COLUMN: Five Targets Struck in a Single Night—Ukraine Steps Up Its Long-Range Warfare Efforts

Damage Confirmed by the Acting Governor

The attack on energy infrastructure in Belgorod, a Russian city located near the Ukrainian border, caused power and water outages in several residential neighborhoods, according to statements by the region’s acting governor. One death has been confirmed by local Russian authorities—a casualty that serves as a reminder that these long-range strikes, while targeting infrastructure, have direct consequences for the civilian populations living near these facilities.

This type of collateral damage, documented by the Russian authorities themselves, is part of the broader reality of a war in which energy infrastructure and residential areas are often intertwined, making it virtually impossible to carry out a strike that is entirely risk-free for civilians living near the targeted military or logistical sites.

An escalation that brings the war closer to recognized Russian territory

This strike on Belgorod is the latest in a series of Ukrainian attacks targeting locations within Russia’s internationally recognized borders—a significant shift from the early years of the conflict, when most Ukrainian strikes were concentrated on occupied Ukrainian territory.

This shift reflects both Ukraine’s improved technological capabilities in drones and long-range missiles, and a clear political will to make the Russian population directly feel the consequences of the war launched by their own government.

I never rejoice at the loss of human life, whether Russian or Ukrainian. But let’s be clear: the Russian population, which has passively supported this war for four years, is finally beginning to feel its true cost firsthand.

Another facility hit in the occupied south

The facility in Berdiansk, a port city in southern Ukraine under Russian occupation, was also struck during the same night of July 1–2, completing the trio of targets simultaneously struck by Ukrainian forces. This city, strategically important for Russian access to the Sea of Azov, is home to several logistical and military facilities that have been regularly targeted by Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the occupation.

The repeated strikes on this site underscore its enduring strategic value to Russian forces, despite the cumulative damage inflicted over the months by Ukrainian long-range strike campaigns.

A Port That Remains Under Constant Ukrainian Surveillance

The port of Berdiansk remains a priority target for Ukrainian intelligence services, which closely monitor the movement of Russian military equipment transiting through this port infrastructure—which is essential for resupplying the occupying forces in the region.

This constant surveillance allows Ukrainian forces to adjust the timing of their strikes based on observed Russian logistical movements, thereby maximizing the operational impact of each operation carried out against this site.

Berdiansk is a recurring target of Ukrainian strikes, and this is no coincidence. A port that remains strategic after more than four years of war deserves constant attention, and Ukraine seems to have understood this perfectly.

A campaign far broader than the three main targets

Beyond the three main targets of Melitopol, Belgorod, and Berdiansk, the Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces claimed to have struck thirteen additional targets in occupied territory during the same period—a scale of operations that far exceeds the media coverage typically given to the most high-profile Ukrainian strikes.

This scale suggests that Ukraine’s operational capacity is far greater than what Western headlines—often focused on the most spectacular strikes—lead the general public, who are following the conflict from afar, to believe.

The Role of Commander Robert Brovdi, Known as Madyar

These operations are conducted under the command of Robert Brovdi, known by his nom de guerre Madyar, a figure who has become central to the development of Ukraine’s drone warfare capabilities over the past several years. His leadership of the Unmanned Systems Forces illustrates the rapid professionalization of this relatively new branch of the Ukrainian military, which is now capable of conducting large-scale campaigns on multiple fronts simultaneously.

This institutional structuring of Ukraine’s drone forces, under a dedicated and clearly identified command, marks a significant evolution from the early years of the conflict, when such operations were often the result of more scattered initiatives among different units.

Thirteen additional targets in a single operation, under a structured command: this is proof that Ukraine’s drone warfare is no longer a matter of improvisation, but a mature and systematic military doctrine.

A Geographical Reach That Is Constantly Expanding

Ukraine’s ability to simultaneously strike targets as geographically dispersed as Melitopol, Belgorod, and Berdiansk demonstrates a continuous improvement in its operational reach since the start of the war, driven by the accelerated development of its domestic drone and long-range missile industries.

This expanded geographic reach significantly complicates the task of Russian air defenses, which are forced to protect an ever-larger territory against an increasingly diverse range of threats, from low-cost drones to more sophisticated systems.

Deliberate Overwhelming of Russian Defenses

Striking multiple targets simultaneously, rather than sequentially, is a deliberate tactic to saturate Russian air defense systems, which must divide their limited resources among multiple impact points instead of focusing their response on a single threat at a time.

This tactical approach, increasingly common in recent Ukrainian operations, demonstrates growing operational sophistication that could continue to intensify as Ukraine’s defense industry expands.

Striking five targets simultaneously is no tactical coincidence. It is a deliberate saturation strategy that shows Ukraine is now approaching its drone warfare on an industrial scale, rather than through isolated operations.

Selective Acknowledgment of Damage

Russian authorities have acknowledged some damage in Belgorod—notably through statements by the acting governor regarding power and water outages—while remaining more tight-lipped about the exact extent of the damage sustained in Melitopol and Berdiansk, two occupied territories where information control remains more strictly regulated by the Russian occupation administration.

This asymmetry in communication between recognized Russian territory and the occupied territories illustrates a difference in media coverage that serves the Kremlin’s propaganda interests, as it seeks to downplay the extent of losses suffered in the areas it claims to have incorporated into the Russian Federation.

No Immediate Military Escalation Announced

Despite the severity of these strikes, Moscow has not announced any immediate large-scale military escalation in direct response to last night’s coordinated strikes, which could suggest either a desire not to further dramatize the incident or a response already in the works that had not yet been made public at the time of this column’s writing.

This lack of an immediate reaction, however, should not be interpreted as a sign of lasting weakness: the history of this conflict shows that Russian responses to the most significant Ukrainian strikes sometimes come several days or weeks later.

Russia’s silence after a night like this does not reassure me. I have seen this kind of calm all too often precede a delayed but violent retaliation. We must remain fully vigilant in the days ahead.

A gradual escalation documented over the past several months

This night of coordinated strikes is not an isolated event, but rather part of a gradual escalation of the long-range war waged by Ukraine over the past several months, as its defense industrial base expands and its Western allies continue to provide significant technological and financial support.

This gradual escalation illustrates a profound shift in the balance of power in this conflict, in which Ukraine—initially on the defensive against the 2022 invasion—has gradually developed a long-range offensive capability that would have seemed unlikely in the early months of the war.

A Declining Reliance on Western Weapons

A significant portion of these long-range strike capabilities now comes from Ukraine’s domestic drone production, gradually reducing Kyiv’s dependence on Western arms deliveries for this specific type of operation, even though Western support remains indispensable for other critical aspects of Ukraine’s war effort.

This industrial self-sufficiency is one of the most significant developments of this war, gradually transforming Ukraine into a player capable of projecting long-range strike power using assets produced on its own soil.

Seeing Ukraine develop its own long-range strike capability, independent of Western deliveries that are sometimes slow or subject to political constraints, is perhaps the most important strategic development of this war over the past two years.

Undermining Domestic Support for the War in Russia

By increasing the number of high-profile strikes on recognized Russian territory, such as the one on Belgorod, Ukraine is likely seeking to undermine domestic support among the Russian population for continuing the war, by making tangible to that population the consequences that the Kremlin has long sought to keep at a distance from the daily lives of ordinary Russian citizens.

This strategy of internal psychological pressure complements the more directly military objectives of logistical disruption targeted by the strikes on Melitopol and Berdiansk, creating dual-pronged pressure on the Kremlin.

Demonstrating a Credible Deterrent Capability

This campaign of strikes also aims to demonstrate—both to Moscow and to Ukraine’s Western allies—that Kyiv retains a credible offensive capability despite more than four years of attrition warfare, an important message at a time when some Western debates are questioning the sustainability of long-term military support.

This demonstration of capability could also influence future diplomatic negotiations by strengthening Ukraine’s position vis-à-vis a Russia that might be tempted to underestimate its adversary’s determination and military capabilities.

Every successful strike on Russian territory is also a message to hesitant Western capitals: Ukraine remains capable of fighting and striking back, and it deserves continued support, not a gradual withdrawal of aid.

Partial transparency on both sides

As with most airstrikes in this conflict, neither Ukraine nor Russia provides full transparency regarding the exact extent of the damage caused by these operations, as each side has an interest in tailoring its messaging to its own strategic and propaganda objectives.

This analysis is based on information confirmed by multiple sources, including the statement by the acting governor of Belgorod regarding the fatalities and service disruptions, while acknowledging the limitations of independent verification regarding the exact extent of the damage in Melitopol and Berdiansk.

A Necessary Methodological Caution Over Time

This caution in no way calls into question the overall reality of this campaign of coordinated strikes, but it calls for modesty regarding the most specific details, particularly in the occupied territories where access to independent information remains structurally more difficult than in recognized Russian territory.

This methodological rigor remains, in my view, the only responsible approach in the face of a conflict where disinformation circulates abundantly on both sides of the front line.

I always prefer to acknowledge the limits of what I can verify rather than give in to the temptation of a more sensational but less rigorous narrative. The credibility of this column depends directly on it.

Civilians Caught in the Crossfire in Border Areas

Behind the statistics on targets struck and logistical damage lie Russian civilians in Belgorod who are now living without electricity or running water in several neighborhoods, and Ukrainian civilians under occupation in Melitopol and Berdiansk who are also suffering the consequences of strikes carried out in the name of their own eventual liberation.

This human reality, often overshadowed by the coldness of military assessments, serves as a reminder that each side in this war imposes a real cost on civilian populations who did not choose this conflict—even when the strikes target legitimate military or logistical objectives.

A moral tension that war never simply resolves

This tension between military necessity and the human cost to civilians has no simple resolution in this conflict, and it should never be ignored in the name of tactical effectiveness alone, even when the targets are legitimately military or logistical under international humanitarian law.

It is this tension, more than any statistical tally, that should remain at the center of any serious reflection on the conduct of this war, by either side.

I support Ukraine’s right to strike legitimate military and logistical targets on the territory of its aggressor. But I never forget that behind every power outage in Belgorod, there are ordinary people suffering through a war they did not choose.

A demonstration of capability that reassures certain partners

This campaign of coordinated strikes is being closely monitored by Ukraine’s Western allies, for whom it serves as a tangible demonstration of the effectiveness of the military and technological support provided since the start of the conflict—a valuable argument in internal political debates over the continuation of that support.

This demonstration of capability could strengthen the case for continuing—or even intensifying—Western support for Ukraine, at a time when certain segments of Western public opinion are expressing weariness with the length of the conflict.

Vigilance Regarding the Risk of Uncontrolled Escalation

Conversely, some Western partners remain wary of the risk of uncontrolled escalation posed by strikes directly targeting recognized Russian territory—a sensitive issue on which Western positions are not always perfectly aligned among Ukraine’s various allied capitals.

This divergence in assessment, though rarely made explicit in public, constitutes one of the most delicate diplomatic balancing acts that Western allies must manage in their ongoing support for Ukraine’s war effort.

I understand the caution of some Western allies in the face of the risk of escalation. But I also believe that Ukraine has earned, through four years of resistance, the right to strike its aggressor where it really hurts.

This coordinated pressure is likely to continue

There is no indication that Ukraine will slow the pace of its coordinated strike campaigns in the coming weeks; quite the contrary: the repetition of this type of operation over the past several months suggests a sustained doctrine rather than an isolated, one-off action tied to a specific context.

This continuity could be accompanied by a further diversification of targets, as Ukraine’s defense industry continues to develop new drone systems and long-range missiles capable of reaching ever-deeper areas of Russian territory.

A Russian retaliation that must be closely monitored

The possibility of a delayed Russian retaliation—potentially more violent than the immediate response observed following last night’s strikes—remains a serious possibility that Western and Ukrainian observers will need to monitor closely in the days and weeks following this episode.

This uncertainty regarding Russia’s response illustrates, once again, the unpredictable nature of the escalation in this conflict, where each side adjusts its actions based on strategic calculations that are never entirely transparent to outside observers.

I will be keeping a close eye on the coming days to see whether Moscow chooses a delayed retaliation or silently absorbs this blow. The history of this war shows that both scenarios remain equally plausible.

A Never-Ending Race for Innovation

This night of coordinated strikes is part of an ongoing technological race between Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and Russia’s air defenses, in which every advance by one side forces the other to adapt quickly so as not to lose the operational advantage gained at the cost of heavy industrial and human investment.

With this multi-target operation, Ukraine has demonstrated that it remains capable of innovating faster than its adversary can adapt—a decisive factor in a war of attrition where technological superiority partially compensates for numerical inferiority vis-à-vis Russia.

An advantage that must never be taken for granted

This technological advantage remains, however, fragile and reversible, as Russia also possesses considerable industrial resources to develop its own air defense systems and strike capabilities in response to Ukraine’s most effective operations.

It is precisely this fragility of the advantage gained that explains why Ukraine and its Western allies constantly emphasize the need to maintain—or even accelerate—the pace of technology deliveries and support for Ukraine’s domestic defense industry in the coming months.

This technological war has no finish line. Every night of successful strikes is just one chapter in a race that will continue as long as Russia refuses to end its aggression against Ukraine.

What this coordinated campaign clearly demonstrates

Last night’s coordinated strikes on Melitopol, Belgorod, and Berdiansk—supplemented by thirteen additional targets claimed by the Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces—confirm a fundamental trend that has been documented for several months: Ukraine’s long-range offensive capability continues to grow, despite more than four years of attrition warfare against a militarily far superior adversary.

This trend deserves close attention from all observers of this conflict, as it could significantly influence the strategic balance in the coming months, both on the ground and in any future diplomatic negotiations.

What to Watch for in the Coming Days

Russia’s response—whether immediate or delayed—as well as whether Ukraine continues this pace of coordinated strikes, will be the most reliable indicators for assessing how this dynamic evolves in the coming weeks.

What the night of July 1–2 demonstrated, at the very least, is that Ukraine retains a capacity for strategic initiative that many, at the start of this war, would never have anticipated for a country facing an invasion of this magnitude.

I will continue to document each of these nights, target by target, source by source, for as long as this war lasts. It is the only way to honestly resist the media fatigue that threatens to trivialize what Ukraine is accomplishing each week.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist