from Ukrainian attacks.

Russia maintains air superiority over Ukraine and while Kyiv’s allies have supplied Ukraine with some long-range missile systems, including US-made ATACMS and British-French Storm Shadows, neither has the range to strike this deep inside Russia.

Ukraine has been using drones against targets inside Russia, including in Moscow, but the low speed at which they travel makes them relatively easy for Russian air defenses to strike them.

This is where the audacity of the attack really played out: rather than trying to fly the drones all the way from the border, Ukraine managed to smuggle them right next to the sites it wanted to target and launched them from there.

Russia’s radar and air defenses at these bases were not prepared for such a low-altitude and sudden attack.

The only effective way to stop an attack like this is with heavy machine guns. Russia has been using these against Ukrainian sea drones in the Black Sea.

But these were either not available or not deployed quickly enough at the air bases targeted by Ukraine on Sunday – most likely because Russia simply didn’t foresee this type of attack.

CNN was able to verify and geolocated photos and videos from the scenes, confirming their locations near the bases.

Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed in a statement that the attacks – which it called “terror attacks” were launched from the vicinity of the airfields.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said 117 drones were used in the operation.

According to the SBU, the drones were smuggled into Russia by its operatives. At some point, likely while already in Russia, the drones were then hidden inside mobile wooden sheds.

Photos obtained by CNN show the drones tucked just under the sheds’ metal roofs, slotted in insulation cavities.

These wooden cabins were then placed on trucks and driven to locations near the bases.

Ukraine did not disclose how exactly it managed to get the vehicles into the vicinity of high-profile military targets without detection, but reports in Russian media suggested it was relatively simple.

Baza and Astra, two Russian Telegram channels, both reported that the trucks were bought by a Ukrainian man who lived in Russia who then simply paid a quartet of drivers to get them where he needed them.

Neither Russian nor Ukrainian authorities commented on these reports, but the Russian state news agency RIA reported that authorities in the Irkutsk region were searching for a man who was suspected of being involved in the attack. His name matched the name reported by Baza and Astra.

The Ukrainian Security Service said the operatives involved in the operation were safely back in Ukraine by the time the attacks started. Zelensky said they worked across multiple Russian regions spanning three time zones.

A senior source with Ukraine’s drone development program told CNN the pilots who flew the drones were probably nowhere near the locations from which they were launched.

“They would have likely setup an internet hub allowing the pilots to (control them) remotely, each rapidly deploying each FPV (first person view drones), hitting each target one by one.”

The source said the communication hub could be “a simple Russian cell phone” which is harder to track than other systems, such as Starlink that is used widely in Ukraine.

A source briefed on the matter confirmed the attack was carried out via Russian telecommunications networks.

Once the trucks were in place and the drones ready to go, the cabin roofs opened and the drones flew towards their targets.

A video of the attack in Russia’s southeastern Irkutsk region that was shared on social media and verified and geolocated by CNN shows two drones flying out of a truck.

They are seen heading towards the Belaya air base in the distance, where thick dark smoke is already billowing from a previous strike.

Another video from the same location shows the truck used to transport the drones on fire after what appears to be an explosion designed to self-destruct the truck.

Zelensky said on Sunday that the attack was in the making for one year, six months and nine days, and praised the security services for a “brilliant” operation.

Russian officials have downplayed the attack, saying strikes were repelled in the Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur regions but that “several pieces of aircraft” caught fire after attacks in the Murmansk and Irkutsk regions. It added that the fires had since been extinguished.

It said there were no casualties. But while Russian authorities tried to downplay the attack, several high-profile Russian military bloggers have been vocal in their criticism.

Rybar, a high-profile Russian military blog, said the attack caused a “tragic loss for the entire Russian air fleet” and was a result of “criminal negligence.”

The SBU said the strikes caused an estimated $7 billion in damages and hit 34% of Russia’s strategic cruise missile carriers at its main air bases – a claim CNN cannot independently verify.

Ukraine said it destroyed several TU-95 and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers and one of Russia’s few remaining A-50 surveillance planes.

A source briefed on the matter said 27 Tu-95, four Tu-160, two Tu-22M3 and “probably” an A-50 were hit.

The Tu-22M3 is Russia’s long-range missile strike platform that can perform stand-off attacks, launching missiles from Russian airspace well behind the front lines to stay out of range of Ukrainian anti-aircraft fire.

Russia had 55 Tu-22M3 jets and 57 Tu-95s in its fleet at the beginning of the year, according to the “Military Balance 2025” report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.

The Tu-95 joined the Soviet Union air force in the 1950s, and Russia has modified them to launch cruise missiles like the Tu-22.

Bronk, the RUSI expert, said that replacing some of these aircraft would be very difficult for Russia because they have not been produced for decades.