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?
It was foremost a demonstration of the sheer lunacy of Kiev Ukraine. That was attack on russia's nuclear deterrent. On both sides such attacks are deemed sufficient provocation for a nuclear response and it is obvious why.
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.
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.
Nigel, we do not 'all know' at all. There are many who will insist differently. I think Alistair Crooke, Jeffrey Sachs, for instance and they are people with the credentials to know.
There are still powerful oligarchs in Russia and other forces political and economic. Russia is a federation of many ethnicities as was the ussr. The very essence of keeping it together is accommodation, adjustment, compromise, mutual understanding. Else it would not last a year.
A dictator is one who dictates and all else obey.
That is america today where Trump not only dictates but loudly insists he has every right to do so and will continue to do so. He makes no pretence of it.
And kiev where zelensky attempts to do the same.
It is not so in Russia any more than it is in China.
In kiev only one political party is allowed just as we see spreading throughout europe. They have elections and if they don't like the result they just ignore it.
Putin has been where he is since 2000 and through various elections where his popularity is plainly seen, indisputably seen.
However zelensky refuses to have elections.
I don't believe Putin's opponents usually wind up jailed or dead. I can easily believe some do for that's common in many parts of the world. In america they assassinate them regularly don't they?
In uk they don't need to: the real govt of the country is in 'the City', i.e. with the bankers and the hereditary rich.
The thing has been quantified accurately quite independent of any 'Russian propaganda'. The numbers of Russian aircraft are known pretty accurately and the actual damage has now been assessed and is known accurately.
The damage was not great in physical terms.
But notionally it is enormous for it means the proxy war has moved into another phase: where Russia's nuclear potential can be nibbled away by proxy.
And the military feature that has been there from the beginning now is revealed completely: the mobility and reach of these munitions.
And commensurate with the nuclear potential feature we have Heads of State potential. Today the bombers. Tomorrow Red Square when Putin is at some ceremony.
This is an all out war just as vicious, barbarian, insane as Israel in Palestine and the usa will do anything - anything - to 'win'.
'win' in quotes because of course they win nothing, they destroy everything including themselves, in the end.
We daily inch closer to where the 'movers and the shakers' of world events: particularly these destructive to the people world events, wars, where they lead us dumb stupid sheep to kill each other, will be revealed. Totally. Known for what they are and what they do. Every action documented in this modern world.
Yep, I think I missed an important point maybe, not being up to speed on it all. The point being that the attacker should be a nuclear state, which kiev ukraine is not.
What I'm talking about is what I've 'learned' recently (if its true) that those planes fall into a category that demands they be put on display - on each side, usa and russia - so that they can be counted.
That category is nuclear potent munitions.
Such munitions attacked is clearly part of a nuclear war.
I've been led to believe - and I find it easy to believe - that such an attack according to protocol can be taken as pre-emptive and trigger like response or more.
In this instance there's 'nuance'. kiev is not nuclear. the bombers have been used in other roles.
On the one side.
On the other side the real enemy is the usa and they are nuclear.
We have every reason to believe that the attack was an american attack.
'every reason' , of course, being that in this scenario you must for safety and sense adopt the worst case interpretation.
It seems certain the uk organised this. How much closer to the usa do you need to get?
And kiev IS threatening to nuke moscow if we go back over the rantings of that lunatic.
All along the line this 'proxy' war is a war of lunacy. Everyone knows america and nato are waging full on war with russia and yet Russia is constrained not to respond in kind.
There is nothing you can find that is not from the usa simply because the usa rejoices in anything done to Russia and will take advantage of it: it all is in accord with what they want.
At this current moment the 'accepted wisdom' is that the usa wants europe to continue the war with Russia so that it can turn to China, finish that and then turn back to Russia.
So where in that is usa removed from responsibiity for anything that happens to Russia?
That's exactly the same lunacy as the criminal simplicity of letting it be known as a war of invasion by Russia against Ukraine - which excites the sympathy of millions and sponsor kiev and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Yet all our most learned, and responsible, and assiduous and careful and clever and whatever the hell have you continue to spout that narrative. Turning their backs on an opportunity to help turn things the other way.
