Yves here. Helmer’s latest post gives a new chapter in the unhappiness of the Russian general staff and influential military bloggers with Putin’s measured pace in prosecuting the war in Ukraine.
Perhaps I am begin parochial, but I find the objections to be odd. Admittedly, the Communists and many of the very active military commentators are extremely hawkish, and get super upset about any Russian failing or even missed opportunity to be aggressive. That extends as far as, for instance, getting in an uproar in 2022 when Zelensky visited Kherson at the failure to assassinate him. While criticism of mistakes and setbacks can be salutary when that leads to post-mortems and corrective action, this cohort seems as a whole to see the war through the lens of a belief that maximalist aggressive action now would produce the best outcomes. But that course of action would lead to higher death counts, including among Russian civilians. More forceful offense now, before Ukraine’s and NATO’s forces are exhausted, risks more strikes, including in largely civilian areas. If the current upset is about deaths to civilians in Crimea, why provoke even more of the same?
Now it may be possible for Russia to make a highly concentrated series of strikes on Western surveillance assets in the Black Sea area, doing enough damage to deliver a decisive setback. But Helmer’s sources don’t seem to articulate much of a strategy for a counter-strike in the area, beyond the desire to show that Russia can and will retaliate.
Russia is winning the war and none of these attacks are significant enough to change that trajectory. If there is a change in their impact, or a marked falloff in support for the war in the Russian public, that would merit a change in posture. But Russia has been very disciplined in not letting provocations, no matter how upsetting they might be in the near term, from getting them to change their course of action, beyond accelerating what Russia had underway (destruction of the Ukraine electrical grid) or making specific changes meant to address specific problems (moving troops into Kharkiv oblast to create a buffer zone and reduce strikes into Russia as well as threatening escalation in entirely different theaters in response to the US and NATO playing direct role in attacks on pre-2014 Russia).
Now the milbloggers may believe, and may even be correct, that hitting US and NATO air assets operating over the Black Sea is an appropriately calibrated and effective response. But I don’t see them unpack why. It seems to be assumed as opposed to substantiated.
And in the meantime, Russia designating the operation as terrorism, which the hawks seem to view as cowardly, gives Russia leeway in terms of what to do next. After all, they can even claim that based on further investigation, it was an act of war. Helmer does explain the importance to the Kremlin to keeping the conflict within the Special Military Operation framework…which still gives Russia a lot of room for maneuver. Remember, having Russia be able to depict itself as responding to Western escalation is also a better path in terms of keeping the backing of important allies like China (and less officially, Turkiye and India) even as the US/NATO allies keep increasing sanctions on them.
The Dagestan attacks, even though smelling to high heaven of US or UK instigation or at least big-time help, much like the Crocus music theater attack, is still on its surface a terrorist operation. But even though Western officials have repeatedly denied any direct role in the Chechen war, successful Chechen separatism would have started to splinter Russia, with other Muslim regions like Dagestan next on the list. And even now, belligerent US officials talk up the need to break up Russia. Note that the staunch US allies, the Saudis, backed the Chechens. The State Department in 2002 said it was “engaged on Chechnya” through humanitarian and diplomatic efforts”. Why pray tell was the US meddling in a foreign civil war? In other words, even if Putin’s position on the Chechen wars may be depicted as paranoid, as the saying goes, “Just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you.”
So Russia needs to at least look like it has made a serious investigation before it treats it otherwise, not just for political reasons but also so as to target the proper perps.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears
The Ukrainian missile attacks on Sevastopol on Sunday afternoon – five US ATACMS missiles with cluster-bomb warheads – have drawn the most explicit reaction yet from Russia’s independent military bloggers, followed in four hours by an official communiqué from the Defense Ministry. The Kremlin communiqué which followed the Defense Ministry an hour later as Sunday evening came on, was not the same.
A salvo of five ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles was intercepted over the Uchkuevka beach at Sevastopol just after midday. In celebration of the 30-degree sunshine and the Orthodox Trinity holiday, there were a large number of people in the water and on the sand. The missiles were intercepted in the air, but shrapnel from the detonating warheads struck the beach. At latest count, four people were killed, two of them children; 151 people, including 27 children, were wounded; 82 were hospitalized, 13 of them in serious condition.
Boris Rozhin, editor in chief of the Colonel Cassad military blog, was in Sevastopol and he reported from one of the hospitals to which the casualties were taken. His reports started at 12:23 local time and continued for almost twelve hours.
Rozhin is one of the independent Russian war correspondents calling on the Kremlin to remove the limit which has been placed on attacking the US Air Force (USAF) drones and other NATO aircraft which operate over the Black Sea, in international waters off the Crimean shore, to provide flight course, evasion of Russian air defence units, and target coordinates to the American and Ukrainian ground crews operating the ATACMS batteries and executing the fire orders.
