As the press is wont to say, the large-scale Ukraine drone attacks on four Russian airbases are a developing story. However, as we’ll discuss below, experts like Scott Ritter believe Ukraine must have had assistance from at least the Europeans, particularly the UK (recall their role in the Kerch Bridge truck bomb explosion). Ritter believes the US had no role but that this attack will force Trump’s hand. More immediately, the question is what does Russia do next. My assumption is they still proceed with the Istanbul talks and launch the response shortly thereafter. Even though Russia may have many strike packages worked out, there’s the question of what to do about the presumed European help, and whether they have firm enough evidence in hand to justify strikes outside Ukraine.
Recall further the drone attacks on Putin’s helicopter on a recent visit to Kursk. Russia has been weirdly silent about that, which is now looking like a PR mistake. Both John Helmer and Ray McGovern in a talk on Dialogue Work argued that Russia would use this to test the US, since they do communicate on terrorist matters, as to see what there response was to a Russian query about what they knew when.
But it looks like time for tests has passed. Ritter warned that Russia’s nuclear doctrine would allow for a nuclear strike in response to this attack.
First to news reports. From Anadolu Agency in Ukraine hits over 40 Russian strategic bombers in ‘large-scale’ attack: Media:
Ukraine’s military conducted a “large-scale” attack on Russia, with state media claiming on Sunday that over 40 strategic bomber jets were destroyed in the strike using drones in various regions, including the Siberian region of Irkutsk, which is over 4,000 kilometers away from the border.
The country’s Security Service (SBU) has conducted a “large-scale special operation,” codenamed Spider Web, to destroy Russian bombers, Ukraine’s state news agency Ukrinform reported, citing sources in the SBU.
The report said SBU drones targeted planes used by Moscow in attacks on Ukrainian cities overnight.
More than 40 bombers are currently known to have been hit, the report claimed, adding that preparations for the “operation” took more than a year and a half.
The attack targeted four airfields at once, including Olenya, Ivanovo, Dyagilevo, and Belaya, according to the report.
The Belaya airbase is in Russia’s Siberian region of Irkutsk, whose administrative center is more than 4,300 kilometers (2,670 miles) from the Russia-Ukraine border.
The source went on to describe the “operation” as “extremely complex” from a logistical point of view, with the SBU first transporting the drones to Russia, after which they were hidden under the roof of mobile wooden houses, which were then remotely opened.
Irkutsk Governor Igor Kobzev on Telegram confirmed strikes on his region, saying a military unit in the settlement of Sredny was attacked by drones….
Murmansk Governor Andrey Chibis and Ryazan Governor Pavel Malkov also reported drone attacks in their respective regions. The former, however, called information regarding explosions in the town of Severomorsk “fake.”
The town serves as the main naval base for Russia’s Northern Fleet.
So 40 “strategic bombers” is the Ukraine claim, with reports of at least one attack apparently exaggerated.
Russia has confirmed that its air bases were hit but is characteristically tight lipped about the amount of damage. From BBC:
The Russian Defence Ministry has confirmed in a Telegram post that several military planes have ignited as a result of drone attacks that were initiated from near Olenya air base in the Russian far-north region of Murmansk, and Belaya air base near Irkutsk in Siberia.
Notice all the chatter about using long range missiles like the Taurus looks to have been a psyop, to get Russia’s defenses focused on a very different type of attack.
For reference, charts on Russia’s air force as of 2025, from DWMMA:
From the Financial Times, Ukraine stages audacious attack on airfields deep in Russian territory:
Aircraft were “burning” at the Belaya airfield, located in south-eastern Siberia about 5,500km east of the Ukrainian border; at the Olenya air base on the Kola Peninsula near Murmansk; Dyagilevo air base 200km south-east of Moscow; and Ivanovo airfield, 300km north-east of the Russian capital, the official said.
Video footage filmed by a Ukrainian reconnaissance aircraft and shared by the official appeared to show one Russian airfield in flames and drones attacking several planes. In another video, the voice of Vasyl Malyuk, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), is heard approving the attacks.
Recall Ukraine has faked footage before but I would assume for now that the claimed strikes are real, and how severe the damage was is yet to be determined.
However, the pink paper does not see this attack, although very impressive and no doubt a monster morale booster for Ukraine, as unlikely to reduce Russia’s ability to prosecute the war in Ukraine. And recall that the Financial Times is very much a Ukraine supporter:
A former Ukrainian officer who runs analytical group Frontelligence Insight said that while the damage would probably not directly influence Russia’s position on the battlefield, it was still significant.
“It does reduce Russia’s strategic capabilities [which] mean the ability to project power globally, the ability to deliver nuclear strikes and overall military posture in Eurasia,” he said. “When [the Russian] general staff plans wars, they don’t look just at one theatre of war or specific part of the front line. They assess the military capabilities and project how to execute the political will of leadership.”
Ukraine’s attack would dent Russia’s “geopolitical confidence”, he added.
I don’t buy the “geopolitical confidence” claim. Russia is still considerably outproducing the Collective West in pretty much every armament category that matters, save naval assets. This now gives them the justification that they did not have before, to take all of Ukraine if necessary to bring thme to heel.
There is plenty of glee on Twitter:
BREAKING: Ukraine unleashes its biggest strike on Russian Air Force yet.
~ Drones smuggled deep into Russian territory hit strategic airbases – up to 40 AIRCRAFT reportedly DESTROYED.This marks a bold escalation. How will Russia react?pic.twitter.com/fanAFjIqHz
— The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️) (@Indian_Analyzer) June 1, 2025
This will be in textbooks.
Ukraine secretly delivered FPV drones and wooden mobile cabins into Russia. The drones were hidden under the roofs of the cabins, which were later mounted on trucks.At the signal, the roofs opened remotely. Dozens of drones launched directly from the… pic.twitter.com/sJyG3WyYYI
— Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) June 1, 2025
All of russia needs to look like this picturesque scene from the Belaya Airbase in Irkutsk Oblast. pic.twitter.com/LqzZDH6ZoK
— UAVoyager🇺🇦 (@NAFOvoyager) June 1, 2025
Not a surprise:
🚨⚡ URGENT ALERT: 🇷🇺🔥🇺🇦
Russian President Vladimir Putin convenes EMERGENCY Security Council meeting! 🚨 Major response imminent rumors of possible NUCLEAR escalation in hours! 😱 #Russia #Ukraine #BreakingNews pic.twitter.com/feY92jKFnX— NewsDaily🪖🚨🪖 (@XNews24_7) June 1, 2025
To put it politely, Putin’s restraint now looks to have been unwise, but these events are path dependent. Russia has been running a coalition war, since it needs the economic support of key allies, most of all China, which has never been keen about Russia invading Ukraine even if it accepted the lack of other options. I don’t see how Russia does not take the gloves off now. One move is to unleash its missiles and take out “decision centers” as in Kiev and the electrical grid in most if not all of Western Ukraine. Russia now needs to prostrate Ukraine.
Scott Ritter, who admittedly likes to paint in bright colors, says it would be completely consistent with Russian nuclear doctrine to make a nuclear attack. From his post, Playing With Fire:
Operation Spiderweb, the largescale assault on critical Russian military infrastructure directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence by unmanned drones, has demonstrably crossed Russia’s red lines when it comes to triggering a nuclear retaliation…
Operation Spiderweb is a covert direct-action assault on critical Russian military infrastructure and capabilities directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities…
This would be the equivalent of a hostile actor launching drone strikes against US Air Force B-52H bombers stationed at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
The timing of Operation Spiderweb is clearly designed to disrupt peace talks scheduled to take place in Istanbul on June 2.
First and foremost, one must understand that it is impossible for Ukraine to seriously prepare for substantive peace talks while planning and executing an operation such as Operation Spiderweb…
Moreover, this attack could not have occurred without the consent of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany….
Unknown is the extent to which President Trump, who has been pushing for successful peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, was knowledgeable of the Ukrainian actions, including whether he approved of the action in advance..
How Russia responds to this latest Ukrainian action is yet unknown..
But this much is clear: Ukraine could not have carried out Operation Spiderweb without the political approval and operational assistance of its western allies….
Russia has in the past responded to provocations by Ukraine and its western allies with a mixture of patience and resolve.
Many have interpreted this stance as a sign of weakness….
The extent to which Russia can continue to show the same level of restraint as in the past is tested by the very nature of the attack—a massive use of conventional weapons which struck Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence force, causing damage…
We have reached an existential crossroads in the SMO…
President Trump, who has been claiming to support a peace process between Russia and Ukraine, must now decide as to where the United States stands considering these developments…
Ukraine, not Russia, represents an existential threat to humanity.
NATO, not Russia, is responsible for encouraging Ukraine to behave in such a reckless manner.
So, too, is the United States. The contradictory statements made by US policy makers regarding Russia provide political cover for Ukraine and its NATO enablers to plan and execute operations like Operation Spiderweb…
But it is Trump himself who must decide the fate of the world….
Choose Ukraine and trigger a nuclear war.
Choose Russia and save the world.
We don’t and probably won’t know soon if at all how many bombers were irreparably damaged. That will play into Russia’s calculus of how to respond. But Russia clearly has to at least aggressively increase the tempo of the war and defeat Ukraine sooner rather than later. Irrespective of the military logic, the Russia public will be seeing red.
The very ugly question is what does Russia do if it concludes the US had a hand in this attack.
254 comments
Comments are closed.
Russia aligned sources are claiming 6 planes hit. The real number will probably matter when Russia retaliates.
Regardless, Ukraine really, really, wants to escalate.
That may be why the Financial Times story I just added to the post was less celebratory than it might have been. They know the number is not 40 but they have no idea of what haircut to apply.
I had to cut a lot of Ritter’s post so as not to overhoist, but he stressed there was no reason to think Ukraine could not repeat this operation, and that made it an act that demanded a decisive response.
As with Dec 1941, once the smoke clears a majority of the aircraft “hit” will be restored.
6 of 9 US Navy Battleships damaged at Pearl Harbor were refitted and served in the war. Similar recovery was effected for cruisers.
This event could be compared to the Japanese attacks on Clark Field in the Philippines, but the US’ Kievan cabal has no force to come in and make success out of this sabotage.
The Russians are calling it a “terrorist attack”. Russian MD is playing down damage. According to RT:
This suggests that Russia will not run into headless retaliation, by no means with nukes. The Russians will indeed retaliate though i guess they will keep measured and cold-blooded as usual. This has a look as the latest Ukrainian effort to make the war global. Because they know that the Russians know they had the support and help from the CW to do this. Trying to drag Putin into their own madness. It will most probably fail in this sense.
The Russians are rational, unlike the Americans. They are not going to use nukes. They are not going to kill a lot of civilians. They are not going to deplete their stocks, but they will retaliate strongly. I think taking out “decision centers” and the remainder of the electrical network, plus the port facilities in Odessa and region. I think it’s possible they might drop a hazelnut on the Rheinmetall factory that makes Taurus missiles, but I won’t be surprised if they don’t. Hasn’t anybody noticed that the Russians, during the SMO, have been careful of civilian lives? Well, actually, careful of the lives of Russian soldiers, too.
Some of the planes were easy targets, they are out in the open due to nuclear treaty requirements and rarely move. Still if we take Zelensky at his word (ha) then Ukraine does not need our help any longer. The logistic and technical capabilities needed to infiltrate and install drones so close to military airfields are considerable.
They have those technical and logistical skills and experience, why shouldn’t they? Plus they speak the language and can easily recruit sympathisers/ fall guys and are devious and reckless enough to think of schemes like this.
This reminds me of watching a football or basketball game with my dad when I was a kid. A team that was a heavy favorite kept letting the other team stay close in the game and then sometimes they ended up winning because of the lax approach. In my opinion. Putin has done this by not letting the military prosecute a war and this attack and massive loss of bombers that will take years and years to replace is 100% on him. I think he will do nothing after this strike or the next as he always does. Scary situation for sure.
No, it is a big mistake to view this conflict only in military terms.
As I said above, this is a coalition war. Russia depends on the economic support of its allies (as in traded goods, not weapons). It was a HUUGE deal for China, India. Turkiye, and other countries in the Global South to defy the US and keep engaging in commerce with Russia. Modi, for instance, at one point early on chewed out Putin basically along the lines of “Why have you not settled the war?” Putin is under great pressure to keep them on board, which necessitated repeatedly demonstrating that it was the other side that was being unreasonable (like Zelensky demanding Russia return Crimea, his saying he would assassinate Putin if he could). That put Russia in the position of having to play along with Trump’s negotiation foolishness.
The slow grind has also kept the support of the public high. After the shock and awe sanctions wobbles, economic growth has been good, to a degree that has even surprised the government. Keeping casualties down has resulted in enlistments recently rising to new high, while Ukraine is having difficulty finding men to gang press into service.
You greatly underestimate the complexity of all the tradeoffs that Putin has had to manage.
Valid point. Does anything change or will they just have to accept the losses?
I have heard the opinion in Russia, since the start of the war, that a slow, long war of several years was the best scenario for Russia, for several reasons. This argument seems to go under the radar for most observers, including professionals, who only started noticing part of its fruition when attritional strategy became obvious.
