 Russia and Ukraine, who have been fighting for over 400 days, reportedly sent drones into each other's territories again over the last 24 hours. The latest attack started with Russia claiming drones from Kyiv hit southwest Moscow on the intervening night of May 29 and 30. Then Kyiv claimed it shot down 40 drones from Russia on its founding day. And in our next story, top takeaways from the World Health Assembly began in Geneva on 21st May and ended today 30th May. Negotiations at the top decision-making body of the WHO were chiefly to thrash out a pandemic treaty by next year 2024. But political developments were also never very far from the discussions. We get into the details of these two topics in today's Daily Debrief. Why Russia and Ukraine using drone warfare against each other? How do the latest series of attacks and counter-attacks matter in the context of their conflict? Are the drones being sent and shot down as a sign of the conflict escalating? Do the drones otherwise predict anything else about the outcome of this war? Let's ask Prabir Pulkastar, Editor-in-Chief of NewsClick some of these questions. So Prabir, both Ukraine and Russia have traded charges and they have been trading these drones against each other. Why is this an important part of developments right now? Well, you know, drones have been very much in the picture right from the beginning. We had the Turkish drones which are used by Ukraine earlier against Russia. Initially, fairly successfully, the what are called the Bayraktar drones. But soon after, the Russians were able to engineer their electronic surveillance systems, monitoring systems in a way that they could track the drones by the Bayraktar drones and shoot them down. They have a very strong air defense capability. In fact, the world recognizes that Russia is the leading country in the world on essentially what would be called the ability to combine anti-aircraft missiles with being able to detect intrusions. So this combining the two, that's really the game that Russia's S 300, S 400 and now there's 500 systems are in advance of what the United States has or the NATO has. This has been the conventionally held wisdom, but the drones provided also something which is new for the system to be tested in war. And Russia did initially manage to stop this. Now what you're seeing is the use of smaller drones and the smaller drones are cheap. So that's one advantage. I think one of the Star Wars actors is raising money for Ukraine, Mark Hamill. And if you raise even not very large amounts, it still buys you a lot of drones. If you look at what drones are being used now, the TGI drones which are being used and they don't seem to be very expensive. The Chinese drones essentially used for toys or purposes which is not war, essentially for civilian purposes. But they seem to have been re-engineered with various add-ons and are acting essentially as weapons. Russia, according to the West, again, we can't believe what everybody is saying, the fog of war is rather thick, is that they are using Iranian drones. Russia claims no, we have our own indigenous drones. I'm not getting into it because selling drones is not barred for Iran, which is already under very heavy US sanctions. So that's not going to be something which is going to stop Iran. But the point, again, is Russia has drone capacity. Ukraine has re-engineered from existing tools, existing equipment, the drones which they are using. And if we go by what the news reports are, Russia has had successful attacks using drones on KF and other Ukraine facilities. And now Ukraine or Ukraine for some time has been attacking Russia, inside Russia using drones, which they generally say, no, no, no, we didn't do it, but it's really a transparent lie, if I may say so, or shall we say adding to the fog of war. But what we do realize, of course, that KF or Ukraine is behind these attacks. Now, because they are small, they are set in large numbers. According to reports right now, there is an attack on Moscow. Eight drones were used and they were shot down. According to Russia, we again will know only truth later. But few drones did seem to have got through and came near Moscow before being shot down. KF, again, public reports are there. The drones have successfully hit, even though large number were shot down. The point that is there is how many, how many drones are being shot down. On the Ukrainian side, there is Royal Unified Services Institutes. They have published a report recently which says, apparently Ukraine is losing 10,000 drones per month. Now, this is a source which is not coming from Russia. It's not what would be called a friendly Russian source or a source friendly to Russia. It's coming from essentially the military institutes of the United Kingdom. So given that I will say yes, there seems to be some basis to the figure and therefore large numbers of drones are being shot down and few will get through and few will hit is the conventional wisdom because after all, if you set 10,000 drones per month, a few of them are going to get through. It is something we have to take for granted. Right. Praveen, now this war has gone on for over 400 days. Are the drones going to play a role that we look back on later and say, well, the drones led to this sort of decisive outcome on either side? I don't think so. Essentially, drones are not going to change the war on the ground. So yes, they can give you some pictures. They can hit some targets. But in a larger war, what is going to decide the war decisively is essentially troops getting into each of these territories or being able to crush what is being sent against them, destroy the armies that are being sent against them and effectively, therefore, put them through what is called the mid grinder, which is what the Bakhmuth terminology was. The mid grinder in which Ukraine sent its troops continuously and Russia was slowly grinding them down. So that is, these are the two policies. One is an assault which wins. Other is a set of assaults which are defeated and slowly then the tempo builds up that we have destroyed their armies, which are trying to hit us and then can we take more ground? Ultimately, the battle is going to be decided in this particular war really by what's going to happen on the ground. Therefore, it's the people, the boots on the ground which are going to decide what it is. The air warfare is not going to be that decisive because both sides have anti-aircraft missiles and let's face it, the Ukrainian side, whatever it has, it's really being controlled by NATO. So therefore, there's a whole apparatus of shall we say air defense or air offense and missiles which have