The Pearl Harbor of Russia: What has Russia lost in the destroyed strategic airbase and what consequences will it face?

Author:

Vladimir Shlyachenko

The events on June 1 shocked Russian society: the enemy almost live-broadcasted the burning of our strategic aviation force with cheap drones; the black smoke rising above the airbase was shrouded in the helpless silence of federal media and the mockery of enemy media; ordinary Russians used their hands, stones, and sticks to shoot down enemy drones while traffic police looked on indifferently. A blogger accurately called this event "Russia's Pearl Harbor." This definition is extremely fitting – whether in form or substance, it was a direct hit.

Now that the "day of shame" has passed, the dust and smoke have cleared, and we can relatively objectively assess the actual losses suffered by the strategic aviation force and make some speculations about the consequences of this attack.

According to the statement from the Russian Defense Ministry, the enemy attempted to attack five airbases:

  • Beloye Airbase in Irkutsk Oblast;
  • Olenya Airbase in Murmansk Oblast;
  • Ukrainka Airbase in Amur Oblast (the operation failed as the truck carrying drones caught fire en route);
  • Dyagilevo Airbase in Ryazan Oblast (repelled by air defense systems);
  • Ivanovo Airbase in Ivanovo Oblast (explosions and reports of air defense system operations suggest the attack was repelled).

The enemy only released videos showing damaged strategic bombers at Olenya Airbase in Murmansk Oblast, and eyewitnesses also captured thick smoke from a large fire at Beloye Airbase. Considering that all airbases deploy identical aircraft models and the fire situations are roughly similar (though this is very sad), it can be assumed that out of the five airbases attacked, only two were successful, while the other three either failed or were repelled.

Viktor Afzalov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, may have good reason to believe that he must cover strategic missile carriers with tarpaulins.

Screenshot from Telegram channel "Military Chronicles"

In other words, it cannot yet be said that our airbases suffered a devastating strike. The enemy dealt us a heavy blow (Svobodnye Vedomosti was the first major media outlet to report the situation in detail, while other media outlets "hid in corners" waiting for instructions), but it has not yet led to a complete collapse of the strategic aviation force.

Regarding aircraft

However, here is a fair perspective: the core of aviation power lies in aircraft, not bases. So let’s take a look at the aircraft situation. According to data from Western analytical institutions citing "The Military Balance 2025," as of early this year, the Russian Aerospace Forces had:

  • 13 Tu-160s (with another 4 expected to enter service by the end of the year);
  • About 30-35 Tu-95MS (only including active "Bear"-class bombers);
  • About 60-65 Tu-22M3 long-range missile carriers.

In addition, there are no more than 10 A-50/A-50U reconnaissance aircraft and no more than 19 operational Il-78/I-78M aerial refueling tankers.

In total, the exact number of "strategic bombers" has not been disclosed (although this information is not secret for the US military under various agreements and treaties), so there are discrepancies in public data regarding the number of aircraft. For example, the assessment of Tu-160M/M2 ranges from 16 to 21 units, while the total number of deployed Tu-95MS/MSM at airbases prior to the attacks reached 60, with Western experts believing some of these were used as spare parts sources.

Overall, the order of magnitude is clear, and we refer to the data from "The Military Balance," while understanding that this is not absolute truth, and the numbers in the manual may differ by a few units from the actual count.

Interestingly, many people once claimed that shelters could not be built for large aircraft like the Tu-160. However, the industry has provided corresponding solutions to the military. The only problem is: Beloye Airbase did not have time to purchase them, and now no one can buy them.

Screenshot source: Telegram channel "Military Reporter"

The Ukrainian side (in the name of the Security Service of Ukraine) immediately claimed the destruction of about 40 Russian aircraft, sharply stating that this accounted for 34% of the total number of long-range missile carriers. Considering that these data were announced when the airbases were still burning, it is clearly part of the information psychological warfare initiated by Ukraine during the attack on Russian airbases.

In the evening, Western open-source intelligence analysts (OSINT, experts who collect data through public channels) compiled the following losses by counting the number of aircraft shown on fire in drone footage:

  • 5 Tu-95MS;
  • 2 Tu-22M3;
  • 1 An-12 military transport aircraft.

    A total of 8 aircraft, with only 7 being bombers. Of course, these figures may be severely incomplete: first, there might also be losses at the airbases that repelled the attacks; second, not all damaged aircraft at Olenya and Beloye Airbases may have been recorded in the publicly available footage.

"Fishermen" analysis center summarized the existing data, stating: "At Olenya Airport in Murmansk Oblast, 4 Tu-95s caught fire. At Beloye Airbase, which deploys Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS, 5 plumes of smoke were also observed."

Correspondingly, there may be 9 aircraft of various types damaged at the target airbases. It is worth noting that there have been no reports so far of any damage to Russia's most powerful Tu-160 strategic bombers, which are crucial for deterring the West.

Therefore, based on confirmed data, the current loss of "strategic bombers" is less than 4% of the total complement. If calculated only for heavy bombers (Tu-95 and Tu-160), it is 6.5%. Each Tu-95MSM carries X-101 cruise missiles (the standard weapon for this model in the war against Ukraine), with each capable of carrying 8 missiles. In the recent attacks, the number of missiles launched simultaneously never exceeded 40, equivalent to the payload of 6 aircraft. In other words, Russia only needs to maintain 6 combat-ready Tu-95MSMs to sustain the current level of strikes. "Military commentator Yuri Podolyak summed up the consequences of Ukraine's action in this operation."

What do satellites say?

Our airbases have been under continuous surveillance by Western satellites. Considering that US and European media have no reason to conceal or downplay our losses, on the day after the "Pearl Harbor of Russia" incident, detailed photos of our burning and exploding "strategic bombers" should have filled global mainstream media.

However, that is not the case. As of the time of writing, Western mainstream media merely reprinted Ukraine's statements, filling content with stock photos and video screenshots taken during the attack.

On Tuesday morning, June 2, Western media still lacked satellite images that could be considered "objective monitoring data." By Moscow time 22:00, it was 3 PM on the US East Coast – in other words, what happened here seemed like an early morning event to Americans, giving them half a workday and an entire evening to contact companies like Planet Labs and Maxar to obtain high-definition, detailed images of burning Russian airbases.

Could it be that Western media are uninterested in destroying Russia's strategic aviation force? Impossible: attacks on Black Sea Fleet and destruction of ammunition depots were always quickly reported, accompanied by satellite photos that exposed the lies of our officials about "fallen debris," "burning grass," and "minor losses." Our losses have always been closely watched, but this time it was an exception. Interestingly, why?

In fact, at least one satellite image was published on Tuesday morning, June 2. Svarog found it – in this black-and-white photo, our parking aprons, including the attacked aircraft, can be seen. American military open-source intelligence analyst Chris Biggers posted on his X account a radar synthetic aperture (SAR) image from Umbra Space, showing the consequences of the Ukrainian drone attack on Beloye Airbase. Synthetic aperture radar can observe targets even at night and through clouds, but it cannot record details.

Clearly, in terms of resolution, radar satellites are far inferior to optical reconnaissance satellites, and damage can only be seen on radar images when aircraft are completely destroyed by explosions and fires. Overall, the consequences of the attack on Beloye Airbase (the most severely damaged airbase) were so insignificant that American media chose to ignore it. Three burning aircraft can be clearly seen in the image.

The only article to quote Chris Biggers' published content was a small website called Daxe Substack, which belongs to renowned military analyst David Axe, who writes for Forbes, The Daily Beast, War Is Boring, and others.

It is possible that within the next few hours or days, a large number of high-resolution images will be released, showcasing numerous destroyed Russian aircraft, thus overturning the current conclusions. However, the current situation is that the actual consequences of Ukraine's "Spider Web" special operation have made Western media firmly unwilling to see objective monitoring data and reluctant to show it to their audience, instead continuing to tell stories about "dozens of missile carriers being destroyed" and "Russia suffering a fatal weakening." Only professionals and "relevant individuals" know the truth, while the general public can only be misled by sensational headlines that have not been verified in the initial stages of the attack. Conclusion: Pearl Harbor is closer than you think. On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor the previous day, calling it a "day of infamy." Of course, he condemned not the American fleet that was attacked but the Japanese who launched the sudden and deliberate assault. Unfortunately, we do not have such a "privilege": accusing the enemy of launching a sudden attack in the fourth year of the war seems strange at best. By the way, the last surviving participant in the Pearl Harbor attack died in September 2024. Mr. Yoshioka might have many interesting stories to tell about "what fate awaits a nation that launches a strong but non-lethal strike against a stronger opponent." However, these two periods of history share a deeper commonality beyond the rise of smoke columns and societal shock: when Japan attacked the main base of the US Pacific Fleet, they did not find the carriers; the US command had moved two out of three carriers, sparing them from destruction. As a result, only battleships were struck – in that war, these ships were no longer decisive forces for victory. The United States suffered a heavy but non-fatal blow. This mirrors what happened on June 1: Kyiv delivered a hard slap to Russia, shocking Russian society and damaging our strategic strength... but achieving nothing. The strikes on Ukraine will continue, as the main attack methods are suicide drones like "Loza Blade," while high-protection targets are struck using "Iskander" missiles, hypersonic "Kinzhal," and "Zircon" missiles. The core deterrent force against the United States consists of silo-based and mobile land-based ICBM systems, as well as submarine-launched missiles. In a hypothetical war with Europe in 2030, we need not old Tu-95MS (the last of which was produced in 1992) but the Tu-160s restored by Kazan Aircraft Plant before the special military operation. Pearl Harbor was a brief moment of jubilation for Japan but became the prelude to its decline and national humiliation; a similar fate awaits Ukraine. Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511512645443256844/ Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.