West Asia Crisis: Historical, Strategic, and Racial Dimensions

YouTube

The crisis in West Asia encompasses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran-Israel tensions, and broader instability. Some frame the crisis as a continuation of Western racial hegemony. This perspective is not entirely unfounded, but it fails to capture the complexity of strategic, historical, and regional factors at play.

Historical Context

The historical context of Western involvement in West Asia is deeply rooted in colonialism. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, European powers divided the region through the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Britain and France created artificial borders without considering the ethnic, tribal, and religious makeup of the people living there. Rashid Ismail Khalidi, a Palestinian-American historian, has pointed out that these borders were drawn with “no regard for local realities.” The result was a collection of fragile states, many of which were ruled by regimes aligned with Western interests. This colonial legacy sowed deep resentment and left behind a fractured political landscape.

The discovery of oil in the region added another layer of Western interest and interference. West Asia became a critical energy supplier for the industrialising West, especially during and after World War II. Britain and France initially dominated, but the United States soon took over as the main external power. Washington’s policy focused on containing Soviet influence, maintaining access to oil, and securing regional allies. To achieve this, the U.S. offered military and financial support to governments like Saudi Arabia and Israel, helping them maintain power in exchange for loyalty. Israel, in particular, emerged as a key Western ally, often viewed as a strategic outpost to maintain U.S. hegemony in the region.

This approach created long-term dependencies and suppressed local movements for self-determination. Critics argue that while the West no longer uses overtly racial language, its policies continue to reflect a system that disadvantages non-Western, non-White populations. However, the motivations behind contemporary Western involvement in West Asia are as strategic as they are racial.

Strategic Motivations and U.S. Involvement

Modern Western engagement in the region revolves around three main goals: containing Iran, maintaining strategic alliances, and securing energy routes. The escalation in June 2025, marked by Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites in locations such as Arak, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, followed by U.S. military involvement, underscores these priorities. Israel described its initial attacks, launched on June 13, 2025, as preemptive measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which it considers an existential threat. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes, including hypersonic weapons, claiming to have breached Israeli airspace. The death toll from these exchanges exceeded 600 in Iran and 224 in Israel, raising fears of a wider regional war.

The United States’ decision to join Israel’s campaign, announced by President Donald Trump on June 21, 2025, marked a significant escalation. Trump authorised strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines. In a televised address, Trump claimed the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, describing the operation as a “spectacular military success.” The decision was driven by several factors. First, Trump and his administration believed Iran’s nuclear program posed an imminent threat, with U.S. intelligence assessments suggesting Israel’s prior attacks had only delayed Iran’s nuclear progress by six months. Trump publicly dismissed claims by his intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, insisting Iran was “very close” to achieving nuclear capability. Second, Trump’s close coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he praised for working as a “team like no team has ever worked before,” reflected a strategic alignment to decisively neutralise Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Third, Trump’s frustration with stalled diplomatic efforts played a critical role. Despite earlier attempts to negotiate a new nuclear deal to replace the Obama-era agreement he abandoned in 2018, Trump grew convinced that diplomacy had “run its course” after Iran rejected his calls for “unconditional surrender” and continued retaliatory strikes against Israel.

However, the decision was controversial. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Jim Himes and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, argued that Trump’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congressional approval for military action. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie, also opposed the strikes, calling them unconstitutional. Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and House Speaker Mike Johnson, supported the move, arguing it was necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which they deemed the “most acute immediate threat” to the U.S. and its allies. The strikes, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved 125 U.S. aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers carrying 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) “bunker buster” bombs, specifically targeting the heavily fortified Fordow facility. Despite Trump’s claims of total destruction, Iranian officials and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported limited damage and no increase in off-site radiation levels, suggesting Iran may have moved critical materials prior to the attack.

Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Hamas in Gaza have led to catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Since October 2023, Israeli military campaigns have killed over 55,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including women and children. Independent analyses suggest that up to 80% of the casualties in residential areas were civilians. On June 17, 2025, at least 51 Palestinians were killed while waiting for food aid in Rafah and Khan Younis. Witnesses and international media reported that Israeli forces opened fire on crowds gathered at aid distribution points. These incidents sparked outrage and drew comparisons to colonial practices where food and aid were used as tools of control. Humanitarian organisations, including the UN and Médecins Sans Frontières, accused Israel of obstructing aid and warned of possible war crimes.