Don’t forget that the ‘decline of the West’ assumption was one of the key, perhaps the key, assumption behind the Russian and Chinese decision to challenge Western hegemony. In the Ukraine arena of the conflict, Russia are taking extreme care to apply just the right pressure to the West to continue or accelerate its decline without having it lash out and commit murder suicide, so to speak. So far, the West’s militaries have been weakened, weapons stocks depleted, the limits of Western power have been slowly exposed for everyone to see and slowly digest, and there’s continuous economic and political turmoil in the West. Russia on the other hand is going from strength to strength. It seems the strategy working for now. At the cost of now perhaps millions of lives.
As Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s negotiator in Istanbul, recently remarked, “The Great Northern War with Sweden lasted 21 years. Twenty-one years. But just a few years after it began, Peter the Great offered peace to the Swedes… What did the Swedes say? ‘No, we will fight to the last Swede.”
The Russians know there is no substitute for victory.
There were, iirc, talks between Ribbentrop and Molotov in 1943 that went nowhere. Then Germans attacked at Kursk (how history rhymes!) We know the rest.
FWIW, per Yves’ comment upthread, Modi was obviously not on board with Russia’s long, attritional approach. Perhaps he is now – reduced pressure to end the war quickly would be a sign.
One thing is interesting. It looks as if Trump might have known about the plans but refused to sign off on it, and Ukraine, members of NATO and the CIA and other US forces decided to conduct this operation before the Istanbul meeting tomorrow, which Trump worked so hard to achieve. Both Trump and Putin are likely to exact a terrible revenge.
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1929196427730711010?t=2t_JZ1KurQSjEzCtzipnxg&s=08
Oh, Trump will get to throw one of his bi-weekly temper tantrums at NATO rather than a trade partner or Harvard? That would be a relief.
Either Trump has been trapped in a policy he knows might lead to nuclear war, something which is unpopular as well as very stupid, and which only the most fluffheaded death fantasist thinks makes sense, or he withdraws US support from every coumtry involved. It’s gone way beyond the temper tantrum stage. There is no real middle ground. We’ll see what happens over the coming week after the Istanbul talks.
One thing is certain. Foreign policy turns out to be a lot more difficult and twisted than Trump ever imagined.
Great points. I would hope India would change its attitude after the recent terrorist attack it experienced and align more strongly with Russia.
However, I do recognize the enormous connection India has in terms of trade with the United States and Europe.
This is all true, but it does not mean that James T. could not also be right. Russia’s desire to secure the backing (or at least the patience) of its coalition *does* affect the intensity at which it is willing to wage war, and this *has* had the effect of exposing Russia to losing both more materiel and manpower than is strictly necessary. The need to manage an economic coalition while winning a war against a formidable opponent with strong backing requires constant prudential adjustment. It would be naive to assume that Putin is not capable of making strategic errors in this regard—opting to preserve economic partnerships at the cost of delivering a decisive blow to Ukrainian decision centers, something Russia is very capable of doing.
The real risk here is that the patient approach leads Russia to suffer such a loss that it is *forced* to respond even more powerfully than it needed to have done in the first place, had Putin opted for a more aggressive response at some point earlier in the escalatory chain.
The main similarity i find is the presence of cheerleaders (namely the FT et al.): “audacious”, “brave” etc.
Years ago, thanks to John Helmer, I was acquainted with the existence of the Stavka – a War Cabinet – which may be convened in times of national emergency (like now) in which the President is a voting member but is (I believe constitutionally) bound to abide a majority decision. With all due respect to Ritter’s assessment, I’m of the belief (after listening to Alex Krainer’s recent interview with Nima) that the UK ‘Blob’ is in the driver’s seat, and will likely be an early recipient of any Russian reprisal outside of Ukraine’s borders. Imho.
Etymologically Stavka means a tent (a thing stood up), so basically a place where the command resides during an operation.
The Russian constitution does not recognize any such thing. During a war an emperor, a chairman or a president can establish one (Stavka of the high command), but currently no such thing exists. Yeltsin made the Russian president as the commander-in-chief of the Russian Armed Forces and as long as the conflict remains a special military operation, the will be no Stavka in the sense you mean.
One should be aware that in the Russian military thinking since the late 17th century military does what the political leadership tells it to do. No matter what the political system is, it is the political leadership that comes up with the strategy and the military obliges. Russian generals toe the line, or they will be Zhukovied or Surovikinied, plain and simple.
Perhaps a sign of how ahistorical and uneducated many people are, but I see plenty of Ukraine supporters talking about a “Russian Pearl Harbor” with unrestrained glee. Perhaps they are unaware how Pearl Harbor was eventually resolved.
With nuclear weapons, I should add.
The question is whether it should be London, Paris, or Berlin that goes up in a mushroom cloud. (It won’t be anywhere in Ukraine.)
Why a mushroom cloud when an Oreshnik will serve just as well, is reportedly unstoppable, leaves no radiation (Unless of course Russia hits stockpiles of nuclear weapons), and fewer civilian casualties? That would send a real message.
Or wake up call.
Just a thought.
that is what i am thinking. admittedly i am not very caught up on the specifics of the oreshnik, but i worry about what russia nuclear bombing ukraine would do to its relationships with its allies. i think from a pr standpoint, nuclear bombing ukraine would just galvanize western forces more. i know scott ritter loves talking about potential nuclear war, but i optimistically maintain it’s not a risk worth taking.
I actually thought about sinking a British and/or French nuclear sub, but that’s probably harder than hitting London or Paris. I think the attack, should it take place, will probably need to be nuclear as a demonstration piece.
This talk of nuclear response is unreasonable. Anyone who had been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki would know that any kind of use of nuclear weapons is a total no-no unless you’re in for global annihilation.
The horrors of tens of thousands of people burning alive for days before dying, rivers full of bodies and mountains of the dead, hundreds of thousands suffer for years after from less severe radioactive burns… before talking about nuclear anyone should inform themselves of what the results were of the american bombs.
There was no greater atrocity.
The country who would consider using nuclear would be immediately denounced by the global south, who tends to send delegations yearly to the memorial in Hiroshima.
Well put. Personally I quail at the thought of what you describe. Yet we are watching in Gaza an atrocity of similar proportions. While the official body count is much lower than Hiroshima, is there any doubt that it is a multiple of the official number? And we have video of children being burned to death. Yet the world seems to just turn away.
I agree, Hazelnuts are the go : Mushrooms are disproportionate. Possible targets :-
– There is an RAF base in Malta.
– There is NATO military HQ at Casteau near Mons.
– There are border rail terminals involved in transferring military supplies through Poland (standard gauge) to Ukraine (broad gauge).
– Submarine base at Clyde (Faslane) in Scotland.
– Submarine base at Île Longue in Brittany.
If it’s airbases we want to strike, the big base being built for NATO in Romania will do nicely. It can be made to fit the bill. Secondarily, the two Aegis Ashore missile batteries, one in Poland and one in Romania are prime candidates for “decommissioning.”
If Perfidious Albion, the Gaul, and the Boche are indeed the enablers, then, in the interest of proportionality & China/ Global South relations, I would argue against attacking targets in Romania and Poland at this time, juicy as they may be.
As Île Longue & Faslane are home to French & British strategic nuclear forces I think a case could made apropos proportionality for attacking them in retaliation.
A nuclear exchange with nuclear powers is a reasonable escalation to getting hit with FPV drones by a small country you’ve invaded? Leaving morality aside for a moment, can you explain how that would make any tactical, strategic, or common sense?
The point is not that they would. The point is that Ukraine crossed a red line where this would be on the menu of options for a response.
And get a map. Ukraine is not a small country. It is the biggest country in Europe ex Russia itself.
“The point is not that they would. The point is that Ukraine crossed a red line where this would be on the menu of options for a response.”
My point is that has been ‘on the menu of responses’ since at least Kursk (probably before) and that that response still won’t occur, as it wouldn’t make any sense.
“And get a map. Ukraine is not a small country. It is the biggest country in Europe ex Russia itself.”
I meant small in power, and in comparison to Russia.
That is bad faith, shifting grounds, and also false.
These drone attacks were on nuclear deterrent forces. Kursk was not. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you keep talking over it.
Russia is fighting NATO and the US. Ukraine had the best NATO trained and equipped army at the start of the SMO. By some counts, Ukraine has gone through 2 or 3 full armies, which would be impossible without the >$162 billion of US support (Rob Urie made a strong case that a lot more in black budget support before and after the start of the SMO also went to Ukraine) and >$158 billion from EU members (https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253)
I am really getting tired of the way you make shit up and expect us to indulge you.
Your blog your rules, I’ll stop commenting
You mean, unprovoked Putin’s war of aggression against democracy and everything else that is good in universe?
I mean substantially escalating the Ukrainian civil war from a conflict with about a couple thousand casualties a year to what it is now. If NATO had marched on Russian territory in Nov 2022 (or had its Ukrainian proxies do that) I would have considered that an unethical invasion and a massive escalation, but that is NOT how the cards landed.
Am I wrong that Russia would be more secure and prosperous if they had stuck to defending the Russian-speaking break-away provinces, rather than escalating the invasion and bringing fairly immense suffering onto the heads of Ukrainians?
You cannot be this ill informed. Please stop. I’m not approving any more comments. The purpose of this site is not to spoon feed you.
This was not a civil war, FFS. It was as US led coup in 2014, the Maidan coup, which was intended to be a stepping stone to regime change Putin. See: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8cUC2GJmKc/
If China had done 1/20th in Mexico of what we did in Ukraine, the US would have invaded Mexico LONG ago.
Ray McGovern described, and John Mearsheimer agreed, that Putin did everything he could to avoid a war and the West was determined to have it. At the 2022 Munich Security Conference (Feb 15) the mood was giddy because that war was clearly imminent and the West was rock solid confident that they’d trounce Russia and be done with Putin.
You are wrong in your assumption about Russian prosperity. And no, I’m not taking the bait of acting as your research firm any more. Homework (making information demands you can damned well investigate on your own) is yet another violation of our written site Policies. Go do your own bloody work.
And would you have approved of the invasion of Mexico by the US? I wonder.
Your “I wonder” indicates you intend this question to be an attack.
I don’t see how you can regard this idea as controversial. Please listen to Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, who also served in senior roles at the State Department, explains, using a comparison of how the US would react if a similar strike came from Mexico or Canada, how the drone attacks on nuclear assets would indeed justify a nuclear response, not that Putin would go there. This discussion comes at the top of the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSoPhKassE
Nice catch on Pearl Harbor. That certainly didn’t work out very well for Japan.
1 June is the official start of summer in RU, so it seems that we’re in for a hot one, geopolitically speaking.
This attack was clever and tactically proficient. RU badly needs to up its game internally, in terms of counterintelligence and security. Of course these stunt attacks have no impact on the front line situation in UKR, but they are embarrassing and expensive to fix…..and hitting nuclear-capable bombers is really provocative.
I have several times predicted–always incorrectly–that RU will finally take off its proverbial gloves re UKR, so I’m reluctant to repeat my mistake. Still, Putin speaks German and plays chess, so he must realize that he’s in a zugzwang this time. If he makes only a token retaliation then he looks like weak (shades of TACO), but if he retaliates brutally then he risks a serious NATO response in kind. UKR’s only hope at this stage is to provoke RU into a massive escalation that in turn provokes a direct NATO intervention in the conflict. But if Putin doesn’t somehow convince UKR to stop these kinds of attacks, then UKR will keep escalating. He has no easy choices here.
The real import of these attacks–regardless of whatever damage was actually caused–is the fact that UKR actually pulled them off successfully, and the knowledge that there might be dozens of other drone trucks out there in RU, waiting for their orders. And of course if UKR can do this to RU, then there’s no reason why RU or China cannot someday pull off a similar stunt in Europe or the USA, where there are also plenty of trucks carrying shipping containers (and far fewer traffic cops stopping vehicles for random document checks than one finds in RU).
Taking off gloves against Ukraine is a bit pointless. Beating up Ukraine does not hurt the “real enemies,” in Paris, London, and Berlin. But openly escalating against the West is not in Russia’s interest for the moment. In a way, Russia is looking for something that I’d have thought was impossible–something in which US would turn a blind eye while a major NATO country is attackied (b/c that would mean de facto destruction of NATO as a military alliance.) As the European leaders are proving that they are crazy warmongers intent on dragging US to a war not in our interests, however, the more they demonstrate that NATO is a drag on US, not a gain. However, Russia will need a convincing proof that this attack was really directed by London or Paris, not Kiev.
Europe going warmonger demonstrates how effective Russiagate propaganda was. We can control beliefs, but erred big time doing it in such a way that would decrease our own security. What security is there when chances of accidental launchings are increasing every day during this war? Propaganda effective like mad, but there’s no “Hidden Persuaders” type book this time (a whole one could be written I guess about just this one phenomenon?). Although there was “Surveillance Capitalism.”
Speaking of chances, chances are overwhelming that this is not the case, but sometimes I wonder if they kept going with neutron bombs but just didn’t tell anybody.
