By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor Alexander Bogomaz of Russia’s Bryansk Oblast claimed Ukrainian forces attacked the region on February 7 with Neptune missiles and HIMARS, targeting energy infrastructure and disrupting power in seven municipalities. This alleged strike follows a pattern of Ukrainian attacks on Bryansk Oblast, which borders Ukraine. The Ukrainian military has not commented, and these claims remain unverified by The Kyiv Independent at the time of publication. The reported incident occurs in the context of ongoing retaliatory strikes between Russia and Ukraine, with Russia having recently conducted a large-scale attack on Ukrainian energy facilities.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s recent reported strikes on energy facilities in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast, as claimed by the regional governor, mark a significant development in the ongoing conflict, disrupting power supply to several municipalities. This incident, involving what are described as long-range Neptune missiles and potentially HIMARS, highlights Ukraine’s increasing capability to project force into Russian territory, targeting critical infrastructure. The disruption of power in seven municipalities is not a trivial matter; it directly impacts the lives of civilians, businesses, and essential services within those areas.
The governor’s statement, made on February 7th, explicitly mentions the use of Neptune missiles and HIMARS by Ukraine’s Armed Forces. This detail is particularly noteworthy. The Neptune missile system, originally designed as an anti-ship weapon, has apparently undergone modifications for ground attack capabilities. This evolution in weapon systems suggests a strategic shift by Ukraine to retaliate against Russian infrastructure, mirroring Russia’s own tactics. The mention of HIMARS, a system widely recognized for its precision and range, further underscores the sophisticated nature of these reported strikes.
It’s interesting to consider the parallel with previous uses of the Neptune missile. The same system gained notoriety when it was famously used to strike and, as some recall, significantly damage a Russian naval vessel – not just any ship, but a flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. This earlier success likely emboldened Ukraine and demonstrated the missile’s effectiveness. The adaptation of these anti-ship missiles for land attack missions signals a potent expansion of Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and a willingness to leverage existing assets in new ways.
Furthermore, the timing of these reported strikes in Bryansk Oblast is significant. On the very same night, Ukraine reportedly targeted key energy facilities in the Russian city of Belgorod, leading to widespread blackouts and disruptions in heating. This coordinated or closely timed series of attacks suggests a deliberate, multifaceted strategy aimed at inflicting significant damage on Russia’s energy network. The impact of these disruptions, particularly during colder months, can be substantial, affecting the daily lives of a considerable number of people.
The notion of “sounds fair” emerges when one considers the broader context of the conflict, specifically Russia’s extensive and sustained attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. For months, Russia has been systematically targeting power plants, substations, and other critical energy facilities across Ukraine, leading to widespread blackouts and severe hardship for the Ukrainian population. In this light, Ukraine’s reported strikes on Russian energy facilities can be seen as a retaliatory measure, a tit-for-tat response to Russia’s ongoing aggression.
The responsibility for this escalation, according to this perspective, can be directly attributed to the initial decision to launch a full-scale invasion. The “murderous war criminal Putin,” as one sentiment expresses it, is seen as the instigator of the entire conflict. Therefore, any retaliatory actions taken by Ukraine, including strikes on Russian territory, are viewed as a consequence of Russia’s unprovoked aggression. The sentiment of “Get some!” reflects a strong desire for Ukraine to defend itself and inflict damage in return for the suffering it has endured.
The specific reference to the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet being struck by Neptune missiles is a crucial point of comparison. It demonstrates that these missiles are not theoretical threats but have a proven track record of success against significant Russian military assets. While there might be nuances between the original anti-ship variants and the ground-attack modifications, the core technology and its destructive potential remain. The fact that “those ones exploded” in relation to the naval strike underscores the tangible and impactful nature of the Neptune system.
In essence, the reported strikes by Ukraine’s Neptune missiles on energy facilities in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast, coupled with similar actions in Belgorod, represent a strategic escalation. These attacks are not occurring in a vacuum but are framed within the context of Russia’s relentless assaults on Ukrainian infrastructure. The evolution of Ukraine’s weapon systems, particularly the adaptation of the Neptune missile for ground targets, indicates a growing capacity and resolve to counter Russian aggression by directly impacting its domestic capabilities. The underlying sentiment is that such retaliatory actions are a justified response to the broader conflict initiated by Russia, aiming to level the playing field and inflict reciprocal damage.