Executive Summary
• Ukrainian forces carried out a series of strikes at Russian airfields, reportedly causing significant damage to Russia’s strategic bombing capacity.
• The attacks were carried out using small, First Person View (FPV) drones launched from trucks stationed near the targeted airfields.
• The impact that the attacks will have on Russia’s ability to target Ukrainian cities is yet to be seen, but is unlikely to alter the strategic balance of the conflict.
Overview
On Sunday 1st June, Ukrainian forces carried out attacks using drones at four areas in Russia, all far inside of Russian territory with the furthest being 4,000km from the border. The attacks took place at Belaya in the Irkutsk oblast, Olenya in the Murmansk oblast, Dyagilevo in the central Ryazan oblast and Ivanovo in central Ivanovo oblast. A 5th unconfirmed attack was also reportedly attempted at the Ukrainka Airbase in the Amur Oblast, though it is not clear if any attack took place.
The attack involved 117 small drones, all launched from purpose-built containers disguised as normal truck containers, which were then deployed near to the airfields themselves. At the time of writing, the extent of the damage caused by the strikes has not been confirmed, and as can be expected, both sides have provided different damage estimates. Russian authorities have acknowledged the attack, but did not confirm what types of aircraft or how many were damaged. Ukrainian forces claimed the attack to be highly successful, claiming that 34% of Russia’s strategic bombers, including Tu-95 and Tu-22Ms, were targeted and destroyed by the drones. Video footage released online shortly after the attacks took place confirm damage to several aircraft on the airfields, with multiple seen burning.
Strategic Significance
Russia is expected to respond in the short term with an increase in the volume of drone and missile attacks targeting Ukrainian cities in response to the attacks. From a medium term perspective, it is not yet clear what impact the strikes will have on Russia’s ability to carry out airstrikes in Ukraine. If the claim of 34% of Russia’s strategic bombers is found to be true, the attack will have served to cause significant losses, but it should be noted that strategic bombers are only part of Russia’s air war in Ukraine, with many of the strikes inside of Ukrainian territory using smaller Shahed-type drones or other systems.
It is unlikely that Ukraine will carry out an attack using the same tactics at the same scale in the near future as the attack required 18 months of prior planning (unless follow-up attacks using the same network take place,) but smaller attacks using fewer drones or lower profile targets will likely occur until the tactics utilized are blocked and countered by Russian intelligence services. The attack, whilst operational in nature, also points towards a potential strategic implication, in that low-cost tactics have led to significant destruction. Ukraine was able to carry out the attack using ‘FPV’ type drones supported by a network of people inside of Russia itself.
Whilst the attack took extensive planning and preparation (the drones and containers, for example were trafficked into Russia over a prolonged period of time) the attack itself was relatively low cost for a high reward. The attack can also to a degree be contrasted with a recent escalation between India and Pakistan in May, in which India lost several fighter aircraft in a costly operation targeting locations in Pakistan. With this in mind, the attack adds another layer of complexity to modern conflict, where low-tech methods have again undermined and circumnavigated defences designed for larger, more conventional weapons.
It should, however, be noted that incorrect or misleading lessons can also be taken from the attacks, with many wondering in the immediate aftermath why jamming systems (if deployed and operational) were ineffective against the low-tech drones. Nevertheless, the attack was relatively low risk for Ukraine, whilst simultaneously causing notable damage to Russia’s strategic bombing capabilities. Lastly, the timing of the attack is significant too, as both Ukraine and Russia are expected to convene in Istanbul this week to resume stalled peace talks. From a Ukrainian perspective, the attacks show that Ukraine is still able to deal significant blows to Russian forces at a time when international backing from the USA has waned, and Russian forces have made gains on the ground. From a Russian perspective, the attacks will likely not change their stance towards their demands, as Russia’s ability to continue the war in Ukraine remains significant, albeit somewhat blunted.
