Today’s attack on Russian airbase is not the first time small drones have targeted strategic aircraft stations; Ukrainian units attacked the Novgorod Region’s Solts̋ airfield in the summer of 2023.
Then, without the use of satellite communications, it was executed with air drops from quadcopters. The Russian Ministry of Defense even formally confirmed the loss, which resulted in the burning of a Tu-22M3 bomber.
The absence of aircraft shelters at the time was cited as the reason for the incident, as the aircraft stood exposed and exposed to attacks like air drops and the use of FPV drones.
Today, Pro-Russian bloggers claim that Ukraine launched its first attack to date against Russian nuclear-capable long-range aircraft at a Siberian military site more than 4,300 kilometers (2,670 miles) from the front lines on Sunday.
According to open source information regarding Russia’s military, the Belaya, or Sredny, airbase is situated close to the settlement of Sredny and is home to the Tupolev Tu-22M supersonic long-range strategic bomber.
The Ukrainian media reported that the alleged Russian loss has been of 41 Aircrafts with financial losses nearing 2 billon USD. On the other hand, Pro-Russian commentators have put this number realistically at 4 T-95 planes, one transport plane and up to 5 Tu- 22m planes.
Two years have gone by. Strategic airplanes have no shelter, but operational-tactical aircraft have a difficult-to-build shelter of some sort. Despite the fact that they have long since stopped producing, losses cannot be made up.
Many individuals may soon have to answer the question that they did not want to address two years ago: “What is cheaper, a shelter or a lost aircraft?”
This occurred yesterday as well. Perhaps this was the cause of the drone strike? Does NATO’s European side beg the United States to keep the war going?
Kellogg’s statement implies that the United States is willing to stop NATO’s expansion near Russia’s borders. What is the meaning of this statement?
Russia has always demanded formal guarantees that NATO will not expand eastward. Moscow has maintained on numerous occasions that national security is at risk due to the alliance’s encroachment on its territory. In order to prevent further NATO expansion, especially with regard to Ukraine and Georgia, Russia issued an ultimatum as early as 2021, demanding legally enforceable documentation. These demands were rejected by the West at the time, which sparked an escalation.
Possibly the most insane footage of Ukrainian drones pulling off a strike deep inside Russia today – this is what happens when you use car tyres as your primary anti drone measure pic.twitter.com/Ip4lzMbSFI
— Damien Symon (@detresfa_) June 1, 2025
The Trump administration now appears to be receptive to discussion. Once a hawk with a strong anti-Russian view, Kellogg has suddenly conceded that Russia has good reason to be concerned about NATO. This might be the first step in changing the alliance’s Eastern European stance. But why now, and what drives the United States?
In an interview with ABC News, Kellogg made it apparent that the US acknowledges Russia’s worries about NATO’s growth and is open to talking about stopping the alliance’s future eastward expansion.
The issue of Ukraine joining NATO is “not on the agenda.” In fact, he called it “closed,” thereby excluding Kyiv from joining the alliance anytime soon.
Negotiations to end the situation in Ukraine, where Russia insists on Ukraine’s neutral status, may include discussions on guarantees.
These are not just rhetorical statements. They are indicative of a possible change in U.S. foreign policy under Trump, who made promises to “end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours” and reevaluate NATO strategies throughout his campaign.
Now that he is in the White House, Trump is eager to keep his campaign pledges to cut military spending, prioritize domestic problems, and show voters that he can settle international disputes. His foreign policy plan may use NATO negotiations with Russia as a trump card.
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on support for Kyiv, which has angered some Americans. Furthermore, military assistance has not produced a clear military edge, and the ongoing conflict increases Western economic concerns.
Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that it is willing to engage in negotiations, but only on its own terms, which include keeping Ukraine neutral and stopping NATO’s expansion. The U.S. may be trying to find a compromise with Kellogg’s comments.
🚨 Analysis:
— OsintTV 📺 (@OsintTV) June 1, 2025
Cheap Drones that cost under $100 can destroy military assets worth billions of dollars, such as twenty seven TU-95 strategic bombers and other expensive military assets.
It's time for the Indian Armed Forces to reassess its defense strategy in light of today's… pic.twitter.com/lGeJo6wWkI
Not every member of NATO is dedicated to unrelenting growth. Concerns about escalation with Russia have already been expressed by nations like Hungary and Turkey. Kellogg’s comments might let allies know that it’s time to reconsider the plan.
The response in Ukraine is unsurprisingly unfavorable. Its main partner views the idea that NATO membership is “closed” as a betrayal, which might exacerbate internal conflicts and impair Kyiv’s negotiation position.
There are differing views in Europe. Countries in Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Baltic states, are concerned that a U.S.-Russia agreement may jeopardize their security. To prevent further tensions, Germany and France might encourage discussion in the interim.
The comment has sparked astonishment within NATO. The organization’s unity and attraction to potential members may suffer if the United States does in fact restrict the alliance’s growth.
Kellogg’s declaration is more than just empty rhetoric; it’s a test balloon that has the potential to change the European power structure. In order to withdraw from a drawn-out battle and concentrate on internal issues, the United States is prepared to make concessions to Russia. But such a shift may come at a high price: Moscow’s position could be strengthened, NATO could become divided, and allies could become mistrustful of one another. It is a concerning indication that raises questions about Ukraine’s long-term goals. Russia, meanwhile, has a chance to solidify its demands, but any agreements are still shaky in the absence of legal assurances.