Western Hypocrisy and Regional Perceptions

The selective response of Western countries to these events has drawn accusations of hypocrisy. The U.S. continues to provide military and financial aid to Israel despite mounting civilian casualties, while strongly condemning Iran for its support of armed groups like Hezbollah and for its nuclear program. This inconsistency has led some critics to claim that Western governments value strategic interests more than human rights. To many observers, these actions carry undertones of racial bias, as the disproportionate impact on Arab and Muslim populations is often downplayed in Western media and policy discussions.

It is true that Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway have imposed sanctions on Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians. The European Union is a major humanitarian donor to Palestinians, and is now reviewing its trade relations with Israel. But their condemnation of Israel is muted and of Trump absent.

The actions of Israel and its Western allies smack of neo-imperialism.    Israel is a tool of American imperialism. Many accuse the West of operating a “genocidal crime syndicate.” These expressions capture the depth of anger and disillusionment in the region. Decades of foreign interference, military interventions, and broken peace promises have created a strong sense of betrayal.

Security vs. Racial Narratives

In contrast, Israel and its allies argue that their actions are driven by security concerns. Israel sees Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as existential threats. The United States views its role as stabilising the region by countering Iran, ensuring the flow of oil, and supporting a democratic ally in Israel. Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was framed as a necessary step to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state, which he argued would destabilise the region and threaten global security. Even when Western leaders express concern about civilian casualties, they tend to frame these tragedies as unfortunate byproducts of necessary military actions.

The vast majority of civilian casualties are Arab and Muslim. A 2025 report by the Middle East and North Africa Research Center described racism as a “global pandemic” and noted that Western media and political leaders often downplay suffering in non-White regions. This selective empathy, critics argue, reinforces a global hierarchy that devalues non-Western lives.

However, most Arab governments are keeping their distance from Iran, even if they criticise Israel from time to time. Iran is a Shia Muslim country, while most Arab countries follow Sunni Islam. There is a long history of mistrust and rivalry between Shia and Sunni leaders. Many Arab states are worried about Iran's growing influence in the region. Iran supports armed Shia groups in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These groups often challenge the authority of Sunni governments. Arab rulers see Iran as a country that wants to spread its power using religion and weapons.

Although many Arabs support the Palestinian cause, they do not trust Iran’s way of helping. Iran says it supports the Palestinians, but Arab leaders believe Iran is using the issue to gain power in the region. People in these countries may feel strongly about Palestine, but they do not want their leaders to join a dangerous war started by Iran. Even Syria, which depends on Iran for military help, is focused on its own survival and does not want to invite more trouble.

So, Arab countries are staying out of Iran’s war with Israel and the U.S. because of religious differences, political rivalry, economic interests, fear of unrest, and a desire to protect their own power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the West Asia crisis is deeply shaped by the legacy of Western hegemony, especially the colonial borders and alliances created in the twentieth century. Current conflicts are driven as much by strategic interests as by racism. Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025 was motivated by a strategic alignment with Israel to counter Iran’s perceived nuclear threat. The impact of these policies disproportionately affects non-White populations, fuelling perceptions of racial injustice. However, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and insecurity among Arabs too have complicated the situation which is worsening by the day.

west asia crisis, iran israel conflict, trump iran strikes, operation midnight hammer, palestine israel war 2025, iran nuclear program, fordow natanz isfahan attack, us israel alliance, colonial legacy west asia, middle east tensions, palestinian deaths 2025, humanitarian crisis gaza, racial bias in foreign policy, western hegemony middle east, west asia strategic interests, b2 bombers iran, tomahawk missiles iran, trump netanyahu iran attack, arab iran rivalry, sunni shia conflict, middle east geopolitics 2025, israel gaza war, us military iran 2025, trump foreign policy, iran nuclear retaliation, rafah khan younis aid attack, western hypocrisy middle east, racial injustice global politics, israel war crimes, neocolonialism middle east

How Israel vs Iran Is Derailing India’s Central Asia Strategy

 

YouTube

The long-running rivalry between Israel and Iran has descended to a regional crisis with global consequences. What started as proxy wars and strong words has now turned into a full-fledged war. How does it affect India’s interests? But before that let us understand the causes of this crisis.

