• A Ukrainian tank crew survived multiple Russian drone strikes on their Abrams tank.
• Abrams tanks have better crew protection than Soviet-style tanks.
• But Ukrainian forces are also enhancing Abrams with additional armor to counter emerging threats.

A Ukrainian tank crew survived around half a dozen direct Russian drone strikes on their Abrams tank, a feat a tank commander told researchers wouldn't have been possible in a Soviet-style tank like a T-72.

As footage of the engagement circulated on Russian Telegram channels, war analysts Rob Lee and Michael Kofman, experts at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, connected with the Ukrainian tank commander from the 47th Mechanized Brigade who shared how that bad situation in Russia's Kursk region ultimately played out.

"That's our tank," he told them. "There were 4-6 direct hits. The crew survived, and even without injuries. God bless America."

The American-made tank was disabled and taking repeated hits from fiber-optic first-person-view, or FPV, drones, which are not as vulnerable to electronic warfare countermeasures as other systems in use in Ukraine because the connection comes from a cable linking the drone and the operator.

"The Abrams is a great tank," the Ukrainian commander said in a string of remarks Lee shared on X. "Thanks to the fact that the ammo is completely separated from the crew, the crew has a chance to survive." The Russians were unable to penetrate the hull or the turret while the crew was inside. Ukrainian forces have repeatedly celebrated Western tanks for their survivability.

Unlike the T-series tanks, where ammunition is stored on racks in the turret, the Abrams is equipped with blast doors and vents that protect the crew in the event the ammunition is ignited. On Soviet-style tanks, which were not built with crew survivability as a top priority, if the ammunition in the turret is ignited, it can cause a major explosion inside the tank. The serious overpressure kills the crew and launches the turret into the air.

The tank commander told Lee and Kofman that the crew likely wouldn't have survived the fight if they'd relied on the Abrams armor alone, though.

The American-made M1 Abrams tank is powerful, with greater range, firepower, and armor than the Russian T-series tanks, which were built for mobility and massed armored assaults, but the M1s that the Ukrainians received are older export variants that lack the top armor upgrades of US Army tanks, such as depleted-uranium armor.

The commander said that "without the additional ERA and 'cope netting' on top of the turret," the crew "would have been smashed and surely dead by now without any chance. The tank's armor is weak, and it is vulnerable (as any other tank) to FPV drones."

Ukrainian troops have been analyzing Abrams losses and equipping tanks with explosive reactive armor made to explosively repel projectiles, and cages and netting designed to catch incoming drones before they can strike the tank, especially around the vulnerable turret. The Ukrainians sometimes add two to three tons of additional Kontakt-1 ERA.

The tank commander said that the Abrams armor combined with the add-ons, as well as the tank features specifically built for crew survivability, "saves human lives, even in DIRE conditions."

The crew was able to get out of the tank and fall back to friendly lines. The Russians struck the tank several more times after they abandoned it. The commander said it might still be salvageable. With better crew survivability, trained tankers live to fight another day, but a key challenge for Ukraine is that it only has a limited number of Abrams. The US only sent 31 tanks. It did, however, provide hundreds of armored Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.

The Ukrainian tank commander who spoke to Lee and Kofman expressed concerns about American preparation for future wars. For instance, he called attention to the training he received. He said that the US instructors "were completely unaware of the modern battlefield threats."

"They do not understand at all the threat posed by the FPVs," the commander said.

There's a growing awareness in the US military that these systems are threats, but having not experienced these challenges the way the Ukrainians have in a war that is being dominated by deadly uncrewed systems, developing sufficient training programs and necessary tactics, techniques, and procedures remains a work in progress.

But important to note is that the US military fights with more capabilities than Ukraine as a combined force that offers it greater lethality. Still, there are lessons to be learned from this war and the way the Ukrainians are fighting it.

"American tankers should act promptly," the commander said. "Protect your tanks urgently to avoid losses in potential near-future conflicts, taking into account our experience."

The US Army is monitoring developments in Ukraine closely and working to apply lessons from the conflict. The Pentagon, likewise, is increasingly recognizing the threat that drones can play, from the high-end systems to the cheap, off-the-shelf capabilities, and recently released its counter-drone strategy to prepare the joint force for future battlefields where drones are likely to pose a significant challenge.

• South Korea's president, Yoon Suk Yeol, declared martial law in a shock address on Tuesday.
• He expressed frustration with paralyzing opposition forces within the government.
• After hours of civil unrest, Yoon rescinded the order, but many are calling for his resignation.

In a stunning move that threw the nation into turmoil, South Korea's president, Yoon Suk Yeol, invoked martial law on Tuesday, only to reverse course six hours later.

The decree, which brought temporary military control and the suspension of civilian government activities and civil liberties, marked South Korea's first declaration of martial law since the country's democratization in 1987.

The last time that a South Korean leader declared martial law was in 1979, in the aftermath of the assassination of the president.

The resulting turmoil in this instance could be felt for some time.

Calls are growing for the president's resignation. All six opposition parties filed an impeachment motion on Wednesday, with a vote set for Friday or Saturday, according to the Yonhap news agency.

After Yoon ordered martial law, South Korea's parliament voted unanimously to block the decree, declaring the move invalid, but martial law remained in effect.

Yoon announced he would lift martial law and withdraw troops the following day. The Joint Chiefs of Staff then said that the deployed troops had returned to their original units. In the aftermath, Yoon's cabinet approved the reversal.

But the reversal of the order wasn't enough to stymie economic anxieties that arose out of the unrest. On Wednesday, South Korea's Kospi Index closed 1.4% lower. The won fell to its lowest level since October 2022 but trimmed losses in Asian hours.

Companies in the country, including South Korea's SK Group, a conglomerate of semiconductor and energy businesses, and Korean shipbuilder HD Hyundai, were hosting emergency executive meetings in the early morning hours on Wednesday, per Bloomberg.

"We are concerned that these events could impact South Korea's sovereign credit rating, although this is uncertain at this stage," wrote Min Joo Kan, ING Economics' senior economist in Seoul, in a research note.

The leader of Yoon's party said that the ruling party feels "deeply sorry to the public," adding that "the president must directly and thoroughly explain this tragic situation" and that those who called for martial law should be held accountable.

Yoon's entire cabinet and all of his aides have offered to resign, according to local reports.

Meanwhile, the country's largest labor union, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, is on indefinite strike, demanding Yoon's resignation, which could hurt production.

On Wednesday, thousands gathered for protest rallies across the country, including outside South Korea's national assembly.

Why did Yoon declare martial law?

Yoon indicated the move was necessary to counter North Korea, but the move appears to be at least partly political.

In a televised address, he spoke of "anti-state forces," saying martial law was necessary to eliminate them quickly and "normalize the country." He also criticized the country's opposition politicians, responding to a series of political setbacks that have frustrated his agenda.

Yoon has suffered from low approval ratings this year and has been described by critics as a "lame-duck president," as he holds the nation's highest office without having a majority in its legislature.

Yoon's conservative People Power Party lost a general election in April, in which the rival Democratic Party of Korea took 175 of the 300 seats in the National Assembly.

The opposition majority in parliament last week voted to cut almost $3 billion from Yoon's 2025 budget, undermining his plans. They have also tried to impeach three top prosecutors, The Associated Press reported.

Even as he reversed his martial law decision, Yoon continued to criticize those he saw as frustrating his agenda, requesting in a later address that the National Assembly "immediately stop its reckless actions that paralyze the functions of the state through repeated impeachment, legislative manipulation, and budget manipulation."

The decision to invoke martial law led to parliamentary activity being prohibited, according to the country's government-funded Yonhap news agency. Anyone who violated the rules could have been arrested without a warrant.

The outlet also said that media and publishers fell under the control of South Korea's military.

The provisions of martial law also allowed for the suspension of certain civil liberties.

What has been the political reaction?

Yoon's late-night announcement prompted protests outside parliament, with some trying to climb its walls. There was also intense criticism of Yoon for short-circuiting the country's democracy.

Han Dong-hoon, the leader of the ruling People Power Party, said imposing martial law was "wrong" and that he would "stop it with the people."

South Korea's main opposition leader, Lee Jae-myung, described the move as unconstitutional.

Yoon was already an unpopular leader in Korea. Gallup's latest poll, released last week, showed his approval rating falling to 19%, per a poll of 1,000 adults.

The unexpected declaration of martial law was also said to have caught the Biden administration by surprise.

South Korea is a key US ally in the Indo-Pacific region and is a base for roughly 28,500 American service members, as well as numerous civilian workers and dependents.

"We continue to expect political disagreements to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement after the martial law was rescinded.

How has the economy been affected?

Markets reacted immediately to South Korea's political crisis, with US-listed Korean stocks and the South Korean won taking a hit in overnight trade.

While shares of Samsung Electronics, the country's largest company, dropped 3% before paring losses, South Korea's Kospi Index fell 2.2% and closed 1.4% lower on Wednesday.

South Korean authorities have rushed to reassure investors.

The country's finance ministry said on Wednesday it was standing ready to deploy all necessary measures to stabilize the financial markets.

"We will inject unlimited liquidity into stocks, bonds, short-term money market as well as forex market for the time being until they are fully normalised," the ministry said in a statement.

On Wednesday, Kim Byung-hwan, the chairman of South Korea's Financial Services Commission, said the government was ready to activate a $35.4 billion stock market stabilization fund immediately and take other measures to address market concerns if needed.

But Rhee Chang-yong, governor of the Bank of Korea, told Bloomberg TV on Wednesday evening local time that South Korea's financial markets were stabilizing quickly and that the impact on markets was short-lived.

He added that he believed South Korea's economic dynamics can be separated from its political dynamics.

Even so, a few hours later, the OECD lowered South Korea's 2025 growth economic outlook to 2.1%, from 2.2%.

One notable stock surge amid all the turmoil: Kakao, and subsidiaries Kakaopay and KakaoBank, were up on Wednesday. Billionaire founder Brian Kim was arrested in July on charges of manipulating a major K-pop agency deal last year.

