Putin promised to make Ukraine pay for its airbase attacks. What does he have left?
For more than three years, Russia has used its fleet of bombers to rain hellfire on Ukraine. On June 1, Kyiv responded by going after those bombers.
The operation, codenamed 'Spiderweb,' was 18 months in the making. Dozens of hidden drones emerged from trucks parked in Russia, racing to airfields thousands of miles from Ukraine and destroying at least 12 bombers.
Although the operation was a huge boost for Ukrainian morale, many in the country braced for Moscow's retaliation. Their fears sharpened when Russian President Vladimir Putin told his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday that the Kremlin would 'have to respond' to the attack.
Russia's initial retaliation began Thursday night, in the form of a massive drone and missile strike on Kyiv and across the country. Russia's Ministry of Defense described the strikes as a 'response' to Kyiv's 'terrorist acts.' The attack was punishing, but not qualitatively different to what Ukraine has grown used to over three years of war.
Olha, a 67-year-old resident of Kyiv who asked to be identified only by her first name, told CNN that if Thursday night's strikes were Russia's retaliation, then Ukraine faces 'many such retaliations – once a month, even more.'
Russia's response so far to Ukraine's extraordinary operation has raised questions about Putin's ability to escalate the war and exact the retribution that many of his supporters have clamored for. And it has left Ukrainians wondering if it has already felt the brunt of Russia's response, or if the worst is yet to come.
In determining Russia's retaliation, analysts say, Putin has faced several constraints. One is political: Mounting a large-scale, innovative response to the 'Spiderweb' operation would be akin to admitting that Ukraine had inflicted a serious blow against Russia – an impression the Kremlin has been at pains to avoid, said Kateryna Stepanenko, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, a think tank in Washington DC.
In a meeting with government ministers on Wednesday, Putin received a lengthy briefing on recent bridge collapses in Kursk and Bryansk, blamed by Russia on Ukraine. Yet, aside from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's reference to recent 'criminal provocations' by Kyiv, there was no mention of the 'Spiderweb' operation.
In Russian state media's coverage of Putin's call Wednesday with Trump, little was made of the Russian president's pledge to 'respond' to Ukraine's attack. Instead, the reports focused on the outcome of recent peace talks in Istanbul.
Stepanenko said this is part of a deliberate strategy. 'Putin is trying to make this go away and hide this failure yet again,' she told CNN. She said a high-profile response 'would contradict the Kremlin's strategic objective of making it all go away and sweeping this under the rug.'
Putin has also faced material constraints. Whereas Russia's near-daily strikes on Ukraine used to involve just dozens of drones, they now routinely use more than 400. A day before Ukraine's 'Spiderweb' operation, on May 31, Russia launched 472 drones at Ukraine – a record in the three-year war, which was surpassed again during Sunday night's attacks, which used 479 drones.
'Russia's response is constrained by the amount of force they're constantly using,' said William Alberque, a former NATO arms control official now at the Stimson Center think tank.
'How would you know if Russia was actually retaliating? What would be more brutal than them destroying apartment flats or attacking shopping malls? What would escalation look like?'
Russia's pro-war community of Telegram bloggers was not short of ideas. Some prominent channels said that Kyiv's strikes on Moscow's nuclear-capable bombers warranted a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Others called for a strike using the Oreshnik ballistic missile, which was unveiled by Putin last year, and has so far been used only once against Ukraine.
Although Putin often praises his new missile, it has limited uses, said Mark Galeotti, a leading Russia analyst.
'The Oreshnik is really geared for a particular kind of target. It's not that accurate… and it's not a bunker-buster,' he told CNN, meaning the missile would struggle to take out key manufacturing and decision-making hubs that Ukraine has moved deep underground. 'If you're going to deploy it… you want it to have a target that's worthy of the name.'
One target could be Ukraine's security services, the SBU, which masterminded the 'Spiderweb' operation, he said.
'But that's not something you can do quickly,' he cautioned. 'In some ways, Putin has already swept away most of the escalation rungs at his disposal, which means that he doesn't have the option for clear punishment.'
In a sign that Moscow's 'retaliation' may be ongoing, Russia's Ministry of Defense said it had struck a Ukrainian airfield in the western Rivne region on Sunday night – a week after Ukraine's attacks on Russian airfields.
