Russia Uses Hezbollah’s Tactics to Store Weapons in Residential Areas

According to a report in Defense Express, Ukrainian Defense Forces have identified five sites that Russia regularly uses to launch Shahed-136 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV drone) attacks against Ukraine, some of which are being stored among the civilian populace.

The report listed the locations as: the Yeysk air base in the Krasnador region, Cape Chauda in occupied Crimea, Primorsko-Akhtarsk in Krasnodar Krai, and sites near Kursk and Orel.

The Yeysk airfield was the focus of Wednesday’s attack reportedly carried out by Ukraine’s intelligence and security services supported by naval forces. However, the 400 or so UAV which were destroyed were stored in a warehouse in the village of Oktyabrski about 20 kilometers south of the airfield.

There have been several reports of Russian forces firing weapons systems from the middle of residential areas, with growing suggestions that Moscow is increasingly placing ammunition stocks in or near to civilian housing, a tactic Russia learned (or perhaps taught) terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

In July Ukrainian drones struck a large ammunition depot in the village of Sergeevka, in Russia’s Voronezh region with a second site being hit near the town of Ostrogozhsk in August. In both instances residents had to be evacuated after, according to the regional governor, Alexander Gusev, debris from destroyed Ukrainian drones “fell, causing a fire to break out at one of the warehouses, in which explosive objects began to detonate.”

Other Topics of Interest

Russia Strikes Ukraine With Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, Air Force Reports

If this information is confirmed, it will be the first time this type of missile was used during the war.

The confirmation that the Ukrainian Naval Forces participated in the Oct. 9 attack led military commentators to suggest that the strike used a Neptune cruise missile, the modified anti-ship missile first used on the May 3 attack on the Kavkaz ferry terminal. It was also suggested that Neptunes were used in the Ostrogozhsk attack.

In early September, Ukraine attacked an ammunition depot near the Voronezh village of Soldatskoe which, according to Ukraine’s Andriy Kovalenko from the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), contained North Korean supplied missiles.

Two other ammunition depots uncomfortably close to civilian habitation were destroyed near Tikhoretsk, in the Krasnodar region and the town of Toropets in the Tver region in the middle of September, the latter being described as “equivalent to a mild earthquake,” with whole rows of civilian housing in the town being flattened.

Earlier this week, Ukraine hit another ammunition depot in Russia’s border Bryansk region only around 112 kilometers (70 miles) from the Ukrainian border where once again, according to Kovalenko, more North Korean supplied missiles and artillery ammunition were stored.

As Defense Express commented that the ability to destroy Russia’s ammunition stocks, particularly its Shahed drones, ballistic and cruise missiles in their warehouses is more effective and efficient than using scarce, expensive air defense assets to intercept them when airborne in mid-flight.

Ukrainian forces have adopted the tactic of striking ammunition depots which up to now have focused on purpose-built storage areas especially those on or adjacent to Russian airfields. The location for the bulk storage of Shahed UAVs in the middle of a town seems to be an intentional tactic on the part of Moscow.

While it will make it harder for Ukraine to track down where the weapons are stored, which could be at a distance from the launch site, the absence of the safety measures associated with dedicated ammunition storage places the populated areas where their occupants are little more than “human shields” much as the citizens of Gaza and Beirut have been.

It also presents a potential moral conundrum for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). If they identify a location, do they strike the warehouse come what may? Do they warn the civilian occupants? Do they choose attack weapons which minimize the likelihood of collateral damage or is the military imperative such that the destruction of the enemy’s weapons of war outweighs concerns about “innocent” bystanders.