The audacious Ukrainian covert operation known as Operation Spiderweb — a coordinated drone strike that hit multiple Russian long-range aviation airbases in early June 2025 — reverberated across diplomatic channels and military assessments for weeks afterward. While Moscow publicly vowed to respond “very strongly,” senior Western officials and analysts observed a measured sequence of actions rather than an all-out, immediate strategic counterstrike. U.S. intelligence assessments and allied officials continue to warn that this restraint may be temporary: Russia retains multiple asymmetric options and the capacity for a large-scale, multi-vector retaliation should Kremlin leaders decide to intensify their response.

The following report presents a careful, verified reconstruction of events surrounding the attacks on Russian airbases, the first wave of retaliatory operations that followed, and the strategic calculus behind Moscow’s apparent decision to delay or moderate a full-scale reprisal. It synthesizes on-the-record statements from national officials, open-source imagery and reporting on the damage to Russian aircraft, and assessments by military analysts and Western officials. The piece focuses on verified developments, documented effects on strategic air capabilities, and the realistic options Moscow still retains as it weighs further action.

Operation Spiderweb attracted global attention because it reportedly struck high-value strategic assets at several airfields located deep inside Russian territory, including bases hosting long-range bomber types that are central to Moscow’s ability to project long-range strike power. The strikes were notable not only for their geographic reach but also for the reported precision and target selection, which suggested planning, intelligence and logistical complexity far beyond routine skirmishing on the front lines.

What Happened: A Verified Chronology

The Operation

In the opening days of June 2025, a coordinated drone strike targeted multiple Russian airbases in widely separated regions. The operation used small, pilot-guided and kamikaze drones to attack aircraft on the ground and associated runways and facilities. Open-source imagery and official statements confirmed fires and damage at a number of bases. Ukrainian officials acknowledged responsibility for strikes on strategic aviation assets and characterized the operation as a carefully planned effort to degrade Moscow’s long-range strike capacity.

Immediate Aftermath

Moscow responded with intense rhetoric and public threats. Kremlin officials described the strikes as “terrorist” acts against Russia’s territory and vowed retribution at a time of their choosing. Within days there were clear kinetic repercussions: Russia launched large missile and drone barrages against targets in Ukraine, including a significant overnight assault on Kyiv that produced civilian casualties and widespread infrastructure damage. Still, Western intelligence reported that these actions, while severe, did not amount to the full retaliatory campaign Russia could mount if it chose to escalate further.

Across allied capitals, officials assessed two simultaneous realities: first, Ukraine had demonstrated an ability to strike strategic Russian targets at scale; second, Moscow possessed a range of calibrated retaliation options short of total escalation, which it could employ selectively, depending on political signaling and operational objectives.

Confirmed Impact on Russian Military Assets

Damage to Long-Range Aviation

Independent analysts, imagery sources, and several reporting outlets identified damage and destruction to a number of long-range aircraft at several airfields. The affected types included some of Russia’s strategic bombers — aircraft that carry long-range cruise missiles and other payloads integral to Moscow’s ability to strike deep into neighboring states. Loss or damage of these airframes is strategically significant because they are not rapidly replaceable and require specialized maintenance and logistics.

Operational Consequences

The immediate operational consequences included the temporary reduction in sortie generation from the affected airbases, the dispersal of remaining bomber assets to other, less vulnerable locations, and an increased emphasis on hardened shelters and revetments. Analysts concluded that the strikes forced Russian planners to consider changes in posture, dispersal, and alert cycles for long-range aviation — measures that can degrade the concentration and rapid deployment capacity of those forces.

Why Moscow Appeared to Hold Back a Full-Scale Retaliation

Political and Strategic Calculus

A restrained approach to immediate retaliation can be driven by several overlapping considerations. First, the political optics of a disproportionate strike—particularly one that causes large-scale civilian casualties—could further alienate international actors Moscow might still want to influence. Second, a measured response allows Russian decision-makers to calibrate punishment to achieve targeted deterrence without risking rapid escalation into a broader conflict tripping additional international red lines. Third, operational constraints — including the degradation of assets and logistics revealed by the strikes — may limit Moscow’s ability to mount sustained, simultaneous high-tempo operations across multiple theaters.

Coalition and Diplomatic Pressures

Leaders in Moscow are also aware that their choices will be parsed by global audiences, allies, and adversaries. Rapid, large-scale retaliation risks galvanizing further support for Ukraine among Western partners and could trigger wider diplomatic and economic consequences. By waiting, Russia can gather intelligence, shape the narrative, apply selective force, and monitor Western reactions before committing to an escalatory path.

U.S. and Western Intelligence Assessments

Expectations of Further Action

U.S. and allied officials publicly and privately warned that the strikes on Russian aircraft would likely prompt additional Russian responses beyond the initial missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Intelligence assessments suggested a high probability that Moscow retained the capability to conduct more sophisticated and multi-pronged retaliatory operations, including targeted strikes on Ukrainian military and logistical hubs, cyber operations, and attacks on symbolic infrastructure.

Signals and Indicators Monitored

Western intelligence communities watched a range of indicators for signs of an impending escalation: increases in long-range missile tasking, movements of logistical convoys, activation of reserve units, cyber intrusion patterns, and diplomatic communications. These indicators guided allied warnings and contingency planning aimed at protecting civilians and reinforcing air defenses where possible.

Possible Russian Retaliation Options and Their Implications

Military Options

Precision missile strikes on military targets: Moscow could choose to strike Ukrainian command, control, communications, and intelligence nodes to degrade Kyiv’s operational coordination. Such strikes would aim to reduce Ukraine’s capacity to replicate similar deep-penetration operations and could be staged to minimize civilian casualties while maximizing military effect.
Deep strikes on logistics and supply lines: Targeting rail hubs, ammunition storage, and logistics nodes can slow Ukraine’s ability to sustain frontline operations. These strikes could have sustained operational effects but also heightened humanitarian impact if they disrupted civilian supply chains.
Cyber and electronic warfare operations: An increase in cyberattacks against Ukrainian government and critical infrastructure would allow Moscow to inflict disruption without necessarily engaging in widespread kinetic escalation. This approach offers deniability and utility to shape political outcomes.
Symbolic attacks to project strength: Targeted strikes on high-value symbolic sites, including isolated infrastructure or political centers, could be used to send a strategic signal of punishment while attempting to limit battlefield escalation.
Asymmetric and proxy operations: Moscow might intensify covert actions, sabotage, or attacks via proxy forces to avoid direct attribution and to complicate Kyiv’s and the West’s response calculus.

Each option carries trade-offs. Precision military strikes can degrade Ukrainian capabilities but risk inviting broader Western military support or prompting further international sanctions. Cyber operations can cause significant disruption with lower kinetic risk, yet may still be viewed as a major escalation under contemporary norms.

How Ukraine and Its Partners Responded

Diplomatic Signaling and Reinforcements

In the weeks following the operation, Kyiv accelerated diplomatic outreach to its partners, seeking enhanced air defenses, intelligence sharing, and sanctions enforcement aimed at deterring or limiting Russia’s ability to escalate. NATO and European partners bolstered their deterrent posture, dispatched materiel aid, and publicly warned Moscow against indiscriminate reprisals that would extend civilian suffering.

Operational and Defensive Measures

Ukrainian forces prioritized dispersal, hardened positions for critical assets, and sought to improve early warning and air defense resilience in the face of renewed missile and drone threats. Civil defense measures were also emphasized in cities that had been targeted by recent strikes, with evacuation plans and emergency response systems receiving attention from both local authorities and international aid groups.

International Political Ramifications

Global Reactions and Pressure

The operation and its aftermath reshaped diplomatic conversations. Many Western capitals condemned the attacks on Russian soil while also emphasizing the need to avoid actions that could trigger broader regional conflict. International organizations called for de-escalation and the protection of civilians. At the same time, the strikes prompted renewed debate in allied countries over the scale and pace of support for Ukraine, with some governments arguing for more robust assistance to deter further Russian retaliation.

Impact on Negotiations and Peace Efforts

High-level diplomatic efforts continued even as military actions unfolded. Negotiators faced a more complicated landscape: on one hand, the operation strengthened Kyiv’s bargaining leverage by showcasing its reach; on the other, any subsequent heavy Russian reprisals risked hardening positions and complicating talks. Mediators therefore found themselves balancing the urgency of reducing violence with the political realities of wartime bargaining.

Analysts’ View: Why Timing and Choice Matter for Moscow

Domestic Political Calculations

Within Russia, leaders must weigh domestic political narratives, public opinion, and the morale of security institutions. A measured response can be framed as deliberate statecraft rather than panic, allowing the Kremlin to control the narrative while preserving resources. Conversely, a dramatic show of force can bolster domestic perceptions of strength but risks wider isolation and additional military losses if conducted hastily.

Military Prudence and Logistical Limits

From a military perspective, launching an immediate, massive retaliation requires intact launch platforms, logistics, and secure basing. The strikes on long-range aviation revealed vulnerabilities and forced reconsideration of how best to project power without exposing remaining assets to asymmetric attacks. Dispersal, repair, and reconstitution take time; prudence in the short term may be a necessary step to preserve future options.

Key Verified Points: What Can Be Stated With Confidence

Operation Spiderweb represented a significant strike on Russian long-range aviation bases: Multiple bases were targeted with drones, resulting in confirmed fires and damage to aircraft at several locations. The operation demonstrated operational reach and precise targeting that affected long-range strike assets.
Moscow publicly vowed retaliation: Kremlin officials and senior Russian spokespeople issued strong rhetoric promising a response, and initial large-scale missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities followed in the immediate aftermath.
Western intelligence indicated further retaliation was likely not yet complete: U.S. and allied assessments concluded that while immediate strikes had occurred, a larger, multi-pronged retaliation by Russia remained possible and was being actively monitored.
Political, operational, and logistical considerations shaped Moscow’s response timing: A combination of domestic political calculations, concerns about escalation, and operational constraints influenced the decision to modulate the pace and scope of retaliation.
Diplomatic and military responses from allies prioritized deterrence and civilian protection: Kyiv’s partners moved to strengthen defenses, provide aid, and press for measured responses to prevent broader escalation and protect civilians.

Outlook: Scenarios to Watch

Escalation Scenario

If Moscow opts for a decisive kinetic escalation, analysts expect a coordinated campaign involving long-range missile strikes, intensified drone attacks, and targeted strikes on military nodes in Ukraine. Such a course would increase civilian harm and further destabilize the region, provoking stronger international countermeasures and possibly greater military support for Ukraine.

Calibrated Retaliation Scenario

Alternatively, Russia could continue with calibrated responses — using cyber operations, selective strikes on military infrastructure, and symbolic acts designed to signal punishment without triggering wider conflict. This path aims to degrade Ukrainian capabilities while containing international fallout.

Strategic Pause and Reconstitution

A third possibility is that Moscow prioritizes reconstitution and hardening of its remaining strategic assets, using the interval to shore up defenses and prepare for a future window of action. This approach delays immediate headlines but reshapes longer-term calculations by altering force posture and dispersal practices.

Conclusion

The events surrounding Operation Spiderweb and the subsequent sequence of threats and strikes illustrate the complexity of modern conflict where kinetic actions, cyber tools, and political signaling interlock. Russia’s initial threats were followed by demonstrable attacks on Ukrainian targets, yet intelligence and analysis concluded that a full, sustained retaliation had not been exhausted. Moscow’s apparent restraint in the immediate window reflects a mix of political caution, operational reality and strategic calculation; it does not, however, indicate an absence of capability or intent. Western officials continue to warn that a major, multi-pronged Russian response could come if Kremlin leaders determine that such action serves their objectives. For policymakers, the core task remains to reduce civilian harm, prevent runaway escalation, and sustain diplomatic and military measures that deter further destabilizing actions while seeking pathways to de-escalation where feasible.