Russian reports indicate the launch point for the Sevastopol beach attack was Nikolaev on the Ukrainian mainland. If so, the range of the missiles was at least 300 kilometres – longer than the US has publicly admitted. This also means that to be effective in defence against the repetition of such attacks against civilians, the proposed Russian demilitarized zone for the Ukraine, or “sanitary zone” as Putin has called it, must stretch from Nikolaev westward to Kiev.
Rozhin has blamed the US explicitly in language repeated by other military bloggers. They mean to say, as they have been repeating in recent weeks, that the USAF drones used in the Sevastopol attacks should be destroyed.
Just after 1600 Moscow time on Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry issued its bulletin. The text, auto- translated into English, reads:
Note that that the Ministry, and the General Staff behind it, target the US as directly engaged in the operation of the missile attack. However, they start by calling the attack a “terrorist” strike, not an act of war. The wording of the statement also avoids identifying the USAF drones and other airborne electronic warfare systems offshore from Crimea. Instead, it refers to “satellite intelligence”.
These are ideological references, not military ones. The distinction between Ukrainian acts of terrorism and war is Kremlin policy. By terming such attacks, including the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow in March, terrorism but not war, the policy follows that the Special Military Operation is not in fact a war, and that Russian war tactics and strategy should be limited to retaliation, not to the defeat and demilitarization of the US and NATO on the Ukrainian battlefield.
At 1715 the Kremlin followed with a communiqué headlined: “The President reached out to the Government’s social bloc and the military following the attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Sevastopol.” The two-paragraph statement said: “Vladimir Putin has been in touch with senior officials from the Government’s social ministries and agencies and healthcare institutions on an ongoing basis considering the urgency of providing care to the attack victims. The President has also been interacting with the military. The Ukrainian Armed Forces targeted Sevastopol with an intentional missile strike in the afternoon of June 23, using five ATACMS US-made tactical missiles. The attack left at least 124 people wounded or injured, to a varying degree of severity, including 27 children.”
The president’s statement was issued from the Kremlin in Moscow. Putin, who had returned from his visit to North Korea and Vietnam on June 20, has remained in the Moscow area.
As he prepared to leave Vietnam on June 20, Putin was asked by a Kremlin pool reporter from Kommersant what he has meant by his threats to attack the US and NATO sources of the Ukrainian missile and drone attacks on Russian targets in Crimea, the Donbass, and the hinterland regions. “Andrei Kolesnikov: Kommersant newspaper, Andrei Kolesnikov. Can the use of Western long-range weapons be viewed as an act of aggression? Overall, can the shelling of Belgorod and Russian territory in general be viewed as an act of aggression? Vladimir Putin: This matter requires further investigation, but it is close. We are looking into it. What are we dealing with in this case? Those who supply these weapons believe that they are not at war with us. As I have already said, including in Pyongyang, we reserve the right to supply our weapons to other regions of the world. I would not rule out this possibility in terms of our agreements with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We can also adopt the same position on the question of where these weapons end up. Take the West, for example. They supply weapons to Ukraine, saying: We are not in control here, so the way Ukraine uses them is none of our business. Why cannot we adopt the same position and say that we supply something to somebody but have no control over what happens afterwards? Let them think about it. Therefore, at this stage, our primary objective is to defend against these strikes.”
On June 22, Putin laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow (lead image). He then made a speech at the Kremlin to new graduates of the military and security service academies. Putin promised them more weapons and new technologies. “Let me emphasise that the effectiveness of the entire work to strengthen Russia’s defence capabilities directly depends on the officers – you and your colleagues. Soon you will lead military units and, I believe, make every effort to master advanced weapons and equipment, to perfectly train personnel, and you will also be a paragon of professionalism, discipline, decency, and personal courage for your fellow soldiers.”
The military distinction between the Sevastopol attack and those which followed in Makhachkala and Derbent, Dagestan, later in the day, when a synagogue, church, and police were attacked by a group of six Dagestani men has been obscured in the Russian reporting. All the attackers have been killed; eight Russian security forces and two civilians, one of them an Orthodox priest, have also died, and another 16 wounded.
Left: dead gunman in the street in Derbent, Dagestan, reported by Rozhin. Right, “Terrorist Attacks in the Caucasus”, summary report by Mikhail Zvinchuk of Rybar.
At the same time as the Dagestan events took place, Rozhin and other milbloggers were reporting a new Ukrainian air raid over Crimea. “The enemy shelled western Crimea. Air defence positions in the area of Yevpatoria were hit. The RQ-4 Global Hawk worked at sea as it usually does, in total safety. The chatter about the fact that they will be seriously interfered with remains just chatter at the moment” — posted at 23:22. https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin/
Mikhail Zvinchuk, who directs the Rybar military blog, reported just before midnight on Sunday: “The night before, according to some reports, up to 15 drones were observed in the western part of Crimea, some of which were shot down. Again, during the attack, an American RQ-4B drone was in the air, which again raises the question of the expediency of destroying Western aviation, which directs the AFU [Ukrainian Armed Forces] to Russian territories and residents.”
