Ukrainian drones with decoy targets launch largest attack on big Russian facilities. Serhiy Zgurets' column

(Serhiy Zgurets' video blog was published before the results of the talks in Saudi Arabia between Ukrainians and Americans were made public - ed.)

Massive Ukrainian drone attack on Russia

Last night, March 11, something significant occurred in Russia that, according to Vladimir Putin, the Russian population wanted – a "dvizhukha" (hustle). Russia suffered its largest drone attack from Ukraine, the most massive since the war began. Strikes hit 10 Russian regions, including Moscow and the Moscow region. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, over 300 Ukrainian drones were destroyed. However, considering the effectiveness of Russian air defense, the actual number of drones was likely much higher.

Airports near Moscow activated the "Carpet" plan, halting all flights. The strikes targeted facilities at the Moscow oil refinery, which supplies more than half of the capital's fuel needs. Russia deployed air defenses, with missile debris falling onto Russian buildings.

There were also strikes on the Dyagilevo military airfield and targets in Kurchatov, Kursk region. For the first time, an oil depot in Chuvashia was attacked. Notably, some drones acted as decoys, while others resembled Shaheds in aerodynamics and appearance. Essentially, new drone models were deployed to target Russian facilities.

Most of the targeted sites were large facilities, including energy enterprises, warehouses, and military production sites. These locations are well-known and often require no further confirmation, meaning Ukraine can leverage previously gathered intelligence data.

Ukraine is actively gathering information from its partners. While discussions with the United States continue, negotiations are also underway with other countries. Specifically, the United Kingdom and France have expressed their willingness to share intelligence on Russian targets with the Ukrainian Armed Forces to ensure the effectiveness of strikes on Russian territory.

Kursk direction

Let's discuss another topic – the ongoing fighting in the Kursk region, where Russia continues to put pressure on Ukraine's defensive lines in this foothold. On March 10, significant changes occurred across several fronts, especially in the north and east of what we can now refer to as the Sudzha foothold. It’s reported that, throughout the day, the area under Ukrainian control shrank from 288 km² to 197 km² due to the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the north and east.

We can observe that Russia is intensifying pressure on Ukrainian defensive lines from multiple directions. It's unclear whether Russian forces are solidifying their positions, but videos have emerged showing Russian military units in the east of Sudzha. It seems likely that Ukrainian units are retreating to alternative positions.

On March 10, Ukraine's top general, Syrskyi, discussed the relocation of forces to more defensible positions. He also mentioned that steps would be taken to redeploy units in order to equip the Ukrainian Defense Forces with unmanned systems and electronic warfare equipment.

It is clear that Russia’s main focus is now on exerting pressure along the perimeter of this foothold, while also attempting to disrupt the logistics route running from Sudzha to Sumy. On March 11, a spokesman for Ukraine's Border Guard Service reported that Russian forces are trying to advance on the eastern flank, specifically targeting the village of Novenke, in an effort to increase pressure on Ukraine's defense and logistics.

Regarding the military objectives set for the Kursk operation, I believe that, by and large, they have been achieved. The key achievement is that Russian attacks on Sudzha and Sumy were successfully repelled. Additionally, conditions were created that forced Russia to regroup forces from other areas. Currently, the Russian force in the Kursk region consists of about 60,000 personnel, of which 40,000 are incapacitated—16,000 killed and the rest wounded. These are forces that could have been deployed elsewhere but were instead concentrated in this area.

In my view, the military objectives of the operation have been accomplished. However, it’s important to recognize that during the operation, the objectives may have evolved. Political considerations also played a role in the presence of Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region, including the possibility of exchanging certain territories.

If a decision is made to withdraw Ukrainian troops from Kursk and consolidate them in the Sumy region, I believe this would be a completely reasonable course of action moving forward. The Russians will struggle to advance further into the Sumy region due to the fortifications and the landscape, which create significant obstacles to deep penetration. Additionally, there are logistical challenges for Russian forces that will limit their capabilities.

Overall, we can conclude that the Kursk operation was successful and effective in achieving its primary objectives. Now, the key question is how the Ukrainian military and political leadership will decide to proceed, particularly when considering whether to continue operations on Russian territory.

Negotiations in Saudi Arabia

In fact, the strikes on Russian territory occurred just before the meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where negotiations between Ukrainian and American delegations are currently taking place. These talks were seen as a potential turning point for Kyiv, either offering some relief or leading to a harsher stance from the United States, as the outcome remains uncertain.

Prior to the talks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Ukraine would have to make territorial concessions as part of any agreement. Such firm statements are certainly concerning. It is also known that Ukraine will push for a specific format of security guarantees, but achieving this in the current environment is extremely challenging, especially since security guarantees have not been addressed in the United States. Additionally, there could be indirect economic security guarantees linked to agreements on Ukrainian minerals. At this stage, it is difficult to assess the potential shifts in Ukraine-U.S. relations, particularly in the context of a peace agreement.

Oleksiy Yizhak, an analyst at the National Institute for Strategic Studies, shared his perspective on the negotiations in Saudi Arabia, highlighting that one of the topics likely to be discussed is the reduction of hostilities. This could lead to a proclaimed ceasefire. We are approaching a point where we can distinguish between when the fighting will cease—this is one track that the United States is pursuing—and the other track, which is about establishing long-term guarantees to prevent the war from resuming. One possible option for these guarantees could involve extending the current model in Eastern Europe, where allies are present. In this model, if an attack occurs, allied forces would integrate into the country's armed forces. Another option could be air patrols, possibly with basing in Ukraine. This model exists in Eastern Europe, although it differs for Poland and the Baltic states.

Yizhak also noted the current challenge: NATO, as a political entity led by the United States, no longer exists in its previous form. While this may sound tragic, it means there are no American obligations beyond those related to nuclear weapons. However, NATO itself remains an organization. This creates a paradox. NATO, as a political union, is undergoing a reformation, but the treaty organization still exists, with all the military mechanisms in place to fulfill alliance obligations—though those obligations themselves no longer exist. A new political foundation for the organization is now being formed.

Yizhak believes that NATO will remain the most effective military alliance in history, even if it is restructured or operates under a different treaty. The organization will continue to function, albeit in a new form, reflecting the ongoing changes in negotiations across Europe. Meanwhile, the United States has been signaling significant cuts in military spending, which could threaten the most expensive projects. One such project at risk is the F-35 program, with skepticism from the Trump administration. This raises the question of why Europeans need such an expensive program, prompting Europe to reconsider its approach. As a result, Europe is likely to restart its own combat aircraft initiatives that have been put on hold. European countries are expected to prioritize investing in their own defense technologies rather than spending on American weapons. The same applies to the Patriot system, with a shift toward expanding their own SAMP/T and other systems that have also been stalled. However, implementing these changes will take time.

The expert also pointed out the growing relevance of developing more affordable strike weapons, such as intelligent drones of various types. While this area is still relatively underdeveloped, Ukraine has the potential to contribute significantly to advancing these efforts. As Ukraine continues to integrate more closely with Europe, Yizhak believes that, together, they will achieve victory.