Are you a historian or have you simply listened to Solovyov and Skabeeva?
Any modern state has its own history, in which there are different periods, including the seizure of its territories, as well as subordination to another state, but this does not mean the end of the existence of the state and its history.
Hardly, The "strategic bombers" were not the most important element of the triad (that's the ICBM and SSBNs) and it's not like Ukraine is threatening to nuke Moscow. If USA did this it would be a different matter. Ukraine did target the aircraft that have been involved in launching cruise missiles into civilian targets in Ukraine. They were a perfectly valid military target. If Russia wanted to claim all nuclear capable bombers off limits then they should not have used them in a conventional war.
США, Великобритания, беспомощное НАТО - провокаторы, а РФ - жертва, которая просто развязала оборонительный геноцид, но её не так поняли? Если вы не в курсе, то в РФ запрещено слово "мир" и людей за это садят - всё, что вам надо знать о гуманной России
Hi Arthur, thank you for comments, I think the first part of your response is perfectly reasonable.
However, I don’t believe that this was an American or UK attack, or that Ukraine is a proxy for the them in this attack or that helping Ukraine defend itself proves that they are a proxy. Russia clearly did invade Ukraine and it is not in the interests of the international community for the changing of borders to be conducted this way - Europe has enough bad memories of this. It’s a bad precedent and how would Russia feel if China took a slice of its Far East? If you attack someone, you can hardly blame others for assisting them. What happens to Russia as a result of a war they started is not other people’s responsibility. No one blames Russia or its allies for the destruction of Berlin in 1945.
I agree with you that when dealing with nuclear weapon issues an abundance of caution is warranted. However, when it comes to who is making nuclear threats, you should check out Julia Davies and her monitoring of the regular nuclear threats against Ukraine and other countries in Europe including the UK on Russian state television.
I don’t think your 'accepted wisdom' that USA was looking for fight with Russia, a country clearly now in relative decline is correct, when Russia was sticking to within its own borders. I think USA is after a containment policy re both Russia and China. USA certainly doesn’t want and can’t fight a land war in Asia, though USA would like to keep China within the first island chain. China aggressively pushing claims in other countries’ areas of the South China Sea or worse still Taiwan could well lead trouble.
I put the “strategic bombers” in quotes as it is sometimes a poorly defined category. TU-95, TU-22 and TU-160 are all aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but so are many “tactical” aircraft such as the SU-24 and SU-34. TU-95, TU-22 and TU-160 are different in that they have longer operational ranges. They are not exclusively used for the nuclear role. E.g. TU-95 is a also a capable long range reconnaissance platform and the TU-22 a formidable naval strike platform. All three have been used to launch conventional cruise missiles at targets in Ukraine and Syria, but this can also be done by other aircraft. Of these I would say that the TU-160 being the most modern, is the most sensitive re the nuclear question. I wonder if is a co-incidence that the video’s that we have seen so far don’t seem to feature these?
I stick to my point that the SSBN and ICBM are the most sensitive part of the triad as they are not dual role and therefore any strike on these is aimed at the nuclear capabilities, and if Russia wanted or regarded the bombers to be off-limits then they should not have used them in a conventual war. Any resulting loss of nuclear capability is their own fault.
I will not try to answer all the above - not worth the time and effort. But if you don't want Ukraine to defend itself, try not attacking in the first place. Ukraine is not in anybody's face. it is an independent country and culture.
From russian propaganda bits I've seen, it looks like russia is already trying to downplay the attack ("nothing to see here, drones were shot down, a few aifrrames took minor damage"), and/or pointing at random actors (like "Finland did it!").
Really? Whilst you say there is a committee in reality, we all know who the actual decision maker in the Kremlin is. I would say that a Dictator is a ruler with dominant decision making power over a country, or where the opposition is not allowed to win. Given Putin has been in charge since 2000 and his opponents usually wind-up jailed or dead, I would say he qualifies. By comparison in the US and UK there is some separation of powers and actual power can change every 4-5 years and there is a tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
Sorry. It isn’t enough. The big secret to nukes is that they can’t be used. Too risky (I guess it must be a two digit percentage of chance that trying to send a Russian nuke anywhere would simply blow up on/during launch) and no real gain and unless you are opting for total nuclear war the rest of the world would hate your guts for the next generations. Nuclear weapons are used exactly as Russia do it now, a deterrent. That way they work.
