Satellite Pics Show How Russia Tried To Avert Ukraine Drone Strikes, But Failed
Hi-resolution satellite imagery of air bases deep inside Russia, taken before Ukraine carried out what's been described as the most audacious drone attack in military history, shows several Russian Air Force jets parked on the tarmac. These include strategic bombers, transport aircraft, and airborne warning aircraft.
Ukraine, under its Operation Spider Web, targeted five Russian air bases after infiltrating its territory. Some of these bases are located hundreds of kilometres inside Russia, while the farthest one is located some 8,000 km from the Russia-Ukraine border. The air bases targeted by Ukraine are:
Belaya Air Base in Siberia's Irkutsk - More than 4,500 km from the border
Olenya Air Base in the Arctic region's Murmansk - More than 2,000 km from the border
Ivanovo Severny Air Base in Ivanovo - More than 800 km from the border
Dyagilevo Air Base in Ryazan - More than 520 km from the border
Ukrainka Air Base in Russia's Far East- More than 8,000 km from the border
The Russian airbases targeted by Ukraine in its Operation Spider Web.
At each of these five air bases defensive measures had been observed presumably in an attempt to protect these military jets from drone attacks. A pre-strike image of the Belaya Air Base shows the Tu-160, which is the mainstay of the Russian Air Force, with tyres on its wings and fuselage - an attempt by the Russian military to keep the jets protected.
Tyres seen on aircraft wings and fuselage suggest defensive measures by the Russian Air Force.
Satellite images also show how replicas of the military aircraft were also painted on the tarmac to give the illusion of an actual plane being parked there. These act as decoys in order to deter drone strikes.
But these could not avert the Ukrainian drone attack which was meticulously planned and flawlessly executed. A video from the Belaya Air Base shows plumes of black smoke and soot rising from the strategic airbase.
Decoys painted by the Russian Air Force on the tarmac at air bases deep inside Russia.
At the Olenya Air Base located in the Arctic, satellite pictures show several Russian Tu-22 aircraft - again a mainstay of the Russian Air Force - used to target enemy aircraft carriers. Besides this, there were Tu-95 bombers that were parked on the tarmac and were the jets which were primarily targeted by Ukraine.
The Olenya Air Base located in the Arctic region as seen in this pre-drone strike satellite image.
The Tupolev Tu-95 are frontline bombers of the Russian Air Force. These large, four-engine turboprop-powered intercontinental bombers are nuclear-capable and act as a strategic missile platform. A video of the Olenya Air Base shows smoke billowing from these bombers, which were parked side-by-side on the tarmac. Several other platforms were destroyed as well in the audacious and daring attack.
Images from the Ivanovo Severny Air Base show Russia's advanced A-50 AWACS or airborne early warning aircraft. These are considered precious assets for any military. Russia however, had already lost several of these aircraft during the years-long war in Ukraine. With only a limited number of these AWACS left, if the ones seen in this picture were indeed hit, as Ukraine has claimed, Russia's air force would have reason to worry.
At the Dyagilevo Air Base in Ryazan, satellite images show the Ilyushin IL-78 tankers, which are a four-engined aerial refueling jet based on the IL-76 strategic airlifter. The photos show how decoys of the aircraft are painted on the tarmac to give the illusion of an actual jet.
In the air base in Ukrainka, located the farthest from the Ukrainian border, satellite images show the Tu-95 bombers parked there as well.
Post-attack satellite images are awaited to reveal the extent of damage caused to these platforms and the strategic airbases. Ukraine has said that as many as 41 Russian military jets have been destroyed in the Trojan-horse styled attack, where drones were sent secretly concealed in container trucks before being deployed remotely.
Moscow was caught off-guard presumably over the fact that these airbases are located so far inside Russia that the sheer distance was enough to keep aircraft safe from a Ukrainian attack. Though western allies have supplied Ukraine with missiles too - the US-made ATACMS and the British-French-made Storm Shadow - neither has the range to hit these air bases located deep inside Russian territory.
Despite the successful drone attack, the Russian Air Force, which has an immensely greater aircraft fleet, maintains air superiority over Ukraine. Ukraine's attack though has given a huge boost to Kyiv's morale, while creating a big dent on the morale of Moscow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 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
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 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.
