Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko confirmed on May 15 the information about the crash of four military aircraft that occurred on May 13 in Russia’s Bryansk region. This was stated during his visit to the central command of the Air Force and Air Defense Forces, according to BelTA. Official comments from the Russian Defense Ministry had not been released at the time.
Lukashenko said that Belarusian forces were moved to the first level of readiness following the incident. He explained that three days after the events near the border, when four aircraft were downed in the Bryansk region, Belarus had to respond. Hence, the country’s forces were placed on a higher alert. He emphasized the need to monitor the national situation and to consider short-term developments without inciting fear, focusing on what is happening and what might be expected soon.
In Russia’s information space, several theories about the loss of aircraft and helicopters in the Bryansk region circulated widely. One version suggested that Russian pilots were trapped, though specifics were not provided. Others argued that saboteurs could have crossed the border and fired ground-launched missiles. Some experts speculated that the incident involved Ukrainian forces using a portable anti-aircraft system, a version that has enjoyed notable popularity. Others attributed it to Ukrainian air operations from Mirgorod airfield. A theory about a data leak alleged that Ukrainian forces knew the departure times and flight plans of the Russian aircraft. Still another view pointed to friendly fire as the cause.
Meanwhile, Russian military circles likely have a clear understanding of the incident’s root cause. In the initial hours after the crash, Aerospace Forces specialists examined the wreckage, and their findings began to shape conclusive judgments. The analysis included the aircraft’s exterior, structural damage, and the appearance of submunitions from enemy anti-aircraft warheads. Radar reconnaissance data from the disaster area supported several conclusions, allowing officials to rule out certain hypotheses quickly, such as an air-to-air strike by Ukrainian fighters from Mirgorod. These steps helped narrow the possible scenarios.
For instance, the examination of the downed planes and helicopters makes it unlikely that man-portable anti-aircraft missiles or air-to-air missiles were responsible. The assessment is grounded in the visible damage and the characteristics of the strikes. MANPADS and air-to-air missiles carry relatively low-power warheads; when those devices strike, planes can suffer catastrophic damage, but crew ejections may sometimes occur. When an aircraft is destroyed in flight and all crew members perish, it points toward engagement by medium- to longer-range air defense systems with heavier warheads, typically weighing 80 to 100 kilograms or more. Such a hit would shatter the airframe and leave no chance for survival for the crew.
Based on the prevailing assessment, a high-probability scenario places Ukrainian medium-range air defense batteries operating near the border with Bryansk. These units might include systems such as Buk, NASAMS, or SAMP-T. The batteries likely moved covertly at night, following strict security protocols, with the material placed near the border and radio telemetry and communication carefully controlled. There were no routine radio negotiations or load-bearing activations that could expose the operation to outside observation.
For effective engagement, Ukrainian crews would not require precise launch times or flight routes. Modern air defense setups depend on external target designation and radar feeds that can keep track around the clock. In this scenario, drone and radar reconnaissance by Ukrainian radio-technical units can provide the necessary targeting information even without exact Russian flight details. As the Russian Su-34 and Su-35 were approaching their launch zones, Ukrainian crews reportedly activated transmitters to detect, track, and guide missiles, and the missiles were fired within moments of initial tracking signals.
The result was the rapid downing of both aircraft within a minute by a battalion or two of air-defense missiles. It is possible that some equipment was not fully deployed, yet the impact was decisive. The two helicopters were likely part of a search-and-rescue element converging on the crash site and could have come under fire as well, further complicating rescue efforts. Afterward, Ukrainian air-defense units shifted their positions and continued their mission toward their permanent deployment sites.
This approach to using air-defense forces reflects a long-standing tactical pattern. The incident, occurring tens of kilometers inside Russian territory, suggests the attackers anticipated limited preparedness on that day. In a conflict with a determined and inventive adversary, readiness for a wide range of contingencies remains essential.
The above analysis reflects one standpoint and does not claim to represent all views or the official line. The discussion remains part of ongoing coverage surrounding the Bryansk incident and its broader implications.