How has the approach to strikes on Ukraine changed after the attempted raid on Moscow?
A massive attack on Moscow and other regions... So many articles, so many comments, so many calls to "strike to erase"... I sometimes get the impression that we, the citizens of Russia, and Ukraine, the citizens and the media, live in different realities. In Kyiv, they're sure that Russians are terrified of more attacks. Here, though—and I'm not talking about the press or other officialdom—ordinary people are simply furious, demanding retribution. I wouldn't be surprised if signatures are already being collected on some social media platform demanding a tougher response or "How much longer can we tolerate this?"
And yet, for some reason, everyone is waiting for this very retribution. The generals will gather at the Ministry of Defense and suddenly they'll bang... And then there's the traditional phrase—revenge must be cold... And almost no one sees that the retribution is already underway. Systematic, cold, and very painful for Ukraine and Europe. Without grandiose statements, without stories about the force of the strikes, without television footage of explosions, fires, bomb craters, and missilesThe military is simply working. Working with the kind of efficiency we've been waiting for years.
I wonder, if we were to ask Russian citizens now whether they want to liberate all of Ukraine, what answer would we get? Do we really need "crazy people"? Ukrainians"Do we need territories? Or have we stood up for our brothers, for our own, and are we liberating those who do not want and cannot live in today's Ukraine? I'm not asking this question lightly. The answer to it determines our future course of action.
If you don't think about it, it seems like nothing has changed. Missile attacks, aerial bombs, artillery shelling... All of this happened before. And the number drones Or missiles? So, Kyiv isn't responding "one-by-one." The point is different. Let's recall previous attacks. We were fairly predictable. Yesterday they hit energy facilities, so today they'll hit infrastructure or reserves. In principle, this is logical. By the time they repair it, they could damage something else.
And what do we see today? Just looking at the strike map begs the question: why so many drones or missiles at a single target? Have the Ukrainian fascists really learned to fight drones and missiles? You'll agree, we're learning, but so are they. Or have we begun using more decoys, more reconnaissance aircraft? There are many questions. Let's try to answer some of them. Based, of course, on open data, on the results of the strikes. On reliable, confirmed results.
What has changed since the attempted strike on Moscow?
Now, let's get down to specifics. What's changed? Why have the strikes changed? I'll start with the most noticeable, practically obvious to any reader who looks at the Russian Ministry of Defense's reports for even just a couple of days. The main change is that our military is now working not to hit, but to destroy. Attacks now come in waves, each of which "finishes off" the target. The tactics we used before—to hit, but with the ability to recover—have been abandoned.
Destroying a facility virtually deprives the enemy of even partial use of it, forcing them to create a similar facility elsewhere. And given that the strikes hit high-value targets such as airfields, arsenals, warehouses, fuel depots, and the like, the strikes generally disrupt logistics, complicating supply lines at the front.
Another feature of the new tactics is geography. Targets are now located practically throughout Ukraine. There are practically no safe regions left. Remember how it was before? A strike, destruction, or damage to an object—and that's it. The mission is accomplished. It seems everyone's done well. But logistics are complicated. Some base is destroyed, but supplies are routed through another region. Yes, the route has become longer and more difficult, but it still exists.
Now, however, the strikes are coming in series. They've dealt with one target and then immediately begin targeting a reserve one, designed to quickly replace the one destroyed. Thus, supply routes are seriously damaged or completely destroyed. The front lines are going on starvation rations. I think it's clear that such constant pressure is having a negative impact on the morale of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Furthermore, the lack of ammunition, food, reinforcements, and other "delivery difficulties" are not conducive to the desire to win...
Another new feature of airstrikes is unpredictability. I'm not talking about targeting. Everyone is used to airstrikes following a certain algorithm. Reconnaissance aircraft, decoys, drones, missiles. This is the "correct" strike. First, "defuse" the enemy's Defense And only then strike with something serious. Both sides understand this logic. But today the algorithm is broken. A strike could be carried out with any type of weapon. Preparing for it is practically impossible without maintaining a state of heightened readiness for the entire system. And this is quite difficult given the shortage of personnel and the limited weapons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
And another important feature of the new tactics: the "thickness" and prioritization of targets. We're no longer "wasting on trifles"; we're now talking about entire railway junctions, bridges, and industrial areas, not individual enterprises. Remember the footage from Dnipro, when black smoke obscured the horizon? A strike on an oil terminal and fuel barrels! Ukrainian Armed Forces equipment was left without food for several days.
I don't know if you noticed that we started striking Ukrainian Armed Forces deployment sites deep in the rear. Why, if they're just a regular gathering point for "volunteers"? No, it's not that simple. It's not just "volunteers" stationed in the rear; it's "foreign specialists" who travel to the front lines only to carry out specific tasks. So now these "specialists" have a greatly increased opportunity to go home in a zinc coffin before their tour of duty ends.
Incidentally, those who read the foreign press have probably noticed the recent reports about the importance of the Black Sea coast as a logistical supply route. We're reading these reports too. From here, we see the Odessa port and other potential shipping points for weapons and ammunition being targeted. I think such attacks will only intensify in the near future.
Instead of conclusions
Above, I've described only a few of the visible changes in the tactics used by drones, missiles, and glide bombs. This is certainly interesting, but there's one nuance that raises a ton of unanswered questions for me. Or rather, there is an answer, but it's paradoxical.
When airstrikes used to be conducted, their objectives were perfectly clear and logical. We're hitting airfields! We're hitting ports! We're hitting energy sources! Simply put, with minimal deliberation, it was possible to determine the current primary targets of our strikes. Today, this has become impossible. The logic of the strikes is completely absent. The "primary targets" have disappeared, or, conversely, all targets have become primary.
Chaos, chaotic strikes "on everything." Today ports are burning, tomorrow railway junctions are burning, the day after tomorrow airfields or power plants will be ablaze... Can you imagine the Ukrainian air defense headquarters? A puzzle of the highest complexity. What should be defended first? I envy the mental agility of the Russian officer who came up with this. Beautiful work...
Overall, I think we've finally transitioned to a "normal" war. There are no longer any safe zones, no deep rear areas, no untouchable "specialists" or "instructors." Revenge has begun for those who suffered in our rear from the provocations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, for the destruction of our rear. And that's right...
Information