Could also just be fuel vapors in the tanks going off too. Do bears have rigid tanks? In WW2 there was a big difference in survival between planes that did vs ones with bladders that collapsed as fuel was consumed.
From another article (although maybe journalist is making shit up):
The attacks that went after the heart of Russia's strategic [bomber] capabilities and one arm of its nuclear deterrent should serve as a global wake-up call.
Here's a primer on how these things work in Russia.
You can be as careful as you want, if they decide they want confrontation with the US, they'll make up a reason.
If they don't feel confrontation is in their best interest, you can hit Moscow with a Tomahawk and, magically, no one will notice anything but a clapping sound.
That is true, but they also perceive interests that can result in confrontations, for very real reasons.
No, it's almost as if Ukraine has a good reason to blow up the planes that airstrike them.
They were nuclear-capable bombers that have regularly been used to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons (mostly cruise missiles.)
> Also if they are part of Russia's strategic military assets, then wouldn't Russia wonder if the US was a secret puppetmaster?
Increasing distrust between Putin and the Trump Administration would also be a coup for Ukraine, but, no, I don't think that's a real threat here.
In practice, Ukraine has significantly reduced Russia’s _capacity_ for such aggression with this move. Russia only has a limited number of working bombers, and they’re irreplaceable.