Dmitry Medvedev, the former president and now Deputy Secretary of the Security Council, was almost as clear. He issued this Telegram statement at 20:22 on Sunday evening: “Bastards from the United States supply rockets with a cluster charge to Bandera and help bring them to the target. Bastards in Kiev choose a beach with peaceful people as a target and press the button. Both will burn in hell. Hopefully, not only in the sacred fire, but even earlier, in the one on earth. All that happened was not military action, but a vile and heinous terrorist attack against our people, committed on an Orthodox holiday. As well as the massacre in Dagestan which was staged by extremists. Therefore, now all of them – the American authorities, the Bandera regime and the insane fanatics – are no different for us.”
“Now it may be possible for Russia to make a highly concentrated series of strikes on Western surveillance assets in the Black Sea area, doing enough damage to deliver a decisive setback. But Helmer’s sources don’t seem to articulate much of a strategy for a counter-strike in the area, beyond the desire to show that Russia can and will retaliate.”
Dima (rough translation):
“Before the attack in Crimea the NATO US Blackhawk was flying in front of Crimea collecting additional information and navigating the Ukraine US Atacm missiles (that hit Crimean targets)…”
I suspect there are many non General Staff Russians – the average Vladimir on the street so to speak – who wonder why Russia has not moved to protect both it’s civilians and military from NATO and US openly using the Black Sea to provide targets as well as execute military/terrorists acts against Russia.
The military alliance with North Korea is an opening of the door of a response. It hints that one day, Russia could provide, maintain, staff, and target long range missiles in North Korea that can comfortably land on US homeland (with Chinese permission which is not certain) and say that North Korea launched the attack, not Russia. I suspect before that happens if ever, elements in South Korea and Japan will try to intervene to head that level of militarization of their back yard off…if there is anything remaining of a democratic process in South Korea and Japan. But, I do not think Russia intends North Korea as a proxy nor would North Korea allow that, but only as an ally amongst others she is re-connecting with, and North Korea also just happens to send a loud message to South Korea’s decision to arm Ukraine.
For what it’s worth, Russian weekly Arguments and Facts, owned by the city of Moscow, says directly in the title of it’s article that Biden was the customer (as in ordered/requested) of the missile strike and then ponders why US demands blood of the Russian children.
Also, Peskov has stated that Russia understand quite well that Ukraine is not the one targeting these missiles and the Russian ambassador to USA, Anatoly Antonov, has said that “Americans […] will not escape responsibility for the blood and tears of innocent people”.
“Russian ambassador to USA, Anatoly Antonov, has said that “Americans […] will not escape responsibility for the blood and tears of innocent people”……Words. Show me the money.
“Words. Show me the money.”
Let’s call it “Operation Slow and Serious.” Someone in Mexico starts supplying American “separatist” groups with sophisticated weaponry. Imagine a “real” Proud Boys ‘cell’ with Manpads. Make that American Manpads “captured” in the recent unpleasantness in the Ukraine.
It’s that simple.
Think what the Mexican cartels could do with some naval drones. The possibilities are quite endless, both for delivery and threatening US Coast Guard operations.
Given how the Proud Boys are willing to work with groups like the Rise Above Movement, and how RAM works with Azov and the Russian Volunteer Corps, I don’t think that is an option.
Perhaps groups like the Uhuru Movement, the Lakotah Nation, and other minority groups would be a better option.
The west hopes Russia will start reacting tactically.
Instead, Russia will keep steering to its strategic goals regardless of the west’s wishes.
The west will keep escalating, but is incompetent, clumsy, and predictable. They’re giving away the world. Russia keeps showing they’re a worthy leader of the new world, and it can be theirs. If they start being jerks too, then they’ll just be the other side of the same western coin.
It feels like you’d prefer for Russia to act more like the US/NATO.
If so, you know that has only one outcome, right?
It seems like you think Russia defending her people from US-NATO aggression is Russia = US-NATO, or Russia defending herself = starting Nuclear War. IMO, the reverse is true: Russia failing to defend her people likely has only one outcome. You know that has only one outcome, right? The best way to avoid Nuclear war is for Russia to responded to US with in kind attacks and that includes direct Russian attacks on US Homeland if needed.
I’m seeing reports Russia may declare a no fly zone over the Black Sea….now that is showing me and the average Joe Sergey Smith in Russia the $$$$.
Unless somebody is going to impose this responsibility by force, the Americans will continue to murder children until the oceans boil.
Hell, the US is starving children in Gaza and Ms. Albright was cavalier about 500,000 children dying in Iraq. We Do Slaughter. Under the guise of Democracy.
sounds like Hezbollah are about to get some cool new toys
Or the Houthis. They are already fighting with the US Navy.
