Yves here. Andrew Korybko is underplaying what might happen next in terms of Russian responses to Ukraine’s efforts to escalate as Russia’s war machine grind through Ukraine, at an unmistakably accelerating pace. Recall that Russia is reported to have over two armies fully trained, about 240,000 soldiers, in reserve. They could be committed to the battlefield if Russia decides to up its tempo, or Russia could hold them back in case the West attempts to do Something Stoopid or use them to police an occupation.
Korbyko mentions the recent assassination attempt on Putin when he visited Kursk in a helicopter, which has been ignored by the Western media and per John Helmer and Ray McGovern in a recent talk on Dialogue Works, underplayed in Russia. Per Helmer and McGovern, they believe that Russia has chosen to present their intelligence findings to their US counterparts, since both countries do cooperate in counter-terrorism efforts. It’s hard to think that US did not provide targeting or surveillance data. The question then is how the US tries to ‘splain this. Helmer awfully politely called this testing the US to see if it can be trusted.
Korybko omits that Ukraine has just engaged in a massive drone attack on Russia, which is still continuing at the pace of 100 more drones a night, which Russia has parried. Alexander Mercouris argued that this campaign has to have been prepared well in advance with Ukraine’s Western allies and could have represented a resource commitment (certainly in terms of planning) on the order of the failed summer counteroffensive of 2024.
Mark Sleboda offered a theory in a new talk with Danny Haiphong (starting at 59:00), that Ukraine and the West were engaging in an air defense war of attrition, with these drone strikes intended to deplete Russia’s air defenses and also provide information about their location and operation. Sleboda argues that the Ukraine’s allies may be planning a major missile salvo on the hope that Russian air defenses will have been so worn down so that this attack can do real damage.
We’ll put aside the fact World War II showed that air attacks that are not sufficient to destroy the opponent harden its resolve. If Sleboda is correct, it’s remarkable to see how Ukraine and its backers have talked themselves into believing that would at best be a hard punch, not a knockout blow, is worth the enormous risks. Clearly a lot of reputations, fragile egos and rice bowls at stake.
Note per the discussion below that Germany has taken to tap dancing about the status of its Taurus missiles, which have a 500km range and are thus longer-range than anything Ukraine has deployed before. Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz repeated rejected US and NATO pressure to let Ukraine use them. New Chancellor Freidrich Merz in a round about way confirmed that their use had actually been approved during the Biden era (even if Scholz had put the brakes on their immediate use) and commentators contend that they are already in Ukraine. Sleboda and others indicate that Ukraine may have gotten 150 out of Germany’s total current operating stock of 250.
The Taurus missiles are air launched and they could reach Moscow. Sleboda points out the only plane that Ukraine has that could deliver them is the F-16, which Ukraine appears to have used only in a defensive capacity, well away from the line of contact. Scott Ritter has argued that the odds of an F-16 pilot surviving an attack on the front lines is 20%, that Russia has the ability to target them shortly after takeoff. That’s before getting to the fact that Ukraine has not demonstrated great competence in their use, with a high number of accidents and friendly fire incidents.
Finally, everyone with an operating brain cell knows that the US would at a minimum be providing satellite information for targeting, and Germany would have to assist in the use of Taurus missiles. Many Russian hard-liners are upset that Russian has not delivered on its warning that Western support of an attack on pre-2014 Russia would be deemed as an act of war by the involved nations. The Ukraine incursion into Kursk clearly had Western backing.
In other words, the West is pushing Russia to respond by striking Western cities, or alternatively, Western military assets, such as bases in Poland. From RT in Russia could target Berlin if German missiles hit Moscow – RT editor-in-chief:
Russia would not rule out a direct strike on Berlin if German personnel help Ukraine target Moscow with German-supplied Taurus missiles, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, has warned…
German officials, however, have not confirmed any decision to send the Taurus system, and a Bild report on Wednesday suggested that the government in Berlin still considers doing so “taboo.”
In a post on Wednesday, Simonyan warned that Germany could face dire consequences if the Taurus is ever used for attacking the Russian capital. “In Moscow offices, it is being discussed that if German troops strike Moscow with German weapons… the only option left for us is to strike Berlin,” she said.
She went on to explain that a Taurus strike on Moscow would have to be prepared and executed by German service members because the Ukrainians “cannot maintain [the Taurus] or program it for flight missions.”
Responding to Merz’s comments on lifting the restrictions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, noted that if such a decision had indeed been made, it would lead to “serious escalation” and undermine current efforts to settle the Ukraine conflict.
Simonyan is not a Russian official. Nevertheless, she looks to be a vehicle for telling the West in simple noun-verb sentences of what Russia has tried telling them before and they have ignored, since Putin has yet to make good on these threats.
The reason for Russian restraint is likely that they know what we ought to know. Scott Ritter has said that gaming a direct conflict between the US and Russia always results in nuclear war.
