COLUMN: In Occupied Crimea, SBU Drones Set Putin’s Hangars Ablaze

A Peninsula Transformed into a Rear Base Since 2014

Since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has significantly strengthened its military presence on the peninsula, turning it into a vital rear base for its air and naval operations against Ukraine. Airfields such as Gvardeyskoye and Saki allow the Russian Air Force to launch combat sorties from close to the front lines—a tactical advantage that Kyiv is systematically seeking to erode.

By striking these facilities, Ukraine seeks not only to destroy equipment but also to force Moscow to move its air capabilities farther from the theater of operations, thereby increasing response times and the logistical costs of each Russian sortie.

As Much a Symbol as a Military Target

Beyond its military value, every successful strike in Crimea carries strong symbolic significance for Ukraine: it demonstrates that the annexed peninsula is neither a sanctuary nor a safe haven for Russian forces, contrary to what Moscow has long sought to make its own population believe.

There is something profoundly fitting about the fact that Crimea—a symbol of the illegal annexation of 2014—is once again the stage where Ukraine is concretely demonstrating that nothing is a foregone conclusion for the Russian aggressor.

A service that has significantly expanded its capabilities

The SBU, Ukraine’s security service, has developed highly sophisticated long-range strike capabilities over the course of the war, combining drones, human intelligence, and coordination with other branches of the defense forces. This technical advancement now enables it to conduct regular and precise operations against targets deep within occupied territory.

This evolution reflects a broader transformation in Ukrainian military doctrine, which increasingly relies on targeted and repeated strikes rather than ground offensives that cost many lives—a smart adaptation in the face of Russia’s numerical superiority in certain segments of the front.

A Drone War That Is Redefining the Rules

The proliferation of such operations illustrates just how central drones have become to the conduct of this war, offering Ukraine a relatively inexpensive means of inflicting significant damage on Russian infrastructure that would otherwise be difficult to access.

We are witnessing a veritable doctrinal revolution unfolding before our eyes: a handful of well-targeted drones can now accomplish what entire squadrons would have struggled to achieve a decade ago. Ukraine has grasped this technological shift well ahead of many other Western militaries.

Cutting Off Russian Supply Lines

The two bridges destroyed or damaged in the Donetsk region—one on the Gruzsky Yalanchik River near Guselnikovo, the other on the Kalmius River near Staromaryevka—were used to transport personnel, weapons, and logistical supplies to Russian troops deployed along this section of the front.

By targeting this transportation infrastructure, Ukraine is employing a classic strategy of logistical warfare: slowing the delivery of Russian reinforcements and equipment rather than directly confronting better-equipped forces on the ground—an approach that has proven effective throughout the conflict.

A cumulative effect that is difficult to quantify immediately

The real impact of destroying these bridges cannot be measured immediately, but it accumulates over the weeks as Russian forces are forced to find alternative routes that are longer and more exposed to Ukrainian strikes, thereby slowing their overall operational capacity.

Destroying a bridge doesn’t make headlines like a burning plane, but it is often more decisive in the medium term. Ukraine is waging a methodical war of attrition that wears down Russian morale and logistics, day after day.

Three depots struck in a single night

The three ammunition depots targeted on the same night—in Makiivka, in the Donetsk region; in Dovzhansk, in the Luhansk region; and in Preobrazhenka, in the Kherson region—represent a coherent strategic choice: to directly reduce Russia’s ability to supply ammunition to its units deployed across multiple segments of the front simultaneously.

This multi-target approach, carried out in a single night of operations, demonstrates advanced operational coordination on the part of Ukrainian forces, which are capable of synchronizing strikes on geographically dispersed targets to maximize the element of surprise and minimize Russia’s ability to respond.

A cumulative cost weighing on Russia’s war effort

Each destroyed depot represents not only an immediate material loss for Russia but also reconstruction and resupply costs that add to an already considerable war bill for the Russian economy, which is already under the cumulative weight of Western sanctions.

These coordinated strikes on three depots in a single night demonstrate that the Ukrainian military has gained operational maturity. This is a far cry from the improvisation seen in the early months of the war in 2022.