In an odd way, Europe going openly warmonger aids Russian diplomacy.
Right now, with a kinetic conflict taking place between Russia and NATO “ally,” “NATO” can attack strategic targets in Russia and pretend that it is not their doing. Without clear exposure not just of Western complicity, but perfidy (as in, these are attacks by actual Westerners disguised as Ukrainians, not Ukrainians working on behalf of Westerners), open escalation by Russia directly against the West is not exactly “legal” and, despite my sentiment that they should, for reasons of both international and domestic politics, Putin the lawyer will not take the path of open conflict with the West.
Russians and the West do not have mirroring situation around the world: The Ukrainian regime is very eager to attack Russia for any reason–and if they have support from the West, whether officially sanctioned by the top leaders or not, all the better. No one is actually quite eager to openly attack the US or Western Europe. The closest thing to Ukraine, but against the West, are the Yemenis (given that, as far as I can tell, they are in control of Yemen as much as PRC was of China circa 1950, it seems absurd to not call them de facto state of Yemen). However, Yemeni hostility is directed towards Israel and only secondarily to the West (if the West is not backing Israel, the Yemenis have little beef against them). Russia, on the other hand, would want to hit the West, not so much Israel–with whom Russia today has very strange realtionship.
There is another problem with using proxies: how much can you trust them, if you are the West? how much can you control them? I tend to have an issue with the characaterization of the Ukrainian regime as a Western puppet: in fact, I don’t even know who’s the real puppet here. Zelensky and his gang know what buttons to push and what reactions they will engender from their allies, or I dare say, puppets in the West. The Kiev regime is not exactly operating “independently” of the West, but that only means that their actions are conditioned on how they expect the West to behave in response, not so much that they are directed by the West. This, in turn, compounds the legalistic-diplomatic problem for Putin (and I say Putin, not Russia.)
I don’t think Russia (as opposed to Putin) can resovle this dilemma diplomatically. Sooner or later (and preferably sooner), Russia will have to kinetically knock out France, Germany, and UK–and I still think it’s better done with atomics, if only because you cannot defeat them totally with a few precision guided conventional hits: they will have to be leveled, like Japan and Germany in 1945. You need either 10+ million troops or nukes. And no, I don’t think this will happen any time soon. All other options are beyond Russia’s control. Perhaps the Western leaders will go so far overboard that they will be seen as deserving of what they get–and they are coming closer and closer, fwiw. Maybe, if they get crazy enough, they will be removed from power via domestic politics–but the West is backsliding badly from “democratic” rule to the point where I doubt that is realistic via normal-legal means. There is much left that could unfold, though.
There might be a bit of a panic in the USAF and the USSF. They might initially be popping champagne corks about this attack right up until the point where some lowly lieutenant asks that what happens if an opponent did the same to the US. Have vans packed full of drones near a US strategic base to be launched on command. Hell, if Trump went into Mexico, those cartels could do the same sort of attack and take out a bunch of B-52s and B-2s. You can’t tell me that thy are now thinking about this one in the Pentagon today.
Exactly.
That is a very good point. The US is far more vulnerable than Russia because it has so many bases around the world.
What if some Philippino opposition group mysteriously got 100 fibre optic drones and decided to hit a US air base?
No need for fiber optic drones. US air basees don’t even have proper AA, let alone EW.
In a zugwang the disadvantaged player has a limited number of options, usually just two. Russia has an almost continuous set of graded responses to choose from. The response, when it comes, is likely to be graded and proportionate.
What’s the problem? Ukraine has the right to attack Russian warplanes, and Russia has the right to retaliate. That’s it.
The problem is that Ukraine could not have launched the attack without direct foriegn assistance, and that makes the other parties involved direct participants in the war and subject to retaliation.
Moscow claims that the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk was supported by Western intelligence agencies. However, if I recall correctly, Russia did not launch a retaliatory attack against NATO.
…fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
The Stavka doesn’t like to look like a fool. Increased destruction is in store.
Or, as the Shrub said: “…fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice never be shamed again.”
Disturbingly, You’re making him more coherent than he actually was, which shows that Trumpy doesn’t have the presidential market cornered on idiocy. Here’s the quote:
https://youtu.be/KjmjqlOPd6A?si=9XTtjL6ca8q2cPE2
Tha attack on Kursk did not limit Russian strategic defenses.
Wild how wars tend to lead to the destruction of strategic defenses. “I can annex your land, but damaging my strategic munitions is a bridge to far!”
These are not just any old “strategic munitions” but nuclear deterrents. Touch any nuclear-war related military assets of an opponent and you are asking for trouble. For instance, from Simplicius:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/ukraines-unprecedented-operation
None of the Russian strategic nuclear assets were touched so far as we know. The core of the nuclear strike force is the Tu-160 Blackjack.m which is equivalent in design and use to the US B-1. None of those were touched (at least, none are shown in the known videos).
The Tu-22M and Tu-95 Bear that we’ve seen (so far) destroyed were formerly part of the strategic nuclear force, but are now (a little like the B-52) outdated for that role. They are capable of carrying nuclear armed cruise and ballistic strike missiles, but so are most Russian aircraft. The Tu-95’s are mostly used for recon missions and anti-shipping, and the Tu-22M’s are mostly used as kinetic launchers for cruise and ballistic missiles.
Beware non-aviation specialist commentators like Simplicius jumping the gun and using wikipedia level information to comment. It is a long, long time since the Tu-95’s were a significant part of the Russian nuclear forces and the Tu-22M’s are even more outdated for that role. They are as much part of the nuclear triad as Mig-35’s or equivalent – any nuclear weapons they would have (and I doubt they use any now), would be tactical. Like the B-29, they are kept because of their very long range and usefulness for a variety of non-nuclear roles, such long range anti-shipping interdiction and dropping very big bombs on poorly defended people.
If a significant number of Tu-95’s and 22M’s were destroyed (it seem so far around 10 of them, which equates to around 50% of the ‘real’ available numbers, this is a blow to Russia’s capabilities to strike ships and other targets far from Russia, but is of little relevance to either their ability to hit Western Europe or its nuclear triad.
20 in service seems awfully light. How do you establish that Tu-95s are not also part of this force?
For instance, Barents Observe in January 2025 begs to differ:
https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/security/bombers-from-northern-russia-take-central-stage-in-mass-missile-attack/423111
And the National Interest, which is seen as a top tier, if also right wing, policy magazine:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-tu-95-bear-bomber-is-the-stuff-of-natos-nightmares
The Kremlin website, in an October 2024 entry, Strategic Deterrence Forces exercise, specifically describes Tu-95s as participating . This is the first paragraph of Putin’s remarks:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75432
In light of that, I don’t see how you can claim that Tu-95s are not part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces.
Sorry, that was a mis-type – I should have written 20% of the available force. Its not possible to say how many are available as they are very old airframes and as such its likely that only around half of the numbers of T-95’s and Tu-22’s are likely to be operational at any one time. This means around 50-ish. This is the minimum you would need for any level of operational tempo in a conflict.
Just as with the B-52, they are nuclear capable, but primarily as back up or for tactical use. It can’t be discounted of course that some may be part of the force, but only if they are short of Tu-160’s at any one time – the latter is by far the most capable long range strike aircraft the Russians possess. It seems the Tu-95’s were of the MS variant (its not clear if they were part of the most recent modernisation), which can carry the most up to date version of the Kh-55 missile, which is nuclear capable, but has also been used frequently against Ukraine with conventional warheads.
They are no more part of the Strategic Nuclear Force than any of their more powerful aircraft capable of carrying strike missiles, which covers pretty much any of the major aircraft types the Russians are using. They are overwhelmingly used for tactical and non-nuclear purposes and have been for decades.
We know for certain that the particular aircraft hit were not part of the strategic force, because if they were, they would have been loaded and there would be a huge evacuation around the airfields. you can’t hide a burning nuclear warhead. Whether the Ukrainians knew they were non-nuclear or not, I’ve no idea – but the most likely did not attack any of the Tu-160’s for a good reason – most likely told by Nato that they were off-limits for obvious reasons.
It is also likely that any aircraft that are operationally part of the nuclear triad would be in shelters. Traditionally, the Russian Air Force hasn’t used shelters (unlike Nato), but they’ve realised their mistake recently and have been building large numbers on many of their bases.
People need to be very clear about what they are talking about on such a sensitive subject. All available evidence is that this was a strike on Russias conventional military capability – and a very effective one, albeit one that makes no difference whatever for Ukraine. The fact that at one time these aircraft were strategic nuclear bombers, and may occasionally be part of that system (Russia has long acknowledged that it is very short on Tu-160s), does not mean that its an attack on the Triad.
Alexander Mercouris today gave a long-ish discussion of Russia’s strategic (as in nuclear) triad as well as the position of the bombers in it. Organizationally and operationally, the Tu-95s are part of it. He also puts the # of (one assumes mission ready) Tu-160s as lower than you do, at 10.
He does point out Russia has been ambivalent about investing much in building more Tu-160s, questioning if this type of bomber is a weapons system of the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doLzfQcuxWI
Even more pointedly, Larry Wilkerson confirms what Ritter said generally about the seriousness of Ukraine striking part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwSoPhKassE
Wild how low-effort trolls stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe it’s because they don’t even try to go beyond copy-pasting Twitter memes.
I don’t have a twitter, didn’t copy paste anything. Can you refrain from ad hominems or do does my status as “someone who thinks that maybe Ukraine has reason to use force against their invaders” mean that I am no longer a candidate for civil discourse?
I’m a simple guy who thinks that destroying the weapons used to kill your soldiers and civilians is:
1) Proportional
2) Tactically reasonable
and that the ethics of such an attack is totally contingent on the conflict in question.
Whether or not this attack will be STRATEGICALLY useful has yet to be seen. There is a case to be made in either direction, I suspect that it is not THAT strategically useful because Ukraine has a ‘family blog’ hand.
The reason you are being accused of being a troll is you act like one. Broken record, as in simply repeating what you said, is bad faith argumentation (and therefore specifically identified as a violation of our written site Policies) this strike was not proportional. We keep telling you why and you do the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “NYAH NYAY NYAH” over responses rather than engage.
As we said, these weapons are subject to START and other treaties. They are required to sit out it the open for verification purposes. Attacking them threatens the structure of these treaties.
Here is former UK diplomat Alastair Crooke making the point longer form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whSuPnGWOSg
I’m not approving any more broken record comments by you. You need to address the responses made, and MANY have been made.
People that declare themselves as “someone who thinks that maybe Ukraine has reason to use force against their invaders” do not fit well into this small community, for various reasons. Instead of forcing a square peg into the round hole, better have a go at Twitter-X or some other part of the Internert that is more into Batko Bandera.
There’s a big difference between attacking bases used to fight the war and attacking the strategic deterence force. The whole MAD logic forces you to treat any attack on strategic forces as a first strike – use it or lose it, as the saying went.
So to paraphrase – Ukr has the right to attack Russian forces, and Russia has the obligation to launch a counterstrike on you and yours, in self defense. Puts a slightly different spin on it, no? Are you pleased our betters allowed Ukr to put all of us at this risk?
Should Ukraine refrain from targeting the Tu-95 and Tu-22 bombers because they are part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, even though Russia is using them to launch missile attacks against Ukraine?
Would it have been wise for North Vietnam to send saboteurs to attack US B52s at their home bases knowing that they were being rotated to East Asia to bomb Hanoi during the Vietnam War? One could make moral case for or against, I suppose, but something like that, if successful, would almost certainly sparked off WW3, I think.
U-Tapao airbase in Thailand had several sapper attacks to try to damage the USAF B-52s stationed there.
For the most part, the B-52s stayed in theatre and the crews were rotated. The B-52s were configured differently than the newer nuclear bombers stationed stateside.
I thought at least some of the B-52s sent to East Asia (operating from Guam, especially.) were divertted from the nuclear role. Looking up some quick factoids, it seems that B-52D’s were optimized for conventional bombing, F’s were reconfigured for better conventional bombing, and the G’s, normally nuclear bombers assigned to SAC, were sent in for Linebacker to augment the bombing force, operating entirely from Guam. So it would have made “sense” for the hypothetical Vietnamese agents to attack SAC bases in continental US since there’s no reason to expect, as was borne out partly by facts, that G’s and H’s would be kept out of the theater, if going by the logic used to justify Ukrainians attacking Russian strategic bomber bases in Murmansk or Irkutsk. (In fact, it seems that B-52G’s suffered heavier losses than D’s and F’s because they were not intended for conventional bombing)
B-52Gs often did not have the latest electronic warfare packages for theatre conditions.
Using nuclear attack profiles also led the B-52Gs to expose themselves EW-wise during bombing runs. Linebacker 2 had a steep learning curve.
Flying from the Black Hole
In 2009, Robert O. Harder published Flying from the Black Hole: The B-52 Navigator-bombardiers of Vietnam.
(I am a mil-brat and my father flew B-52s during the Vietnam and Secret Wars.)
The planes Ukraine hit have been used to attack Ukrainian cities. That makes them legitimate targets. Even though the planes are nuclear-capable, carrying nuclear weapons is not the only thing they do.
