On June 1st, the neoconservative (i.e., committed to the goal that the U.S. Government will become the dictator over all nations, the entire world) Max Boot, in the neoconservative Jeff Bezos’s neoconservative Washington Post, headlined “Ukraine just rewrote the rules of war; A drone attack damaged Russia’s bomber fleet — and exposed air base vulnerabilities worldwide.”, and he exulted over what incontestably is by far the most successful Ukrainian offensive military operation ever, and he compared it to Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack against the U.S. on December 7, 1941 (which, of course, didn’t culminate but started, America’s war with Japan). The far more expert and insightful anonymous geostrategic analyst “Simplicius76” headlined the next day, “Ukraine’s ‘Unprecedented’ Operation Spiderweb: Russia’s ‘Pearl Harbor’? Or Just More Soggy Silk?” And he documented that Ukraine’s President Zelensky had overseen this project, “Operation Web” or “Operation Spiderweb,” during an eighteen-to twenty-four-month period, and that all participants in it were now safely back in Ukraine, none allegedly captured by Russia. Simplicius76 reported that:
The enemy’s published footage of objective control shows that no artificial intelligence was used in the attacks. The drones were controlled via open-source software, and the communications were apparently conducted via mobile networks. This is indicated by the LTE signal receiver antennas that were captured in the footage.
It’s clear that with the loss of some of the trailers en route, and the intervening of Russian civilians on others, the operation was only a partial success — but, of course, such a result would have been calculated into the planning.
For Ukraine’s purposes, the success is enough: even destroying one or two of Russia’s strategic Tu-95 bombers is ample accomplishment because Russia no longer manufactures these airframes, and only has somewhere between 47-55 active—though it remains open to question whether 18 months of intense planning and sacrificed intel resources was ‘worth it’ for this result.
Thus far, Russian sources have reported that potentially anywhere between one to five Tu-95s were actually destroyed or disabled permanently, though nothing is conclusive yet, and the final tally could prove much smaller or greater than surmised. RussiansWithAttitude notes:
Final tally of confirmed hits so far seems to be 5 Tu-95s, 2 Tu-22s, one An-12. According to my info, two of the 95s can most likely be repaired relatively soon, as the damage is not super extensive. At least one is dead for good. The 22s, no idea. Sure hurts but not devastating
From what I’ve seen of the footage, only one looked to be potentially totally destroyed, with others merely suffering fires exaggerated by the heavy smoke of burning aviation fuel. Other videos show transport craft burning, which are mistaken for Tu-95s. For instance, here is said to be the Antonov AN-12BK burning:
The fact is, a tiny FPV drone will have a hard time entirely ‘destroying’ a gigantic strategic bomber — many different FPV hits would likely be needed unless the plane is full of fuel and on-base fire suppression teams do not respond in time — which is of course a possibility.
Russian bases have emergency fire suppression units for this very purpose, and Ukrainian-paid ‘saboteurs’ have lit several Russian aircraft on fire in the past two years which were always put out and repaired virtually in days. This means the likelihood of a large amount of Tu-95s being completely destroyed is low.
But as of this writing new Ukrainian OSINT Synthetic Aperture Radar pictures of Belaya airbase in Irkutsk claim to show 3 x Tu-95 ‘destroyed’. …
On June 1st, the retired CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson headlined “Ukraine Launches Terrorist Offensive with Western Assistance on Eve of Negotiations in Istanbul”, and wrote that:
Here is a more measured assessment of what was achieved [quoting now from a Russian source]:
“In general, it may be too early to talk about this, but we think some things need to be clarified, since the enemy IPSO is trying to use the information space and present its idle wishes as reality.
“First of all, let’s see the number of hits. The enemy cites a figure of about 40 units, which allegedly makes up 34% of the Russian strategic aviation aircraft. All Ukrainian information bases are now trumpeting this.
“Having analyzed all the videos published by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (and there are, of course, all of them, so we have no reason to hide the scale of Russian losses, because they are obvious), so far we have counted the hit, at most, 5 strategic bombers Tu-95.
“Of these 5, two are definitely beyond repair.
…
“As of this morning, the Russian armed forces had 58 Tu-95 aircraft in service. Even if we assume that all five aircraft burned down, this would be less than 10% of the Tu-95 fleet (not counting the 19 Tu-160 units and 55 Tu-22M3M units, the video of which the enemy did not post).
