Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2025

Front Burner Transcript for June 6, 2025

Host: Jayme Poisson

JAYME POISSON: Hi everyone, I'm Jayme Poisson.

[Music: Theme]

JP: On Sunday, a surprise Ukrainian drone attack, Operation Spider's Web, managed to go deep inside Russia, reaching as far as Siberia for the first time. Ukraine says that 117 drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden in the roofs of wooden sheds for a time, and later loaded onto the backs of trucks where they were remotely launched. Ukraine says that they damaged or destroyed around 41 planes, a third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet. American and European security officials put that number at around 20, but either way, it was an enormous blow. Drones have become increasingly important to both sides of the war in the last three years. Both Ukraine and Russia are turning to cheaper, commercially available drones that can often be bought online and converted into deadly weapons. They have become way more widespread, too. There were drone battles between India and Pakistan last month. Iran has armed its proxies with drones. In many conflicts, like the Sudanese civil war and the Ukraine-Russia war, they have helped to level the battlefield. All of this is to say that drones have both transformed and continue to shape modern warfare. Josh Schwartz is with me today to talk through all of this. He's written a lot about drone warfare over the years for publications like Lawfare and the Washington Post. He also teaches international relations at Carnegie Mellon University.

[Music: Theme]

JP: Josh, hi, thank you so much for coming onto the show.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Thanks so much for having me. Great to be here.

JP: Maybe we could start with this mission, Operation Spider['s] Web. What struck you most about it?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: What struck me most is that I think in some ways it tells the story of the entire war in miniature. First, it really reflects the ways in which drones are transforming warfare. The Russian aircraft that were destroyed in the attack each cost several hundred million dollars, whereas the drones Ukraine used probably only cost a few thousand dollars each.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Swarms of drones picked up on social media from Siberia to the Arctic Circle. At a petrol station north of Irkutsk, a glimpse of the operation in progress. With smoke already rising behind, a drone emerges from the truck and heads off to join the attack. Moments later, another, and gunfire as police officers try to bring it down.

[A Russian man speaking followed by gunfire]

JOSH SCHWARTZ: But despite their low cost, drones are inflicting somewhere around 70% of the casualties in the Russia-Ukraine war -- more than tanks, artillery, small arms and manned aircraft combined. So I think Ukraine's surprise attacks encapsulates how this relatively cheap technology has become just as, if not more, important than expensive and highly advanced legacy weapons platforms.

JP: Could you just tell me a little bit more about what these drones are, and like, what they do exactly?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Sure. So in terms of how drones are actually being used on the battlefield, I'd say they're being used for two main purposes. The first is intelligence and the second is strikes. So in terms of intelligence, drones provide eyes in the sky, essentially, that can be used to identify Russian troop locations and movements and direct artillery and other types of fires more accurately. And then of course, Ukraine, as well as Russia, are using drones, especially so-called suicide drones in particular, to directly conduct strikes against each other. So those are the two main ways I'd say in which drones are being used on the battlefield.

JP: You talked a bit about how Ukraine has been using them, and just could you tell me a little bit more about how Russia has been using them, what kind of success Russia might be having there too?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Sure. So I'd say Russia is using drones in similar ways as Ukraine, but with one important difference. Russia has also used drones to repeatedly attack civilian targets, including residential areas and energy infrastructure.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER 2: Just hours before Russian airfields came under attack, so did the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia. Several buildings were damaged and three people were injured.

[A Zaporizhzhian speaking Slavic language]

REPORTER 2: [translating] It was very loud and scary. While running, I did...

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Though I would argue that while these attacks have been successful tactically -- they've generally been able to hit their marks -- I would argue that they generally have been counterproductive from a strategic perspective for Russia. Because instead of coercing Ukraine to back down, I think these attacks, which clearly violate the basic laws of war, have rightfully enraged Ukraine and made them even more resolved to continue to fight the conflict.

JP: Right, because we've seen, um, communities in Ukraine essentially fundraise to build drones, right? They're actually getting involved in, in building them.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Absolutely. And what I'd say in general that really stands out about Ukraine's drone effort is simply the quantity of drones that Ukraine has been able to produce. So Ukraine is now producing well over a million drones on an annual basis through various sources -- some crowd sourcing, some, you know, government-directed pathways. And just to put that number in perspective, during the entirety of World War II, the U.S. produced around 300,000 aircraft. So I'd argue that the quantity of air power that's being utilized in the Russia-Ukraine war is quite unprecedented historically, and it's certainly been in all of the above effort as you suggested.

