Ukraine Exposes Russia
June 1, 2025, will be remembered as a turning point in the history of Russia’s nuclear triad because Ukraine conducted its most effective operation since the beginning of the conflict.
The explosion on the Kerch Bridge and the destruction of some ammunition depots seem insignificant compared to the tremendous damage caused to Russia’s combat aviation by FPV drones.
The operation was more than a blow to airfield facilities. The strike marked the first time Ukrainian drones had infiltrated and targeted the core of Russia’s strategic aviation, an area that is critical to preserving the integrity of Moscow’s nuclear triad.
The burning Tu-95MS aircraft on the runway are not only destroyed military equipment; instead, they are broken symbols of the air element of Russia’s nuclear capability.
What is the question to follow? Can Russia restore its air nuclear capability given its existing vulnerabilities? Does the particular strike create possibilities for future NATO actions previously unimaginable?
Let us quickly recount what happened. On June 1, a synchronised Ukrainian drone attack simultaneously targeted multiple bases, such as Olenya, Belaya, Dyagilevo, Ivanovo, and Voskresensk. Russia’s strategic bombers, as of recent reports, are stationed at multiple strategic airbases.
Kola Peninsula
At the Olenya base on the Kola Peninsula, the 40th Mixed Aviation Division operates flights using Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 aircraft. The Belaya airbase, in Irkutsk Oblast and part of the 326th Heavy Bomber Division, hosts Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3, and Tu-160 aircraft.
The 43rd Combat Training Centre, in Dyagilevo in Ryazan Oblast, uses Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 bombers to conduct cruise missile missions. Ivanovo-Severny hosts A-50 early warning aircraft, but it is not a main base for strategic bombers.
The nuclear triangle holds a central place in nuclear defense strategies. It consists of three fundamental elements: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear submarines, and strategic aviation.
The configuration provides flexibility along with toughness in a nuclear force, allowing offensive action from land, sea, and air platforms. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) provide a quick and potent response capability, available for deployment in silos or from mobile launching platforms.
Ballistic missile submarines offer concealment and the ability to conduct a counterstrike in the aftermath of an initial attack. In contrast, strategic aviation improves adaptability by facilitating both nuclear and conventional operations, along with the potential to withdraw bombers if situations change.
Russian nuclear doctrine
The Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers best exemplify strategic bombing, the centrepiece of Russian nuclear doctrine.
NATO refers to the Tu-95MS, also known as “Bear”, as a 1950s turboprop bomber that underwent modifications to carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles, such as the Kh-101/102. The Tu-95MS is the reliable long-range bomber and can attack targets several hundred miles away.
The Tu-160, or “White Swan”, is a variable-geometry supersonic wing bomber. It is the world’s most significant and fastest strategic bomber.
The aeroplane is capable of carrying a maximum of 12 Kh-55SM or Kh-102 nuclear cruise missiles, thus becoming the backbone of Russia’s nuclear deterrence system.
Both planes are part of Russia’s power projection, performing patrols in the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific, frequently eliciting NATO reactions.
Historically, Russian strategic aviation traces its roots to the Cold War era, when Tu-95s and previous models, like the Tu-16, were the backbone of Soviet long-range aviation.
In the 1980s, Russia ordered the Tu-160; however, economic pressures during the post-Soviet collapse led to a reduction in the fleet.
Total number of Aircraft
Currently, Russia possesses approximately 60 Tu-95MS and 17 Tu-160 aircraft, with the latter undergoing upgrades to the Tu-160M variant. Despite upgrading the Tu-160s, the total number of aircraft remains low, and maintaining the older Tu-95s demands significant resources.
Upcoming projects such as the PAK DA stealth bomber are in the infancy stage of development. Nevertheless, the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 continue to be icons of Russian military power, exercising nuclear deterrence and global power projection capability.
What surprise occurred in Russia on June 1? On June 1, 2025, Ukraine carried out a large and ambitious attack on Russian military targets, hitting major airbases in an operation dubbed “SpiderWeb”.
This Ukrainian Security Service (SBU)-commanded coordinated assault exposed weaknesses in Moscow’s air defense and caused severe damage to Russia’s strategic aviation units.