Answering any such attack merely with Oreshniks in Ukraine would thus not be proportionate unless Russia delivered on another threat, of striking decision centers, which means among other things Kiev, and/or no longer pulling its punches on prostrating Ukraine via taking out its electric grid and electric production.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Step by step, Trump is turning “Sleepy Joe Biden’s War” into his own, exactly as Steve Bannon warned him not to do.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s revelation that the West removed all restrictions on the range of the weapons that they supplied to Ukraine brought about a feeling of déjà vu from late last year. Russia warned them against doing this at the time, the moment of truth finally arrived once they defied it, and then Putin climbed the escalation ladder by authoring the use of a hitherto top-secret hypersonic medium-range Oreshnik missile against Ukraine. History might therefore be about to repeat itself.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the West’s reported decision as “quite dangerous”, while Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov assessed that it was evidently “made quite some time ago and kept under wraps”, which aligns with what Merz himself later claimed when clarifying his comments. Nevertheless, this policy has yet to result in any strategically significant attacks, let alone reshape the conflict’s dynamics in Ukraine’s favor. If that changes, however, then Russia might drop more Oreshniks.
This could happen even in the absence of those two scenario triggers. Trump ominously posted on Tuesday that “What Vladimir Putin doesn’t realize is that if it weren’t for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He’s playing with fire!”. This follows his post about how “[Putin] has gone absolutely CRAZY!”, which was analyzed here as proof of him being maliciously misinformed by his trusted advisors and/or him creating the pretext for US escalation.
It’s therefore clear that Trump is preparing for the possibility that peace talks might soon collapse, in advance of which he’s trying to spin a self-serving narrative. By denigrating Putin as “crazy” and implying that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia, Trump is signaling tacit approval of forthcoming Ukrainian provocations. Other than the use of long-range American missiles against strategic targets, this could take the form of a nationwide assassination-terrorism campaign.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Russia blamed Ukraine for spring 2024’s Crocus terrorist attack, accused it of plotting to assassinate Putin during last July’s Naval Day parade in St. Petersburg, and just revealed that a swarm of their drones tried to take down his helicopter during last week’s visit to Kursk. Moreover, Trump was suspiciously silent after Zelensky implicitly threatened to attack Moscow’s Victory Day parade, so it’s possible that he might finally “let Ukraine loose” even if he walks away from the conflict.
In the event that Ukraine’s long-range Western missiles strike strategically significant targets and/or a nationwide assassination-terrorism campaign is commenced, especially if there’s any credible threat to Putin or other senior officials, then Russia might retaliate by dropping more Oreshniks. It’s holding back for the time being, apparently to avoid provoking Trump into crossing the Rubicon through the abovementioned means, but it’ll have no more reason to remain restrained if he ends up doing that first.
All told, Russian-US relations could soon deteriorate depending on what Ukraine does, especially if the Kremlin concludes that it’s with a wink and a nod from America. There’s no way that Russia won’t respond if Ukraine escalates the conflict. This could very likely take the form of more Oreshnik strikes, which could in turn be exploited by Trump as the pretext for more direct US escalation. Step by step, Trump is turning “Sleepy Joe Biden’s War” into his own, exactly as Steve Bannon warned him not to do.
The Russians are hardly going to lob a missile into a NATO country as that would lead to a NATO-Russian war – which is exactly what some Neocons in Washington and Brussels are drooling over. Of course the Russians could use some lateral thinking. They could announce a US$1 million dollar reward – along with a Russian passport – to any person that reports a French, British or German long-range missile battery leading to its destruction. They could announce a radio channel to call in that information as well and a million dollars would go a long way to a good life in Russia I bet. The French, British and Germans may squawk about this but the Russians could feign innocence and say that everybody knows that they are only manned by Ukrainians so what is the problem? And if Trump goes all in on the Ukraine, the Russians could add the Americans along with that list as well which would include any secret bases in the Ukraine. Even before the war the Ukraine was reputed to be the most corrupt country in Europe and after three year’s war, this would seem like a golden ticket to many out of this butcher’s yard.
Article 5 does not oblige any country to come to any other country’s aid. Lobbing a missile into a NATO country would be the best way to put a stop to the shenanigans. There are defined levels of escalation as was seen in the India-Pak and Iran-Israel exchanges. It is not a case of all-out immediate nuclear war. Who is going to risk annihilation just because a Rheinmetall factory in Oberndorf got rightfully hazelnutted?
If Winston Churchill had not been a chronic bumbling alcoholic he could have seen that there is no “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” when it comes to Russia. They speak plainly and carry a big stick which they used when words have exhausted their possibilities.
A German strike on Moscow should result in the removal of Kiev from the map (non-nuclear), NOT a strike on Berlin. That should put a quick end to this German nonsense.
You know how the western populations are constantly hammered with nonsense about Russia’s nefarious designs to invade Europe? Yeah, once they strike, those people will now have material evidence of such intentions. External military actions never produce a rational response in the target country. Putin would be handing all the warmongers in Europe and United States a gift if he attacked a NATO country, just as he handed them a gift when he attacked Ukraine.
Through a decade of sanctions, it has been established that Western opinions do not put food on their table.
Nato (USA) has been provoking Russia for decades. The SMO was not an invasion but a response to continued Banderite (Ukraine) attacks on ethnic Russians in Donbass, as part of the Maidan Coup.
Russia has been very measured in its military actions. Continued provocations (Taurus) are sure to bring a rain of Hazelnuts. Merz will be seeking mercy very soon.