JP: What are the drawbacks to these drones generally?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: So I would say that the main con of drones is that they tend to be more vulnerable to air defence than more expensive manned aircraft, which means they're more likely to be destroyed. And in fact, both Russia and Ukraine have been losing thousands of drones per month. And one of the key reasons why drones tend to be more susceptible to being, uh, destroyed is because they are susceptible to jamming. Basically, the communications link between the drone and its pilot, of course, can be disrupted, whereas that's not something that manned aircraft can be targeted with. But drones have other cons as well besides their greater likelihood of being shot down. To some extent, you get what you pay for. So compared to more expensive manned aircraft, drones typically have much lower payload, range, and defensive capabilities.

[music]

JP: We've talked about these drones in the context of the Ukraine-Russia war, but they're being used all over the world, right? Um. I mentioned a few examples in the introduction there -- India-Pakistan, the war in Gaza. We've seen groups like the Houthis use them for their attacks on hundreds of shipping vessels in the Red Sea.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound of loud bangs, an individual yelling in non-English language, an explosion]

JP: Can you walk me through kind of the range of states and groups that are using them today?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Sure. So I think it's striking how quickly drones have spread around the world to lots of different types of actors. And I think that does also speak to their effectiveness. So the modern drone age really began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the United States started using advanced drones to strike terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And until about 2018, the vast majority of people killed in drone strikes were killed in operations carried out by the U.S. government. But as you mentioned, in recent years, drones have been used in dozens of conflicts by both state and non-state actors. So just to give a couple of other examples, Azerbaijan used Turkish-made drones to great effect in a war against Armenia, where they seized the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 2024, Iran conducted a large-scale drone attack against Israel. And countries like Nigeria are using Chinese drones to try and combat terrorist groups like Boko Haram. And again, it's not just state actors using drones, it's also non-state actors. Terrorist groups like the Islamic State have acquired and weaponized cheap commercial drones to conduct attacks. And even rebel groups in countries like Myanmar and Syria have built or bought drones to use against the governments that they're fighting. So at this point, over 90 non-state actors have launched at least some drone attacks. So I think we can see that drones are being used in wars between states, in civil wars, to combat terrorism and to engage in terrorism. So really, the whole gambit.

JP: Yeah. Mexican cartels, as-- you know, who retrofit them with explosives. When it comes to making and manufacturing drones, who are the big players?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Yeah, so this is very interesting, because it's not just the usual suspects of great powers that are acting as the world's biggest drone suppliers. So for example, I mentioned that Turkey has emerged as one of the world's major producers. And their TB2 Bayraktar drones have been used in conflicts ranging from the Russia-Ukraine war to the Sudanese civil war. Iran, of course, is also a major supplier there. Shahed's suicide drones have been used prominently by Russia to conduct attacks against Ukrainian civilians, as I mentioned. [JP: Mm-hmm.] And Iran has also sent drones, as you mentioned, to groups like the Houthis in Yemen and even non-state actors like Hezbollah in Lebanon. And then a country like China has also been a major driver of the spread of relatively advanced drones around the world, especially to authoritarian countries.

[music]

JP: You mentioned before the use of drones post-9/11 during the war on terror. But those were different drones, right, than the commercial ones that we're talking about today, these Predator and Reaper drones. Um. My understanding is that those drones cost millions of dollars. They had like military grade capabilities. But obviously things have really evolved. And so could you take me through maybe some of the big turning points along the way here? Like how did we get from million-dollar drones to these kind of couple-thousand-buck drones?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: It's a great question. So you're absolutely right that, you know, even though most drones are cheaper than manned aircraft, some drones are much more expensive than others. So for example, U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones, which were ubiquitous in the war on terror and are still widely used by the United States, cost around 30 million dollars each. And even Turkish TB2 drones, which Ukraine used to great effect in the early stages of the war, cost over a million dollars. And these are relatively advanced drones that function in some ways like traditional aircraft. They tend to be more capable than the cheaper commercial-grade systems you're being-- you're seeing being used now. But the reason you've seen those more expensive types of drones being phased out is because it's more painful if they're shot down by the enemy. So unless you're operating against a group like the Taliban that doesn't have really any kind of, you know, air defence capabilities, you might be better off using these cheaper drones so that when they're shot down, it's not as much of a financial cost to your country. And for the price of one, you know, 30-million-dollar MQ-9 Reaper drone, you can have, you know, many hundred cheaper commercial-grade drones.