The Houthis seem to be doing quite well without Russia’s help. They’ve taken out at least 6 US Reaper drones, and 3 ships now rest with Davey Jones. They even have their own music video out, and it’s hilarious:
Look out, Taylor Swift!
In Russian Telegram some have floated the idea that Russia donates the Snake Island to Houthi with the results that US drones would not be safe above the Black Sea anymore…
Ansar Allah is watching too much Bollywood! The video is very funny, tho.
My thought too. Hit an aircraft carier, and send many of the 2500 complement to Davy Jones’ locker, plus its not as if the US has many functional aircraft carriers, or could make another in less than a decade.
Nobody who matters cares about those sailors or the carrier.
The best move would be an FPV drone attack on Larry Fink’s limousine while they drive him towards Hudson Yards.
A few Zircons at 50 Hudson Yards resulting in a spectacular collapse maybe even better for optics, but it will kill a lot of innocent janitors and other workers making minimum wage. Not fair towards them.
So do very targetted strikes at the elite. Make them afraid for their lives. That is the only thing that will enforce deterrence.
But the cucks in the Kremlin have not even done that against the Ukrainian elites. Because they are too afraid they will be hit back. Well, if you are too afraid to fight, then you will lose by default.
The Iranians did lose their president and FM. But they struck Israel and there was no military response from Israel. So their president wasn’t afraid to pay the price and it mostly worked in terms of achieving grander objectives. Russian elites are afraid and as a result the country’s position is rapidly degrading.
It seems that the tragedy in Crimea was a fallout from the missile being shot down before it could reach its military target. So, the attack by Biden was a failure from a military standpoint.
The question is whether shooting down a few Reaper drones will accomplish anything in preventing future strikes such as these. If all they produce is a media victory, then it may not be worth the trouble, although continuing to let them fly unchallenged is a puzzle to me. I suspect a larger response would be needed to make a difference, and one that the Pentagon won’t like.
No, they were very deliberately targeting the city with the goal of causing mass casualties.
This is why it was done on a Sunday in broad daylight. There was no military target.
When they strike military targets, they do it mostly at night.
I was half expecting a “big arrow” RFAF move to collapse the UAF starting June 22. That day is famously the anniversary of the beginning of the Nazi invasion of USSR in 1941 and has been and probably will remain for a long time a day of national remembrance for the peoples of the post-USSR nations. Less well-remembered is that it’s also the anniversary, this year the 80th, of the beginning of “Operation Bagration”, which over a period of 2 months collapsed/destroyed Army Group Center and brought the Red Army to the gates of Warsaw.
I imagine that Ukrainian military planners are deeply aware of this history and must understand its implications for them.
Perhaps provocations like Sunday’s will accelerate RF preparations for the final phase of the conflict.
Russia is not letting its military operations be driven by artificial dates. And it is not doing big arrows. That is old WWII combined arms operations. With tons of surveillance, any massing of forces would be seen well in advance and attacked before it could get going (and/or have defenses readied to meet it)
Russia is instead pressing Ukraine hard at multiple points on the extended line of contact, forcing Ukraine to shuffle dwindling manpower and resources to try to plug or prevent holes.
Agreed at all points. I will note that as the UAF is further and further depleted, it may become possible to advance rapidly and deeply over a broad front without having to concentrate forces to the degree of historical precedents of USSR deep operations, for the reason that the UAF defenses are so thin that dispersed RFAF forces, supported by RFAF’s overwhelming superiority in fires and air support, can defeat what remains of UAF ground forces.
Alexander Mercouris has opined that attritional conflicts grind on and on with only slow changes on the ground until there is a sudden collapse.
We have not reached the “UAF collapse” stage yet, but perhaps it is beginning to come into view.
Correct.
Which is why the ATACMS strikes on Russian territory started on June 22. There were strikes on Rostov on Saturday. The Z-zombies as usual ignored them as no big deal.
There was also a HIMARS attack on the Kurchatov NPP. Again, no big deal, what is a HIMARS strike on a NPP between dear partners?
NATO has been very big on dates, and they often trace back to their Nazi roots. Remember when the aid package was passed by Congress? On Hitler’s birthday. That sort of thing.
Are you the same guy concern trolling on Simplicius’ substack? Your posts on this page surely look like copy-paste of what I’ve seen there under same username. The only thing missing is “grr” to counter you. I must say you are very efficient at your trade, because you have crapped out half a dozen of posts here in mere fifteen minutes.
ATACMS cluster payload does not dispense when intercepted. The CBU’s need a set process, conditions of altitude, and orderly movement out of the missile body. They are dispensed over the GPS set target.
The beach was the target!
One more US terror operation done in sight of the entire world.
US is the evil empire?