Big thanks, Tom, as always. It's quite sobering to read such an informative explanation from knowledgeable people after all the celebrations in most of our media.
I wish SBU or GUR somehow managed to do similar trick to the airfields which house planes releasing MPKs/UMPKs, since those seem to remain a big problem for our guys in the trenches. But that might need a completely different approach.
And I can only imagine the number of "blyad" and other profanities said yesterday by members of VVS after the hits; or by MVD and FSB officers after they had most probably received orders to check cargo trucks from now on.
As Don has already mentioned in his weekly reports, Russian rails are degrading, so may rails sabotages in RU border regions have cumulative effect on Russian logistics?
They're more likely to have effects - than spending 18 months and who knows what in terms of money, material and people, to launch an operation of this size, and then knock out 7+ museum pieces...
yeah, but how about the impact on russian domestic freight transport? besides destroying a number of airframes, it was also a signal to suspect all containers. Wouldn't the latter hit harder?
Thank you Tom, thank you Don. I would like to point out that Operation Spider Web was started 18 months ago. At that time, air-launched cruise missiles were the main means of terror for the Russians, and the Ukrainians were trying to move on to "killing the archers," that is, the carriers, rather than limiting themselves to shooting down missiles that had already been launched. Now, the main means of aerial terror are ballistic missiles and attack drones. Nevertheless, this strike has enormous political and moral significance: 1) the "victorious" Russians got punched in the face again, just like with the cruiser "Moscow"; 2) Trump and Company were shown that Ukraine still has "trump cards"; 3) the weakening of the Russian nuclear "triad" is generally welcomed by all potential adversaries of Moscow; 4) the Ukrainians, exhausted by increasingly massive air attacks, have received hope for their weakening; and 5) this is a convincing demonstration of the capabilities of the Ukrainian and the impotence of the Russian special services.
and according to Yakovina, all "patriotic" (that is, chauvinistic and imperialist) russian bloggers are frothing at mouth, their anger being mostly directed at their own authorities; they never mention Putin, ofc, but he is implied. So it weakens his image on russian domestic scene, which increases the chances of an eventual coup. Not that any potential new rulers would be less imperialist, but usually, when Russia is in chaos, its neighbours can breathe more easily for a while.
So bottom line, would have been better to have attacked an SU-25 or SU-34 base in terms of military impact? Or would these air bases have had a much tighter air defence set up, making it unlikely to succeed?
I think you also underestimate the fact that this event forces the Russians to spend much more effort protecting more distant military assets.
Hi Tom. I think that the choice of strategic aviation bases as targets for attack was made, among other things, because there are very few of them and many vulnerable and unhidden targets are concentrated there. Other such targets could be the Kalibr carriers in Novorossiysk.
Thank you for the sobering analysis. Still even if it was only a propaganda victory I think it was important. That is one of the areas were I find I disagree with your analysis. In my opinion you underestimate the psychological side of the war. Ukraine needs some such, simply to keep the political support and the belief in their ability. If people in Europe believe they cannot win, then they get no support. And while we both would have wanted that support increased by ten fold it is there and it is important. Also, any damage is some help. But yes, not so much military as hoped for, but something. Not nothing.
Why miss it? Ukraine was, is and will be! Unlike various "ciravers"...
Are you a historian or have you simply listened to Solovyov and Skabeeva?
Any modern state has its own history, in which there are different periods, including the seizure of its territories, as well as subordination to another state, but this does not mean the end of the existence of the state and its history.
Do you want to say that Russia has permanent borders and a mono-ethnic population? Or is this also not the norm?
Sorry, but your opinion is only yours, and for society there are scientific definitions of terms and norms of international law.