This came after nearly two years of planning and development under direct supervision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and was a big advancement of Kyiv’s capability to strike deep within Russian territory.
Operation “Spiderweb” was a sophisticated intelligence and logistical operation. Ukrainian troops employed FPV (First Person View) drones concealed within specially crafted wooden boxes with foldable lids attached to vehicles.
Some of the trucks had Chelyabinsk license plates and were transported to the borders of the listed airbases—Olenya near Murmansk Oblast, Belaya near Irkutsk Oblast, Dyagilevo near Ryazan Oblast, and Ivanovo near Ivanovo Oblast. Drones attacked planes on the airfields, opening remote-controlled cabin roofs.
Ukrainian Media
Ukrainian media indicate that the operation was conducted with meticulous coordination, the drones pre-assembled in a Chelyabinsk warehouse and leased for approximately 350,000 rubles [approximately $4,500].
This enabled Ukraine to circumvent the drones’ range, launching them thousands of miles away from the frontline to locations such as Belaya, which is over 2,700 miles from Ukraine.
The drones employed here are FPV drones, either altered from commercially available ones or specifically designed military drones with explosives.
They are an economical and efficient option, and they are capable of effecting pinpoint strikes on vulnerable targets, like aircraft fuel tanks.
Ukrainian sources report that the attack used 117 drones operated by remote operators, which is a testament to the scale of the operation. The Russian air defense system (PVO) lacked the necessary preparations for such operations.
Visual footage shows drones successfully attacking their targets during daylight operations, despite attempts to incinerate them. The lack of armoured hangars at open-air bases like Olenya and Belaya left strategic bombers vulnerable.
In addition, the deployment of drones from vehicles near the military bases revealed weaknesses in Russian defense systems, allowing Ukrainian forces to penetrate deep into Russian territory without being detected.
Valery Romanenko explains
Analyst Valery Romanenko explains how a small explosive device that tampers with a fuel tank can result in a fire, as seen through video recordings of incinerated aircraft at Olenya and Belaya.
The attack hit at least four airbases: Belaya, Dyagilevo, Ivanovo, and Olenya, and the Russian Defence Ministry also confirmed bombardments in Amur Oblast.
The Ukrainian government reports the destruction or damage of 41 planes, including strategic bombers Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3, and Tu-160, as well as an A-50 early warning plane.
Yet, Russian assertions are acutely contradictory, and Andriy Kovalenko, director of Ukraine’s Centre for Countering Disinformation, asserts that at least 13 strategic aircraft were destroyed, with reports of further damage. The SBU puts damages at $7 billion, approximately 34% of Russia’s fleet of cruise missile carriers.
Video records by Olenya show fires on Tu-95s and an An-22, and Belaya filmed strikes on Tu-95s and Tu-22M3s. Independent confirmation of the quantity of planes destroyed remains limited.
The Russian Defence Ministry only confirms that “a number of aircraft caught fire” in Murmansk and Irkutsk but claims attacks in Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur were repelled without casualties.
Ukrainian analyst Andriy Kovalenko
Ukrainian analyst Andriy Kovalenko reports the confirmed loss of two Tu-160s at Belaya, waiting for independent confirmation. Satellite imagery will be key to evaluating the totality of the damage, experts say, but the general understanding remains unclear.
The loss of bases like Olenya, Belaya, and Dyagilevo takes the operational capability of Russia’s long-range aviation significantly down. Before the attack, Russia had 58 Tu-95MS and 19 Tu-160 planes, but 25% were out of service due to age and lack of parts.
The reduction of 13 planes, representing about 15% of the strategic bomber fleet, decreases the number of platforms available for long-range operations.
This constraint negatively impacts Russia’s capacity to conduct patrols over strategic areas, such as the Arctic and Pacific, which are at the heart of Moscow’s power projection.
Additionally, fewer aircraft mean fewer platforms for the launch of Kh-101/102 cruise missiles, thus reducing Russia’s conventional and nuclear combat capacities.
The lack of adequate airfield protection and low production capacity render restoration of this capability lengthy and costly. The reallocation of resources by the Russian air force can result in a reduction in the number of air operations in Ukraine and other areas of conflict.