That was america diminishing Russia's nuclear capability, america and uk and nato, joint responsibility.
When it comes to 'valid military targets' we have the whole of mainland usa, europe and britain.
I don't quite understand where you are coming from, Nigel. Why put 'strategic bombers' in quotes? To suggest they are not? Why say 'not most important' ? Important, relevant, part of, is what matters.
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
Yep, they are provocateurs if anything. Mostly, actually, nothings. Mere dumb puppets of the usa.
The victim was always intended to be Russia but at the beginning of this particular instance and what is the subject here the victim was the Russians of the Donbass. As I imagine you well know.
Russia is not misunderstood in the west. It is simply not heard.
In a minute I will go research your claim about the word 'peace'. I am utterly sure that it's nonsense.
Oh, yes, 'genocide'. Where do you see the genocide, Alex? There is a cultural genocide being attempted, is in fact official policy. It is the policy of kiev aimed at the Donbass. It is the reason for this very thing.
That is, the immediate reason. The original or fundamental reason is, as I've said, the attempt by the west to destroy Russia.
----
okay, right. you mean you can get jailed in russia for speaking out against the war, that's what you mean. Well that's the same in kiev ukraine. The heart of that problem in every country is not people speaking against it - that's the job of politicians and generals, financiers, etc: to make the govt aware of all aspects especially those that might be damaging - it's the 'fifth columnists', the alien propagandists who seek to divide the country and sabotage its war effort. A very real danger. It's the trick the uk and usa use everywhere in the world.
So all countries once involved in a war get very uptight about any public dissent.
I posted a link to your comment on a forum where a few russians and ukrainians congregate. we'll see what they have to say.
I will add this when you speak about 'humane' : kiev keeps trying to make out Russia is deliberately targeting civilians. A stupid claim as their own numbers show. They say, again and again, things like they did last week: the Russians flew hundreds of drones and hundreds found their targets. Drone and missiles and bombs. Hundreds of hits. Hundreds. They print it. They say it. It is no secret.
And then they say such as: '5 civilians were killed'.
5 civilians ! Or 10. Or 20. Or 50. From 'hundreds' of hits? Day after day after day? How many civilians do you think would be dead today if Russia were trying to hit civilians? Can you think at all? Understand?
Even if they were 'careless' it would be hundreds more, thousands.
The same for the kiev side, too. I don't know the figures but both sides have been firing thousands of munitions and if they really wanted to kill civilians like the kiev ukrainians friends the nazi germans did in wwii then there would be thousands upon thousands dead.
You want to hate Russia and blame Russia for Ukrainians killing Ukrainians. But you started the ethnic hatred and you did it because cunning slime from uk and usa talked you into it. And that's who you should hate.
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.
Ukraine is not defending itself. It is attacking itself. It is destroying itself. It has destroyed itself. It will never be the same again.
quote you: " If you attack someone, you can hardly blame others for assisting them:"
unquote;
Yes. And kiev (usa puppet) attacked the Donbass and Russia - eight years later, came to help. And is still there trying. Not yet cleared kiev out of the Donbas.
Soon the chances are they will attack 'ukraine' (by which you mean, of course, 'kiev ukraine' and its people: 10 milllion donbass ukrainians having been conveniently wiped from memory).
Russia is still within its borders. Donbass was not 'invaded', 'conquered' it was helped. The people of Donbass who had land, property, business in Donbass before still have it. They have their own government. They have federated with the Russian federation. For protection. So that they may have some democratic freedoms. So that, in fact, they may have the freedoms guaranteed them by the kiev ukrainian constitution and denied them by the current lunatics.
You miss the point regarding the planes. It is a question of perception, of officialdom, of politics, of interpretation. Those planes are interpreted by the relevant treaty as being part of the nuclear arm of Russia and are subject to conditions such must be parked in the open so that they are observable from space.
Attacking them thus is easily interpreted as a strike against nuclear capability. In the limited sense of these treaties.