Hardly, The "strategic bombers" were not the most important element of the triad (that's the ICBM and SSBNs) and it's not like Ukraine is threatening to nuke Moscow. If USA did this it would be a different matter. Ukraine did target the aircraft that have been involved in launching cruise missiles into civilian targets in Ukraine. They were a perfectly valid military target. If Russia wanted to claim all nuclear capable bombers off limits then they should not have used them in a conventional war.
США, Великобритания, беспомощное НАТО - провокаторы, а РФ - жертва, которая просто развязала оборонительный геноцид, но её не так поняли? Если вы не в курсе, то в РФ запрещено слово "мир" и людей за это садят - всё, что вам надо знать о гуманной России
Hi Arthur, thank you for comments, I think the first part of your response is perfectly reasonable.
However, I don’t believe that this was an American or UK attack, or that Ukraine is a proxy for the them in this attack or that helping Ukraine defend itself proves that they are a proxy. Russia clearly did invade Ukraine and it is not in the interests of the international community for the changing of borders to be conducted this way - Europe has enough bad memories of this. It’s a bad precedent and how would Russia feel if China took a slice of its Far East? If you attack someone, you can hardly blame others for assisting them. What happens to Russia as a result of a war they started is not other people’s responsibility. No one blames Russia or its allies for the destruction of Berlin in 1945.
I agree with you that when dealing with nuclear weapon issues an abundance of caution is warranted. However, when it comes to who is making nuclear threats, you should check out Julia Davies and her monitoring of the regular nuclear threats against Ukraine and other countries in Europe including the UK on Russian state television.
I don’t think your 'accepted wisdom' that USA was looking for fight with Russia, a country clearly now in relative decline is correct, when Russia was sticking to within its own borders. I think USA is after a containment policy re both Russia and China. USA certainly doesn’t want and can’t fight a land war in Asia, though USA would like to keep China within the first island chain. China aggressively pushing claims in other countries’ areas of the South China Sea or worse still Taiwan could well lead trouble.
I put the “strategic bombers” in quotes as it is sometimes a poorly defined category. TU-95, TU-22 and TU-160 are all aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but so are many “tactical” aircraft such as the SU-24 and SU-34. TU-95, TU-22 and TU-160 are different in that they have longer operational ranges. They are not exclusively used for the nuclear role. E.g. TU-95 is a also a capable long range reconnaissance platform and the TU-22 a formidable naval strike platform. All three have been used to launch conventional cruise missiles at targets in Ukraine and Syria, but this can also be done by other aircraft. Of these I would say that the TU-160 being the most modern, is the most sensitive re the nuclear question. I wonder if is a co-incidence that the video’s that we have seen so far don’t seem to feature these?
I stick to my point that the SSBN and ICBM are the most sensitive part of the triad as they are not dual role and therefore any strike on these is aimed at the nuclear capabilities, and if Russia wanted or regarded the bombers to be off-limits then they should not have used them in a conventual war. Any resulting loss of nuclear capability is their own fault.
I will not try to answer all the above - not worth the time and effort. But if you don't want Ukraine to defend itself, try not attacking in the first place. Ukraine is not in anybody's face. it is an independent country and culture.
From russian propaganda bits I've seen, it looks like russia is already trying to downplay the attack ("nothing to see here, drones were shot down, a few aifrrames took minor damage"), and/or pointing at random actors (like "Finland did it!").
Yep, a dictatorship usually doesn't want to admit any failure or weakness, so they minimise bad news.
Really? Whilst you say there is a committee in reality, we all know who the actual decision maker in the Kremlin is. I would say that a Dictator is a ruler with dominant decision making power over a country, or where the opposition is not allowed to win. Given Putin has been in charge since 2000 and his opponents usually wind-up jailed or dead, I would say he qualifies. By comparison in the US and UK there is some separation of powers and actual power can change every 4-5 years and there is a tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
Sorry. It isn’t enough. The big secret to nukes is that they can’t be used. Too risky (I guess it must be a two digit percentage of chance that trying to send a Russian nuke anywhere would simply blow up on/during launch) and no real gain and unless you are opting for total nuclear war the rest of the world would hate your guts for the next generations. Nuclear weapons are used exactly as Russia do it now, a deterrent. That way they work.
