Conor here: Putin sure seems to have more than enough reasons to turn to some of the measures Korybko mentions below. The problem is it’s not clear that Zelensky and his European handlers subscribe to realpolitik deterrence theory. They are willing to fight to the “last Ukrainian”—and perhaps more in their anti-Russia crusade. While Korybko mentions the use of tactical nuclear weapons to finally restore deterrence, why assume that would be effective?
For now, Moscow continues with the slow burn approach:
The Russians have reportedly struck a bridge and the Dniprogres dam (also serving as a bridge) in the city of Zaporizhzhia. A worrying development in the light of the media campaign in Russia to start destroying bridges across the Dnipro as a revenge for drone attacks on Moscow.…
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) June 20, 2026
As for what’s driving Zelensky and his handler’s threats against Belarus? Here’s one theory:
IMO his “plan” is to credibly threaten an invasion of Belarus to force Russia to redeploy troops and disrupt the rest of the summer offensive season. Don’t really think it’ll work, they don’t have the reserves for that, but who knows. https://t.co/MCiZpSd33q
— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) June 19, 2026
And on another front, it looks like Zelensky might have to start threatening Poland here soon too:
Zelensky sends by post Polish order back to President of Poland after Nawrocki stripped him of it in response to glorification of UPA that perpetrated mass murder of Poles, Jews & Ukrainians. Bandera OUN organized UPA from police which assisted Nazi genocide.… pic.twitter.com/f9mllxZ3Nm
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) June 20, 2026
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website.
Russia can’t allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus with impunity otherwise it risks losing its closest ally, whether to destruction or Lukashenko’s “defection” to the West, either scenario of which would shift the strategic balance of power in the Ukrainian Conflict to Russia’s supreme disadvantage.
Zelensky gave Lukashenko one week to remove air defenses and drone relay transmitters along their joint border otherwise Ukraine will do it for him. This comes amidst their growing tensions that have been boiling since spring after Zelensky implied that Ukraine could capture Lukashenko like the US captured Maduro on the pretext of preempting a supposedly imminent Belarusian invasion of Ukraine. This closely resembles their summer 2024 crisis which readers learn more about here, here, and here.
The crucial difference between then and now, however, is that the West and Ukraine no longer have any respect for Russia’s “red lines” after Putin’s noble efforts to avert a dangerous escalation cycle that could inadvertently lead to World War III were misperceived by them as “weakness”. Being a consummate pragmatist, he projected his calculations onto them and thus thought that they’d stop after realizing that they’re playing with fire, but all that happened is that they no longer take Russia’s deterrence seriously.
Over the past two years, Ukraine invaded Russia’s Kursk Region, conducted “Operation Spiderweb” against its nuclear triad, tried assassinating Putin at his residence in Valdai, began carrying out long-range drone strikes against St. Petersburg (which many speculate transit through Baltic airspace) and recently Moscow too, and Trump is now preparing to “escalate to de-escalate” after sensing even more “weakness” than ever from Putin. This has sparked a harsh reaction from top Russian thought leaders.
Top hawk Sergey Karaganov still insists on a first strike against Europe, first with conventional weapons and then with nukes if they retaliate, for restoring deterrence even though Putin declared in early June that such talk “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.” Meanwhile, former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov warned that the West is trying to “boil the frog”, with one of their goals being to neutralize its nuclear forces. He called for Russia to stop being so “nice” to its foes and finally enforce its “red lines”.
Zelensky’s ultimatum to Lukashenko gives Putin the chance to finally restore deterrence. Belarus is Russia’s mutual defense ally and they both participate in the Union State project. Moreover, Russia also has hypersonic Oreshnik missiles and tactical nukes in Belarus, which were deployed precisely for deterrence purposes. As Putin himself declared in September 2024, “We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State.”
Accordingly, Putin could advise Lukashenko to reject Zelensky’s ultimatum, promising that Russia will retaliate against Ukraine for any attack against Belarus by authorizing the first-ever combat use of the Oreshniks (he recently clarified that prior such uses in Ukraine were for testing purposes). If Ukraine aggression against Belarus is significant, such as if it attacks the 500 targets that a top drone commander claimed late last month had been identified there, then Russia could retaliate with tactical nukes instead.
Russia can’t allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus with impunity otherwise it risks losing its closest ally, whether to destruction or Lukashenko’s “defection” to the West, either scenario of which would shift the strategic balance of power in the Ukrainian Conflict to Russia’s supreme disadvantage. Putin must therefore finally restore deterrence or risk the worst-case endgame scenario in this proxy war. The conflict’s outcome is still far from decided, but that could instantly change depending on what he does.
The idea that this would limit the Russian forces available for their summer offensive strikes me as utter nonsense: defending one’s allies is not part of the “SVO” police operation (which involves only contract troops) but rather the defense of an ally’s territory. A war, then. This could pave the way for the deployment of conscript units, of which there is a surplus in the Russian army.
Given the weakness and lack of motivation and training among Ukrainian troops in the rear, this could be closer to “live-fire training” for the Russians than to a real offensive.
The use of strategic weapons (missiles and even nuclear weapons) is de facto and de jure authorized in the event of an attack on the territory of Russia or an ally.