By the same logic, since American warplanes were used to attack targets in Yemen, then Ansar Allah are “allowed” to strike American air assets parked at American airbases, anywhere in the world.
Good point. Or an attack on that big US Navy base in Bahrain for that matter.
It’s not about what is allowed, it’s about what is proportional. You bomb someone with planes, it’s weird to act outraged if or when they destroy the thing you’re killing them with. Russia isn’t going to nuke NATO over this because ending the world over a drone attack is too stupid for Putin. Russia isn’t LIKELY to nuke Ukraine over this because that would kill Russia’s image on the world stage (and their relationships with India, China), and that would be too stupid for Putin.
Every time Ukraine uses force to defend itself, Russia makes a bunch of noise about all the nukes it can use. Meanwhile, Russia has very good reason NOT to use nukes and the Ukrainians have good reason to continue meeting force with force.
This is not proportional. These are nuclear deterrence assets. This historically has been a red line. As Ritter explained, under Russia’s nuclear doctrine, they could retaliate with nukes. Aurelien has explained why that is unlikely to happen BUT Ukraine has now gone into the terrain where a nuclear response is “allowable”. Fortunately, Russia, aside from having the very measured Putin in charge, also does not seem to hew to the view that the US does, that using a tactical nuke does not amount to starting a nuclear war.
And Russia has Oreshiniks now. Russia authorized mass production in December. Military Watch reported the Russia is believed to be able to make 300 a year. Cut the output assumption to 50 so far given startup issues. That’s still a lot.
No, Russia does not “make a lot of noise”. The West is so stoopid that needs reminders, see the point about tactical nukes.
This was an extremely reckless move. And if the West was behind it, Russia will make them pay, although it could take years (for instance, targeted assassinations with plausible deniability).
“This is not proportional. These are nuclear deterrence assets.”
A lot of these allegedly destroyed assets are outfitted with conventional munitions, and models of those types have been used to attack Ukraine, no? And even if a BUNCH of nuclear-equipped bombers were destroyed Russia would still be more than capable of ending the world in nuclear apocalypse.
I guess I just disagree that strategic bombers (frequently used to deploy conventional munitions against another combatant’s electric grid) are off limits because they could be used to deploy nukes.
If your bombers are existentially important and an uncrossable red line, you probably shouldn’t be using them to deliver munitions! I believe 10 TU-95MS’s were used to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure in early March, for example.
This isn’t a view I reserve for Russia/Ukraine. If Vietnam had managed to sabotage B-52s during the American invasion of that country, it would have been more than fair play in my mind.
As if these were the only weapons systems in all of Russia that Ukraine could attack with this super stealthy method? It could park them next to any airbase and say, attack fighter jets like the Mig-29 or Sukhoi 27, which have also been very effective weapons against Ukraine. Your broken record is tantamount to acting as if this was the only target available to Ukraine. Help me.
If Russia’s nuclesr deterrence is destabilized, then it is liable to hit “back” at the “nuclear” adversaries, who may (likely) or may not be behind the attack, as the attack is a sort of back door nuclear first strike (whose goal is mainly to eliminate the ability to strike back, after all). So, if the target is nuclear, then the attack is not “Ukrainian,” regardless of who’s “actually” doing it.
If so, Russia should have taken action a year ago. Last May, Ukrainian drones destroyed Russia’s early warning radar systems. While these radars played a limited role in the war, their destruction has seriously undermined Russia’s ability to defend itself against a potential U.S. nuclear attack.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-nuclear-radars/
Essentially yes. See Aurelien below.
This is no more of a provocation from the West than many other things they’ve used Ukraine’s hand to do. It just happened to be more successful than the Kerch bridge bombing, terrorist attacks inside Russia, ATACMS cluster strikes on Crimean beaches, and so on, and so on.
The rubicon was crossed long before this: using a proxy hot war to strike directly into the homeland of a major power–rather than just their military abroad (e.g. Vietnam).
Assuming a suitable response exists, Russia certainly hasn’t come up with it.
If a Vietnamese agent operating on behalf of USSR or China blew up ICBM silos or B-52 bases belonging to SAC in continental US, I don’t think we would be here writing these comments in peace, or as solids.
Well, if the US had invaded Vietnam then the situation might be quite similar. I think people are forgetting that there is a war on, and that Ukraine is not attacking Russia anything like as much as Russia is attacking Ukraine, primarily because it doesn’t have the capability. It’s likely that the targets were chosen mostly because they were easy, and because the aircraft had apparently been used for attacks on Ukraine, rather than because they were nuclear-capable.
In, say, 1968, US WAS bombing North Vietnam relentlessly, with B52s “lent” by SAC. From the Northern perspective, both parts of Vietnam belonged to the same country and the South was under occupation via illegal regime under US control. So the sutuation was more analogous than not, I should think.
I think that you have a distorted here. Russia is not just fighting the Ukraine but also the forty countries of the Collective West with all their military equipment, money, military expertise, training, etc. That is why the war has dragged on so long. Without this, the war would have absolutely ended in Istanbul back in early 2022. Not the first time that “the Ukraine” has attacked Russian strategic bomber bases either and you can be sure that they had NATO fingerprints all over it.
You are confusing words and concepts. I wrote an entire essay a couple of months ago to discourage people from using expressions like “at war;”
Briefly, there is a state of what used to be called “war” between Ukraine and Russia. Under IHL either side may attack any “military target” of the other, wherever it may be, and a military airfield is about as military as you can get. (The GC defines “military” in this context.) Legally, therefore, there’s nothing abnormal in this attack.
Russia and its apologists claim the country is “at war” with large numbers of states, but this is a political trope said for effect. If there really were a state of war, Embassies would be closed, nationals would be interned and the Russians would be attacking Luxembourg or wherever. The two sides understand very well that this is essentially rhetoric.
Essentially, because outside help, weapons supplies and intelligence are being supplied by the West to Ukraine. This is entirely normal and happens in all major wars. The Russians supplied weapons and intelligence support to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, while Germany and Italy supplied “volunteers,” but none of these parties treated the others as “belligerents.” The US supplied massive assistance to Britain up to the end of 1941 without itself being a belligerent. The Russians and the South Africans supported different sides in the Angolan Civil War, and Cuban troops fought South Africans. None of these countries considered it was “at war” with another.
In essence, this is not a legal issue but a political one. Was it wise to make such an attack inside Russia and on such a target and what will the consequences be? The irony may be that the bases were chosen effectively because parking large military aircraft in hardened shelters would be massively expensive and difficult, and is hardly ever done. They were therefore easy targets if you could get to the airfield.
I just read that the START required Russia to leave these strategic aircraft in the open for compliance with the terms. I haven’t perused the treaty but that might be a reason they were sitting ducks.
However the non-war status – which is a fake or a cover-up – is abused to legitimize terrorist attacks on Russian territory.
While I assume these to verify is at times difficult I see no reason to doubt reports about AFU’s mercenaries killing cilvilians at Kursk. Or that SBU is targetting simple apartment blocks or a beach in the summer.
1) Under the veil of self-defence none of these acts are treated by the West as what they are.
2) To what extent is it legal to supply arms and support to the attacked nation?
3) Whatever the answer to 2) may be, nothing justifies attacks on civilian targets.
re: Spain: Spain was not used by Germany to launch attacks on Soviet territory or vice versa. Which is the whole point of this operation now. Spain was merely a military testing ground and for making an example of the left eventually by Germany and in part USSR (targetting the anarchists actually in power).
What I cannot judge is the attack on military personnel on both sides:
Is there a difference between RU attacking a convention of NATO officers and with that also killing UKR officers present, and SBU blowing up a car of a RU general?
Bottom line is, NATO is attacking RU. If that takes place with an intermediary doesn’t change the belligernce of the act as such. The construct used by NATO is merely to grant them special rights denied to RU (attacking NATO countries in return).
This is insane and reminds me of Scalia´s suggestions of how to justify the Iraq War.
Has the UN or have other conventions any ruling on the abuse of proxies?
Or is this the famous legal gap lawyers are paid for to identify for their masters in Brussels?
Yes, but the strategic ballance of power in the world has maybe shifted and that it is dangerous for all of us.
And this points to why Ukraine can never be other than neutral and be not allowed to join NATO.
Just imagine a Ukraine in NATO and just a bit, not much, just a bit more deranged leadership in the US, a US that wants to take on China but wants to secure that Russia is really down, and scare China at the same time (kill the chicken to scare the monkeys).
A syncronized attack carried by Ukrainian operatives across Russia bringing down most of their bombers as well as some of their ICBMs, all down in similar manners, coupled with a US nuclear attack that will likely be not followed by a Russian response…
I can see the US and Ukraine perfectly capable of doing such a thing. The pesky Russian submarines that are at sea are though harder to reach.
And as many have pointed out, this is not a simple Ukraine vs Russia war but a Combined West (mostly US/Ukraine) vs Russia war…started by the US with the backing of the coup in 2014.
The problem is that way too many people were hoping that this WWIII-Lite-thingy will settle down with some peace talks (and the orange smoke from peace hookah in Not Constantinopole), instead of flaring up (and different coloured smoke in different places). The problem with the want-to-see-the-the-world-burn crowd, which I belong to, is likely to be the lukewarm response to this Pearl-Harbor-Lite attempt.
The problem for Ukraine is that it creates the political conditions within Russia that will guarantee that Ukraine as a state in its current form will not survive. Russia will now pay whatever cost is necessary to take Odessa, expel the current Ukrainian government into exile, and render what remains a small, impoverished, toothless statelet, and a very large number of Ukrainians will die in the process, and the world generally will be brought closer to the edge of nuclear confrontation than it has ever been.
#BREAKINGNEWS
Russia striking Kiev/Kyiv and other targets inside Ukraine with ballistic missiles (via various sources on X)
That was faster than I expected.
Gilbert Doctorow pretty much predicted the response in his post about the Ukrainian drone attacks (via gilbertdoctorow.com)
We’ve entered the #FO phase …
I hate to inform you, but Doctorow has a poor track record. He now hardly ever appears on Judge Nap when he was weekly for a while because Nap would run his takes by the other experts and they would kneecap them. Among other reasons, Russia is going to have to rebuild what it occupies, and it probably will have to take Kiev
Plus Zelensky is never there except when he has to meet visitors, and you can assume the same is true for much of the rest of the leadership, that they are mainly not in Kiev. That is why I said “decision centers” which now are likely to be bunkers that may require a visit from Mr. Oreshnik.
My guess is still that the gloves do not come off fully until the talks are officially at an impasse. What difference does waiting a week or two to continue to observe forms before the many in the world who don’t have fixed views about either side? Russia has other high stakes efforts on, like building a Eurasian security architecture. Why jeopardize initiatives like that out of choler?
Larry Wilkerson reports that Colin Powell kept this quote from Thucydides on his desk:
> That is why I said “decision centers” which now are likely to be bunkers that may require a visit from Mr. Oreshnik.
:) I was remiss … you did predict this response as well. And yes, it was quick … but I think it needs to be given recent comments out of German mouths.
> Doctorow has a poor track record. He now hardly ever appears on Judge Nap when he was weekly for a while because Nap would run his takes by the other experts and they would kneecap them.
Admittedly, I haven’t listened to a lot of his video stuff with Nap’ … only a couple. I visit his site from time to time.
> Russia is going to have to rebuild what it occupies, and it probably will have to take Kiev
That brings a grimace to my face, but would probably make every Western warmonger smile ear to ear. It’s their wet dream – they can use that as proof positive of what some stoopid lede I saw the other day asserted – if Putin takes Ukraine, another EU nation could be next! Fear to stoke the fire. Ugh. Where are the cleaning ladies with the Z co-ordinates?
I thought Doctorow is still on Napolitano weekly?
Not weekly, not even close. I regularly search on Judge Nap for the last week and he hardly ever comes up while all the regulars do (Larry Johnson, Alastair Crooke, Larry Wilkerson, Max Blumenthal, etc). The regulars have regular times. As far as I can tell, Doctorow does not.
Looked up his previous appearances last 6 weeks and he’s been on every week during that period. I know I heard him pretty much every week for a while, so I was a bit weirded out when you mentioned he’s no longer a regular.
I stand corrected but I listen to most of the Judge Nap interviews.
1. I have yet to hear him promote an upcoming Doctrow interview or remind viewers of when his time slot is. He does that for Crooke, McGovern, Wilkerson, Ritter, Blumenthal, Sachs, Karen Witkoswki (sp?), Johnson, Freeman, and his intel roundtable. Sometimes for Aaron Mate (not sure Mate is a regular).
2. I get YT promotions of Judge Nap upcoming shows when I search. I can’t recall ever seeing one for Doctorow. I have for most (not all) of the others on the list above
3. When I search specifically for Judge Nap in the last week, I just about never get Doctorow segments.
4. Judge Nap more than occasionally refers to what one commentator said to later ones as either a confirmation of what they said or to elicit a reaction. I can’t recall the last time I have heard him do that with Doctorow
Hence my impression that Doctorow was no longer appearing weekly.
