logo
With Russia airfield attacks, Ukraine aims for strategic and symbolic blow

With Russia airfield attacks, Ukraine aims for strategic and symbolic blow

While the full extent of the damage is still unknown, the operation shows how Kyiv has been able to adapt and evolve over the war using drones.
Ukraine's drone attacks on airfields deep inside Russia on Sunday were strategic and symbolic blows that military analysts said were designed to slow Moscow's bombing campaign and demonstrate that Kyiv can still raise the cost of war for the Kremlin.
After more than a year of planning, Ukraine was able to plant drones on Russian soil, just miles away from military bases. Then in a coordinated operation on Sunday, Ukrainian drones attacked five different regions in Russia. Some were launched from containers attached to semis, their flights captured on videos verified by The New York Times. Plumes of smoke billowed above one base. At another, strategic bombers were hit.
Although the full extent of the damage is unknown, the attack, known as Operation Spider's Web, showed how Ukraine is adapting and evolving in the face of a larger military with deeper resources. Using drones, Kyiv has been able to push Russia out of much of the Black Sea, limit its gains on the front lines despite Ukraine's own troop shortages, and hamper Russia's ability to amass large concentrations of forces for major offensives.
The operation on Sunday, along with extensive bombardments on Ukrainian cities by Moscow, also complicate ongoing efforts for diplomacy. Delegations from both sides met Monday for peace talks in Istanbul, with no breakthrough on a cease-fire announced.
After the attacks, there were calls for a swift response across Russian media, and Ukrainians braced for retaliation even as they celebrated an operation that gave their beleaguered nation a much needed morale boost.
Both sides have put out assessments that were not immediately verifiable.
Ukraine said that 117 drones were used in the attacks and that 41 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged.
Russian military bloggers played down the damage; the Russian Ministry of Defense said that Ukraine had attacked airfields in the Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur regions, and that Moscow had thwarted attacks at three of the bases.
The New York Times verified videos that showed successful strikes at Olenya Air Base in the Murmansk region and Belaya Air Base in the Irkutsk region, and damage to at least five aircraft, four of them strategic bombers.
Even with limited information, military analysts said the operation ranks as a signature event on par with the sinking of the Russian flagship Moskva early in the war and the maritime drone assaults that forced the Russian Navy to largely abandon the home port of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea.
'This is a stunning success for Ukraine's special services,' said Justin Bronk, senior research fellow for air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
'If even half the total claim of 41 aircraft damaged/destroyed is confirmed, it will have a significant impact on the capacity of the Russian Long Range Aviation force to keep up its regular large scale cruise missile salvos against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, whilst also maintaining their nuclear deterrence and signaling patrols against NATO and Japan,' he said in an email.
Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general and fellow at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based research group, said that 'the proliferation of drones, open-source sensors and digital command and control systems means that long-range strike is now a commodity available to almost every nation state, and nonstate actor, with a few million dollars and the desire to reach out and strike their adversary.'
Mr. Zelensky, in comments on Monday at a NATO meeting of Baltic and Nordic countries, said the operation showed Russia that it is also subject to serious losses, and 'that is what will push it toward diplomacy.'
However, Mr. Ryan and other analysts cautioned that despite the nature of the attacks, they are unlikely to alter the political calculus of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who remains bent on achieving his war aims.
The operation is part of an evolving campaign
Behind Ukraine's operation was a basic goal: Kill the archer instead of trying to stop the arrows.
It is part of an ever-evolving campaign by Ukraine to play offense rather than defense, by targeting Russian missile platforms on land, air and sea.
In December 2022, nine months into the war, Ukraine executed one of its first ambitious attacks on Russian territory, targeting two airfields hundreds of miles inside the country using long-range drones.
As the drone strikes expanded over the years, Russia adapted, building protective structures around fuel depots at the bases, bringing in more air defense assets and routinely repositioning its fleet.