Here, “Z” shows that he is at the end of his rope and that a nuclear war in Europe seems preferable to him than continuing down the current path, which is leading him inexorably to defeat. This kind of paranoid reasoning, leading to delusions of grandeur and an underestimation of risks, is typical of the side effects of regular cocaine use, which appears to be commonplace in the upper echelons of Kyiv.
John V. Doe: Astute. “Here, “Z” shows that he is at the end of his rope and that a nuclear war in Europe seems preferable to him than continuing down the current path, which is leading him inexorably to defeat. This kind of paranoid reasoning, leading to delusions of grandeur and an underestimation of risks, is typical of the side effects of regular cocaine use, which appears to be commonplace in the upper echelons of Kyiv.”
Let me see: Zelensky is presiding over a failed state, in demographic and social collapse, now engaged in various public-relations stunts like the drone-over-refinery afternoon and the Crimea-cut-off afternoon. So Zelensky wants to open up a second front?
At this point, and it isn’t as if I support either the Russians or the Ukrainians, both of which have plenty of faults, it seems to me that it is time strategically for the Russians to roll into Kiev and overthrow the Western-proxy government. Overthrow of the Ukrainian state wasn’t the Russians’ original strategy, but one must learn on the battlefield and one must learn to use war to create politics.
Let the big boys in the E3 — France, England, and Germany, with their crappy economies and their poisonous internal politics — try to take Novgorod.
The problem, I think, is that most of the Russian population isn’t all that convinced by the Kremlin’s message that Russia is under attack and in existential peril, WW2-style, and hence isn’t really eager for conscription at all (hence the Kremlin’s avoidance of using conscripts). The Kremlin’s strategists and propagandists as well as geopolitics buffs may talk about long-term dangers to Russia that the SMO is supposed to avert all day long, but to an average person, this whole Ukraine business still looks more like an imperial adventure of the type the US engages in all the time, and that has consequences for the kinds of price that people are willing to pay for it. If Zelensky attacks Belarus, that will still look like part of the Ukraine affair, whatever the legal subtleties.
“… but to an average person, this whole Ukraine business still looks more like an imperial adventure of the type the US engages in all the time.”
Do you have evidence for this, because it contradicts just about everything I’ve read on general Russian opinion – not to mention the factual history of the Ukraine conflict. I have no doubt much of the population is not eager for conscription (who is?), and not all that thrilled with war either. But I don’t think the “average person” sees this conflict as an unnecessary “imperial adventure” at all.
As someone in Russia, I can confirm that the average person absolutely does not look on the SMO as an imperial adventure of the type that the US engages in, or as a pressing threat to existence, but rather as the obvious third option, which is that it is a defense of the people of Eastern Ukraine.
Thanks Chris
Given that Belarus does have armed forces of it’s own, there really is no need for Russia to deploy but a token number of troops to defend Belarus. Belarusian forces may not have high combat capability, but we would in any case be looking at extending the front line by 50% or so. Ukraine just doesn’t have the numbers to cover this new front.
If there’s any thinking behind Zelensky’s threats, it would be to escalate enough to get Poland and thus NATO involved directly trough a conflict with Belarus.
It looks as if Zelensky is taking a page from Iran’s handbook with respect to attacking the attacker’s allies. Anyway, Russia’s using tactical nukes would be a major escalatory step towards nuclear apocalypse and an atrocity, in addition to setting a horrible precedent. They could be a weapon of last resort in case of a full-scale invasion threatening to capture Minsk and overthrow the government, but hardly if this is just about bombing some installations across the border.
‘But we will lose the war and our prestige otherwise’ is not a sufficient reason to use nukes. Nukes are not supposed to be a guarantee that you get to achieve whatever aims you set yourself and to win all your wars, they are supposed to be a weapon of last resort to be used in self-defence if you are being invaded (or attacked with nukes, obviously), and for all of the Kremlin’s suggestions that it is acting to prevent something like that in the future, that is not happening yet. Using nukes in advance just to prevent a hypothetical future development is unwarranted (and considering it acceptable would make their use ubiquitous). And even if you are being invaded, it seems, well, a bit ridiculous to claim that you are forced to use nukes in response to the invasion when you yourself have started the war and invaded the country that is invading you. Maybe try stopping your own invasion first?
The fighting nearly ended one month after Western provocations prompted Russia’s invasion. The US sent in BoJo the Clown to scupper any possible peace deal. This was after two failed Minsk agreements that Ukraine failed to honor at the behest of NATO nations. Merkel had admitted publicly that they never intended peace and the agreements were just to stall for time to arm Ukraine against Russia. And this after the US sponsored coup in 2014.
So who exactly needs to stop first here?
And my rhetorical question is not a justification for nukes at all – I agree 100% Russia should not use them. Just pointing out who the aggressor is here.