In objective fact it is clearly an attack on nuclear abilities. One minute you have a plane that can drop nuclear bombs the next minute you don't.
Objective fact is not the point. The point is perception. This could be perceived as more than enough justification for a retaliatory nuclear type strike.
Quite clearly. Many calling for it the minute news got out.
I am 100% sure that had it happened in the usa it would be seen thus. I am sure that if it happened to american planes in germany it would be seen thus.
But kiev has the utmost difficulty seeing things objectively. They are like spoiled children, they see only what they want. For decades Russia said they wanted what america wanted and wants/insists upon: safe borders, no missile installations on its borders.
And for decades nato drew closer and closer - prompted by usa which is nato and by uk which is poisonous snake.
You draw closer and closer to me as I say again and again stay away and finally you are right in my face and you object 'unfair' when I punch you in the mouth?
kiev got is getting, what it asked for. not metaphorically, literally, factually, objectively. It asked for this. I suppose it asked out of madness, that same childish madness, it thought it could get away with anything because its big daddy would fix things for it. And its big daddy certainly wanted it to happen, it is recorded american doctrine to weaken Russia by involving in war in ukraine.
So urged by its own foolishness and the cunning evil of usa and uk it asked for it. And its got it. And its going to get more.
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.
I was an independent country. Now it is sold, compromised, ruined. It attacked itself. That divided it. Still to this day one part (what's left of it ) attacks the other part ( which remains largely whole).
And it tries to involve the whole world in this attack, even calls for nuclear strikes.
Attacks on 10 million of its own people: Ukrainians.
That is how it is.
It is not defending itself it is killing itself.
It has killed itself.
It has a way out, what's left of it.
Of course, the 10 million that it hates and attacks is one. It itself already says that because it never considers that 10 million any part of itself. There is never a tear shed for any harm done to that 10 million. 'Support Ukraine' does not mean, does not include, support that 10 million. Not at all. It specifically means attack that 10 million.
So those american pawns, those tools of the MIC, those debtors to the oligarchs, those prey to the corrupt, what way out do they have?
They could grow up, they could act like men, they could take responsibility and stature and they could say to Russia we mean you no harm and we wish you to mean us no harm.
We will not attack you and we will not allow any foreign nations to come through our land to attack you.
Your borders with us are safe. There is no threat and there will be no threat.
That would make you an adult and a good nation. That would give Russia all that it asks and needs. All that it asked for since 1945.
Sadly I think there is not the slightest chance of this happening for it grows out of a desire for peace and friendship.
There appear to be no such desires in kiev ukraine.
It claims to be able to build a good beautiful pure independent country via hate, by reviling, excluding, prohibiting everything it defines as 'other' - even that which nurtured it.
Negativity rules.
Some famous kiev ukrainian defined ukrainians as 'not russian', simply that. And that sums it up nicely.
I would love to see ukraine defend itself. All those millions that have fled. All those that are press ganged into the arm. All those millions suffering from loss of friends and family. All those millions with connections both sides of the line. I'd love to see all ukrainians join together and declare we are all ukrainians and we will not kill each other and we will not be tools of the americans and the oligarchs and the filthy british and nazi agitators and the rabid violent nationalists, the extremists and the lunatics.
That would be defence.
There is no sign of it that I see.
Except on the Donbass side where occasionally we find TG clips of soldiers calling out to their brothers.
Probably there are some within kiev ukraine but media blackouts and whatnot: I don't see them.
All I see is the madness and the hate.
It has a culture of hate. It is sworn to it.
It is dependent entirely on foreign thieves.
And those thieves will leave it ruined.
And I repeat: the solution is so simple: have the people declare what I am sure is really their truth: we want to live in peace, we mean no harm to Russia, your borders are safe with us, friends, relatives, associates inside and outside of the Donbass wish to live in peace.
That simple truth is banned from expression in kiev ukraine.
And that's the problem.
At bottom the problem is the ordinary people have no voice.
That's the same problem everywhere in the west. Everywhere. My country too.
