Three catastrophes in a week may have just changed the future of military deterrence, and not in Europe. In Russia, long-range bombers were hit, a key logistics bridge was compromised, and nuclear facility blueprints showed Western-made components buried in concrete. But the country most closely watching these events unfold isn’t Ukraine. It’s China.
This past week, Russia suffered a series of blows to its military reputation. First came a leaked trove of procurement documents, revealing that even its most sensitive nuclear missile bases, facilities housing hypersonic-capable systems, were built with Danish and German components. Insulation, valves, and even thermal regulators sourced from the very countries now sanctioning Moscow. These weren’t legacy parts. They were bought and installed as recently as two years ago.
That revelation alone might have been brushed aside if it weren’t for what came next.
On June 1, 2025, Ukraine launched a coordinated drone strike that targeted and destroyed over 40 aircraft, and an estimated 35% of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. The operation, code-named Spider Web, didn’t rely on long-range technology or foreign partners. It was executed from within Russia itself, using disguised vehicles and modified commercial drones. Ukrainian sources claim more than a dozen strategic bombers were destroyed or crippled in the span of an hour. Satellite images and verified video support that claim.
Just two days later, the Crimean Bridge was hit again. This time, not by truck bombs or surface drones, but with underwater demolition charges allegedly planted at the base of its support structures. Ukraine’s Security Service claimed responsibility and released a video of the blast. Russian authorities reopened the bridge within hours, but reports from Western analysts suggest there may be deeper structural damage still unconfirmed.
Each of these strikes would be consequential on its own. Together, they represent something more dangerous: a full-frontal collapse of Russia’s reputation as an untouchable military power. And if Russia’s deterrence posture can be exposed that easily, what does that mean for China?
Beijing has spent years building the perception of an unshakable military presence across the Taiwan Strait. It has invested in air bases, naval power, long-range missile batteries, and satellite surveillance, all designed to create the impression that a cross-strait war would be swift, devastating, and unmanageable. That impression is as important as the equipment itself. The goal is to scare Taiwan into paralysis and deter the U.S. from intervening.
But reputation doesn’t always survive first contact. That’s what Russia just learned. A country with nuclear weapons, strategic bombers, and hardened infrastructure has now lost critical systems to a country a fraction of its size and budget. Not because Ukraine overpowered it, but because Ukraine outmaneuvered it.
That should make Beijing pause.
The attacks on Russia weren’t showy. They were strategic. Quiet, sustained, and humiliating. That’s the danger. It’s not that Taiwan needs to defeat China in a full-scale war. It’s that Taiwan might only need to embarrass China early, to strip away the myth of dominance before it can solidify.
What happens if a PLA airbase suffers a single high-visibility breach? What if a strategic radar site goes offline in the first week? What if a bridge is taken out by a method no one saw coming? China’s entire deterrence posture depends on one idea: that any resistance would be futile. If that idea collapses, so does escalation control.
This matters for Washington. American planners and policymakers are looking at Ukraine’s success and asking hard questions about the nature of reputation-based deterrence. Do nuclear weapons prevent retaliation anymore? Do large arsenals guarantee power projection? Or have we entered an age where what matters most is agility, narrative control, and the optics of resilience?
If Taiwan can replicate even a fraction of what Ukraine just achieved, China’s confidence in a clean, swift military option evaporates. That doesn’t mean conflict becomes inevitable. It means the risks become real.
The United States should see this moment for what it is. Not a Russian story. A warning.
Ukraine has exposed the soft underbelly of strategic bravado. It has shown the world that even great powers can look vulnerable when the right pressure points are hit. China has been watching.
The question now is whether we have.
Brett Erickson is Managing Principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors and serves on the Advisory Board of Loyola University Chicago’s Center for Compliance Studies.