Your comments on this post suggest you buy the Western perspective on this conflict, i.e. that it is some sort of unprovoked invasion by Putin for his own imperial ends. This ignores the thirty years of US/NATO activity leading up to the invasion, the very public efforts Putin took to avoid the invasion, his “restraint” in carrying out this conflict (for which he has been criticized by pro-Russian hawks inside the country and out), and the scuttling of peace efforts noted by lyman by the West which have been openly acknowledged. There may be something to your idea about Zelenski taking a page from Iran’s tactical playbook, but to suggest that the cases of Iran and Ukraine are actually comparable is a complete distortion of history. It would be more accurate to compare Iran and Russia.
For anyone who buys the Western narrative that the Ukraine invasion was some sort of unprovoked imperial power grab by Putin, I always recommend Scott Horton’s book, appropriately titled ‘Provoked.’ It’s packed with history and references that show why this view is the complete reversal of the truth – and that plenty of US officials are well aware of this.
This is just more drivel conforming to the “Rules Based Order”. Which nation is the only one to use nuclear weapons in war? We’ll see if Israel follows these prescriptions real soon.
(Directed to Foundling)
This description of Iran’s strategy is so reductionist as to be complete useless for understanding why the Ramadan War played out the way it did.
The US allies Iran attacked did not have the uncommitted capacity to escalate their support for the Americans in response to Iranian attacks. Their contribution relied on a limited number of key military facilities, which Iran was able to attack at relatively low cost. The degradation of these facilities imposed severe limits on American ability to attack Iran, both by removing essential sensors from the table and by denying secure basing close to Iran (which in turn limited the rate at which the Americans could throw ordinance at Iran, and strained logistics of these attacks).
These key features of the Iranian strategic picture have no parallels in the Belarusian-Ukrainian situation. Aside from the launch of the Russian invasion in 2022, Belarusian territory has not been used to launch Russian attacks on Ukraine – and Kiev can ill afford the manpower required to defend an additional front in the war. It is easy to reinforce from Russia. Even if successful, suppressing installations in Belarus would have little operational impact on the Russian military.
Zelensky has threatened to remove the “drone repeaters” – tall posts with antennae – rather than attack 500 targets across Belarus. Is Ukraine actually capable of doing this?
Even if they try, I cannot imagine using nukes would be seen as a proportionate response. And of course, there certainly would be a response.
From recent reports by Alexander Mercouris it looks like the Oreshniks will indeed be used, probably fairly soon in Kiev as Russia has warned foreigners to leave and civilians to avoid potential targets.
Will this create deterrence? Probably not. I sincerely hope I am wrong but I very much fear that at some point Russia will use stand-off weapons against selected targets in Europe to force a final agreement and new security architecture there.
Sure — because what a Ukraine which cannot hold onto the Donbas much longer really needs is another front 🙄
It’s either nonsense or stupidity. Unless, of course, it’s both.
Why is every Russian commentator leaning to the West or prominent in the West suggesting this nonsense about tactical nukes?
According to RU MoD Russia shot down 150k drones in SMO so far and is producing 18k large drones annually (of course countless more smaller ones).
The attack on Moscow was laughable. 200 drones were targetted at Moscow a territory larger than the Netherlands.
AD shot down 97% of those drones which have small warheads.
AFAIK small UKR drones carry from 3kg up to the biggest with 120kg but those have limited range.
i.e. the material effect was zero.
Ukrainians know this. Which is why this is all PR (big beautiful explosions due to petro-chemical plants hit) not of military significance.
Even a TOMAHAWK with 450kg warhead:
“has a lethal radius of roughly 13 meters, within which it can do catastrophic damage. ”
https://cepa.org/article/tomahawk-for-ukraine-nice-but-not-necessary/
The quoted example by CEPA, which is your usual D.C. think tank, suggests 150 TOMAHAWKS would be needed to destroy 50% of the Russian drone factory in Alabuga. Not counting Russian AD.
If I add to that Martyanov´s AD-interception rate for TOMAHAWKS with EW etc. of 90% that surpasses US capabilities obviously with 2000 TOMAHAWKS left in stock altogether after using 1000 against Iran alone, to some sources. But even if the success rate were 50% it´s still no-go.
AFU suffer daily losses at the front of 1000-1500. This year so far 200k.
RU MoD is currently at a total tally of 1,7M casualties for AFU.
Mark Sleboda believes most of Donbas will be under RU control by end of the year.
And once Donbas is lost to AFU the main defense is gone.
So who is winning this war and why are we discussing triggering WWIII by Russia still?
For all intents and purposes RU has still two entire armies not deployed, better equipped and better prepared than the one fighting now.
The production of hypersonic missiles has been ramped up for this very reason: deterrence and eventual destruction of the entire UKR infrastructure.
Not to mention the control of various materials the West simply needs.
And then we still haven´t even brought in China´s economic leverage.
FWIW the one danger which Sleboda repeatedly points at is:
What will Europe do if Kiev does fall. And RU does decide to take control of the West? But that´s longterm and unclear. But still we have no nukes on Europe.
And if we ponder about attacks on NATO territory at all what about all those conventionally equipped new missile systems?
It really needs a fantasy stuck in the 1990s to come up with the tactical nuke scheme over and over again by this group of commentators.
p.s.