We are stupid and think we have a voice. Our vaunted 'democracy'. But our 'leaders' do not listen nor consider nor care about what we want. 'Govt. by the people of the people, for the people' ? No way.
Look at Trump, Starmer, Scholz (as was), Macron - do any of them give a damn for their people? No way. They ruin their nations. Germany ruined by nordstream destruction and usa banning use of Russian oil.
Always the directions, the evil, from the same place: usa, the handful of oligarchs that run that place.
kiev ukraine is not something very different, it is just another in a long list of places used and ruined by the usa.
Yes, I wish ukrianians would defend themselves. I am sure they are not as stupid as they are supposed to be. They know damn well that half a million dead ukrainians is not 'protecting' ukrainians.
They know damn well that 'fighting to the last ukrainian' is utter, total and absolute f**king moronic bullcrap and does nothing for ukrainians at all.
They know that hatred of Russia is not in their interest whatever. They know all that sensible men all know when they congregate in the workplace, in the taverns, when at home, wherever.
But all over the western world we the ordinary people have this incredible stupid docility and we allow ourselves to be set against each other.
It should not be and I hope that with the spread of the internet and the coming together of people that it brings one day it will all stop.
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.
And don't forget its only your opinion that 'they can't be used'. There are thousands, perhaps even millions, who certainly think they can be used and are just itching to use them.
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.
The region, encompassing modern-day Ukraine, was home to various civilizations and empires. For many years, such as under the Poles and Lithuanians, it didn't exist, at all. Ukraine as you know it is a recent construct.
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.
States are temporary constructs, they come and go all the time, especially those with such arbitrary borders and mixed populations. Not sure what human history you speak of wherein this was not the norm.
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.
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.
It was foremost a demonstration of the sheer lunacy of Kiev Ukraine. That was attack on russia's nuclear deterrent. On both sides such attacks are deemed sufficient provocation for a nuclear response and it is obvious why.
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.
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.
Ah, Nigel again. Nigel Russia is not a dictatorship. Russia is run by a committee would be a good enough way of saying it. As is China.
america is a dictatorship. uk is a dictatorship. germany is a dictatorship.
consult a dictionary and then take a good look at the reality of those countries. the reality. not the msm bullcrap. the reality.
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.
Nigel, we do not 'all know' at all. There are many who will insist differently. I think Alistair Crooke, Jeffrey Sachs, for instance and they are people with the credentials to know.
There are still powerful oligarchs in Russia and other forces political and economic. Russia is a federation of many ethnicities as was the ussr. The very essence of keeping it together is accommodation, adjustment, compromise, mutual understanding. Else it would not last a year.
A dictator is one who dictates and all else obey.
That is america today where Trump not only dictates but loudly insists he has every right to do so and will continue to do so. He makes no pretence of it.
And kiev where zelensky attempts to do the same.
It is not so in Russia any more than it is in China.
In kiev only one political party is allowed just as we see spreading throughout europe. They have elections and if they don't like the result they just ignore it.
Putin has been where he is since 2000 and through various elections where his popularity is plainly seen, indisputably seen.
However zelensky refuses to have elections.
I don't believe Putin's opponents usually wind up jailed or dead. I can easily believe some do for that's common in many parts of the world. In america they assassinate them regularly don't they?
In uk they don't need to: the real govt of the country is in 'the City', i.e. with the bankers and the hereditary rich.
The thing has been quantified accurately quite independent of any 'Russian propaganda'. The numbers of Russian aircraft are known pretty accurately and the actual damage has now been assessed and is known accurately.
The damage was not great in physical terms.
But notionally it is enormous for it means the proxy war has moved into another phase: where Russia's nuclear potential can be nibbled away by proxy.
And the military feature that has been there from the beginning now is revealed completely: the mobility and reach of these munitions.
And commensurate with the nuclear potential feature we have Heads of State potential. Today the bombers. Tomorrow Red Square when Putin is at some ceremony.
