Ukrainian attack on Russian bombers shows how cheap drones could upset global security
The June 1 Spider Web operation likely marks the largest attack on a nuclear-armed state’s nuclear assets to date, one that was executed using laptop-sized drones.
While this represents an operational success for Ukraine, it is still unclear whether and how the drone attack will impact Russia’s conduct of the war. Some fear this operation could lead to a nuclear escalation
By Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin | June 5, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/ukrainian-attack-on-russian-bombers-shows-how-cheap-drones-could-upset-global-security/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Drones%20attack%20on%20Russian%20bombers%20upset%20global%20security&utm_campaign=20250605%20Thursday%20Newsletter
On Sunday, social media started broadcasting videos of airfields shrouded with columns of smoke and parked airplanes on fire. These were not common airplanes but Russian strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons virtually anywhere on the globe. Behind these attacks were small drones, like those used to capture scenic social media videos, remotely operated by Ukrainian pilots.
The day after, some Russian media and influential figures called for retaliation with nuclear strikes. On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly said in a phone call with President Donald Trump that he planned to retaliate against Ukraine for its surprise attack. According to a reading of the Russian nuclear doctrine, the Ukrainian attacks could technically prompt a nuclear retaliation by Russia.
This military operation is the latest illustration of how cheap, accessible drones are changing modern warfare. It also exposed another reality: Drones will wreak havoc on global stability if nobody controls their proliferation.
A turning point. Last week’s drone operation, which the Ukrainian military called “Operation Spider’s Web” and which was 18 months in the making, looked like it came straight out of a James Bond movie: More than a hundred first-person view drones were secretly shipped inside containers on commercial trucks sent toward locations deep inside Russian territory, nearby highly sensitive military airfields. With just a click from operators based in Ukraine, all containers’ roofs simultaneously opened, and drones navigated to their targets to unleash destruction. The number of aircraft damaged or destroyed is still unclear. (Ukrainian authorities claim 41 aircraft were destroyed.) What is certain, however, is that several of Russia’s most critical and advanced strategic nuclear-capable bombers were damaged.
The drones were likely “Osa” quadcopters, 13-15 inches in length and developed and assembled in Ukraine at a cost of around $600 to $1000 each, according to an early analysis of the attack by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Each drone likely carried an explosive payload of about 3.2 kilograms and detonated on impact with the targeted airplanes. To communicate with the drones, Ukrainian operators are believed to have used Russian mobile telecommunication networks, such as 4G and LTE connections. It is also likely that the drones were supported by artificial intelligence systems to give them autonomy in case the telecommunication with the operators would break, and to assist in precisely targeting identified weak spots on the airplanes.The drones were likely “Osa” quadcopters, 13-15 inches in length and developed and assembled in Ukraine at a cost of around $600 to $1000 each, according to an early analysis of the attack by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Each drone likely carried an explosive payload of about 3.2 kilograms and detonated on impact with the targeted airplanes. To communicate with the drones, Ukrainian operators are believed to have used Russian mobile telecommunication networks, such as 4G and LTE connections. It is also likely that the drones were supported by artificial intelligence systems to give them autonomy in case the telecommunication with the operators would break, and to assist in precisely targeting identified weak spots on the airplanes.
The June 1 Spider Web operation likely marks the largest attack on a nuclear-armed state’s nuclear assets to date, one that was executed using laptop-sized drones. It also stands as the most significant demonstration of drones’ ability to penetrate deeply into heavily defended territory with significant strategic impact. While this represents an operational success for Ukraine, it is still unclear whether and how the drone attack will impact Russia’s conduct of the war. Some fear this operation could lead to a nuclear escalation.
For decades, major powers have pursued so-called strategic stability, a situation in which nuclear adversaries are deterred from launching direct military attacks against one another due to their mutually destructive nuclear capabilities. States also realized that continuing to develop more weapons in a never-ending arms race was costly and increased the risks of conflicts. This is why they agreed to engage in arms control and arms reduction, while making sure to maintain strategic stability.
But this fragile balance between great powers has always been vulnerable to new and disruptive technologies such as microchips, precision-guided missiles, or cybertechnology. Drones, especially small and cheap ones, represent a unique challenge to this balance, one that often evades the grasp of major powers.
‘Cheap drone’ warfare. Drone technology is not new. It was already used during the Cold War and has been a hallmark of the war in Iraq, with its precision strikes in the middle of the desert. Military powers such as the United States, Russia, and China have long invested in and developed expensive, highly advanced drones for various missions. Enhanced by artificial intelligence and increasing autonomy, modern drones have already promised to transform warfare by enabling operations without risking human pilots and possibly transforming the decision-making of those using them.
Things took another turn in the 2010s.
Enabled by advances in microelectronics and battery technologies, smaller and cheaper drones started to be mass-produced for commercial purposes by companies like DJI and others. It did not take long for the military to adapt these drones for warfare purposes. Combined with cutting-edge telecommunication technology, these smaller drones could form intelligent swarms and offer real-time video feeds to their operators.
This time, the nuclear powers were not the only ones to engage in the arms race. Unlike other delivery systems, such as missiles or jet fighters that have significantly higher entry costs, smaller states and even non-state actors could acquire inexpensive drones and transform them into rudimentary but effective “air force” and delivery systems.
The simplicity of their acquisition, use, and diffusion into the hands of actors of various sizes around the globe is what makes cheap drones such a game-changer for modern warfare—and now also for global security.
These inexpensive drones enable smaller states to conduct effective asymmetric warfare against more powerful opponents. It is in great part thanks to its drone force that Ukraine has stood its ground against the world’s second-largest military since 2022. Reports indicate that small drones may have contributed to up to 70 percent of Russian equipment losses so far in the conflict—and this number is likely to become higher if the war continues, given Ukraine’s rapidly growing drone production capacity.
More crucially, cheap drones can be used to sabotage well-defended strategic assets. In what is often described as terrorist acts, Yemen’s Houthis have used drones to attack commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, thereby disrupting about 12 percent of global trade in 2024. Houthis’ drones also destroyed Saudi Arabia’s critical oil infrastructure, disrupting 5 percent of global oil supply in 2019.
But the most striking instance of their strategic reach remains the Ukrainian operation of June 1. This operation also foreshadows a dangerous shift in global stability.
Risk of escalation. Historically, only major nuclear powers had effective means to inflict damage on the nuclear capabilities of other major powers. And for most nuclear-armed states, an attack on their nuclear capabilities, even a conventional one, called for nuclear retaliation. To avoid nuclear escalation, nuclear powers have carefully crafted doctrines, strategies, and agreements between themselves to create predictability and increase strategic stability. But to a certain extent, this system of balance was not designed with the expectation that smaller actors could threaten critical nuclear assets of the nuclear-armed states.
Smaller states with no nuclear capabilities and less familiar with the game of strategic stability, like Ukraine, might not fully realize the direct or indirect risk of nuclear escalation that their drone operations could entail. More alarming, non-state actors could also potentially actively seek to initiate a nuclear escalation between nuclear adversaries with drone-enabled false flag operations.
Discussions around drone regulation in war often center around their ethical uses and their level of AI-powered autonomy, which are certainly crucial issues to tackle. But states must also recognize the highly disruptive impact that cheap and widely accessible drones can have not only on warfare but on global security and stability.
One way forward is to implement strict export control and purchase regulations on small drones, such as those implemented for small firearms. Such policies will inevitably collide with the booming industry and market of small, cheap drones that are increasingly popular for commercial purposes and leisure activities. But states will need to work on some form of control of drone export and weaponization, lest they are willing to risk more nuclear crises.
Ukraine’s dangerous new ‘gift’ to Washington
Striking Russia’s nuclear assets, Ukraine’s audacious operation newly imperils arms control and ensures that the war will drag on.
Aaron Maté, Jun 07, 2025
An audacious Ukrainian drone attack on four military bases across Russia, dubbed Operation Spider’s Web, handed Moscow one of its worst humiliations of the war. With a fleet of inexpensive drones hidden inside cargo trucks, Ukrainian intelligence penetrated deep inside Russian territory and caused significant damage to military aircraft, including long-range, nuclear-capable bombers. “The strike was a serious blow, and to suggest otherwise is self-delusion verging on sabotage,” wrote Rybar, a popular pro-Kremlin social media channel.