Ukraine needed a new plan if it hoped to inflict serious damage.
They came up with 'Operation Spider's Web,' which Ukrainian officials said was overseen personally by Mr. Zelensky and managed directly by the head of the S.B.U., Vasyl Malyuk. The idea was to bring small, first-person-view, or FPV, drones close enough to the airfields to render traditional air defenses systems useless.
The Ukrainians on Monday offered an unusually detailed public account of the operation.
Over the course of many months, they said, dozens of FPV drones were transported into Russia; the scale of the operation could not be independently verified. Mr. Zelensky claimed they set up a base of operations at a warehouse close to a regional headquarters of Russia's domestic intelligence agency, known as the F.S.B.
Once the drones were smuggled into Russia, they were packed onto pallets inside wooden transport containers with remote-controlled lids and then loaded onto trucks, the S.B.U. statement said.
There was no indication that the drivers of the trucks knew what they were hauling, Ukrainian officials said.
Mr. Zelensky said that all of the Ukrainian agents involved in the operation had made it safely out of Russia before the operation commenced, a claim that could not be independently verified. The Russian government, in a statement on Sunday, said that some of those involved in the attack had been detained.
Ukraine planted drones inside Russia
One video verified by The Times shows a drone approaching Belaya air base before a strike.
Other verified footage shows two drones launched from containers mounted on the back of a semi-truck less than four miles away. They fly in the direction of large smoke plumes now rising from the base. Footage recorded shortly afterward shows the same containers ablaze, their tops beside them on the ground.
Ukrainian officials said in their account that the transport crates were rigged to self-destruct after the drones were released.
Another video verified by the Times shows drones flying less than four miles from the Olenya air base. The man recording it suggests that the drones had been launched from a truck parked just down the road.
The Times could not confirm that the drones in the various videos were part of the assault.
In its assessment, Ukraine said the 41 planes accounted for 34 percent of the strategic cruise-missile carriers at air bases across three time zones. The Times was able to verify that four TU-95 bombers and one Antonov cargo plane were hit.
Russian military bloggers claimed the Ukrainian damage estimates were inflated.
One influential Russian military blogger, Rybar, run by Mikhail Zvinchuk, put the number of damaged Russian aircraft at 13, including up to 12 strategic bombers. Another one, Fighterbomber, believed to be run by Capt. Ilya Tumanov of the Russian Army, said in a post on Monday that only 'a handful' of strategic aircraft were hit, but even such a loss was 'huge for a country that doesn't make them.'
Col. Markus Reisner, a historian and officer in the Austrian Armed Forces, said that the best Western estimates suggest that Russia had slightly over 60 active Tu-95s and around 20 Tu-160 bombers. 'Replacing losses will be very challenging,' he said.
Ben Hodges, a retired general who commanded the U.S. Army Europe, said the available evidence suggests that the operation put a 'real dent' in Russia's ability to launch large salvos of cruise missiles.
'The surprise that they achieved will have a shock on the system as the Russians try to figure out how these trucks loaded with explosives got so deep inside of Russia,' he said.
The attack raises new risks
Mr. Zelensky said the attack was not only designed to undercut Russia's ability to bombard Ukrainian cities but to increase pressure on the Kremlin to accept an unconditional cease-fire.
'It was the Russians who chose to continue the war — even under conditions where the entire world is calling for an end to the killing,' he said in his nightly address to the nation. 'And pressure is truly needed — pressure on Russia that should bring it back to reality.'
There was no indication that the attack had changed the Kremlin's belief that it holds an advantage over Ukraine, counting on the weakening resolve of Kyiv's allies and its ability to grind down vastly outnumbered Ukrainian forces.
There was also the risk that Ukraine's allies would be rattled by the attack and the general pattern of escalation in recent weeks as Russia steps up its own bombardments.
But Mr. Ryan said the strikes also show how Ukraine is evolving so that it is less reliant on U.S. intelligence in the event of 'shut offs' like earlier this year. The operation, he said, demonstrates 'how success in war is biased toward those who learn and adapt the quickest.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The crude oil market bets Trump's India threats are hollow
The crude oil market bets Trump's India threats are hollow