been given to them, the air, patriot batteries which are there. So all of this is not operating without NATO fingers on the button. Might be the final button is in Ukraine's hands but the rest of it, the whole integration of all of this with the ground forces and the attacks, all of these are done using the NATO infrastructure is the most we can say about it. So given that and the fact that Russia is obviously also well prepared with its air defense and other things, it's not the air war which is going to make any difference. It's really what's going to happen on the ground and the tanks again are easy prey for, for example, the drones. Absolutely. So all of this, I think that it is this meat grinder kind of first world war kind of scenario we are in. So whoever can hold out. Now Ukraine is preparing attacks. It's what we have been hearing about. Somebody has said, senior official of Ukraine has said it's imminent this week. That's right. Next week, three days, but imminent. And this is going to shape up to try and see whether they can cut the land corridor from Russia, Mariupol to Crimea. If that can be divided and if that line can be breached anywhere and Crimea can be isolated, then it will weaken Russia. But Russia seems to be from whatever we are hearing well prepared for that and the defenses have been also prepared from public domain information. So whether the offense will succeed, whether Russia will let the offense break up on its defenses, whether it will become a Bakhmut-like meat grinder, whether it leads to Russian forces going forward after that, we don't know. And as we have been saying repeatedly, we are not military experts. So we don't really predict what happens in war. We are following what the developments are and commenting on it, what has already happened. And yes, we have to see whether the Kiev offensive backed by NATO is going to make any difference or not to the lines which have been relatively static now for quite some months. Right. Praveen, one thing comes to mind, why have the drones in the picture at all? Is it just for war or something? No, no. Look, each side has been using drones and each side that is found finding counters to drones. As I said initially, the Bayraktar drones seem to have made a difference to Ukraine and it took some time for Russia to adjust to it. Then Russian drones seem to be getting through and what the Ukrainians lack is the ability to have anti-aircraft missiles to the extent required to protect against drone swarms. Okay. Again, the drones are cheap. The cost of shooting down a drone is probably more, much more if you are using NATO weapons than what a great drone is worth. I see. So therefore, you also bleed the other side in a way that their anti-aircraft missiles get used up. Other missiles are launched. Then you have drone swarms and other missiles. It makes it difficult then to shoot down the missiles with your anti-missile weaponry. So this is a, shall we say, escalation. Each side escalates in a way, in a different way and drones are part of a much larger picture. So Bayraktar failed. We have smaller drones, large number of drones. A few of them get through, hit civilian infrastructure on Russian side. Even if not military infrastructure, it is to say we can still hit you. Right. So that's the Ukrainian game. Russia is of course strategically targeting what they think is infrastructure which they need to take down. And using drones as a part of a larger set of missile attacks they are launching. Both sides, it's a game of missiles and drones, not just missiles, not just simply drones. And both sides are game of what is the air defense you have. Got it. And I think in that sense there is no question that Russia has the upper hand. It is bleeding Ukraine and it is bleeding in a much larger sense the entire NATO infrastructure which is supporting Ukraine. Right. So the question is not whether it's Ukraine versus Russia or not. In this game, whether NATO is able to support Ukraine to the extent that it can put up a credible fight against Russia, that's a real game. So therefore it's not going to be a short game because NATO is after all the preeminent military power in the world, don't forget. America's defense expenditure alone, which we call defense much really offense, expenditure alone is equal to next 10 or 11 countries put together and much more than Russia's expenditure. So all of that being put behind Ukraine is going to be something which is not therefore going to exhaust itself in a few days. So it's going to be months and if we look at what's already happened, as you said, it's been over 400 days. So we don't see any end to this war as of now. And all of this put together will determine the ability of NATO to sustain it, Ukraine to sustain it, on the other side Russia to sustain it. It's not a military question alone. It's actually an economic question as well. Absolutely Praveer, thanks very much for joining us with that update. Tendies at the World Health Assembly are delegations from all member countries of the WHO. It means that every country gets to air its views as do civil society groups and the NGOs. They are then discussed and the WHO decides what policies to follow. One crucial discussion this year was how the WHO funds its own activities. The other was equitable access to healthcare. We spoke with Jyotsana Singh from the People's Health Movement who was in Geneva for the assembly about these and the third top takeaway. Jyotsana, good to have you on Daily Debrief. Jyotsana, I look at the scene behind you, the empty chairs and that says half the story, right? The WHO is over. What are the key takeaways? Give me the top three things that you think really matter. Yes Pragya, so actually the officially WHO will close tomorrow on Tuesday. But then yeah, the proceedings are almost over. So today in the first half itself, it got over it's 3.30 now and hardly anybody is in the UN building. And you are right as you can see the empty chairs here. So people are not really here anymore. Tomorrow only one topic which is going to be discussed and I think that is where we can start with the major takeaways. That is Tuesday, yes. And that is the major takeaway if we want to talk about one of them. So there was one important agenda item which was Global Health for Peace Initiative that WHO has been discussing for the past few years which basically means how do you root peace within the entire discussion and debate about health that why peace is important. And as some of us in the civil society and as activists, we say that when there is war there are more casualties, there are a lot of health issues that occur. So and therefore