A Recurring Flashpoint with Growing Global Stakes

Israel and Iran have deep ideological differences. Iran follows Shia Islamic beliefs, while Israel is built on Zionist ideas. Iran is a rising regional power while Israel wants to establish its hegemony in the region. This creates tension between them. Israel considers Iran as a threat to its very existence. This is because Iran backs armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen which are anti-Israel and anti-West. Let us understand this crucial dynamic.

Hamas is a Sunni group. It was founded in 1987, and stems from the Muslim Brotherhood. It governs Gaza and functions as both a political party and an armed group. Hezbollah originated in the 1980s with Iranian support. It’s a Shia Islamist group with military and political roles in Lebanon. Houthis are Shia Islamists and originated in Northern Yemen. Since 2014, they have controlled much of Yemen, including Sana’a.

Despite their sectarian differences Iran has managed to unite them as part of its Axis of Resistance. Iran leads a loose network including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. They often act in concert, despite the absence of a formal alliance, especially during regional conflicts.

Iran funds, arms, and trains all three groups. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, especially its Quds Force, plays a major role in connecting and supporting these groups. Iran leverages them to expand its regional power and challenge rivals. This strategy simultaneously pressures Israel and its allies.

Evidence suggests coordination among these three groups during major conflicts. Hamas’ October 7th 2023 attack may have involved Hezbollah and Iran. 2023-2025 Red Sea attacks on U.S. and Israeli ships showed Houthi support for Hamas.

Israel counters Iranian backed attacks through preemptive strikes and cyberattacks. A big change happened in April 2024. Iran launched a massive attack against Israel, using over 300 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. The attack was in response to a suspected Israeli airstrike on April 1st, targeting an Iranian consulate in Damascus; the strike killed sixteen people, among them two Iranian generals. For the first time, Iran directly attacked Israeli territory in an operation known as True Promise.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major military campaign against Iran, calling it Operation Rising Lion. The strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear sites, missile infrastructure, and military leaders. Israel justified its preemptive attacks. Intelligence reports indicated Iran had bomb-grade uranium and was violating nuclear agreements. Hundreds of Israeli jets and drones attacked over 100 Iranian sites, including nuclear and military targets. Dozens of Iranians, including top military and nuclear officials, were reportedly killed. Satellite photos show attacks on Natanz, missile bases like Tabriz and Kermanshah, and power facilities.

Iran retaliated under Operation True Promise III with missiles and drones aimed at Israel. They launched over 150 ballistic missiles and 100+ drones, many intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems. The death toll for Israeli civilians has reached 24, with dozens more wounded. This marks a direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran for the first time, raising fears of a wider region‑wide war.

How the Israel-Iran Conflict Affects India

Despite distance, India remains significantly involved. It has strong ties with both Israel and Iran, but these relationships often clash with each other.

India no longer buys oil from Iran due to U.S. sanctions, but imports over 60% of its oil and gas from West Asia. After the conflict began, oil prices jumped 9–12%, reaching around $78 per barrel. If the conflict worsens and Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz—a key route for 20–25% of the world’s oil—the price could rise to $120–130. Every $10 increase in oil can cut India’s GDP growth by 0.3% and raise inflation by 0.4%, threatening the gains made recently. The Reserve Bank may delay cutting interest rates as planned.

India trades around $400 billion every year with Europe, the US, Africa, and West Asia. This trade depends on shipping routes through the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz. Attacks by Houthi rebels have already pushed up shipping costs by 40–60% and insurance rates by 30%. Traffic through the Red Sea is down by 42%. If things get worse, ships may have to go around Africa, adding 2–3 weeks to delivery times and increasing costs by up to 20%. Exports like tea and textiles, especially to Iran, may suffer. India exported 4.91 million kg of tea to Iran in early 2024.

Investors are moving their money to safer assets like gold, which is hitting new highs. Companies with links to Israel (like Adani Ports, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s) and industries that depend heavily on oil (aviation, auto, paint, cement) are facing losses.