Time of India

time8 minutes ago

  • Time of India

The crude oil market bets Trump's India threats are hollow

The crude oil market 's rather sanguine reaction to the U.S. threats to India over its continued purchases of Russian oil is effectively a bet that very little will actually happen. President Donald Trump cited India's imports of Russian crude when imposing an additional 25per cent tariff on imports from India on August 6, which is due to take effect on August 28. If the new tariff rate does come into place, it will take the rate for some Indian goods to as much as 50per cent, a level high enough to effectively end U.S. imports from India, which totalled nearly $87 billion in 2024. As with everything related to Trump, it pays to be cautious given his track record of backflips and pivots. It's also not exactly clear what Trump is ultimately seeking, although it does seem that in the short term he wants to increase his leverage with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of their planned meeting in Alaska this week, and he's using India to achieve this. Whether Trump follows through on his additional tariffs on India remains uncertain, although the chances of a peace deal in Ukraine seem remote, which means the best path for India to avoid the tariffs would be to acquiesce and stop buying Russian oil. But this is an outcome that simply isn't being reflected in current crude oil prices. Global benchmark Brent futures have weakened since Trump's announcement of higher tariffs on India, dropping as low as $65.81 a barrel in early Asian trade on Monday, the lowest level in two months. This is a price that entirely discounts any threat to global supplies, and assumes that India will either continue buying Russian crude at current volumes, or be able to easily source suitable replacements without tightening the global market. Are these reasonable assumptions? The track record of the crude oil market is somewhat remarkable in that it quickly adapts to new geopolitical realities and any price spikes tend to be shortlived. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sent crude prices hurtling toward $150 a barrel as European and other Western countries pulled back from buying Russian crude. But within four months the price was back below where it was before Moscow's attack on its neighbour as the market simply re-routed the now discounted Russian oil to China and India. In other words, the flow of oil around the globe was shifted, but the volumes available for importers remained much the same. Different this time? But what Trump is proposing now is somewhat different. It appears he wants to cut Russian barrels out of the market in order to put financial pressure on Moscow to cut a deal over Ukraine. There are effectively only two major buyers for Russian crude, India and China. China, the world's biggest crude importer, has more leverage with Trump given U.S. and Western reliance on its refined critical and other minerals, and therefore is less able to be coerced into ending its imports of Russian oil. India is in a less strong position, especially private refiners like Reliance Industries , which will want to keep business relationships and access to Western economies. India imported about 1.8 million barrels per day of Russian crude in the first half of the year, or about 37per cent of its total, according to data compiled by commodity analysts Kpler . About 90per cent of its Russian imports came from Russia's European ports and was mainly Urals grade. This is a medium sour crude and it would raise challenges for Indian refiners if they sought to replace all their Urals imports with similar grades from other suppliers. There are some Middle Eastern grades of similar quality, such as Saudi Arabia's Arab Light and Iraq's Basrah Light, but it would likely boost prices if India were to seek more of these crudes. If Chinese refiners were able to take the bulk of Russian crude given up by India, it may allow for a re-shuffling of flows, but that would not appear to be what Trump wants. Trump and his advisers may believe there is enough spare crude production capacity in the United States and elsewhere to handle the loss of up to 2 million bpd of Russian supplies. But testing that theory may well lead to higher prices, especially for certain types of medium crudes which would be in short supply. It's simplistic to say that higher U.S. output can supply India's refiners, as this would mean those refiners would have to be willing to accept a different mix of refined products, including producing less diesel, as U.S. light crudes tend to make more products such as gasoline. For now the crude oil market is assuming that the Trump/India/Russia situation will end as another TACO, the acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out. But the reality is likely to be slightly more messy, as some Indian refiners pull back from importing from Russia, some Chinese refiners may buy more and once again the oil market goes on a geopolitical merry-go-round.

'Does he know it?': Trump's curious choice to host Putin in Alaska as nationalists call for correcting 'mistake'
'Does he know it?': Trump's curious choice to host Putin in Alaska as nationalists call for correcting 'mistake'

First Post

time8 minutes ago

  • First Post

'Does he know it?': Trump's curious choice to host Putin in Alaska as nationalists call for correcting 'mistake'

US President Donald Trump's decision to host Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which the United States purchased from Russia in the 19th century, has raised questions. Putin's ultranationalist allies have called for the return of Alaska to Russia and the Trump-Putin summit has given them a chance to assert their claim again. read more US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Russian leader Vladimir Putin before their closed-door meeting on July 16, 2018, in Helsinki, Finland. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP) It is not just US President Donald Trump's decision to hold a summit with Vladmir Putin that is under question but its location —Alaska— is under question as well because the choice of venue has given the Russian leader's ultranationalist allies a shot in the arm. Putin's ultranationalist allies have been emboldened with the choice of Alaska, a former Russian territory that they have long wanted to retake as part of revanchist agenda, as the venue for the summit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million (around $192 million today), which is dirt-cheap for such a huge and strategically important territory. For decades, Russian ultranationalists have condemned the sale and have called for the return of Alaska. After Trump announced the summit, Putin's allies started flooding the social media with posts asserting Russian claims on Alaska. Kirill A Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a Special Envoy of Putin, has posted dozens of photographs of Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska and historical documents that show the region's link to Russia. 'Born as Russian America—Orthodox roots, forts, fur trade—Alaska echoes those ties and makes the US an Arctic nation. Let's partner on environment, infrastructure & energy in Arctic and beyond,' said Dmitriev in a post on X. Commentators have been alarmed that such commentary could very well be a pretext for an aggressive campaign to retake the territory — just like Russians created the historical and sociopolitical pretext for years to previously invade Georgia and Ukraine. 'Aug. 15 Putin-Trump summit falls on Dormition (Catholics: Assumption)—a day honoring Mary's peaceful 'falling asleep'. Alaska's Orthodox Church has Russian roots. Whatever your belief, the feast points to mercy and reconciliation—choose dialogue, choose peace,' said Dmitriev in a post on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Let's hope Putin doesn't ask to take Alaska home as souvenir' Considering how Trump has endorsed every demand of Putin so far, political commentator David Frum said on X, 'Let's all hope that Putin doesn't ask to take Alaska home with him as a souvenir, or Trump might give that away too.' Separately, Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia, said on X, 'Trump has chosen to host Putin in a part of the former Russian Empire. Wonder if he knows that Russian nationalists claim that losing Alaska, like Ukraine, was a raw deal for Moscow that needs to be corrected.' Sharing several instances of Russian ultranationalists pressing claim on Alaska, author and commentator Julia Davis said on X, 'Trump inviting war criminal Putin to America is nauseating enough, but hosting him in Alaska — while Putin's pet propagandists routinely demand it back from the US on state TV — is beyond the pale. Unless Putin is arrested upon arrival, there's no excuse.' John Bolton, who served as Trump's National Security Advisor in the first term, said that the only place worse for a summit could be Moscow. 'The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow. So the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin,' Bolton told CNN. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since the end of the Cold War, American presidents have used summits with Russian leader as a way to show approval or disapproval and, with the Alaska summit at a time when Putin defied the deadline to agree to a ceasefire, gave the Russian leader a seal of approval, said Ruth Deyermond, a senior lecturer in war studies at Kings College, London. 'Trump is, once again, signalling the value he places on Putin's friendship. It's a profound humiliation for the US. For Trump to announce a summit —the traditional US reward for friendly Russian presidents— with Putin, on the day he had said would be the deadline for announcing action to punish Russian aggression is an extraordinary move. It's an unambiguous signal of alignment with Russia,' said Deyermond. Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867 as the far-off territory was difficult to govern and was perceived as an economic burden at the time. Moreover, after the Crimean Wars (1853-56), Russian rulers started to look inwards and were not interest in further expansion. They were also wary of the British, who controlled Canada next door. Therefore, they found the sale to the United States a safer option than losing the region militarily to the British. Moreover, they saw the US control of Alaska —and friendly ties with the United States— as counterweight to the British influence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

For Zelenskyy, Alaska talks could decide his post-war political survival
For Zelenskyy, Alaska talks could decide his post-war political survival

