On Sunday, Ukraine carried out a bold covert operation in Russia that destroyed or damaged about a dozen Russian heavy bombers and possibly an AWACS plane. These attacks may have destroyed irreplaceable Russian military planes worth billions of dollars using drones that cost under $50,000.
Earlier in the week, President Trump reportedly described the surprise Ukrainian attack to his aides as “badass” and “strong.” However, yesterday, the president expressed his unhappiness about the operation and raised concerns about Putin’s statement to him that he plans to retaliate.
On June 1, Ukraine deployed 117 drones to attack Russian bombers at four airbases. Two bases were within 500 miles of the Russia-Ukraine border. The other two bases were distant: the Olenya airbase on the Kola Peninsula, near Murmansk (1,120 miles from the Ukrainian border), and Belaya airbase in Siberia (approximately 2,760 miles from the Ukrainian border).
Parts for the drones were smuggled into Russia, where they were assembled. The drones were driven by truck to locations near the Russian airbases and launched from the trucks. Ukraine claims to have damaged 41 Russian bombers in the drone attack, though press reports confirm that between 10 and 20 were destroyed or damaged—primarily Tu-95 and Tu-22M bombers.
The Ukrainian drone operation underscores the rapid evolution of modern warfare and its impact on the Russia-Ukraine peace process.
1. How vulnerable is the U.S. to similar drone attacks?
The Ukrainian drone attack was a wake-up call for the United States and another sign of significant advances in warfare technologies from the Ukraine-Russia War. Like Russia, American military aircraft sit in the open on U.S. airbases and are vulnerable to attack by inexpensive explosive drones. Experts believe the Pentagon has not done enough to defend against this threat. There is a similar drone threat to other U.S. government facilities and U.S. officials. The drone threat is sure to grow with the arrival of new attack drone technologies, such as difficult-to-jam drones controlled by fiber optic cables and drones navigated to their targets by AI.
U.S. officials must take action to defend against increasing threats from drone attacks against U.S. military aircraft and other government targets. These attacks could be conducted by hostile forces or by launching drones from small boats or “drone carriers” against U.S. bases, especially in the Arabian Gulf and the Pacific.
2. How will the drone attack affect President Trump’s efforts to negotiate a cease-fire in the Ukraine War?
Despite President Trump’s reported comment calling the Ukrainian drone strike “badass,” he is annoyed that the Ukrainian government conducted this attack on the eve of Russia-Ukraine peace talks on Monday. That’s not to say the Russian bombers weren’t legitimate targets for Ukraine—Ukrainian leaders were justified in taking action to destroy Russian aircraft that attack their country daily. However, the timing of these attacks was unfortunate, as they undermined Trump’s peace effort and probably caused Putin to harden his position on a ceasefire. Trump administration officials are likely to advise Zelensky to refrain from further attacks like this as long as the U.S.-led peace process remains active.
3. What does this attack indicate about the competence of the Russian government and military officials?
The Ukrainian drone attack exposed more significant weaknesses in the Russian government leadership and internal security. It also likely indicates overconfidence on the part of Russian President Putin and his underestimation of Ukraine as an adversary. The attack was an embarrassment for Russian security services, which Ukrainian agents evaded to assemble the drones in Russia and transport them long distances across Russia to stage attacks against the bombers. It was also a major failure for Russian intelligence, which failed to detect planning for the attack. In addition, Russian leaders failed to listen to concerns by Russian military experts before the attack that military aircraft parked on airbases were vulnerable to attacks by Ukraine, especially because Ukraine has launched similar attacks against Russian planes at airbases in Crimea.
4. What does the drone attack indicate about Russia’s military capabilities?
The drone attack was another sign of how far the Russian military has deteriorated from the Soviet era. The bombers Ukraine damaged or destroyed were part of Russia’s nuclear triad and its capability to exert Russian military power worldwide. Many of these planes will be difficult, if not impossible, to replace. This includes at least seven Tu-95 bombers, which date back to the 1950s and are no longer in production. Russia has a limited number of these planes, and some reportedly have been cannibalized for parts to keep other planes operational. The Tu-95’s replacement, the Tu-160, is being manufactured at a glacial pace, has a shorter range, and can carry fewer bombs and missiles.
5. Did Ukraine have help in staging this attack? What did the CIA know?
According to press reports, Ukraine conducted the drone attack against Russian heavy bombers on its own and after 18 months of preparation. Ukraine reportedly did not inform the U.S. of the attack in advance. As a former CIA analyst, I am skeptical that Ukraine conducted this operation without assistance from foreign experts and intelligence, especially spy satellite imagery, from foreign intelligence services. In addition, given how closely the CIA has been working with Ukraine for over 20 years, it is hard to believe that CIA officers did not know about the planning for this operation. CIA officers may have known the operation was imminent and might have helped in its planning.
Because U.S. intelligence officers work for the President of the United States and not for themselves, I believe it is essential that the White House and the congressional intelligence oversight committees investigate what the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies knew in advance about the recent Ukrainian drone attack and whether they played any role in it. A critical question will be to determine whether career CIA officers knew about this attack in advance but kept this information from CIA Director John Ratcliffe and President Trump.
***
Fred Fleitz previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, a CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member.
And? Even if Congress looked into whether there was a connection between the CIA and Ukraine regarding the planning?
Given the ease, aplomb, alacrity - even gleeful delight and sense of invulnerable impunity to scrutiny and being reigned in of the CIA and their alphabet counterparts?
Including, but not limited to the FBI, to lie through their teeth, withhold information even from the President because?
Well, they do know - don’t ya know - what’s best for all of us - obviously, more than all the rest of us know what’s best for us?
Exactly - please inform, enlighten - what good are any such “investigations” going to do.
My guess? They will be about as effective as one of those “strongly worded” letters the RINOs are so fond of writing and sending to let the transgressors who dared broke their ire - know in no uncertain terms that?
That - they are not going to take “it” anymore or at least too much longer - as they stamp their feet in dismay and feigned anger.
Russia could have effectively cut a business deal with the US years ago had Donald Trump and not Barack Obama been President. Valdimar and Russia would have been very wealthy had it happened. And the Ukrainian community could have been part of it. And there would have been additional mutual benefits. After all the Tyrant-in-Chief, Putin, at least recognized that fanatical and radical Islam was a threat to both Russia and Western counties. In that sense Putin was an ally. The Ukraine/US rare earth cooperative deal represents a business and economic symbiotic relationship that will sequester most cultural differences. And there really are not that many differences. That is what economist Milton Friedman made obvious decades ago. Trump understands that. Far more solidarity can be achieved with commerce than with guns – especially among Christian nations.
The USSR, and not Russia, was a previous problem because of communism. Valdimar is old school who was trained to use force, based upon strength, to do what the USSR, controlled by Stalin, always wanted to do. They only considered the risk benefit ratio. Their actions were never about morality. He is, after all, KGB educated and what George Bush (W) felt when he said “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy,” immediately made me aware that George did not know what he was talking about. Now we see he feels the same way about Obama. George Bush could not have been more wrong about two people which have both had tremendous negative impacts on the world.
What the Ukrainians have done was to expose the soft underbelly of a military system that is essentially worthless in today’s world except for its nuclear arsenal. What they have also done is to telegraph to Valdimar that the peace deal he should have taken is now going to cost him a lot more. Russia is as capable of sustaining a long term war, based on revenge, now that NATO is on board militarily, along with other weapons from an economic arsenal, such as tariffs and sanctions, as it was in occupying Afghanistan and, most recently, Syria. And most of all Putin managed to lift Zelensky off of the floor he was knocked down onto by President Trump. Now Zelensky has Trump’s ear and Putin doesn’t. Considering that Trump now understands that he is dealing with a sociopathic amoral killer that only responds to strength in the pursuit of peace it may take a while but eventually Valdimar will realize that he would be better off if he were Rosie O’Donnell than the leader that inherited the remnants of the old economically and militarily broken USSR.