Doctorow does have a weird belief that Trump is secretly competent and has a plan. I go with my lying eyes on that one. Doctorow has said that one of his old Harvard buddies told him this.
Of course Trump may in the end improve a few things but it’s now obvious it will be by trial (and mouth) and lots of error.
How would a Harvard buddy have a clue??? Is he in real estate? If he was in TV, it’s hard to see how you could have that view. Trump got a tiny fraction for his role in The Apprentice compared to what he could have been paid.
One of my clients was Steve Ross, as the same Steve Ross who donated enough to the University of Michigan to get a business school named after him.
Ross like Trump was a NYC developer.
Ross and his #2 were my client in the late 1980s when Trump was young, hence no brain aging issues.
They thought he was an idiot and could itemize the stupid things he did out of ego that cut into the profits of his operations.
However, they did concede (and were appalled) that he successfully bullied his bankers into giving him a restructuring that the condition of his properties did not warrant by threatening to take his name off all of them. Ross and team though the idea that the Trump name added any value was ridiculous but the bankers were chicken and didn’t want to take a chance.
Doctorow keeps bringing up a friend who worked under Trump as a fairly senior executive of some kind (who frequently interacted face to face with Trump, or so he says) (I’m not sure if she (I think it was a woman) was a Harvard buddy of his.) as his “inside source” on Trump. Will have to go back and dig up what he said before about this person.
Lord, of course Trump was smart! He paid her big bucks! Help me.
It is obvious Trump is not smart. Someone who was smart would have found a way to not let his id make all his decisions, like forcing himself to consult a consigliere or two before taking major action.
But he is cunning and “smart” people often underestimate the value of cunning. See Marcie Frost at CalPERS as an example.
Amen to that. Certain dictators in Latin America were famous dullards, but they were very wily about power, which was all they needed to get into power and, once there, to keep it. For example, Pinochet’s academic record in the military academy was pathetic (and embarrassing when it came to light), but he was astute in other ways, not to mention ruthless.
Doctorow was just on with Glenn Diesen. He held that Trump was getting good information, but was saying things like ‘Putin’s gone crazy’ to play to his neocon faction.
He didn’t actually say Kayfabe…
> My guess is still that the gloves do not come off fully until the talks are officially at an impasse. What difference does waiting a week or two to continue to observe forms before the many in the world who don’t have fixed views about either side? Russia has other high stakes efforts on, like building a Eurasian security architecture. Why jeopardize initiatives like that out of choler?
I believe Merz upping the ante this week is the reason. Plus the depth of the drone strikes: Siberia??? and deep beneath it all, the knowledge that Ukraine is not doing this on its own, but with massive help from NATO. IOW, waiting only invites more brazen attacks. The only question is: does this response succeed in hitting actual “decision centers”?
I’m noticing that no mainstream outlets are reporting this as of yet – NYT, BBC, TheGuardian, MSNBC, CNN et al – none of them. I think the quick response has typewriters frozen till they get the story from WarmongersCentral™ … ;-)
To be fair, nothing from RT or Tass yet either. Maybe this has prompted some “red phone” conference calls.
I’ll be shocked if there aren’t–and possibly, Europeans aren’t in on them since they can’t be trusted to be responsible (given who the POTUS is, it’s astonishing that I actually believe that as I type it.) If the US forces are seen evacuating Ramstein next 24 hours, and if I were a German citizen, near Kaiserslautern, I would go elsewhere.
> If the US forces are seen evacuating Ramstein
Ooooooh … Gonna pop those keyword names in X and see what comes up.
#TYVM
>Russia is going to have to rebuild what it occupies, and it probably will have to take Kiev
Stupid question here but could Russia just flatten the “Decision Centers” in Kiev and Ukraine to dust and rather than rebuilding those areas, set up a buffer zone than encompasses the watersheds ( as Plutonium Kun or another commenter mentioned long ago), and just rebuild and fortify in the Oblasts they have taken already?
They can, and they likely will… face a never-ending torrent of ever more daring ‘terrorist’ strikes from without and, apparently, within. Westerners can’t seem to grasp that unless we have a magic wand or are otherwise able to convince our leadership to stop the attacks on Russia; Russia will have to do it themselves… if they can. If not, they’ll be hearing air raid sirens indefinitely, and who wants to live like that? That is a feature, not a bug, of this conflict.
> If not, they’ll be hearing air raid sirens indefinitely, and who wants to live like that?
I’ve been saying for months that a week of “shock and awe” sorties would put paid to this … I was wrong. Who needs to endanger pilots and planes when you have ballistic missiles?
What an awful, awful tragedy … every warmongering politician in the west should meet at the very least their political end over this.
Don’t forget that shock and awe is what Ukraine ‘prepared’ for, but Russia sent the diplomatic corps in APCs. Nobody expected to be fighting (for a Zelensky government) for three years, it’s a wonder there is running water anywhere in Ukraine.
So the master plan could well resume once Kiev falls to the vicious bear (lazy, per recent MI6 analysis /jest). Very late, but might still be economical from a Bond-villain perspective. I’m sure the lads are doing the math.
When did anyone say anything about “occupying” (the decision centers in and around) Kiev?
They are already hitting them with Iskanders. Too bad they didn’t wait for everyone to clock in Monday morning.
If you tracked the conversation, it was Doctorow, and not yours truly, who said to destroy “the entire government apparatus”. That goes well beyond taking out the military bureaucracy to include the tax authority, the central bank, the Duma, all health and welfare agencies, etc.
Do you seriously think Russia would destroy Kiev to that degree and NOT occupy it? Please explain that scenario to me.
Fully concur with Doctorw’s track record. I only read his posts cooncerning visiting Russia or reviewing Russian programs.
But the best way to smoke things out would be with the continuation of the electric war. The forced conscription and the lack of electricity could be the straw that broke the stubborn Ukrainian donkey’s back.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-sumy-region-18966d4b286ffb6f4e764b94a6afaf61/
And read all the way to the end:
“Russia on Sunday launched the biggest number of drones — 472 — on Ukraine since the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine’s air force said.
Russian forces also launched seven missiles alongside the barrage of drones, said Yuriy Ignat, head of communications for the air force. Earlier Sunday, Ukraine’s army said at least 12 Ukrainian service members were killed and more than 60 were injured in a Russian missile strike on an army training unit.
Ukrainian army commander Mykhailo Drapatyi later Sunday submitted his resignation following the attack. He was a respected commander whose leadership saw Ukraine regain land on the eastern front for the first time since Kyiv’s 2022 counteroffensive.
The training unit was located to the rear of the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) active front line, where Russian reconnaissance and strike drones are able to strike. Ukraine’s forces lack troops and take extra precautions to avoid mass gatherings as the skies across the front line are saturated with Russian drones looking for targets.”
This situation does not necessarily have to be resolved in a ‘direct’ manner. Even Russian popular opinion would be tempted to go along for the ride if Putin went on Russian television and said words to the effect that Russia has told Iran to flatten Israel with their hypersonic missiles. The Ukraine attacked major Russian airbases. It would be appropriate for Russian proxies to take out America’s main Middle East airbase, Israel.
As for Israeli nuclear weapons; it would be game set and match for Russia if Israel were the first to use atomics. Then, anything goes. The Global South would back Russia.
Stay safe and keep those potassium iodide tablets handy!
PS: It looks like ‘events’ have overtaken my “analysis.” Radioactive popcorn anyone?
Oh, that would be brilliant but Putin does not want a nuclear war.
I fully agree that Putin does not want atomic war. However, those opposing him may supply one whether he wills it or not. Think the present government in Israel.
The Israelis know full well that the only way to ‘eliminate’ the Iranian nuclear assets hidden far below ground in mountainous regions of that country would be to use nuclear “bunker buster” bombs. Then what happens? Remember that Russia is not the only “Axis of Resistance” aligned nation to possess nuclear weapons. There are, at the least, Pakistan and North Korea. I suspect that both, for their own reasons, would offer an “Instant Revenge Nuke Package Deal” to Iran.
Stay safe and don’t forget to “Duck and Cover!”
Short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMnKNHNfznE&ab_channel=AlanSmithee20
Longer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60&ab_channel=NuclearVault
Israel doesn’t care about this notion of nuclear Iran. It is not the nukes but the regime change in Iran that Israel is after, so that some supine monarchy is installed there, which is more afraid of its own population than of Israel, and uses Israel’s comprehensive surveillance capabilities to keep the masses under control.
Or, as the second best option, Israel can accept only an Iran that it is forever under sanctions, forever hobbled, and incapable to realize its full potential.
The nukes are only a pretext. Iran is the big elephant that can put Israel on its place, and as a rabid dog it is, never satisfied with the land it go in 1967, wants undefined borders, indefinitely. Especially with all these fast reproducing zelot settlers.
A nuclear deterrent is the best guarantee of the continuance of the current Iranian government.
Pakistan is a US client state not a member of the axis of resistance.
Well, Pakistan is in a weird position politically–it is also an ally of China, at least as much as a client of US, and China also wants to play both sides as long as they can–except, nowadays, they are “the other side” as far as US is concerned. Pakistan has some choices to make, in not too distant future–if it is allowed to make them. But which path it’ll be taking/taken to is not obvious at the moment.
I’ll tell you even more – Putin did not want any war at all. But it has begun. What happened today is very serious. I’m not even going to make a forecast – it’s too gloomy.
Russia isn’t going to strike Israel. It’s hard to find stats on how many Israelis are Russian dual nationals, but 15% of Israelis are Russian-speaking.
There are good reasons for all those Hebrews to have left Russia and emigrated to Israel. Almost none of those reasons indicate loyalty to their natal place. Russian Jews in Israel can be viewed as “acceptable collateral damage” from any serious strikes on Israel.
When the fate of the nation is in the balance, any self-respecting patriot, anywhere, can be very hard minded.
Russia has been extraordinarily careful about civilian collateral damage so far during the SMO. But you think it’s likely or at least worth seriously considering the possibility that they’d skip many rungs on the escalation ladder and ‘flatten Israel’? With hypersonics? Because some Ukrainian terrorists smuggled drones deep into Siberia and set some strategic bombers on fire? To make a point to the US? I don’t share this view, sorry!
I fall in with Colonel Smithers’ view, in the long run Russia is far more likely to become Israel’s protector after the US fully withdraws from West Asia.
I get your point but wonder what the tipping point will be where Russia stops being “measured” and becomes “bloody minded.”
What is most important here is the fact that the triggering actions were essentially terrorist like strikes deep in the heart of the Russian homeland. When bin Laden struck into America, the American response was a full blown “War on Terror,” which became cover for many other sorts of ‘war’ like actions. As a result, several Mid-Eastern nations suffered massive death and destruction. Why must we expect greater restraint on the part of the Russians under similar circumstances?
As for ‘making points,’ the ‘point’ to be made to America will be to demonstrate that no American “assets” world-wide are safe now.
Plan accordingly.
One of the main advantages of Russia, and China, is that in the current dynamics they are being perceived as the reasonable and stability minded actors compared to the erratic west. Such a course of action would set that on fire. An Israeli nuclear response to Iran, itself implausible as the network of alliances is not that straightforward, would “trump” that in global opinion, sure, but it is not plausible that Russia would leap to such a second degree target to what is a European and American effort against them.
I owe you an apology, I read your original post too quickly and missed ‘Russia told Iran to flatten Israel with their hypersonics’.
I don’t think Russia can or would tell Iran to do anything, certainly not with precious hypersonics, but this is at least less fantastical than what I thought you were saying. Iran firing hypersonics at Israel is certainly possible at this stage but I am not sure Russia would have anything to do with it. Apologies! It is a time of high tension for us all!
Oh, no apology needed. You are making a valid point.
I had not considered that Iran is not a vassal state of Russia. As ‘partners’ on the international stage, Teheran and Moscow co-operate a lot, but do not, as you pointed out, act out dominance games.
As I sometimes remind myself; one needs to develop a tough skin to comment on the Internet. (I hope I have enough self-respect to admit my mistakes. Some days are better than others.)
Stay safe! Time to go check the preps in the bunker now and avoid the rush!
I see no way for Trump to claim ignorance of this attack plan. It would make him and the US military and intelligence officials dealing closely with Ukraine look like total idiots.
This is Trump’s war now. He missed his opportunity to walk away from this disaster after he was sworn in. Now he is stuck holding the bag for what happens next.
Yes there is. I’ll repeat what I said above.
” It looks as if Trump might have known about the plans but refused to sign off on it, and Ukraine, members of NATO and the CIA and other US forces decided to conduct this operation before the Istanbul meeting tomorrow, which Trump worked so hard to achieve.”
I don’t think that Trump’s Truth Social post was deliberately placed so he could excuse himself after the operation took place. That is too far fetched and not Trump’s style.
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1929196427730711010?t=2t_JZ1KurQSjEzCtzipnxg&s=08 “
So, this could be viewed as a ” Bay of Pigs” operation designed to trap Trump?
Well, it’s created a much more dangerous situation than the Bay of Pigs and it affects may more countries.
Christ, this might make the Cuban Missile Crisis seem like a minor misunderstanding between friends.
I think we’re past “might”.
Somehow, I don’t think that Trump and Witkoff equate to Jack and Bobby Kennedy.
My blood pressure did not need this today.
I question the idea that Russia is not fighting the war at close to their peak capacity. I listen to Military Summary Channel every day. Russia is attacking along the entire front line. Both sides are taking large losses.
Also, Russia has launched massive missile strikes for years. They have already targeted the Ukrainian electrical grid.
Russia has received massive ammunition amounts from Korea and Korean soldiers have fought in combat for Russia.
Fighting a war while at the same time defending a giant country against low budget drone strikes is not easy.
And then there is the need to cooperate with China. And the need to keep western leaning Russians feeling that peace with the west is not possible
You have this wrong about both sides taking large losses. Larry Johnson just debunked that:
https://sonar21.com/debunking-the-ukrainian-claim-about-russian-casualties
Russia had held back on its electric grid attacks for some time. They seem to be waiting to drop that hammer again, and I assume they have very good reasons.
Your claims about North Korean ammo are false. Even NATO officials describe how Russia is greatly outproducing the entire West.
The Western leaning Russian left and look like fools. The country has unified around the war. The West making so clear it hated Russia (banning Russian athletes and performances of works by Russian artists) removed any remaining illusions about the West.
If you don’t believe Dima at Military Summary about Korean ammo, maybe you believe Simplicius? And of course it makes sense for Russia to get ammo from Korea
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-62024-putin-signs-defense?utm_source=publication-search
This is a straw man and grounds-shifting, both bad faith forms of argumentation. I did not say Russia was not getting ammo from North Korea. You depicted Russia as get “massive amounts” from North Korea, implying dependence, which is bogus. From very early in the war, Alex Vershinin described how Russia already greatly outproducing the entire West in artillery and it would take the West 10 years to catch up. If anything the gap has widened as Russia has done a better job of increasing its production capacity than the West.
And NATO is a far more authoritative source than either of yours regarding how much Russia is producing. It is an admission against interest for NATO to raise alarms about RUSSIAN output.
Similarly, this article from Bloomberg, Putin Worries NATO Much More Than You Think, again more authoritative by being based on interviews with Western generals and military experts, contrary to your claims, depicts Russia as formidable and becoming more so over time. It also makes no mention of North Korea.
Dima is often wrong. He’s very good on day to day movements on the battlefield. But he’s regularly flogged news stories that turned out to be inaccurate.
Russia is very far from the limit of its capabilities
Yes. too add as an example: the Wall Street Journal reported 2 weeks ago that Russia has two full army groups, fully trained and led by seasoned officers, in reserve. That/s about 240,000 men. Ukraine in the meantime can’t rotate troops and has more and more gaps in the line of contact.
Some sources (cited by Mercouris about a week ago, I think) have pointed out that’s inaccurate: their sizes are about quarter of a million men each, i.e. about half a million between the two of them. Given the estimates of Russian army size and the number of troops operating in Ukraine, half a million men available for operations elsewhere seems about right (granted ,the two groups of forces–technically not “army group,” I think in Russian terminology as far as I know–may include some forces around Ukraine, too).
No, I heard that segment. Mercouris had EARLIER placed the total at 120,000, and corrected it to 240,000 based on the size of a Russian army being ~120,000 and the report being two. Others have said the numbers are higher but not based on reasoning from the WSJ claim.
It does not appear that Russia has a set army group size:
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/October%2012%2C%202023%20Russian%20Orbat_Final.pdf
Yes. When the Hazelnuts are deployed the extent of Russian non-nuclear destruction capability will be undeniable. Whether the nukes fly subsequently will likely not be reported; Global Winter will have begun.
Well, no need to worry more about global warning then…
Always look for the bright side of life…
This is a good point. While I never care to read the predictions of others and assume no one wants to read mine, I think that a decapitation strike is now on the table for Kiev. I will be very surprised if the ground under the subway system in Kiev does not turn into jello tonight. If a large group of foreign ‘advisors’ also turn to bubbles and ash that will be unfortunate.
I would note also that decision center attacks need not take out the cabinet or parliament in session, they can do so piecemeal as needed when intelligence is available, and at lower but operationally necessary levels.
from my understanding, russia has an interest in not completely obliterating ukraine, as they want the land it is on. large parts of ukraine are russian speaking and historically a part of russia. rebuilding ukraine once it’s under russian control would be a lot harder if they had to start from the ground up with little to no infrastructure. which is why russia hasnt attacked ukraine with full force.
I’d be more inclined to trust RT than anything coming out of Ukraine. Plus bombers destroyed in Murmansk obviously have little connection to the war itself or, for that matter, a war with the US these days. Missiles rule the roost.
OK, first, Ritter has no experience in this area and does not understand nuclear doctrine. Doctrine of this type is a political statement of the circumstances under which you may use nuclear weapons. Such statements are always relatively vague, because if you tell potential enemies exactly when you would use nuclear weapons, you are also implicitly telling them when you won’t. In reality, all these decisions are taken on political grounds in the circumstances of the time. Doctrine is not like law, and you are not bound to follow it.
I can’t imagine for a second that the Russians would think this attack required a nuclear response. There’s nothing unusual about such an attack: the two countries are at war and Russia has struck the territory of Ukraine many times, so it’s not really an escalation. There’s no reason to suppose that the aircraft (which are indeed nuclear-capable like many Russian aircraft) had nuclear weapons anywhere near, let alone embarked. Nuclear weapons may not even have been on the airfields at the time. This is a good PR stunt, and I presume was meant to embarrass Putin and encourage all those pro-western dissidents the West assumes are ready to take power at any moment. It’s also an attempt to distract attention from what’s going on on the ground in Ukraine.
Likewise, I’m not sure what Ritter’s experience of planning and conducting long-range sabotage operations is, but I suspect it’s even less than mine. What help would western advisers actually bring? Military airfields are huge and their locations are publicly known. Done operators can find them easily at night, and aircraft parked outside are easy to spot. Ukrainians have their own drones (the West doesn’t make them, or at least not this sort) and a great deal of experience of operating them. The Ukrainians essentially speak the language, and it would be easy enough to find personnel who had served in the area, or just had family there. The added value of direct western involvement would be trivial compared to the risks. It’s possible that the West knew about this, and it’s even possible the Ukrainians had help in planning it, but even then I really doubt whether western officers could bring anything really valuable the table, given their dreadful record during the war as a whole. But simply put, Putin is not going to nuke London just because Scott Ritter can’t believe the Ukrainians did it themselves.
I hafve just read an article by a Russian (Notes on the massive suicide drone strikes in central Russia) saying that they are indeed using SIM cards from Russian operators to guide the drones.
Apart from the main focus of the story, the author threw in this bit that was an interesting peek into the Russian economy:
“By the way, I would like to remind you once again that migrants have no place as taxi drivers – only locals, citizens of Russia, should work there. Despite the fact that in a number of regions bans on such activities for migrants have long been adopted, when calling a taxi, “Doldijons” and “Masturbeks” constantly arrive, either they have all already received Russian citizenship in the way we know – through diasporas and corrupt employees of the system, or the monopolistic taxi aggregators do not give a damn about the laws.”
Thanks for the voice of reason.
I find this analysis entirely reasonable. For me the take away is how vulnerable US bases are to this sort of attack.
You’re very smart, of course, but right now you’re wrong. This is easily explained – you have a different information environment. Many people in Russia are convinced that the British organized this attack.
This is easily explained – he is British. I wonder if Russians would believe his denial.
One would be tempted to to even say that he may be genetically incapable of understanding how Russians might take it “the wrong way” when US/UK proxy seriously diminishes Russian nuclear response capability in a strike that has no effect whatsoever on the actual kinetic conflict.
But one would not say so, because one can resist a temptation. And the bombers were legitimate targets, you see.
I might be some sort of genetic degenerate, I think that attacking the weapons of a nation that is attacking you is entirely fair play.
What weapons exactly are attacking Britain?
The situation really sucks. Very shitty. The bottom line is as follows. Russia’s biggest fears are coming true that the West will launch the first decapitating strike against Russian nuclear forces.
Russians remember well how Hitler destroyed many Soviet planes right on the airfields in 1941. Then 27 million Soviet citizens died. A repeat of such a scenario is a great collective fear in Russia.
It’s impossible not to react anymore – everyone sees a bleak prospect if they don’t do anything, as before. Therefore, the question is not whether Russians will believe the British, because no one will believe them. The question is which answer Putin will choose tomorrow or next week. I’m not going to make predictions here – I don’t want to virtually build a pyramid of Cheops out of skulls…
Larry Johnson is also pretty sure Ukraine had help:
https://larrycjohnson.substack.com/p/ukraine-launches-terrorist-offensive
I was remiss in trying to get the post out quickly of not connecting the dots from the data on the Russian airforce, since I assumed readers would. Even if Ukraine had destroyed 40, that’s ~ half, and the bombers are only a small component of the entire fleet. More important, manned aircraft are going the way of the cavalry. The cases where only a plane can do something, versus a missile or drone, are becoming more and more limited.
However, your point that Ukraine could have done this on their own does not mean they did. They would almost surely tell their bestie allies to keep them enthused about still backing Ukraine, which likely means the UK, France, and Germany. So even if they provided no material support, by being told and not objecting, they consented. Qui tacet consentire videtur
The strategic air forces are relatively small: I think (I imagine wikipedia in particular is not very reliable on this nowadays) Russia had about (a bit less than) 100 old Bear bombers and about 20 modern Blackjacks. So losing 40–even if not permanent–would cut their operational bomber total by about 1/3. That’s not a small loss in a single night.
Now, only about half would be operable at any given time. So losses, at least in the medium term, would be considerable if they were THAT high.
Going into the missile age does not really diminish the usefulness of the Bears, in particular. Both they and B-52s are basically missile carriers nowadays–neither can survive in proper air defense environment. The big advantage they have is that launching smallish missiles from big bombers at a long distance is a lot more economical than launching big missiles from ground from really far away.
Russia is defending itself against the empire.
Its hammer has taken to terrorism.
It’s alright if Ritter wants to raise awareness. But alarmism turns harmful at some point. And as Aurelien points out he is not the expert here. Yet he often speaks with a conviction as if he were sitting on the General Staff or Russian NSC.
German online media are going nuts spreading rubbish over RU WMD forces being weakened for decades this moment.
I mean it’s actually too embarrassing to quote.
Eventually you get a peace movement fed on this stuff over 3 years now and they really believe they help the cause calling for Russians to at last cease since they are so weak militarily. And Ritter doesn´t necessarily counter those voices with the way he treats these issues. He should though, a lot of people are listening when he speaks out. Which is important. Less would be more.
Ritter was part of the team involved in strategic weapons inspections under auspices of the arms limitation treaties between US and USSR/Russia. One would think that he does have a certain expertise on things like nuclear doctrine, even if he might not be current on the present state of things….
I doubt it. Arms inspectors look for treaty compliance on numbers and other things. Actual nuclear use doctrine is either written for political leaders to say in public, or (the real stuff) subject to very high security clearances which I’d be very surprised if Ritter ever had, because he had no need for them.
Oh come on, it is not that complicated. It is perfectly obvious from the publicly available text of such doctrines that it is a political decision.
Apart from Aurelien’s point there is this case with Ted Postol. He too had an expertise on things Russian as far as was possible in his position at Pentagon and US Navy. But eventually he gave up his security clearance and eventually as all humans retired. These things in part happened more than 20 years ago and he since has not been able to update that area of his knowledge, i.e. he hasn´t been to RU. Which led to I assume miscalculations and thus incorrect verdicts since those changes in his professional life occured.
I admire Ritter very much as I do especially Postol. But Ritter much more than Postol does regard himself not just as a scientist but also as a political activist. Jacques Baud for comparison never comes out immediately with fanfares and states some apodictic view of the imminent future. Which I prefer.
One issue in our online world is amplification of radical views. It’s more interesting if an expert says we all gonna die than, well lets look into the evidence first.
I think both men, Ritter and Postol, pointed out that they do want to scare their audiences. The intent is honorable. To some extent makes sense. But there are limits to its usefulness. Eventually turning into the opposite.
Mass media pick up on things like demise of RU WMD fleet and come to idiotic conclusions. Nothing of which Ritter in this case ever wanted. But that’s how it works unfortunately.
Now it’s not Ritter’s fault but the peace movement e.g. builds its premise in assessing the military sit. on totally bollocks assumptions and idiotic so-called analyses both faulty and exaggerated.
In the case of the attacks on early warning systems last year I too fell for exaggerations having been much inclined to follow Postol’s opinion. That led to an entire array of public statements and initiatives which simply misled the public and rather strengthening their resolve confirmed general supremacist views about RU being incapable and weak etc. which are all talking points in favour of NATO´s PR office. They just love that stuff.
So one might turn into a useful idiot. That’s the bottom-line here which none of “us” as opposed to the empire in fact wants to achieve.
Very good points.
Scott Ritter is trained as a US marine, always going on attack. He has some substack posts in which he explains himself and his personality which coupled with his training as a US marine is not a nice combination…
I have an excellent attorney who is an ex-Marine who has sometimes gotten himself worked up in the way Ritter does. I like you attribute it to training exacerbating personality traits that are not helpful in “normal” settings.
