The Russian economy, according to multiple news outlets, is near breaking point with the combination of the costs of the war and the existing sanctions starting to really bite. They need to be maintained, and if secondary tariffs against nations that have not imposed sanctions gets them onboard so that markets for Russian exports shrink further then that's only going to help. It should be noted that that will include a significant number of European nations, who are still dependent upon Russian gas even after three years of trying to change to other energy sources - the volume of gas purchased by European countries has reduced by only a few %, with European nations paying Russia more for gas than the support given to Ukraine.
Though, the Russian leadership will probably continue to produce munitions and draft larger portions of the workforce into the military despite the pain the Russian people experience from that, irrespective of sanctions.
I think more tariffs against Russia should be tried.
This does seem to be an instance where Trump's hammer may actually make contact with a nail rather than just making holes in the wall and smashing up the furniture.
Given that Trump is both very lazy and very stupid this was the likeliest outcome by a prohibitive margin. For those that believed Trump about this, if you're surprised by this after ten years of watching this guy, that's on you.
In this Podcast, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Sir Alex Younger, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6).
As you might expect, it is a fascinating discussion across the board. The story of how Alex told his mother he was a spy is brilliant!
Relevant to our purposes here is his analysis of Ukraine:
The Time Stamp for the free version (in the link) is 37:35- 46:37. Sir Alex was asked about the prospects for Ukraine if the USA withdraws its support completely.
In short he says
1. This is quite a likely scenario - likely enough that Europe should be planning on the basis that this is what Trump is going to do
2. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine
3. Ukraine cannot without US support push Russia back
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
5. Without US support, the front line would not hold but Russia won't be able to complete its takeover of Ukraine - Russia will make gains but won't be able to consolidate them and
6. Russsia's expeditionary capability is decimated. It will be at least 5 years before they can directly attack anyone else.
7. Europe needs to stand up.
Now, this tallies with a lot of what I've said before, hence I may be guilty of confirmational bias. However, there is particular reasons which I explained as to why I see it this way. Here is someone with incredible insight to the geopolitics who's view of Russia is clear eyed but also it is clear that Russia has and is strategically failing.
The big wild card in these types of analysis is the question of how long Russia can keep up the current level of attrition, at least as far as equipment goes. Russia has re-tooled its economy for greater military production, but it's still falling short as shown by the fact that it needs to import artillery shells from North Korea and attack drones from Iran. The real unknown is when will the Soviet-era stockpiles run out? This is a hugely speculative question (and obviously the Russian government does not want to comment) but most experts expect that the last of the usable Soviet-era heavy equipment will be taken out of mothballs and deployed sometime this year or in early 2026. What happens to Russia's ability to make advances when the last of the Red Army tanks hit the front line, start suffering attrition, and can no longer be replaced in kind is unknown.
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
It's not just technological innovation, it's also doctrine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have re-organized themselves since the beginning of the war and made Unmanned Systems Forces (a.k.a. drones) their own branch of the military. As far as I know they are the first large military to re-organize themselves this way.
And speaking of Ukrainian drone forces, there have apparently been some big happenings along those lines yesterday. Ukraine managed to simultaneously bomb four Russian military air bases, some of them very far from Ukraine. You can read the details here, though this is a developing story so initial reports will likely be wrong in some manner.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
And speaking of Ukrainian drone forces, there have apparently been some big happenings along those lines yesterday. Ukraine managed to simultaneously bomb four Russian military air bases, some of them very far from Ukraine. You can read the details here, though this is a developing story so initial reports will likely be wrong in some manner.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
It is surprising Ukraine was able to get the trailers across the border. Was there some collusion among the border guards? How could they have penetrated so far without being stopped? This could be the story of the year.
As you say, these are not just light, medium range bombers. These were part of the Russian Nuclear Security Forces. It is a significant degradation. i
Will it bring Russia to the table? Ukraine is sending a peace delegation to Istanbul. The ball is in Putin's court.
Will it bring Russia to the table? They are at the table and planned to be prior to this.
Do you mean will it make Russia capitulate? My money is on "no".
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
Will it bring Russia to the table? They are at the table and planned to be prior to this.
Is Russia "at the table" in any meaningful sense of the term? They claim to have prepared a cease fire memorandum for the current round of talks, but no one else has seen it. No the Ukrainians, not the Turks, and not the Americans. I'd say the real question is whether this motivates Russia to actually engage in good faith negotiation. Probably not, but that's a different question than just being "at the table", something Russia has theoretically been since 2022.
