There are not many air raids or even battles that have a strategic effect. The Ukrainian strike on Russian air bases, some thousands of miles from Ukraine, may have been one. The Russian raid on Kyiv was a paltry response but everyone must assume that Russia is not done retaliating, far less done with the war.
NATO’s concern is that if Putin is allowed to conquer Ukraine he will attack one or more of the NATO members. That concern is entirely valid.
The June 1 Ukrainian attack was ingenious and daring. It hit four Russian airbases. Two were within usual range of Ukrainian attack forces but two — Olenya and Belaya — were respectively 1,000 miles and 3,000 miles from Kyiv. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Ukraine claimed to have damaged or destroyed 41 Russian combat aircraft worth about $7 billion with more than a hundred drones that cost about $2,000 each.
Ukraine almost certainly exaggerated the extent of the damage their attack caused to Russian aircraft. Nevertheless, they have clearly damaged or destroyed many Tupolev Tu-95 “Bear” bombers, which are prominent in several Tom Clancy novels. The “Bears” are very old propeller-driven aircraft but have been effective in Ukraine.
In addition, Ukraine reportedly damaged several Russian supersonic bombers, (roughly equivalent to our B-1s) and at least one Russian A-50 aircraft, which is roughly the same as our AWACS — Airborne Warning and Control aircraft — which direct air operations and warn of approaching enemy aircraft.
According to a German assessment of the raid, the Ukrainian attack destroyed or crippled about 10 percent of Russia’s bomber fleet.
Two days later the Ukrainians also attacked and partially destroyed the bridge between mainland Russia and the Crimean Peninsula over the Kerch Strait. Russia will be able to repair the bridge sooner than it will be able to replace the aircraft Ukraine destroyed.
The raid, as described by Ukraine’s government and media, took18 months to plan. It was accomplished by smuggling trucks laden with drones (or drone parts) into Russia and then used in a coordinated attack on the bases which hosted the bombers. Those bombers had been used frequently by Russia to bomb and launch missiles against Ukraine.
On June 5 Russia launched its response comprised of about 40 missiles and 400 drones. Targeting civilians intentionally (repeating their war crimes) Russians reportedly killed at least four people and injured about twenty in Kyiv and other areas of Ukraine.
The Russians have also hit Kharkiv, in Ukraine’s northeast, with a very heavy attack. More retaliation is certain to follow.
Russian President Putin can’t be happy about the results of these attacks. Russia lacks the facilities and manpower to replace the bombers Ukraine managed to destroy. The repairs to the Kerch bridge will take a short time (it’s already supposedly back in service) and won’t result in any inability of Russia to resupply its forces in Crimea.
So where does Russia’s war against Ukraine go from here? Clearly, no peace agreement is possible at this point or at any time in the near future.
Russia remains confident of victory or at least Putin does. But he has to have doubts about his ability to sustain the war which is now in its fourth year. A few heads will be lopped off — or some generals sent to the Gulag — but Putin’s determination to conquer Ukraine remains. As this column has often written, Putin has said that the fall of the Soviet empire was the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century and his ideological guide — Alexander Dugin — has written that unless Ukraine is conquered, Putin may as well not bother with the rest.
The Russian war on Ukraine will go on as long as Putin is alive. At the age of 72 Putin is still able to conduct the war but not to his satisfaction. He has already survived the not-quite-coup against him by Yevgeny Proghozin, leader of the Wagner Group of mercenaries who were fighting in Ukraine. They may have returned to the battlefield.
It is easy to say that Ukraine is Europe’s problem and they should have to deal with it. But it may all come down to whether the U.S. will continue to supply arms and other materiel to Ukraine. The Ukrainian forces are reportedly going to run out of missiles and other air defense weapons in July.
President Trump has never made it clear whether he will continue to supply Ukraine’s needs. Vice President Vance, while he was in the senate, was the strongest opponent of any further aid to Ukraine. The question remains open amid the Hamas war on Israel, the fuss over Elon Musk, Trump’s concerns over his “One Big Beautiful Bill,” his so far unsuccessful negotiations with Iran, and the budget reconciliation on which Trump’s agenda depends. The president isn’t likely to have Ukraine on the top of his concerns.
The NATO nations, which for the most part, are indistinguishable from the members of the European Union, cannot and certainly will not continue to meet Ukraine’s needs. But NATO’s concern is that if Putin is allowed to conquer Ukraine he will attack one or more of the NATO members. That concern is entirely valid.
The Russian people, aside from Putin’s inner circle, have no voice in the continuation of the war. But if Trump abandons Ukraine, Putin will have a huge victory that will embolden him to attack NATO. That cannot be allowed to happen.
U.S. troops should never be sent to fight for Ukraine. Nevertheless, we can’t stop supplying them with the tools of war they need.
And let’s not forget the problem the Ukraine raid presents for every Western nation. Their vulnerability to smuggled drone strikes may not be as great as Russia’s but it is there. It’s another urgent problem that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth need to deal with.
READ MORE from Jed Babbin: