By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On June 19 and into June 20, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces conducted a drone campaign targeting energy facilities in occupied Crimea. Footage released by the Commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Forces showed strikes on the Hlibivka underground gas storage facility and indicated that air defense radar and a locomotive were also targeted. Explosions and a fire were reported near the Tavriiska Thermal Power Plant in Simferopol, with a black column of smoke observed. These strikes are part of Ukraine’s strategy to disrupt Russian supply chains and isolate the peninsula by targeting its energy infrastructure, which has already led to fuel shortages and rationing.
Read the original article here
Recent reports indicate that Ukrainian drones have successfully targeted a gas storage facility in occupied Crimea, with photographic evidence emerging of the strikes. There are also unconfirmed reports that a power plant in the region was hit. This development appears to align with a broader Ukrainian strategy of focusing on Russia’s logistical, energy, and fuel infrastructure rather than engaging in direct, equivalent missile exchanges. This approach is gradually making Crimea, a strategically vital peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014, more difficult for Russia to supply and defend.
The rationale behind such targeted strikes is evident: increasing the cost and complexity of the war for Russia could, in theory, push them towards a withdrawal. This is a long-standing tactic employed by nations defending against invasion. It contrasts sharply with strategies that target civilian populations, which are generally considered ineffective as they do not weaken an adversary’s fighting capacity and often serve only to galvanize resistance. History, like the example of the Blitz during World War II, suggests that terror campaigns against civilians are rarely successful in achieving strategic objectives.
The ongoing pattern of attacks on energy and fuel infrastructure suggests a deliberate effort to disrupt Russia’s war effort. Targeting a gas storage facility, for instance, directly impacts a critical resource for maintaining operations and supplies, making resupply efforts significantly more challenging. While such actions may have localized impacts on the population in the occupied territories, the overarching objective appears to be the degradation of Russia’s ability to sustain its invasion.
It’s important to distinguish between different types of attacks. While Russia has been accused of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and populations, Ukraine’s actions, as reported, seem to be concentrated on military and energy-related targets. This distinction is crucial when discussing escalation. When a nation defends itself by targeting the logistical and industrial capacity of an invader, it can be seen as a response to aggression, not necessarily as an act of escalation in the same vein as unprovoked attacks on civilians.
Ukraine’s increasing capability to strike targets deep within occupied territory reflects its evolving defensive capacities. This is not about retaliation in the sense of matching an aggressor’s brutality, but rather about building the means to effectively defend its sovereign territory. The objective remains to survive, defend, and eventually reclaim occupied lands, a goal that has remained consistent since the full-scale invasion began.
Crimea, as Ukrainian territory currently under occupation, is viewed by Ukraine as a legitimate target for strikes aimed at degrading Russian military capabilities. These actions can be seen not just as retaliation, but as a necessary step in the process of dismantling the occupying force’s infrastructure. Russia, having already disregarded numerous international agreements and breached numerous boundaries, cannot credibly accuse Ukraine of disproportionate escalation when Ukraine targets military and energy assets. Russia has already employed a wide array of tactics, and Ukraine is simply developing the means to defend itself more effectively.
The notion that Ukraine is equally guilty in the course of actions is a contentious one, particularly when considering who initiated the full-scale invasion. While both sides may engage in retaliatory strikes, the intent and the targets differ significantly. Ukraine’s focus on military and energy infrastructure can be seen as an attempt to weaken Russia’s war-making capacity, whereas Russia’s alleged targeting of civilian areas aims to demoralize and terrorize the population.
The effectiveness of Ukraine’s strikes is a point of ongoing debate. While a decisive breakthrough may not have been achieved, degrading an adversary’s ability to sustain combat operations is a critical component of modern warfare. Russia’s significant investment in air defense and hardening facilities suggests that these strikes are having an impact. The difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in entrenched industrial warfare does not negate the strategic value of these attacks.
The argument that Ukraine should simply surrender territory for peace is a flawed premise. Peace should not be achieved by rewarding aggression. Ukraine’s right to defend itself is a fundamental aspect of its sovereignty. Supporting this right does not obligate individuals to fight; rather, it is an acknowledgment of a nation’s right to determine its own future. The decision to defend their independence, territory, and future rests with the Ukrainian people, not with external powers.
Moreover, the idea that all inhabitants of occupied territories are complicit or willingly accept Russian rule is an oversimplification. Many may have remained due to economic necessity or a lack of viable alternatives. However, this does not grant legitimacy to the occupation or preclude Ukraine from taking measures to degrade the occupying forces’ capabilities. The assertion that Ukraine’s strikes are less impactful because they haven’t led to a decisive breakthrough ignores the complex realities of modern warfare and the strategic importance of disrupting an adversary’s logistics and energy supplies. Ultimately, Ukraine’s actions are a response to an invasion, and its efforts to defend itself are a legitimate exercise of its sovereign rights.