For Ukraine and its Western backers, the strikes reinforce their ability to inflict significant costs on Russia more than three years into an invasion that Kyiv was expected to lose within days — and bolster the case for continued US support. For Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the images of smoldering Russian aircraft “help change the rhetoric in the US,” where it can no longer be said, as Donald Trump argued in their Oval Office showdown, that “Ukrainians are losing this war, and don’t have the cards.” Added former senior Zelensky aide Oleg Ustenko: “Trump said we don’t have the cards — this shows we do have the cards, and we can play them.”
Powerful elements in Washington would undoubtedly agree. By targeting part of Russia’s nuclear triad, “[s]ome officials said Ukraine’s drone attacks could be viewed as a gift to the United States,” the New York Times reported. Days after visiting Kyiv to promote his push for harsh sanctions on Russia’s trading partners, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham hailed Ukraine’s “ever-resourceful” effort “to successfully attack Russian bombers and military assets.”
As grateful proxy war sponsors like Graham illustrate, Ukraine had ample grounds to believe that it was handing the US a “gift.”…………………………………………………………………………..https://www.aaronmate.net/p/ukraines-dangerous-new-gift-to-washington?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=165354982&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ukraine “Stinks Of Authoritarianism” – Kiev Mayor Klitschko Hits Out At Zelensky
Meanwhile, after earlier in the week calling for three way meetings between himself, President Trump and Putin, Zelensky has now declared that it would be “meaningless” and instead wants more military aid.
by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Jun 03, 2025
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
The former mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko has blasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and bluntly stated that the country is plagued by authoritarianism.
The former world heavyweight champion boxer told the Times of London that Kiev City Council essentially cannot operate because of “raids, interrogations and threats of fabricated criminal proceedings.”
“This is a purge of democratic principles and institutions under the guise of war,” Klitschko declared, adding “I once said that it smells of authoritarianism in our country. Now it stinks of it.”
The Times describes Zelensky and Klitschko as being in a “de facto state of war.”
The report notes that the Ukrainian government has arrested seven Kiev city officials as part of ongoing investigations targeting an alleged criminal network involved in corruption cases related to urban development.
“Many mayors are intimidated, but my celebrity status is a protection,” Klitschko stated, adding “You can dismiss the mayor of Chernihiv, but it is very difficult to dismiss the mayor of the capital, whom the whole world knows.”
“That is why everything is being done to discredit and destroy my reputation,” he further urged.
Zelensky has reportedly been considering arresting Klitscho after he called for the President to consider ceeding Crimea to Russia as part of a peace deal.
This fued has been ongoing for sometime. A year and a half ago, Klitschko urged that Zelensky failed to prepare Ukraine properly for the war with Russia and will “pay for his mistakes.”
Meanwhile, after earlier in the week calling for three way meetings between himself, President Trump and Putin, Zelensky has now declared that it would be “meaningless” and instead wants more military aid.
A major escalation is expected after Ukraine launched a massive drone attack on Russian airbases Sunday, which many are equating with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Russia at a Crossroads
Ukraine’s devastating drone strike deep into Russian territory is a gauntlet thrown down. Will Russia under Putin’s leadership ever be able to persevere to the point of claiming a clear victory?
Or has Ukraine under the leadership of Zelensky just changed the dynamic to the point of proving to the collective West that he is a leader worthy of continued support to the point of victory at all cost?
June 3, 2025, Consortium News, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/03/russia-at-a-crossroads/
Moscow’s military campaign under Putin’s leadership has focused on avoiding escalation, says John Wight. But Ukraine’s drone strike deep into Russian territory is a gauntlet thrown down.
Russian President Vladimir Putin now finds himself at a monumental crossroads when it comes to his stewardship of Russia at a time when nuclear Armageddon has never been closer.
Ukraine’s devastatingly successful and audacious strike against Russia’s long-range strategic bomber aircraft stock marks a major inflection point in a conflict that evidences no sign of ending.
But let us not lose sight of the salient fact that Russia is not engaged in a conflict with President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine. This is instead a conflict pitting the Russian Federation against NATO, with Ukraine a proxy of the latter. And NATO is taking advantage of Putin’s caution.
No consequential conflict has ever been won by half-measures. General William Sherman’s “March to the Sea” arguably did more to break the Confederacy than President Abraham Lincoln’s famed Emancipation Proclamation. The Allies firebombing of Dresden in February 1945 and the Soviets arrival on the outskirts of Berlin on April 25, 1945, did more to break the back of the Germans than Hitler’s suicide nine days later. The Vietnamese won their national liberation with the fully-committed and symbolically important Tet Offensive of 1968 rather than all of the diplomatic machinations that came thereafter.
Russia’s military campaign at Putin’s direction has placed a priority on avoiding escalation. But it is a posture that has invited escalation, evidenced by this latest major turn of events.
Russia has been fighting the West diplomatically but not militarily, while Ukraine under Zelensky has been waging its conflict with Russia in the name of the strategic aims of NATO, rather than the interests of Ukraine and its people.
Russia is at a decisive point. Does it continue its war carefully to avoid confrontation with NATO, while encouraging its continued provocations, or does it take the hardline approach of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late outspoken leader of Russia’s Wagner Group, who made repeated demands for national mobilization in the name of a speedy victory dictated by Russia’s far superior mass and weight of industrial potential.
Putin is a deft leader. Even his adversaries in the corridors of power in the West would grudgingly admit this given his long record in power in the Kremlin. It was he who dragged Russia out of the free market abyss into which the country and its people were plunged in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
Putin’s Rebuilding of Russia
In the process, Putin succeeded in restoring the primacy of the state over a new rising Russian economic oligarchy — one that had been happy to allow the masses of the Russian people into the arms of destitution and despair because of its own greed and corruption.
The Russian leader then set about rebuilding state institutions that had been destroyed in the name of the religion of free market capitalism, with the result that slowly but surely a new state emerged from the ashes of the old. Russia regained pride in a new identity embraced the indispensable role of the Soviet Union in defeating the Nazis in World War II with respect for the pre-Bolshevik role of the Russian Orthodox church as a pillar of spiritual stability and social cohesion.
From the Russian standpoint, this is why Putin is credited as their historical version of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the U.S. president who likewise saved his country from the abyss during the 1930s, when the Great Depression was at its terrible and destructive zenith and then went on to lead the bulk of the U.S. war effort during World War II.
But Putin has, it appears, misread the West’s resolve in this period of the rapidly shifting tectonic plates of geopolitics. Putin’s reasoning has been the avoidance of escalation to direct military conflict with the collective Western powers. However those powers are already heavily involved in the arming, training and direction of Kiev’s war effort.
So where now and what now?
Ukraine’s devastating drone strike deep into Russian territory is a gauntlet thrown down. Will Russia under Putin’s leadership ever be able to persevere to the point of claiming a clear victory? Or has Ukraine under the leadership of Zelensky just changed the dynamic to the point of proving to the collective West that he is a leader worthy of continued support to the point of victory at all cost?
President Donald Trump’s dressing down of the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office back in March was driven and motivated by the belief that Ukraine’s war effort was faltering. Zelensky in this context appeared isolated, adrift and weak.
Well, not anymore.
Zaporizhzhia ‘extremely fragile’ relying on single off-site power line, IAEA warns
Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has just one remaining power line for essential nuclear safety and security functions, compared with its original 10 functional lines before the military conflict with Russia, warned Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The off-site power situation at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is “extremely fragile,” Grossi said, since its last 330-kilovolt backup line has remained disconnected since the plant lost access to it on May 7. It is unclear when it will be restored.
As a result, Zaporizhzhia is entirely dependent on the last remaining 750-kV line for the external electricity required to operate the plant’s nuclear safety systems and cool its nuclear fuel.
After Russia took control of Zaporizhzhia in early 2022, the plant has lost all access to off-site power eight times, but it was usually restored within a day, according to the IAEA.
Quotable: “We are actively engaged. I have been discussing with the [energy] minister, with the Ukrainian regulator, and also, of course, with the Russian side, because they are in control of the plant. The idea is to be talking to everybody when it comes to safety,” Grossi said during a press conference Tuesday during his visit to Kyiv, Ukraine.
Grossi warned that even though Zaporizhzhia has not been operating for some three years now, its reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel still require continuous cooling, for which electricity is needed to run the water pumps.
“There are only two [power lines] in operation—one 750-kV and another 330-kV—which are intermittently down because of a number of situations… attacks or interruptions, we do not know,” Grossi added in his remarks. “The repair works have been performed but what we expect is this quite unpredictable situation will continue.”