Rev… Putin won’t be able to maintain the pretense of ‘Special Military Operation’ amidst mortal, long-range strikes into Russia. There is a NATO-Russia war so Putin is in functional denial and every NATO escalation going back to 2003+ is designed to get him to drop the act first. So when he does finally declare war, it will be dramatic, and done in such a way to be a visceral experience for those who sought it. He can’t make that impact in Ukraine, and there are too many immediate military threats to establish meaningful deterrence through local action. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if he left the former Warsaw Pact unmolested, to give them time to rethink their positions, after the fact, because who really wants to invade Europe anyway?
There is a NATO-Russia war but it is unlikely that President Putin is in functional denial and I have no doubt that the Russian military, and the militaries of China, North Korea and Iran are prepared for that war and its escalation. Putin has long given the other parties time to give the conflict an off-ramp which, so far, they have ignored.
I do think that Putin will be forced to take major, devastating, direct action against a least one major NATO country simply as an example to the others. God knows has has enough casus belli to justify co-ordinated non-nuclear attacks on Brussels, Salzburg, Berlin, Paris and London, plus theit local US and other military bases and ordnance factories and the likelihood is that the US will such it up and not intervene simply because it will not wish that devastsation upon itself, nuclear or not, and Russia will have taken out it’s eyes in the sky.
I do think that Anonted is probably correct in suggesting that he will leave the former Warssaw pact countries out of the initial strike, although I would hope that he offers Estonia and Lithuania more than a warning shot on my own purely personal grounds.
Unlike the foppish, lazyminded, know-nothing goons we have in the West, Putin does not appear to bear foolish pride to any obvious degree and he is mindful of the inportance of speaking clearly and politely whilst carrying a hazelnut or two in his pocket ready for the day. He is a rational actor making rational moves against opponents who seem incapable of anything other than stupid, ill-considered, didorganised irrational gestures. Russia’s friends and allies seem to be of a similar bent and have presumably considered plans and contingencies in great detail in concert.
My gripe was The Rev’s implication that Putin’s desire to avoid war would stop him from engaging in one. Clearly Putin is aware he is at war with NATO, but his ontology reflects his legalistic framing of the conflict, and minimizes it. That formal ‘denial’ of the war’s nature functions as wiggle-room, both domestically and internationally; otherwise he might have nuked us long ago, eh?
I’m not nearly as confident as you wrt the US not wishing devastation upon itself. In the realm of think-tank perfidy, it’s best we think of ourselves as fancy Ukrainians, maybe Gazans on a bad day.
I very much like this idea of appealing to the poverty and greed of the target population to obtain targeting information. Lots of hay is made about Western satellite-based targeting methods, but in the days before that was possible there was another well-tested approach of using people on the ground to figure out where things are.
To my mind, a great bonus of this approach is the tremendous paranoia it must produce in the targeted military. If everybody in your country is a likely source of intelligence to the opponent, it’s very hard to get anything done and security begins to overwhelm any productive activity.
In the past, the US would offer pilots from other countries money and harbor if they flew their aircraft to US associated airfields. There were several pilots that accepted this arrangement.
This had to have been corrosive to the nations the pilots were from.
I jacked up my link.
Try this: List of Cold War pilot defections
In the past, and also in the present, because the offer is still active via proxy (i.e. Ukraine). They even published a list, promising a certain ammount of cash for specific vehicle types (e.g. tank, helicopter, airplane, ship).
There was a couple of Su-34 pilots that “accepted” this arrangement with coopereation of FSB (in order to expose the network, and strike associated airfields), and one Mi-8 helicopter pilot that actually went trough with it (for the promise of a half a million buck, and a passport). He killed his two crew members in the process, and later appeared on Ukro TV. The guy ended up in Spain, riddled with bullets. Some assume that Russian snuffed him, but my bet is on Ukrainians that also got their hands on the money.
I believe Martyanov spoke about 700k in reserve. Was it with Diesen or Nima around 10 days ago?
Were Taurus ever used in combat?
So on what serious data does their reputation build?
So far everything from NATO stock has failed.
Why should this be different?
Why should RU commit to an act of war against NATO territory?
If they want to hurt the West they have better means e.g. economically I would guess.
And they can increase the level of what they are doing in Ukraine now by a lot.
I should point out that if such an attack on e.g. a Bavarian Taurus factory were to occure – which I still regard as total fiction – that would be complete seachange within Germany and towards this war.
Consider the social, political, media repercussions.
I just don’t see why the Russians would do such an idiotic thing. Neither would BRICS be happy.
As to Simonyan, according to Martyanov she has had an odd track record lately, pushing her own narrative involving the Kremlin by not clear differentiation of indirect speech and interpretation by RT.
Eventually I must must assume RT too wants to sell news and they also might believe a little activism and hysteria might help prevent escalation.
I do try to pay attention and I have heard none of the other commentators on Russia give a figure remotely that high.
May be I find it….
fwiw:
Martyanov with Diesen May 21st:
“(…)There are 700.000 troops in Russia in reserve right now (…) it’s essentially two army groups…three actually…So can they go to the border of Poland if need to be? Absolutely. Can they wipe out any form of military facility in Finland which is the new NATO-member if God forbids NATO decides to commit suicide. Absolutely. That is why Leningrad Military Disctrict has been reinstalled.(…)”
This in context of Diesen asking him about RU´s plans of how to deal with Ukraine and how to control control it i.e. of course the Western part too.