It is hard to decipher what is going on. A Russian MOD statement talked about the cluster munition exploding in air, but this article seems clear about shrapnel from an intercepted missile. Is it better to claim it was intercepted, or to say it was intentional? If it wasn’t intercepted, was it off target due to EW/GPS countermeasures?
Cluster bomb unit (CBU) delivers a cargo of bomblets. Think of a 30 mm grenade similar to those fired by an infantry weapon. The bomblet exits the shell or missile at a set altitude above the target area, these are area munitions.
The bomblets are fused often with a ribbon spinning in the airflow as the bomblets falls. The altitude of dispensing is important, the bomblets are best exploded about 30 meters above ground. GPS gets the munition to dispense point, the rest is fairly low tech.
Bomblet cargo is not dispensed effectively from an intercept.
“Is it better to claim it was intercepted, or to say it was intentional?”
It is better to tell the truth. An underlying reason for our (USA) troubles is that we don’t do that anymore. The Russians are well advised not to follow us down that path.
@ilsm
Do we have resources (maps?) that show where what missile with which target / casualties have hit in RU v. UKR 2022-2024? So that we “could” make substantial differentiation between both armies´ conduct..
I suspect RU uses cluster munitions, but where they have tactical effect, I.e. on trench lines, vehicle columns etc, military targets.
The lack of propaganda about RU war crimes and civilian casualties indicates their resources go to military use.
Correct.
Also, the trajectory was such that it was extremely unlikely these were targeting any military object and got deflected.
As was the timing. They do the military object strikes at night. This was in broad daylight. On a Sunday. On the weekend of the official opening of the tourist season. On, or almost on the anniversary of launching Barbarossa…
The keypoint contained in all of the words spoken in the above is contained in the Russian Ministry of Defense bulletin: “Such actions will not remain unanswered.” We in the West have been escalating our effort with the belief that Russia will not respond to the West’s actions. We have invited whatever comes next whatever that may be. While such response has yet to occur, we should not assume that it will not occur. We in the West can no longer conduct war. We conduct terrorism. We better hope that our terrorism is not responded with their terrorism.
The US base in Syria is the perfect ‘terrorist’ response. Have some anonymous sandal-clad operatives deposit some Russian-made, high-tec missiles and see if the US base departs the area like the Ike Carrier
group in the Red Sea.
I’m wondering why they don’t just bring one reaper drone down and see what happens. If memory serves, there was an incident where Russian fighters flew in front of a drone and jettisoned fuel to bring it down. Media was in a tizzy when footage was released. Just do that and see. What’s all the pussyfooting around for?
“Respond aggressively and see what happens” seems to be the posture of the US policy-makers. RF leadership is, up ’til now, more disciplined than that.
It seems to me likely that, given VVP’s style (careful to work within legal frameworks, using the other side’s actions as precedent, etc,), the response will be via proxies or allies (which mirrors US action through its Ukrainian proxy, and also provides a degree of public deniability). An example might be the provision of air defense and area denial weaponry and technologies to US adversaries over whom US currently has significant air superiority. Iran is an obvious example. Strengthening Iran’s air defenses might also contribute to limiting the escalation potential of the IDF/Hezbollah conflict, since it would further deter US involvement in a regional war.
“Peace through strength” cuts multiple ways.
From this account, presumably the target of the ATACMS missiles was the Naval Base at Sebastopol, and four of them were intercepted over or near the beach. Fragments of the missiles, or fragments of the defensive missiles the Russians launched landed on the beach and caused the casualties. Much the same thing has happened with Russian attacks on Ukraine. I don’t know on what basis the Russians are claiming that the warheads were cluster rather than unitary warheads, but if submunitions exploded or were scattered over the beach, then the casualty toll and the risk to life would have been massively higher, and the beach would be cordoned off and the whole area under strict security. It’s very unclear what happened to the fifth missile in this case. However, the Daily Mail has video and photographs taken during the incident, and has the Russians apparently claiming that four of the missiles were safely intercepted and destroyed, but a fifth was knocked off course and exploded over the beach. This would be consistent with photographs of missile fragments falling in the sea, and damage to the windows of parked cars.
Medvedyev’s response, and those of some of the Russian bloggers are typical of a certain type of reaction in any political system. It’s likely that NATO/Ukraine continues to attack Crimea, which is not an important target, because they can, and because it looks good, rather than because it has any importance. The whole idea is to distract the Russians from the pursuit of the actual war, and into pointless reprisals. So far Moscow seems to be resisting these pressures.
I also think that the US/Nato would love to trigger article 5 in order to have a hot war with Russia. That’s the only way they can recoup their sunk costs. They can’t justify going into an all-out war with Russia over Ukraine, so they want to trigger a Russian reaction attacking NATO infrastructure directly ti give them the casus belli.
Didn’t Lloyd ‘it’s just cancer’ Austin just say ‘none of us would want to live in a world where Vladimir Putin wins”?
According to the eye-witnesses in Russian media there was a small explosion in the sky above the beach, and a few seconds later multiple small explosions in the water and on the sand. Don’t know if the beach and parking lot have been cordoned off, but according to the news there are investigating teams on the beach. And Russian MOD is saying cluster munition was used.
Also US ambassador was summoned to Russian foreign ministry where she was presented a demarche: “It was stressed that the United States was conducting a hybrid war against Russia and supplying the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the most advanced weapons, including ATACMS missiles with cluster warheads used against Sevastopol residents, which actually made the US a party to the conflict. […] Retaliatory measures are certain to follow.”
Both Russian foreign and defense ministries have published statements blaming US directly for the attack. President’s spokeperson Peskov was less direct, saying it’s clear it wasn’t Ukrainians who targeted the missile.
Not just Medvedyev and bloggers, Lavrov also.
Attack on a religious holiday, coincident with terrorist attacks on an Orthodox church and a synagogue in the Caspian Sea area.
Cluster munitions are not fired at hardened military targets/bases. Cluster munitions are intended for soft targets- troops concentrated out in the open on the battlefield. The only type of military base that would be targeted, per doctrine, by cluster munitions is an airbase where aircraft are not parked in hardened revetments. Aircraft out in the open are effectively soft targets that can be damaged by this type of munition. Ships at a naval base are unlikely to take any real damage from this type of munition. Firing them at a naval base makes no real sense.
I can only conclude that the beach was the target.
I think that old Joe really did it this time. Or perhaps it was one of the other White House geniuses like Jake Sullivan or Antony Blinken. Moscow hauled in the US Ambassador for what I would imagine to be intense discussions and when the Pentagon was asked about this attack, said ‘we have seen the reports and have nothing to say.’ The Russians know exactly who was responsible for this attack and who made it possible. After all, Washington long ago said that the Ukrainians were free to hit Crimea. My spidey-senses started to tingle when I read that the missile that hit the beach varied its course. So was it a case that the other missiles were decoys while the real one changed course to hit that beach? Larry Johnstone in his latest post is right. That the US crossed a big red line. If it was a military target, well those are the risks when you put on a uniform. But to hit a beach full of civilians really did it this time. And the White House won’t be able to deflect this by saying that it was ISIS-K or strictly speaking the Ukrainians. Payback is going to be a b****.
It is meaningless to consider how NATO reacts.
Except it is big enough to justify NATO escalation.
And there RU – I assume – already knows NATO´s “red lines”.
The question of act of war:
Why is the AFU attack an act of war, if RU is attacking with missiles already?
There is probably no way to prove that RU never did anything comparable in UKR.
There is not a single day when German papers do not complain about RU missile attacks killing people. Nobody cares if those are the missiles, or just debris or the UKR anti-missiles crashing down.
Nobody cares if the targets were military but killed non-military one way or the other – i.e. collateral damage.
Where is the legal line here?
If Art. 51 allows for other nations support UKR with weapons?
To argue that it´s dangerous because RU is a nuclear power is a moral argument not a legal one, or is it?
p.s. Art. 51 apparently is inadequate to protect from instrumentalizing small countries for a proxy war and leaves the concept behind it all meaningless. Sry but that´s a serious flaw. Since when was there ever a single “just war”? Along the line of sportsmanship. That´s idiotic. Art. 51 is an idea for children´s books. Inadequate for intern. law contending with huge powers fucking each other over.
Aurelien wrote a long post with lots of specifics as to why NATO would not be able to get its act together. Some snippets:
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/natos-phantom-armies
Yves, thank you very much. I will look into the entire piece tonight. Since I see it´s too long and complex to interrupt my work now and possibly make a decent comment here (before new posts on NC come up.)
p.s. Just looking into German papers today.
They describe the attack as “Russians DIED after pieces of UKR rocket crashed onto a beach”.
The lies never stop. And sometimes it´s really exhausting.
And then they push against Hungary and some are floating the childish idea of Hungary leaving the EU.
They are not.letting.loose.a.bit.
I am an optimist but Lavrov is probably right with his “not in this generation.”
I myself do not understand why Russia does not destroy unmanned US/NATO aircraft over the Black Sea that can be plausibly connected to Ukrainian attacks on Crimea. Here is why:
1. Russia has already downed one US drone via aircraft maneuver and U.S. did not respond.
2. Iran has also downed one or two U.S. drones flying close to Iranian airspace with no kinetic response from the U.S.
3. Taking out a drone does not cause any U.S. casualties and so makes it easier for U.S. politicians and military to back down.
4. Taking out drones would *demonstrate* that targeting over the Black Sea is a Russia red line and so be way more effective as a deterrent than Russia’s current policy of simply *stating* that targeting X and Y with help of country Q or U is a red line. These statements have had little effect. Ukraine is already targeting installations in Belgorod with US weapons. That is in Russia territory proper. US/NATO will over time simply extend the allowed range of such weaponry as Russia has given them no reason not to.