• Elon Musk criticized the F-35 and called crewed fighters obsolete in the drone era.
• Musk's comments align with tech leaders advocating for drones over traditional military assets.
• Drones can't yet replace crewed aircraft. Even if they could, a mix of both might be more effective.

Drones are changing war in ways we never thought possible, but are we to the point where uncrewed systems can replace top-dollar weapons like the F-35 stealth fighter?

Prominent tech industry figures are saying yes. Former warfighters and analysts say we aren't there yet, and replacement might not be the right call regardless.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has targeted the Pentagon's prized fifth-generation stealth jet, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. In a series of social media posts on X this week, he called it idiotic to continue building them and criticized the design. Pointing to Ukraine, he said human-piloted jets are "obsolete" and "inefficient" and will "just get pilots killed" as drones and counter-air threats become more prolific.

In the Ukraine war, drones are surveilling and striking enemy vehicles and troop positions. But they are not a substitute for crewed jets, which Kyiv has long sought in greater numbers even as pilots face a tough air-defense environment.

Musk's comments follow similar remarks by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who called tanks "useless" last month while urging the Army to "give them away" and "buy a drone instead." Musk went a bit further, speculating about ways adversaries could defeat the F-35's stealth.

Musk's criticism comes as he prepares to target wasteful government spending as part of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon's most expensive weapon system program, with lifetime costs expected to top $2 trillion. Musk has previously suggested the F-35, troubled by setbacks throughout its development, isn't the best fit for the military.

Four years ago, the SpaceX founder said a remotely controlled uncrewed fighter would be a better alternative to the F-35 and argued the future is autonomous drone warfare.

This week, he said that "manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones."

Drones are game-changers

Small, cheap drones are transforming land warfare by providing new options for tactical reconnaissance, targeting solutions, and threatening maneuvers. For situations where air and sea combat over vast areas might be more prevalent, like a war in the US military's priority Indo-Pacific theater, these drones are too slow with inadequate payloads and range to be sufficient.

The US also needs fast, low-observable, and maneuverable platforms that can carry advanced sensors and stand-off weaponry across great distances through potentially contested airspace.

"That's just not something that small UAVs can do," said Justin Bronk, a Royal United Services Institute airpower analyst.

Providing the full range of capabilities for this theater means larger, more sophisticated platforms with a higher price tag. Existing remotely controlled systems only meet some of the demands, some can cost as much as an F-35, and they are vulnerable to intensifying electronic warfare and surface-to-air threats.

The US military is actively developing new semi-autonomous and artificial intelligence-driven aircraft, from pilotless F-16s to collaborative combat aircraft in which a pilot directs the tasks. This space offers immense potential, with some limitations since the technology isn't yet mature.

"If I develop an aircraft that does not require a human in the cockpit, I could develop one that could pull 15 Gs, 20 Gs because you're no longer worried about the physiology of the human," said Guy Snodgrass, a retired naval aviator and former senior defense official.

Without a human pilot, "you could then strip out the cockpit, you could strip out the oxygen generation, you could strip out a lot of the life support systems," potentially freeing up space for sensors, weapons, and more, the former TOPGUN instructor said, arguing that "there are definitely advantages."

But without crewed fighter aircraft, particularly the high-end systems like the F-35, the US risks being "stuck with a huge capability gap for a significant period of time because the drone technology and the ability to not only produce it but then to incorporate it in the military and actually employ it in a tactically relevant or strategically relevant sense isn't there yet," he said.

Mixing the crewed fighters with uncrewed aircraft

In response to Musk's comments on X about their fighter this week, a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin told BI that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is "the most advanced, survivable, and connected fighter aircraft in the world, a vital deterrent and the cornerstone of joint all-domain operations," a reference to the jet's role as a combat quarterback.

The fifth-gen stealth jet is not only a US military aircraft. It is used by nations around the world, with more planning to establish F-35 fleets. That's because the F-35 isn't just a fighter jet. It's also a bomber, electronic warfare plane, surveillance tool, battle management platform, and key communications node.

An uncrewed aircraft can't yet match that capability. "That technology is simply not there," said Mark Gunzinger, a retired US Air Force pilot and the director of Future Concepts and Capability Assessments at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

If one day drones have all those capabilities, there are still advantages to keeping human pilots flying combat missions. Combat is unpredictable and requires making decisions in uncertain situations. Autonomous systems might be less prepared to look past the data, like a false radar return, to make the smart call.

Machines are more rigid. "The flexibility that human pilots give you to use the machine and the systems that it has in relatively unforeseen circumstances or across a very wide variety of mission types and circumstances is something that's very difficult to replicate in an automatic system," Bronk said.

For the US military, wargaming scenarios have shown that the better solution is not one or the other, crewed or uncrewed.

"We need both," Gunzinger said. "And the greatest impact on warfighting, the biggest leap ahead in warfighting capabilities and capacity, is in figuring out how to combine what they both bring to the fight in the most effective way. That's the secret sauce."

Much like the US isn't solely dependent on a single energy source, US national security isn't dependent on a single capability. In this situation, uncrewed systems enhance crewed systems and vice versa. The US military is still figuring out what comes next, but the F-35 is an imperfect but important bridge to that future of airpower, whether it's crewed, uncrewed, or some mix of both.