TC: 20:10+
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/05/glenn-diesen-and.html
I am not disputing that Martyanov said that. I am saying he is a serious outlier among commentators.
I trust Sleboda over Martyanov. Sleboda is IN Russia, and he’s been the best at calling the trajectory of the war. He was long saying it would take way way longer than the fanbois kept asserting.
Several others disagree with Martyanov’s math. An army group is allegedly 120,000, which is how two army groups (which seems to be widely reported) gets you to about 240,000. It was the Wall Street Journal that reported ~ two weeks ago that Russia had two full reserve armies that had yet to be committed to the fight.
Yves: It’s hard to think that US did not provide targeting or surveillance data.
Not necessarily. Assuming targeting via real-time tracking of Putin’s helicopter from LEO satellites, Germany, the UK, and France all have the necessary orbital assets for that, too.
Germany has its SAR-Lupe radar reconnaissance satellite system providing high-resolution imagery, and also its Tandem-X and TerraSAR-X.
The UK has Oberon & Tyche, as part of its ISTARI program and — amusingly– Skynet, though this latter is primarily a military communications network and is, IIRC, being moved in its next generation to GEO, it supports intelligence operations, too..
France has its CSO, or Composante Spatiale Optique, a high-resolution optical reconnaissance system.
So the US has deniability, at the very least.
Please. How would they know it was Putin’s helicopter? This took a lot of intel and is beyond what any of those states are likely to have.
The New York Times recently presented an account that makes clear the US is running this war.
At best this was a combined operation which via different actors providing pieces could allow for blame-shifting
YS: How would they know it was Putin’s helicopter?
Intel on the ground in Moscow. You think that, forex, the UK doesn’t have that, one way or another?
YS: The New York Times recently presented an account that makes clear the US is running this war.
[1] When did the NYT become a reliably credible source?
Granted, the US may think it’s still running this war and USians imagine all roads still lead to Washington, which is one reason the USian NYT isn’t a persuasive source. But that day is done.
One very simple metric supporting that is that at the apogee of US power in the 1960s its establishment, or factions thereof, had little difficulty disposing of a US president, his brother the attorney-general, Martin Luther King, and a hundred assorted Panthers, Weathermen, etc., when these were considered a hindrance. Now it can’t even handle Trump, buffoon as he is.
[2] I have to go back to the US most months on business, unfortunately, and deal directly with the chaotic effect on investment. I see no evidence the US can run itself any longer, let alone this war.
[3] The reality, indeed, is that this war has its own momentum now. No one is ‘running’ it, not even the Russians. God help us.
All that said ….
YS: this was a combined operation which via different actors providing pieces
… is the likeliest scenario by far, clearly.
Ad hominem re the NYT. You need to rebut the article.
Plus the NYT story was exceedingly detailed, and most important, depicting the US as running the war was a HUGE admission against interest.
You are assuming can openers.
If the UK has such good intel re Putin’s movements, why has he not been killed a long time ago? He went to Kursk in March and to Minsk several times since the start of 2024. Any HUMINT was more likely to come from Ukraine.
Having said all this, John Mearsheimer argues the US and UK intel services were very unlikely to behind this attack due to how reckless it is and what a bad precedent it would set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY9JDUWhns&t=1s
But what about rogue elements?
Sometimes I wonder if our intelligence services are, and historically have been, a collection of rogue elements, each running their own projects motivated by ideology and/or career enhancement, rather than a cohesive departmental type of structure. With plausible deniability as the firewall between these elements, each other, and nominal senior management. I think, for instance, of Angleton’s office file following Lee Oswald’s activities after “undefecting” in detail, while no one else in the CIA seemed to know anything about him.
Yves S: But what about rogue elements?
Eh. One would like to dismiss this as merely lurid pulp-type fantasy, and it probably is.
However, you know that. So, as follows ….
[1] John Mearsheimer’s almost certainly right — not that he’s any more of a gospel authority than me or you here — and UK and I hope US intel grasp that offing Putin would, contrary to the propaganda fed the masses, accomplish nothing positive in terms of turning Ukraine around. To the contrary.
BUT targeting Putin’s helicopter likely required both (a) sigint and real-time satellite observational data (though, granted, there are alternative ways the Ukrainians might have done it) and (b) humint to know in the first place that Putin would be where he was when he was.
[2] The Ukrainians on their own don’t have both the humint and technical capability — they don’t have the satellite data, anyway. So, while one can think up narratives where they somehow pulled off the attack on Putin by themselves, those narratives seem less likely than that they had help.
That’s worrisome. I hadn’t thought about it before you brought up your ‘rogue elements’ notion. But certain possibilities exist.
[3] Like the US, UK intel has both satellite and sigint capability and would have better in-Russia humint than CIA, etc., if only because it’s in deep with all those Russian-speaking Ukrainians. (For other reasons, too, though.) So the UK has the theoretical capability to be behind the attack on Putin, which was the only point I was making in my previous comment above.
Theoretically, so might France. But I know nothing there. Let’s proceed to your ‘rogue elements’ speculation.
