REALLY BAD things happened to Russia, but does destroying a few aging bombers actually change the war? Will Putin abandon his main hunt for victory in Ukraine to chase psychological warfare squirrels?
I follow many geopolitical analysts on the current conflict in Ukraine, and you're undoubtedly my favorite for the clarity of your analysis. Greetings from Argentina!
"The coming phase may see Moscow pivot to shadow warfare: cyber strikes, covert sabotage, and asymmetric reprisals against NATO, particularly Britain."
This would be a considerable mistake by Russia. Europe NEEDS this war, particularly Britain. By striking Britain, Russia would be playing right into Starmer's hand. It's the only way he can realistically remain in power, by drumming up nationalist war fervor and directing it away from his government.
Presumably Russia doesn't want a British government which is committed to nuclear war with Russia. The two party system is a farce and there is an entrenched military industrial complex which ensures there's a steady stream of targets, but what really matters is the public sentiment, which is why these ghouls constantly manipulate it.
The UK is a special case due to their historical and current hatred of Russia, but across the West the narrative is crumbling. People I never thought I'd see talking about the Maidan coup are doing so publicly. A lot of my Christian friends are outraged about the banning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It's become common to talk about Ukrainian press gangs.
As you suggest, the British political system is structurally predisposed toward Russophobia, almost as a form of institutional reflex. This hostility transcends party lines or electoral cycles—it's baked into the operating software of the British state. Given that, I doubt Moscow harbors any illusions about changing London’s posture through diplomacy or charm offensives. The British elite, regardless of which party is nominally in power, remain locked into an Atlanticist worldview that treats Russia as an eternal adversary.
Even supposed "anti-system" figures like Nigel Farage, who markets himself as a populist outsider, tend to quickly fold under pressure from the entrenched establishment. When push comes to shove, they align with the geopolitical preferences of Britain’s deep state and media class. This conformity ensures that any serious reorientation of British foreign policy—especially toward détente with Russia—is effectively impossible.
That said, I suspect both Russia and the United States, and perhaps even elements within the EU, increasingly view Britain as a kind of scapegoat nation, in the Girardian sense. Britain’s marginal yet inflammatory role in global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine, makes it a convenient vessel for symbolic punishment—a country that can be sacrificed to expiate the sins of the broader Western bloc, or at least to create the illusion of renewal.
From this perspective, Russia may be tempted to engage in a kind of targeted accelerationism—intentionally escalating pressure on Britain through deniable operations or diplomatic isolation—not merely out of vengeance, but as a calculated move to destabilize the most hawkish node in the Western network, in the hope of breaking the logjam with more pragmatic actors in Europe or even across the Atlantic.
There’s also a cultural dimension to this. For many in Moscow’s political class, there is something profoundly irritating—almost farcical—about the way a post-imperial Britain continues to strut across the global stage, issuing threats and moral pronouncements as if it were still 1897. This theatrical posturing, often reinforced by tabloid jingoism and the security services' backchannel machinations, comes off as a kind of delusion—a has-been nation cosplaying as a great power, while failing to manage even its domestic infrastructure or military readiness.
Britain thus becomes not just a strategic irritant, but a symbolic provocation—a state whose sense of self-importance vastly exceeds its actual capacity. And that, in turn, makes it a uniquely tempting target for a geopolitical demonstration of limits.
I understand your perspective, but here Russia passed by far the boundaries of ridiculous. Deterrence doesnt work without fear. Nobody's afraid of Russia's big guns, even kids know they are too scared of themselves (do they even have any functioning nuke at this point, someone might wonder?). Slow walking this war is what will make Russia losing it
Yeah, I agree. Honestly, I don’t think Ukraine has many high-value military targets left at this point - aside sacrificing their own civilians. But Russia still needs to re-establish some kind of deterrence, and it doesn’t have to be nuclear.
Also, I get that PR doesn’t usually matter in war... until suddenly it does. The fact that Ukrainians haven’t openly rebelled despite everything says a lot - either about how tightly controlled and propagandized things are, or just how deeply the population is locked into the current state of things.
It appears Russia is preparing to escalate from a Special Military Operation to either a Counter-Terrorism Operation (CTO) or a declaration of full-scale war. Under a CTO framework, Ukraine’s political leadership would likely be designated as legitimate targets. In the event of outright war, strategic infrastructure—such as the port of Odessa—would almost certainly be neutralized or destroyed.
Moscow seems to be holding off until it gauges Washington’s response to the latest wave of attacks. That decision will likely influence whether Russia targets hardened command bunkers known to host American advisors. A major flashpoint ahead will be Ukraine’s use of Taurus missiles on Russian territory. Berlin is attempting to distance itself, claiming Germany has not supplied the missiles—despite reports that Ukraine is about to field long-range strike systems nearly identical in design and performance to the Taurus.
