By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On June 28th, Ukrainian Defence Intelligence (DIU) drones targeted military facilities in Bryansk, Russia. Local reports indicated loud explosions and gunfire, sparking discussion amongst Russians. While authorities remained silent, a Ukrainian intelligence source confirmed the DIU attack hit facilities of the 120th Arsenal. This follows a previous DIU strike on June 26th targeting fuel and lubricant warehouses in the same city.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian drones hit Russian missile and artillery arsenal – source, and it’s a tactic that seems to be gaining serious traction. I mean, think about it: when Russia kicked off this whole mess, did they honestly expect the war to come back at them, right into their own backyard? It’s a different kind of war, a strategy that focuses on a slow, methodical weakening of Russia’s military capabilities. The idea is to degrade their equipment and arsenal faster than they can possibly replace it. And, let’s be honest, Russia seems pretty okay with throwing bodies at the problem, but when it comes to replacing high-tech weaponry, that’s where the cracks begin to show.
Ukrainian drones hitting Russian targets is a smart move, a way to target Russia’s ability to keep its illegal war going. It’s a strategy designed to hit them where it hurts most: their resources. It’s like a constant drain, slowly bleeding them dry of the tools they need to fight. And the more of those tools they lose, the higher the cost of the war becomes, both financially and in terms of their presence on the battlefield. It seems to be the perfect way to force them to spend, lose, and exhaust their resources.
The core of the strategy is to disrupt their supply chain, making it difficult to replace lost military hardware. While there is a question as to how it affects carbon emissions, the impact of the war on the environment is a small price to pay compared to the continuation of Russia’s European ambitions. The use of Ukrainian war production in NATO countries is also an excellent idea, as this makes the operation more difficult for Russia to retaliate against.
This approach highlights how Russia miscalculated from the start. They went in thinking it would be a quick, easy operation, a three-day blitz. They thought they could just waltz in, take over, and be welcomed with open arms. But they were completely wrong, caught off guard by the global support for Ukraine. They didn’t anticipate the resilience of the Ukrainian people or the determination of the world to stand against their aggression.
The effectiveness of this strategy is already becoming apparent. Russia is forced to rely more on its soldiers and light vehicles, which the Ukrainians are adept at repelling with artillery. This shift in tactics reveals their vulnerability. Removing their advanced weaponry – bombers, fighters, missiles, and drones – neutralizes their air superiority. And reducing their tanks and artillery rebalances the ground game.
China’s role is another critical factor. They are purchasing Russian oil at a significant discount. However, the US sanctions limit their ability to get it over without the receiving companies being sanctioned. China’s growing appetite for Russian oil, along with the limitations in transport, creates another pressure point. It is a strategic move by Ukraine and its supporters to attack Russia’s primary revenue stream.
The frontlines remain dynamic, with pockets of intense fighting. Pokrovsk is an area of current concern. The situation is difficult for the defenders. However, the lines are holding. Other fronts are less active, and some counterattacks are occurring. The overall picture is not a complete rout, but a gradual, persistent weakening of Russia’s military capabilities.
The downstream effects are significant. As Russia’s ability to wage war is diminished through the destruction of key military equipment, they will be forced to rely on less advanced weaponry. China and other nations need to understand the ramifications of supporting the Russian war. The idea is, without equipment, Russia will become less effective. This ultimately leads to a breakdown in the supply chain, and soldiers will abandon their positions. In this context, Ukraine can then reclaim territories.
This is a war of attrition. It’s a long, hard slog, but the aim is to wear down the enemy over time. If this continues, countries like France may increase their material support. This is a good tactic for Ukraine to continue the war with a chance of success, ultimately regaining the territories. The more damage Ukraine can inflict on Russia’s military infrastructure, the closer they get to achieving that goal.