The war could delay major projects like the IMEEC, which is India’s answer to China’s Belt and Road plan. The Chabahar Port in Iran—important for India’s access to Central Asia—could also be hit.

Chabahar Port: A Strategic Gateway in Jeopardy

In May 2024, India and Iran signed an important 10-year deal. This agreement gives India control over the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar the port, which is in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province. India agreed to spend $120 million to improve the port and also offered a $250 million credit for future work. It gives India its only direct way to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia without going through Pakistan. It is a key part of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). This is a 7,200-kilometre trade route that connects India to Russia through Iran and the Caspian Sea.

India sees Chabahar as a way to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It also helps balance the growing influence of the Chinese-backed Gwadar Port in Pakistan. Chabahar’s future is now uncertain. The growing conflict between Iran and Israel has made big projects like this more risky. Earlier, the U.S. had allowed work on Chabahar because it helped Afghanistan. But in February 2025, a new order ended that exemption. Now, Indian companies working there could face U.S. sanctions.

Shipping through nearby areas like the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea has already become dangerous. There are threats from sabotage, piracy, and blockades. These risks make shipping more expensive because insurance costs go up.

India also has to deal with Iran’s growing friendship with China. On March 27, 2021, China and Iran signed a 25‑year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (aka “cooperation pact”) in Tehran. This gives China a lot of control over Iran’s trade and infrastructure. If China invests in Chabahar, India’s role could become smaller or even be replaced. As Iran’s foreign policy moves closer to China, India’s goals may suffer. India needs Iran’s support to reach Central Asia, so this shift could hurt its plans. Another bad news is the IMEEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor), meant to rival China’s Belt and Road, is also facing problems. Though it was approved during the 2023 G20 Summit, Iran’s opposition and regional instability have slowed its progress.

Central Asia: The Prize Behind the Port

India is interested in Central Asia for both economic and strategic reasons. The region has large amounts of natural gas, oil, uranium, and rare earth minerals. It also offers new markets for Indian products like medicines, IT services, and education. But Central Asia is landlocked and has strong ties with Russia and China. India planned to fix this by using the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Unfortunately, the Israel-Iran conflict has hurt these plans. Houthi rebels have attacked cargo ships in the Red Sea and Suez Canal. Consequently, numerous Indian vessels now circumnavigate the Cape of Good Hope. This longer route adds 12 to 18 days to the journey and increases shipping costs by 40% to 60%.

Trade with Central Asia is also falling. Meanwhile, China is increasing its presence in Central Asia. It is building railways and energy projects through its Belt and Road Initiative. India needs to act quickly to remain a strong player in the region.

Indians in the Conflict Zone

About 10,700 Indians live in Iran, mostly traders and students. Around 18,000–32,000 live in Israel. The Gulf region is home to 8–9 million Indians. After bombing intensified, Indian officials began shifting students in Iran to safer areas. A larger war might require mass evacuations.

India has issued warnings against travel to both countries. Flights are being rerouted due to airspace closures. For example, an Air India flight to London had to return after three hours. These diversions are adding to travel time and costs.

Conclusion

The Israel-Iran war is shaking up India’s economy, energy security, and regional diplomacy. Rising oil prices, stock market drops, trade delays, and the risk to Indians abroad are immediate concerns. Projects like Chabahar Port and the IMEEC are at risk, while India’s neutral position is getting harder to maintain. Some relief comes from Gulf nations staying neutral and India’s financial strength—but if the war continues, the impact could be severe.

India should build stronger energy and trade ties with stable Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These countries already supply a lot of India’s oil and invest heavily in India.

India should also invest more in its naval and cyber security. Because shipping costs have gone up sharply, India needs to build more of its own cargo ships. It should also boost its sea patrols in the Arabian Sea and nearby areas. Working closely with navies from France, the U.S., and the UAE would help.

The future is uncertain, the global turmoil is only getting worse. India needs to recalibrate its diplomatic, economic and geopolitical priorities. For this a visionary leadership is imperative.

India foreign policy, Chabahar Port, Israel Iran conflict, West Asia tensions, India Central Asia trade, Chabahar Iran India, geopolitics India, India Iran relations, India Israel relations, INSTC corridor, Belt and Road Initiative, India oil imports, Strait of Hormuz crisis, India Middle East policy, India strategic interests, global trade routes, Chabahar vs Gwadar, India China rivalry, India US sanctions, West Asia instability, India economy oil, India trade disruption, Chabahar Port news, Central Asia connectivity, IMEEC corridor, India shipping crisis, Iran missile attacks, Indian navy strategy, India Middle East trade, regional conflict impact India

Ethnic War, Guns, and Betrayal: What’s Really Happening in Manipur?

YouTube

Since May 2023, a protracted ethnic conflict has gripped Manipur between the Meitei majority and the Kuki-Zo tribal communities. The crisis has claimed hundreds of lives, displaced thousands of people. Thousands of homes and religious structures, mostly churches, have been destroyed. Yet, we do not hear much about what’s happening there. Of course, we know that the BJP has not yet reached a consensus on a new chief minister, leading to ongoing political instability. Occasionally small news items trickle down to indicate how things are still hopeless there. So hopeless that President’s rule was imposed on February 13, 2025.

Origins of the Crisis

Manipur has a long history of ethnic conflict. In 1992, Naga-Kuki clashes forced over 1 lakh people to leave their homes. The present crisis continues the divide between the hill and valley areas. The Meiteis control the richer Imphal Valley, while tribal communities in the hills feel left out and neglected.

Many state policies are seen as favouring the Meiteis. These include the "war on drugs," eviction drives, and checks for "illegal immigrants." The Kuki-Zo community believes these actions unfairly target them. Other rules, like the Inner Line Permit and Free Movement Regime, are also seen as unjust to hill communities.

The Meiteis make up 53% of Manipur’s population. They are mostly Hindu and concentrated in the Imphal valley. This valley covers only 10% of the state’s land but is the centre of politics and the economy. The Kuki-Zo and Naga communities live in the hill districts. These hilly areas make up 90% of the state but are less developed. They are mostly Christians and have the ST status. They are worried that giving ST status to the Meiteis would harm their rights to land, jobs, and education. Their fears were triggered by several developments. Meiteis are not allowed to buy land in the hill areas, which are protected for tribal groups. In 2012, the Meiteis started demanding ST status so they could get benefits like land rights and job reservations. The Kuki-Zo and Naga communities saw this as a threat to their land, jobs, and opportunities. In April 2023, the Manipur High Court suggested that the Meitei community should also be given the Scheduled Tribe status. This made ethnic tensions worse. 

On May 3, 2023, the All Tribal Student Union of Manipur held a Tribal Solidarity March in the hill areas. This was a protest against the Manipur High Court’s suggestion in April 2023 that the Meitei community should be given Scheduled Tribe or ST status. The protest became violent. Later, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court's order because of problems in the legal process.

Foreign Involvement & Domestic Issues

Manipur shares border with Myanmar. Many refugees from the Chin tribe—who are related to the Kuki-Zo—have crossed the border. The government says over 8,000 refugees have entered Manipur. Most of them are from the Chin tribe, who are related to the Kuki-Zo. Meitei activists say the Indian government has failed to stop these refugees. Drug networks have also taken advantage of this situation. This has made the Meiteis worried about changes in demographics. 

The Manipur state government and some Meitei groups often blame Myanmar and even suggest that China may be helping the Kuki-Zo community. They claim that this community is linked to drug trafficking and armed groups from across the border. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has said that militants from Myanmar and Bangladesh are involved in the Manipur violence. Since 2023, over 6,000 guns have been looted from police stations. These weapons may have helped militant groups grow stronger. The Kuki-Zo groups deny all links to militants. They say these foreign link claims are just excuses to treat them unfairly.

However, most of the conflict in Manipur is caused by issues inside the state. The state government is accused of being biased in favour the Meiteis. Kuki-Zo leaders and rights groups say the government is wrongly calling them “illegal immigrants,” “poppy farmers,” and “terrorists.” Government offices, police, and even the media are seen as taking sides. Radical Meitei groups like Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun have attacked Kuki-Zo people. In response, Kuki-Zo militant groups have also used violence.  So, although foreign interference is a fact, the primary reasons for the crisis are local rivalry and unfair politics.