So would you describe it as a characteristic systemic to Corps or rather a coincidence?
p.s. Recently riding on my bike through Berlin ( a suicide mission) I was thinking of your comment on smartphones downgrading peoples’ actual skill to see peripherically. In that sense, is conditioning of behaviour possibly turning into permanent deficiency?
Two data points is no basis for making any bigger determinations. But the way my attorney got agitated was weirdly similar to Ritter.
“It’s not really an escalation.”
Spoken like a diplomat, or perhaps a European; “The two countries are at war,” is a congenial take.
”In reality, all these decisions are taken on political grounds in the circumstances of the time.”
Precisely why he could do it for the host of other reasons Ritter didn’t see the need to expound. I believe Karaganov (sp?) set the tone. Putin doesn’t believe the attacks will stop when Ukraine is militarily defeated, otherwise he would have done it long ago.
Do you really think that that is what he meant? Pointing out that it would be consistent with the doctrine illustrates the seriousness of the events, it does not imply that such a response is likely.
It seems like the destruction of 2 railway bridges in Bryansk (with civilian casualties) is the cause of more official Russian ire, as they called it a terrorist attack, though railway infrastructure supporting the front seems like a military target. I’m surprised it didn’t get a mention in the main piece.
It was another provocation aimed at sabotaging the negotiations, but it may have been independently orchestrated.
Such tactics can be used elsewhere. “Normalizing” such attacks on strategic assets risks blowback, in addition to whatever response Russia lands on.
I agree a nuclear response is unlikely. But if this keeps up Ritter may be right one day.
“But Russia clearly has to at least aggressively increase the tempo of the war and defeat Ukraine sooner rather than later. Irrespective of the military logic, the Russia public will be seeing red.”
I’m guessing that would be the delicate dance of moving more troops out of Russia and spread out over Ukraine…into closer range. With the reports of Western munitions being more scarce than what Russia has been producing, it could open up the possibility of doing more with less.
I’m curious about that.
If I were Russian high command, spare armies for use against, say, Swalki Gap and possible relief of Kaliningrad is important, ie I’d be planning for war against Germany and Poland in North Central European Plain and having some tank armies for them is important. (You don’t have to plan on conquering anyone, but Kaliningrad is Russian after all (there is strange echo, even with the new name, of Koenigsberg and the Polish Corridor.) If the two reserve groups of forces are committed to Ukraine, how would Russians respond against a German-Polish move on Kaliningrad?
That’s what I’m saying. It’s NATO that may need THEM closer and more exposed. At the moment, NATO would have to do more with less. So Russia maybe doesn’t expose a lot of their troops now.
Feel free to push back, but why would Russia HAVE to do anything, Putin is firmly in power regardless of the disposition of the public, and the military tempo of Russian defense operations isn’t likely to be seriously influenced, let alone dictated, by public sentiment?
Because he is already being severely criticized in Russia for being too cautious. It’s well known (see John Helmer) that Putin has been over-ruling the General Staff, which has been recommending more aggressive action, particularly with the electricity war. Putin is not a dictator. He does need to be mindful of public opinion. There is already a lot of upset about Putin not authorizing a harsh retaliation after Kursk was invaded.
Fair enough.
I never said Russia had to do anything. It’s about what NATO and associates may want.
Jeez…
I’m saying that a tactic as old as time is to try get an opponent to expose more of their soldiers on a battlefield at the wrong time in a way that makes for easier pickings.
I’m saying that is what Russia is AWARE of.
If Ukraine were a weapon, it’s fire and forget, so I doubt the consideration of who supplied what lethal aid at which time will be the primary criterion when selecting targets for escalation. Call that person you love.
More Twitter takes
It’s going to have deep implications for treaties…and borders.
I think it will have deeper implications for the de-nazification of the Uktraine in the immediate term.
Shipping containers as missile launchers (or drone launchers) has been talked about a lot–usually in context of how China might pull something off. Of course, naturally, it’s a Western ally that pulls that off first….
With regards nuclear arms limitation treaties, I think this is another death blow to such things. Unless Ukraine goes and Europe is demilitarized and neutralized, no more arms limitation treaties.
The game just shifted.
Using shipping containers as a drone store base…..
Yeah, well, the use of civilian-looking shipping containers as housing for missiles has been around for years– in production by at least Russia, China, Iran, and probably several more entities:
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-building-long-range-cruise-missile-launched-from-ship-container/
I guess it’s a “new tactic” as far as drones go, and perhaps if you hadn’t heard about the wooden horse that was “gifted” to Troy a couple of years ago.
I strongly, strongly doubt that US and Nato strategic bombers are being parked out in the open today, or have been for most of the last 20 years.
Wanna bet?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=strategic+bombers+flightline+minot&t=brave&iar=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defense.gov%2F2018%2FNov%2F08%2F2002061166%2F780%2F780%2F0%2F181102-F-UE958-0086.JPG
And check out the Minot AFB satellite view… you can use Google Maps for this.
Given the “reader context” to the tweet (or whatever) above, I wonder how current the Minot AFB photo is. Are there parts of START that are still in force, unbeknownst to the know it alls in tweeterverse?
Simpilcius in his latest has other pix confirming the issue with respect to US strategic bombers.
Yes. And the commenter Martin Oline provided detailed information on how these things are laid out in arms limitation treaties on the Links page for which I’m most grateful. This is fascinating, as I saw variations of this on other topics, too. “Reader context” in Twitterverse seems to be actually spreading misinformation rather than counter it!
Under the terms of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), strategic bombers of Russia and the United States must be stationed on open-air bases accessible to satellite observation. This is necessary to confirm that the aircraft are not currently being armed with nuclear weapons, stated former Trump national security advisor, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.
“This ground-based bomber fleet, according to the treaty, must be visible to both countries. The idea is that we’re not supposed to hide them anywhere. They must be visible due to the treaty obligations. From time to time, they are moved simply to strategically redistribute these assets. But there is a very, very confidential channel of communication between our countries at a very high level, so we can continue tracking where those aircraft are located.”
Flynn draws attention to the recent visit by U.S. senators to Kyiv. He believes that if it is confirmed they were aware of the events and did nothing, it would mean they — without the President’s knowledge — gave the green light for an attack on part of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. This creates a dangerous precedent, he warns, where similar actions could one day be directed against the United States itself.
“These are bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons! That we wouldn’t know? That our intelligence wouldn’t know? I don’t believe for a second that our intelligence was unaware — not for a second. I truly believe our intelligence community, the system, and the people within it simply didn’t inform Donald Trump, and that’s really dangerous. Danang Dick Blumenthal from Connecticut and Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, both U.S. senators, had just visited Zelensky, and of course, 24 hours later, they [Ukraine] attack and destroy a component of Russia’s nuclear triad. If Graham and Blumenthal walked out of there having no idea this was going to happen, it just shows you how dumb those two are and how much of an idiot Zelensky thinks the United States is — not just those two senators.”
“If this was MI6, then the CIA was likely aware. If it was Mossad — the CIA was likely aware. If it was German intelligence, French intelligence, name it — they were likely aware. There are clear signs that an intelligence agency, a foreign component, helped execute all this.”
General Flynn claims Ukrainian intelligence isn’t capable enough for “such operations.” A week before the incident, the “Nordic Group,” led by Macron and Starmer, declared themselves the “eyes and ears” of Ukraine, hinting at planned strikes deep inside Russian territory. Flynn believes the British MI6 was involved, calling it the main culprit:
“There are MI6 fingerprints all over this. That’s why I’d say they are the primary culprit. Zelensky wants to stay president forever. They want war. They want NATO involved in the war. They want to join NATO. They want to become part of the European Union. They want to see themselves as a bastion, an integral part of Europe. Britain, France, and some other European leaders — especially from the EU — all they want is war.”
Tit for tat.
Expect the Houthis, or Hezbollah, or perhaps a Gaza action group to admit “responsibility” for a similar drone type attack on some kind of installation or vehicle involved somehow with Natos strategic deterrence capability. Its either that or Russia has to watch it’s nuclear strike arsenal get picked off drone by drone.
On a broader note, the cost and nature of this attack spells trouble for all the large cold war era militaries. This type of attack is within the reach of everyone down to sub-saharan rebel groups. How can a permanent worldwide military presence by any power now be maintained if the airfields so central to its operation are now wide open to kamikaze drone strikes.
Regardless it is in its institutions and political culture in no way set up to pay much if any costs in standing against the US.
I have said for some time that Russia will have to go all the way to the western Ukraine borders because of drones. It won’t stop drone attacks , but they would be clearly terrorist in nature and the supporting nation would be in the cross hairs.
I suspect that it won’t take long before incriminating evidence of British intelligence involvement is found.
a hazlenut strike on a pre-warmed GCHQ cannot be ruled out.
It seems to me that Ukraine is desperate. Though it first appears bold and dramatic, executing this plan of sabotaging interior Russian bases is far easier than mounting an offensive and pushing the Russians out of Ukraine.
At its core, the West’s plan is to weaken Russia. In contrast, Zelensky’s plan, at its core, is to restore Ukraine to pre-2014 borders and join Nato. I can’t tell if Zelensky knows which plan he is working towards or whether he knows he’s likely committing treason.
Seems to me that there’s enough desperation to go around.
Nations everywhere are scrambling (some struggling more than others) to maintain control over agitated populations – whether in a direct conflict or not.
As of now, Ukraine appears to be overstating the results of the attack, while Russia sppears to be understating these.
There are several non-nuclear responses that Russia can take in order to retaliate, which is pretty-darn good for us, however…
Obviously, occupied-Ukraine has been trying to goad Europe and the USA into direct confrontation with Russia and certainly there are elements in the USA that could provide Ukraine with such assistance without the president’s knowledge.
Skimming-through Russian media they seem to be taking the “terrorist-attack” narrative, at least for now.
It looks like this incident will play-out fairly slowly, in relative terms, but godamn if it ain’t a reminder that we’ve got whack-a-does playing with fire.
This is a big nothing burger. People just need stuff to gossip about. Nothing ever happens bros stay winning.
Wake me up when Russia does something substantial. They will just do another limited strike like they always have. NC has become overly alarmist since Trump took office and it’s getting irritating
If you think an operation that Ukraine supporters called a Pearl Harbor, where part of Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces were targeted and destroyed, which led Putin to convene an emergency Security Council meeting, and was the lead story in the Financial Times, Anadolu Agency, the BBC, and got a live blog at the Guardian, does not warrant detailed coverage, yes, you should be reading another website.
The possibility that Russia uses nuclear weapons seems unlikely. The real question is whether Russia will now declare war, which would change a lot of things legally and operationally.
Declare war on whom, though?
If Russia declares war on NATO they will be shooting themselves in both feet. I understand the perspective: NATO is arming Ukrainians and providing Intel, so they are a combatant. Why NOT declare war?
I would argue that there good reason not to declare war on NATO: the depth of munitions and manpower that would be mobilized immediately if full scale war were to erupt would put to shame what is currently mustered in Ukraine. And if the conflict was truly existential for NATO (as I am assuming you believe it would be) we would see the armament manufacturing of NATO countries ramp up dramatically. It would be a long brutal war of attrition, unless there happened to be a quick and universal thermonuclear end.
Russia has said that an attack on Russia = act of war.
“NATO” is not what people think it is. NATO is a very weak alliance. NATO can’t commit to treaties, for instance, which is why the discussion of “NATO” committing to have Ukraine never join is a non-starter in that form. You would have to have every state individually make that commitment. But given that any state can veto (NATO’s site bangs on about how all its decisions are by consensus), having some states make treaty commitments would do…not that that would ever happen.
You can’t “declare war” on NATO. You can on individual state members.
The New York Times in a recent article depicted the US as almost entirely driving Ukraine battlefield operations.
Russia has still to declare war against Ukraine. The SMO is pointedly not that.
The Russians haved termed it a terrorist attack which gives them a lot of leeway in the conduct of operations against every country involved and even more leeway in the justice they deal out when this war is concluded.
How is the Ukraine flying reconnaissance aircraft anywhere near Russian airfields? Does this in fact mean drones?
In the West there are airfield radar systems that identify small drones and location, leading to a quick response/visit.
Small drones are being used in the airline industry to visually inspect aircraft. (I think you can do the math…)
Attack drones flying out of trucks attacked Russian military airfields. The Ministry of Defense announced the terrorist attack and revealed the consequences
https://lenta.ru/news/2025/06/01/regiony-rossii-atakovali-vyletevshie-iz-fur-bespilotniki-chto-izvestno-k-etomu-chasu/
Not much said about “consequences,” other than on the ground during strike.
How much ordnance would Russia have to expend to shut down the electrical grid in Ukraine? That might be an appropriate escalation on their part to make command and control of drone operations much more difficult. I have to believe that Russia would have already done this if they didn’t feel a significant part of the population outside the areas their troops control are really sympathetic to them, but just not numerous enough (yet) to overthrow the Banderite regfime. But is it worse to leave those people without electricity or to keep suffering these attacks from Ukraine on Russian territory, people, and strategic assets? Not an easy decision.