Excellent points regards Operation 'Spiderweb' 👍
Big thanks, Tom, as always. It's quite sobering to read such an informative explanation from knowledgeable people after all the celebrations in most of our media.
I wish SBU or GUR somehow managed to do similar trick to the airfields which house planes releasing MPKs/UMPKs, since those seem to remain a big problem for our guys in the trenches. But that might need a completely different approach.
And I can only imagine the number of "blyad" and other profanities said yesterday by members of VVS after the hits; or by MVD and FSB officers after they had most probably received orders to check cargo trucks from now on.
As Don has already mentioned in his weekly reports, Russian rails are degrading, so may rails sabotages in RU border regions have cumulative effect on Russian logistics?
They're more likely to have effects - than spending 18 months and who knows what in terms of money, material and people, to launch an operation of this size, and then knock out 7+ museum pieces...
yeah, but how about the impact on russian domestic freight transport? besides destroying a number of airframes, it was also a signal to suspect all containers. Wouldn't the latter hit harder?
That’s one day delay
there is some hope delays would accumulate.
Thank you Tom, thank you Don. I would like to point out that Operation Spider Web was started 18 months ago. At that time, air-launched cruise missiles were the main means of terror for the Russians, and the Ukrainians were trying to move on to "killing the archers," that is, the carriers, rather than limiting themselves to shooting down missiles that had already been launched. Now, the main means of aerial terror are ballistic missiles and attack drones. Nevertheless, this strike has enormous political and moral significance: 1) the "victorious" Russians got punched in the face again, just like with the cruiser "Moscow"; 2) Trump and Company were shown that Ukraine still has "trump cards"; 3) the weakening of the Russian nuclear "triad" is generally welcomed by all potential adversaries of Moscow; 4) the Ukrainians, exhausted by increasingly massive air attacks, have received hope for their weakening; and 5) this is a convincing demonstration of the capabilities of the Ukrainian and the impotence of the Russian special services.
and according to Yakovina, all "patriotic" (that is, chauvinistic and imperialist) russian bloggers are frothing at mouth, their anger being mostly directed at their own authorities; they never mention Putin, ofc, but he is implied. So it weakens his image on russian domestic scene, which increases the chances of an eventual coup. Not that any potential new rulers would be less imperialist, but usually, when Russia is in chaos, its neighbours can breathe more easily for a while.
So bottom line, would have been better to have attacked an SU-25 or SU-34 base in terms of military impact? Or would these air bases have had a much tighter air defence set up, making it unlikely to succeed?
I think you also underestimate the fact that this event forces the Russians to spend much more effort protecting more distant military assets.
I would prioritise as follows:
- Shahed/Geran units,
- Iskander units (i.e. missile brigades),
- Su-30/34 units/bases,
- DA bases (i.e. strategic bombers).
As for protecting distant Russian bases: the Russians are first to know that trying to protect everything they've got is hopeless.
Hi Tom. I think that the choice of strategic aviation bases as targets for attack was made, among other things, because there are very few of them and many vulnerable and unhidden targets are concentrated there. Other such targets could be the Kalibr carriers in Novorossiysk.
Which means they have to prioritize. Because they can’t completly ignore. But let’s leave the Kerch bridge untouched… with all the air protection,
Thank you for the sobering analysis. Still even if it was only a propaganda victory I think it was important. That is one of the areas were I find I disagree with your analysis. In my opinion you underestimate the psychological side of the war. Ukraine needs some such, simply to keep the political support and the belief in their ability. If people in Europe believe they cannot win, then they get no support. And while we both would have wanted that support increased by ten fold it is there and it is important. Also, any damage is some help. But yes, not so much military as hoped for, but something. Not nothing.
The obsession with aircraft in modern warefare needs to get over !
Hi Tom. Here's a report about a new success of the SBU - they blew up the supports of the Crimean Bridge!
https://vikna.tv/ru/dlia-tebe/vijna-v-ukrayini/krymskyj-most-atakovaly-pod-vodoj-sbu-organyzovala-avaryjnoe-sostoyanye-opor/