Steps Taken to Resolve the Crisis

The Indian government has tried many things to stop the violence, but they have not worked well. Police, paramilitary forces, and the army have been sent, supported by drones and helicopters. These forces work under a single command. The state has also used curfews and internet shutdowns to stop unrest and fake news. One internet ban lasted until November 2024.

After the Home Minister’s visit to Manipur, a 51-member peace committee and a 3-member inquiry team were formed. In February 2025, the Chief Minister resigned after complaints of bias. The Centre then imposed President’s Rule for fairer governance. Despite these efforts, violence has not stopped. Both Meiteis and Kuki-Zo refused to join the peace committee. They said they don’t trust the government. A key example is the attack on two Kuki women in May 2023. The attackers were only arrested after the video went viral. Relief work has been poor. Many families are stuck in camps without clean water, toilets, or medical help. Most help comes from churches and NGOs. People feel abandoned and angry.

The Centre has acted slowly. It took too long to replace the Chief Minister. Even after President’s Rule, things have not improved much. Border fences and stopping the Free Movement Regime have upset the Kuki-Zo and Naga people.  Worse, militant groups have returned. All attempts to seize the looted weapons from them have failed. This has made peace talks harder.

Pathways to Resolve the Crisis

To bring peace, a well thought out and credible plan is needed. It must include honest talks, fair rule, and help for all communities. A new peace committee should be formed with equal representation from the Meitei, Kuki-Zo, and Naga communities, guided by neutral mediators such as retired judges or respected civil society leaders. Women must be given a central role in this process, ensuring their voices are heard. A truth and reconciliation panel should openly address past injustices and human rights violations to rebuild trust. Community-driven cultural and development projects can help bridge the deep divide between hill and valley populations. Disarmament of militant groups should be pursued through a clear, time-bound amnesty program. At the same time, the state police must be restructured to reflect the region’s ethnic diversity and to operate with fairness and accountability. Central security forces must adhere to strict rules of engagement. Anti-insurgency operations should be carried out without targeting specific communities.

To ensure fair governance and accountability during President’s Rule, a neutral administrator should be appointed and closely monitored by a special oversight committee. An independent ombudsman must be in place to handle public complaints transparently. Strengthening local village and town bodies is also essential to reduce the power imbalance between the hill and valley regions.

Humanitarian aid must ensure relief camps have adequate food, clean water, sanitation, and healthcare. International aid agencies should be allowed to assist under strict oversight. Hill regions need urgent investment in roads, jobs, and basic services. Joint economic projects involving both communities can promote cooperation. Victims who lost homes or livelihoods must receive financial support and rehabilitation.

Addressing External Factors

The government must engage with Myanmar to manage refugee inflows in a humane and secure manner. Any decisions on border fencing or travel restrictions should involve consultations with local communities. Independent investigations are essential to verify claims of foreign involvement and prevent scapegoating of specific groups.

Manipur is in a sensitive region that affects India’s national security. The crisis there is serious because of its border with Myanmar. That border is not well-guarded. Conflicts in Myanmar are spreading into Manipur. The Kuki-Zo share family and cultural ties with Myanmar’s Chin tribe. This has brought in more refugees and possibly armed groups. This has raised fears of guns and drugs coming in from across the border.

The looting of weapons and the return of insurgents have raised the demand for a separate Kuki-Zo area. If the conflict spreads, it may affect other states like Nagaland and Mizoram. This would distract India from bigger issues like the China border.

Conclusion

The Manipur conflict is now in its third year. It continues because of strong ethnic divisions and weak leadership. Although Myanmar’s problems add pressure, the main causes are mistrust, unfair policies, and old grievances. Government steps like sending forces and President’s Rule have not healed the divide. A long-term solution must include fair talks, disarmament, just governance, and help for affected people. India must learn from past peace efforts like the Mizoram Accord and show strong political will. Only then can we bring lasting peace to Manipur.

Manipur conflict, Manipur crisis 2023, ethnic violence Manipur, Meitei vs Kuki, Manipur unrest, India ethnic violence, Kuki-Zo crisis, Manipur refugees, Manipur ST status, Myanmar border issues, Manipur tribal conflict, Manipur peace process, India Northeast crisis, Manipur violence update, ethnic tensions India, Manipur news, Manipur human rights, India politics 2023, India national security, Kuki-Zo vs Meitei, India Myanmar border, Northeast India conflict.