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
Well, you know what they say about necessity. We will see what happens next. I'm hoping it's not some kind of escalation. If the Russians find out this was planned and carried out by western powers, there may be literal hell to pay.
The TU-120 is a proposed aircraft design, nuclear powered and not even at a prototype stage. The Ukrainian reports don't mention hitting any of these.
The TU-160 is the last of the Soviet strategic bombers, much of the small Russian fleet of these was given to Russia by Ukraine. Production resumed on an updated version a few years ago, at present it appears only 2 of the planned 10 aircraft have been delivered.
The TU-22 (listed by Ukraine as among the aircraft damaged) ceased production in 1993, and Russia has less than 60 of these aircraft (with, even before this strike, less than half of those serviceable). The TU-95 also ceased production in 1993, with similar numbers in operation, but the aircraft is considered much more reliable than the TU-22. Both these aircraft types are known to have been used in bombing civilian areas in Ukraine (as well as Syria).
The TU-22, 95 and 160 aircraft have been maintained, and in most cases upgraded, but are effectively no long manufactured. Russia military strategy has been focussed on development and production of smaller aircraft, fighters and fighter bombers, rather than the strategic bombers capable of delivering large numbers if dumb bombs and nuclear weapons.
The aircraft destroyed in this strike are effectively irreplaceable, those damaged may not be repaired for many years. Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete). As a PR coup and morale boost, this attack was superb. I doubt it will change Russian government attitudes, but it may make western nations increase their support for Ukraine - a message to Trump that support for Ukraine isn't "backing a loser".
Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete).
I think the words "unique" and "strategic" are doing a lot of work in that assessment. While the unique strategic capabilities of these bombers has been infrequently used in the current conflict these planes have often been used for other things. Most notably launching cruise missiles into Ukraine. This is, of course, something that can be (and has been) accomplished by other platforms, but the sheer carrying capacity of strategic bombers far outstrips other airborne delivery systems. It's not a game-changer but I'd expect some battlefield consequences, both from the lost planes themselves and because Russia is likely going to be more cautious in its use of its remaining strategic bombers going forward.
This is a significant and frankly humiliating degradation of the Russian nuclear triad.
It bears repeating that Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Russian Nuclear Forces and the Navy were two of the largest examples where Russia coasted on Soviet laurels and equipment. Russia itself doesn't have the Soviet Union's manufacturing capabilities, many of which were in Ukraine.
The attaack is notable that the drones were smuggled into Russia in crates and apparently aimed with AI to counter jamming. One a pure cost-analysis a drone fleet of a million or so dollars for 117 drones has destroyed a fleet of aircraft worth at least $30 billion and much of which is irreplaceable.
The attacks took out piston-engined Tu-95 Bear and jet engined Tu-22 Backfire bombers, both of which are long out of production and a few of the Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, of which Russia had ony 20.
Ukraine claims it has damaged 34% of the Russian Strategic bombers. Yes, the Russians can continue to use other platforms to attack Ukraine, but the bombers Russia lost are supposed to a part of its nuclear shield against the USA and its allies. If this had happened under the old USSR, do you think the Communist Central Committee would have allowed Putin to continue? Remember, when Khruschev backed down over the Cuban confrontation, he was booted out of office in two years (the communist machinery was a little rusty). I think the Russian military, if it could grow a set of cojones, should use this to give Putin his walking papers if not set him up for something a much more extreme.
In addition to the damaged/destroyed bombers, the side effects could be very interesting indeed. The drones, it seems, were shipped right across Russia in trucks - now every truck on the road is going to be suspect. Trying to keep tabs on them, and their drivers, is going to take a massive effort, it's going to slow down transport of just about everything. All Ukraine needs to do is keep Russia suspicious and it will keep the transport network hamstrung.
Audacious as striking as far away as Murmansk is, and a huge publicity coup, the effect on Russian transport could be the big win from this.
If this had happened under the old USSR, do you think the Communist Central Committee would have allowed Putin to continue? Remember, when Khruschev backed down over the Cuban confrontation, he was booted out of office in two years (the communist machinery was a little rusty). I think the Russian military, if it could grow a set of cojones, should use this to give Putin his walking papers if not set him up for something a much more extreme.
