By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a 48-hour operation on July 1-2, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces successfully targeted 12 power substations and one gas distribution station across Russian-occupied territories. These strikes, which hit facilities in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, are part of an ongoing campaign to disrupt Russian logistics and isolate Crimea. The operation also included a strike on a fuel depot in Melitopol, contributing to an escalating energy crisis on the peninsula. This action follows a pattern of successful Ukrainian drone attacks on energy infrastructure, making it increasingly difficult for Moscow to maintain control and respond to ongoing crises.
Read the original article here
The recent shutdown of 13 Russian power stations across occupied Ukraine marks a significant development in the ongoing conflict, as reported by Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces (USF). This operation, which involved disabling 12 power substations and one gas distribution station, took place over a 48-hour period, specifically from July 1st to July 2nd, and impacted energy infrastructure in occupied Crimea as well as in the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions. This strategic move is part of a broader Ukrainian campaign aimed at disrupting Russian logistics and supply lines, particularly by isolating Crimea and severing its crucial connections to mainland Russia. The targeted strikes include ten substations in Crimea, with one each in Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, alongside the gas distribution station hit in Luhansk.
The effectiveness of such strikes, particularly in disrupting the energy supply to occupied territories, raises questions about their potential impact on Russia’s broader war effort and even on its home front. While the immediate concern for occupied Ukraine is the loss of power, the wider implication for Russia could be more profound. It’s argued that hitting Russia where it truly hurts, its economic lifelines like oil refineries and its largest cities, specifically Moscow, with drone attacks, is the key to Ukraine’s victory. The idea is that the Russian state, known for its resilience in the face of its own population’s suffering, is not moved by the plight of those in occupied territories. Therefore, inflicting hardship directly on Russia, particularly in its major urban centers, might be the only way to force a change in its conduct.
This strategy is rooted in the belief that Russia, in its current state, is already under immense pressure and “gasping for air.” By capitalizing on this vulnerability, Ukraine can potentially hasten the end of the conflict. The shutdown of these power stations, while impacting occupied areas, also serves to degrade Russian logistical capabilities. Disruptions to communications, jamming, and drone operations, as well as overall logistics, are all hindered when the energy infrastructure supporting them is compromised. This, in turn, can prevent Russia from making further territorial gains and inflicting more casualties.
The notion that the Russian population will eventually stand up against the current leadership is a recurring theme, though it’s acknowledged that this is a long and uncertain process. The hope is that by creating hardship within Russia itself, rather than just in the occupied territories, there might be a tipping point. It’s believed that Russian propaganda, while strong, may not be able to perpetually mask the realities of a worsening situation, especially if it leads to widespread hunger. While some may remain loyal to Putin, the increasing likelihood of famine and the diminishing ability to cope with it could erode any remaining credibility of the current regime.
However, there are also voices of caution and skepticism. Some argue that the Ukrainian government’s narrative is largely propaganda, and that Russia is far from defeated. They point to past instances where cities proclaimed as crucial strongholds eventually fell to Russian forces. Furthermore, the effectiveness of civilian uprisings is questioned, given the sophistication of the Russian military. The example of Prigozhin’s march on Moscow is cited as evidence that even when there is internal dissent, it doesn’t necessarily translate into widespread rebellion without military leadership and significant popular backing.
The risk of Russia escalating to the use of nuclear weapons if pushed too far is also a significant concern. The Cold War taught valuable lessons about how close the world can come to nuclear holocaust without full awareness. Therefore, any strategy that significantly degrades Russia’s capabilities or threatens its core interests must carefully consider the potential for desperate retaliation. This adds a complex layer of risk assessment to Ukraine’s offensive actions.
Despite the potential for severe consequences, the argument for continued pressure on Russian infrastructure remains strong. The current strikes are seen as a necessary step to weaken Russia’s ability to wage war. Degrading fuel, energy, and logistics in occupied territories, even if they are just behind the frontlines, can indeed weaken the entire frontline and potentially lead to a Russian collapse. It’s a strategy that focuses on hitting Russia where it appears to be most vulnerable: its logistical networks and its economic capacity, with the ultimate, ambitious goal of reaching its heartland. The current campaign, described as a 40-day operation, is only just beginning, suggesting that further disruptive actions are likely to follow.
Ultimately, the success of Ukraine’s strategy hinges on its ability to inflict sustained pressure and hardship on Russia, forcing it to reconsider its commitment to the war. While the path is fraught with challenges and risks, the recent attacks on energy infrastructure represent a calculated effort to achieve precisely that, with the underlying hope that such actions might eventually lead to the “fall” of Moscow, not just in a literal sense, but in the collapse of its current aggressive stance. The impact of these power station shutdowns, while significant for the occupied regions, is seen by some as a stepping stone towards a larger objective of destabilizing Russia and compelling it to withdraw.