“We have to move to a more stable situation, and this, of course, depends on overall political negotiation, which will lead to less—or, ideally, no—military activity around the plant.” Grossi said. “Absent that, what we are doing [and] what everyone is doing is (trying) to avoid the worst (and) repair it as soon as possible. Try to ensure outside power supply whenever it falls down.” Grossi plans to visit Russia as part of his regular contacts with both sides to ensure nuclear safety and security during the conflict.
A closer look: In addition to the lack of off-site power backup, on May 22 the IAEA reported a drone strike at Zaporizhzhia’s training center—the third such incident so far this year. There were no casualties or major damage; however, one person died in April 2024 when a drone struck the plant’s main containment building.
Ukraine blames Russia for the strikes, but Russia has denied responsibility.
The Zaporizhzhia-based IAEA team continues to monitor and assess other aspects of nuclear safety and security at the plant. They conducted a walkdown last week to measure and confirm stable levels of cooling water in the site’s 12 sprinkler ponds and visiting its two fresh fuel storage facilities, where no nuclear safety or security issues were observed.
The IAEA team has reported hearing military activities on most days over the past week, at different distances away from the power plant, Grossi said.
At Ukraine’s three operating nuclear plants—Khmelnytskyi, Rivne and South Ukraine—three of the nine total reactors are in planned outage for refueling and maintenance.
IAEA team members at these sites also continue to hear military activities nearby. At South Ukraine, the IAEA team saw a drone being shot at by antiaircraft fire on May 23, and plant workers reported that 10 drones were observed 2.5 kilometers (about 1.55 miles) south of the site the same evening. Also on May 23, Chernobyl workers saw two drones flying just a few miles from the site. And the IAEA team at the Khmelnytskyi plant was required to shelter on-site last Monday.
Kremlin and Trump aides raise nuclear war fears after Ukraine drone strike
Vladimir Putin has warned Russia will respond to Kyiv’s attacks on nuclear-capable aircraft at airfields
Andrew Roth in Washington, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/04/ukraine-russia-nuclear-war-fears
As Vladimir Putin pledges to retaliate against Ukraine for last weekend’s unprecedented drone attack, Kremlin advisers and figures around Donald Trump have told the US president that the risk of a nuclear confrontation is growing, in an attempt to pressure him to further reduce US support for Ukraine.
Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an important intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, called the Ukrainian drone strike an attack on “Russian nuclear assets”, and echoed remarks from Maga-friendly figures warning of the potential for a third world war.
“Clear communication is urgent – to grasp reality and the rising risks before it’s too late,” Dmitriev wrote, adding a dove emoji.
Ukraine claimed that the strike damaged more than 40 Russian planes, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M heavy bombers that have been used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities throughout the war, killing thousands and damaging crucial infrastructure that delivers heat and electricity to millions more.
But those planes can also carry weapons armed with nuclear warheads, and are part of a nuclear triad along with submarine and silo-based missiles that form the basis for a system of deterrence between Russia and the United States.
After a phone call between the two leaders on Wednesday, Trump said: “President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”
Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for security assurances from the US, the UK and Russia.
Those skeptical of US support for Ukraine are seizing on the risks of a nuclear confrontation to argue that the conflict could possibly spin out of control.
Maga (Make America great again) influencers such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk have openly condemned the drone attack, with Bannon likening the strike to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and Kirk writing: “Most people aren’t paying attention, but we’re closer to nuclear war than we’ve been since this began in 2022.”
But more centrist advisers within the Trump camp – including some who have closer links to Ukraine – are also warning that the risks of a nuclear conflict are growing as they seek to maintain Trump’s interest in brokering a peace.
“The risk levels are going way up,” Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News. “When you attack an opponent’s part of their [nuclear] triad, your risk level goes up because you don’t know what the other side is going to do. And that’s what they did.”
Kellogg also repeated rumours that Ukraine had struck the Russian nuclear fleet at Severomorsk, although reports of an explosion there have not been confirmed. He said the US was “trying to avoid” an escalation.
Other current and former members of the administration skeptical of US support for Ukraine have also vocally opposed the drone strikes.
“It is not in America’s interest for Ukraine to be attacking Russia’s strategic nuclear forces the day before another round of peace talks,” said Dan Caldwell, an influential foreign policy adviser who was a senior aide to Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon until he was purged amid a leaking scandal last month.
“This has the potential to be highly escalatory and raises the risk of direct confrontation between Russia and Nato,” he said. “US should not only distance itself from this attack but end any support that could directly or indirectly enable attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces.”
It is not the first time that concerns over Russia’s use of a nuclear weapon have been used to try to temper US support for Ukraine.
As Moscow’s forces were routed near Kharkiv and in the south at Kherson in September 2022, Russian officials sent signals that the Kremlin was considering using a battlefield nuclear weapon, senior Biden officials have said.
National security officials said they believed that if the Russian lines collapsed and left open the potential for a Ukrainian attack on Crimea, then there was a 50% chance that Russia would use a nuclear weapon as a result.
Ukrainian officials have responded by saying that Russia has embellished its threats of a nuclear attack in order to blackmail the US from giving greater support to Ukraine.
Truce or trap? Ukraine makes sure peace talks go nowhere
Any progress towards a settlement will be incremental, slow and painful
Jun 2, 2025 By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
On Sunday, in the Russian regions of Bryansk and Kursk, both bordering Ukraine, bridges collapsed on and under trains, killing seven and injuring dozens of civilians. These, however, were no accidents and no extraordinary force of nature was involved either. Instead, it is certain that these catastrophes were acts of sabotage, which is also how Russian authorities are classifying them. Since it is virtually certain that the perpetrators acted on behalf of Kiev, Western media have hardly reported these attacks. Moscow meanwhile rightly considers these attacks terrorism.
On the same day, Ukraine also carried out a wave of drone attacks on important Russian military airfields. That story, trumpeted as a great success by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence service, has been touted in the West. The usual diehard Western bellicists, long starved of good news, have pounced on Ukraine’s probably exaggerated account of these assaults to fantasize once more about how Ukraine has “genius,” while Russia is “vulnerable” and really almost defeated. Despair makes imaginative. In the wrong way.
The reality of Ukraine’s drone strikes on the airfields is not entirely clear yet. What is certain is that Ukraine targeted locations in five regions, including in northern and central Russia as well as Siberia and the Far East. Kiev’s drone swarms were launched not from Ukraine but from inside Russia, using subterfuge and civilian trucks. Under International Humanitarian War (aka the Law of Armed Conflict), this is likely to constitute not a legitimate “ruse of war” but the war crime of perfidy, a rather obvious point somehow never mentioned in Western commentary.
Yet at least, in this instance the targets were military: This was either an act of special-ops sabotage involving a war crime (the most generous possible reading) or plain terrorism or both, depending on your point of view. Three of the attacked airbases, it seems, successfully fended off the Ukrainian first-person-view kamikaze drones. In two locations, enough drones got through to cause what appears to be substantial damage.
Ukrainian officials and, therefore, Western mainstream media claim that more than 40 Russian aircraft were destroyed, including large strategic bombers and an early-warning-and-control aircraft. Official Russian sources have admitted losses but not detailed them. Russian military bloggers, often well-informed, have quoted much lower figures (“in the single digits,” thirteen), while noting that even they still constitute a “tragic loss,” especially as Russia does not make these types of aircraft anymore.
In financial terms, Ukrainian officials claim that they have inflicted the equivalent of “at least 2 billion” dollars in damage. Even if it should turn out that they have been less effective than that, there can be little doubt that, on this occasion, Kiev has achieved a lot of bang for the buck: even if “Operation Spiderweb” took a long time to prepare and involved various resources, including a warehouse, trucks, and the cheap drones themselves, it is certain that Kiev’s expenses must have been much less than Moscow’s losses.
In political terms, Russia’s vibrant social media-based sphere of military-political commentators has revealed a sense of appalled shock and anger, and not only at Kiev but also at Russian officials and officers accused of still not taking seriously the threat of Ukrainian strikes even deep inside Russia. One important Telegram “mil-blogger” let his readers know that he would welcome dismissals among the air force command. But he also felt that the weak spots exploited by Kiev’s sneak drone attack have systemic reasons. Another very popular mil-blogger has written of “criminal negligence.”
Whatever the eventual Russian political fall-out of these Ukrainian attacks, beware Western commentators’ incorrigible tendency to overestimate it. German newspaper Welt, for instance, is hyperventilating about the attack’s “monumental significance.” In reality, with all the frustration inside Russia, this incident will not shake the government or even dent its ability to wage the war.
Probably, its real net effect will be to support the mobilization of Russia. Remember that Wagner revolt that saw exactly the same Western commentators predicting the imminent implosion not merely of the Russian government but the whole country? You don’t? Exactly.
In the case of the terrorist attacks on civilian trains, the consequences are even easier to predict. They will definitely only harden Moscow’s resolve and that of almost all Russians, elite and “ordinary.” With both types of attacks, on the military airfields and on the civilian trains, the same puzzling question arises: What is Kiev even trying to do here?
At this point, we can only speculate. My guess: Kiev’s rather desperate regime was after four things:
First, a propaganda success for domestic consumption. Given that Zelensky’s Ukraine is a de facto authoritarian state with obedient media, this may actually work, for a moment. Until, that is, the tragedy of mobilization, all too often forced, for a losing proxy war on behalf of a fairly demented West, sinks in again, that is, in a day or so.
Second, with its combination of atrocities against civilians and an assault on Russia’s nuclear defenses, this was Kiev’s umpteenth attempt to provoke Russia into a response so harsh that it would escalate the war to a direct clash between NATO (now probably minus the US) and Russia. This is a Ukrainian tactic as old as this war, if not older. Call it the attack’s routine aspect. Equally routinely, that plan went nowhere.
Then there was the attempt to torpedo the second round of the revived Istanbul talks, scheduled for Monday, 2 June, by provoking Russia to cancel or launch such a rapid and fierce retaliation strike that Kiev could have used it as a pretext to do the same. That is, as it were, the tactical dimension, and it also failed.
While the above is devious, it is also run-of-the-mill. States will be states, sigh. The fourth likely purpose of Kiev’s wave of sabotage and terror strikes – the strategic aspect, as it were – however, is much more disturbing: The Zelensky regime – and at least some of its Western backers (my guess: Britain in the lead) – are signaling that they are ready to wage a prolonged campaign of escalating terrorist attacks inside Russia, even if the fighting in Ukraine should end. Think of the Chechen Wars, but much worse again. This, too, would not succeed. One lesson of the Chechen Wars is precisely that Moscow has made up its mind not to bend to terrorism but instead eliminate its source, whatever the cost.
Regarding those Istanbul talks, they have taken place. Ukraine was not able to make Russia abandon them. Otherwise, the results of this second round of the second attempt at peace in Istanbul seem to have been very modest, as many observers predicted. Kiev, while losing, did its usual grimly comedic thing and offered Moscow a chance to surrender. Moscow handed over its terms in turn; and they have not changed and reflect that it is winning the war. Kiev has promised to study them.
Given that the gap between Ukrainian delusions and Russian demands seems unbridgeable at this point, even a large-scale ceasefire is out of reach. And that may be, after all, what both the Zelensky regime and its European backers want. As to Moscow, it has long made clear that it will fight until it reaches its war aims. In that sense, the new talks confirmed what the attacks had signaled already: peace is not in sight.
Russia’s chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky did, however, offer smaller, local ceasefires of “two to three days” that, he explained, would serve to retrieve the bodies of the fallen for decent burial. In the same spirit, Russia has committed to hand over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers and officers.
There was something for the living as well: more prisoner exchanges, for those severely ill or injured as well as for the young, have been agreed. Figures are not clear yet, but the fact that they will take place on an “all-for-all” basis reflects a Russian gesture of good will.
Finally, Medinsky also revealed that the Ukrainian side handed over a list of 339 children that Russia has evacuated from the war zone. He promised that, as in previous cases, Russian officials will trace them and do their best to return the children to Ukraine. Medinsky pointed out that the number of children on Kiev’s list massively contradicts Ukrainian and Western stories – as well as lawfare – about an immense, “genocidal” Russian kidnapping operation.
In that sense, the talks at least helped to deflate an old piece of Western information war. Perhaps that is all that is possible for now: truly incremental humanitarian progress and a very gradual, very slow working toward a more reasonable manner of talking to each other. Better than nothing. But that’s a low bar, admittedly.
A peace deal in Istanbul won’t happen until NATO is off the table
Failure and being seen to fail on NATO will deliver a huge political blow to western leaders who will keep kicking the peace can down the road
Ian Proud, Jun 03, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/a-peace-deal-in-istanbul-wont-happen?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=165018630&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Russia will not end the war until, at the very least, Ukraine revokes its commitment to join NATO. If and when that happens, European leaders will have to confront their failure, justify it to their voters and explain why they prolonged the war for so long.
The next round of Istanbul peace talks commenced today, with UK media playing down the chances of a breakthrough. Helpful signs emerged of another prisoner exchange. Ukraine will consider Russia’s draft memorandum. There is a more clearly stated intent to continue talks towards a possible future meeting of leaders.
In a war that has long passed the one million mark in numbers of people killed or injured across both sides, no one will emerge from this process completely victorious when the fighting ends if, indeed, it ends this year.
But for President Zelensky and for western leaders, particularly in Europe, it is not victory but rather the fear of failure that presents the biggest stumbling block to a quick peace deal. Lacking sufficient financial and military support from western sponsors, and under pressure from the Trump administration to settle, Ukraine may at some point be forced to revoke its aspiration to join NATO.
NATO is by far the most stubborn ‘root cause’ that Russia is looking to address through negotiations, although the list of issues including on minority language rights, the division and status of territory, and Ukrainian children (raised today in Istanbul) is very long.
And NATO membership for Ukraine is an issue that President Trump and US officials including defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, negotiator Steve Witkoff and Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg have all acknowledged as unrealistic.
Undaunted, Zelensky, European leaders and the NATO secretary general still cling to an ever more tenuous line that the path to Ukrainian membership is irreversible.
That is untenable.
Russia has the military and economic means to continue the attritional fight, at a time when its slow but steady rate of progress in the Donbas is accelerating into the summer. There is not a scrap of evidence that Ukraine can recover its position, nor financial or military rabbits that increasingly cash and vote strapped European politicians can pull out of the hat.
Ukraine cannot win the war. It is cynical and self-serving for the hordes of mainstream politicos and pundits to suggest otherwise.
Ukraine will eventually have no choice but to let go of its demand for NATO membership. That will take Ukraine back to March to April 2022, when its negotiators agreed to the inclusion of a clause on neutrality in the draft Istanbul 1 peace treaty, that was derailed by Boris Johnson.
The key substantive difference between Istanbul 1 and a possible Istanbul 2 treaty, will be that Ukraine has since lost hundreds of thousands of troops to death or injury and is a matter of months from losing the whole of the Donbas.
After the first, brief, set of peace talks in Istanbul on 16 May, President Zelensky was quick to assert that there could be no return to the Istanbul 1 draft as a starting point for talks.
But I am afraid that the neutrality issue is not going away.
Ukraine is not going to join NATO.
Not joining NATO is the stinging nettle that Zelensky will sooner or later have to grip. And having clung so long to the NATO aspiration and sent so many Ukrainian troops to their deaths, the political ramifications will be searing
It is therefore this fear of failing and being seen to fail that is acting as the biggest stumbling block to a peace deal, as talks resumed today. That fear of failure is shared by Ukraine’s European sponsors.
Going back to the start of the war, then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that ‘Putin must fail and must be seen to fail.’
Unfortunately for Johnson, when Ukraine is forced to give up its NATO aspiration, he will have failed and be seen to have failed.
Despite its enormous losses of men and materiel, Russia will have seen off the world’s biggest military bloc. The very idea of this is politically terrifying to the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer who spent their time in office telling us that victory over Russia would be a doddle.
The UK mainstream media still clings to the victory narrative like a comfort blanket. Even today, the UK state-owned broadcaster, the BBC, reasserted the line that Putin failed in his bid to overrun Kyiv at the start of the war, remove Zelensky, and install a puppet government. And that is a legitimate claim to make.
But this war has never really been about the violent overthrow of a neighbouring Head of State. It is now and has been since 2022 an existential struggle to prevent further NATO expansion up to Russia’s border.
Western pundits argue endlessly that Russia has no right of veto over NATO. But when it boils down to it, governments decide the core strategic interests of their countries, not foreign pundits. NATO and its members should never have forced the issue of membership for Ukraine unless they were willing to fight Russia over it.
And NATO has never been willing to fight Russia for Ukraine’s right to choose.
The warning signs were there at President Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference Speech, during Russia’s brief war with Georgia in 2008 and following the overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych in February 2014.
Through endless sanctions and efforts to impose international isolation, Russia’s position on NATO has never changed and will never change.
British and western media continue to promote a host of questionable assertions to keep hopes up that Russia really is losing and has been losing from the start. Russia’s imminent economic collapse, a likely coup d’etat made more real by Prigozhin’s rebellion, overwhelming battlefield losses of the Russian army, compared to the Ukrainian (even though there is a large body of analysis suggesting the picture is the complete opposite). And that just a few more billion dollars should be enough to finish the job.
The western propaganda path to victory has been gaslit like a badly cobbled Victorian street.
Putin must fail and must be seen to have failed.
Yet, when a peace treaty is finally agreed between Russia and Ukraine, it will become clear that western leaders failed. And they will be seen by their voters to have failed, with potentially disastrous domestic political consequences for traditional parties all across a Europe in economic and cultural decline.
Moreover, Europe will have to swallow the bitter pill of being pressured by Trump to accelerate Ukraine’s membership of the EU at a financial cost to ordinary European citizens far greater than the war itself. Little wonder then that indulging Zelensky and maintaining a slowly losing war has cynically been an easier choice for many, rather than striking for peace.
So don’t hold your breath for a quick peace deal out of Istanbul. The queue of European politicians lining up to kick the failure can down the road, from Von der Leyen, Rutte, Merz, Macron, Stubb, Starmer and the whole lot of them, is very long indeed.
Playing with Fire- Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb
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.
Scott Ritter, Jun 01, 2025, https://scottritter.substack.com/p/playing-with-fire?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6892&post_id=164935563&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=191n6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that “The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and play a key role in maintaining the regional balance and stability.”
In the intervening years, western analysts and observers have accused Russia and its leadership of irresponsibly invoking the threat of nuclear weapons as a means of “saber rattling”—a strategic bluff to hide operational and tactical shortfalls in Russian military capabilities.
In 2020 Russia published, for the first time, an unclassified version of its nuclear doctrine. The document, called “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” noted that Russia “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons” when Moscow is acting “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” The document also stated that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in case of an “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions.”
In 2024 Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear doctrine to be updated to consider the complicated geopolitical realities that had emerged from the ongoing Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, where the conflict had morphed into a proxy war between the collective west (NATO and the US) and Russia.
The new doctrine declared that nuclear weapons would be authorized for use in case of an “aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”
Russia’s nuclear arsenal would also come into play in the event of “actions by an adversary affecting elements of critically important state or military infrastructure of the Russian Federation, the disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces.”
The threats did not have to come in the form of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the new 2024 doctrine specifically stated that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons to any aggression against Russia involving “the employment of conventional weapons, which creates a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity.”
Operation Spiderweb, the largescale assault on critical Russian military infrastructure directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence by unmanned drones, has demonstrably crossed Russia’s red lines when it comes to triggering a nuclear retaliation and/or pre-emptive nuclear strike to preclude follow-on attacks. The Ukrainian SBU, under the personal direction of its chief, Vasyl Malyuk, has taken responsibility for the attack.
Operation Spiderweb is a covert direct-action assault on critical Russian military infrastructure and capabilities directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities. At least three airfields were attacked using FPV drones operating out of the backs of civilian Kamaz trucks repurposed as drone launch pads. Dyagilevo airfield in Ryazan, Belaya airfield in Irkutsk, and Olenya airfield in Murmansk, home to Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers and A-50 early warning aircraft, were struck, resulting in numerous aircraft being destroyed and/or heavily damaged.
This would be the equivalent of a hostile actor launching drone strikes against US Air Force B-52H bombers stationed at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
The timing of Operation Spiderweb is clearly designed to disrupt peace talks scheduled to take place in Istanbul on June 2.
First and foremost, one must understand that it is impossible for Ukraine to seriously prepare for substantive peace talks while planning and executing an operation such as Operation Spiderweb; while the SBU may have executed this attack, it could not have happened without the knowledge and consent of the Ukrainian President or the Minister of Defense.
Moreover, this attack could not have occurred without the consent of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, all of whom were engaged in direct consultations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the days and weeks leading up to the execution of Operation Spiderweb.
The Ukrainians have been encouraged by Europe to be seen as actively supporting the Istanbul peace process, with an eye to the notion that if the talks failed, the blame would be placed on Russia, not Ukraine, thereby making it easier for Europe to continue providing military and financial support to Ukraine.
There appears to be a major role being played by US actors as well—Senator’s Lyndsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, made a joint visit to Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated closely with the Ukrainian government about a new package of economic sanctions linked to Russia’s willingness to accept peace terms predicated on a 30-day ceasefire—one of Ukraine’s core demands.
Operation Spiderweb appears to be a concerted effort to drive Russia away from the Istanbul talks, either by provoking a Russian retaliation which would provide cover for Ukraine to stay home (and an excuse for Graham and Blumenthal to go forward with their sanctions legislation), or provoking Russia to pull out of the talks as it considers its options going forward, an act that would likewise trigger the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions action.
Unknown is the extent to which President Trump, who has been pushing for successful peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, was knowledgeable of the Ukrainian actions, including whether he approved of the action in advance (Trump appeared to be ignorant of the fact that Ukraine had targeted Russian President Putin using drones during a recent trip to Kursk.)
How Russia responds to this latest Ukrainian action is yet unknown; the drone attacks on Russian military bases came on the heels of at least two Ukrainian attacks on Russian rail lines that resulted in significant damage done to locomotives and passenger cars and killed and wounded scores of civilians.
But this much is clear: Ukraine could not have carried out Operation Spiderweb without the political approval and operational assistance of its western allies. The American and British intelligence services have both trained Ukrainian special operation forces in guerilla and unconventional warfare actions, and it is believed that previous Ukrainian attacks against critical Russian infrastructure (the Crimea bridge and Engels Air Base) were done with the assistance of US and British intelligence in the planning and execution phases. Indeed, both the Crimea bridge and Engels airbase attacks were seen as triggers for the issuing of Russia’s 2024 nuclear doctrine modifications.
Russia has in the past responded to provocations by Ukraine and its western allies with a mixture of patience and resolve.
Many have interpreted this stance as a sign of weakness, something which may have factored in the decision by Ukraine and its western facilitators to carry out such a provocative operation on the eve of critical peace discussions.
The extent to which Russia can continue to show the same level of restraint as in the past is tested by the very nature of the attack—a massive use of conventional weapons which struck Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence force, causing damage.
It is not a stretch of the imagination to see this tactic being used in the future as a means of decapitating Russian strategic nuclear assets (aircraft and missiles) and leadership (the attack against Putin in Kursk underscores this threat.)
If Ukraine can position Kamaz trucks near Russian strategic air bases, it could do so against Russian bases housing Russia’s mobile missile forces.
That Ukraine would carry out such attack likewise shows the extent to which western intelligence services are testing the waters for any future conflict with Russia—one that NATO and EU members say they are actively preparing for.
We have reached an existential crossroads in the SMO.
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.
Either we separate ourselves from the policies that have brought us to this point, or we accept the consequences of our actions, and pay the price.
We cannot live in a world where are future is dictated by the patience and restraint of a Russian leader in the face of provocations we are ourselves responsible for.
Ukraine, not Russia, represents an existential threat to humanity.
NATO, not Russia, is responsible for encouraging Ukraine to behave in such a reckless manner.
So, too, is the United States. The contradictory statements made by US policy makers regarding Russia provide political cover for Ukraine and its NATO enablers to plan and execute operations like Operation Spiderweb.
Senators Graham and Blumenthal should be called out for sedition if their intervention in Ukraine was done to deliberately sabotage a peace process President Trump has said is central to his vision of American national security going forward.
But it is Trump himself who must decide the fate of the world.
In the coming hours we will undoubtedly hear from the Russian President about how Russia will respond to this existential provocation.
Trump, too, must respond.
By telling Graham and Blumenthal and their supporters to stand down regarding Russian sanctions.
By ordering NATO and the EU to cease and desist from continuing to provide military and financial support to Ukraine.
And by taking sides in the SMO.