1) The “500-targets”-quote above is from Ukrainian Pravda. The entire paragraph is this:
“(…)”To Minsk’s Gauleiter Lukashesku: a barking dog does not bite. A bird of prey is different. The first 500 targets have already been identified. Some free and very practical advice: do not stick in Ukraine’s craw.”(…)”
Wow. that´s very informative, Pravda. Thank you. And so incredibly scary.
2) The “escalate to de-escalate”-quote by Trump is this paragraph from Korybko´s Substack:
“(…)
Trump signed the “G7 leaders’ statement on geopolitical issues” agreeing “to increase the delivery of air defence capacities, additional systems and interceptors, and long-range capabilities. We are also ready to consider extending to Ukraine the benefit of licenses to allow for an increase in Ukraine’s military production…we will strengthen our sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors.” This amounts to him preparing to “escalate to de-escalate” with Russia, the reason for which will now be explained.
(…)”
What is Trump talking about? They just suffered a humiliating defeat against Iran. Escalate with what?
Indeed. While the pundits are talking about tactical nukes (or operational-tactical in Russian military parlance), Russian armed forces are currently “shaping the battle space” by hitting Ukrainian rail engines, marshalling yards, logistic centers (a.k.a. UkrPosta) and all bridges in the Zaporozhye.
Oh, and the Russians are now about 8 km from Slavyansk. The Ukrainian HQ responsible for the defense of the Kramatorsk-Slavyansk festung has allegedly moved to Lozova, about 100 km west of Kramatorsk. After the battle for the twin cities commences in a week or two, it will be too late for Ukraine to accept the current terms – and the next ones will be much tougher.
Indeed the entire narrative of threat and deterrence is sketchy. The idea that the AFU has the capacity to hit military targets in Belarus is far from certain, but the fact that Zelensky, as well as Merz, Macron, and for a bit more Starmer, are desperate for an act of escalation that they can use to rally the populations that currently despise them, and get Uncle Sam in. They are all Netanyahu now. When the attempted false flag attack on the ammonium nitrate warehouse in Constanta was busted, they have to move to threatening Belarus. I wonder if Transnistria is feeling left out?
The theater for the EU war lobby worked well enough for the headlines, but video shows that some of the drones in Moscow were built Hollywood-style to generate plumes of black smoke then they were shot down. Creating the illusion of a hit on a juicy target. The dramatic shots were used to shake the EU trees for money and guns, while also adding to the anger in Russia and pressure on Putin to escalate.
Even the narrative positioning of the strikes on Dnipro and Zaporozhia bridges as revenge seems off. Logistic lines for matériel are standard military targets. It seems entirely possible that the bridges were left intact in order to facilitate the drawing of arms stockpiles from the west into range of Russian standoff glide bombs. Perhaps Russia can’t stand this anymore, perhaps they are just ready to divide the country.
Talk of ‘tactical’ nukes is usually confined to the nuttiest of neocons, as they serve little battlefield purpose, and are really just an invitation to escalation. The oreshnik system presumably lets Russia destroy pretty much whatever they want in Europe, without the international stigma and obvious drawbacks of nuking something on your own continent.
> … video shows that some of the drones in Moscow were built Hollywood-style to generate
> plumes of black smoke then they were shot down. Creating the illusion of a hit on a juicy target.
Haven’t heard that one before. Can you tell us where you got it?
If west, after four years of this, couldn’t take a hint, why would they suddenly sober up to reality just because Putin dropped one tactical nuke somewhere in Ukraine? I can see everything from declaring Russia using nukes means Putin is losing so we must double down, to straight up demanding Ukraine is given nukes of its own. What I can not see is them giving up on their beloved war. Problem is western leaders are insulated from immediate consequence of their irrational actions in Ukraine. Maybe Putin should honor EU wish and cut the gas in 2022, similar to what Iran did.
Cutting off all fuel sales would be a good option. I agree that there appears to be nothing which will force the EU and US to back off the “extend and pretend” strategy they have in Ukraine.
It might even be that if the kind of peace developed where there was no conflict in Europe and no conflict in Western Asia then the US would enter a recession. No upward pressure on AI stocks. No need for extra budgets to fund new Pentagon contracts. An end to the only jobs program the US reliably funds. Perish the thought!
St. Putin continues to play the fiddle (or was it 7D chess?) as Moscow burns! 🔥
Another troll? A friend of Foundling? Certainly not a musician or Master of the board.
Where is Orphan? 🥲
Sitting in Moscow as I am, I can avow that it certainly is not burning.
If you would be so kind to not confuse us with facts, we know that we believe Moscow burns.
Technically, I suppose it would be accurate to say that about 0.000001% of Moscow burned for a brief period.
Perhaps Belarus should make a counter offer. They should say that if the Ukraine attacks Belarus, then orders will be given to the Belarus Army, Navy, Air Force, special forces, intelligence services, territorial forces, etc. that they are all responsible for one mission – to kill Vladimir Zelensky. And Belarus will not stop until that mission is complete. The little weasel strikes me as a coward and I think that this counter offer will have him go fleeing to his European friends for protection.
Russians won´t allow that and Lukashenko wants to be liked by both sides.
According to my limited knowledge.
The war talk of Z is 1000% bluster.
The PR is intended to avert attention from the crumbling frontlines.
It´s working as far as West is concerned.
