Ukraine’s deep strike destroys Tu-95 bombers; Civilian train disaster adds to tensions

On June 1, 2025, Ukraine launched a coordinated long-range drone strike targeting Russian military airbases deep inside Siberia, while a passenger train in Russia’s Bryansk region was struck by a collapsing bridge in what Russian officials have called a terror attack. These escalations occurred less than 24 hours before high-level peace talks were scheduled to begin in Istanbul, increasing tensions across diplomatic and military channels.

Ukrainian security services reportedly carried out the drone operation under the codename “Spider Web,” striking as many as five Russian military airfields, including Belaya airbase in Irkutsk. According to Ukrainian intelligence sources cited by The Guardian and AP News, the strike destroyed more than 40 aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 nuclear-capable bombers and A-50 early warning planes. The financial damage was estimated at over $2 billion.

On the same day, a highway bridge collapsed over a moving passenger train in the Bryansk region, killing at least seven civilians and injuring 69, as confirmed by Russian state media and regional authorities. Another train derailment was reported in the neighboring Kursk region. Moscow blamed Ukraine for both acts, characterizing them as acts of cross-border sabotage.

How Did Ukraine Strike Russian Bombers in Siberia?

The Ukrainian operation targeted airbases far beyond traditional combat zones, including installations in Irkutsk, a Siberian region over 4,000 kilometers from the frontlines. Ukrainian media, citing defense officials, reported that drones were covertly assembled inside Russia and hidden within commercial truck cargo. Once in position, the explosive drones were activated remotely using long-range signal relays.

The SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) is believed to have orchestrated the operation in coordination with Ukraine’s military intelligence agency. Ukrainian leadership has not officially confirmed the operation, but multiple sources in Kyiv told The Guardian that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been briefed months in advance and greenlit the mission personally.

Russian authorities have not disclosed specific damages, but satellite imagery reviewed by independent analysts indicated extensive damage to multiple bombers and refueling assets. Belaya airbase, a key site for long-range strategic aviation operations, was hit especially hard, according to defense experts.

What Do We Know About the Train Bridge Collapse in Bryansk?

Later on June 1, a highway overpass collapsed onto a passenger train traveling through the Bryansk region near the border with Ukraine. Russian emergency services reported that the train was carrying 388 people. Seven passengers were confirmed dead and 69 were treated for injuries, including trauma from the impact and smoke inhalation.

Eyewitness videos circulated on Russian social media showed the collapsed bridge structure lying across several train carriages. Preliminary reports from the Russian Investigative Committee suggested that the bridge may have been deliberately weakened through planted explosives. No independent verification of the cause has yet been made public.

Russian media outlets, citing government sources, linked the Bryansk incident to the earlier derailment of a freight train in the Kursk region, which they claimed bore similar signs of external sabotage. No group has claimed responsibility for either attack. Ukrainian officials declined to comment on the incidents.

What Is the Strategic Significance of These Events?

The twin attacks—one military and one targeting civilian infrastructure—represent a significant escalation in Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare strategy. By striking strategic bombers and key transportation networks, Ukraine appears to be aiming at degrading Russia’s military logistics and domestic morale simultaneously.

Military experts noted that the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers are essential to Russia’s capacity for long-range cruise missile attacks, including strikes into Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Their destruction could delay or limit Russia’s next wave of aerial bombardments.

The use of drones and covert logistics also signals the deepening sophistication of Ukrainian capabilities. Until recently, most of Ukraine’s strikes were limited to tactical or frontline deployments. This operation reflects a shift to deep-strike capabilities, likely supported by Western intelligence but executed entirely with Ukrainian assets.

How Has Russia Responded Militarily?

In the immediate aftermath of the Siberian airbase strike and the Bryansk sabotage, Russia launched its largest aerial offensive in months. According to Ukraine’s Air Force Command, 472 drones and seven missiles were deployed overnight, with strikes reported in Kyiv, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia.

Russian officials also claimed advances in Ukraine’s Sumy region, capturing multiple villages and pushing into Ukrainian-controlled zones near the border. These territorial claims could not be independently confirmed at the time of writing.

Domestically, Russian state media amplified coverage of the Bryansk incident, calling it a “terror attack” orchestrated by Ukraine. The Russian Ministry of Defense promised a “proportional and unforgiving response,” but did not offer specifics on future retaliatory plans.

What Is the Status of the Istanbul Peace Talks?

Despite the surging violence, peace talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials are scheduled to begin on June 2 in Istanbul. Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov will lead Kyiv’s delegation. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that all arrangements were in place as of June 1.

Ukraine’s 10-point peace framework reportedly includes demands for full territorial restoration, war crimes tribunals, reparations, and long-term international security guarantees. Russia’s delegation, expected to be led by former Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu, is believed to be entering the talks with hardened positions—chief among them, Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership and formal acceptance of Russia’s claims to Crimea and the Donbas.

U.S. President Donald Trump, currently overseeing the talks as part of a trilateral facilitation initiative, has stated that failure to achieve progress could “fundamentally reshape” Washington‘s support posture for the war. The U.S. has not elaborated on what these changes might entail.

How Is the Global Community Reacting?

The international community has expressed concern that the pre-talk escalation may sabotage the already fragile diplomatic environment. NATO officials have refrained from direct commentary on Ukraine’s Siberian strike, though a senior European defense official, speaking anonymously, described the operation as “a significant proof of capability.”

Turkey, which is hosting the negotiations, called for both sides to de-escalate and enter talks with “constructive pragmatism.” China and India issued parallel statements urging “restraint and dialogue,” reiterating their non-alignment stance on the broader conflict.

Meanwhile, markets across Europe and Asia responded nervously, with energy futures rising on fears of renewed disruptions in Ukrainian and Russian gas transit corridors. Analysts noted that a further escalation could place new pressure on regional supply chains, particularly those involving grain and fertilizer exports from the Black Sea region.

What Happens Next?

The coming hours are critical. If the Istanbul peace talks proceed as planned, the success or failure of early diplomatic engagement will likely shape the next phase of the conflict. Ukraine’s battlefield momentum may improve its negotiating leverage, but the risk of Russian escalation—both military and economic—remains high.

Analysts say both Kyiv and Moscow are testing each other’s red lines before settling into formal discussions. For now, the destruction in Siberia and Bryansk is a reminder that the war’s geographic boundaries are fluid—and its political stakes, increasingly global.