The Usual Russian Silence in the Face of Losses

As is often the case after this type of strike, Russian authorities did not immediately confirm the extent of the damage sustained in Gvardeyskoye—a typical lack of transparency that complicates independent verification of the actual effectiveness of each Ukrainian operation. This withholding of information has been a consistent practice by the Kremlin since the start of the invasion.

This lack of transparency contrasts with the relatively detailed briefings provided by the Ukrainian General Staff, which regularly documents its operations with a wealth of detail intended both to galvanize public opinion at home and to demonstrate its credibility to its Western partners.

A Risk of Retaliation That Does Not Deter Kyiv

Every Ukrainian strike in Crimea carries an increased risk of Russian retaliation against Ukrainian civilian targets—a risk assessment that the authorities in Kyiv nevertheless seem to accept, considering that weakening Russian military capabilities justifies this additional level of exposure for the population.

I understand the military logic behind this calculation, but I cannot help but think of the Ukrainian civilians who often bear the brunt of Russian retaliation following this type of operation.

Satellite Intelligence: Kyiv’s Unassuming Ally

While these strikes are carried out by Ukrainian forces, several Western analysts note that satellite intelligence and targeting data provided by certain Western partners likely play a facilitating role in the precision of these operations, without in any way diminishing the operational merit of the Ukrainian forces themselves.

This cooperation, rarely made public for reasons of operational security, illustrates the growing interdependence between Western support and Ukrainian offensive capabilities—a partnership that has deepened considerably over the years of war.

Support That Remains Insufficient on Other Fronts, However

This tactical success in Crimea must not, however, obscure Ukraine’s persistent difficulties on other segments of the front, particularly in the air defense of its major cities, where the shortage of Patriot systems continues to claim civilian lives.

We cannot celebrate the offensive successes in Crimea while ignoring the fact that, in the same month, Kyiv is suffering deadly strikes due to a lack of sufficient interceptors. These two realities coexist and must be viewed together.

From Trench Warfare to Precision Warfare

The increase in these deep-strike operations illustrates a significant shift in the nature of the conflict since 2022, gradually moving from conventional trench warfare to a precision war in which drones, intelligence, and surgical strikes play an increasingly decisive role in the overall balance of power.

This doctrinal transformation does not erase the brutality of the ground fighting that continues elsewhere on the front lines, but it demonstrates that Ukraine has been able to develop asymmetric capabilities capable of partially offsetting its numerical disadvantage against the Russian army.

A Lesson for Future Western Military Doctrines

Several Western military leaderships are closely studying this Ukrainian evolution, viewing it as a real-world laboratory for the future of conventional warfare, where mastery of drones and precision intelligence could permanently redefine traditional military balance of power.

Ukraine is no longer merely a country defending itself; it has become, despite itself, a military laboratory whose lessons will extend far beyond its own borders in the decades to come.

Ankara, the Next Major Diplomatic Milestone

These Ukrainian tactical successes come just days before the NATO summit in Ankara, scheduled for July 7 and 8, 2026, where the Alliance is set to discuss the extent of its future military support for Kyiv. Every demonstration of Ukrainian operational effectiveness, such as the one observed in Crimea, strengthens the case made by Ukrainian leaders advocating for increased support.

These successful strikes also serve as an implicit diplomatic argument: they demonstrate that resources provided by Western allies, when used effectively, produce tangible results on the ground—a message that Kyiv will be sure to highlight to its partners.

Momentum Not to Be Wasted

The challenge for Ukraine now is to transform this tactical momentum into a lasting strategic advantage, which will require consistent Western support rather than sporadic and irregular deliveries that limit the Ukrainian forces’ ability to plan for the long term.

These successes in Crimea should serve as a powerful argument for Ankara: this is what Ukraine can accomplish when it has the right tools. Imagine what it could do with support that fully meets its needs.

Russia’s Regenerative Capacity Remains Real

Despite the effectiveness of these repeated strikes, it should be noted that Russia retains significant industrial and logistical recovery capabilities, enabling it to gradually rebuild damaged infrastructure, even if this process takes time and requires considerable resources.

This reality requires Ukraine to maintain a sustained operational pace rather than treating each successful strike as a permanent victory—a constant state of vigilance that also places a strain on the SBU’s own human and material resources.

