By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A pro-Ukrainian partisan group, Atesh, claimed responsibility for sabotaging a communication tower in Russia’s Belgorod Oblast on February 8th. The group stated that an agent destroyed ground equipment, de-energizing and disabling all infrastructure on the mast, which included antennas used for electronic warfare to suppress drone signals. This act, conducted near Ukraine’s border, reportedly blinded the enemy in the sector and created an opportunity for Ukrainian forces to circumvent signal jamming and operate drones unimpeded. This incident follows a separate development on February 5th where Russian forces were reportedly cut off from Starlink satellite internet access due to a new “white list” implemented through a collaboration between Ukraine and SpaceX.
Read the original article here
Reports are emerging that pro-Ukrainian partisan groups have successfully disabled military communication infrastructure within Russia’s Belgorod Oblast. This assertion, put forth by the involved group, points to a sophisticated understanding of modern warfare and a strategic targeting of vital military assets. The specifics of the operation suggest a deliberate focus on disabling Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities, rather than a broad assault on physical structures like towers. This indicates a high level of technical planning, aiming for maximum impact with minimal collateral damage, which in itself is a notable aspect of how such operations can be effectively carried out without resorting to large-scale strikes.
The successful disabling of this communication hardware implies a nuanced approach, distinguishing it from attacks aimed at broader civilian disruption. While the notion of disabling military infrastructure is framed within the context of warfare, the emphasis by the group on targeting military hardware specifically, rather than civilian facilities, highlights a calculated strategy. This distinction is often lost in the broader discourse surrounding conflict, where the lines between military targets and civilian impact can become blurred, though in this instance, the claim is one of precise, military-focused action.
The actions attributed to these partisans also raise questions about the effectiveness of Russia’s own communication and propaganda efforts. There’s a perception that the Kremlin’s online presence, particularly its “spamfarmers,” often comes across as ineffectual, almost to the point of appearing “chronically emasculated.” This observation, whether an intentional facet of Kremlin strategy or an unintended consequence of their online operations, stands in stark contrast to the reported effectiveness of the partisan group’s actions in disabling Russian military communications.
It’s been argued that Russia intentionally targets Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals and power generation facilities, in an attempt to break civilian morale. This tactic, however, is widely seen as a demonstrably flawed strategy, one that has historically proven ineffective, as evidenced by experiences dating back to World War II. The notion that inflicting pain on Russian civilians might prompt them to question their government’s narrative and the viability of the war is a key element of this perspective. The argument is that by impacting their daily lives through the disruption of power, internet, and other essential services, Russian citizens might be compelled to protest the war initiated by their government.
However, the narrative surrounding this tactic is complicated by the perception that Russia itself engages in targeting civilian infrastructure. The question arises whether it is acceptable for Russia to target civilians while simultaneously condemning any similar actions against its own population, particularly when the targets in question are military communication facilities. There’s a point made that certain civilian radio communication towers, strategically positioned closer to the front lines, are frequently targeted, suggesting a continuous engagement that belies any notion of passive observation. This highlights a perceived double standard in how actions are viewed depending on the actor.
Crucially, the distinction is often drawn between Russia’s actions and those of Ukraine. While Russia is accused of deliberately targeting civilian populations and infrastructure with the explicit goal of weakening the enemy and forcing concessions, Ukraine’s alleged actions, even when targeting energy infrastructure, are framed differently. The intent is presented not as a means to terrorize, but rather as a way to demonstrate resilience, to remind the Russian populace that their government’s narrative of success is false, and that Ukraine is far from surrendering. The intent and goal behind the actions are presented as fundamentally different, which some argue significantly alters the perception of these acts, moving them away from definitions of terrorism.
The argument for impacting Russian civilians stems from the belief that they are the primary group capable of influencing the outcome of the war. Unlike external actors, Russian citizens possess the direct leverage to demand an end to the conflict. The perspective is that Russia initiated the conflict, and therefore, the onus is on Russians to cease their nation’s aggression. The idea that Russia has been a constant aggressor, invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, and intervening in Syria in 2015, is presented as a historical pattern of expansionist behavior, rather than a reaction to external threats.
There’s a strong dismissal of the narrative that NATO expansion is the primary driver of Russia’s actions. Instead, the historical context suggests that Eastern European nations actively sought to distance themselves from Russia, driven by the trauma of Soviet occupation. The notion that NATO “pushed east” is countered by the assertion that former Warsaw Pact countries fled towards NATO out of fear of Russian aggression and oppression. This fear, it is argued, predates the existence of NATO itself, stemming from experiences of Soviet atrocities and economic exploitation.
The strategic motivations attributed to Moscow are varied and complex, encompassing the desire for ice-free ports, population growth through territorial expansion, control over Ukraine’s grain resources to influence global energy markets, and a need to reassert its global standing. Furthermore, there’s a suggestion that President Putin’s actions are driven by a personal legacy, aiming to secure his place in history through the annexation of Ukraine, a move he had reportedly advocated for prior to the full-scale invasion. This paints a picture of a regime driven by a confluence of geopolitical ambitions, demographic concerns, and personal historical aspirations.
Ultimately, the reported disabling of military communication infrastructure in Belgorod Oblast by pro-Ukrainian partisans represents a significant development. It underscores the evolving nature of the conflict, with partisan groups employing sophisticated tactics to target Russia’s military capabilities. The actions highlight a strategic focus on disrupting EW assets, a move that requires considerable technical expertise. This, coupled with the broader context of the war and the differing narratives surrounding the targeting of infrastructure, continues to fuel a complex and often contentious debate about the ethics and effectiveness of various military and paramilitary actions.