Operation Spiderweb: A Paradigm Shift in Asymmetric Warfare & India

YouTube

On 1st June, the war between Russia and Ukraine took a dramatic turn. Ukraine carried out a surprise attack called Operation Spiderweb, targeting Russian air bases. This operation used cheap drones, smart planning, and accurate intelligence. It caused serious damage to Russia’s air power, reportedly destroying around one-third of its long-range bombers.

Let’s break down what happened.

Lieutenant General Vasyl Malyuk of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) planned the Operation Spiderweb. According to President Zelensky, the plan was in the works for 18 months. It was a direct response to Russian bombers attacking Ukrainian cities and infrastructure with cruise missiles. These bombers—Tu-95, Tu-22M3, and Tu-160—were based at bases far from Ukraine, such as Belaya (4,300 km away) and Olenya (1,900 km away), considered safe from attack.

Ukraine’s real success was in its secret logistics. Ukrainian agents sent 117 FPV drones into Russia, hidden in wooden crates transported by unsuspecting Russian civilians. Ukrainian agents placed these drones near five air bases, spread across five time zones. Open-source software and 4G internet enabled Ukrainian agents to control the drones remotely. One hidden base was even set up near a Russian FSB office—the agency that replaced the Soviet KGB after the USSR broke up in 1991.

Operation Spiderweb shows how low-cost technology, intelligence, and creativity can challenge even a powerful military. The operation raises big questions about the serious weakening of Russia’s air power. Will this kind of warfare become the new normal in future conflicts? Or will other models emerge?

Only time will tell.

Ukraine’s Underwater Drone Strike on the Crimea Bridge

On June 3, 2025, Ukraine once again showed the power of drones — this time using an underwater drone to strike the Kerch Bridge, which connects Russia to Crimea. The attack took place at 4:44 a.m., using explosives placed on the bridge’s underwater pillars. The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) had secretly planted these explosives over several months. The blast reportedly equaled 1,100 kilograms of TNT, aiming to weaken the bridge’s underwater support structure.

Satellite images verified the SBU’s video of the underwater explosion, as reported by Reuters and the New York Times. Russia admitted there was an explosion but claimed the bridge was still in use and not badly damaged. Ukraine has attacked the bridge three times since 2022. The bridge is very important for Russia, both as a military route and as a symbol of its control over Crimea since 2014.

Russian sources claim Ukrainian sea drone involvement; however, this remains unconfirmed.

Ukraine destroyed Russian long-range planes using drones in Operation Spiderweb. Russia uses the Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160, and A-50 for nuclear and conventional strikes. Many are old and expensive to replace.

Ukraine deployed 117 FPV drones. Hidden trucks near Russian airbases launched these drones. The coordinated attacks overwhelmed Russian defences. Powerful S-300/S-400 systems couldn’t stop them.

Russian mobile networks guided the drones remotely. The successful pre-attack evacuation of all Ukrainian agents confirms careful mission planning.

Operation Spiderweb: Damage and Impact on Russia

Ukraine claims that Operation Spiderweb destroyed or damaged 41 Russian aircraft, which is about 34% of Russia’s long-range bombers. This includes key planes like the Tu-95 and A-50, which are used for launching cruise missiles and managing air operations. Damages are estimated at $7 billion. Independent analysts confirmed damage to 13+ bombers via satellite and drone footage. Russia confirmed attacks on Olenya and Belaya, but denied attacks on Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur.

The surprise attack, described as “Russia’s Pearl Harbour,” shocked many. Exposed aircraft were easy targets. To prevent future attacks, Russia declared states of emergency at key airbases.

Will This Weaken Russia’s Military?

Russia’s air power suffered, but its military remains intact. The loss of 41 strategic bombers is substantial. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 are obsolete and hard to replace. Losing Russia’s limited A-50s weakens their air attack coordination.

Nuclear expert Pavel Podvig says this doesn’t threaten Russia. Russia’s nuclear power mainly comes from ICBMs and submarines. Russia retains significant ground forces and advanced weaponry.

Ukraine likely gained a negotiating advantage from Operation Spiderweb before the Istanbul talks. But it’s unclear if that goal was achieved.

