Strategic Blow to the Heart of Russia: The True Meaning of the Ukrainian Attack on Russian Airbases

Jesús Daniel Romero for Poder & Dinero and FinGurú

Introduction
The recent Ukrainian attack on multiple Russian airbases is not merely a tactical victory. It is a strategic earthquake that could redefine the war in Europe. In the early hours of June 1, 2025, Ukraine executed 'Operation Web': a massive offensive with long-range drones that penetrated more than 4,000 km into the heart of Russia. The results were devastating: at least 4 Tu-95 strategic bombers, 5 Tu-22M3 bombers, and 2 A-50 early warning aircraft destroyed on the ground. This attack not only disarms Russia but also reconfigures peace negotiations and exposes critical fissures in the Kremlin's defense. In the early hours of June 1, 2025, Ukraine executed 'Operation Web': a massive offensive with long-range drones that penetrated more than 4,000 km into the heart of Russia (Financial Times, 2025; El País, 2025).
A New Milestone: From Naval Warfare to Air Dominance
Ukraine had already demonstrated unprecedented operational capability by successfully executing operations against the Black Sea Fleet, managing to neutralize, incapacitate, and in some cases sink key Russian warships—including frigates, landing ships, and the iconic cruiser Moskva. These actions not only challenged the Kremlin's maritime hegemony but also altered the naval balance in the region. Now, with Operation Web, Ukraine has achieved a new strategic milestone: directly striking the heart of Russian strategic aviation. The transition from naval dominance to deep strikes against air platforms marks a qualitative evolution in Ukrainian offensive capabilities. It is no longer just about resisting—it's about redefining the red lines of modern warfare.
The Attack and Its Operational Depth
The attacked airbases—Engels, Mozdok, Shaykovka, Yeysk, and Olenya—are far beyond the range of drones launched from Ukrainian territory. This leads to a preliminary conclusion: the drones were likely launched from within Russian territory itself, implying a sophisticated clandestine operation and a structural failure in Russian counterintelligence.
Strategic and Doctrinal Implications
This attack reveals a shift in modern warfare:
- Ukraine employed infiltration tactics to launch drones from mobile platforms within Russia.
- It confirms the inability of the FSB and Russian air defense to protect even strategic aviation bases.
- The safe rear for Russia is gone; the heart of its air power was struck without manned aircraft or high-end missiles.
Comparison: How Severe Was It?
To understand the impact, let's compare these losses with the strategic arsenal of the U.S.:
- Tu-95MS ‘Bear’ ≈ B-52 Stratofortress
- Tu-22M3 ‘Backfire’ ≈ B-1B Lancer
- A-50 ‘Mainstay’ ≈ E-3 Sentry AWACS
A loss of this magnitude for the United States would trigger a national crisis, nuclear alert change, and a complete review of the global strategic posture. (Financial Times, 2025)
Irreplaceable: The True Cost
These aircraft cannot be easily replaced. Production lines were shut down decades ago and many depend on already obsolete components. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 can only be partially repaired; the A-50 face severe maintenance limitations. The estimated replacement time is at least 10 years.
From Nuclear Deterrence to Tactical Obsolescence
The Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 were designed to attack the U.S. as part of the Soviet nuclear triad. Their destruction today by low-cost drones represents a doctrinal collapse. What once cost hundreds of millions and decades of maintenance has been nullified by platforms under $1,000. Warfare has changed: it's no longer about how much the aircraft costs, but how vulnerable it is to adversarial intelligence. (El País, 2025)
Asymmetric Innovation: From Mossad Beepers to Ukrainian Drones
Strategic Autonomy: From Israel to Ukraine
Just as Israel did not inform the United States about its covert operation against Hezbollah in September 2024—where it distributed modified communication devices with explosives—Ukraine also did not share with Washington or NATO the details of its offensive against Russian airbases. This decision underscores an emerging pattern: regional allies, even those highly dependent on the West militarily or economically, are opting to maintain a degree of operational autonomy when it comes to high-risk and high-impact operations.
Operation Web was planned and executed in complete secrecy, without the Pentagon or NATO command structures receiving prior notice. This tactic not only protected the viability of the operation but also avoided any political veto or leaks. As with Israel, success depended both on tactical surprise and strategic independence. This operational convergence reveals a new paradigm of warfare: where secrecy and precision outweigh allied coordination.