The part about the “significant part of the population outside the areas their troops control (who) are really sympathetic to them” makes me wonder about the point Col. Jacques Baud keeps making–he makes things sound like much of Central and Western Ukraine are like the last days of the Salo Republic, with hundreds of thousands of Italian partisans (some of whom were members of the Fascist Party just a year before) hunting for Mussolini’s people. But Baud is hte only person who mentions this–but he does so persistently and he is one of more informed people out there (but he is both spook adjacent (if not an actual spook) AND a Swiss, so not sure if one could trust what he says too much…)
Regarding a likely Russian response, these are the possibilities I see:
1. Dropping one or more bridges across the Dnieper
2. Striking known locations of senior NATO personnel in Ukraine
3. Declaring a no-fly zone over the Black Sea and shooting down anything in the zone
4. Imposing a shipping blockade on Odessa
5. Formal declaration of war and full mobilization
Regarding Western involvement in this operation, I find the timing of the Mertz announcement lifting distance limitations on strikes inside Russia revealing.
Thanks, HH. My inexpert* take:
1. Unlikely. Russia will need those bridges as the front moves to the west
2. Almost certain.
3. Probably not. That would be a significant escalation against NATO (UK in particular).
4. Likely.
5. Possible, but a major step. I suspect Putin will be more subtle than that.
*No military experience. Shot at a rabbit once with a .22, but missed.
I concur. I find it a bit strange that formal war has not been declared already, if only to open up conscription. Right now Russian soldiery deployed to Ukraine is very expensive and their economy is already running hot, so getting much cheaper conscripts would make economic sense?
Huh? Have you not been paying attention? Russian enlistments are rising. They used to be 40,000 a month. Forgive me for not verifying, but IIRC they are now approaching 50,000.
I would say it’s not about paying attention, but intentional trolling, based on other posts here.
Thank you. Now that you have said that, it’s easier for me to, via having an independent party confirm that belief.
Enlistment incentives are more expensive than conscription, and pointing that out is trolling? Is there context I am missing?
Yes. Russia knows how to run a war. You don’t.
It appears not to have occurred to you that enlisted soldiers have chosen to fight and will perform much better than conscripts.
This was is also existential for Russia.
This is tendentious. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. This is trolling.
No, Russia wants the Dnieper bridges. Per Valdemonian above, it wants the option of moving troops across them. They also allow Ukraine to move men and materiel to the line of contact, the better for Russia to attrit them closer to its supply lines.
It is Ukraine that will blow them up when things look totally untenable.
I am wondering about the timing with respect to the June 2 meeting to take place in Istanbul — is it meant to communicate “we can hurt you, so don’t make unreasonable demands as condition for cessation of hostilities”?
If that is the intent, I think it will not work.
There would be a political slant to these attacks. For months now Trump has been desperate to get some sort of leverage on Russia. Any sort of leverage. He probably had the US help with those massive drone strikes against Russia a few days ago, reasoning that this would give him leverage against Russia, aka make an agreement that I wrote and I will stop those mass drone attacks. But with this attack the Russians can show Trump that the Ukrainians were never serious about negotiations and he can’t control them in any case. Now his position has been considerably weakened. But based on Trump’s previous behaviour, when the Russian launch their counter-attack Trump will claim that Putin is going CRAZY again and why is he doing this?
Western media coverage has basically preempted that line of thinking. Western media was not covering the drone attacks too much, I think. They are going crazy over this, at least in comparison. Everyone will know why the Russian are doing whatever they’ll be doing. I am even expecting that, if things get taken to the right levels, Trump may even be forced to stay quiet on some major German/French/British military installations going up in smoke. In an odd way, Russians have a strange dilemma: they want to make big deal of this, if they want to go “big,” and to be fair, I don’t think they can “win” in the long run unless they go big. If they want to compromise, they want to go “small” and downplay the damages. I think Russian domestic politics are favoring the former–however much Putin wants to deal, he will be forced to be as “resolute” as “hard” as possible, and likely, act outside Ukraine. But a Russian attack on UK or Germany will need a good justification if they are to keep NATO neutered (and that will destroy NATO for good–everyone knows this.) A real “day of infamy,” dastardly staged not by the hapless puppet in Kiev, but the Tojo of the West, the New Corsican Ogre, or the New Fuehrer, that can be successfully painted as a big, vile, cowardly, and perfidious act would help with that…but I wonder if this is big enough.
Putin was never going to deal because there is no deal to be had. The question is whether Trump will withdraw now, and how that will impact the flow of events with Europe left largely as the sole supporter of Ukraine, and how these events will push political pressure within Russia to dictate a more maximalist outcome dictated by Russia..
I wonder what would count as “maximized outcome,” though. That cannot be dictated to Kiev, only to Brussels/Berlin/London/Paris (Whichever is the authority authorized to capitulate). The reason I think it is critical for Russia to deliver a painful strike on a major NATO country not bordering Russia (that rules out the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, and Poland) with impunity. For that to work, the deeds of that country has to be “vile enough” for not even the US to come to their aid, Article 5 (or whatever people think it means) be damned. Not bordering Russia is important because Russia would not be hammering the UK, so to speak, to conquer England (or Scotland, or whatever), but to punish it within reason for universally recognized evil transgressions. The consequence of that will be destruction, or at least, major reconfiguration of NATO–NATO will not protect you if you basically brought the attack on yourself. This would be exactly what Russia went to war for. But achieving this requires a lot of stupidity and recklessness by UK/Frane/Germany–which they have been complying rather well so far..plus an American leader not blindly biden (get it?) blindly to internationalism. Some of the conditions are met. Not sure if the hydra has gone far enough yet…
Southfront has a decent roundup if you’re not into youtube or twitter like me. One note is that the buildings actually appeared to be on the move. I thought they were like pre-built sheds that were plopped down in a field somewhere. Some drivers were arrested and one was noted as killed. Another report about civilians closing the roofs to keep the drones from flying out.
https://southfront.press/everything-we-know-about-ukraines-drone-attack-on-russian-bombers-videos/
A G4 solar storm is happening tonight. If that happens to damage satellites, I can see a USS Maine media frenzy howling for all-out war in the morning news.
“Remember the Musk!”
Well, I fear none of this may have happened … yet. So apologies for being the one to post initially on ostensible widespread missile strikes. The only thing I have been able to find from today is this from the Kyiv Post:
Russian Missile Strike Kills 12 Ukrainian Soldiers at Training Site, Dozens Injured
… which could have simply been regular military activity where there are troops on the ground on both sides.
Seems a lot of the initial X activity from was Indian/Pakistani accounts – more likely viral clickbait at this point.
Lordy, so many words on a Sunday! Nuclear weapons can take many different forms when you add Earth-orbit/space into the equation.
I don’t know how these drones worked. I agree with Aurelian that this looks like an independent “Ukrainian” operation that the little Nazis came up with as an alternative to long-range missiles. But my question is: were theses attack drones dependent on GPS satellite guidance to find their targets?
Detonating a nuclear weapon in space to take-out the geo-synchronous U.S. GPS satellite system is a very complicated question under both international law and first-use doctrine. After Biden’s looney weather balloon shoot-downs, China might be on board with such an attack. Loss of the GPS system would create an economic catastrophe in the West.
I can’t take Scott Ritter seriously — not once, but twice (2001 and 2009) falling for undercover cops posing as teenagers online and spending 2 1/2 years in prison for it. Once I can understand but twice says that you’re an idiot. Then you can add Ritter’s bizarre rock-star act in Grozny, intentionally flirting with treason in a similarly off-putting way to his lame internet sexcapades…
Considering there is info this was an 18 month operation, I fail to see how this could have been a strictly Ukrainian operation. I feel people are desperate to keep NATO/US out of this for fear of what that means.
The fact the Ukraine targeted strategic nuclear bombers is the real problem. That the US and NATO most likely knew and were involved makes it even worse.
And nice ad hominin attack on Scott Ritter. Not sure what those incidents have to do with the discussion.
Yes, 18 months as quickly brayed by Ukraine. Why did they say that?
To give an impression of their capacity to plan and implement an operation which requires a great deal of patience. My guess is that it originated as a knocked together UK plan to keep the US in the war, and the whole thing was put together in less than three months in anticipation of peace talks when the last thing the Zelensky government, the UK and other NATO partners wish for is peace of any kind.
Although the strikes are reported as “deep into Russia” they are all conveniently situated close to international borders including those near Moscow, and the weapons could be moved across borders by contract drivers as part of the regular chain of goods, I think 18 months is a real red herring.
“Considering there is info this was an 18 month operation” I agree, it’s likely true, and, bear in mind, this means it was a Biden operation together with the same people who gave us the Nordstream explosion.
I’m not sure if they or anybody else told Trump anything about this drone plan during his transition and, imo, Trump is not well briefed.
I don’t know details of those private matters. I only know that Craig Murray defended Ritter over those online gaming issues. Knowing that those were set-ups by law enforcement. It’s not disimilar to that operation directed against Matt Gaetz. Women who were minors had real drivers licenses which were being issued only to adults in, was it Florida? And the license cards were genuine but issued to them being minors still, so actually illegal. Which means they came from high level sources. Jimmy Dore called it a classical honey-trap.
p.s. What happened in Grozny?
The bombers whilst a big ticket item really don’t change what is happening on the battlefield. The Trains and bridge are another logistic story but, will be sorted soon enough.
The kicker out of this event is how much went into this little prank, at this moment in time, and for what – won’t change a thing on the battlefield. Better yet is how this will really unify the Russian population, not only against Ukraine but, all of NATO.
It will be interesting in a few months how this will be a dim memory.
They despearately needed another Moskva moment. I expect it to be exploited as much.
fwiw: Here an interview with Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the Russian National Defense magazine who is a bit crazy. Or at least likes to be provocative.
He had suggested to strike Bavarian factories of Taurus with Oreshnik.
Albeit I consider it nonsense (I imagine Lavrov’s cringy face when he heard about it) it is interesting as far as gaming it out: What Korotchenko suggested is not unlike what happened between Iran and Israel. Where both sides showcased their capabilities (or lack thereof). In the context of a limited, announced strike.
“Strike the Oreshnik Plant in Germany”: Korotchenko Talks About Our Response to the Tauruses
Military analyst Korotchenko: “We need to carry out a targeted retaliatory action in response”
machine-translation:
https://archive.is/Z7cYt
RU original:
https://www.mk.ru/politics/2025/05/27/udarit-oreshnikom-po-zavodu-v-frg-korotchenko-rasskazal-o-nashem-otvete-za-taurusy.html
The infuriating double standard about the fact that Europe may strike RU but not the other way around totally totally totally eludes German “intellectuals”. Which is at the core of this of course.
Since the real casualties are totally ignored by the media for once I applaud Rubio (omg)
via Martyanov:
Translation: RUBIO EXPRESSED CONDOLENCES TO LAVROV IN CONNECTION WITH THE VICTIMS OF THE RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE BOMBINGS IN BRYANSK AND KURSK REGIONS – RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
A rather welcomed change of posture, unlike it is the case with London, Paris or Berlin where they ejaculate from seeing Russian civilians being killed. They don’t even hide it.
https://ria.ru/20250601/mid-2020352445.html?in=l
p.s. this address e.g. won’t show in Germany
+
Larry Johnson
https://sonar21.com/ukraine-launches-terrorist-offensive-with-western-assistance-on-eve-of-negotiations-in-istanbul/
“(…)
In my opinion, none of these attacks could have been planned and executed without assistance, if not the direct involvement, of Western intelligence and NATO officers. The drones likely were activated by a remote signal made possible by Western satellites and/or systems like Starlink. Those systems also played a critical role in enabling the drones to navigate to the targeted airfields.
While this is clearly a PR victory for Ukraine, it is a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory–i.e., a tactical win, leading to a strategic defeat. The Trump administration is denying any knowledge of the attack. I take that disavowal with a big grain of salt. People within the CIA and USEUCOM offices, who are providing assistance to Ukraine, likely knew about the plan, and may even have provided intelligence support to get the drones to their targets. Like any covert operation, they may have tried to give Trump plausible deniability, but the Russians know how this game is played.
I expect Russia will launch a massive retaliatory strike after the talks in Istanbul on Monday conclude. The Ukrainian attacks on the bridges, the train and the airfields have done nothing to alter the situation all along the line of contact in Ukraine. News continues to pour in from the front, from both Ukrainian and Russian news outlets, painting a picture of growing desperation, even panic, among Ukrainian forces, as Russians capture more territory and kill more Ukrainian troops.
(…)”
p.p.s Martyanov:
“(…)
As I posted in the previous thread–I only now recognized that I don’t know math and warfare. 3 TU-95 MC and 2 TU-22M3 destroyed AND damaged (meaning some of them will return to service) is roughly (among active, there are more in reserve) 70 heavy + 90 middle =160 bomber aircraft: so 5/160= 3.125%. That’s it, Russia lost the war. Tomorrow Russian delegation will accept 404 and EU’s “conditions” and that will be it.
(…)”
Yves had already linked to Larry Johnson above. Sorry for the duplicate