This is an all out war just as vicious, barbarian, insane as Israel in Palestine and the usa will do anything - anything - to 'win'.
'win' in quotes because of course they win nothing, they destroy everything including themselves, in the end.
We daily inch closer to where the 'movers and the shakers' of world events: particularly these destructive to the people world events, wars, where they lead us dumb stupid sheep to kill each other, will be revealed. Totally. Known for what they are and what they do. Every action documented in this modern world.
That's the goal. Find them and stop them.
Yep, I think I missed an important point maybe, not being up to speed on it all. The point being that the attacker should be a nuclear state, which kiev ukraine is not.
What I'm talking about is what I've 'learned' recently (if its true) that those planes fall into a category that demands they be put on display - on each side, usa and russia - so that they can be counted.
That category is nuclear potent munitions.
Such munitions attacked is clearly part of a nuclear war.
I've been led to believe - and I find it easy to believe - that such an attack according to protocol can be taken as pre-emptive and trigger like response or more.
In this instance there's 'nuance'. kiev is not nuclear. the bombers have been used in other roles.
On the one side.
On the other side the real enemy is the usa and they are nuclear.
We have every reason to believe that the attack was an american attack.
'every reason' , of course, being that in this scenario you must for safety and sense adopt the worst case interpretation.
It seems certain the uk organised this. How much closer to the usa do you need to get?
And kiev IS threatening to nuke moscow if we go back over the rantings of that lunatic.
All along the line this 'proxy' war is a war of lunacy. Everyone knows america and nato are waging full on war with russia and yet Russia is constrained not to respond in kind.
There is nothing you can find that is not from the usa simply because the usa rejoices in anything done to Russia and will take advantage of it: it all is in accord with what they want.
At this current moment the 'accepted wisdom' is that the usa wants europe to continue the war with Russia so that it can turn to China, finish that and then turn back to Russia.
So where in that is usa removed from responsibiity for anything that happens to Russia?
That's exactly the same lunacy as the criminal simplicity of letting it be known as a war of invasion by Russia against Ukraine - which excites the sympathy of millions and sponsor kiev and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Yet all our most learned, and responsible, and assiduous and careful and clever and whatever the hell have you continue to spout that narrative. Turning their backs on an opportunity to help turn things the other way.
That was america diminishing Russia's nuclear capability, america and uk and nato, joint responsibility.
When it comes to 'valid military targets' we have the whole of mainland usa, europe and britain.
I don't quite understand where you are coming from, Nigel. Why put 'strategic bombers' in quotes? To suggest they are not? Why say 'not most important' ? Important, relevant, part of, is what matters.
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
Yep, they are provocateurs if anything. Mostly, actually, nothings. Mere dumb puppets of the usa.
The victim was always intended to be Russia but at the beginning of this particular instance and what is the subject here the victim was the Russians of the Donbass. As I imagine you well know.
Russia is not misunderstood in the west. It is simply not heard.
In a minute I will go research your claim about the word 'peace'. I am utterly sure that it's nonsense.
Oh, yes, 'genocide'. Where do you see the genocide, Alex? There is a cultural genocide being attempted, is in fact official policy. It is the policy of kiev aimed at the Donbass. It is the reason for this very thing.
That is, the immediate reason. The original or fundamental reason is, as I've said, the attempt by the west to destroy Russia.
----
okay, right. you mean you can get jailed in russia for speaking out against the war, that's what you mean. Well that's the same in kiev ukraine. The heart of that problem in every country is not people speaking against it - that's the job of politicians and generals, financiers, etc: to make the govt aware of all aspects especially those that might be damaging - it's the 'fifth columnists', the alien propagandists who seek to divide the country and sabotage its war effort. A very real danger. It's the trick the uk and usa use everywhere in the world.
So all countries once involved in a war get very uptight about any public dissent.
I posted a link to your comment on a forum where a few russians and ukrainians congregate. we'll see what they have to say.
