You can generally tell when Vladimir Putin appears rattled by an adverse event in his war on Ukraine. He (or one of his proxies) ramps up the bloodcurdling rhetoric. And so it is with Ukraine’s “Spiderweb” drone attack on four airbases inside Russia, which reportedly destroyed or damaged as many as 40 warplanes, a good chunk of Russia’s fleet of strategic nuclear-capable bombers. These aircraft have been used during the war to deliver cruise missiles at targets within Ukraine and have been kept on airbases far enough from Ukraine to be well out of range of anything Kyiv could fire at them. So Ukraine’s secret intelligence service, the SBU, hatched a plot to send truckloads of home-grown drones in vans to locations close to airbases as far away as Irkutsk in Siberia and Murmansk close to the top of Finland. Technological savvy aside, perhaps the most remarkable thing about the plan was that it was 18 months in the making and yet the SBU managed to keep it a secret shared by only a few, including Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Significantly, the plan was reportedly kept from the US government. Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations. An angry Putin is reported to have accused Ukraine of “organising terrorist attacks”, saying to aides: “How can we have meetings like this under these conditions? What is there to talk about? Who has negotiations with  … terrorists?” Nothing much has been revealed as to what was actually said about the drone attack when delegates for the two sides met on Monday, apparently for barely an hour, to continue their peace talks. But as Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko suggest, the fact that both sides have continued to land blows against each other is hardly a sign of a sincere commitment to serious negotiations. As it is, both sides restated their maximalist positions. For Kyiv this means that any concessions over territory or sovereignty are out of the question. For Moscow this means Ukrainian and international recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea as well as four provinces it has partially occupied since 2014, no Ukrainian membership of Nato and limits to Ukraine’s armed forces. Wolff and Malyarenko, experts in international security and politics at the University of Birmingham and National University Odesa Law Academy, respectively, believe that little will change on the battlefield in the foreseeable future. A lot will now depend on Washington. And it should be noted that the US president had a lengthy chat with Putin on June 4, after which Trump delivered the Kremlin’s message that: “President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.” We’ve already seen a blitz on the southern city of Kherson, where Russia launched glide bombs and attacked with drones and artillery this morning. But Trump’s envoy to Russia, Keith Kellog, among other senior officials have talked about the drone strike being an attack on part of Russia’s [nuclear] triad, impying the threat level is actually far greater. Read more: Ukraine 'spiderweb' drone strike fails to register at peace talks as both sides dig in for the long haul Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994 in return for an undertaking, signed by Russia, the US, UK and France, to guarantee the inviolability of Ukraine’s borders. So as Matthew Sussex of the Australian National University in Canberra writes, the drone attack was very much a case of a David striking a clever blow against a Goliath. Sussex says this and other missions, such as the targeting of the Kerch bridge – Putin’s pride and joy – and the relentless attacks on Russia’s power infrastructure, are an effective counter to Russia’s attritional style of warfare. This involves throwing as many men as possible at its objectives, something Ukraine cannot hope to compete directly with. The truth is, writes Sussex, that Kyiv “has focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past”. Read more: The secret to Ukraine's battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past “This isn’t just asymmetric warfare, it’s a different kind of offensive capability,” concludes Michael A Lewis, an expert in autonomous vehicles at the University of Bath. Lewis notes that both sides have been using drones almost continuously on the frontlines of the war and each has developed their own strategy for countering the threat. But this operation combined the use of drones with smart intelligence planning. The key was getting the drones to where they could exploit vulnerabilities in Russia’s air defence systems. “In low-level airspace, visibility drops, responsibility fragments, and detection tools lose their edge,” he writes. “Drones arrive unannounced, response times lag, coordination breaks.” The attack will have defence planners around the world scratching their heads as to how to cope with this emerging threat. Lewis believes the operation exposed the problems with centralised airspace management which will require new and better detection systems and faster responses to counter. “Operation Spiderweb didn’t just reveal how Ukraine could strike deep into Russian territory,” he writes. “It showed how little margin for error there is in a world where cheap systems can be used quietly and precisely.” Read more: Ukraine drone strikes on Russian airbase reveal any country is vulnerable to the same kind of attack Not that Russia has exactly been standing still when it comes to drone warfare. As Marcel Plichta of the University of St Andrews writes, having initially relied on Iran for the supply of its Shahed drones, Russia has been quick to establish its own sizeable drone manufacturing industry. Plichta, a drone specialist and former US government intelligence analyst, walks us through some of the innovations that Russian-made drones are now employing, including Sim cards which can transmit data back to Russia via mobile networks, carbon coating to avoid radar detection, and enhanced incendiary and fragmentation warheads that can start fires or spread large volumes of shrapnel to make them more deadly. But also notable is the sheer volume of drones that Russia is deploying – 472 against Ukrainian cities on June 1, as well as large numbers of decoys – with the aim of simply exhausting Ukrainian air defences. Even if Ukraine manages to shoot down 80% as it claims, that still leaves enough to wreak utter havoc for the defenders. Read more: Russia has been working on creating drones that 'call home', go undercover and start fires. Here's how they work From the Oval Office The latest controversial measure announced by the White House is the planned travel ban on people from 12 countries thought by the Trump administration to pose a threat. The ban is scheduled to come into effect on June 9. Less than a week later, the US will host – jointly with Mexico and Canada – the Fifa Club World Cup, which will feature players from some of these countries. Next year the US hosts the Men’s World Cup and in 2028 the Olympics are scheduled to be held in Los Angeles. The announcement of the ban said that “any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives travelling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting events as defined by the Secretary of State” will be exempted. But, as Eric Storm from Leiden University points out, this does not include fans who might have been planning to travel to these major sporting carnivals. Storm, a historian who has researched the intersection of politics and tourism, says that the way geopolitical tensions manifested themselves at big sporting events was a feature of the cold war, but that these sorts of tensions largely dissipated after 1991. Now we may see politics being played out on the pitch, once again. Read more: Trump's travel ban casts shadow over the upcoming Fifa Club World Cup and other US-hosted sporting events South Korea’s new president Voters in South Korea backed the liberal candidate, Lee Jae-myung for the Democratic Party, by nearly 50% in the June 3 election. This gave the man who led the campaign to topple former president Yoon Suk Yeol a clear mandate in what is reported to have been the election with the highest turnout since 1997. But while women had been very prominent in the campaign to oust Yoon, there were no female presidential candidates and very little discussion of some of the massive gender issues besetting Korea, including structural inequality, harassment and domestic violence, write Ming Gao of Lund University and Joanna Elfving-Hwang of Curtin University, both experts in South Korean politics and society. In fact, some candidates actively campaigned in a manner they clearly hoped would engage with disenchanted young men who feel their position may be under threat from women. Read more: South Korea election: Lee Jae-myung takes over a country split by gender politics The new South Korean president will bring with him what he calls a “pragmatic” approach to foreign affairs. He has restated his commitment to the longstanding alliance with the US, but has also stressed the need for his country to improve relations with China and North Korea, believing that South Korea should not be wholly dependent on Washington. This, writes Christoph Bluth, could become a point of tension between Seoul and Washington. “The Trump administration has taken a hawkish approach towards China and wants its allies to do the same,” he says. Lee has made it quite clear that while Seoul’s relationship with Washington is the “basic axis of [South Korea’s] diplomacy,” the country “should not put all [its] eggs in one basket”. He has already signalled that he would resist any attempts by the US to draw South Korea into a conflict with China over Taiwan. Read more: Why South Korea's new leader may be on a collision course with Trump Gaza: when aid is politicised There was yet more tragedy in Gaza this week as the new aid distribution scheme backed by Israel and the US got underway and quickly descended into chaos, with Israeli troops shooting at people it claimed were Hamas militants, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people. The new plan handed control of aid distribution to a private company called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which established four depots, three in the very south of the Strip and one in the centre, close to Israeli checkpoints. As a result many people had to travel considerable distances to get desperately needed supplies. As Irit Katz of the University of Cambridge writes here, the GHF plan is similar in character to a scheme put forward last December by an Israeli veterans group that prioritises control over humanitarianism. She says the resulting chaos and violence should come as no surprise. Read more: Lethal humanitarianism: why violence at Gaza aid centres should not come as a surprise World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.