“It is known that, of the planned strikes on five airfields, only two were successful. Three strategic aviation aircraft were not damaged. Thus, according to confirmed data, less than 4% of our strategic fleet was disabled. And if we count heavy bombers (only Tu-95 and Tu-160), then it is 6.5%.
“Now let’s consider the question of how much this will affect the strikes that the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to carry out on the territory of Ukraine.
“Ukrainian sources, do not use their reason, but a calculator and “ceiling” figures for losses that they simply invented (say, by a third). In fact, these current losses will not affect Russian strike power in Ukraine at all. Here’s why:
“The number of cruise missiles – Kh-101 (the standard weapon of the Tu-95, used against targets in Ukraine), which this aircraft can simultaneously carry is 8 units. In the last attacks, no more than 40 of these missiles were launched simultaneously. That’s a full SIX aircraft. In other words, Russia needs only SIX combat-ready Tu-95 aircraft to carry out strikes with the same intensity as before. And there are many times more of them left. The Tu-160s should not be neglected either. They are not currently participating in strikes. The reason is quite justified. These are newer aircraft, the service life of which is being preserved, and the Tu-95MSM should still be used and gradually written off due to the age of the structure. Perhaps, even, the current war will be one of the last in which this type of aircraft will be used.”
Now back to Johnson:] In my opinion, none of these attacks could have been planned and executed without assistance, if not the direct involvement, of Western intelligence and NATO officers. The drones likely were activated by a remote signal made possible by Western satellites and/or systems like Starlink [Elon Musk]. Those systems also played a critical role in enabling the drones to navigate to the targeted airfields.
While this is clearly a PR victory for Ukraine, it is a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory – i.e., a tactical win, leading to a strategic defeat. The Trump administration is denying any knowledge of the attack. I take that disavowal with a big grain of salt. People within the CIA and USEUCOM offices, who are providing assistance to Ukraine, likely knew about the plan, and may even have provided intelligence support to get the drones to their targets. Like any covert operation, they may have tried to give Trump plausible deniability, but the Russians know how this game is played.
I expect Russia will launch a massive retaliatory strike after the talks in Istanbul on Monday conclude. The Ukrainian attacks on the bridges, the train and the airfields have done nothing to alter the situation all along the line of contact in Ukraine. News continues to pour in from the front, from both Ukrainian and Russian news outlets, painting a picture of growing desperation, even panic, among Ukrainian forces, as Russians capture more territory and kill more Ukrainian troops.
The thing to keep in mind is that the Russian leadership, not just Putin, are not going to react emotionally. I am not suggesting that they are not enraged — they are — but the Russians value brains and strategy over passion. They are calmly assessing these latest developments and will prepare and deliver some new blows on Ukraine that will signal a significant escalation in the weapons Russia will use on Ukrainian targets. I think that by the end of the week, Zelensky and his cronies will be singing a different tune.
The brilliant geostrategic analyst Alexander Mercouris headlined on June 2nd “Kiev Drones Attack Russian Air Bases, Inflict Damage; Russia Undeterred, Ukraine Army Chief Resigns”, and he indicated that the main damage that was done to Russia was not to its ability against Ukraine but to its strategic nuclear bombers, and that, in any case, even that was only slightly diminished by the Ukrainian operation.
On June 1st, Scott Ritter headlined “Playing with Fire: Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb has crossed the threshold when it comes to triggering a Russian nuclear response. How Russia and the United States respond could determine the fate of the world.”, and he said:
For Russia, the very red lines it deemed necessary to define regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons have been blatantly violated by not only Ukraine, but its western allies.
President Trump, who has been claiming to support a peace process between Russia and Ukraine, must now decide as to where the United States stands considering these developments.
His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has acknowledged that under the previous administration of Joe Biden the United States was engaged in a proxy war with Russia. Trump’s Special Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, recently acknowledged the same about NATO.
In short, by continuing to support Ukraine, both the US and NATO have become active participants in a conflict which has now crossed the threshold regarding the employment of nuclear weapons.
The United States and the world stand on the precipice of a nuclear Armageddon of our own making.
Comments