[4] The UK is a very different country than the US. It’s much smaller, most of the ‘people who matter’ went through Oxford or Cambridge or have formed alliances with people who did, the city-state of London is central while the rest of the UK is ancillary, and — to get to the point — no one who ‘matters’ doubts that a ‘deep state’ exists.
Some instances: when the Special Intelligence Service (Six/Vauxhall Cross) had their budget cut and had to give up their financial research division, it was sold off to The Economist and is now that publication’s financial research department. Similarly, all editors of the FT up to Dominic Lawson had previously done time as high-ups at SIS (Six). That’s just the world of London journalism. In the City, from what I can tell, matters are even more porous; there, Colonel Smithers would know more than I do.
[5] So when you hear Alastair Crooke is a ‘former British diplomat’, what he was — as you probably know — was an expert negotiator that Six lent out to the Israelis and the Arabs as UK policy suggested. Likewise, many reputable figures in the UK establishment have had careers partly in the secret world. Like this guy, one of the last pre-Thatcherite ‘One Nation Tories’ who ran against Boris Johnson to be Conservative party leader (though he didn’t have a chance) and who has a long, very impressive CV (e.g. speaks 11 languages, etc.) –
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart
Nowhere in that long CV does it say that he was Six’s administrator of an Iraqi province after the 2003 occupation. But he was.
Given this general spook-world adjacency in London, certain figures in UK intel have exercised considerable sway and also been prepared to blatantly go ‘off the reservation’ in the past.
[6] This guy, notably —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove
For a couple of instances: during Dearlove’s years as head of Six, 1999-2004, he was accused of falsifying the evidence of WMD in Iraq to justify the Blair government’s participation in the US administration. Then, when a British government weapons expert, David Kelly, went public about how the Blair government was ‘sexing up’ the evidence, Kelly ‘committed suicide’ shortly afterwards — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
More recently, in the US you’ll be familiar with the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele, former chief of Six’s Moscow bureau under Dearlove. It’s noteworthy that in 2016, while serving and former Six agents were pushing the Steele dossier and making other efforts to ensure the accession of Hillary Clinton to the White House in the US, in the UK Dearlove was the establishment figure who most strenuously promoted Brexit, picking a very public fight with then-PM, Teresa May.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove#Political_views
The point being, that from H. Clinton’s public record, it’s clear that had she reached the White House in 2016, the Ukraine conflict would have escalated shortly afterwards — for Dearlove’s purposes, at the same time as Brexit — rather than in 2022. Either way, though, the EU will never be the same.
Not that Dearlove doesn’t think Russia isn’t also an enemy of the UK. Here are a couple of recent interviews with the man — he’s 80 now, but he stays in the game —
Former head of MI6’s warning over war with Russia in Europe
Ex-MI6 spy chief: ‘Russia weak, and 80 years away from conquering Ukraine’
Judge for yourself. But l’d make the point that Dearlove is clearly intelligent, to the extent that he can sound superficially very reasonable and mild-mannered — certainly in the the first, more public-facing video — but if you think about what he’s saying he’s as extreme as, say, Dick Cheney.
The question then becomes: does Dearlove believe what he’s saying to the extent that he would act on his beliefs? That is, assist the Ukrainians in targeting Putin?.
Based on his past record, I’d say that he very much does believe what he’s saying, and would act on his beliefs. And while he’s old, others in UK intel likely think as Dearlove does.
For that matter, though, I don’t know what faction of nutters have emerged at Langley in the last 10-15 years.
1. Commentators have spoken repeatedly about a division between the neocons and the Trumpies. Trump is still trying to purge them. The neocons are very upset with Trump attempting to normalize relations with Putin.
2. In the discussion between John Helmer and Ray McGovern, and both worked for the government in president-interfacing roles. they clearly regarded the notion that the US has provided intel to Ukraine in this incident as possible and seemed neutral on the notion that the US was actively involved.
3. John Helmer has banged on about how Trump is not getting daily intelligence briefings (his schedule is published) but instead once a week. He can’t supervise what he does not know about.
4. There is speculation that Trump actually was not informed of the assassination and that it did have US insider involvement, by credible people, including Wilkerson. I did not hear Ritter say it but Judge Napolitano queried Wikerson saying Ritter thought it was possible. Wilkerson depicted it as possible and if so a very very very serious breach of protocol.
So people who have direct knowledge of how these operations work are not dismissive. That does not mean the UK is not a prime suspect, as you described.
I wonder the role of Ai in this war Yves, and how much it has contributed to its higher order strategy and development. Tactically, I imagine it a simple task for it to ID a Presidential convoy based off eg. movement of the traffic around it.
Perhaps not a retort, as I don’t believe it matters which vocal belligerent did it anyway (Estonia!); but if we slip down that slope of Ai powered conflict, it opens many cans of worms wrt ‘who’ is running things, given how the technology blurs the lines between tool and agent.
I think the word “reserves” is rather hard to define in the context of Russian Armed Forces, to be honest.
Let me explain. Before the war Russia had around 900,000 active duty soldiers, about 2,000,000 men in “contract reserves” and about 25,000,000 men as “general reserve” (as in: conscripts from the last 10 years or so). The 300,000 men mobilized in autumn 2022 were from the conscript reserves.