Exhaustion: A Risk Shared by Both Sides

This war of attrition, characterized by repeated strikes, carries a risk of exhaustion for both belligerents—a factor that could, in the long run, weigh on Moscow’s strategic calculations as much as those of Kyiv, in a conflict that is now entering its fifth year.

I remain cautious about the ultimate significance of these successes. Russia has demonstrated, on multiple occasions since 2022, a capacity for recovery that it would be unwise to underestimate, even in the face of increasingly precise Ukrainian strikes.

Concrete Evidence of Ukraine’s Determination

Beyond their immediate military value, these strikes send a clear message to the international community: four years after the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine retains a real offensive capability and an unwavering determination to regain the initiative, including in the annexed territory of Crimea.

This message is particularly significant as the Ankara summit approaches, where some Western allies, weary of the conflict’s duration, might be tempted to scale back their financial and military commitment to Kyiv.

A reminder that Crimea remains a legitimate objective

These operations also serve as a symbolic reminder that Crimea remains illegally occupied Ukrainian territory, and that any future peace negotiations cannot ignore this fundamental reality without risking the permanent legitimization of Russia’s aggression in 2014 and 2022.

It cannot be repeated often enough: Crimea is not a secondary issue or a matter to be negotiated on the sidelines. It is the very symbol of Russian aggression, and every successful Ukrainian strike there reminds the entire world of this fundamental truth.

Drone Operators Under Constant Pressure

Behind every announcement of a tactical victory are Ukrainian drone operators working under extreme pressure, juggling the risks of detection, Russian electronic countermeasures, and the need to maintain surgical precision despite the fatigue accumulated over more than four years of war.

This human reality, rarely highlighted in official statements, deserves to be remembered: technology alone is not enough; it requires trained, resilient, and determined operators, whose daily work remains largely invisible to the general public.

A collective sacrifice that extends beyond the military sphere

This precision warfare, as effective as it may be, is part of a much broader collective sacrifice by Ukrainian society, which continues to mobilize its human and economic resources to support a war effort whose outcome remains, at this stage, still uncertain.

We must remember that every hangar destroyed in Crimea is the result of the tireless work of individuals who are risking their lives or their mental health for this cause. These are not statistics; these are Ukrainians.

Crimea Could Once Again Become a Key Issue in Reconstruction

Every piece of Russian infrastructure destroyed in Crimea today implicitly raises the question of the peninsula’s future reconstruction in the event of a return to Ukrainian sovereignty—a scenario that Kyiv continues to advocate as the only acceptable path to lasting peace.

This prospect, though still distant, nevertheless shapes Ukraine’s long-term strategy: to methodically weaken Russia’s military grip on Crimea while preparing, both politically and symbolically, for the peninsula’s future return to Ukraine.

An issue that will weigh heavily on any future negotiations

Regardless of the timeline for upcoming diplomatic negotiations, the status of Crimea will remain one of the most sensitive and symbolically charged issues in any peace agreement—a reality that the SBU’s current strikes constantly remind both sides of.

I firmly believe that Crimea will, ultimately, be the ultimate test of the sincerity of any peace agreement. An agreement that ignores this issue would not deserve to be called a just peace.

A tactical success that does not replace a strategic victory

The successful strike against the Gvardeyskoye airfield, like the other operations in this 40-day campaign, demonstrates Ukraine’s enduring ability to strike the Russian occupier at the very heart of its most heavily protected infrastructure. This tactical success, however valuable it may be, does not, however, replace the need for massive and constant Western support to transform these isolated gains into a lasting strategic advantage.

Looking Toward Ankara and Beyond

As the NATO summit approaches, these strikes serve as a reminder of a truth all too often overlooked: Ukraine is fighting with determination and ingenuity, but it cannot bear the burden of this war alone against an aggressor with vastly superior resources. The responsibility for turning this courage into a lasting victory now rests, more than ever, with Kyiv’s Western allies.

I conclude this column convinced of one thing: every hangar that burns in Crimea is a well-deserved victory, but the real battle will also—if not even more so—be fought in the negotiating rooms of Ankara, where the extent of future Western support will be decided.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist