How Did the Kremlin Respond to the Strike on Its Strategic Bombers?
June 1, 2025, will forever go down in history as a black day for Russian military aviation. As a result of an operation carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine, up to 30 Russian strategic aircraft were destroyed or damaged. According to NATO estimates, Russia lost 34% of its fleet of missile carriers.
The Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group has examined the Kremlin’s information tactics in response to the unprecedented Ukrainian operation. We identified and described the key elements of Moscow’s “crisis management” strategy, aimed both at the domestic Russian audience and the international community.
Lying Low in Kremlin
Immediately after the unprecedented attack, the Kremlin entered a mode of “information silence.” As with previous failures – the sinking of the Moskva cruiser, the “regroupings” of the Russian army and the blow of the Crimean Bridge in 2022, the PMC Wagner mutiny – Putin has refrained from commenting on events that undermine his image as a great power leader.
Within the Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors that is Russian television, the Kremlin resorted to complete silence regarding the catastrophic news from military airfields. As monitored by the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group, broadcasts of federal news (on the “Vesti 1” channel) contained not a single (!) mention of the drone attack carried out as part of operation Spider’s Web. In this way, Russian television – serving as the primary tool for brainwashing the masses – operated in full accordance with Putin’s tactic of silence and concealment.
Instead, Kremlin strategists focused attention on the destruction of two railway bridges in the Bryansk and Kursk regions on the night of June 1st (reports indicate 7 people killed and over a hundred injured due to the train derailment). Russia blamed a “Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group” for the incidents, granting this news story top priority on the information agenda. Notably, during Putin’s first public appearance since Operation Spider’s Web – which took place more than three days after the airfields were struck – he spoke exclusively about the railway bridge explosions.
By highlighting the bridge collapses in the Bryansk and Kursk regions, the Kremlin is attempting to overshadow the topic of strikes on strategic aviation. In this context, the Russian dictator labeled the Ukrainian government a “terrorist organization,” yet made no mention whatsoever of the consequences of Sunday’s drone attacks.
Thus, the Kremlin’s primary response was to suppress any mention of the “incident.” This tactic is aimed at the core Russian audience, which after years of Putinism has been conditioned to avoid political engagement and trust only official narratives, even when they blatantly contradict reality.
Downplaying Losses
The Ministry of Defense was the only federal agency in Russia that conducted an information “crisis response” during the first two days following the strikes on strategic aviation. The military’s first statement came with a delay of several hours. The MOD confirmed attacks on five airfields and acknowledged “damaging of several aircraft units” at two of them – in Murmansk and Irkutsk regions. At the same time, Russian officials were quick to assure the public that the situation was “under control” (“the fires have been extinguished, there are no casualties, and several perpetrators of the terrorist attacks have been detained”).
Following the statement by the Ministry of Defense, governors of the regions where the targeted airfields are located rushed to publish reassuring posts. Notably, the information provided by officials from the Amur and Ivanovo regions appears to have been accurate, as there are currently no confirmed reports of successful strikes in those two areas.
Thus, the response from the Russian military command and regional authorities was aimed at downplaying and concealing the true scale of the losses. This messaging was a reaction to the outcry among the active audience, as it became impossible to hide the devastating consequences of the attack after the Ukrainian side released video evidence. Moreover, the social networks were rapidly flooded with footage from the airfields and nearby roads, recorded by Russian servicemen and civilian witnesses.
Downplaying the aftermath of the Operation Spider’s Web became one of the main points for the MOD-affiliated spokespeople and pro-war channels. For example, Fighterbomber – one of the largest Telegram channels dedicated to Russian military aviation – published on June 4 what was clearly a narrative coordinated with senior leadership. According to the post: “The vast majority of the planes targeted by Ukrainian forces were essentially non-operational… Striking them was as effective as attacking monuments on pedestals.”
Pro-Kremlin video bloggers on social media also joined the campaign to downplay the losses.
In Search of the West’s “Invisible Hand”
In the first hours following the Operation Spider’s Web, the pro-Kremlin segment of Telegram was flooded with absurd conspiracy theories portraying the attack as an act of “aggression” by NATO countries. Among the pseudo-versions circulated by Russian propagandists to imply Western involvement were claims such as: “the drones were launched from Norwegian and Finnish territory,” “Trump knew about the attack planning,” and “the operation was coordinated by MI6 (British intelligence).” This type of reaction is reflexive for Russian propaganda – any Ukrainian military success is immediately downplayed and attributed to “Western enemies.”
“It is impossible to prepare such an operation without the help of the American CIA and British MI6 for many reasons – primarily due to the need for intelligence data and satellite-based coordination. Therefore, the CIA knew about the preparation and was aware of the execution of the attack,” claimed the anonymous Telegram channel Politjoystick.
It is worth noting that on 1 of June, reports circulated suggesting that Ukraine had allegedly informed the United States in advance about the operation. However, it later became clear that Kyiv had not shared any plans related to Spider Web with its partners. The public reactions of U.S. and NATO officials further indicate that the strike on Russia’s strategic aviation came as a surprise to them.
Moreover, the news was met with mixed reactions within U.S. military circles. The Washington Post cited Jason Matheny, CEO of the Rand Corporation, who stated: “Any country that possesses strategic bombers, intercontinental missiles, silo installations, or nuclear submarines is studying this attack and coming to the conclusion that drones hidden in container trucks pose a real threat to its arsenal.”
“Staying Calm Amid Provocations”
Amid attempts by Kremlin-aligned information actors to minimize reputational damage, the radical Z-community unleashed harsh criticism against the “indecisive” government and “ineffective” military command. The core demand of these war zealots was a nuclear strike on Ukraine – or, “at the very least,” the launch of an Oreshnik ballistic missile (a weapon Russia previously fired at the city of Dnipro in November 2024). A telling example of the hysteria that gripped the Russian radical sphere on Sunday reads: “All negotiations with Ukraine must be permanently halted. An attack on the nuclear triad constitutes a legitimate (under Russia’s nuclear doctrine) basis for the use of nuclear weapons against targets on Ukrainian territory” (Telegram channel Pinta Razuma).
The more “humane” channels advocated for the resumption of strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. One post read: “…attention should be given to Operation ‘Great Prometheus.’ Its goal is the complete isolation and blackout of Kyiv as a center of military and financial command. With the current capabilities and resources, this can be achieved without nuclear escalation” (Telegram channel Rybar). Over the past few days, Russian Telegram channels have been actively spreading numerous speculations and so-called “insider reports” about Putin’s inevitable “retaliation.”
In an effort to regain control over the patriotic discourse, the Kremlin deployed one of the most notorious mouthpieces of the Putin regime – Dmitry Medvedev – to “extinguish the fire.” In a post on his Telegram channel, the former president delivered two key messages to the Russian public: the Russian army’s offensive will continue despite Ukraine’s strikes on rear targets; negotiations will proceed even amid ongoing attacks.
Pro-government journalists also contributed a series of publications emphasizing that the loss of aircraft would supposedly have no impact on Russia’s ability to carry out strikes against Ukraine. For instance, journalist and MP Yevgeny Popov sought to reassure the more radical segment of the audience: “There will be no nuclear mushrooms or ‘Oreshniks’ in response, of course. But this summer won’t be peaceful either.”
Thus, the Kremlin attempted to justify the absence of an immediate strike on Ukraine’s “decision-making centers” by claiming that the destruction of “a few” aircraft does not affect the advance of the Russian army, and that derailing diplomatic negotiations is precisely what Kyiv is hoping for.
Kremlin’s Fake “Pearl Harbor”
In international media, recent disaster of Russia’s strategic aviation was compared to a well-known episode from World War II – the 1941 air raid by Imperial Japan on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, headlines referencing a “Russian Pearl Harbor” borrow directly from a Kremlin propaganda narrative.
Indeed, in the initial hours following the Operation Spider’s Web, Russian media actively introduced this historical parallel into public discourse. However, behind it lie manipulative intentions: to portray Russia as a victim and to justify blackmail through the threat of escalation. In the imagination of Russian propagandists, the attack on strategic aviation airfields is meant to serve as a “turning point” in the war – one that would compel Moscow to abandon the formalities of the so-called “special military operation” and resort to decisive actions against Ukraine.
Clearly, the analogy with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is highly inaccurate. Ukraine’s operation was a retaliatory action in response to the ongoing missile terror conducted by the aggressor state since 2022, using strategic aviation as a primary tool. The actions of the crews of the destroyed aircraft resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of Ukrainian civilians and caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure. According to Yurii Ihnat, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, as of June 2025, Russian strategic bombers have launched 2,437 cruise missiles against Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion. Approximately 500 of these missiles reached their targets or were not intercepted.
Therefore, the comparison of the Operation Spider’s Web to a World War II episode on the pages of international media represents an unconscious distortion of reality – one that swaps the roles of aggressor and defender, portraying Russia as the victim and Ukraine as the initiator of conflict.
Hiding Behind a Dead Treaty
A false narrative has also gained traction in the Western press, claiming that the strike on Russia’s strategic aviation allegedly violated international treaties on strategic deterrence. Russia amplified reports suggesting that its strategic bombers were left exposed in the open, supposedly due to compliance with a nuclear arms control agreement with the United States- the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Kremlin propagandists argued that since Ukraine “exploited” the limitations imposed on Russia by the U.S., Moscow now allegedly has the right to conceal its aircraft, which serve as nuclear delivery systems.
In fact, the INF Treaty was terminated back in 2019. Moreover, the Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers were not covered by its provisions, as they carry air-launched cruise missiles with a range of up to 500 km, while the treaty regulated only ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km. By comparison, the United States, France, and China store their strategic aviation assets in fortified shelters.
Against this backdrop, the remarks of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn appear far from coincidental. Flynn, who lost his position in 2016 due to unofficial and unlawful contacts with Russians, accused Kyiv. He claimed that if President Trump had not been informed about the operation, “then it was a geopolitical insult and a troubling signal.” He added: “If Ukraine intends to carry out strikes with strategic consequences without notifying the White House, we are no longer allies struggling with coordination issues – we are blindfolded co-belligerents in a war.”
Flynn then moved on to constructing a conspiracy theory targeting U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been actively advocating for legislation to strengthen anti-Russian sanctions. «Lindsey Graham & Blumenthal visit Zelenskyy, then 24hrs later, Ukraine attacks Russia’s nuclear triad. Coincidence? I hope not. If they knew, we’re in deep trouble. If they didn’t, they’re fools, & Zelenskyy’s playing the USA for fools. Wake up, America!». Unsurprisingly, the statement by Trump’s controversial former advisor was widely circulated by pro-Russian channels.
It is also worth noting that another prominent figure of the MAGA movement – Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist during Trump’s first term – called on the U.S. administration to immediately condemn Ukraine’s operation if Washington had not been informed in advance about the large-scale strike.
On the contrary, according to Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative for Ukraine, the operation showed that Ukraine has no intention of surrendering and that it “can play this game too.” At the same time, Kellogg has stated that Ukraine has raised the level of risk in its war with Russia.
In contrast, the U.S. president opted for a neutral (at least by his own interpretation) approach: to comment as little as possible and wait for a retaliatory move from the Kremlin before articulating a clear position.
Volodymyr Solovian