But that doesn´t change reality on the ground and the fact is that one city after another is now falling.
2026 has already featured two surprises (which makes me wonder what the rest of the year has in store).
First, UKR has become much more successful using drones vs RU; these drone attacks used to be merely annoying pinpricks, but they’re now becoming more painful. E.g., RU has recently begun importing gasoline, due to the ongoing damage being caused to its refineries. I suspect that after failing to reach an agreement with Putin in 2025, Trump greenlighted Silicon Valley and the Pentagon to work closely with UKR and accelerate drone warfare vs RU (along with using NATO ISR and devious drone pathways via Poland, the Baltics, etc). Drone tech is advancing faster than anti-drone tech: even Israel (roughly 700 times smaller than RU in land area, and with world-class EW and AD systems) was unable to fend off all of Iran’s drone/missile attacks. Of course RU can do the same to UKR, but RU (a wealthy country with lots of juicy targets to hit) has more to lose than UKR (which is essentially a failed state at this point, surviving from year-to-year on dollops of aid from NATO). So this drone vulnerability poses a serious new problem for the Kremlin, at least until such time as anti-drone tech catches up (or until there is regime change in UKR).
Second, Iran has demonstrated that it is possible to bomb USA/Israeli bases, destroy USA aircraft, and kill USA soldiers and Israeli civilians……without provoking WW3 or nuclear armageddon. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which calls into question the Kremlin’s policy of restraint since 2022, confining its military activity to UKR soil and carefully avoiding anything that might conceiveably provoke a NATO intervention. Many Russians are now asking–with some justification–why it is that Iran can shoot back at its attackers, but RU cannot. The notion that a RU missile strike on (say) Rzeszow will kick off WW3 seems a bit silly today, given that the USA backed down vs Iran despite decades of bad blood between them (let alone the howls of protest from Israel and The Blob). The European militaries are in no condition to attack RU, notwithstanding all the bravado coming out of Brussels. A fine line separates caution from cowardice, and I sense a growing feeling among Russians that their leadership might be on the wrong side of that line.
I have consistently underestimated Putin’s ability to stay cool and focused and resist provocation, and I have long sympathized with his prudent strategy vs UKR, but in light of the above the situation has changed. The Kremlin’s original strategy in February 2022 was to launch a large cross-border raid in order to scare UKR into agreement. That failed, so the Kremlin adopted a new strategy of grinding down UKR in a war of attrition while avoiding a direct clash with NATO. This strategy no longer makes much sense, due to the two factors mentioned above, therefore I expect the Kremlin will adjust its strategy very soon.
So at the risk of being proven wrong again, I will go ahead and predict that RU will do something sharply escalatory during the second half of this year. I doubt tactical nukes will be used, but I think that life in UKR is about to become a lot more unpleasant for the unfortunate souls still living there. And NATO’s eastern flank (especially the countries that look the other way when UKR drones overfly them on the way to RU) might want to brace for impact.
I anticipate an escalation with the Oreshniks. Russia is likely ramping up production and will implement a well thought-out plan fairly soon. I do believe the Iran response was instructive to the Kremlin.
Re ‘Iran has demonstrated that it is possible to bomb USA/Israeli bases, destroy USA aircraft, and kill USA soldiers and Israeli civilians……without provoking WW3 or nuclear armageddon.’
I don’t think anybody seriously imagined that the US would use nukes against Iran. I certainly didn’t think of such a possibility for a second, in spite of all the traditional and increasing lawlessness of US behaviour as well as Trump’s own volatile, no-holds-barred conduct. The USA has attacked and invaded many countries since WW2, it has often won, sometimes it has lost (as in Vietnam), but it has never used nukes just because some of its soldiers have been killed or some of its aircraft have been destroyed. These things happening are just par for the course if you wage a war. Using nukes just because you are losing a war on foreign soil is not normal, it’s monstrous. It would have been monstrous if the US had done it in Iran or in Vietnam, and it would be monstrous if Russia does it now.
‘Many Russians are now asking–with some justification–why it is that Iran can shoot back at its attackers, but RU cannot.’
Excuse me, but Russia is the attacker in this case, not Ukraine and not the West. Russia is shooting at Ukraine already. The cases are difficult to compare, but Russia attacking the EU would be more like Iran attacking a US city directly because the US was arming Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. (Yet still different, because Iraq attacked Iran and not vice versa.) Or like the USSR attacking the US directly during the 70s-80s Afghan war because of its support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Utter madness. The ‘many Russians’ advocating such a thing are a small minority of crazy war hawks.
Actually by “shooting back” they mean shooting at those responsible for the attacks. For a while the war was restricted to the front.. LPR, DPR, Crimea, and regions of Ukraine. Now NATO is striking the rear in Russia, “shooting back” means Russia hitting the rear, i.e. Europe, where planing and arming are done.
I disagree.
RU attacked UKR, not Latvia (let’s pick on Latvia, since its government recently toppled over due to exactly what we’re discussing here). Latvia allowing UKR drones to cross its territory en route to St Pete et al makes it a party to the conflict, just as Bahrain/KSA/Kuwait/Qatar/UAE allowing USA to use their airbases and airspace to whack Iran made them parties to the conflict. Hence, legitimate military targets, which Iran accordingly whacked. If you allow another country to use your airspace to conduct offensive operations against a third country, you are a belligerent. Full stop, end of story. Deal with the consequences.
And then we have the recon drones and RC-135s overflying the Black Sea and Romania and Poland and Baltic Sea, providing real-time tactical military intel to their UKR military recipients. Those aircraft (and the people operating them) are active participants in the RU-UKR war, even though they are technically not located in UKR. The telecoms revolution and the Internet promised us The Death of Distance, and they have delivered. All very nice, but this means that a technician operating a super hi-tech drone over the Black Sea, while sipping Diet Coke in his air conditioned bunker in NAS Sigonella, is just as much a fighter in the RU-UKR conflict as a grunt machinegunner sitting in a trench near Kharkov, swatting mosquitoes and fighting chronic dysentery. He is a legitimate military target, not that RU is about to whack Sigonella (not so sure anymore about that Black Sea drone, though).
As for the USA never having used nukes post Hiroshima/Nagasaki, you might re-read the history of the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis (or what Russians call ‘The Caribbean Crisis’), during both of which quite a number of high-ranking USA officials were very keen indeed on dropping the big one. We escaped by the skin of our teeth (hat tip to Sir Kenneth Clark of ‘Civilisation’). And for the record, I still do not exclude ISR/USA using nukes vs Iran. This crisis is far from over, I’m quite certain.
‘The ‘many Russians’ advocating such a thing are a small minority of crazy war hawks. ‘ — You are misinformed, but I’ll leave it at that.
I believe the following has been linked here at NC previously, but for any who may have missed this sobering discussion between Karaganov and Mearsheimer provided by Glenn Diesen: John Mearsheimer & Sergey Karaganov: Nuclear Strike on Europe to Restore Deterrence
Thanks! Karaganov’s strategy is about reestablishing nuclear deterrence, not escalation – though escalation is implied.
The slow burn approach is working, Russia is advancing toward the remaining Ukrainian strongholds (Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, and Orikhiv) in the oblasts that voted to join Russia. It’s just…slow. But Russia has not had to suffer the extraordinary damages that Iran suffered, which Iran not only survived but became stronger after. No reason for Russia to stop now, maybe just turn up the heat a few more degrees, As long as Ukraine keeps getting billions from the Empire, it can keep stocking up on South American, African, and Central Asian mercenaries to make up for its extravagant losses. Maybe Russia should be destroying Ukraine’s financial apparatus as well as its energy facilities–go after banks and data centers and government offices alongside railroads, airports, and bridges. And as far as threats to Belarus, didn’t Russia stand up a whole second army for the northern front that is not involved in the SMO at all, one aimed at countering threats from NATO in Finland, the Baltics, and Scandinavia? That army could get some experience helping Belarus if Zelensky actually wants to act out Kursk II there.
Iran lost 4k people, mostly civilians in the recent dustup. Russia has lost at least 300-500k troops.
This is unsustainable and traitorous on Putin’s part when he has had other less costly (in human lives) ways of reestablishing deterrence.
If you compare the exchange rate for dead Russian and dead Ukrainian troops, your ‘Russia has lost 300-500K troops’ sounds suspiciously like you have swallowed Ukrainian propaganda. The real figure is likely to be far less.
I find it very hard to believe that Russia has lost more troops in the SMO than the US lost in World War 2. You don’t get those kinds of numbers without very large forces and very large amounts of materiel, which neither side has. What were they killed with, magic spells?
These kind of figures with lots of zeroes behind them are propaganda intended for people who have no concept of scale.
I don’t believe those numbers. Iran had huge numbers of its leaders killed also, where Russia has only had a couple of lower level officials killed by targeted, on the ground assassinations, not military actions like missile attacks or drone strikes. Also, if you’re personalizing everything to Putin, I suspect too much listening to Empire propaganda, which always tries to personalize every conflict to a single leader for PR purposes. Putin is doing everything with the approval of the senior leadership in Moscow, and many of the decisions on how to implement are being made by people lower down the chain, from Belousov to Gerasimov to people even lower. It’s an existential struggle against a neighboring country that started off with a very large army (by current European standards) lavishly supplied by NATO and all the major political parties in NATO nations that could vote to pony up significant money, so, yes, there are going to be painful numbers of casualties (but I would be surprised if as many as 200,000). Russia doesn’t need a war with the entirety of the US military and its NATO helpers. Now. Maybe that will come in time. But they’re winning on the ground now, surviving quite well economically (in spite of sanctions), and not losing any of their allies outside the sphere of the Empire. Meanwhile the Empire is being led around in circles by the second prideful, senile doofus in a row in the White House, plus blowing its weapons inventory on Iran with undesirable results. Putin and Xi and their colleagues are not going to start a nuclear war when the Empire is already thrashing about in its death throes. (And I say that as the “7-8 Oreshniks to demilitarize the UK in one day” advocate who, like many, would like to see Russia make an exampe of someone–but that doesn’t mean I’m going to second guess Russia’s leadership and call Putin or the others traitors.)
People say that they have never seen such a capitulation by the US as the Iran MOU that trump signed. This indicates that it could be a ruse in preparation for a major attack on Iran. The attack could be nuclear, because a conventional attack is not feasible. USrael may think that the world would not respond, but that use of nukes could be a green light for Russia to use nukes.
re: Mearsheimer
I have come to the conclusion that Mearsheimer is wrong with a particular of his historic statements:
He has repeatedly stressed that during the Cold War NATO/USA would have never dared to attack territory of the USSR/Russia as they did with the Kursk offensive now or the attacks on the nuclear bombers.
That sounds like a wise and powerful statement.
I believe he is wrong.
The only reason why we witness today´s incursions of NATO while did not in the past era is the control of Ukraine as proxy which is NOT part of NATO.
During the old Cold War NATO had no non-aligned proxy and yet genuine part of Soviet territory.
Otherwise NATO would have attempted the same destabilizing operations.
We know after all they tried to do it before the Eastern bloc consolidated throughout the 1950s in more covert fashion.
So eventually it´s all about whether NATO could interfere with or without triggering a casus belli.
Today they can in the past they could not.
It´s not the only reason of course.
Geopoltical walls closing in on NATO´s states is another for pushing them into this direction.
But it´s eventually all about answering domestic necessity/urgency and creating international legality.
Russia misses the Warsaw Pact. Maybe, if they can finally subdue Ukraine, they can eventually peel Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia away from the EU Garden. And there have to be some Russia-sympathetic people in Moldova and Romania, even if they are not having their votes counted under the NATO version of “democracy”. Russia needs that buffer of a half dozen geographic entities between them and France/Germany.
To your other point, I believe Frank Wisner (CIA) tried hard to get Eisenhower to militarily intervene against the USSR in the (CIA encouraged) Hungarian uprising, but Eisenhower was having none of that.
Since we’re off on a tangent: a huge reason for the hammer drop on Hungary was the Korean War as a proof that the “Western Block” had no qualms of fighting a war against socialist development, and that Nagy lost his nerves and threatened to turn Hungary to a new Korea.
Also, the Polish government was demanding USSR to act fast to squelch the uprising while Kremlin was more reluctant and wanted the ousted Hungarian communists to deal with the problem. Not really taught at schools today. Or ever.
The alliance between Belarus and Russia can quickly resolve the Zelensky threat by using pre-emptive strikes on Kiev and all military centres in the Ukraine, whether using nuclear weapons or not.
Leaving aside the support they are giving to the Kiev regime, threats and plans by the European states to go to war against the Russian Federation in 2030 also provides excellent grounds for a series of pre-emptive strikes by Russia at her convenience. One useful target will be Germany given that it has developed a marked inclination to be ruled by the Teutonic equivalents of Joey Gallo, albeit without the late Mr Gallo’s charisma and charm.
Of course, Russia will resist until the very last minute in the hope that the people of Europe settle their problems of a systemic bias towards leadership incompetence and lack of interest in the problems of the people they – well, sort of – govern, and elect less grift prone and more capable and grounded politicians. If we can do it in the UK, despite of our track record of consistently electing know-nothing buffoons and pantaloons over the past five decades, I’m sure the other nations within the various states of Europe – with the likely exception of the Baltic hamlet states and the Scandanavians – can do the same.
I find it really strange that a lot of commenters here, while comparing the Ukraine war with the Iran war, are equating Russia’s situation with that of Iran, when it is much more natural to equate it with that of the US and Ukraine’s situation with that of Iran, both in terms of the size and power of the belligerents and the unexpected successes of the smaller one. It’s as if the main criterion for similarity is where commenters’ sympathies lie rather than any objective characteristics of the situation.
Speaking of which – another hypothetical parallel to the suggestion that Russia has to attack the West directly because of its support for Ukraine would have been to say that Trump has to attack China and Russia directly because of their support for Iran. In other words, it’s lunacy.
US did attack Laos and Cambodia for their support of Vietnam. But I guess Europe is different.
And yes, many here do see the primary cause of both wars being the western need to rule the war. That the prism trough which many here look at them – the swansong of the neocolonial world order.
You don’t have to squint your eyes too much to see how Russia appeased the aggressive NATO for 30 years before the conflict “went kinetic”. But if you’re convinced that it’s not a proxy war, and Ukraine didn’t shoot first, then you likely will disagree with most here.
‘Speaking of which – another hypothetical parallel to the suggestion that Russia has to attack the West directly because of its support for Ukraine would have been to say that Trump has to attack China and Russia directly because of their support for Iran’ —
With all due respect, you miss the point completely. I don’t think RU really gives two figs about the West’s support (military and economic) for UKR; it was to be expected, after all, and RU does the same thing with its own friendlies. The problem is that the West is now engaging directly vs RU (see my comment above re drones passing through Latvian airspace en route to RU, and NATO aircraft/drones providing live tactical info to UKR military). This is not support, this is active participation. Not the same thing at all.