This, I think, illustrates the difference between what one might call a totalitarian bureaucracy like the USSR and a generic "strongman" dictatorship like Putin's. Many of the people and tools are the same but there is no longer a party, no longer a system, only a regime. The situation in China retains a good deal more of the bureaucratic element but there are certainly moves under Xi to "personalise" power.
In addition to the damaged/destroyed bombers, the side effects could be very interesting indeed. The drones, it seems, were shipped right across Russia in trucks - now every truck on the road is going to be suspect. Trying to keep tabs on them, and their drivers, is going to take a massive effort, it's going to slow down transport of just about everything. All Ukraine needs to do is keep Russia suspicious and it will keep the transport network hamstrung.
Audacious as striking as far away as Murmansk is, and a huge publicity coup, the effect on Russian transport could be the big win from this.
It not only impacts Russia, but this can translate to NATO bases in Europe and US bases in North America. Most allied bases are near throughfares, freeways, autobahns. What if a well-funded saboteur wants to do damage our military hardware? There are a number of instances of drones overflying our bases. We often don't respond because they come up very suddenly. Looks like we will have to develop air defenses to cover bases we once considered safe.
It not only impacts Russia, but this can translate to NATO bases in Europe and US bases in North America. Most allied bases are near throughfares, freeways, autobahns. What if a well-funded saboteur wants to do damage our military hardware? There are a number of instances of drones overflying our bases. We often don't respond because they come up very suddenly. Looks like we will have to develop air defenses to cover bases we once considered safe.
Anyone responsible for security at military air bases has probably been having sleepless nights and heartburn since June 1. Drone attacks were always a theoretical possibility, but the Ukrainians demonstrated just how effective they could be. It's always been known that strategic bombers are most vulnerable when they're on the ground and that the fuel inside them is enough to destroy them, provided you can figure out how to ignite it.
Ukraine said on Tuesday that it had hit the bridge connecting Russia and the occupied Crimean Peninsula with explosives planted underwater, in its third attack on the vital supply line for Moscow’s forces since the full-scale war began in 2022.
Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, said on Telegram that its agents had mined the piers of the road and rail Crimean Bridge, also called the Kerch Bridge, and detonated the first explosive at 4.44 a.m. Tuesday. The whole operation took several months, it added.
The agency said it had used 1,100 kilograms of explosives which “severely damaged” the underwater pillars supporting the bridge.
Traffic on the bridge seems to have resumed so I'm not sure how "severely damaged" it really is.
Ukraine seems to have timed these months-in-the-making operations to happen around the time Russia is making maximalist demands at the cease-fire talks in Türkiye, which seems like the right timing. We'll see if the Ukrainians have any other special ops in the near future, I guess.
And I read recently there are fibre-optic controlled drones that can't be electronically jammed and Russia is using them in Ukraine.
Those have been in use for at least a year now and are being supplanted by AI controlled drones that do not rely on GPS or FPV.
I don't think that's really true, getting any kind of significant compute capability onto drones runs into the problem of weight (which ironically is exactly the issue with optical drones - it's not length so much as weight, both in terms of the drone payload and needing to cart spools of it around the battlefield). At best you can get small models running on them that enhance flight stability and targetting (somewhat), but still reliant on some other method for piloting.
The problem is that security for airfields has always been a headache. Even before drones, there have been many attacks on various facilities using mortars concealed in trucks, and if those were used against airfields then it's likely that aircraft could be destroyed. Airfield security was part of the mission creep for the first US deployments to Vietnam - start with advisors and then air support (helicopters to transport Vietnamese troops and fighter bombers for close ground support), then find that the small contingents of marines and army personnel to guard the perimeters of the airfields are insufficient to deal with VC armed with mortars and RPGs operating from concealment just outside the fence, so you bring in more troops to regularly patrol areas within mortar/RPG range of the airfield ... and before you know it you've got thousands of troops on the ground actively engaging the enemy of the South Vietnamese government.
The other time honoured method of protecting aircraft is to park them as far from the perimeter as possible, therefore closely spaced and highly vulnerable to air attack (and, drones are a form of air attack). In early December 1941 with reports of possible Japanese aggression, the commanders of the airfields in Hawaii decided to move their aircraft further from the fence as a defence against sabotage ... only to see individual Zero aircraft strafe the neatly lined up aircraft destroying much of the capability of the US Air Force to defend Pearl Harbor.
