Хто насправді бомбить росію щодня?

Overview

Ukrainian speakers argue that Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes on Russia are no longer sporadic “newsworthy events,” but the outcome of a structured, scaled doctrine and organizational model—especially through dedicated unmanned systems units focused on “deep blows” into Russian territory.

Main claims and analysis

War doctrine shift and institutional scaling (2024–2026 framing)

• Ukraine claims it has modernized its armed forces by creating a separate Unmanned Systems Forces branch.
• Drone warfare is portrayed as routine and strategically planned, rather than reactive.

Daily strikes as “strategic economic pressure”

Repeated explosions inside Russia are presented as part of a campaign to disrupt Russia’s ability to wage war, with alleged targeting focused on:

• Oil refining and refinery infrastructure (fuel and export revenue)
• Oil terminals and export logistics (sanctions-avoidance and revenue streams)
• Chemical/industrial production linked to explosives and military output
• Ammunition warehouses supplying the front
• Airfields used to support missile and air “terror” launches
• Military-industrial complex components needed for drone/rocket production
• Energy infrastructure sustaining military capability

“One unit” alleged to carry most of the strike burden

The video claims that one organization—the First Separate Center of Unmanned Systems Forces (formerly associated with a 14th Regiment)—is responsible for about 85% of Ukrainian long-range strikes.

Operational logic: maximize military damage while avoiding civilian targeting

The speaker asserts targets are selected through a “calculated” General Staff process based on what is most harmful to Russia’s war-making ability—contrasted with civilian objects (e.g., schools).

Countering the “Ukraine will exhaust first” narrative

A key argumentative thread rejects attrition claims that Ukraine cannot physically win:

• Ukraine is described as having sustained impact over years.
• Russia is portrayed as needing to respond with increasing effort, which the speaker frames as growing weakness.

Economic “math” and claimed cost-effectiveness

The discussion emphasizes disproportionate effects from small/cheaper drone attacks versus expensive Russian assets, described as a “mathematics of war.”

• Example claim: ~$3M spent to destroy/strike seven very expensive winged devices worth ~$500M–$1B.

Reported macroeconomic consequences (cited indirectly)

The video claims that by 2025:

• Russian oil-refining losses exceed $15B
• Refining capacity was significantly knocked out at peak times
• Gasoline shortages appeared in some regions
• Oil exports by sea fell

These outcomes are asserted as direct results of the strike campaign, including downtime and second-order effects.

Systems/range evolution

• The unit and allied SBS-like unmanned units are described as hitting targets roughly 200–2,000 km from Ukraine.
• 2,000 km is framed as within economically meaningful Russian territory.

Why Russia “gets weaker” (signs offered)

The speaker cites:

• Alleged inability to adequately protect certain infrastructure (including energy/chemical facilities)
• Claimed gaps in Russian air defense and recovery capacity
• Problems and reduced effectiveness affecting Russian forces as the campaign continues

Project-team / “data-driven” military management

The video highlights a project team inside the unit, built from IT/engineering/media backgrounds (compared to business consulting and analytics).

Their work is described as:

• Auditing and improving processes
• Collecting structured data (not just reporting)
• Running field validation of hypotheses
• Optimizing mission preparation and execution

The approach is presented as “Lessons Learned,” emphasizing analytics tested in real combat rather than relying on intuition.

Mission planning as the real “product” (not just the drone flight)

The speaker characterizes drone strikes as only:

• 5–10% of the outcome

with about:

• ~90% attributed to planning and support, including logistics, route engineering, command coordination, timing, and launch/recon/response support.

For one mission, they claim involvement of dozens of professionals (up to ~70 people mentioned).

Organizational culture and personnel selection

The unit is portrayed as:

• Horizontal and team-based (delegation, accountability, structured roles)
• Operating with “right to mistakes,” enabled by training/checklists

Selection criteria are described as:

• Patriotism
• Honesty
• Willingness to learn and fight
• Team compatibility

The video emphasizes professionalization, structured training pipelines, and delegation/management as central to performance.

Final rhetoric and symbolic goals

Beyond economic disabling, speakers argue there is also psychological/political logic in striking symbols, including:

• Proposals to strike Moscow/“Kremlin” as a symbolic target

However, the video asserts the main approach remains systematic economic pressure. It closes by claiming the First Center represents a scalable Ukrainian model—networked rather than vertical, data-driven, and analytics-informed—and that this model is why daily strikes are effective.

Contributors / presenters mentioned

• “Casper” — commander of the First Center / squad (call sign given)
• A representative of the “project team” — analytics/IT-focused contributor (no full name provided in subtitles)
• Project team staff / members are referenced generally (IT/engineering/creative-media roles), but no individual names are given