Russia’s Nuclear Triad
The Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic bombers are the linchpin components of Russia’s nuclear triad aviation programme, intended to maintain flexibility and utility in nuclear deterrence policy.
While the loss of 13 planes does not make this sector completely ineffective, it significantly lessens its overall effectiveness.
The Tu-95MS is still the main platform for deploying Kh-102 nuclear cruise missiles, despite its age. In comparison, the Tu-160, noted for its supersonic capability and capacity to carry 12 such weapons, is vital for the support of rapid and potent military attacks.
A reduced fleet diminishes the total number of nuclear delivery systems at Russia’s disposal, which might detract from Russia’s ability to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent, especially given recent signs of possible nuclear escalation.
These aircraft play a psychological deterrence function, showing power with reconnaissance missions in hostile skies. A smaller fleet risks undermining trust in Russian nuclear power among friends and foes alike.
Eradicating these weaknesses is a serious challenge for Russia. Production of the Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 was suspended in the 1990s, and their production lines were scrapped.
Though the Tu-160 has been produced in limited numbers, it is too expensive and difficult to manufacture; in addition, the plan to deliver 50 new Tu-160Ms by 2030 hangs in the balance under sanctions and restricted access to technology.
Cost of Repair
The cost of repairing a single Tu-95 can easily exceed its $100 million initial cost when various components are considered.
Russia can shift resources towards fixing existing aircraft or accelerating the development of the PAK DA stealth bomber, but the project remains in its initial stages and will not make up for losses in the short run.
Moscow can, however, rely more on the other two components of its nuclear triad—intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles; however, the latter option is expensive and diverts resources from other defense programs.
Russia should, in our expectation, strengthen protection of airports and invest in better air defense systems in the not-too-distant future to avoid future attacks.
Operation “Spiderweb” appears intended to reduce Russia’s nuclear capability. The selection of the targets—bases for strategic bombers—and the accuracy with which they were struck suggest that Ukraine, perhaps with the help of Western intelligence, wanted to reduce Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
This action would play a central role in a broader strategy aimed at destabilising Russia’s military capabilities by specifically targeting its most important assets.
The destruction of these aircraft truncates Russia’s operational capability and conveys to the global community that Russia’s nuclear triad is insecure.
Such an outcome would invite more powerful postures by NATO and other Russia rivals, particularly when it comes to strategic stability.
Massive Setbacks
However, despite the attack’s massive setback, Russia’s nuclear triad continues to function due to its surviving components. Such ongoing attacks could gradually erode Moscow’s nuclear arsenal, necessitating a re-evaluation of its military and nuclear strategy.
We must also assess how third parties like NATO and the United States view the Ukraine conflict. I believe NATO and the U.S. responded quickly but cautiously to Russian aggression. The alliance increased air surveillance along its eastern flank.
The effort included heightened monitoring in Poland and the Baltic states. The move followed Russian hints about an “asymmetric response”. The U.S. signalled plans to deploy more Patriot missile systems in Europe.
These systems would protect key allied sites from future drone attacks. Pentagon officials see the attack as exposing weaknesses in Russia’s nuclear triad. They fear the incident could push Moscow toward a harder stance.
Analysts in Brussels warn Western troop deployments near Russia could escalate tensions. Russian politicians accuse NATO of giving Ukraine “logistical support”. Moscow’s threats of tactical nuclear drills near its western borders add to the strain.
One possible escalation is a cyberattack or provocation in the Black Sea. NATO is avoiding confrontation, focusing instead on strengthening its defences.
I believe losing 13 strategic bombers weakens Russia’s nuclear balance, especially at the regional level. In Europe, Russia relies on Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers for power projection. A weaker Russia could embolden NATO to take a more aggressive stance.
What the Globe thinks
Globally, Russia’s nuclear triad remains intact through missiles and submarines. The psychological effects of the attack, however, are profound. The vulnerability of its air force could undermine confidence in Moscow’s nuclear parity with Washington.
The U.S., with its B-2 and B-52 bombers, might exploit this weakness. It could increase sanctions or launch new diplomatic pressure on Russia. Any sign of Russian weakness risks upsetting the nuclear balance.
Moscow might respond by deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. This situation extends beyond NATO and the United States. China and India are watching closely, aware their nuclear triads could also be vulnerable.
The “Spiderweb” attack serves as a warning to China, India, and SCO members. China is expected to expand its nuclear arsenal and develop the H-20 bomber. It will also boost base defences to avoid similar vulnerabilities.
Beijing could use Russia’s decline to strengthen its role in the SCO. However, it will act cautiously to avoid disrupting global supply chains. India faces a delicate balance between Russia and the West.
Russian bomber losses could slow arms deliveries to Delhi. India may also distance itself from Russian actions to keep U.S. ties strong. SCO members like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may seek dialogue with Moscow to prevent instability.
Russian Missile Strikes
Military experts see multiple scenarios emerging from this attack. One option is limited. One option is for Russian missile strikes to target Ukrainian infrastructure in an attempt to restore their prestige. Another option is the increase in Russian cyberattacks on Western targets.
Russia might also provoke in the Arctic, where it holds strategic advantages. A less likely scenario is a diplomatic breakthrough driven by Moscow’s weakened position. The worst case is Russia turning to tactical nuclear weapons.
Such a move would draw a massive NATO response with dire consequences. I think the war will remain conventional for now. However, “Spiderweb” shows Ukraine’s willingness to take big risks to disrupt Russia.
On 1 June 2025, Operation Spiderweb devastated Russia’s strategic bomber force. Moscow is now moving quickly to restore nuclear aviation capacity. The raid exposed gaps in Russia’s air defences and raised doubts over its nuclear deterrent.
The outcome will influence Russia’s future decisions and the balance of power in Eastern Europe. After losing 13 bombers, I expect Moscow to pursue three main goals. First, it will strengthen airbase defences at Olenya, Belaya, and Dyagilevo.
It will add more S-400 and Pantsir-S1 systems and reinforce hangars against drones. Second, it will accelerate upgrades from Tu-160s to the Tu-160M variant. Sanctions limiting access to key electronics will make the project costly.
Third, Russia could expand bomber patrols in neutral areas like the Arctic and Black Sea. This would help restore credibility to its nuclear deterrent. With fewer bombers, Russia will lean more on submarines and Sarmat missiles. That will divert resources from other fronts in its war with Ukraine.
Conclusion
The decline in Russia’s air power shifts the military balance in Eastern Europe. NATO gains a strategic edge, especially in Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia.
These nations could see greater NATO deployments, including more F-35s and missile defences. Russia may respond by increasing tactical nuclear drills in Kaliningrad and Belarus. Such activities would heighten tensions and risk incidents, particularly in the Baltic Sea.
Ukraine will likely exploit these weaknesses with further strikes on Russian bases. Such moves will intensify the regional conflict. Operation Spiderweb proves cheap but powerful tools like FPV drones can reshape warfare.
Future attacks on nuclear assets could destabilise strategic balances worldwide. They may provoke unpredictable responses from nuclear powers. The world must prioritise stronger base security and advanced anti-drone systems.
At the same time, diplomacy is vital to avoid escalation. I urge NATO, Russia, and key players to start talks to prevent a wider crisis.
References
- Ukraine Claims Drone Strikes—Defense News Today
https://www.defensenewstoday.info - Tu-95 Fires at Olenya – Pakistan Defense Forum (Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pakistandefenseforum - Russia’s Nuclear Triad Explained – Nuclear Threat Initiative
https://www.nti.org - Tu-160 Bomber Role – Military Today
https://www.military-today.com - PAK DA Stealth Bomber Overview – AeroTime Hub
https://www.aerotime.aero - U.S. Deploys Patriots—Defense News
https://www.defensenews.com - Ukrainian Drone Warfare Impact —Reuters
https://www.reuters.com - NATO Response to Russian Weakness – NATO Official Site
https://www.nato.int - Russia’s Bomber Fleet Analysis – CSIS
https://www.csis.org - China, India Monitor Russia – The Diplomat
https://www.thediplomat.com
