By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight drone and missile attacks targeted Russian-occupied Crimea and several regions within Russia, impacting critical infrastructure. Explosions were reported across Crimea, with strikes confirmed on a Feodosia oil terminal and an ammunition depot, and caused a large-scale fire. In Russia’s Belgorod Oblast, a thermal power plant was hit, leaving tens of thousands without power, and a similar strike in the Bryansk region led to a large fire at a local thermal power plant.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s 251-Drone Barrage: Explosions Rock Crimea, Russian Power Plants, Belgorod Goes Dark definitely presents a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict. The sheer scale of the attack, involving what is reported to be 251 drones, suggests a shift in strategy, particularly in terms of the targets chosen and the scope of the offensive. It’s a bold move, no doubt about it.
The effectiveness of this barrage is, of course, a critical aspect. We see reports of explosions in Crimea, which is already a high-value target, and the targeting of Russian power plants, which is a direct assault on Russia’s infrastructure and ability to wage war. The news that Belgorod experienced a blackout is telling, as it reveals the real-world impact of these strikes on the Russian side.
The claims of drone interception raise some interesting questions. It’s quite a feat to shoot down such a high percentage of incoming drones, as many reports have suggested. However, the fact that strategic targets are still hit and damaged means that something is amiss. Is it that the interception rates are exaggerated? Or is it that even a single drone that gets through can cause significant damage? This question is open to interpretation.
It is interesting that some people have pointed out a discrepancy regarding the numbers. One would think if Ukraine launches a smaller attack, the percentage of downing would be more realistic. If it’s Ukraine that always gets the short end of the stick, and the drone barrages by Russia are so much larger, one has to wonder about the accuracy of the stated figures.
The apparent shift to target critical infrastructure is worth examining. It’s now clear that this is a different phase of the war than what may have been seen previously, at least as far as the nature of the attacks is concerned. The reported informal understanding about targeting power plants seems to have broken down. This signals an increased willingness to inflict damage on the Russian side, possibly aiming to disrupt their ability to sustain military operations.
It’s worth noting that there are whispers of a possible agreement between the two sides at the start of the war. The agreement was that Russian infrastructure would not be targeted by Ukraine. With Ukraine’s recent actions, it’s as though the gloves have come off. The strategic importance of this change is not just tactical, it’s also symbolic. This indicates a more aggressive stance from Ukraine, potentially driven by a desire to even the playing field or to retaliate for previous attacks.
The impact on the upcoming winter months also weighs on the future of the conflict. The damage to power plants and other infrastructure could directly affect the ability of civilians and military personnel to survive the harsh winters. With an increase in attacks on power infrastructure, it’s only reasonable to expect things will get dirtier from here.
The production of long-range missiles and drones by both sides shows that technological capabilities are now playing a larger part in the current conflict. The focus on military hardware highlights how the battle is evolving, with both sides investing in tools to enhance their offensive capabilities.
There seems to be a general consensus that Russia will be defeated. Despite this, it’s understandable that these attacks are still worrisome. The conflict has taken a very nasty turn and that makes the prospects of a resolution much harder.
Finally, the details that come from the battlefield can be tricky. Like the two drones that supposedly hit three separate locations; it’s a matter of interpretation. The constant back-and-forth regarding the success of attacks and the number of drones shot down makes it hard to determine the true impact.