There is some confusion over Russia’s response to the June 1/2 attacks on railway infrastructure and its strategic nuclear forces.
To recap:
On Saturday/Sunday Ukrainian diversion groups used explosives to destroy two Russian railroad bridges in the Kursk and Bryansk region. These bridges were located some 50 kilometer north of the Sumy region frontline. The hits will impact, if only for a short time, the railway bound supply of Russian forces north of Sumy.
One of the bridge explosions destroyed a civil passenger train. Some 10 people were killed and some 100 were wounded. This was likely intended and thereby a terror attack.
On Sunday morning a large scale operation by the Ukrainian secret service managed to attack multiple strategic airfields throughout Russia. Ukrainian sources claimed attacks on five airfields and the destruction of more than 40 strategic bombers.
Current damage assessment confirms attacks on two airfields and the destruction or damaging of up to 10 bombers.
It is very important to distinguish these attacks. While both coincided with negotiations between Ukraine in Russia in Istanbul, and were clearly timed to influence those, the purpose was larger.
The railroad attacks were planned to hinder rearward logistics of Russia’s operation in Ukraine’s Sumy region. That a civilian train was hit by these was likely seen by the Ukrainian forces as an additional feature but not as a main purpose. Still, it is the mass harm of civilians that make this otherwise permissible attack on a quasi-military target a terrorist act. The Russian side has emphasized this.
The attack on the strategic bombers of Russia’s nuclear triad (land based nuclear missiles, submarine based nuclear missiles, air carriers for launching nuclear bombs and missiles) hit at a much higher level. It was a military attack on a strategic military target. Russia’s publicly announced doctrine allows for the use of nuclear forces to retaliate for such an attack on its nuclear assets. This independent of the immediate source of the attack.
The attack on the railway bridges were an operation that is typical for British services. It has been reported and is well known that British services have advised and helped the Ukrainians to launch sea drones against Russia in the Black Sea, to cross the Dnieper river in Krinki and in other operations of higher propaganda value.
The Russian Foreign Minister has accused the U.K of direct involvement in the terrorist attack.
Several western experts of U.S. special services believe, as the Russian’s do, that the operation against its nuclear forces have a different actor behind them – most likely the CIA. It is unlikely that Ukraine would have been able to identify and target those airfields without the intelligence acquired by U.S. sources. There is also no military benefit for Ukraine to attack Russian air bases far from its territory.
It has been reported that since 2014 the CIA had build some 20 stations in Ukraine from where it operates against Russia. Several high ranking Ukrainian intelligence actors, including the head of its military intelligence service General Budanov, have been trained by the CIA and are actively cooperating with it.
The CIA has a special unit dedicated to long term plans to harm Russia. As the Washington Post once described it:
The warren of cubicles was secured behind a metal door. The name on the hallway placard had changed often over the years, most recently designating the space as part of the Mission Center for Europe and Eurasia. But internally, the office was known by its unofficial title: “Russia House.”
The unit had for decades been the center of gravity at the CIA, an agency within the agency, locked in battle with the KGB for the duration of the Cold War. The department’s prestige had waned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and it was forced at one point to surrender space to counterterrorism officers.
But Russia House later reclaimed that real estate and began rebuilding, vaulting back to relevance as Moscow reasserted itself. Here, among a maze of desks, dozens of reports officers fielded encrypted cables from abroad, and “targeters” meticulously scoured data on Russian officials, agencies, businesses and communications networks the CIA might exploit for intelligence.
‘Russia House’ was deeply involved in creating the hoax about Russian interference in U.S. elections. Former nuclear weapon inspector Scott Ritter as well as others have asserted that political control over ‘Russia House’ is less stringent than desirable.
Another data point for the CIA’s involvement was a piece by David Ignatius, its spokesperson at the Washington Post which openly threatened further attacks on Russia’s strategic nuclear assets:
Ukraine’s dirty war is just getting started (archived) – David Ignatius / Washington Post
Ukraine has considered a naval version of the sneak-attack tactic it used so effectively on Sunday. The sources said the [Ukrainian intelligence service] SBU weighed sending sea drones hidden in cargo containers to attack ships of Russia and its allies in the North Pacific. But, so far, they apparently have yet to launch these operations.
‘Russia House’ continues to be busy. Still, even ‘Russia House’ needs a legal bases to act which usually comes in the form of presidential findings.
