
"We Are All Under Threat": Anti-Drone Nets Cover Ukrainian Frontline Roads
Hit by a small, remote-controlled drone, the mangled chassis was a stark reminder of why Ukraine is hurrying to mount netting over supply routes behind the sprawling front line to thwart Russian aerial attacks.
As Russia's invasion grinds through its fourth year, Moscow and Kyiv are both menacing each other's armies with swarms of cheap drones, easily found on the market and rigged with deadly explosives.
AFP reporters saw Ukrainian soldiers installing green nets on four-metre (13-foot) poles spanning kilometres (miles) of road in the eastern Donetsk region, where some of the war's most intense fighting has taken place.
"When a drone hits the net, it short-circuits and it cannot target vehicles," said 27-year-old engineering brigade commander Denis, working under the blazing sun.
Threat from above
"We are shifting into a so-called drone war," Denis told AFP.
FPV (first-person view) drones have already seriously wounded a few of his men. Some are armed with shotguns to shoot them down.
The Russian army has also been deploying nets.
"We weave nets like spiders! For extremely dangerous birds without feathers," the Russian defence ministry quoted a soldier with the call sign "Ares" as saying in April.
An earlier article by pro-Kremlin media outlet Izvestia also showed soldiers mounting netting close to the front.
Everyone is in danger
Drones are also a worry for towns and cities.
Since early July, the town of Dobropillia, around 20 kilometres (12 miles) from the front line, has become a target for Russian FPV drone attacks.
During a recent visit to the civilian hub -- where some 28,000 people lived before the war -- AFP journalists saw residents on the streets rush for cover in shops when a drone began buzzing overhead.
When the high-pitched whirring had died down and the threat disappeared, one woman exiting a shelter picked up her shopping bags and glanced upwards, returning to her routine.
Every day, victims come to the small town's hospital. According to the hospital's director, Vadym Babkov, the enemy FPVs "spare neither medical workers nor civilians".
As the roads "are not yet 100-percent covered" by nets, his ambulances have to take long detours, reducing the patients' chances of survival, the 60-year-old said.
"We are all under threat," Babkov added.
In Russia's Belgorod border region, which frequently comes under Ukrainian fire, authorities have retrofitted ambulances with metal anti-drone cages -- a technology once reserved for tanks and personnel carrier vehicles.
New habits
"Civilians have got used to it," Denis told AFP.
Olga, a waitress in a small cafe and mini-market in Dobropillia, has devised her own way to cope with the constant drone threat.
"When I drive and feel that a drone is going to attack me, I open all the windows to avoid glass shards hitting me," the 45-year-old told AFP.
The atmosphere in the town had become "frightening", Olga said.
The shop next to Olga's was recently hit by an FPV drone, leaving its owner in a coma.
"Now we jump at every gust of wind," Olga said.
"The day has passed -- thank God. The night has passed and we wake up with all our arms and legs intact -- thank God."
Despite the roads constantly coming under attack, Olga still receives products to sell in her small cafe, since suppliers take detours along routes away from the front.
But she doesn't know for how long.
"Everything hangs in the air now," she said. We're living day by day."
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
EU plans to make Russia pay for weapons Ukraine will use against it
After US President Donald Trump approved an arms package to the tune of $10 billion for Ukraine, the European Union (EU) is working on a plan to make Russia foot the bill — and not the EU or the United States. Read to know EU's plan in the works. read more Servicemen of the 24th Mechanized brigade, named after King Danylo, of the Ukrainian Armed Forces fire a BM-21 Grad multiple-launch rocket system toward Russian troops, on a front line, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, near the town of Chasiv Yar in Donetsk region, Ukraine February 15, 2025. (Photo: Reuters) The European Union (EU) is working on a plan to make sure that Russia will fund the latest arms package for Ukraine. US President Donald Trump on Monday announced that Ukraine will get air-defence systems, missiles, and artillery shells, among potentially other equipment, to the tune of $10 billion. He said the EU will buy the equipment on Ukraine's behalf. The Daily Telegraph has reported that the EU has drawn a plan to use profits generated from frozen Russian assets to pay for the arms package. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD ALSO READ: Is Trump giving Putin reasons to believe he's 'weak'? Russia expert explains Ukraine U-turns After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the EU froze Russian assets worth around €210 billion ($243 billion). Even as these assets remain frozen, they remain invested in interest-bearing instruments like government bonds. It is these profits from these assets —and not the assets' principal value of around €210 billion— that the EU plans to use to fund the arms package for Ukraine. Estimates have said that profits from frozen Russian assets could provide around €2.5–3 billion ($2.9–3.4 billion) a year for Ukraine's assistance. Nato to control EU-provided cash pot to arm Ukraine Under plans in the works, the Nato's Ukraine assistance mission —Nato Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (Nsatu)— will take the lead in using profits from Russian frozen assets provided by the EU to purchase equipment and transfer it to Ukraine, according to The Telegraph. 'It is widely considered that Nato's support mission for Ukraine —Nsatu— will play the lead role in coordinating purchases of American weapons and their eventual delivery to Kyiv,' a Nato official told the newspaper. Under what the newspaper called the most likely plan, this is how the EU will provide weapons to Ukraine: Firstly, the Nato will be given the control of the cash pot containing profits from Russian frozen assets and additional funds provided by the EU and Canada. Then, the Nato will purchase military equipment from a 'shopping list' of military equipment provided by Ukraine. ALSO READ: With Russia's terms to Ukraine, Putin seeks surrender — not a peace deal Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski reportedly pushed the idea of the EU using profits from frozen Russian assets to arm Ukraine. Nato chief Mark Rutte has already said that the bloc will buy equipment from the United States and transfer to Ukraine. He further said at least eight Nato members had already signed up for such a plan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Details of the plans are yet to be worked out and the White House is yet to finalise what military equipment will be provided to Ukraine as part of the scheme.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Why Hamas, Hezbollah must face the same moral scrutiny as Israel
Days after Hamas's October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, I reread Japanese author Haruki Murakami's 2009 acceptance speech for the Jerusalem Prize for the Freedom of the Individual in Society. In it he said, 'Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg […] [y]es, no matter how right that wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg.' While this was widely interpreted to be a pro-Palestinian message, I believed that Murakami was making a subtler point about 'the wall' in his metaphor, which he also calls 'The System'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The System,' Murakami tells us, 'is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others—coldly, efficiently, systematically.' This description, I believed, tacitly extended the blame to forces like Hezbollah and Hamas. So I read it as a call to re-examine blind, angry loyalty to one's own side. Subsequent reporting suggested Murakami had been more stridently critical of Israel elsewhere and that Murakami inadvertently held anti-Israel notions due to 'the cultural milieu in which he dwells'. This question in itself doesn't interest me, but another re-reading has convinced me that the speech's inclusiveness was less intended than superimposed by a wishful reader. This realisation was disappointing at several levels. The primary one being that Murakami's greatest appeal was his alienation, an estrangement from society that seemed to place him beyond familiar political divides. His distaste for Japanese nationalist writers like Yukio Mishima is well-known, and his novels like The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle were deeply political, but they seemed to emerge from the depths of the individual 'psyche' where mundane political ideas gave way to universal emotions and images. So this binary, uninsightful nature of his political stances felt like a betrayal of promise. It is my impression—an unverified one—that his 'anti-nationalist' pronouncements grew shriller after the annual Nobel Prize speculation began. Murakami, the master storyteller, surely needn't be warned of the perils of creating paper-thin antagonists. The playwright Aaron Sorkin insists, 'You can't think of your villain as a villain'. Instead, he suggests writing them like 'they're making their case to God about why they should be allowed into heaven'. To be fair, Murakami didn't make Israel out to be an outright villain, and he did defy calls from Palestinian groups to decline the prize. Still, his metaphor of a state having convinced its people to 'kill others—coldly, efficiently, systematically' comes dangerously close. And it's telling that such calls to conscience fall only upon Israel: is Murakami unaware that forces like Hamas and Hezbollah, with the sponsorship of the likes of Iran and Qatar, strive to 'coldly, efficiently, systematically' kill Israelis? Is he also unaware that terrorist acts are designed to invite state clampdowns and cause alienation? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His framing of the issue is of interest because it is indicative of a wider moral incoherence that surrounds this and other conflicts and only accentuates their tragedy. Observe how Murakami's wall-and-an-egg symbolism perpetuates the symbolism of an armed state at war with unarmed people. Gaza's tragedy (and that of Palestinians as a whole) would have been better approximated with the image of an egg being crushed between two steel blocks: one gripping the egg in place and the other closing in and smashing it against the first. The second steel block consists of Palestinian extremist groups and their sponsor states. And it is precisely because serious moral pressure isn't mounted upon this second block that Israeli suffering is perpetuated and Palestinian tragedy compounded. To illustrate, let's take Israel's accusation of Hamas 'unlawfully' embedding military assets in densely populated areas and using them as human shields. New York Times paraphrases Oxford Professor Janina Dill countering the charge with '[e]ven if Hamas uses civilians as human shields, those civilians are entitled to full protection under international law unless they directly participate in the fighting'. Israel can neither be expected to ask its soldiers to get shot rather than fire at terrorists attacking from behind civilians nor will it give up its military objectives. Then why not call for an international ban on Hamas and for the sanctioning of its supporters? Such pressure may well force Hamas to return the hostages and thereby compel Israel to cease fire. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such calls don't arise because global realpolitik and ideological pressures suppress them. Also, the fact that these pressures weigh disproportionately upon individual states suggests that keeping states off balance is desirable to multiple players. But let us stay with the moral discourse here. Counterintuitive though it might seem, international law allows 'certain , including uses directed toward 'self-determination''. Using this outdated anti-colonial provision, ideologues project terrorism as a struggle for self-determination (therefore a ) to justify violent means. [Incidentally, it isn't clear that Hamas's military wing is legitimate in international law.] But even with 'just cause', , and so a more roundabout intellectual exercise begins. For example, Neve Gordon points to Israel's celebration of the roles of Zionist paramilitaries—some murderous—in Israel's creation, seemingly to equate future Hamas's legitimacy with Israel's today. He bemoans the tendency of states to describe civilians they've killed as human shields while describing civilians killed by 'non-state actors'—Gordon won't call them terrorists—as 'civilians.' He also suggests that states locating military offices in densely populated areas should invite similar condemnation. Citing anti-colonial struggles, Gordon then justifies 'the ability to blend into the civilian population' as being 'necessary for military survival' of paramilitaries, given the 'asymmetry of power.' He further holds state militaries' 'new surveillance technologies and enhanced weapon systems' responsible for forcing paramilitary groups to hide in 'densely populated urban settings' and concludes, 'Hamas, in this sense, is no outlier.' This is a 'hardboiled egghead' version of Murakami's egg-and-wall stuff. A question worth posing here is why Gordon doesn't worry that making a military case for human shields is self-defeating, as it would lead us to the concept of STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Legal scholar Louis René Beres writes, 'When Israel's enemies declare an IDF attack on a Gaza high-rise building to be 'disproportionate,' they wittingly ignore ipso facto that the rule of proportionality does not demand any tangibly equivalent infliction of military harms, but only an amount of force that is militarily necessary.' He also introduces a legal concept Gordon assiduously avoids: 'perfidy'. 'To the extent that Hamas and its insurgent allies routinely practice a form of 'human shields', the Palestinian side is guilty of 'perfidy' .Any such practice is illegal prima facie and qualifies as a conspicuously 'grave breach' of the relevant Geneva Convention. The most critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian insurgent leaders is to immunise Israel from any responsibility for inadvertent counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians.' Ideologues don't worry about military cases because their arguments aren't really about principle but about perception: about weaponising Israel's status as a state and a democracy against it. And despite weak disclaimers to the contrary—like Gordon's—Hamas's violence is sought to be semi-legitimised in the name of the Palestinian people. Once again, using wall-and-egg oversimplifications. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Consider the harm caused in one of the most heartbreaking aspects of the war: humanitarian aid. Israel claims Hamas diverts aid supplies for its use and to fund its war. Accusations of Israeli blockades weaponising hunger have even yielded International Court of Justice warrants against Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence Minister Gallant. Israel and pro-Israel voices deny there is starvation and accuse critics of lying. But where's Hamas, the governing party in Gaza prior to the war, in all this? A top Hamas official stated that 75 per cent of Gazans were refugees, so it was 'the UN's responsibility to protect them' and that Israel was obliged to provide for Gaza's citizens under the Geneva Convention. The hostage-taking, civilian-massacring Hamas demanding that Israel take care of its civilians is a stunning double standard, but one that aid agencies and the UN appear to go along with. Meanwhile, most aid agencies object to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private entity backed by the US and Israel, on relief supply citing principle. As aid agencies themselves warn of a humanitarian crisis, why not engage with it for the sake of Palestinian civilians, even if under protest? And why shouldn't governments diplomatically extract concessions from Hamas to facilitate transparent aid delivery? Surely some brakes on the second steel block are also warranted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD I sincerely believe Israel must be held to very high standards to demonstrate that it is not targeting civilians militarily or through aid. But I also believe Hamas must be compelled to cooperate to stop the suffering of Palestinians, release hostages, and be held accountable for October 7. It's a foregone conclusion that most intellectuals will emphatically agree with the former and weasel out of the latter. Sacrificing the egg for the second steel block: that is moral incoherence. The world's intellectuals, media, and institutions must do better. Can Israel seriously be expected to validate people like UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese—the news of whose sanctioning by the US is just breaking—who reportedly justified Palestinian violence? Or journalist Mariam Barghout, who writes in Al-Jazeera of the 'exhilaration' she felt on October 7: '[T]he Palestinians have struck Israel where it has struck Palestinians for more than 75 years: lives and land.' Or Professor John Mearsheimer, who was questioned about his moralistic tone against Israel when he displayed none against alleged Russian 'atrocities' in Ukraine: 'I don't have to provide a consistency of approach. I'm focusing on what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. I'm not comparing what happened in Gaza with what happened on October 7 and what's happened in Ukraine. Those are different issues. You could write a piece like that, but I'm sorry, there's nothing wrong with me analysing what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, period.' Are there no errors or sins of omission? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Conclusion The universal images and emotions of Murakami's fiction can actually help us understand the soul-crushing situation of the Palestinians and Israelis' existential fears. Instead we're served up tendentious agenda-driven narratives, which in truth drive the steel blocks that smash the egg. If aggressive Zionism crushes the Palestinian people, so do ideologies that undermine legitimate states, provide cover to terrorists, and give terror-sponsor countries a free pass. I don't have a personal axe to grind in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I believe India's official position on the Gaza War—condemning terrorism, justifying responsibly striking back, but seeking peaceful resolution of the issue—is the moral one. But, for decades now, I have listened to smug voices shield Pakistan and its terrorist proxy-soldiers and undermine India in exactly the same way. That's enough time to develop an aversion for vacuous moralising and intellectual contortionism. It is better to call terrorism 'terrorism', to know that justifying it in any context is perilous, and that creating ideological space for it is reprehensible. And to those very people who might loosely hurl about terms like 'Islamophobia' or 'genocide justification', I would say Hamas ruled Gaza brutally, with a fundamentalist ideology, killed Israelis including children, took hostages, raped women, and now negotiates to return dead bodies—so just take a look at what it is you are justifying. This isn't 'resistance', it's depravity. And I would question whether such critics genuinely weep for Palestinian suffering and death or find in it a vent for their anger and a useful weapon against an enemy. Incidentally, Murakami's own relations with the political Left suffered a blow when he was semi-cancelled for misogyny in his writings. I won't go into its merits here, but I can't help but sympathise with an author who shared what was within his 'fragile shell' only to find himself up against a 'high, solid wall' made up of 'bricks in the wall' he thought were his allies. The writer is the published author of two novels (Penguin, India and Westland, India) based out of the San Francisco Bay Area. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
What Nato chief doesn't know about Russian oil and Europe's dependence on it
Nato chief Mark Rutte has now asked India and China to put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine after US President Donald Trump has threatened Russia with 'biting tariffs' on oil and gas. But Trump's threat to impose tariffs if Russia does not end the war within 50 days will hurt Europe too. Here's why read more US President Donald Trump's threat to impose tariffs on Russia is being praised by some. Trump, who has seemingly grown disgruntled with Vladimir Putin in recent weeks, has given Russia a 50-day deadline to end the war with Ukraine. Trump has also announced that he will provide Ukraine weapons via North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) – which will finance the deal. Meanwhile, Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who met Trump at the White House, has taken aim at India and China over buying Russian oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But what did Rutte say? And what does he not know about Russian oil and Europe's dependence on it? Let's take a closer look at why secondary tariffs over Russian oil will be bad news for Europe What did Rutte say? Rutte on Wednesday warned countries that continue to buy oil and gas from Russia. This includes India, China and Brazil. India has saved billions of dollars buy purchasing crude oil from Russia since 2022. Trump has threatened to impose 'biting' secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on exports of Russian oil unless Moscow and Kyiv reach a peace deal in 50 days. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump backer, had unveiled such a bill last week. Graham called the proposal, which would reportedly allow Trump to impose tariffs as high as 500 per cent, a 'slegdehammer' that would help Trump end the war in Ukraine. 'As for sanctions, the bill which will not only be against Russia, but will also target countries like China and India that buy Russian energy products that finance Putin's war machine," Graham said. India has saved billions of dollars by purchasing Russian crude oil – which is facing sanctions from the West – in the last financial year. Reuters Rutte has now called on leaders these countries to act. 'My encouragement to these three countries, particularly is, if you live now in Beijing, or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard,' Rutte said after a meeting with US Senators. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He said that they ought to pressure Putin to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine. 'So please make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way,' Rutte added. However, such a bill, if passed and signed into law, would also be bad for Europe. Why tariffs over Russian oil will be bad for Europe In the aftermath of the Ukraine war, the West imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Several states including some in the EU have done their best to wean themselves off Russian oil. In May 2022, Russian gas comprised 45 per cent of the EU's imports. That figure has dropped to 19 per cent in 2024. The EU imported 150 billion cubic metres of Russian oil in 2021. That figure has dropped to 52 billion cubic metres in 2024. While the bloc also has plans to completely stop the import of Russian gas by 2027, many nations still remains dependent on Russian gas and refined oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is mostly routed through other nations. Slovakia and Hungary, who are pro-Moscow, still import Russian gas via pipeline. Fuga Bluemarine crude oil tanker lies at anchor near the terminal Kozmino in Nakhodka Bay near the port city of Nakhodka, Russia. They have opposed the ban on Russian gas. These nations aren't alone either. When it comes to fossil fuels in 2024, France, Austria, Spain, Greece and Italy also replenished Russian coffers. 'Although Russian fossil fuel exports to the West have decreased, glaring loopholes in the sanctions' regime persist', a report from the report from the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) stated in December. In 2024, Russia still comprised 18 per cent of the EU's natural gas imports. The European Union also spends more on Russian oil and gas than it gives financial aid to Ukraine. Though Europe gave $22 billion to Ukraine in 2024, it bought $25 billion worth of fossil fuels from Russia that same year. Trump's announcement comes in the backdrop of Europe's fuel inventories already being at a three-year low. Many European countries have already seen inflation and energy prices spike – resulting in a cost of living crisis. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Experts say reducing Europe's dependence on Russia is no mean feat. As Pawel Czyzak, researcher at the UK-based energy think tank Ember, told DW, 'It has been very difficult for Europe to exit Russian energy fully'. They say it could make Europe plans to build up its fuel supplies ahead of winter more difficult. Meanwhile, Norway, which is Europe's top gas provider is set to cut the supply next month over planned maintenance. Trump's deadline would come at the same time as this work 'which could introduce fresh uncertainty for European gas markets heading into autumn,' Rabobank strategist Florence Schmit was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. It remains to be seen if the EU can stick together when it comes to Russian oil and gas. 'Worried about delay' Meanwhile, Republican US Senator Thom Tillis praised Trump for announcing the steps, but said the 50-day delay "worries" him. He said he was concerned that 'Putin would try to use the 50 days to win the war, or to be better positioned to negotiate a peace agreement after having murdered and potentially collected more ground as a basis for negotiation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'So we should look at the current state of Ukraine today and say, no matter what you do over the next 50 days, any of your gains are off the table,' he added. Rutte said Europe would find the money to ensure Ukraine was in the best possible position in peace talks. He said that under the agreement with Trump, the U.S. would now 'massively' supply Ukraine with weapons 'not just air defense, also missiles, also ammunition paid for by the Europeans.' US President Donald Trump has taken a harsher line on Vladimir Putin recently. Reuters File Asked if long-range missiles for Ukraine were under discussion, Rutte said: 'It is both defensive and offensive. So there's all kinds of weapons, but we have not discussed in detail yesterday with the president. This is really being worked through now by the Pentagon, by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, together with the Ukrainians.' Russia's Dmitry Medvedev, responding to Trump's remarks, said Moscow 'didn't care'. Medvedev dismissed the threat of a tariff on Russian oil as a 'theatrical ultimatum'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But Medvedev added that Trump's remarks were very 'serious', and that Russia 'needed time to analyse what was said in Washington'. With inputs from agencies