The ministry said the attack was 'one of the retaliatory strikes' for Kyiv's 'terrorist attacks' against Russia's airfields, suggesting there may be more to come. Yuriy Ihnat, a spokesperson for Ukraine's air force, said the attack on the airfield was 'one of the biggest ever carried out by Russia.' Although air defenses 'performed very well,' he said it was 'impossible to shoot down everything.'
Although Putin may be constrained in his ability to respond to Ukraine's spectacular operation with one of Russia's own, this may not matter on the battlefield, said Galeotti.
'From a political perspective… it's the Ukrainians who demonstrate that they are the nimble, imaginative, effective ones, and the Russians are just thuggish brutes who continue to grind along,' he said. 'But from the military perspective, in some ways, that's fine.'
While Ukraine may have the initiative in terms of headlines and spectacle, Russia still has the initiative on the battlefield. Russian troops have opened a new front in Ukraine's northern Sumy region and are now just 12 miles from the main city. And on Sunday, Moscow claimed that its forces had advanced into the central Ukrainian region of Dnipropetrovsk for the first time, after months of clashes.
The question is whether 'Putin is willing to accept whatever damage happens on the home front, precisely for his slow attrition grind forward,' said Galeotti.
Alberque, of the Stimson Center, said a lot rests on whether Ukraine has been weaving more 'Spiderwebs,' or whether its drone attack was a one-off.
'The fact that this operation was a year- and-a-half in the planning – how many other operations are a year-in right now?' he asked.
Two days after the drone attack, Ukraine's SBU unveiled another operation – its third attempt to blow up the bridge connecting Russia and the occupied Crimean Peninsula. The bridge over the Kerch Strait was not significantly damaged, but the attack reinforced the SBU's commitment to impressing upon Moscow that there are costs to continuing its war.
If 'humiliating' operations like those continue, Putin will come under greater pressure to deliver a response that is different in kind, not just degree, Alberque said.
'Putin is such a creature of strongman politics,' he added. '(The Kremlin) is going to look for other ways to strike back, to show the Russian people that Putin is a great wartime president who is inflicting horrible damage on his enemy, rather than a victim of these spectacular Ukrainian attacks.'
CNN's Kosta Gak and Victoria Butenko contributed reporting.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia's lead negotiator in Istanbul claims Russia's terms at 2022 talks with Ukraine were "softer"
Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation at recent peace talks in Istanbul, has said that if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms in 2022, its terms would have been less harsh. Source: Medinsky in an interview with RT, the Russian state-controlled international news television network, as quoted by Russian media Details: Medinsky claimed that if Ukraine had been ready and "if it had been making its own decisions", a peace agreement could have been signed as early as 28 February 2022 and would have had "softer" terms than in 2025. After all, the pseudo-historian claimed, "all they wanted was for Ukraine not to join NATO and to say no to the deployment of foreign military bases on its territory". There had also been discussions about making Russian an official language in Ukraine, recognising the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and officially recognising Crimea as Russian, because, in Medinsky's fantasies, "that was the most democratically held referendum imaginable". Medinsky said that after the Russian delegation presented the draft treaty in 2022, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "kept silent for two weeks" and met with representatives from the UK and the US during that time. The Russians were then told "Our foreign partners are opposed to us entering into the agreement – which we had already agreed on," Medinsky claims. Background: After the second round of talks on 2 June, Russian state news agencies published the text of Russia's "memorandum of settlement" with proposals for a ceasefire. In the memorandum, Russia has demanded the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson oblasts. It also calls for Ukraine's neutrality, a ban on the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of Ukraine, and its rejection of nuclear weapons. The New York Times reported, citing sources and the relevant draft agreements, that in April 2022, Russia effectively disrupted peace talks with Ukraine by inserting a clause in the draft agreement stating that it would have the right to veto the international community's response in the event of a repeat attack on Ukraine. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘California in Chaos' Dystopia? Not if You Live Here