First Post

time8 minutes ago

  • First Post

For Zelenskyy, Alaska talks could decide his post-war political survival

The outcome of the Alaska summit may end the war, but it could also force Volodymyr Zelenskyy into an unpredictable postwar political battle at home read more Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected a proposal for a territorial swap. While there is hope for a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with talks between the United States and Russia in Alaska likely taking place at the highest level, Zelenskyy has firmly dismissed any idea of conceding land to Moscow, citing the Ukrainian constitution. While the constitutional argument is clear, Zelenskyy's bigger challenge is political protecting his legitimacy at home, maintaining international support, and resisting a peace process that is increasingly being shaped by others, sometimes without Ukraine's participation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's proposal and Zelenskyy's response According to Politico, the latest controversy erupted after US President Donald Trump suggested that a Ukraine–Russia ceasefire could involve 'some swapping of territories'. Reports indicate that the Trump administration has been considering a framework in which Russia would freeze fighting along the contact line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia while retaining the Donbas region, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk, and giving up parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under its current control. Trump described the idea as a practical arrangement 'to the betterment of both' sides. Yet for Kyiv, such a proposal strikes at the core of national sovereignty. Zelenskyy responded by stressing that the country's constitution already enshrines its territorial integrity and declaring that 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier'. Legal boundaries are clear From a strictly legal perspective, the constitutional issue is straightforward. Ukraine's fundamental law explicitly forbids the cession of territory. Zelenskyy has consistently stated that there is 'nothing to talk about' when it comes to giving up Crimea or any other occupied regions, the BBC reported. In legal terms, no Ukrainian government could agree to such concessions without amending the constitution — a move that is both politically explosive and procedurally improbable, especially in wartime. The legal framework thus serves as a firm barrier, at least domestically, against any territorial trade-off. Why the real battle is political Yet the reality for Zelenskyy is that the legal clarity does not shield him from the political dangers emerging on multiple fronts. The most pressing concern is that the diplomatic process is moving forward in ways that risk sidelining Ukraine. Washington and Moscow are preparing for a high-profile meeting in Alaska on August 15, with Kyiv not included in the opening round. If discussions between Trump and Putin produce a preliminary understanding, Zelenskyy could be confronted with a finished product and pressured to accept or reject it in full. In his own words, 'any decisions without Ukraine are… decisions against peace' and 'stillborn decisions', Politico reported. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Risk of diplomatic marginalisation This dynamic creates a serious domestic challenge. If Zelenskyy is seen as acquiescing to an externally imposed compromise, especially one involving territorial concessions, he risks a backlash from a war-weary but defiant public. At the same time, rejecting such a proposal could expose him to accusations of blocking peace, particularly from international actors eager to see an end to the fighting. The political stakes are equally high on the international stage. Ukraine has relied on strong Western unity to sustain its defence. If the United States moves toward a separate understanding with Russia, that unity could fracture, leaving Kyiv with diminished leverage in any future talks. Optics of the Alaska summit The optics of the Alaska summit reinforce these concerns. The meeting will be the first between a US president and Vladimir Putin since Russia's invasion in 2022, and it is being portrayed as a potential diplomatic breakthrough. However, its bilateral nature aligns with a long-standing Russian narrative that the conflict is essentially a great-power dispute over influence, with Ukraine as a subject rather than an equal participant. European leaders, including those of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Poland and Finland, have already issued a joint statement affirming their 'unwavering commitment' to Ukraine's sovereignty and stressing that the path to peace 'cannot be decided without Ukraine', Politico reported. The very need for such a statement illustrates that the possibility of exclusion is real enough to prompt public reassurance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's urgency and unilateral approach Trump's style of diplomacy adds further complication. He has repeatedly promised to end the war quickly and has imposed his own deadlines for ceasefire agreements, including an August 8 target for Putin to agree or face harsher US sanctions. However, rather than announcing new sanctions when that date passed, Trump revealed plans for the Alaska meeting. His reliance on special envoy Steve Witkoff to conduct 'highly productive' talks with Putin in Moscow shows that the White House is taking a hands-on approach, potentially moving faster than either European partners or Ukraine itself. While Trump has expressed openness to a trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy, his vice president, JD Vance, has publicly suggested it may not be 'productive' for Zelenskyy to join before Trump's one-on-one with Putin. That sequencing effectively places Kyiv in a reactive position, responding to ideas shaped in its absence. Putin's unchanged demands Moscow, for its part, has been consistent in its demands. Putin seeks recognition of Russian control over seized territories, assurances of Ukrainian neutrality and limits on the size of Ukraine's armed forces. His willingness to meet in Alaska appears linked to pressure from Washington and its allies, but the substance of his position has not shifted. The symbolism of holding the talks in Alaska—purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867—offers him an additional diplomatic flourish. If the United States were to endorse even partial territorial concessions, European unity could be strained, with some capitals pressured to follow Washington's lead in the interest of securing a ceasefire. For Zelenskyy, such an outcome would be politically disastrous, potentially leaving Ukraine diplomatically isolated. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Post-peace political reality? If the Alaska meeting leads to a peace agreement, Ukraine would also face the constitutional requirement to hold presidential and parliamentary elections, which have been suspended under martial law since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in early 2022. In such a scenario, Zelenskyy would no longer be shielded by wartime unity and emergency powers; instead, he would confront voters in a politically transformed environment shaped by the terms of peace. If the outcome of the Alaska talks leaves even a perception that Ukraine made concessions under US–Russian pressure, his opponents — both seasoned political rivals and new post-war contenders — would be quick to capitalise on public dissatisfaction. Thus, the Alaska summit is not only about Ukraine's territorial integrity, but also about the political realities that could define Zelenskyy's postwar future. Politics as the decisive battleground Ultimately, the fight for Zelenskyy is political before it is legal. The constitution may forbid territorial concessions, but if international negotiations proceed without Ukraine, the resulting agreements could still shape the political reality on the ground. In such a case, Kyiv could be forced into the politically impossible choice of either accepting terms that violate its legal principles or rejecting them at the cost of losing critical international support. It is indeed an existential crisis more for Zelenskyy than Ukraine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store