[GK3]

Good point about the benefits of plausible deniability for the US.  If the US had known but did nothing to stop it, we’d get an earful from the Russians.  If we tried to stop it and failed, we’d look weak, and if we succeeded, you can bet word would have leaked out about how the US is tying one of Ukraines arms behind its back.

And these days US OPSEC isn't all that good. IMO it is very probable lots of our "friends" now are much more reticent about sharing sensitive information with the US.

Apparently one of the bases hit was in Siberia.  That has to be disconcerting.

And while hitting Russia’s bombers gave Ukraine the largest bang for the buck (while I’m sure there aren’t as many hits as the Ukrainians allege, if it’s true that they destroyed even half as many as the 40 $100 million bombers were destroyed they claim to have, that’s a multi-billion dollar hit to the Russian war machine in the span of an afternoon),

I am going to largely withhold judgement on how successful the Ukrainian strike was until we get some independent BDA. The "confirmed" destroyed AFAIK sits at one A-50 and four TU-95s. That is not nothing, but given Ukraine's initial estimates there may well be more to come. It is difficult to know exactly what was damaged. Aircraft that were "direct hits" and which burned totally are easy to assess as "destroyed". Other aircraft sitting nearby may have some damage that is easy to pick up in satellite photos. Others that appear to be untouched may have holes in their fuselage that are very hard to see.

I not "impressed" by valuations of aircraft that were built so very long ago in the Soviet era. That is a "sunk cost" to the current regime. If Russia had no use for these aircraft or had so many of them the loss was irrelevant this attack wouldn't matter at all. What I am impressed by is the replacement costs. Russia does have an immediate important use for these aircraft. The replacement costs for the TU-95s and TU-22Ms is infinite. This is the more significant consideration. Russia cannot build replacements. The tooling is gone and probably the documentation is largely gone. The "corporate knowledge" is also certainly gone. The TU-160 is being built in Russia today but at an extremely low rate. It is also unclear if they can be built without using parts left over from the cancelled initial procurement. The current dollar cost is probably very large, but the quantity and time constraints are potentially more important.

I’m sure Ukranian planners are thinking of how to implement a similar plan on arm and fuel depots, munitions factories, and other war infrastructure.  Who needs 500 km range Taurus missiles when you can just drive a swarm of drones to within 1 km of the target and let them loose.

It isn't probable Ukraine can repeat this approach at will. This was supposedly an 18 month operation. Lots of planning was required and the number of assets Ukraine can deploy inside Russia is limited. That said, Ukraine might have a few trucks still sticking around inside Russia for a follow-on strike. That would REALLY rattle the Russians IMO.  Unfortunately this kind of FPV attack wouldn't be very effective against the Kerch bridge, which is the FanBoy preferred target for the Taurus :-).

Last comment, OPEC (aka, Saudi Arabia) agreed to increase oil production by another 400 mm barrels.  That can’t be good for oil prices and thus the Russian economy.

Indeed this may turn out to hurt Russia more than the much flashier drone strike did.

You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

An astonishing raid deep inside Russia rewrites the rules of war
https://economist.com/europe/2025/06/01/...ed_article

(Should be gifted)

Major kudos to the Ukrainians… the amount of thought that went into this was astounding.

The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

Thanks for the article BC. Certainly worth a read. While I don't necessarily believe everything the Ukrainians are "revealing", the strike itself is indeed a masterpiece. We will know later just how big of one, but even if it isn't as big as originally claimed, it is indeed at a minimum a great blow to Russia's sense of invulnerability.

If there really are “fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total”, then Ukraine might have single-handedly taken out a third or more of the Russian fleet.  NATO owes the Ukrainians a huuuuuuge thank you.

Also, the victims included “rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS)”

It is indeed true that the number of Russian strategic bombers is "small". It is also true that the TU-95 and the TU-22 are beyond obsolete. They are at best tertiary threats to NATO. Both the TU-95 and the TU-22 were mostly operated by the Russian Navy by the end of the Cold War. They were the Russian anti-carrier and (TU-95) anti-submarine weapons. Their original cruise missile armaments were clearly designed for exactly that. The F-14 and the Phoenix missile were built to defeat them. The TU-160 was a supersonic bomber designed to compete with/copy the B-1 design that got canceled. It was canceled because with the advent of look-down-shoot-down technology the original B-1 design (supersonic low-altitude penetrator) was not survivable. Neither is the TU-160 operating as originally designed. It is now relegated to being a large, expensive missile truck.

Missile/bomb trucks are useful, but only after an effective SEAD campaign. Otherwise they are vulnerable air pollution. Russia doesn't do SEAD, so.... Looked at another way, the US isn't sending any B-52s in our first few waves of airstrikes on anyone, including "less than peer" opponents.

There’s a word of caution at the end about how this could potentially be the equivalent of Sinop (unlikely, but nations are fickle), and of course it highlights our own vulnerabilities.

BC

If Russia's actions against Ukraine hasn't had the result the battle of Sinop did I can't see how Ukraine's response would either. Our own vulnerabilities are also not very new. Our society/nation is and has always been vulnerable to notional well planned covert military surprise attacks. Back in 1918 we were worried about poison gas attacks on large cities. We are still worried about poisons being added to major population center drinking water. These are unfortunately real possibilities. It could be done.

Unlike the USA and NATO where theory and tactics in dealing with Russia has been subject of endless sand table exercises and existing war plans.  I do not think Ukraine was burdened by old thinking and have been willing seize new ideas and use them immediately.  They don't need fancy predator type drones although I am sure they would like some, but have found a way to use little ones very effectively.