Now, by October 2024, the number of active duty soldiers was 1.3 million, and in December 2024 Putin signed a decree to rise the number to 1.5 million by the end of this year. These are all contract soldiers with 1 to 5 year contracts – so people are entering and leaving the ranks constantly.
Then there’s also the 300,000 strong Rosgvardija and 180,000 strong Border Guards, both of which have taken part in the hostilities. As they can be subordinated to military, they can be considered to be part of the reserves.
And yet, we can with some confidence assume that the “reserves” in the context discussed here is more or less the troops not currently engaged in the fighting, which would be somewhere between 900,000 (1.5 million minus 0.6 million) or 500,000 (1.3 million minus 800,000) depending on what numbers we assume are the most correct.
Now, that said, as far as I understand, the Russian system never deploys whole units to combat tasks. To draw a rough picture, a Russian division or brigade will always have one battalion for training conscripts (and contract reservists) and rotate other the battalions in and out of the conflict zone so that actually in any given time half of the mother unit is in the base going trough training, resting, recovering and restoring.
Summa summarum: it’s really difficult to put even a ballpark number on reserves, unless it’s clearly defined what is meant by the word. It’s somewhere between a few hundred thousand and 27 million, give or take a few.
” It’s somewhere between a few hundred thousand and 27 million”
😂
Thanks for the detail!
I suspected something like this with two sources I trust, Sleboda and Martyanov, contradicting in numbers this way.
Whatever the case I would feel 700k a safer figure if I wanted to make my point clear to NATO.
Especially if spread across the entire potential contact points between Ukr and Finland.
So if I keep to those 2 figures only, 250k is may be just part of a larger 700k that however is not only confined to Ukr.
Depending of what Command deems necessary in the various areas Ukraine could be subject to anything between 250k and 700k. Hypothetically speaking.
“I should point out that if such an attack on e.g. a Bavarian Taurus factory were to occur – which I still regard as total fiction – that would be complete seachange within Germany and towards this war.”
My guess is that if Russia decides to strike at NATO territory, it will not do so by attacking one of the “big” players such as Germany or France right away. Rather, it might simply obliterate that Polish base in Rzeszów where the military supplies are gathered and prepared for transport to Ukraine. If the strikes kills Ukrainian military personnel — then so much the better regarding the argument that Poland is actively involved in the war. If Taurus missiles are destroyed in the action, so much the better as a warning to Germany.
But even such an action is fraught with uncertainty as to the consequences, and so has a low probability of being carried out.
But even before that, I think, as The Rev Kev suggests above, that Russians will mercilessly hunt down and eliminate foreign specialists helping Ukrainians in Ukraine to operate long-range missile and drone strikes.
Rumanian Air Base 57, where US is investing in a large capacity for military iar power, should receive a bit of attention.
For US to shock and awe the RF it needs several expanded Air Base 57’s.
The AEGIS Ashore sites in Poland and Romania and the aligned air bases would certainly be on the short list if strikes in the EU were to happen:
Aegis Ashore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#Aegis_Ashore
One hopes this could devolve into the “negotiated” strikes as happen between Israel and Iran, but that remains a faint hope.
Western elites are starting to realize they have not only lost, but lost badly so the possibility of nation ending stupidity is getting back up to, if not even beyond Biden levels. If a big strike does happen, I think the historians will be tempted to stamped that with the “here is the start of WW3”. All nations nukes will be fully in use it or lose it hair trigger mode. Not a good place to be when our Western ruling elites are so incompetent.
Great point.
RF could strike the verticals launch system, claim some were loaded with Tomahawks ilo interceptors.
Kind of doubt any Aegis Ashore site contains any sort of Tomahawk fire control.
As far as the DOD lets us know, all AEGIS Ashore can fire Tomahawks:
U.S. tests ground-launched Tomahawk https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/39480/military-us-ground-launched-tomahawk
I’ve been of the view that Russia will have to hit somewhere NATO sooner or later. Russia’s real goal is to break NATO and the lynchpin of NATO is Article 5. If there is no real “security guarantee” that it provides to NATO members, then NATO becomes useless.
Who in NATO becomes that “chicken” (from the alleged Chinese proverb) has always been a tricky question for me: it has to be simultaneously “crazy,” as in unambiguously “deserving” a smackdown, important enough for people to care, but unimportant enough for people to ignore Article 5 (other than the obligatory tut-tut.) Poland has deftly avoided the role, imho, by not being “too” warlike. UK, actually, has been the leading candidate to me because of their too over the top bellicosity (and decking an alleged power and showing that even supposed nukes do not possess enough deterrence does have its attraction), but no doubt it’s too important to be ignored. Germany is not UK and Chancellor Ethel has been shrieking almost as much as Starmer, so maybe. One newish candidate, to me, has been Estonia, but for reasons unrelated to Ukraine: if Estonia engaged in open acts of piracy on international waters, then the legal rationale is all there.
I believe it is true that before considering any kind of Russian retaliation there is still to be seen what Taurus missiles, like the ATACAMS, Scalps and Storm shadows before, can accomplish if launched. Here, the Western participants have to be careful and think what they wish to achieve before any operation. Does the West wish to cause significant damage? Significant to the course of the war, and/or significant or relevant to Russian infrastructures, and/or direct attacks on Russian leaders, and/or terrorist-like attacks against civilians. In each of those cases Russian retaliation might come to be proportional, aimed at deterrence for future attacks (more or less overwhelming), and/or expanded to territories outside of Ukraine depending on each case. The chihuahuas in charge should, if they were competent enough, carefully think what the strategic objectives are and set aside their focus on media headlines. Think twice.
One reasonable supposition is that the cache of Taurus was destroyed during that massive RU raid last weekend.
And as such Germany walked back its missile deliveries, lol
Only the Russians and Germans know
Well, there are some physical limits to be considered: the full range is achievable only when the missile is launched from an aircraft flying high and fast, so that the missile gets all the possible help from the platform. Any Ukrainian fighter trying this will be likely shot down way before reaching the release point.
Also, the maximum range is possible only if the missile flies in the higher altitudes (where air is thinner thus less friction) and pretty straight (again, course change causes friction) since it has a rather limited energy budget at it’s disposal.
If it’s launched from a low flying fighter trying to evade Russian radars, and the missile itself flies low and follows a complicated path to avoid air-defenses, it’s range will be a bare half of the maximum.
Even German missiles have follow the laws of physics.
Great analysis, Yves. Your assessments on Russia have been spot-on for years. From my perch in Russia I can tell you it feels like a feline preparing to spring on its prey. Even formerly moderate Russians are growing restive at the perceived lack of response to western provocations, and there is growing expectation that something is about to happen. To your point about resolve, gosuslugi alerts for drones arrive on everyone’s cell phones and this does not make them afraid; just determined. The west has done a fabulous job of unifying the Russian people. How it has changed in three years. Nobody wants more war, but if you bring it they are ready. Shoulder to shoulder and with everything they have. I don’t think the US and Europe have any idea what they would unleash if they attack Russia directly or indirectly. It will be epic, one way or another. Stop poking the bear ya morons.
Russians are massing their medium bombers for the first time, they must think the air defence is worn down enough now. Probably flatten Bankova St at the next provocation. Perhaps they would rather take on NATO now instead of in 3 years time. The US must tie them up somehow for the foreseeable future to gain strategic freedom, so Europe will be fed into the machine.
I don’t try to trade events in Ukraine, so I tend to ignore most pundit predictions and their increasingly frequent member measuring contests. I am interested in clear analysis of the events actually taking place and discussions of possible outcomes, and filtering of the propaganda.
I have seen speculation that the most likely target for Taurus missiles is the Kerch bridge. Ukraine might view that as a PR victory although it would no longer have a military impact. Plausible, but who knows?
I think it was Doctorow who most recently pointed out that attacks on the territory of the RF by Germany produce a very different emotional response than attacks by France or any other NATO member. Memories of WW2 are still fresh. Would a strike of Taurus missiles prompt a response targeting Berlin? We can’t know, but I think Merz would be reckless to risk it, regardless of the truth of claims that the Taurus can carry a nuclear payload.
That was a while back.. There was even a leaked story of an argument among German officers saying it would take a lot of missiles to damage the Kerch Bridge and what was the point?
The leaked recording was a while ago. The speculation was this week. The point was that the missiles wouldn’t have impact on the conflict and would more likely be used in a strike against a civilian target. I think “what was the point” is the right question regarding the comments made by Merz, prompting strong responses from multiple officials including Lavrov.
My guess is if Taurus is used to attack Russia they will take out the Taurus factory. At night, with enough warning to allow workers time to leave. I doubt Berlin, imo putin really doesn’t like civilian casualties.
News report from the other side:
Germany to help Ukraine produce long-range weapons – Merz
Russia views the chancellor’s claim that there are no longer range limits on Western arms sent to Kiev as a serious escalation
https://swentr.site/russia/618274-merz-ukraine-long-range-weapons/
and an opinion piece:
How to start a war with Russia in these easy steps: Just ask Merz’s Germany
https://swentr.site/news/618307-germany-russia-taurus-war/
I wonder who is/are really behind this war and their motivations nowadays. Have the motivations and who changed over time?
The US has financed Ukrainian Nazis to fight USSR since the 50s. There was a clear who and why.
But then the wall came down. Then NATO expanded because reasons that are clear?
Now when nuclear war has been a topic of real concern: who and why?
If all war-games RUvsUS end with nuclear war = end of mankind. Eschatological zionists are interested in that. If they are ideologically motivated, I think the nuclear war will be hard, if not impossible to stop. But if this is the road we are on, why don’t China and India and other countries pipe up to put an end to this nonsense? China could grind the US to a halt within a few months by just halting deliveries of everything if the US don’t stop the war. Would the US then launch nuclear weapons at China as retaliation?
US – I buy the Michael Hudson thesis, that this is really a US-war against EU. Trump eggs Merz on to launch a few Taurus, then stops the supply to Ukraine. EU has to fend for itself against an angry bear. Game over for EU and possibly war over. It could be though that a Taurus would trigger a nuclear war since the new Russian nuclear doctrince says that they will go after the US too if the vassals start sending nuclear stuff against Russia. Taurus is nuclear capable so back to US vs EU nuclear war? Tuarus is also a German-Swedish bomb. Will Sweden now be the unwanted guest of Mr. Iskander, Mr. Kinzhal and Lord Oreshnik? Would it be safer for Russia to bomb the hapless Swedes rather than the [insert correct adjective] Germans?