peace is something that should exist. It is a health issue as well. Yeah, so actually this agenda item was discussed last week itself but Russia came very strongly on it and said that we, I mean they did not say they have problems with it but formally their position is that we need to discuss more and make it more strong and have a stronger language and therefore probably this time they don't want this agenda to be passed and that is probably because it feels that the western countries NATO will use it, the provisions that are there in it to attack Russia. Again as we have seen in the past one year how the Ukraine Russia the war keeps coming up again and again and so as a background to a lot of discussions. So yeah, so that is one thing how your geopolitics impacts discussions on health that happens. So let's see tomorrow there is actually voting on this agenda item. We will have to see whether it gets passed or not. So that is one. The second takeaway is that next year is going to be a blockbuster World Health Assembly, the 77th one because WHO along with the countries is discussing a pandemic treaty and it is next year that it will be up for discussion. So far only the negotiations are happening on the sideways. It is not really on the agenda. So already we have started hearing in the rooms here that people are preparing for it. They are talking about it. They are saying that okay this is getting over the 76th one but the real one is going to be the next year. So it looks like the preparations have begun and importantly so because that the kind of inequity that we saw during COVID-19 has made at least the developing countries and the global south realize that there are certain things they have to put their foot down on to ensure that if something of this sort happens again, then people don't suffer. That's what are there signs that on the important things like the sharing of medical know how the sharing of vaccines are there signs that the pandemic treaty will actually be different from how the pandemic was? So well that we will know next year. But what we are seeing is that at the moment the developing countries are not giving up on certain points. One is for example access and benefit sharing, which basically means if you use a pathogen from a country to produce vaccines and medicines then those countries have to get some benefit out of making of those vaccines because they are the ones who provided the pathogen and for example Ebola. It is something which is endemic to Africa but there are medicines which are there in the US but the African nationals have no access to them. So and though the pathogen actually is present in that country, right? We saw that in many other cases in Omicron when South Africa shared actually the genetic sequence and there were vaccines which were improved and South Africa got punished by actually imposing travel ban on the country. So they are saying these kind of things cannot happen. We need to think in terms of equality and if you take pathogen from my country then give me some benefit of it. In fact they are saying not personally to a particular country but within WHO at least 20% of the profits should come to WHO and WHO should then distribute, should use it to ensure equity when medicines and vaccines have to be distributed across the world. So these kind of things are being talked about. What we are hearing right now is that it is on this particular issue access and benefit sharing that the developing countries probably will not compromise on. There are other matters in which a compromise might have to be struck for example about the intellectual property. They are also of course keen on technology transfer and they are saying we cannot do without it but as we have seen it becomes really difficult. Rich countries and the pharmaceutical companies just don't give up on that issue of technology transfer. Looks like maybe on that we will have to see how strong the countries will be. But the takeaway again as we started from is that the global south has to stick to it and if they stick to their ground only then we are going to see a better accord. It is also possible by the way that if the differences continue so strongly then the accord will not be settled next year. It will take a few more years. But all of this we will know a year hence. So Jyotsna the pandemic does not mean it will kick in only when there is a pandemic right because for example the Ebola outbreak was not a pandemic scale event but we saw that when it was widely suspected at least that when the infection travelled to Europe then there was a sort of high alert sounded though in Africa people do regularly contract the disease and it is highly fatal. So there are things there are actually two processes. One is the international health regulations which actually are about health emergencies and how the health regulations should happen and in a parallel process this pandemic treaty is being discussed. There are elements in it which basically talk about surveillance and monitoring throughout so that you know when an outbreak possibility even arises. So the idea is should we be able to contain it then and there itself. So it is about pandemic but it is not about what will happen if the pandemic happens that is not the only thing but can we start to work before that. So they are trying I mean I am talking that in ideal scenario but of course things are not working exactly in that fashion because again and you have asked the right question because the again the rich countries are saying they are looking at it in terms of health security so they are only trying to again and again say surveillance and monitoring. Response is not something that they are trying to focus on because they know if there is surveillance and monitoring and they have the medicines and treatments then they will impose travel ban and protect their own population and let whatever happen to the poorer countries and not give them the vaccines and treatments. So that is a problem so this is the fight against so it is not only during the pandemic it is about overall thing but yeah people are saying that when we already have international health regulations under which pandemics pass forward why do we need a parallel process. We raised that question when the discussions started but well these countries did not hear it EU especially pushed for a separate treaty so we are unfortunately dealing with two parallel processes though probably we shouldn't have had to but now that is the situation we are in. Yeah Jyotsana, great thanks for joining us and see you back in Delhi and in our studios very soon. Sure. Okay, bye bye. Thank you Jyotsana.