The effectiveness of the Ukrainian attack resonates significantly with previous intelligence operations, particularly one carried out by Israeli Mossad in September 2024 against Hezbollah. On that occasion, Israeli agents managed to infiltrate thousands of beepers and communication devices—seemingly harmless—that exploded simultaneously in the hands of Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon and Syria. The result: more than 40 dead and thousands injured in a surgical act of psychological warfare, disguised as civil logistics.
Similar to Operation Web, the goal was not just physical but symbolic: to destroy trust, expose vulnerabilities, and operationally paralyze the enemy. The connection between both events is clear: modern warfare no longer depends exclusively on fire volume or cutting-edge technology, but on the ability to infiltrate, deceive, and destabilize. Ukraine, like Israel, has shown that with operational intelligence and tactical creativity, it is possible to dismantle the conventional supremacy of an adversary.
Global Impact: For Putin, the Pentagon, China, and NATO
This attack was a wake-up call worldwide:
- For Putin, it is a humiliating blow that exposes the fragility of his nuclear apparatus.
- For the Pentagon, it is a warning about the vulnerability of its own strategic bases.
- For China, it forces a rethink of its internal defense capabilities.
- For NATO, it reveals that air supremacy is no longer based on volume but on tactical intelligence and asymmetric innovation. (The Sun, 2025)
The Equivalent for the U.S.: A Disaster for the Strategic Air Command
If this attack had occurred against the United States, it would have meant:
- The loss of approximately 30% of its manned strategic bombing capacity.
- A National Security Council crisis.
- Changes in nuclear alert and immediate global deployment.
- A shock comparable to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the attack on Clark Field in 1941.
The End of Russian Air Power Projection
The loss of these platforms represents a deep fracture in Russia's ability to project power beyond its borders. Without strategic bombers or air command platforms, the Kremlin loses not only material means but also credibility. It is a significant loss for destruction but even more so for Russia's image as a global power. The world has changed, and Russian air power has been stranded on its own runways.
Reflective Closure
I never imagined the day would come when I would witness the massive destruction of Soviet strategic bombers. The Tu-95 'Bear' and Tu-22M3 'Backfire' were symbols of the balance of terror. Seeing them burn, one by one, not by intercontinental missiles but by low-cost drones, represents brutal strategic irony. What once was a global deterrent fleet now lies in ruins. It was not just a fleet that fell: an era has fallen.
Implications for Negotiation and Ceasefire
This attack not only affects the battlefield; it also transforms the diplomatic board:
1. Repositioning of Ukraine: Now Kyiv negotiates from a position of demonstrated offensive capability. It is no longer at the table out of compassion or survival but for tactical advantage.
2. Shift in Psychological Balance: The Kremlin, for the first time, faces a real risk in its strategic rear. This alters the internal decision-making dynamics in Moscow.
3. Reduced Russian Incentive to Negotiate: After a public humiliation, Putin will likely seek retaliation before sitting down to negotiate again.
4. Increased Western Pressure to Negotiate: The United States and the European Union may pressure Ukraine to turn this tactical advantage into a diplomatic resolution, avoiding nuclear escalation.
5. New Conditions for Ceasefire: Future negotiations will likely include monitoring of strategic bases, verifiable guarantees, and more stringent terms imposed by Ukraine.
In summary, the attack has disrupted the diplomatic red lines. A ceasefire will no longer be discussed under the previous rules.
References
Financial Times. (2025, June 1). Ukrainian drone blitz destroys Russian aircraft in deepest attacks of war. https://www.ft.com/content/16f33b02-b337-49da-802b-18659582f723
El País. (2025, June 1). Ukraine inflicts its biggest attack on Russian aviation on the eve of the meeting with Moscow in Istanbul. https://elpais.com/internacional/2025-06-01/ucrania-infringe-su-mayor-ataque-a-la-aviacion-rusa-en-visperas-del-encuentro-con-moscu-en-estambul.html
HuffPost. (2025, June 1). Russia denounces drone attack in Siberia. https://www.huffingtonpost.es/global/rusia-denuncia-primer-ataque-drones-base-militar-situada-siberiabr.html
The Sun. (2025, June 1). Ukraine drone blitz DESTROYS Russian airfields in huge blow to Putin. https://www.the-sun.com/news/14371994/ukraine-drone-blitz-destroys-russian-airfields (HuffPost, 2025)
Jesús Daniel Romero is a Retired U.S. Naval Intelligence Commander. Co-founder and Senior Fellow at the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute, writer, and columnist for the Diario Las Américas in Miami, Florida.