Moscow's strategy was to attack Ukraine's energy infrastructure this winter to bend the Ukrainian population, attacking objectives far behind the front in Ukraine. But Russia and the territories of Kyiv it controls are also affected by attacks, sometimes hundreds of kilometers from the front. Derailing trains, exploding ammunition depots, burning fuel tank or destroyed bridges: incidents have been very regular since the start of the war, but never claimed by kyiv.
Thibault Fouillet is in charge of research on military and operational issues at the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS). He notes that a distinction must be made between attacks "with an operational purpose", which hit targets with a link to military action, and those aimed at a more symbolic objective, such as the recent drone attack on the Kremlin, most of which analysts fear that it is only a hoax orchestrated by Moscow.
⚡️Ukrainian sources claim that another fuel depot is on fire in Sevastopol, Crimea. pic.twitter.com/fCjDB1qMxL
Le Point: What good are those strikes far behind the lines, for the Ukrainians?
Thibault Fouillet: A long campaign of deep strikes aims to destroy materiel depots and troop concentrations, or at least threaten them. During the summer offensive on Kharkiv, it had caused tension on the logistical lines, a reduction in the ability for the Russians to mobilize reinforcements and assets, and therefore, mechanically, it had weakened their defenses and favored the counteroffensive. Such an operation takes months to prepare, because the overall reduction of the enemy's defensive capability must be achieved in order to achieve an advance.
But we must not reveal the objective of the offensive that we are preparing. It is therefore very difficult to determine in advance whether such targeting of a logistics area or the rear was intended to correspond to a particular objective. Yes it can be, like it can be completely uncorrelated. It's all the more difficult since there are strikes in depth, there are almost daily since the acquisition of Western vectors by the Ukrainians. And there is a correlation between more and more frequent strikes in depth and the discourse displayed on the imminence of the counter-offensive. But that cannot presume the line of effort as it will ultimately be.
A bomb has derailed a cargo train transporting fuel for the Russian Army near Bryansk, Russia. It remains to be seen whether done by some Russian resistance group or Ukrainian special forces working in Russia. The train fought fire after derailing.pic.twitter.com/QKpkrZm5WC
Why do Ukrainians not recognize any sabotage or strikes on Russian soil?
Already, we are not immune to it being an internal Russian instrumentalization or other actors that we have not considered. In the absence of acknowledgment or formal proof, in theory, no one knows what caused this. Sometimes you have very strong indications; sometimes we don't have them at all. One can have concordant beams, but certainty does not exist. You have an interest, as a Ukrainian, in maintaining this vagueness so as not to fall into a rhetoric of escalation, of threats to vital interests. Acknowledged strikes on Russian territory could result in a full declaration of war, and Russian territory is theoretically a nuclear sanctuary.
Also, this kind of action still has fairly limited operational repercussions on the front. So there is no point in risking escalation for unimportant military objectives. In the Russian case, on the other hand, the strikes on energy structures had a very different purpose. It was a strategy that sought to achieve a moral effect on the population. It is not a one-off epiphenomenon, it is a policy of massive strikes, with a specific objective. And the special operation authorizes the Russians, from their point of view, to use all available means to strike Ukraine. Hitting the depth does not have the same meaning whether one is Ukrainian or Russian.
What analysis can be made of the strike that hit the Kremlin this week?
You really have to decorrelate those attempts that have a real operational purpose (hinder logistics to the front) and more symbolic strikes. We must take all possible tweezers, for example, on recent events in Moscow or even all those taking place on Russian territory, where there is no operational advantage to strike. There would be a possibly political interest: to demonstrate the ability to touch in depth. But it is not at all the Ukrainian wish which denies each time being at the origin of the strikes.
[ ���� RUSSIA | ���� UKRAINE ] ��Video of the drone attack on the Kremlin. https://t.co/bNhr7IgQc7 pic.twitter.com/s5r96MpW8K
President Zelensky's denial of drones in Moscow is to put it bluntly: "We are not waging war in Russia, we are only defending our territory in accordance with international law." "We are not at all in the same frame of reference. There is the desire to avoid escalation on the Ukrainian side.