Meanwhile, inside Ukraine, the gap between the ruling elite and the general population has grown stark. For many ordinary Ukrainians, the only remaining form of resistance is evasion of the military’s increasingly aggressive conscription efforts. To be fair, the country was invaded, and its citizens live within a tightly controlled information environment—so it’s not surprising that some may genuinely believe they are on the verge of victory.
I know what you mean but I've been reading updates on the positioning of Russia's strategic bombers since the war began and they are often parked this way.
Pretend that something similar were to happen to the United States. Nobody would waste an instant before the missiles flew. Something similar could be said about the Soviet Union.
Which is why nobody would try. As it is, Russian dithering and indecision have caused the West to lose all fear of Russia.
If the government of the west has “lost all fear of Russia” why are all western european leaders pushing fear of Russian invasion propaganda and trying to urgently re-arm?
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and is very close to Europe in terms of strike capability. In addition the US has clearly signalled they are on their own in terms of defence.
The dithering is all on the European side , as is obvious. Russia is winning its war of attrition, advancing constantly, Ukraine’s military in slow motion collapse.
Wars of attrition aren’t Hollywood movies which run for 2 hours with much chest thumping, which seems to be your idea of how wars are conducted.
Missives flew just two days before that spectacle - apparently 30 or so large targets all across the Ukraine. And they will do again and again. Somewhere in Moscow a military accountant is probably happy that these planes were finally off their books.
As for psychological damage that’s been alluded in the article multiple times - the only change is that the voices for “glassing the Kiev” are louder. But Russians will do when and how they will.
I am going to pretend that your question was honest:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
I follow many geopolitical analysts on the current conflict in Ukraine, and you're undoubtedly my favorite for the clarity of your analysis. Greetings from Argentina!
Thank you so much. I look forward to visiting your beautiful country some day!
This is the best summary and analysis I’ve read.
Have you considered contacting the Alekses at The Duran for a guest appearance? Or maybe Glenn Diesen or Danny Haiphong?
You would get a lot of publicity (if you wanted to broaden your audience).
Thanks!! Perhaps I should link this piece below their posts on Telegram or Twitter. That would certainly broaden my audience!!
Fair enough, I always enjoy reading your posts - I will share whenever I can.
Thank you!! I super appreciate it. My Substack is steadily growing but will take a few more years to reach a large enough audience.
"The coming phase may see Moscow pivot to shadow warfare: cyber strikes, covert sabotage, and asymmetric reprisals against NATO, particularly Britain."
This would be a considerable mistake by Russia. Europe NEEDS this war, particularly Britain. By striking Britain, Russia would be playing right into Starmer's hand. It's the only way he can realistically remain in power, by drumming up nationalist war fervor and directing it away from his government.
But does Russia care who is in power in Britain? They are all a bunch of losers and whoever will replace Starmer will be exactly like him.
Presumably Russia doesn't want a British government which is committed to nuclear war with Russia. The two party system is a farce and there is an entrenched military industrial complex which ensures there's a steady stream of targets, but what really matters is the public sentiment, which is why these ghouls constantly manipulate it.
The UK is a special case due to their historical and current hatred of Russia, but across the West the narrative is crumbling. People I never thought I'd see talking about the Maidan coup are doing so publicly. A lot of my Christian friends are outraged about the banning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It's become common to talk about Ukrainian press gangs.
As you suggest, the British political system is structurally predisposed toward Russophobia, almost as a form of institutional reflex. This hostility transcends party lines or electoral cycles—it's baked into the operating software of the British state. Given that, I doubt Moscow harbors any illusions about changing London’s posture through diplomacy or charm offensives. The British elite, regardless of which party is nominally in power, remain locked into an Atlanticist worldview that treats Russia as an eternal adversary.
Even supposed "anti-system" figures like Nigel Farage, who markets himself as a populist outsider, tend to quickly fold under pressure from the entrenched establishment. When push comes to shove, they align with the geopolitical preferences of Britain’s deep state and media class. This conformity ensures that any serious reorientation of British foreign policy—especially toward détente with Russia—is effectively impossible.
That said, I suspect both Russia and the United States, and perhaps even elements within the EU, increasingly view Britain as a kind of scapegoat nation, in the Girardian sense. Britain’s marginal yet inflammatory role in global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine, makes it a convenient vessel for symbolic punishment—a country that can be sacrificed to expiate the sins of the broader Western bloc, or at least to create the illusion of renewal.
From this perspective, Russia may be tempted to engage in a kind of targeted accelerationism—intentionally escalating pressure on Britain through deniable operations or diplomatic isolation—not merely out of vengeance, but as a calculated move to destabilize the most hawkish node in the Western network, in the hope of breaking the logjam with more pragmatic actors in Europe or even across the Atlantic.
There’s also a cultural dimension to this. For many in Moscow’s political class, there is something profoundly irritating—almost farcical—about the way a post-imperial Britain continues to strut across the global stage, issuing threats and moral pronouncements as if it were still 1897. This theatrical posturing, often reinforced by tabloid jingoism and the security services' backchannel machinations, comes off as a kind of delusion—a has-been nation cosplaying as a great power, while failing to manage even its domestic infrastructure or military readiness.
Britain thus becomes not just a strategic irritant, but a symbolic provocation—a state whose sense of self-importance vastly exceeds its actual capacity. And that, in turn, makes it a uniquely tempting target for a geopolitical demonstration of limits.
I understand your perspective, but here Russia passed by far the boundaries of ridiculous. Deterrence doesnt work without fear. Nobody's afraid of Russia's big guns, even kids know they are too scared of themselves (do they even have any functioning nuke at this point, someone might wonder?). Slow walking this war is what will make Russia losing it
Russia will not use nukes because that would open the door for Israel to use them in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.
Yeah, I agree. Honestly, I don’t think Ukraine has many high-value military targets left at this point - aside sacrificing their own civilians. But Russia still needs to re-establish some kind of deterrence, and it doesn’t have to be nuclear.
Also, I get that PR doesn’t usually matter in war... until suddenly it does. The fact that Ukrainians haven’t openly rebelled despite everything says a lot - either about how tightly controlled and propagandized things are, or just how deeply the population is locked into the current state of things.
It appears Russia is preparing to escalate from a Special Military Operation to either a Counter-Terrorism Operation (CTO) or a declaration of full-scale war. Under a CTO framework, Ukraine’s political leadership would likely be designated as legitimate targets. In the event of outright war, strategic infrastructure—such as the port of Odessa—would almost certainly be neutralized or destroyed.
Moscow seems to be holding off until it gauges Washington’s response to the latest wave of attacks. That decision will likely influence whether Russia targets hardened command bunkers known to host American advisors. A major flashpoint ahead will be Ukraine’s use of Taurus missiles on Russian territory. Berlin is attempting to distance itself, claiming Germany has not supplied the missiles—despite reports that Ukraine is about to field long-range strike systems nearly identical in design and performance to the Taurus.
Meanwhile, inside Ukraine, the gap between the ruling elite and the general population has grown stark. For many ordinary Ukrainians, the only remaining form of resistance is evasion of the military’s increasingly aggressive conscription efforts. To be fair, the country was invaded, and its citizens live within a tightly controlled information environment—so it’s not surprising that some may genuinely believe they are on the verge of victory.
The strike seemed a bit too easy easy to execute. The Russian bombers were set up ducks in a row. I’m skeptical. We’ll see.
I know what you mean but I've been reading updates on the positioning of Russia's strategic bombers since the war began and they are often parked this way.
Pretend that something similar were to happen to the United States. Nobody would waste an instant before the missiles flew. Something similar could be said about the Soviet Union.
Which is why nobody would try. As it is, Russian dithering and indecision have caused the West to lose all fear of Russia.
If the government of the west has “lost all fear of Russia” why are all western european leaders pushing fear of Russian invasion propaganda and trying to urgently re-arm?
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and is very close to Europe in terms of strike capability. In addition the US has clearly signalled they are on their own in terms of defence.
The dithering is all on the European side , as is obvious. Russia is winning its war of attrition, advancing constantly, Ukraine’s military in slow motion collapse.
Wars of attrition aren’t Hollywood movies which run for 2 hours with much chest thumping, which seems to be your idea of how wars are conducted.
Missives flew just two days before that spectacle - apparently 30 or so large targets all across the Ukraine. And they will do again and again. Somewhere in Moscow a military accountant is probably happy that these planes were finally off their books.
As for psychological damage that’s been alluded in the article multiple times - the only change is that the voices for “glassing the Kiev” are louder. But Russians will do when and how they will.
I am going to pretend that your question was honest:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Right, most people have always been brought to the bidding of their leaders.
So it is, leaders and masses. But leading the masses to nazism or socialism, peace and climate restoration, is not the same.
Accountants are of course our only arbiters of truth these days. I count therefore I am.
Since nobody said a word about accountancy, stop arguing with strawmen.