I will add this when you speak about 'humane' : kiev keeps trying to make out Russia is deliberately targeting civilians. A stupid claim as their own numbers show. They say, again and again, things like they did last week: the Russians flew hundreds of drones and hundreds found their targets. Drone and missiles and bombs. Hundreds of hits. Hundreds. They print it. They say it. It is no secret.
And then they say such as: '5 civilians were killed'.
5 civilians ! Or 10. Or 20. Or 50. From 'hundreds' of hits? Day after day after day? How many civilians do you think would be dead today if Russia were trying to hit civilians? Can you think at all? Understand?
Even if they were 'careless' it would be hundreds more, thousands.
The same for the kiev side, too. I don't know the figures but both sides have been firing thousands of munitions and if they really wanted to kill civilians like the kiev ukrainians friends the nazi germans did in wwii then there would be thousands upon thousands dead.
You want to hate Russia and blame Russia for Ukrainians killing Ukrainians. But you started the ethnic hatred and you did it because cunning slime from uk and usa talked you into it. And that's who you should hate.
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.
Ukraine is not defending itself. It is attacking itself. It is destroying itself. It has destroyed itself. It will never be the same again.
quote you: " If you attack someone, you can hardly blame others for assisting them:"
unquote;
Yes. And kiev (usa puppet) attacked the Donbass and Russia - eight years later, came to help. And is still there trying. Not yet cleared kiev out of the Donbas.
Soon the chances are they will attack 'ukraine' (by which you mean, of course, 'kiev ukraine' and its people: 10 milllion donbass ukrainians having been conveniently wiped from memory).
Russia is still within its borders. Donbass was not 'invaded', 'conquered' it was helped. The people of Donbass who had land, property, business in Donbass before still have it. They have their own government. They have federated with the Russian federation. For protection. So that they may have some democratic freedoms. So that, in fact, they may have the freedoms guaranteed them by the kiev ukrainian constitution and denied them by the current lunatics.
You miss the point regarding the planes. It is a question of perception, of officialdom, of politics, of interpretation. Those planes are interpreted by the relevant treaty as being part of the nuclear arm of Russia and are subject to conditions such must be parked in the open so that they are observable from space.
Attacking them thus is easily interpreted as a strike against nuclear capability. In the limited sense of these treaties.
In objective fact it is clearly an attack on nuclear abilities. One minute you have a plane that can drop nuclear bombs the next minute you don't.
Objective fact is not the point. The point is perception. This could be perceived as more than enough justification for a retaliatory nuclear type strike.
Quite clearly. Many calling for it the minute news got out.
I am 100% sure that had it happened in the usa it would be seen thus. I am sure that if it happened to american planes in germany it would be seen thus.
But kiev has the utmost difficulty seeing things objectively. They are like spoiled children, they see only what they want. For decades Russia said they wanted what america wanted and wants/insists upon: safe borders, no missile installations on its borders.
And for decades nato drew closer and closer - prompted by usa which is nato and by uk which is poisonous snake.
You draw closer and closer to me as I say again and again stay away and finally you are right in my face and you object 'unfair' when I punch you in the mouth?
kiev got is getting, what it asked for. not metaphorically, literally, factually, objectively. It asked for this. I suppose it asked out of madness, that same childish madness, it thought it could get away with anything because its big daddy would fix things for it. And its big daddy certainly wanted it to happen, it is recorded american doctrine to weaken Russia by involving in war in ukraine.
So urged by its own foolishness and the cunning evil of usa and uk it asked for it. And its got it. And its going to get more.
Because it is still asking for it.
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.
I was an independent country. Now it is sold, compromised, ruined. It attacked itself. That divided it. Still to this day one part (what's left of it ) attacks the other part ( which remains largely whole).
And it tries to involve the whole world in this attack, even calls for nuclear strikes.
Attacks on 10 million of its own people: Ukrainians.
That is how it is.
It is not defending itself it is killing itself.
It has killed itself.
It has a way out, what's left of it.
Of course, the 10 million that it hates and attacks is one. It itself already says that because it never considers that 10 million any part of itself. There is never a tear shed for any harm done to that 10 million. 'Support Ukraine' does not mean, does not include, support that 10 million. Not at all. It specifically means attack that 10 million.
