By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine executed long-range drone attacks on key Russian oil refining facilities in Tatarstan and a petrochemical plant in the Samara region on Russia Day. These strikes targeted major enterprises like the Nizhnekamsk Taneko and Taif-NK oil refineries, and the Togliattikauchuk plant, a producer of materials for solid rocket fuel. The attacks resulted in confirmed hits and fires, leading to airspace restrictions and the cancellation of local celebrations. Ukraine’s General Staff stated these actions aim to systematically degrade Russia’s war-waging capabilities.
Read the original article here
The most significant shift in this ongoing conflict might be psychological, and Ukraine’s recent coordinated drone strikes across Russia on Russia Day certainly underscore this.
A barrage of 231 drones targeting major oil refineries and chemical plants deep within Russian territory serves as a potent reminder that distance is no longer the impenetrable shield it once was for Russia.
The idea of waking up to news of successful long-range strikes is met with a sense of satisfaction, especially when considering the broader implications for the aggressor.
If Ukraine can effectively reach such strategic targets, even Moscow itself, a bold psychological tactic could involve announcing the closure of all Moscow region airports until further notice.
Following such an announcement, a consistent, albeit occasional, presence of “boom-boom” drones near these civilian hubs could amplify the psychological pressure.
The rationale behind this is simple: Russians should not feel secure enjoying holidays or engaging in air travel when they deliberately deny these same freedoms to Ukraine.
A particularly inventive approach to further unsettling the Russian leadership could involve Ukraine publishing a public timetable, perhaps on a monthly basis, detailing specific periods when each Moscow-area airport would be open or closed. This would powerfully communicate that Ukraine, in effect, controls aspects of Russian airspace.
Instead of outrage, Russia might even find itself thanking President Zelenskyy for the “fireworks” on their national day, a fitting response for initiating a war against a neighbor. The sentiment is clear: “Good! Light that shit up!”
It’s crucial to remember that President Putin possesses the sole power to end this conflict at any moment by simply ordering his troops to return home. Thus, celebrating Russia Day under these circumstances rings hollow. Witnessing the bully being humbled is undeniably gratifying for many.
The immediate reaction from some quarters labels these Ukrainian actions as “terrorist attacks.” However, the means employed are surprisingly straightforward, involving readily accessible assets like trucks and drones.
While the environmental consequences of these strikes are undeniably concerning, leading to massive environmental hazards, they are framed by some as positive outcomes in this grim context.
The stark reality is that Ukraine is doing what it must to defend itself. However, the long-term ecological damage resulting from the war, on top of the senseless loss of life, will be catastrophic.
Nevertheless, the idea of disabling Russia’s energy infrastructure is viewed as a strategically sound move, potentially contributing to the nation’s economic strain.
The notion that the unrefined fuel impacting the environment is preferable to the devastating fires of war, or even the ecological carelessness Russia has displayed in the past, is a recurring theme. It’s argued that Russia has never shown significant concern for environmental impact.
Furthermore, the destruction of these facilities might ironically lead to the unintended production of fertilizer, a resource Russia needs. The question is then posed: should Vladimir Putin be held accountable for initiating the conflict in the first place?
The current distractions are so overwhelming that comprehensive cleanup efforts for any aftermath are unlikely to be prioritized.
The suggestion of scheduling air closures being useful in negotiations might seem unconventional, but closing airports is a legitimate wartime tactic, especially considering Russia’s own actions.
Evidence suggests Russia is indeed utilizing civilian airports to mask its warplanes from Ukrainian strikes, thereby conflating civilian infrastructure with military operations.
Beyond drones, Russia has also been observed using balloons, and there are reports of combined balloon and drone tactics.
The idea of a “carrier” arriving, in a strategic sense, evokes the image of a coordinated and overwhelming force.
The combination of balloons and drones is a subject of discussion, with the wind direction playing a crucial role in their deployment. This is a form of “droneception,” where one drone-like object is used to launch another.
A prevailing piece of advice is to learn from Russia’s mistakes and ensure that every strike serves clear military and economic objectives, rather than solely aiming to terrorize the population.
It’s argued that terrorizing civilians doesn’t foster peace; instead, it hardens their resolve and increases their tolerance for pain, as long as their attackers also suffer.
The economic impact on Russia is highlighted, with even disruptions to children’s birthday celebrations being seen as a blow to the nation’s economy.
Continuing these strikes could lead to Russia experiencing critical shortages of vital resources, metaphorically referred to as “insufficient vespene gas” in a gaming context.
There’s even speculation about advanced technological applications, such as mounting a Starlink terminal on a balloon to launch fiber-optic FPV drones from extreme distances, thereby evading jamming.
Ultimately, the message is clear: let the Russians grapple with the consequences of their actions and the new reality that their borders offer less protection than they once believed.