What happened at dawn on June 3, 2025, when Ukrainian drones destroyed at least four Russian military air bases and took nearly 40 strategic bombers out of service, was not just a successful military operation; it was a resounding blow that struck deep within Moscow, in language that surprised the Russians and astonished the West. Russian military bloggers described it as the Russian Pearl Harbor, a metaphor from history that imbues the operation with profound psychological and political dimensions, and raises the question of the hour: How will Russia respond?
The Kremlin's initial silence was deafening. Detailed data was absent, and the official media banned reports of aircraft losses. However, discontent was evident on the platforms of military bloggers, both loyal to the regime and critical of its military leadership. Some described the incident as a strategic disgrace, while others ridiculed the lack of protection for sensitive military infrastructure, arguing that military leaders had relied on luck.
• • •
If the Ukrainian Spider Web operation shook confidence in Russia's defense capabilities, it also exposed the vulnerability of Russia's air defenses to simple, inexpensive weapons. Nevertheless, the most important question remains not how Russia was struck, but how it will respond. The comparison to Pearl Harbor is not merely symbolic. Japan reveled in its lightning victory, but it also awakened the sleeping American giant, which later destroyed it with the atomic bomb. Will Moscow follow the same path, shifting from a pained defense to a crushing attack, or will its calculations be more cold-blooded and complex?
The Russian response so far has been traditional: a massive drone and missile strike targeting Ukrainian infrastructure, hitting 19 sites and causing deaths and injuries. However, in the view of many inside Russia, the response did not rise to the level of an insult. The question now being asked globally is: Will Putin be satisfied with this level of response, or is he preparing for a more severe symbolic strike, perhaps targeting the centers of power in Kyiv or vital infrastructure that would hurt the Ukrainian leadership and its Western backers?
• • •
The West, for its part, appears to be in a moment of euphoria. The media celebrated the operation as a sign of Ukrainian intelligence and rare courage, forgetting that Pearl Harbor—the original—brought down overwhelming anger on Japan that culminated in a nuclear catastrophe. Is this Western elation short-sighted? Have Kyiv's backers realized that they may have opened the door to an uncontainable escalation?
US President Donald Trump, who is seeking to play a mediating role, commented that the operation gave Putin a pretext to bomb Ukraine mercilessly, a statement that could be read in Moscow as a green light.
What some fear is that this moment could turn into the beginning of an open war, not just between Russia and Ukraine, but between Russia and the West more broadly. Moscow, some analysts suggest, may not view the Ukrainian attack in isolation from NATO's intelligence and technical support, and may consider it indirect participation in the war.
• • •
Clearly, the Ukrainian Pearl Harbor was not just a tactical success, but a pivotal moment in the course of the war, in which drones humiliated Russia's deterrent. But the question Moscow itself appears to have yet to answer is: Will it respond with the calm of a rational state, or with the fury of a wounded empire?
In my opinion, what happened will not be erased by conventional responses, and it is not unlikely that Moscow will opt for a sudden qualitative escalation to save face, both domestically and internationally. At that point, Ukraine and the West may realize that euphoria is momentary, while strategic calculations are long-term and costly.