JP: I'm just listening to you. I'm just thinking about, you know, moments in history where technology changed warfare. And I just wonder what this might remind you of. Like I've heard this moment kind of compared to how the V1 and V2 rockets that were used in the Second World War to bombard London really ushered in the era of the missile, for example. And so, you know, I just wonder if you could just talk to me about that, um, and how you see this evolving in the years to come.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: So in terms of historical analogs for drones, I certainly think, you know, missiles is one great example. In some ways, the kind of suicide drones that are being used on the battlefield now are very much akin to missiles, in that they conduct one-way missions that are not expected to, to come back to base. Another historical military technology that I might also point to is the machine gun. Just like drones are increasing the quantity of air power on the battlefield by an exponential amount, machine guns also increase the quantity of bullets that could be fired at any given time. Which had, I think, the effect of making warfare more dangerous for soldiers and making it harder for soldiers to advance openly on the battlefield. And I think in some respects, drones are having a similar effect. Because there are so many of them on the battlefield and because they can use force in relatively precise ways, they're making it harder for soldiers to maneuver and advance on the battlefield and to, and to take territory.

JP: Uh-huh. Talking about soldiers, I know there's been research over the years about how U.S. drone pilots are likely to have similar PTSD as their colleagues on the front lines. You know, I think we think about drones as something removed, but like, half showed severe psychiatric symptoms, right? And just, could you tell me about the psychological impact the drones have had on people, on soldiers, and how that compares to sort of past weapons of war?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Sure. So I mean, one common criticism of drones has been that perhaps they cause a kind of PlayStation mentality to develop, where it becomes easy for soldiers to kill people because they're removed from the battlefield. But as you suggested, empirically, that doesn't really seem to be the case. U.S. drone pilots suffer PTSD at similar or even higher rates than other types of soldiers. And I think the reason for that is because drone pilots know very well that they are killing other human beings. And in fact, oftentimes, they might, from the kind of luxury of distance, they might actually observe their target operating with their family or with friends, which could have the effect of humanizing them. And so that may make it in some ways harder for drone pilots to actually use lethal force. Because in some cases, their own life is not on the line, so they don't have that justification in their own mind to kill people.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER 3: When you think post-traumatic stress disorder, you may think someone going through a horrific event, like a car accident, a shooting.

[Sound of gunfire]

REPORTER 3: Many think a soldier in combat, but what about someone who sits in front of a screen and operates a drone?

DRONE OPERATOR: ...you're doing stuff. You just do it and once you're done, you really don't think about it that much. It's just like another day and... until later on, I think, when it really hits you, where, um, you really see or think about the things that you're doing.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: I would also like to note, though, that given the rise of these more commercial-grade drones, the distance at which pilots operate from the front lines has been compressed. So whereas U.S. drone pilots might have been thousands of miles away from the battlefield, Ukrainian drone pilots are oftentimes much, much closer to the front lines. And so in those cases, the drone pilot's life may very well be at risk. [JP: Mm-hmm.] And so I think there has been a bit of an evolution over time in terms of the distance between pilot and front line.

JP: Sorry if this is a silly question, but why are they so close to the front lines?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Part of it has to do with the range restrictions. [JP: Mm.] Especially if you're dealing with cheaper drones, they might not be able to operate at longer ranges. And one interesting development you've seen in recent months is that in order to try and harden drones against jamming, you've seen the rise of so-called wired drones -- drones that are connected to their pilot via a very thin fibre optic cable, which makes them impervious to jamming. But the downside is that it often reduces the range at which pilots can be from the front lines.

[music]

JP: This drone attack by Ukraine, it took place right before a round of peace talks that are meant to end the conflict. And one thing I was wondering about, I know this is something you've written about: has the facts that these drones are so much more accessible now also meant that wars are going on for longer, given how they often are able to kind of level the battlefield in ways that, you know, we haven't seen before?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Absolutely. I certainly think drones may make the, um, the likelihood of war breaking out greater, because now even relatively weaker rebel groups or terrorist groups are able to acquire commercial drones, maybe from a place like Amazon, and weaponize them. So certainly the likelihood of war breaking out might be increasing because of drones. And I also think drones have a couple of effects once war does break out that could serve to prolong conflicts. First, because drones give states thousands of eyes in the sky, I think it becomes harder to successfully pull off the kinds of decisive surprise attacks that could deliver victory to one side. And then also, defenders can now throw a large quantity of precise drones at exposed enemy soldiers trying to advance and take territory, which could have the effect of causing both sides to dig in, producing drawn-out stalemates. And in fact, returning to the World War I example, I think this is arguably what we're seeing in the Russia-Ukraine war. Russia has been advancing at only a, a glacial pace and at tremendous cost, and many commentators have even remarked that the front lines are starting to resemble World War I-style trench warfare.

