Russia’s response to Ukrainian drone strikes on its strategic airbases deep inside the country on June 1, as well as two bridge attacks in the Bryansk and Kursk regions the same day, has left Russian military bloggers dismayed.
The restrained nature of the Russian retaliation raises serious questions—questions that can only be answered only after a correct interpretation of events.
But first, let’s look at what has transpired.
Ukraine’s “Spider’s Web” Operation
The kamikaze FPV drone attacks on five Russian strategic airbases—Belaya in Irkutsk, Olenya in Murmansk, Dyagilevo in Ryazan, Ivanovo, and possibly Ukrainka in Amur—were part of a covert operation called “Spider’s Web,” orchestrated by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU).
Despite its ambitious scope, the operation achieved only moderate success. Of the roughly 40 aircraft targeted, only about 8 were actually destroyed.
Most of the aircraft hit turned out to be “Christmas Tree” decoys—non-functional airframes without engines, fluids, or combat value.
Ukrainian-released footage showed strikes on engine-less A-50s and multiple hits that caused no fires—clear signs of the absence of combustible fluids. A real operational Tu-95MS, even without fuel, would at least leak hydraulic or lubricating oil.
The bridge attacks in Bryansk and Kursk were deadlier in terms of human lives, killing at least seven civilians and injuring dozens.
Underwhelming Russian Response
Russian nuclear doctrine states that an attack on its strategic assets by a non-nuclear state could justify a nuclear response. While no one expected a nuclear escalation, pro-Russian commentators anticipated a ferocious and unmistakable response—one that would deter further attacks.
While Russia did carry out a group strike in response, its scale and target profile initially appeared routine—just another infrastructure attack like many seen over the past three years.
Russian military bloggers didn’t immediately recognize it as retaliation.
In the end, the strike did turn out to be one of the largest single-night aerial bombardments since the war began in 2022. Yet, it still fell short of the scale and symbolism that Russian supporters were hoping for.
According to the Kyiv Independent, Russian drones and missiles struck targets in Kyiv, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Lviv, and Lutsk. Ukraine’s Air Force reported 452 drones launched, including Geran variants, alongside 45 missiles of various types.
Air defenses intercepted 199 drones. Another 169 dropped off the radar—likely decoys meant to overwhelm Ukrainian systems. Ukrainian forces also shot down 36 missiles, including Iskander-M ballistic missiles.
President Volodymyr Zelensky commented: “Russia doesn’t change its stripes—another massive strike on cities and ordinary life… They targeted almost all of Ukraine… Russia must be held accountable for this.”
Russian MoD Statement
Following the strike, the Russian Ministry of Defense (RuMoD) released a statement calling the strike a retaliation for recent Ukrainian “terrorist attacks”:
“Last night, in response to the terrorist actions of the Kiev regime, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out a massive strike… The goal was achieved. All assigned targets were hit.”
Pro-Russian Bloggers Push Back
The statement didn’t go over well with many Russian military bloggers.
Kremlin-linked FighterBomber Telegram Channel wrote: “If today’s strike was our response to four terrorist attacks and the destruction of strategic bombers, then it was meaningless.
If this is the best we can do without nuclear weapons, then maybe we should use nuclear weapons—start wiping out enemy cities.”
Military Informant Telegram Channel echoed the sentiment: “If not for the bridge explosions and airbase attacks, no one would’ve assumed this was a retaliatory strike.
It wasn’t fundamentally different from previous strikes. The saboteurs were untouched. Decision-making centers remain untouched. Dnieper bridges are untouched. No new or heavier weapons were used.
If this is the pattern of future responses, then Ukraine has little to fear. These kinds of strikes happen regardless—no direct link to Ukrainian provocations.”
Conclusion
Why such restraint? Several plausible explanations emerge:
Limited Losses: The limited damage to Russian strategic assets may not justify an escalatory response. Instead, the Kremlin could use Ukraine’s overreach as leverage to pressure the U.S. into restraining Kyiv. In this context, restraint serves Russian interests better than fury.
Backchannel Diplomacy? The recent phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin may have influenced the response. It’s possible that Putin received assurances Ukraine would not target strategic Russian assets again.
A Maskirovka in Progress: There’s also a chance that Russia’s June 6 strike was a feint—a maskirovka. Perhaps it only addressed the railway attacks and not the airbase strikes. A more pointed retaliation may still be in the offing.
- Vijainder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot, author, software architect, entrepreneur, and military analyst.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
- Follow the author @vkthakur