The problem is that security for airfields has always been a headache. Even before drones, there have been many attacks on various facilities using mortars concealed in trucks, and if those were used against airfields then it's likely that aircraft could be destroyed. Airfield security was part of the mission creep for the first US deployments to Vietnam - start with advisors and then air support (helicopters to transport Vietnamese troops and fighter bombers for close ground support), then find that the small contingents of marines and army personnel to guard the perimeters of the airfields are insufficient to deal with VC armed with mortars and RPGs operating from concealment just outside the fence, so you bring in more troops to regularly patrol areas within mortar/RPG range of the airfield ... and before you know it you've got thousands of troops on the ground actively engaging the enemy of the South Vietnamese government.
The other time honoured method of protecting aircraft is to park them as far from the perimeter as possible, therefore closely spaced and highly vulnerable to air attack (and, drones are a form of air attack). In early December 1941 with reports of possible Japanese aggression, the commanders of the airfields in Hawaii decided to move their aircraft further from the fence as a defence against sabotage ... only to see individual Zero aircraft strafe the neatly lined up aircraft destroying much of the capability of the US Air Force to defend Pearl Harbor.
FWIW AIUI some in UK military circles are already thinking wistfully about some of the airbases with dispersed hardened aircraft shelters that have been abandoned (but crucially not sold) since the end of the Cold War.
Notwithstanding Cherwell District Council’s plans for loads of housing I wouldn’t be utterly astonished if there was a return to say RAF Upper Heyford. I think the state still owns the amazingly long runway, even with thousands of cars parked on it.
Even with hardened hangers, there is still the vulnerability if the doors are open. Those drones can seek any opening--doors, even windows and boom. Think of how much damage can happen if a drone gets inside a hanger.
Here Russia spent billions on developing its nuclear deterrent only to have it decimated by relatively cheap drones. Russia is saying it will rebuild and repair its air force. Will take time, though.
I thought most of Russia's nukes were missiles in silos. Mind you, those are intercontinental ones rather than for use against close neighbours.
Impressive as these strikes were I think they have more morale and propaganda value than anything else.
Russia uses a Triad System very similar to the Triad system of the Western Allies. While most active Russian warheads are on strategic missiles based in the ground, they do have some mobile launchers they like to show in their parades. This is followed by sea based launchers. And then there is the air-based weapons systems too. They continue to use their bomber fleet to test Allied defenses and also to project power into many parts of the world. To me, when one of those legs are hobbled it's pretty significant. Much more than a morale boaster for the Ukrainians.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20x7z36d56o
I think more tariffs against Russia should be tried.
Though, the Russian leadership will probably continue to produce munitions and draft larger portions of the workforce into the military despite the pain the Russian people experience from that, irrespective of sanctions.
This does seem to be an instance where Trump's hammer may actually make contact with a nail rather than just making holes in the wall and smashing up the furniture.
Indeed. Here's a historical refresher on what was promised. [ content warning: Donald Trump ]
Here's where we are now. [ content warning: Marco Rubio ]
Given that Trump is both very lazy and very stupid this was the likeliest outcome by a prohibitive margin. For those that believed Trump about this, if you're surprised by this after ten years of watching this guy, that's on you.
In this Podcast, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart interview Sir Alex Younger, former head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6).
As you might expect, it is a fascinating discussion across the board. The story of how Alex told his mother he was a spy is brilliant!
Relevant to our purposes here is his analysis of Ukraine:
The Time Stamp for the free version (in the link) is 37:35- 46:37. Sir Alex was asked about the prospects for Ukraine if the USA withdraws its support completely.
In short he says
1. This is quite a likely scenario - likely enough that Europe should be planning on the basis that this is what Trump is going to do
2. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine
3. Ukraine cannot without US support push Russia back
4. Ukraine's technological capability has been transformed in the past two years and now is a genuine world leader in drones
5. Without US support, the front line would not hold but Russia won't be able to complete its takeover of Ukraine - Russia will make gains but won't be able to consolidate them and
6. Russsia's expeditionary capability is decimated. It will be at least 5 years before they can directly attack anyone else.
7. Europe needs to stand up.
Now, this tallies with a lot of what I've said before, hence I may be guilty of confirmational bias. However, there is particular reasons which I explained as to why I see it this way. Here is someone with incredible insight to the geopolitics who's view of Russia is clear eyed but also it is clear that Russia has and is strategically failing.