Why are the EU elites buying this crap? The political elites are extremely stupid and petty so I can imagine them having been promised a million dollars (or even less) and a private jet out of EU as soon as the Oreshniks start flying. The oligarchs, do not give a flying &?=)/ about EU citizens and have their bunkers prepared. They are mostly financialized, not rooted by production sites, so they can be parasites everywhere, in EU, in Bahamas or wherever.
Would the Untergang of EU benefit the Rest of the World ex-US? What does Africa and Latin America stand to win in the case of the death of EU? Liberation from plundering? Will the the people living in EU go back to the continents and will they bring back know-how and skills?
Is this a war driven by Lockheed Martin and Boeing? Is it that easy?
Is this a war driven by Glencore and other natural resources companies to get access to Russia? Is it that easy?
How does the confluence of interests work?
Where should one throw monkey-wrenches to stop the war?
“Where should one throw monkey-wrenches to stop the war?”
At the money?
Been thinking along the lines of: If the Europeans can’t prevail against Russia even with a massive military buildup, then what’s the point? The logical answer is to reoccupy the former African colonies to resume the resource plunder.
Regarding “Oreshnik”, I find it unlikely that this system will be used in some retaliatory fashion in the near future. Part of this hinges on the specificity of the moniker itself; the english translation is hazel, and the name presumably was assigned due to the visual similiarity between the groups of descending terminal munitions of the weapon and hazel blossoms.
Putin delivered an address following the attack on the Yuzhmash plant in which:
1) he indicated that “Oreshnik” will be placed under the command of the strategic forces. You do not tend to place weapons that you expect to use in a current conflict under this authority. That said, it is possible that switching these into an operational/tactical branch could be simply a formality. But these are (presumably) high-value, high-cost weapons in low supply, so will be used sparingly, if at all.
2) he spoke of “Oreshnik, and other similar systems”. Note the “other similar systems” — I have seen zero discussion of this very interesting tidbit. How are these other systems different? Terminal velocity, range, payload type (kinetic, conventional, nuclear), spread of the terminal munitions? Keep in mind that we now have “hazel” and “not hazel”.
3) following the address, he made a remark to the effect of “Is that clear enough?” My fear is that it was not, as those that the message were intended for are rather thick, amongst other things; it may be nearly impossible to be clear enough to these parties outside of something catastrophically extreme. This does not mean that some sub-catastrophic attempt will not be made to clarify things further.
Narrowly, I would not expect “Oreshnik” to be deployed again in the conflict as it currently stands. In a comment in a prior post not long after the Yuzhmash attack, I presented my belief that the intent of the operation had three components: testing, demonstration, and practical (destruction of a valuable military target). If anything, what we might see would be a similar operation with one of the “not hazel” variants (excluding nuclear), to satisfy the testing component. The question then becomes one of identifying an appropriate practical target (or targets); the target should “fit” the weapon.
Judge Nap and Crooke discussing current attitudes in St. Petersburg, how the attitudes have changed over the past year, and what T is missing or doesn’t understand about Ukr. utube. ~25+ minutes
Alastair Crooke : Is Trump Missing the Boat?
https://youtu.be/MeeE1qavSg0?t=140
I think a possible response to major Western cruise missile strikes in Russia would be full mobilization to win the war quickly and decisively. The damage done by 100 Taurus strikes would inflame Russian public opinion sufficiently to support this step. It would also break the delusional NATO belief that one more turn of the escalation screw will bring down the Putin regime.
> In other words, the West is pushing Russia to respond by striking Western cities, or alternatively, Western military assets, such as bases in Poland
Yep, these Western neocon psychopaths really want this …
I don’t know how Russia navigates this TBH. Let them strike 1st? Shock and awe sorties to decimate Ukraine once and for all? Take out Z?
This is IMO the edge of the precipice … #DeityHelpUs
It is a war of attrition. germany has a limited number of functioning Taurus missiles. Even if their flights are optimized – Sleboda might be right about the present drone attacks on Russia – there will be only a limited affect on Russian war machine, all the while EU gets really defensless.
Bear down and grind down.
The UA-RU situation is akin to the 1980 Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8-years and in which the US supported Iraq long enough and just enough so that both sides, especially Iran, could wear themselves out; millions died in that war too.
Germany and the Europeans do not have a plan to defeat Russia but only to escalate the war enough and keep it going long enough to eventually wear out the Russians; good luck with that; Russia is not Iran.
As to Nato’s Article 5, it’s irrelevant because it only applies when a Nato country is attacked and not when the Nato country, in this case Taurus armed Germany, is the attacker.
No doubt, int’l law is muddy because if a country gives a missile to another country and that country uses it to attack a third nation, the country launching the missile is responsible, however, if Germans are necessary to be in UA to operate the missile, then who knows where to fix the blame?
The Russians can and will hold Germany responsible. Yet, if the Germans did nothing when the US blew up Nordstream, I don’t think the Russians need to worry about a German missile attack.