I think one can argue that from the perspective of RF leadership, the conflict in Ukraine is only one aspect of a much larger contest, between the hegemonic West and the emerging “multi-polar order”. RF restraint in response to the hegemon’s provocations is useful for RF foreign policy — ‘look who the actual aggressor is here”. To the extent that this restraint encourages further provocations by the hegemon (and it probably does), that may still, up to a point, be useful to RF diplomacy.
I don’t understand the legalities, but it has been suggested (in a comment in today’s links) that RF would be violating international law to destroy “neutral” aircraft operating in international airspace. Again, IANAL, but I think that such action would be legal if there were a state of war between the ISR assets’ operator(s) and RF — which kind of implies that such action would be a RF acknowledgement of a de facto state of war between RF and a NATO member country. RF has been avoiding characterizing the conflict with Ukraine as a “war”, for various reasons that are compelling to RF policy-makers, and characterizing the conflict with the West as “war” surely is even less desirable from their perpective.
They’re winning, slowly, as it is. It ain’t broke; they may reckon that it doesn’t need “fixing.”
While Russia is not afraid of a clash with NATO it is not ready yet. There was an appreciation on Colonel Cassad early on that showed that Soviet planners ( who are looking pretty good now ) always carried a 10-15 million tonne munitions stockpile for a NATO war.. This had been allowed to drop to 2-3 million tonnes by 2022. Probably haven’t been able to build this right back up yet.
Russia’s new weapons while all true are slow getting deployed, the first 6 Sarmat silo’s are still not finished and probably won’t be until their S 550 defence is completed. Their air force is mainly tactical and their logistics is still set for homeland defence with a railhead for ammunition important for any advance. However new versions like Zirkon 2 are always in the pipeline.
Borisov ( the man who made Russia’s missile force what it is today ) was sent to Roscosmos to negate the last western advantage , that of space based ISR, and I am sure they would like to see what he can do there while continuing to build up and train their land army for future operations.
It would be nice if Russia took down the drone like how Iran took down one US drone…by hijacking the signal. Take over control, guide the drone to a landing, and then go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Maybe return it in pieces like Belenko’s MiG. Give the data to Russia’s allies. Find out where in Ukraine the data was being sent to, and send a few Kimjahls there.
Alternatively, have a small drone fly at the inlet of the Global Hawk. Drone gets sucked in, breaks the engine with it, drone goes down.
Just wondering if maybe they already have, quietly. I doubt that Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin would be running to a reporter to complain about a takedown over the Black Sea. If it succeeded, it would be embarrassing. If it ended in self-destruct button games, the wreckage would disappear into the waves far from prying eyes.
Unlike Yemen, where we have pictures of ecstatic rebels dancing around the wreckage of semi-intact US drones in the desert, dead drones in the ocean tell no tales.
This has gone way beyond shooting the drones down.
At the moment the warranted response from the Russian side, given everything that has happened — mass murder of Russian civilians, including in officially Russian territory, by NATO weapons manned by NATO personnel, and multiple coordinated attacks on strategic systems — is strategic nuclear strikes on NATO in Europe. Poland and Romania at minimum, plus the Czechs for getting the ball rolling on deliberate mass murder while laughing about it publicly, but really, all of NATO in Europe should be wiped out.
Then the US will have the choice of replying with strategic strikes on Russia and ensuring its own destruction, or backing down.
The rational choice is to back down.
If they don’t back down, total nuclear war was inevitable anyway.
If Russia doesn’t do that, then Russia’s destruction is ensured. It will go down the Syria/Yugoslavia path.
P.S. All of this could have been prevented with targetted conventional strikes against the Western elites responsible for starting it, and enforcing deterrence that way. But Putin and Russian elites were too desperate to be a part of the cllub and wanted to make a deal. To which end they were ready to sacrifice millions of ordinary Russians. And here we are now…
Russia must NOT respond over the top: this what they want. The ATACMS were intercepted and the debris caused the damage. This has happened with missiles launched by Russia at Ukrainian targets and there have been casualties. It is almost always a mistake to hit back without a clear plan. Russia has impressed the world by the measured way it has conducted the campaign and has thus won a large number of allies. It mustn’t throw this away.
I can’t help but observe the election calendar, with the UK and French elections all looming in the next few weeks.
What better way to rally the citizens around Macron and the Tories than a jingoistic hit tune like “Russian devils bomb Romania!!”
They were targetting the city.
This is why it was done on the middle of the day on a Sunday, at the start of the tourist season.l
Specifically with the goal of causing mass casualties. Thus runing the tourist season in Crimea and hurting Putin’s reputation.
And it has worked quite well so far, because Putin hasn’t done anything in response, and won’t do anything in response once again. Even though Iskanders with special warheads should have been flying towards Poland and Romania by 6pm yesterday after it happened.