Choose Ukraine and trigger a nuclear war.
Choose Russia and save the world.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer with extensive experience in arms control and disarmament, and an expert on US-Russian relations. His work can be found at ScottRitter.com. He is the author of several books, including his latest, Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2014-2025, published by Clarity Press.Upgrade to paid
The 2026 bill for the Ukraine war is already in the mail
Time to bring the gravy train to a halt. With talks stalled, Zelensky says he needs more money for next year
Ian Proud, May 31, 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-war-2672231522/
Ukraine is already asking for more money to continue fighting into 2026, a sure sign that President Volodmyr Zelensky has no plans to end the war.
With the battlefield continuing to favor Russia, European leaders have their collective heads in the sand on who will pay. How long before President Trump walks away?
At the G7 Finance and Central Bank governors’ meeting in Banff on May 21, Ukraine’s Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko sought financial support for 2026, “including the provision of support to the Ukrainian army through its integration into the European security system,” according to reports.
I have said before that Ukraine cannot keep fighting into 2026 without a significant injection of European money. Even if the war were to stop tomorrow, Ukraine would still face a huge funding black hole. And that prolonging the war simply extends Ukraine’s indebtedness and delinquency, nudging it every closer towards the status of a failed state.
Making light of the price tag, German-based Kiel Institute has suggested extra EU support to Ukraine’s army would only need to cost an extra 0.2% of GDP or $43.3 billion per year. This assumes no additional U.S. funding under President Trump and is a figure practically identical to the $41.5 billion figure I forecast two months ago.
The Ukrainian side pointed out two assumptions that underpin their request — first, that funding Ukraine’s military supports macro-financial stability in that country. That is untrue. By far the leading cause of the increased financial distress of Ukraine is its vast and unsustainable prosecution of a war that it cannot win. As I have said before, ending the war would allow for immediate reductions to be made to military spending, which accounts for 65% of total government expenditure.
Second, that paying for Ukraine’s military is keeping Europe safer. It isn’t. The best route to European security would be to end the war tomorrow. The risk of escalation only grows for the longer the war continues and President Zelensky resorts to increasingly desperate tactics as the battlefield realities turn against him.
This latest request for money is a clear signal that Zelensky is not serious about U.S. demands for peace, and would prefer to continue the fight, drawing directly upon European funds. It has long been clear to me that Zelensky is evading peace because it would bring his presidency to a close, not to mention elevate risks to his personal safety.
He has therefore been piling on more pressure for Western leaders to impose more sanctions and other measures, which will only serve to prolong the war. Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent brain wave that the U.S. impose 500% secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Russia is a classic example. No doubt other countries, China in particular, would respond negatively to this, as it has already to the launch of Trump’s tariff war. It would kill President Trump’s efforts at engagement with Russia, by boxing him in to Beltway demands in an identical rerun of his first presidency, making him appear toothless in the eyes of Putin.
But these are not the real points. Having suffered over 20,000 sanctions already since 2014 yet maintaining a stable, growing economy, what makes people believe that Russia will back down to even more sanctions now?
The war continues to favor Russia on the battlefield. In recent days, in addition to expanding territory in the south of Donetsk, the Russian army has made major gains in the pocket around now-occupied Toretsk. Progress, as always, is slow and grinding as it has been since the start of 2024. Ukraine has undoubtedly mounted a formidable defence of its territory, for which its fighters deserve great credit.
But Russia has never fully mobilized the country for the fight in Ukraine, for various domestic political reasons. Putin also wants to maintain relations with developing country partners and a more devastating military offensive against Ukraine would make that harder.
Pumping more billions into Ukraine’s army will merely slow the speed of defeat. Even the Ukrainians now accept that they cannot reclaim lost territory by force. Ending the war would at least draw a line in the sand for future negotiations.
For their part, Europe simply can’t afford to pump another $40 billion per year into Ukraine’s army, at a time when member states are trying to boost their own militaries, revive their flagging economies and deal with an upsurge in nationalist political parties that want to end the war.
An April pledge for extra military donations in 2025 elicited just $2.5 billion per year from Germany, and reconfirmed the £6 billion from the UK already committed, without pledging new funds. Keir Starmer’s government is in the process of making an embarrassing U-turn on previously agreed cuts to winter fuel payments for pensioners.
I seriously doubt that British people would consider another big increase in funds for Ukraine’s war would be a sensible investment if peace was on the table. That this isn’t actively discussed in Britain, in a way that it is in the United States, is driven by the complete lockdown of debate in the UK and European mainstream media.
Right from the beginning, the war in Ukraine has been an attritional battle of who can sustain the fight for the longest period of time. A longer war will always favor Russia because the economic liability Europe faces will ratchet up to the point where it becomes politically unsustainable. We make the assumption that Russia’s aims in Ukraine are to prevent NATO expansion and to protect the rights of native Russian speakers in that country, and of course, on the surface, they are.
But on the current track, Putin gets the added benefit of watching the European Union project slowly implode, without the need to go all in on Ukraine.
President Trump for his part continues to walk a fine line that involves criticizing both Putin and Zelensky for the continuance of the war. In the face of intransigence on all sides, I wonder how long it will be before he washes his hands of the mess and walks away.
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. Prior to Moscow, he organized the 2013 G8 Summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, working out of 10 Downing Street. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019.”
Ukraine Targets Russian Airfields in Major Drone Attack
According to Reuters, Ukrainian spies hid the drones in wooden sheds that were loaded onto trucks and driven near bases deep inside Russia
by Dave DeCamp June 1, 2025 https://news.antiwar.com/2025/06/01/ukraine-targets-russian-airfields-in-major-drone-attack/
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted a large-scale drone attack deep inside Russian territory on Sunday that targeted several Russian airfields.
The Russian Defense Ministry said the attack targeted five Russian regions, including the Amur Oblast in Russia’s far east, which is over 3,000 miles from Ukraine, and a base in the Irkutsk Oblast, over 2,500 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The attack also targeted the northern region of Murmansk and the western oblasts of Ivanovo and Ryazan. The Russian Defense Ministry said that “several aircraft” caught fire in Murmansk and Irkutsk and that the attacks were launched “in the exact proximity” of the airfields in the region.
The Defense Ministry said the attacks were “repelled” in the other three regions. “No casualties were reported either among servicemen or civilians. Some of those involved in the terror attacks were detained,” the ministry said.
A Ukrainian official told Reuters that the SBU was able to pull off the attack by hiding explosive-laden drones inside the roofs of wooden sheds. The sheds were loaded onto trucks driven near the bases, and the roof panels were lifted off by a remotely activated mechanism, allowing the drones to fly out.
Videos on social media show drones flying out of a truck near the Belaya airbase in Irkutsk. Ukrainian officials said the attack was planned for more than a year and claimed it destroyed 41 Russian aircraft, including TU-95 long-range bombers, though the number hasn’t been confirmed by the Russian side.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the attack as a “brilliant operation” in his nightly address. ” It took place on enemy territory and was aimed exclusively at military targets – specifically, the equipment used in strikes against Ukraine. Russia suffered truly significant losses – entirely justified and deserved,” he said.
US and Ukrainian officials claimed that the Trump administration was not notified ahead of the attack, although the CIA is deeply involved with the SBU and helped build up Ukraine’s intelligence services following the 2014 US-backed coup that ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Also on Sunday, a Russian missile strike on a Ukrainian military training site killed 12 Ukrainian troops and wounded 60. Ukrainian officials said that on Sunday, Russia launched 472 drones at Ukraine overnight, marking the largest Russian drone barrage of the war.
Both sides have dramatically stepped up their drone attacks in recent weeks despite the US push for peace talks. Russian and Ukrainian negotiators are expected to hold a second round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Sunday.
Jubilation at Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb – but is this joy justified?
A web, or a trail to Armageddon?
Noel Wauchope, 3 June 25, https://theaimn.net/jubilation-at-ukraines-operation-spiderweb-but-is-this-joy-justified/#google_vignette
The news media is agog with the glorious success of drones sent deep inside Russia to damage 41 planes. Ukraine claims that these were A-50 surveillance planes, the supersonic Tu-160 and Tu-22 bombers, and the massive Tu-95s, which were developed to carry nuclear bombs and now launch cruise missiles.
The damage is estimated to be $7billion. The targets reached inside Russia included Belaya airbase over 4,000km) from Ukraine, and three other distant airbases. the complex operation was planned in secret, over 18 months.
It was such a clever operation, involving smuggling of drones into Russia and placing them inside containers, which were later loaded on to trucks. Remotely activated mechanisms opened the containers allowing the drones to fly out and make their distant attack.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised the “absolutely brilliant” Ukrainian drone attack’ – “produced by Ukraine independently”.
Wow! We’re all delighted, aren’t we, at this surprise, this ingenuity, done all alone by Ukraine – such a demonstration of how the clever Ukrainians will beat the stupid boorish Russians?
There are just a few questions that I would like to see posed, in the corporate media.
I hardly know where to start. Can we believe that:
- This was done over 18 months completely without the knowledge of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, who were all consulting with Ukraine over that period, and especially in the last few weeks?
- Without the knowledge of the USA, while Senators Lyndsay Graham and Richard Blumenthal, in Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated intensely with the Ukrainian government?
- Why was this attack timed exactly at the time of the Istanbul peace talks between Ukraine and Russia?
- Did Zelensky not understand that this would at least cast a damper on those talks, upsetting Russia – a bit like the effect on USA if someone attacked US Air Force B-52H bombers and B-2 bombers ?
- Well, if Zelensky did understand that, was his intention to sabotage the talks, and provoke Russia into a retaliation, which might bring Europeand even the USA into the war?
The jubilation of the media seems to completely ignore Russia’s stated policy on its use of nuclear weapons, updated in 2024 – nuclear weapons would be authorised for use in response to “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions”.
We don’t know how Russia will respond to this remarkable and unprecedented attack.
We don’t know how President Trump will respond.
What is clear is that the Istanbul peace talks have been wrecked, and a whole new phase now opens in the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It started out with the intention of a limited attack – the Russians still call it a Special Military Operation. Now Putin has no other option than to declare it a full scale war.
Ukraine drone strikes hit nuclear bombers deep inside Russia
Japan Times, Jun 2, 2025
Ukraine staged a dramatic series of strikes across Russia, deploying drones hidden in trucks deep inside the country to hit strategic airfields as far away as eastern Siberia.
Around the same time, Moscow launched one of its longest drone and missile attacks against Kyiv, escalating tensions ahead of crucial peace talks this week.
More than 40 Russian aircraft, including the Tu-95 and Tu-22 M3 long-range bombers capable of deploying conventional and nuclear weapons as well as the A-50, are reported to have been damaged in the operation on Sunday, an official in Ukraine’s Security Service said on condition of anonymity as the details are not public. Ukraine’s Security Service chief Vasyl Malyuk led the operation and losses are assessed to be at least $2 billion, the person said…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/06/02/world/ukraine-drone-nuclear-bombers-russia/
Desperation Time in Ukraine End-Game
Despite propaganda pieces touting a mythical Ukrainian superiority in drone production and warfighting, the truth is that it is Russia that enjoys these superiorities.
The financing of the army has now reached a deficit of 400-900 billion Ukrainian hryvnia ($20 billion), meaning the Ukrainian army is highly dependent not just on Western supplies but also Western financing (https://t.me/rezident_ua/26250).
by Gordonhahn, May 29, 2025, https://gordonhahn.com/2025/05/29/desperation-time-in-ukraine-end-game/
Europe in the form of the power triangle of Germany, France, and the UK have abandoned all caution and appeared to have decided to take a step they already twice had balked at because of a lack of U.S. support: allowing Kiev to hit targets deep inside Russia with longer-range missile systems that can hit Moscow.
New German Chancellor Freiderick Merz recently claimed then backed off the claim that the US and the three leading European governments had agreed to lift the restriction against such attacks.
Merz’s claim may have prompted US President Donald Trump to include in one of his recent ‘Truth Social’ tirades that he ‘has protected Russia from some very bad things.’ Merz also rolled backed his claim that Berlin is sending the requisite German ‘Taurus’ missile systems to Kiev and instead proposed after a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy in Berlin that Germany would finance the production of Ukrainian rockets with a capability to hit targets as far away as 2,500 kilometers—that is, deep inside Russia. Then today, Merz reiterated that sending Tauruses to Kiev is an option.
Even the former Joseph Biden administration had the sense to veto Europe’s and American neocons’ ‘hit Russia deep’ policy, which Washington is able to do, because Europe’s missiles with the needed range cannot be launched without the use of US software and technical support.
What has prompted Merz’s demarche and flailing about? There are at least four reasons, and they are the same ones that explain similar failed demarches and flailing about by French President Immanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer.
First, Merz, a war hawk, sought to raise again the issue and mount pressure on the new U.S. administration of Ukraine dove, Donald Trump, to acquiesce in lifting the restriction should Russo-Ukrainian negotiations break down.
Second is the accelerating collapse of Ukraine’s defense lines across a broad swathe of the battle front and Russia’s mammoth superiority in missiles, artillery, conventional air power, and now drones.
Third is the US President Trump’s peace mission, which, though failing, has rendered Ukraine in a weaker position militarily and politically. The latter two reasons can combine forcing Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s or a moderate successor to essentially capitulate to Moscow’s topught demands, marking a major defeat for the NATO and the EU.
Fourth, any peace agreement achieved in a process initiated by Trump additionally likely would bolster national Trumpism’s hand in Europe, threatening its remaining woke, neo-liberal, globalist governments, most importantly those ruling over the leading EU troika of Germany, the UK, and France. In sum, for the woke, globalist Western elite, this is desperation time. Let’s look at these in some detail.
The accelerating collapse of Ukraine’s defense lines is approaching a critical mass at which point there will be a cascading collapse and mass, uncontrolled retreat of Ukrainian forces to the Dneiper River and Ukraine’s second city of Kharkiv (Kharkov). There they, respectively, will fight with their backs against the water and can be surrounded and forced to retreat further to the Dneiper as well. Russian forces have been accelerating their advance into Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy and Kharkiv Oblasts and recently entered the south-central region of Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk) Oblast’. These are regions that Russia has not declared to be its sovereign territory.
In the annexed but not fully seized oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhia, and Kherson gains are also mounting. Luhansk is some 98 percent under Russian control. In Donetsk, Russian forces have made a major breakthrough between the key cities of Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka splitting Ukraine’s Donetsk defense lines, making the full occupation of Donetsk almost a certainty by autumn……………………………………….
Accelerating progress in the less-controlled southern regions of Zaporozhia and Kherson has also begun, with Russian forces moving on Gulyai Pole and Malaya Tokmachka, respectively. ……………………………………..
Russia’s mammoth superiority in missiles, artillery, conventional air power (rarely used), and now drones…………………………….
A similarly grave Werstern/Ukrainian deficit is evident with air defense missiles……………………..in 2024 Ukraine was able to intercept up to 90% of Shahed drones, now this figure has fallen sharply, to 30% in some areas of Ukrane (https://t.me/rezident_ua/26250).
The withdrawal of US support for the war and Europe’s lack of industrial capacity has crippled Ukraine in this regard. NATO rejected Ukraine’s recent request for additional missiles for such Ukraine’s Western-supplied air defense systems, since the West has spent some 40% of NATO’s strategic reserve in the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War (https://t.me/rezident_ua/26246). Russian artillery production outstrips Western production by a factor of five or so as the use of artillery on the front by Russia outstrips that of Ukraine by a factor of six to one.
Despite propaganda pieces touting a mythical Ukrainian superiority in drone production and warfighting, the truth is that it is Russia that enjoys these superiorities. Thus, Ukrainian intelligence concludes that Russian drone production will soon reach 500 per day within the next few months (https://t.me/rezident_ua/26250). Even the pro-Ukrainian, pro-NATO outlet, The Economist, notes that it is Russia not Ukraine that soon will be attacking with 1,000 Shahed drones alone nightly (https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukraine-russia-may-produce-500-shaheds-daily-launch-1-000-drones-per-strike-the-economist-50516881.html).
The financing of the army has now reached a deficit of 400-900 billion Ukrainian hryvnia ($20 billion), meaning the Ukrainian army is highly dependent not just on Western supplies but also Western financing (https://t.me/rezident_ua/26250).
All this compounds Ukraine’s manpower shortage, which is deepening, with the failure of the 18-24 Program that provided increased remuneration for service but which only attracted some 500 volunteers in a period of two months (March-April 2025)…………………………………………
Russian recruits are younger, better trained, better armed, and Russian soldiers are rotated away from the front for 30-day leaves, while Ukraine has been unable to adopt a law that would make rotation obligatory, and few ever receive leave outside of going AWOL. This leaves Ukraine’s middle-aged, little trained, and poorly armed army in combat on a permanent basis, destroying morale.