AFZ
Their sea drones appear to be quite interesting. The Ukrainians have outfitted their sea drones to take down Russian aircraft. Story here.. What will they think of next?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
It's not just technological innovation, it's also doctrine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have re-organized themselves since the beginning of the war and made Unmanned Systems Forces (a.k.a. drones) their own branch of the military. As far as I know they are the first large military to re-organize themselves this way.
The operation seems to have involved driving trucks towing trailers with short-range drones in secret compartments which could then be launched when close enough to a Russian air base. Statements by the Ukrainians indicate that about forty large bombers were destroyed. These are not just the planes that are loaded with cruise missiles to murder Ukrainians in hospitals and apartment buildings, they're also the planes that can be loaded with nuclear weapons as part of Russia's overall strategic deterrence. Since Russia largely lacks the capability to manufacture these planes any more this seems fairly significant.
It is surprising Ukraine was able to get the trailers across the border. Was there some collusion among the border guards? How could they have penetrated so far without being stopped? This could be the story of the year.
As you say, these are not just light, medium range bombers. These were part of the Russian Nuclear Security Forces. It is a significant degradation. i
Will it bring Russia to the table? Ukraine is sending a peace delegation to Istanbul. The ball is in Putin's court.
Do you mean will it make Russia capitulate? My money is on "no".
8 Tupolevs hit, 2 permanently disabled, it's a shock to the Russians for sure but it's more likely to make them madder. And more likely to improve their border security, IMO.
TU-120s and 160s are rolling off the line, so there's that as well. Put in an order for a few more 160s.
AFF
Is Russia "at the table" in any meaningful sense of the term? They claim to have prepared a cease fire memorandum for the current round of talks, but no one else has seen it. No the Ukrainians, not the Turks, and not the Americans. I'd say the real question is whether this motivates Russia to actually engage in good faith negotiation. Probably not, but that's a different question than just being "at the table", something Russia has theoretically been since 2022.
They're rolling off the line very slowly. At the current rate of production 8 Tupolovs (assuming this number is accurate, which it very well may not be) represents about three or four decades of production. It's not at all clear that Russia currently has the capacity to speed this process up.
Well, you know what they say about necessity. We will see what happens next. I'm hoping it's not some kind of escalation. If the Russians find out this was planned and carried out by western powers, there may be literal hell to pay.
AFF
The TU-160 is the last of the Soviet strategic bombers, much of the small Russian fleet of these was given to Russia by Ukraine. Production resumed on an updated version a few years ago, at present it appears only 2 of the planned 10 aircraft have been delivered.
The TU-22 (listed by Ukraine as among the aircraft damaged) ceased production in 1993, and Russia has less than 60 of these aircraft (with, even before this strike, less than half of those serviceable). The TU-95 also ceased production in 1993, with similar numbers in operation, but the aircraft is considered much more reliable than the TU-22. Both these aircraft types are known to have been used in bombing civilian areas in Ukraine (as well as Syria).
The TU-22, 95 and 160 aircraft have been maintained, and in most cases upgraded, but are effectively no long manufactured. Russia military strategy has been focussed on development and production of smaller aircraft, fighters and fighter bombers, rather than the strategic bombers capable of delivering large numbers if dumb bombs and nuclear weapons.
The aircraft destroyed in this strike are effectively irreplaceable, those damaged may not be repaired for many years. Whether this has any significant impact on the war, given that the strategic bombing of Mariupol was the only time the unique capabilities of these strategic bombers was utilised and it seems unlikely that this sort of bombing will be repeated, is a decent question - my expectation is that it won't, given the vastly increased use of drones and glide bombs, these type of aircraft are effectively obsolete (given that virtually no aircraft of this type have been built, by anyone, for decades suggests that I'm not alone in considering them obsolete). As a PR coup and morale boost, this attack was superb. I doubt it will change Russian government attitudes, but it may make western nations increase their support for Ukraine - a message to Trump that support for Ukraine isn't "backing a loser".
I think the words "unique" and "strategic" are doing a lot of work in that assessment. While the unique strategic capabilities of these bombers has been infrequently used in the current conflict these planes have often been used for other things. Most notably launching cruise missiles into Ukraine. This is, of course, something that can be (and has been) accomplished by other platforms, but the sheer carrying capacity of strategic bombers far outstrips other airborne delivery systems. It's not a game-changer but I'd expect some battlefield consequences, both from the lost planes themselves and because Russia is likely going to be more cautious in its use of its remaining strategic bombers going forward.