[GK3]

Good point about the benefits of plausible deniability for the US.  If the US had known but did nothing to stop it, we’d get an earful from the Russians.  If we tried to stop it and failed, we’d look weak, and if we succeeded, you can bet word would have leaked out about how the US is tying one of Ukraines arms behind its back.

And these days US OPSEC isn't all that good. IMO it is very probable lots of our "friends" now are much more reticent about sharing sensitive information with the US.

Apparently one of the bases hit was in Siberia.  That has to be disconcerting.

And while hitting Russia’s bombers gave Ukraine the largest bang for the buck (while I’m sure there aren’t as many hits as the Ukrainians allege, if it’s true that they destroyed even half as many as the 40 $100 million bombers were destroyed they claim to have, that’s a multi-billion dollar hit to the Russian war machine in the span of an afternoon),

I am going to largely withhold judgement on how successful the Ukrainian strike was until we get some independent BDA. The "confirmed" destroyed AFAIK sits at one A-50 and four TU-95s. That is not nothing, but given Ukraine's initial estimates there may well be more to come. It is difficult to know exactly what was damaged. Aircraft that were "direct hits" and which burned totally are easy to assess as "destroyed". Other aircraft sitting nearby may have some damage that is easy to pick up in satellite photos. Others that appear to be untouched may have holes in their fuselage that are very hard to see.

I not "impressed" by valuations of aircraft that were built so very long ago in the Soviet era. That is a "sunk cost" to the current regime. If Russia had no use for these aircraft or had so many of them the loss was irrelevant this attack wouldn't matter at all. What I am impressed by is the replacement costs. Russia does have an immediate important use for these aircraft. The replacement costs for the TU-95s and TU-22Ms is infinite. This is the more significant consideration. Russia cannot build replacements. The tooling is gone and probably the documentation is largely gone. The "corporate knowledge" is also certainly gone. The TU-160 is being built in Russia today but at an extremely low rate. It is also unclear if they can be built without using parts left over from the cancelled initial procurement. The current dollar cost is probably very large, but the quantity and time constraints are potentially more important.

I’m sure Ukranian planners are thinking of how to implement a similar plan on arm and fuel depots, munitions factories, and other war infrastructure.  Who needs 500 km range Taurus missiles when you can just drive a swarm of drones to within 1 km of the target and let them loose.

It isn't probable Ukraine can repeat this approach at will. This was supposedly an 18 month operation. Lots of planning was required and the number of assets Ukraine can deploy inside Russia is limited. That said, Ukraine might have a few trucks still sticking around inside Russia for a follow-on strike. That would REALLY rattle the Russians IMO.  Unfortunately this kind of FPV attack wouldn't be very effective against the Kerch bridge, which is the FanBoy preferred target for the Taurus :-).

Last comment, OPEC (aka, Saudi Arabia) agreed to increase oil production by another 400 mm barrels.  That can’t be good for oil prices and thus the Russian economy.

Indeed this may turn out to hurt Russia more than the much flashier drone strike did.

You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

An astonishing raid deep inside Russia rewrites the rules of war
https://economist.com/europe/2025/06/01/...ed_article

(Should be gifted)

Major kudos to the Ukrainians… the amount of thought that went into this was astounding.

The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

Thanks for the article BC. Certainly worth a read. While I don't necessarily believe everything the Ukrainians are "revealing", the strike itself is indeed a masterpiece. We will know later just how big of one, but even if it isn't as big as originally claimed, it is indeed at a minimum a great blow to Russia's sense of invulnerability.

If there really are “fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total”, then Ukraine might have single-handedly taken out a third or more of the Russian fleet.  NATO owes the Ukrainians a huuuuuuge thank you.

Also, the victims included “rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS)”

It is indeed true that the number of Russian strategic bombers is "small". It is also true that the TU-95 and the TU-22 are beyond obsolete. They are at best tertiary threats to NATO. Both the TU-95 and the TU-22 were mostly operated by the Russian Navy by the end of the Cold War. They were the Russian anti-carrier and (TU-95) anti-submarine weapons. Their original cruise missile armaments were clearly designed for exactly that. The F-14 and the Phoenix missile were built to defeat them. The TU-160 was a supersonic bomber designed to compete with/copy the B-1 design that got canceled. It was canceled because with the advent of look-down-shoot-down technology the original B-1 design (supersonic low-altitude penetrator) was not survivable. Neither is the TU-160 operating as originally designed. It is now relegated to being a large, expensive missile truck.

Missile/bomb trucks are useful, but only after an effective SEAD campaign. Otherwise they are vulnerable air pollution. Russia doesn't do SEAD, so.... Looked at another way, the US isn't sending any B-52s in our first few waves of airstrikes on anyone, including "less than peer" opponents.

There’s a word of caution at the end about how this could potentially be the equivalent of Sinop (unlikely, but nations are fickle), and of course it highlights our own vulnerabilities.

BC

If Russia's actions against Ukraine hasn't had the result the battle of Sinop did I can't see how Ukraine's response would either. Our own vulnerabilities are also not very new. Our society/nation is and has always been vulnerable to notional well planned covert military surprise attacks. Back in 1918 we were worried about poison gas attacks on large cities. We are still worried about poisons being added to major population center drinking water. These are unfortunately real possibilities. It could be done.

Unlike the USA and NATO where theory and tactics in dealing with Russia has been subject of endless sand table exercises and existing war plans.  I do not think Ukraine was burdened by old thinking and have been willing seize new ideas and use them immediately.  They don't need fancy predator type drones although I am sure they would like some, but have found a way to use little ones very effectively.