So those american pawns, those tools of the MIC, those debtors to the oligarchs, those prey to the corrupt, what way out do they have?
They could grow up, they could act like men, they could take responsibility and stature and they could say to Russia we mean you no harm and we wish you to mean us no harm.
We will not attack you and we will not allow any foreign nations to come through our land to attack you.
Your borders with us are safe. There is no threat and there will be no threat.
That would make you an adult and a good nation. That would give Russia all that it asks and needs. All that it asked for since 1945.
Sadly I think there is not the slightest chance of this happening for it grows out of a desire for peace and friendship.
There appear to be no such desires in kiev ukraine.
It claims to be able to build a good beautiful pure independent country via hate, by reviling, excluding, prohibiting everything it defines as 'other' - even that which nurtured it.
Negativity rules.
Some famous kiev ukrainian defined ukrainians as 'not russian', simply that. And that sums it up nicely.
I would love to see ukraine defend itself. All those millions that have fled. All those that are press ganged into the arm. All those millions suffering from loss of friends and family. All those millions with connections both sides of the line. I'd love to see all ukrainians join together and declare we are all ukrainians and we will not kill each other and we will not be tools of the americans and the oligarchs and the filthy british and nazi agitators and the rabid violent nationalists, the extremists and the lunatics.
That would be defence.
There is no sign of it that I see.
Except on the Donbass side where occasionally we find TG clips of soldiers calling out to their brothers.
Probably there are some within kiev ukraine but media blackouts and whatnot: I don't see them.
All I see is the madness and the hate.
It has a culture of hate. It is sworn to it.
It is dependent entirely on foreign thieves.
And those thieves will leave it ruined.
And I repeat: the solution is so simple: have the people declare what I am sure is really their truth: we want to live in peace, we mean no harm to Russia, your borders are safe with us, friends, relatives, associates inside and outside of the Donbass wish to live in peace.
That simple truth is banned from expression in kiev ukraine.
And that's the problem.
At bottom the problem is the ordinary people have no voice.
That's the same problem everywhere in the west. Everywhere. My country too.
We are stupid and think we have a voice. Our vaunted 'democracy'. But our 'leaders' do not listen nor consider nor care about what we want. 'Govt. by the people of the people, for the people' ? No way.
Look at Trump, Starmer, Scholz (as was), Macron - do any of them give a damn for their people? No way. They ruin their nations. Germany ruined by nordstream destruction and usa banning use of Russian oil.
Always the directions, the evil, from the same place: usa, the handful of oligarchs that run that place.
kiev ukraine is not something very different, it is just another in a long list of places used and ruined by the usa.
Yes, I wish ukrianians would defend themselves. I am sure they are not as stupid as they are supposed to be. They know damn well that half a million dead ukrainians is not 'protecting' ukrainians.
They know damn well that 'fighting to the last ukrainian' is utter, total and absolute f**king moronic bullcrap and does nothing for ukrainians at all.
They know that hatred of Russia is not in their interest whatever. They know all that sensible men all know when they congregate in the workplace, in the taverns, when at home, wherever.
But all over the western world we the ordinary people have this incredible stupid docility and we allow ourselves to be set against each other.
It should not be and I hope that with the spread of the internet and the coming together of people that it brings one day it will all stop.
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.
What 'isn't enough' ? And not enough for what?
And don't forget its only your opinion that 'they can't be used'. There are thousands, perhaps even millions, who certainly think they can be used and are just itching to use them.
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,
Nobody will miss Ukraine 🤷♂️
Why miss it? Ukraine was, is and will be! Unlike various "ciravers"...
The region, encompassing modern-day Ukraine, was home to various civilizations and empires. For many years, such as under the Poles and Lithuanians, it didn't exist, at all. Ukraine as you know it is a recent construct.
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.
States are temporary constructs, they come and go all the time, especially those with such arbitrary borders and mixed populations. Not sure what human history you speak of wherein this was not the norm.
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.
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/