“I find it really strange that a lot of commenters here, while comparing the Ukraine war with the Iran war, are equating Russia’s situation with that of Iran…”
I’ve been taking your comments as sincere, but I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t trolling. At the least you could not possibly find this “strange” if you had been a regular reader of NC – even if you did not completely agree with this perspective. As Polar Socialist suggests, the comparison stems from the fact that both Iran and Russia are targets of long-term projects to isolate, destabilize, and (it is hoped) balkanize these countries. They are targets because of their strategic importance to the West. In my view, Ukraine is not the equivalent to Iran. Rather, it is the equivalent to the Kurds, or the Baluchis, or the MEK. It is made up of a variety of groups, some deserving and some despicable, who sincerely desire “independence” from Russia but are actually being used by the West for its own ends.
Since you did not acknowledge my comment above regarding the thirty years of US/NATO advancement to Russia’s border and its activity in Ukraine itself during this period, I can only assume either you are ignorant of this history or you are purposely ignoring it. Perhaps this reflects your own sympathies or ideological biases, I don’t know. But any *objective* discussion of this history would certainly understand why Russia might see this as an existential conflict. I recommended Scott Horton’s book above precisely because this is what he provides. He is a libertarian who is not a particular fan of the Russian state. Because he is a libertarian I am not a particular fan of some of Horton’s economic ideas. But his book is the best single-source I know in providing the type of historical information and “objective” documentation needed for understanding this conflict.
We are comparing Russia situation with Iran here because they are both fighting the west. Interestingly, Iran didn’t get US to (sort of) back down by dropping nukes on them or even causing some sort of shocking military defeat like sinking of aircraft carrier. The only lever that seems to be working is the oil/economy, with its potential to actually affect western elites ability to rule over their states in (relatively) short term.
Putin will do what he does best – procrastinate.
Russia’s strategy seems to be to garner sympathy in the west (!) over “war crimes” by the EU/NATOkraine.
This is like Mike Tyson trying to get sympathy when some skinny random guy slaps him on the street.
All Russia has gained is allow Ukraine to build up its drone and unconventional warfare. The first lesson of war is to be decisive and deliver a clean blow.
Once again: the Russians do not have a “tactical nuclear weapon” category. They consider all nuclear weapens to be strategic weapons and existential threats. If the West uses a so-called tac-nuke in retaliation the Russian doctrine is to launch a full strike. They don’t want to be in a position to have to do that.
‘Tactical Nuclear Weapons’ is an invention of the West when the USA brought in the Pentomic Division structure and as a result Mutually Assured Destruction was introduced so we wouldn’t inch towards a full exchange one warhead at a time.
I don’t think there is currently any actual “tactical nuclear weapon”. What’s typically called as such is really a theater strategic weapon.
Putin and his oligarchs prefer the west to the Russian people.
The Ruusians have a lesser value complex and they adore EU/USA.
Russia would rather commit suivide then hurt Europe.
If Zelensky attempts to negotiate with Russia the AZOV types will cut off his head with a hacksaw, slowly.
Add the effects of prolonged Cocaine use and here we are.
Ms Zelenska may have a chance to enjoy the hundreds of Millions of $ that the Green Hornet has looted but the odds that he will are nonexistent.
Darn it, destroying your Country and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths is supposed to be profitable…
Sanctions, a personal anecdote;
This morning Roxie, the forty pound muppet that I’m told is a dog, refuses to eat her breakfast. After much unsuccessful cajoling, and with a finger wag, “No treats until you eat your breakfast.” This delivered sternly, and with an accompanying finger wag. Sanctions were on!
Within ninety minutes, clandestine supply lines had been established. Shortly thereafter, illicit transactions were being flaunted in public. The edict was reversed before lunch.
Happy dad’s day.
I cannot find a consistently good news source. Guys here are great on pretty much everything…except seeing Russia as a victim forced to invade Ukraine. I find this perspective ridiculous and its truly grating whenever this subject comes up: all the pro-Russia voices steadily reinterpreting every Ukrainian action as propaganda, or whatever else – not real people fighting off an invasion, but puppets in a grand play. Jesus. And this is despite having reservations about Ukraine as a country ( i.e nazism and the like).
Your claim indicates you are not well informed. If China had fomented a revolution in Mexico, installed an anti-US government, was persecuting Americans in Mexico, was sending arms to support anti-American militias, and was threatening to install nuclear-capable missiles in Mexico that could reach Washington DC, would the US have sat pat? No, it would have invaded Mexico LONG before Russia invaded Ukraine. And Russia only wanted Ukraine to created a more federalized system so the ethnic-Russia heavy oblasts would give equal rights to ethnic Russia, see the Istanbul draft agreement that the US and UK broke up. It would have left Ukraine with all of its territory.
Former CIA analyst and daily Presidential briefer, Ray McGovern, and top American realist professor John Mearsheimer have discussed at length if Russia has any better options and concluded no.
I suggest you study up much more on the backstory. This should help: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
Putin is not the man for war.
I’ll say it again : Putin is to Strategy as Rimsky Korsakov is to Orchestration. Nobody complains that Rimsky doesn’t start out with full orchestra at forte fortissimo before cranking it up to 11 on the volume dial. Putin’s doing just fine : he’s winning and not scaring the horses.
Re: Zelensky Returns Polish Order of White Eagle by post
Dmitry Medvedev had some choice words about this: