A look back at Operation Pearl Harbor2

The Ukrainian attack by Russian bombers on June 1 has given a new direction to this civil war between two fraternal peoples, but perhaps not in the way we might think. Explanations and analysis by Robert Harneis.

By Robert Harneis

Reports on the sensational attack by Ukraine on Russian military airfields has followed an all too familiar pattern for such events in the current war.
First the dramatic pro Ukrainian headlines, then gradual deflation…
Some typical headlines:

• June 1, 2025, it’s Pearl Harbor: “Russian bombers are burning en masse”. In a historic drone attack, Ukraine decimates over 40 Russian strategic bombers on their home bases, including in the Arctic and in Siberia.
• “Greatest Intel operation in history.”
• Ukrainian drones reached Siberia.
• 34% of strategic aircraft were hit.
•  Russian losses estimated at approximately $7 billion.

41, then 20, then 10 aircraft destroyed

It very soon became clear that this Pearl Harbor was quite a small one.
By 5 June the Kiev Independent, not known for its pro-Moscow views, reported that ‘Two U.S. officials told Reuters on June 4 that Ukraine struck as many as 20 Russian military aircraft during Operation Spiderweb, destroying around 10 of them — a claim that stands in contrast with the SBU’s estimates.’
On top of that the Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed on June 5 that Russian bombers damaged during Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb will be “restored,” adding that the planes were not completely destroyed in the attack.
“The equipment in question, as was also stated by representatives of the Ministry of Defense, was not destroyed but damaged. It will be restored,” Ryabkov told Russian-state media outlet TASS.’
So we go from 40 to maybe 20 to maybe 10 damaged but not destroyed…

Maybe…

So maybe the Russian ministry of Defense is minimizing the damage a bit and some aircraft were totally destroyed. Note that contrary to popular belief the Russian Ministry of Defense does not usually lie. Why not? Because just like the Western democracies during World War 2 they want to keep their reputation for truthfulness, so that when they have something important to say they are believed by those that matter.
Who matters to the Russian government? Not Western public opinion, mostly a lost cause for them with the media in its present state. It is first and foremost their own people, whose support is essential to the war effort. Second the ‘Global South’, the BRICS, and the world’s diplomats. They are crucial to Russia’s wider diplomatic effort across the world to convince those not in the pocket of the United States, that Russia is acting reasonably in Ukraine, contrary to Western propaganda. This is important in the sanctions war.
So it is probably true when the Russians say that not much damage was done, as confirmed by statements from US officials.

But why did Russia keep those bombers unprotected?

Ecstatic western sources seemed untroubled by the obvious question – why were the bombers left out in the open without protection? The Russian air force had no trouble building concrete shelters for their planes based in Syria. Difficult to believe that Russia has run out of concrete or never thought the Ukrainians might attack their nuclear bombers.
The easy answer is that under the 2010 New Start Treaty that runs out on 6 February 2026 between the Russians and the United States –they have to leave their nuclear bombers out in the open so the US satellites can see them under a transparency clause. If the US and Russia can see each other’s nuclear bombers then there is less danger of a surprise attack.
But then it seems the New Start Treaty of 2010 doesn’t actually say that the Russians have to leave their planes outside but it implies that they should, In the spirit of the agreement. However bearing in mind the Treaty has been suspended and Ukraine has constantly struck within Russia with drones, it Is all a little surprising.
Maybe the Russians wanted an outrageous attack on their nuclear bombers so that their reaction would seem moderate compared with what they could have done? Certainly in material terms it has done them little harm.
But yes the Russians did look silly and there was a cost domestically, in the short run at any rate. Russian public opinion is not at all happy, they want Ukrainian blood and let us be honest, NATO blood. They know, or think they know, that this is not a war between Russia and Ukraine but an existential fight with NATO and the United States. Pearl Harbor 2 they believe was planned organized and maybe even executed by NATO with US intelligence assistance.