This dark picture or something very similar to it is certainly known to those working in the bowels of the state apparati in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, and Kiev.
In politics, desperation is masked by extreme denial, especially in Kiev, where Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s penchant for simulacra over reality is evident and legend even among his own team. Nevertheless, there is some awareness, indeed panic over the fact that Trump’s withdrawal of full US support has weakened the positions of Kiev and Europe politically. US pressure on Kiev, forcing it to negotiate is undermining not just the army’s morale but also the public’s morale – already dangerously low – weakening Zelenskiy’s administration at home and abroad. At home, Zelenskiy’s refusal to negotiate with Moscow seriously is consternating the many Ukrainians predisposed to ending the war through a peace agreement with Moscow, even one that includes giving up Ukrainian territory. In addition, Ukraine’s powerful neofascists, now with many weapons in hand, are increasingly voicing their opposition to talks and threatening Zelenskiy.
Abroad, those few European and numerous non-European states that have been opposed to Europe’s rejection of Trump’s peace efforts and endeavors to undermine them are emboldened in this policy, further isolating Kiev and stressing its lone supporter, Europe and its pro-war governments. Pro-Ukrainian European governments and states have become less viable politically, economically, and financially. This, in turn, is marching such European governments inexorably towards an even less rational Ukraine policy—one that risks a broader, more overt European or Russo-Western war by, among other things, allowing Kiev to hit deep inside Russia with European-controlled weapons, which Freidrick Merz and the leaders of the other leading European states are pressuring Washington to back.
For Europe, it must be clear that soon the disparity between European/Ukrainian and Russian power will such that it will either force Kiev’s army, regime and perhaps state to collapse or dictate to Zelenskiy or a replacement that Kiev must sit at the negotiating table and accept unfavorable terms. Lacking the courage or social political, economic, financial, industrial, and technological whertewithall to enter the war directly with boots on the ground. Europe seeks parity and sekf-respect on the cheap. Bombing Russia from afar and having Ukraine pay the price has been a ‘good deal’ for many in the West.
The problem is that if Europeans do help Ukraine attack Russia in depth and succeed in striking Moscow or achieve some other blow, Europe will become a target in Putin’s ‘special military operation’ (SMO), as Putin implicitly warned last fall when the West wisely balked at taking such a dangerous step.
Indeed, in such an event, Putin is likely to upgrade the SMO to war status, with the State Duma adopting a declaration of war at his behest. The SMO will be no more, and actual ‘full-scale invasion’ of, and all-out war against Ukraine will ensue.
Ukraine will pay an even more steep price for Europe’s hubris, but also Europe will be hit. Will Trump enter the U.S. into the frey more directly, and in what form? Desperation’s frequent handmaiden is dangerous, fateful decision-making.
Time to give up the pretense about Ukraine winning the war.
31 May 25, https://theaimn.net/time-to-give-up-the-pretense-about-ukraine-winning-the-war/
The war in Ukraine has reached a new, and very dangerous phase. Not that it wasn’t dangerous before. But the toll of militarism was being paid by the deaths and the sufferings only of soldiers and their communities of Ukraine and Russia.
That’s OK by the shareholders in U.S. and other weapons companies, and by warhawks and the virtuous Russian-haters of Western culture. But it’s another thing when the deaths and sufferings might now extend to European people, to the British – and heck, – to World War 3 and all of us.
The change is that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged on 28th May to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any Western-imposed limitations on their use and targets. So Ukraine could hit Moscow. Now Merz did back off in this, a bit, but later suggested that Taurus missiles might be delivered to UKraine. Germany would put up the money.
This would be a revolutionary change in the Western policy on the war in Ukraine.War-monger though he was, President Joe Biden saw the danger in escalating the war in this way, and for over 2 years refused Ukraine’s demand for long-range missiles. He changed his mind on this only at the last minute in December 2024. Then Trump, on taking office, paused weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now, characteristically, Trump has a confusing attitude on this – probably means “It’s OK as long as Ukraine pays up for them“.
Now, there are lots of impediments to Ukraine actually getting long-range missiles that could strike deep inside Russia. One big impediment is that the USA would have to be involved in missiles from Germany being used – this would necessitate U.S. software and technical support.
Lavrov on Germany’s Taurus Missiles: Approval for Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes? | Times Now World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L8ARMiQmdE
So, should we really worry about this bold initiative by the German Chancellor?
I think, yes. It’s a wake-up call. If we all think that it’s now OK for long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia, well, I guess we don’t mind if Russia sends the same into Ukraine and beyond ?
Is anyone in the West paying attention to the facts on the actual progress of this war? Global Conflict Tracker now says:
“Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of the country after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024. Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities…. Since January 2022, Ukraine has received about $407 billion in aid, including over $118 billion from the United States. Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 40,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine. 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.“
But never mind. The corporate media is still telling us that Ukraine can, and must, beat Russia. And they’re also telling us that Russia doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.
And why is it that Russia does not seem to want a negotiated settlement?
Well, that’s because the new “Coalition of the Willing”, led by Britain and France, supports Volodymyr Zelensky’s underlying demands for ending the war:
Zelensky’s underlying demands:
- Ukraine membership of NATO
- return of all Russian-occupied territories, including the Donbass and Crimea
- Western troops in Ukraine for security
- payment of reparations, war crimes trials for the Russian leadership
All of these are unacceptable to Russia – especially NATO membership – a definite “Red Line”
There have been previous negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022, the two parties were on the verge of an agreement, in which Russia made concessions, and Zelensky did not insist on NATO membership. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead.
Now Russia is in a militarily winning position, and has no inclination to submit to those underlying demands, nor to agree to a temporary ceasefire which would allow Ukraine to develop weaponry and troops.
But there is no suggestion from our bold, confident, Western leaders – Sir Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, that it might be best to pay more attention to the actual military situation, and less to the theatrical posturing of Volodymyr Zelensky. An unlikely source of common sense is America’s President Donald Trump – who actually does want peace, with his focus on making himself and his cronies richer, rather than on fighting Russia.
And the general public? Weary of it all, stunned into a sort of mental paralysis as we observe the barbarities going on in Gaza, the West en masse seems to be just sleep-walking into the military and economic disaster of a continuing war in Ukraine.
As with all wars, the media plays a huge role – glorifying that consummate media performer Zelensky, and regaling us with the civilian horrors suffered by Ukrainian civilians. (And they ARE really suffering). Of course, not a word about suffering Russians. Russian atrocities are publicised – both real ones, and fabricated. But if you see any news item about atrocities done by Ukrainians – you assume automatically that it must be a lie.
In fact, I’ve noticed that there is a powerful argument for the untruth of anything that shows any positive activity by Russians. If you mention it to any Westerner, it will be refuted because “After all, this news is just Russian propaganda“. You see, it doesn’t matter if the news is factual – it must be false, coming from Russia. In reality, of course the Russians are using factual news as propaganda. As well, they do have a sophisticated programme of misinformation as well. And so do we in the West, in all likelihood, when we consider America’s Central Intelligence Agency and its long history of disinformation.
So, it is a media mess. It’s tragic that Zelensky, elected on a pledge to honour agreements ensuring the autonomy of the largely Russian-speaking Donbass provinces, quickly went along with Europe and USA’s historic fear and hatred of Russia.
Never mind that Russia was on “our side” in the last big war, and largely won that war in Europe, at the price of some 27 million Russian lives. The Soviet Union did defeat the Nazis in Ukraine. But all that is forgotten, as Western leaders look solemn and statesman-like, pronouncing on coalition-of-the -willing plans for a big war in the air, with ever more powerful missiles, ending of course, in a glorious victory over Russia (and sorta bad luck that Ukraine is completely demolished along the way).
I don’t know what it might take for the public to wake up to the suicidal path on which these macho “statesmen” are leading the West, and “helping” Ukraine. A previous Coalition of the Willing” “helped Iraq”, and that hasn’t turned out so well.
It would be a good start if some in the corporate media could get away with telling the facts on the dismal situation of Ukraine in this war. Expanding the war sounds so noble and easy to decide on. Much more difficult would be a measured progress in negotiation, recognising the legitimate needs of each side.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 