The conclusion from this is that the CIA, with the knowledge of the White House, has planned and directed the Ukrainian attack on Russia’s strategic air fields.
The different qualities of the two attacks on June 1/2 require different responses. One response, throughout the last days, has come by strong Russian missile and drone attacks against military and military-industrial targets throughout Ukraine.
The Washington Post erred when it headlined:
Ukrainian cities pounded by Russia in retaliation for Sunday drone strike (archived) – Washington Post
The assault appears to be retaliation for Ukraine’s extensive attack on Russia’s bomber fleet on Sunday, targeting air bases across Russia and damaging many nuclear-capable aircraft.
The Russian attacks, by each some 500 missiles and drones over several nights, have obviously been in the plans for some time. They are not very special. Russian sources have explicitly said that these attacks were in response to Ukraine’ terrorist attack:
Russian military retaliated against Kiev’s ‘terrorism’ – MOD – RT
The barrage, which included air-, sea-, and land-based missiles as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), was a response to recent “terrorist acts” carried out by Kiev, Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Friday.
Ukraine blew up railway bridges in Russia last week, derailing civilian and freight trains and killing at least seven and injuring over 120.
What we have so far seen as Russia’s response to the attacks was only related to the terror attack which harmed civilians.
The retaliation for the attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear assets has yet to come.
The U.S. knows this:
US Believes Russia Response To Ukraine Attack Not Over Yet: Officials – Reuters
The United States believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threatened retaliation against Ukraine over its drone attack last weekend has not happened yet in earnest and is likely to be a significant, multi-pronged strike, US officials told Reuters.
…
The first official said Moscow’s attack would be “asymmetrical,” meaning that its approach and targeting would not mirror Ukraine’s strike last weekend against Russian warplanes.
Russia launched an intense missile and drone barrage at the Ukrainian capital Kyiv on Friday and Russia’s Defense Ministry said the strike on military and military-related targets was in response to what it called Ukrainian “terrorist acts” against Russia. But the US officials believe the complete Russian response is yet to come.
…
Putin told President Donald Trump in a telephone conversation on Wednesday that Moscow would have to respond to attack, Trump said in a social media post.
Trump later told reporters that “it’s probably not going to be pretty.”
Trump claims that the U.S. had not known of the attack on Russia’s strategic bombers. It is possible that Trump did not know about it. He may not have been informed to enable him to give a plausible denial. He may also simply lie about it. There is no doubt though in my mind that the U.S. was involved in it.
There is speculation that Russia will respond by attacking government buildings, especially those of the special services, in Kiev.
I doubt that this is a sufficient response for the attack on strategic nuclear assets. The Ukrainians would take a beating by such a strike but the U.S., which is undoubtedly behind the attack, would be left unharmed.
There would be nothing to deter the U.S., or others, to further chip away at Russia’s nuclear retaliation capability by, for example, attacking – as Ignatius already announces – the bases of Russia’s nuclear submarine fleets.
No. Any response for the attack on Russia’s nuclear forces must include a very strong warning to the U.S. to not further walk down that path.
I do not know if the U.S. military still has some B-52 bombers on Diego Garcia. Destroying those would be adequate. Other potential targets are U.S. submarines and their bases. An attack on U.S. personnel that was involved in planing the attack would also be appropriate.
But all such operation could potentially lead to escalation. Especially while a hawkish Senate and blob is pushing against Trump’s attempt to reestablish good relation with Russia.
Russia will need something different:
Let’s be honest: repeating slogans like “our response will be success on the battlefield” won’t cut it here. Ukraine’s leadership isn’t acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia’s response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative.
This doesn’t mean rash escalation, but we can’t rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a ‘demonstration’? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive.
So what’s left?
Innovation.
Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit.
You are invited to brainstorm in the comments what kind of operation might those criteria.
One asymmetrical response I can think of would be an attack on British, not U.S. owned, strategic assets. Any hit on Britain would be well deserved anyway. A strike against British nuclear assets would be strong enough to be understood by the U.S. as a severe warning while it would be unlikely to lead to escalation. The Brits are unable to escalate on their own and the U.S. will be unwilling to go there.
The planning for any asymmetrical operation will take a while. It therefore do not expect the Russian response for the attack on its nuclear assets to occur with the next days.
Later this week there will be another meeting of Russia’s security council. The revenge for the strike on Russia’s strategic assets will certainly be part of its agenda.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