A civil war

The main problem with this, for the Russian military, is that they view Ukrainians as brother Slavs and not without reason. It is only thanks to the Soviet Communists that Ukraine ever had a separate existence and was split off from old Russia. It is said that one in five Russian families have relatives in Ukraine. Tens of thousands of former Ukrainian citizens are fighting on the Russian side. This war is also a civil war.
The current Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian army has a brother who was a Colonel in Russia. Zelensky for all his talk is a Russophone. His grand father fought in the Red Army against the Germans. The Kiev cabinet, we recently learned from an insider, former Presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovytch, actually conducts its meetings in Russian, despite persecuting their own population for speaking the language. Only in Galicia in the West, annexed by Stalin ( a Georgian) in 1945 is there a totally alien population. It is that Galician population that dominates the Ukrainian war government. The rest of the population voted for peace at the last election (70%) and would probably end the war tomorrow if they could. Note there are more Ukrainian refugees in Russia that anywhere else, seven or more million.

Ukrainians killed by their own missiles

So even if they wanted to bomb their way to victory, Moscow inevitably treads as carefully as it can. The figures for civilian casualties in the war bare this out. According to the UN agency responsible, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), from February 2022 to the end of April 2025, 13816 civilians have been killed with 31867 injured. These are terrible figures but they are as nothing compared to recorded rates of 74% and 46% civilian casualties in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention Iraq.
Naturally Kiev and the Western media do everything they can to magnify civilian losses, rarely mentioning that many of them come from Ukrainian air defense missiles falling on the civilian population. Another cause of civilian deaths is the Ukrainian tactic of hiding weapons and missiles in residential areas.
Recklessly slaughtering civilians, would hurt fellow Slavs and create the wrong impression with the Global South and BRICS allies – Brazil, India, China and South Africa and beyond.
Even so the Russians look weak because they cannot respond the easy way and bomb their way to victory.
It is clear that the Ukrainians hoped the Russians would break off peace negotiations. They didn’t. Instead they agreed to exchange dead soldiers, as well as young and injured prisoners but made no other concessions.

The example of Israel

Where Russia benefits is that likely NATO collusion, despite Trump’s peace rhetoric, has made harsher missile attacks politically easier. The weeks long embargo on attacking Ukrainian energy sources will likely now end. No doubt there is a list of targets where NATO or mercenary ‘advisers’ operate that will now be hit much harder.
There was never any chance that Putin would order nuclear retaliation as he could have done theoretically thus bringing NATO directly into the war. The last thing Russia wants. Bu now the Russians will increase the areas that they require as ‘buffer zones’ starting with the Sumy Oblast – conveniently close to Kiev. They will be following a precedent set by US ally Israel in Syria, making it even harder for Trump to criticize them.
Most important and unnoticed in the West – Putin has quietly changed Russia’s war stance. For the first time he is talking about the Special Military Operation in Ukraine as an ‘anti-terrorist operation’. It should never be forgotten Putin did his studies, as a young man, as a lawyer and it affects his way of thinking and acting. The change of status of the operation has widespread effects on the Russian government’s legal powers.
This change of emphasis was made easier for Putin and his government because ‘Pearl Harbor 2’ hid a brazen attack on a civilian train near Bryansk in which seven died and many more were injured.

A terrorist war

The bottom line is that the Ukrainians cannot stop the steady Russian attack on the battlefield but they can carry out terror attacks and have admitted it. Hence Putin’s reaction – ‘You wanted a terror war, now you have got it.’
Note that the real Pearl Harbor was a much more serious affair – 2402 dead military, 1282 wounded and nine battleships seriously damaged of which three sank, 16 other ships damaged and 188 aircraft destroyed. Huge. But the resemblance between the two attacks may be more uncomfortable for the often boastful Zelensky than he would like. In the end, except for the three battleships, all the other ships were repaired and returned to fight. The Japanese missed the vital three air craft carriers. But Presided Roosevelt was able to do what he wanted and crush the Japanese military threat completely with the full support of the US population and world opinion.
Post script: —

Can we trust the media?

On the 29th May the London Daily Mail announced that, according to the FSB, the Ukrainian secret service, “Vladimir Putin is given three years to live by doctors due to his rapidly progressing cancer”. Unfortunately for the Daily Mail and happily for V.Putin, that was in May 2022. It seems that from time to time maybe Ukrainian sources are not always totally reliable and maybe western media don’t check them very carefully.