Feature photo taken from Operation Spiderweb by Ssu.gov.ua; CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

In a June 17 interview with The New York Post, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that the United States is considering buying drones from his country in exchange for Ukraine's purchase of US weapons, adding that he is having similar talks with Germany, Denmark and Norway. The efficiency of Ukrainian drones was showcased in Operation Spiderweb, which targeted and damaged strategic airbases in Russia on June 1.

Between late May and early June, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia flared up with renewed intensity, marking a turning point that threatened to push the war into a more perilous phase. Explosions that demolished bridges in the Kursk and Bryansk regions, repeated strikes by the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) on the Crimean Bridge, and a bold drone assault on Russian airbases in Siberia — codenamed Operation Spiderweb — rocked the region, unleashing a torrent of accusations, speculation, and ominous predictions.

In Moscow, these attacks were swiftly branded as acts of state terrorism by Ukraine, with some experts viewing the strike on strategic airbases as a potential catalyst for further escalation — including the possibility of nuclear weapon use. World leaders issued cautions, while analysts highlighted the unpredictable outcomes that could follow.

Threat to Moscow, triumph for Kyiv

For Ukraine, whose forces were already facing significant challenges on the front lines due to a combination of moral exhaustion of Ukrainian soldiers and a shortage of personnel, the attacks on Russian infrastructure carried significant and symbolic weight.

France24 reported that the success of Operation Spiderweb bolstered the morale of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) and demonstrated Kyiv’s capacity to strike deep into Russian territory. Not only did the operation provide a psychological lift, but it also exposed vulnerabilities in Russia's defenses, temporarily shifting the momentum in Ukraine's favor and complicating Russian logistics.

From Moscow's perspective, these actions represented both a profound humiliation for a great power and a direct threat to national security. The Russian Telegram channel Rybar, tied to military circles, labeled the strike a “very heavy blow,” and pointed to serious shortcomings in Russian intelligence. Furthermore, analysts like Peter Schwartz, writing for the World Socialist Web Site, suggested that “the strike on airbases made the danger of further escalation and expansion of the war in Ukraine, including the use of nuclear weapons, greater than ever before.”

The Kremlin, though visibly irritated by the blow to its image, initially maintained measured official statements. Russia’s Ministry of Defense downplayed the incidents, reporting only “fires affecting some aviation assets” and the repulsion of “terrorist attacks.”

Historical patterns indicate that Putin rarely responds impulsively, often opting to bide his time before launching a counterstrike. For instance, in 2008, after prolonged friction with Georgia, Russia annexed the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Similarly, in 2014, following the removal of a Moscow-aligned regime in Kyiv, Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists in the Donbas region.

In the months following Operation Spiderweb, this deliberate approach manifested in intensified Russian operations, including retaliatory strikes that further strained Ukrainian infrastructure and prolonged the stalemate on the battlefield.

As the independent research institution TRENDS Research & Advisory warned, Ukraine’s escalation introduced unpredictable consequences that have since played out. On one hand, TRENDS suggested, the attacks weakened Russia’s negotiating leverage by compelling Moscow to address its territorial vulnerabilities, thereby enhancing Kyiv's position in demonstrating resilience and offensive capabilities. This has arguably strengthened Ukraine's hand in potential talks, allowing it to push for more favorable terms regarding territorial integrity and security guarantees. On the other hand, the strikes provoked a severe reaction from Moscow, which interpreted the airbase assaults as an existential threat, leading to heightened military mobilization and a more entrenched defensive posture.

TRENDS experts, therefore, concluded that while nuclear escalation remained improbable and has not yet materialized, it can not be entirely dismissed. Analysts speculated — and events have borne out — that Russia would resort to intimidating displays of force to reassert dominance, such as massive strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure or targeted operations against Kyiv’s leadership, actions that have indeed intensified the conflict and eroded trust between the parties.

Leaders’ reactions and diplomatic steps

The international community has been observing these developments with growing unease, as the operation's ripple effects have influenced diplomatic efforts in the ensuing months. Leaders like US President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping initially exercised restraint, which analysts attributed to awaiting Russia’s potential reaction.

Trump later told The New York Times that the Kremlin intended to retaliate against Ukraine’s surprise assaults. Citing President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, Fox News reported that the strikes on Russian airfields hosting nuclear-capable aircraft elevated the risk of further escalation.

Peace talks in Istanbul, convened the day after the attacks, ended without breakthroughs, underscoring the diplomatic deadlock. In a notable follow-up on August 15, Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska to discuss the ongoing conflict, including potential ceasefire terms and addressing the war's root causes. While the summit concluded without a concrete agreement, both leaders characterized the talks as productive yet inconclusive.

Looking back, the months after the operation proved pivotal, as — amid ongoing skirmishes — both parties struggled to pivot toward sustained diplomacy. Operation Spiderweb has undeniably reshaped the conflict, making it more volatile and perilous by exposing mutual weaknesses and intensifying retaliatory cycles.

For possible upcoming negotiations, Kyiv emerges with a stronger position to argue for robust international support and territorial restitution, while Moscow's hardened resolve may lead to protracted demands, potentially stalling progress. History shows that pressure on Russia seldom goes unanswered; this escalation has reinforced that pattern, leaving the path to peace fraught with challenges.