JP: You know, the other thing that we haven't touched on yet that I think is worth it is that I, I've seen security officials talk about how this latest surprise attack by Ukraine shows that other countries, like countries like the U.S., countries like Canada, are increasingly vulnerable to these kind of low-tech, low-cost strikes. And what do you make of that?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Yeah, I definitely think it's going to cause countries to take a close look at the defensive capabilities that they have at these kinds of air bases, because it's very painful to lose military aircraft that cost several hundred million dollars apiece. And I think more broadly, the attack potentially highlights the case for investing at least relatively less in very expensive and exquisite platforms like advanced manned aircraft and even aircraft carriers, and maybe relatively more in these kinds of cheap drones. Because even, you know, wealthy countries can only afford to lose a certain number of extremely expensive platforms that are now more vulnerable in this era of drone warfare. So that, you know, that doesn't mean countries should divest fully from legacy military systems, but it does mean that it might make sense for countries to invest in what some have called a high-low mix of capabilities. So rather than just focusing on the high end and just having very expensive exquisite capabilities, also developing these cheaper asymmetric drone capabilities as well.

JP: And what about the vulnerabilities of, like, a potential terrorist attack, where the target is not necessarily, like um, high-end military equipment?

JOSH SCHWARTZ: I think that's one of the biggest dangers with drones. And the reason it's a danger is, is largely because drones are commercially available, and so they can be relatively easily acquired and weaponized by terrorists. Whereas something like nuclear weapons that are very tightly under government control, it's much harder for terrorist groups to acquire those kinds of weapons. And just to give another historical analog, there was a similar problem with dynamite back in the 19th century, which was also a commercially available technology. And it was used by anarchist terrorist groups to conduct many notable attacks, including very high-profile assassinations, like the assassination of Alexander II in 1881. And so I do worry that the same could potentially happen with drones in the absence of smart regulations and safeguards. And you even have seen attempts to use drones to assassinate high-level leaders, such as Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro.

JP: Oh, I actually did not even know that someone had tried to assassinate Maduro with a drone. Wow.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: They did. It was a failed attack, but it was, it was an attempt, and it certainly could have gone the other way.

JP: Huh. And I mean, of course, that is how Israel assassinated, um, Yahya Sinwar, right? The leader of Hamas.

SOUNDCLIP

NEWS PRESENTER: Twenty-four hours ago, an Israeli military drone looking for suspects after a firefight, finding Sinwar on the third floor of a residential building in Gaza, sitting among the rubble. They did not know it was him at the time. He then throws something at the drone. Shortly afterward, Israeli soldiers killing him.

JP: It might be worth us ending then with that discussion about regulation.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Sure. So there's been a couple of relatively common-sense solutions that I would say have been proposed. One would be geofencing, where there are certain sensitive areas that commercial drones are unable to fly into due to their programming. So that could be, you know, nuclear power plants, for example. Facilities that use dangerous chemicals that could be explosive. Government buildings. So that at least would make it harder to use commercial drones to target very sensitive areas. A second could be, um, putting limitations on actors' ability to acquire the most dangerous kinds of commercial drones. So for example, agricultural drones that can carry quite large payloads, and so could potentially be used to conduct very destructive attacks. But, you know, none of those solutions are going to be a complete cure-all for the risks that drones pose to civilians. And they certainly are something that I think terrorist groups are going to continue to try and leverage in the future.

JP: Josh, this was really interesting. A little uh, a little terrifying, but um, really interesting. Thank you so much for coming by.

JOSH SCHWARTZ: Thank you again so much for having me.

[Music: Theme]

JP: All right, that is all for today. Front Burner was produced this week by Matthew Amha, Joyita Sengupta, Lauren Donnelly, Mackenzie Cameron, Matt Meuse, and Allie Jaynes. Our intern is Katie Teeling. Our video producer is Evan Aagaard, and our YouTube producer is Jon Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabason. Our senior producer is Elaine Chau. Our executive producer is Nick McCabe-Lokos, and I'm Jayme Poisson. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.

For more Front Burner transcripts, please click here.

Cheap and deadly: How drones are reshaping war - Transcript

Social Sharing