While $7 billion is a huge amount, it hasn’t broken Russia’s war economy. Russia has adapted to Western sanctions by using parallel imports and boosting local production. But the psychological effect is strong. The Wall Street Journal reports that this surprise attack has increased fear and mistrust in the Kremlin. It may even lead to purges within Russian security agencies.

For ordinary Russians, the operation shattered the belief that their military was INVINCIBLE AND BEYOND THE ENEMY’S REACH. Still, Operation Spiderweb is not a final victory, but a serious warning shot that may force Russia to improve its air defences and rethink its war strategy.

Operation Spiderweb: A Glimpse into the Future of Warfare

Operation Spiderweb may become a turning point in how wars are fought in the future. According to drone expert James Patton Rogers, this operation offers a “window to future war.” It shows how small countries or weaker forces can challenge stronger enemies by using smart, low-cost technology and creative planning. Ukraine used inexpensive drones and readily available technology to successfully attack the enemy with minimal risk to its troops.

Simple drone attacks using clever tactics can overcome the defences of even well-protected airbases. The use of ordinary trucks to carry drones into Russian territory and launch them near the airbases was bold and effective. Military experts have compared this to historic missions like the 1941 SAS raid on Tamet airfield, where 24 Italian planes were destroyed using limited resources. Others compare it to Pearl Harbour for its surprise and impact. But what makes Operation Spiderweb different is the use of modern technology that doesn’t need large forces or high risks.

While Spiderweb could inspire similar tactics, it may not become the only model for future warfare. It worked in this case because Russia is a large country with gaps in internal security and a heavy reliance on mobile networks. Also, Ukraine had time to plan and gather intelligence. Still, new models will emerge. Modern warfare uses more than just weapons; Ukraine uses cyberattacks, drones, and disinformation.

In the future, we may see bigger drone swarms, smarter AI-controlled systems, and cyberwarfare used together. Armies will also try to protect themselves with stronger shelters and electronic defences. But no air force—whether Russian, American, Chinese, or Indian—is completely safe from these kinds of drone tactics.

What India Must Learn

Operation Spiderweb holds important lessons for India. Just like Russia, India’s airbases are close to enemy borders, especially near Pakistan and China. If Ukraine can attack Russia’s bases thousands of kilometres away, Pakistan may try similar methods against Indian targets. Cheap drones can now fly deep into enemy territory, gather information, and destroy important assets.

India’s challenges include a strong Chinese military, Pakistan’s unconventional warfare, and Bangladeshi instability. India must act quickly. Military bases need to be spread out, better hidden, and protected with improved radar and early warning systems. India must invest in anti-drone technologies and update its defences to deal with new threats.

Ukraine showed that smart planning and cheap tools can hurt a larger enemy. India must not assume that traditional military strength alone will be enough. The future of war will include cyberattacks, drone strikes, intelligence warfare, and misinformation campaigns.

Conclusion

Operation Spiderweb was a bold and creative move by Ukraine’s Security Service. It successfully damaged Russia’s long-range bombers and exposed weaknesses in Russian defences, causing around $7 billion in losses. While it will not cripple Russia’s military, it shows how modern warfare is changing. It proves that small, low-cost tools can cause big damage if used smartly.

Military leaders worldwide must rethink their strategies. The ability to reach and damage key assets from far away using drones and civilian infrastructure has changed the rules. Though the use of civilian systems like trucks and phone networks raises ethical concerns, in the brutal reality of war, such concerns are quickly fading. The future of warfare is here—and it is fast, cheap, and everywhere.

Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine drone attack, Russia airbase strike, Ukraine Russia war 2025, asymmetric warfare, FPV drones, modern warfare, Ukraine SBU operation, Crimea Bridge attack, Kerch Bridge explosion, Russian bombers destroyed, Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M3, A-50 aircraft, future of warfare, Indian air force vulnerability, anti-drone defense India, military strategy India, drone swarm tactics, cyberwarfare, James Patton Rogers, Ukraine military intelligence, Russian air defense failure, India national security, modern military threats, Operation Spiderweb explained, Ukraine Russia conflict latest, drone warfare lessons, Ukraine war analysis, global military shift, India China Pakistan war scenario, next-gen warfare tactics