Compare the damage done by bombardments in Ukraine or the same in Russia. Western strategy (if we can call it so) limited to some terrorist attacks and a few bomb/missiles falling in Russia with no real effects on the course of war spells impotence. Of course damage is done and people killed. Yet this is impotence by the Western side. Erectile dysfunction in the West.
No Fly Zone over the Black Sea in areas of the Russian MOD’s choosing.
Getting “Russia’s independent military bloggers” and other opinionated “influencers” in Russia agitated against their government leaders is probably half the purpose of this type of attack. It’s aimed at causing dissension and triggering emotional reactions as a way of undermining the war effort. I’m sure the CIA or MI6 or whoever it is that plans these attacks on civilian areas is doing it just for that purpose, since there is no direct military impact of such atrocities. You can imagine the type of ranting, incoherent response among US politicians that you’d see if someone attacked US civilian population centers like this. In fact, Bin Laden foresaw that response from the US establishment, fatally weakening the country over the longer term, with the 9/11 attacks that he planned.
Civilizational wars are not won by ignoring the longer term consequences, however. Any short term reactions would have to be consistent with the longer term results that Russia wants. But it does seem like fewer actions remain off the table as Washington and London keep escalating. Supplying Syria and Hezbollah with the latest anti-aircraft systems has to be on the table now, as well as countering the Black Sea surveillance drones one way or another.
CIA+MI6 dream about some new Prigozhin marching onto Moscow.
Careful what you wish for. Prigozhin lost a number of men to US airstrikes in the Battle of Conoco Fields, and his catering company was charged by the DoJ with interference in the election. Him in power would have been far less restrained towards Kiev and the West than Putin.
Perhaps someone new taking over would not have the restraint of Putin.
Well, if the US wanted to demonstrate to Russia that it was at war with the Russian people, then using US arms to deposit cluster bombs by US proxies on the a crowded beach is one way to accomplish such a goal. If the aim was to to firm up and unify another country’s population in opposition to the US, chalk up another success..
In my estimation, Putin’s objectives are to secure Ukraine and to prepare for war with the ‘collective West’; and before engaging in the latter , he will calculate success and will “hold fire till the whites of the eyes can be seen.” Meanwhile, the US, led apparently by Blinken, Sullivan, & Netanyahu (as Biden has gone catatonic) continues to squander it’s prestige and influence in the world and the US continues to squander assets as it racks up failure after failure in every conflict in which it sees fit to engage (Ukraine, the Red Sea, Gaza, et al) in pursuit of some imaginary goal.
Russia may have just downed a US drone in retaliation.
Stephen Bryen (who is generally right about these things–he was a sr Pentagon official before retiring) has posted the same on his substack.
I dont see Russia winning this. Putin should have mobilize couple million of troops but he dint, if one day he decide to do it , it will be too late by then west will have their arms ready in Ukraine. He think west will surrender or Ukraine will. None of those will happen with this strategy. What he is doing is for ever war in Ukraine . Ukraine will continue hitting civilians and using isis k. Putin should have never invade if he wasn’t ready to take Ukraine. Their will come a limit for the Russian people
Russia’s at war with NATO and associates. The Ukraine is a battle.
It seems to me there are at least 2 red lines here, one belonging to Putin, and one belonging to the Russian people. If I am an ordinary Russian person and I was personally affected by the either one of the two attacks mentioned in the article, I wouldn’t even care if Russian is currently winning or not because the fact is I’ve lost people dear to me, and I might not have lost them if Putin had conducted the war in a more aggressive manner, or at least that’s one way of thinking. If enough people think like that though, there will come a time when it’s not just generals and pundits hurling criticisms towards Putin.
The US could afford to not win in Afghanistan for 10 plus years because the war never came home. This is a quite different situation.
If Putin has more cards to play like indirectly helping Jihadists conduct another 9/11 style attack on America, then I would suggest he start playing them. America is ripe for collapse, it just needs a nudge or two.
“The US could afford to not win in Afghanistan for 10 plus years because the war never came home. This is a quite different situation.”
There is an argument to be made that the fall out from such excursions does come home. The body count manifests itself in suicide, domestic violence murders, deaths from despair (esp. drug related), etc…
It also has to be noted that not a thing has changed with the my-way-or-the-highway USA foreign policy despite decades of alleged “terrorist” attacks. Incuding 9/11…
To be terrorized by terrorist attacks assumes a government that gives rats ass about the general population.
“Terrorist” attacks against the general pipulation will not change the tragectory of imperialist foreign policy.
The general population never lived with an existential fear of death and destruction though, like “if I go to the mall, or the beach, would a missile blow me to pieces?” that kind of fear.
I never said anything about the US government giving a crap about the general population. They don’t care, which is why the country itself is quite ripe for collapse. It just needs a couple of nudges in the right direction.