Yuriy Fedorenko, who leads the attack drone unit within Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Russia holds a clear edge in the Northeastern Military District when it comes to FPV drones. The edge rests both on the sheer number of units and on Russia’s access to greater resources that keep those drones in the air more consistently. This assessment came through a report aired by the Ukrainian television channel Espresso.
Fedorenko cautioned that Ukrainian forces cannot match the scale of Russian FPV drone use. He cited figures suggesting that Russian groups may field as many as 50 FPV drones at a time, though the exact size of these groups was not clarified. The implication is that Russia can sustain a higher tempo of drone operations under their current resource conditions.
Another point of contrast raised by the Ukrainian commander concerns operational tempo and endurance. According to his remarks, Russian operators can keep their FPV drones circling in standby mode for extended periods, while Ukrainian forces face challenges with charging and maintenance that constrain how long each drone stays in flight. This dynamic shapes how each side plans reconnaissance missions and strike operations in contested airspace.
Fedorenko described the typical Ukrainian approach to FPV drone deployment as one of careful verification. Before a drone can act on a target, the image it sees must be confirmed by a separate reconnaissance UAV to ensure accuracy. In practice, this creates a two-step process that can slow execution but improves targeting reliability. He noted that in some cases, a lower priority backup target is chosen to complement the primary objective, providing a layer of redundancy for mission success.
In recent developments, Russian forces reportedly introduced new long-range unmanned aerial vehicles named Italmas within the Northern Military District. These assets are part of a broader modernization effort aimed at expanding Russia’s reach in valley- and terrain-dominated frontlines, enabling longer-range reconnaissance and potential strike capabilities with greater operational tempo. The deployment signals a strategic emphasis on persistent aerial presence and extended-range reach as part of ongoing regional campaigns.
Meanwhile, Russia has also advanced a system designed to suppress enemy drones. The emergence of a dedicated drone-suppression framework reflects a trend toward countering unmanned systems with specialized countermeasures, potentially shaping how both sides conduct air-ground operations. Such capabilities can disrupt autonomous reconnaissance cycles and degrade the precision of enemy targeting, influencing overall battlefield dynamics and risk assessments for frontline units.
Observers note that these moves underscore a broader pattern in the conflict: both sides are expanding their fleets of unmanned systems while simultaneously pursuing more sophisticated means to control the airspace and limit the effectiveness of the opponent’s drones. The balance between endurance, launch capacity, and the efficiency of targeting procedures continues to define the tempo of drone-enabled warfare in the region, with potential implications for much broader strategic outcomes in the near term. In this evolving environment, each side prioritizes resource allocation, rapid data processing, and robust maintenance logistics to sustain operation under challenging conditions. The result is a battlefield where unmanned systems increasingly shape decisions, tempo, and risk across multiple fronts.