By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On the night of March 17th, Russian air defenses reported intercepting 206 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory, with 40 specifically targeting Moscow. This marks the fourth consecutive day of reported drone attacks on the capital. While authorities stated no casualties or damage occurred, the full extent of Ukrainian drone launches remains unconfirmed. These strikes are part of a recent escalation of attacks on Moscow, with Ukraine previously indicating a strategy to bring the conflict to the Russian populace.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s sustained drone assaults on Moscow, marking the fourth consecutive day of strikes and involving at least forty unmanned aerial vehicles in the latest barrage, represent a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict. These repeated attacks underscore Ukraine’s developing capability to project power deep into Russian territory, a stark contrast to earlier stages of the war. The persistent targeting of the Russian capital suggests a deliberate strategy to not only inflict damage but also to exert psychological pressure on the Russian leadership and populace.
The fact that Ukraine can now reach Moscow with drones is particularly noteworthy, a capability that Russia apparently did not anticipate. This consistent pressure likely serves multiple purposes for Kyiv. One prominent theory is that these strikes are a sophisticated “fixing operation,” designed to draw Russian air defense assets away from other critical areas, potentially the front lines, thereby weakening Russia’s overall defensive posture.
Furthermore, the attacks add another layer of chaos to an already turbulent situation within Russia. The decision to shut down Telegram, often cited as a platform for communication among Russian troops and a source of information beyond state control, further suggests an attempt to control the narrative and prevent widespread awareness of the drone strikes and their implications. This move, seen by some as an effort to protect Putin, only amplifies the sense of unease and instability.
The persistent nature of these attacks also highlights a perceived vulnerability in Moscow’s defenses. For a capital city, especially after years of preparation for a full-scale invasion, the ability of drones to penetrate its airspace repeatedly raises questions about the efficacy of its air defense network. This situation is undoubtedly creating considerable anxiety for those in positions of power within Russia, and potentially for some of their disillusioned citizens.
The sentiment surrounding these strikes is largely one of vindication and support for Ukraine. Many express the view that Russia is simply reaping the consequences of its aggression, with the phrase “they deserve it” appearing frequently. The hope is that these attacks will not only disrupt Russian operations but also potentially galvanize dissent among the Russian populace, particularly among the elite who have largely been insulated from the direct costs of the war.
The geographical proximity of Moscow to Ukraine, approximately 760 kilometers away, makes such strikes feasible, especially given Ukraine’s advancements in drone technology. The mention of Ukraine’s ability to strike targets as far as 4,000 kilometers away, such as the Belaya air base, further illustrates the growing range and sophistication of their strike capabilities. The development of domestic long-range strike options, like the theoretical FP-9 ballistic missile, signals an intent to further challenge Russia’s strategic depth.
Beyond the immediate physical damage and disruption, these drone attacks are also seen as a form of economic pressure. The cost of intercepting numerous drones, particularly with expensive air defense systems, is likely unsustainable for Russia in the long run. The ripple effects of disrupted travel and productivity within Moscow could have significant economic consequences.
Crucially, Ukraine’s strategy appears to be focused on bringing the war directly to the doorstep of the Russian civilian population, particularly those in positions of influence. By highlighting the impact on Moscow, Ukraine aims to reverse the current dynamic where the majority of casualties on the Russian side are from less privileged backgrounds, while the wealthy and powerful remain relatively unaffected.
This tactic of applying pressure to the ruling class is intended to foster internal dissent. While Putin’s grip on power is strong, he is not immune to public pressure, as evidenced by past backtracking on mobilization efforts. The idea is that if the war directly threatens the comfortable lives of those in Moscow, it could ignite broader civil unrest, posing a significant challenge to Putin’s authority. This is further compounded by Russia’s apparent distraction by other geopolitical issues, creating an opportune moment for Ukraine to escalate.
The continued attacks also highlight a potential strategic misstep by Russia regarding Telegram, which served as a vital communication channel for its troops. By disrupting this channel, Russia may have inadvertently created vulnerabilities. The principle of not correcting an enemy’s mistakes is being applied, allowing Ukraine to capitalize on these perceived weaknesses.
The effectiveness of Russian air defenses is also being questioned, particularly in light of the continuous drone incursions into Moscow. The reliance on expensive missile systems to intercept relatively inexpensive drones represents an unsustainable expenditure for Russia, underscoring Ukraine’s need for its own cost-effective defensive capabilities.
While the idea of oligarchs turning on Putin is a compelling notion, the reality of the power dynamic suggests that the oligarchs are now largely dependent on Putin for their continued wealth and influence, making them less likely to instigate a rebellion. The hope for a widespread rejection of the war among the Russian populace, however, remains a significant aspiration.
The development of Ukraine’s drone capabilities since the start of the war is remarkable, suggesting significant domestic innovation, possibly with some Western support. The initial underestimation of Ukraine’s capacity to mount such attacks is proving to be a costly miscalculation for Russia. The notion that Russia believed its air defenses would be impenetrable has clearly been shattered.
The ongoing attacks are also viewed within the broader context of evolving warfare. The perceived “top-down” nature of current military strategies is being challenged by these more decentralized and persistent drone strikes. The aim is to awaken a population that may have become complacent due to state propaganda and the insulation of the elite.
While concerns exist that these attacks could be used by Putin as a pretext for further mobilization, the consensus is that he could initiate such measures regardless. The emphasis remains on exploiting any perceived weakness in Russia’s resolve and operational capacity. The ultimate outcome, as expressed by some, is the potential for Moscow itself to face significant destruction, a consequence of Russia’s initial decision to invade Ukraine.