It bears repeating that Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Russian Nuclear Forces and the Navy were two of the largest examples where Russia coasted on Soviet laurels and equipment. Russia itself doesn't have the Soviet Union's manufacturing capabilities, many of which were in Ukraine.
The attaack is notable that the drones were smuggled into Russia in crates and apparently aimed with AI to counter jamming. One a pure cost-analysis a drone fleet of a million or so dollars for 117 drones has destroyed a fleet of aircraft worth at least $30 billion and much of which is irreplaceable.
The attacks took out piston-engined Tu-95 Bear and jet engined Tu-22 Backfire bombers, both of which are long out of production and a few of the Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, of which Russia had ony 20.
Audacious as striking as far away as Murmansk is, and a huge publicity coup, the effect on Russian transport could be the big win from this.
This, I think, illustrates the difference between what one might call a totalitarian bureaucracy like the USSR and a generic "strongman" dictatorship like Putin's. Many of the people and tools are the same but there is no longer a party, no longer a system, only a regime. The situation in China retains a good deal more of the bureaucratic element but there are certainly moves under Xi to "personalise" power.
It not only impacts Russia, but this can translate to NATO bases in Europe and US bases in North America. Most allied bases are near throughfares, freeways, autobahns. What if a well-funded saboteur wants to do damage our military hardware? There are a number of instances of drones overflying our bases. We often don't respond because they come up very suddenly. Looks like we will have to develop air defenses to cover bases we once considered safe.
Those have been in use for at least a year now and are being supplanted by AI controlled drones that do not rely on GPS or FPV.
The limitation with fiber optic drones is the length of the cable spool.
AFF
Anyone responsible for security at military air bases has probably been having sleepless nights and heartburn since June 1. Drone attacks were always a theoretical possibility, but the Ukrainians demonstrated just how effective they could be. It's always been known that strategic bombers are most vulnerable when they're on the ground and that the fuel inside them is enough to destroy them, provided you can figure out how to ignite it.
And just to show that its special ops bag of tricks isn't empty, Ukraine used underwater explosives on the Kerch Strait Bridge Tuesday (3 June 2025) morning.
Traffic on the bridge seems to have resumed so I'm not sure how "severely damaged" it really is.
Ukraine seems to have timed these months-in-the-making operations to happen around the time Russia is making maximalist demands at the cease-fire talks in Türkiye, which seems like the right timing. We'll see if the Ukrainians have any other special ops in the near future, I guess.
I don't think that's really true, getting any kind of significant compute capability onto drones runs into the problem of weight (which ironically is exactly the issue with optical drones - it's not length so much as weight, both in terms of the drone payload and needing to cart spools of it around the battlefield). At best you can get small models running on them that enhance flight stability and targetting (somewhat), but still reliant on some other method for piloting.
The other time honoured method of protecting aircraft is to park them as far from the perimeter as possible, therefore closely spaced and highly vulnerable to air attack (and, drones are a form of air attack). In early December 1941 with reports of possible Japanese aggression, the commanders of the airfields in Hawaii decided to move their aircraft further from the fence as a defence against sabotage ... only to see individual Zero aircraft strafe the neatly lined up aircraft destroying much of the capability of the US Air Force to defend Pearl Harbor.
FWIW AIUI some in UK military circles are already thinking wistfully about some of the airbases with dispersed hardened aircraft shelters that have been abandoned (but crucially not sold) since the end of the Cold War.
Notwithstanding Cherwell District Council’s plans for loads of housing I wouldn’t be utterly astonished if there was a return to say RAF Upper Heyford. I think the state still owns the amazingly long runway, even with thousands of cars parked on it.
They are - but very little else is!
Here Russia spent billions on developing its nuclear deterrent only to have it decimated by relatively cheap drones. Russia is saying it will rebuild and repair its air force. Will take time, though.
Impressive as these strikes were I think they have more morale and propaganda value than anything else.
strikes on Ukraine. So Ukraine took care of business.
Russia uses a Triad System very similar to the Triad system of the Western Allies. While most active Russian warheads are on strategic missiles based in the ground, they do have some mobile launchers they like to show in their parades. This is followed by sea based launchers. And then there is the air-based weapons systems too. They continue to use their bomber fleet to test Allied defenses and also to project power into many parts of the world. To me, when one of those legs are hobbled it's pretty significant. Much more than a morale boaster for the Ukrainians.
Here is a recent white paper put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists that breaks down the Russian Triad: https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/