For most people in Los Angeles, it was a run-of-the-mill weekend. There were kids baseball and soccer games, pleasant weather for getting outdoors, and Dodgers games on TV. On cable and local news, though, as well as X and other strident quadrants of social media, the scene was far less idyllic, playing into the dystopian narrative the Trump administration clearly wanted to advance regarding demonstrations over immigration policy. To put it the way an alliterative TV news chyron might, think 'CALIFORNIA IN CHAOS,' with President Trump stoking the fire by tweeting about immigrant invasions and rampant lawlessness. TV news and social media excel at offering snapshots of what's happening, but not the big picture. So the images emanating from L.A. (and the outlying city of Paramount, one many Angelenos likely couldn't find on a map) fueled the distorted scenario that Trump and his acolytes pushed, capitalizing on the fact that those information conduits and their viewers are drawn to the conflict like moths to the (literal, in this case) flames. Granted, more sober voices tried to clarify the overall dynamic — observing that Trump's tweets, for starters, were untethered from reality. Yet given the power of his megaphone and the legions who parrot his claims, it's hard to sway an audience that might have never been to California, or that lacks the media literacy to grasp a few hundred people taking to the streets — in a state with 40 million residents — doesn't translate into widespread chaos. 'Most people in L.A. probably don't even know that this is going on,' CNN national security analyst and Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem pointed out on Saturday. 'It's such a big city, and we need an administration that's not going to get to Defcon 1 every time they see something on TV they don't like.' Expecting or even hoping for restraint from Trump, however, merely reflects naïveté, especially because he and his advisors so obviously relish the idea of painting a blue state as something out of a 'Mad Max' movie, provoking confrontation and creating cover to try implementing a military response. That's all red meat for Trump and his base, playing into the stereotypes of California that Fox News pushes with regularity. Small wonder he's been spoiling for a fight with the state and its leaders, threatening to cut off federal funding even before the weekend's flare-up. By that measure, the few protesters that engaged in violence are playing right into his hands, as his weekend social media tirade — 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!,' he said in one all-caps, three-exclamation-point salvo — made utterly transparent. The onus for behaving responsibly thus shifts to news organizations and social media commentators with cooler heads, not to downplay or diminish what's happening but rather to provide what's so often the first casualty in the breaking coverage of such events: Context. 'There are a few protests downtown, and yesterday's drama was in a suburb 30 minutes away,' Pod Save America's Jon Favreau tweeted in response to Trump's bluster, accurately capturing the geography of what had transpired. 'We're the biggest county in America, with 10 million people, and you wouldn't know anything is up unless you read the news or happen to be downtown.' So how has the media fared in the early stages of this manufactured crisis? Predictably, not terribly well. On Saturday, for example, CNN cut away from its post-game coverage after televising a live performance of 'Good Night, and Good Luck' to interview a reporter at the scene in Los Angeles. Then again, the panel assembled to discuss the Broadway show's lessons in a town-hall-type setting represented the kind of journalism the play's subject, Edward R. Murrow, almost surely would have hated, a bit of irony that seemed to elude everyone participating in the forum. Ultimately, having a reporter going live at a chaotic, fast-moving event often doesn't tell you very much. That's certainly the case in a situation like the one unfolding in Los Angeles, where Trump's ICE raids rounding up undocumented immigrants have unleashed anger and prompted fear within local communities, while playing to Trump's xenophobic appeal and helpfully shifting the focus away from other topics, like the pending tax bill and breakdown of Trump's relationship with Elon Musk. Thanks to social media and satellites, the immediacy of information has never been faster, but the tradeoff is that the ability to digest and understand what we're seeing easily gets lost in the shuffle. And unless you live in L.A., the images create powerful impressions that play into preconceived notions without knowing exactly what you're seeing, in the same way footage out of Gaza or Ukraine can often turn out to be misleading once we've had a chance to absorb and sort out the details of the deeper story behind the pictures. Murrow could have explained all this, were he still alive, but he'd need to find a sympathetic platform to amplify those views. Alas, as things stand right now, the odds are Fox News wouldn't have put him on at all, MSNBC would simply let him preach to the choir, and CNN would have cut away from interviewing him to see what its squabbling, both-sides-ing panel of experts had to say. The post Trump's 'California in Chaos' Dystopia? Not if You Live Here appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No Russians on border of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts
The Khortytsia Operational Strategic Group has denied Russian claims that they have reached the border of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Source: Viktor Trehubov, spokesperson for the Khortytsia Operational Strategic Group, on the national joint 24/7 newscast on 9 June Quote from Trehubov: "No, there are no Russians on the border of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Yes, there is fighting in the west of Donetsk Oblast, but the Russians have not reached the administrative border. Their reports about this are not true; they are lies." Details: Trehubov said there is significant Russian pressure along the entire length of the front line on the Pokrovsk front. There are always more than 50 combat engagements per day, whereas on other fronts there are fewer. He added that the Pokrovsk front has been Russia's main front for more than two years. Background: On 9 June, the Russian Ministry of Defence claimed that its units are "continuing to advance deep into the enemy's defence and have increased the area of liberated [sic] territories in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast". Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!