It definitely seems Estonia droned Russia's biggest airfield .
Estonia denies link to Russian airport drone strike
Our left wing media also says so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVAC5HlBuWM
NATO is really pushing the line as much as they can.
This winter is going to be an absolutely terrifying way to end 2023
This winter is going to be an absolutely terrifying way to end the world.
I caution being so pessimistic. I understand your reasoning, but Russia isn't stupid, and is really good at playing the long game.
Sleepwalk? Looks like the bastards know exactly what they're doing
I think it's a joke on how every time US gets into a war it's portrayed as sleepwalking into it as opposed to being a conscious choice.
I have some thoughts, some scepticism, some questions. First, some quotes from the article:
Ukraine has not claimed responsibility for the strikes.
…the Estonian government has firmly denied the claims.
…the closest distance between the Russian city and Ukraine is about 310 miles. This would have required the drone to fly through the airspace of Belarus. Avoiding Belarusian airspace could extend the journey to 700 miles or 435 miles, depending on the route.
However, Ukrainian drones are reportedly able to fly to distances up to and beyond this.
…reports suggested Ukrainian "Beaver" drones could have been behind attacks on Moscow, which are believed to have a range in excess of 620 miles.
In June, a spokesperson for Ukrainian state arms producer Ukroboronprom also posted on Facebook that it had successfully tested a drone with a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
Russia blamed Ukraine for other drone attacks overnight, which caused authorities to close the airspace over the Moscow and neighboring Tula oblasts.
I wouldn't be so sure that Estonia launched these attacks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ukraine (with US support) 'secretly' launched the drones from Estonia. Although it would apparently be possible to launch those drones from Ukraine.
It's in some Ukrainians' interest to find a way to get NATO more deeply involved before the hints that NATO is losing interest become more explicit, vocal, and practical. But I can't see how it would be in NATO's interest to let Estonia get involved like this because it would drag the whole of NATO into it. If NATO gets directly involved, the whole of NATO is fair game. Are we to believe that:
One possibility is that someone in Ukraine 'persuaded' someone in Estonia to make this happen or allow it to happen. Considering how corrupt all capitalists are, this is not unimaginable.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that whoever did this was behind blowing up Nordstream II.
Whether Estonia launches the drones itself or whether Ukraine and NATO launch drones from Estonia it makes no difference to Estonia's culpability since Estonia is responsible for whatever happens on their territory. We still have the same problem. Wherever attacks are launched from, Russia has every right to strike back at, and if they do that NATO's bluff will be called. The majority of its members will say they have no obligation to defend a country that provoked retaliation by attacking first. The Polish and the other Baltic chihuahuas will be the only ones who would be dumb enough to try something in the same kind of erroneous belief which Ukraine had, that big daddy USA would come to bail them out. But they missed the memo about what happened to all of the US's other so-called allies throughout history, from South Vietnam to their Afghan puppets and even the Kurds. Oh sure the US would send "aid" in the same way they have for Ukraine because that makes their military industrial complex money, but even that is now starting to hit a wall as their stockpiles are running dry and their production can't keep up even with just the Ukraine conflict, and can't be expanded any time soon either. And Western Europeans are all talk, none of them are prepared to actually go to war and especially not their comfortable, pampered populations.
Good points.
I believe there is some evidence for that idea.
The point is if the Ukrainians drones could travel so far in a swarm it could have been detected in belarus or in Russia and could have been shot down there. I mean how come a large number of drones attack could be carried out in Pskov without any major detection on its path.
-The US thinks Estonia could attack Russia and that Russia would only retaliate against Estonia? ...I mean why not ? Biden administration has sent F-16s which seemed crazy in 2022.
It's remarkably easy to forget that the logic of capital leads people to make some questionable decisions.
If (1) were true and Russia would only retaliate against Estonia that Estonia would be stupid enough to sacrifice itself for the rest of NATO? After watching what Russia has done to Ukraine? I know libs are oblibious, but…
To be fair, a lot of US and NATO military commanders are pissed that the Ukrainians are "afraid of casualties." So it wouldn't be a surprise if the yankees didn't genuinely believe the Estonians would be willing to die for NATO.
I wonder whether the yanks have decided it's too dangerous for them to fuck with China, so they're pivoting towards Europe, where Estonia is another potential sacrificial lamb.
@yogthos Whats your take on this ?
It's not out of realm of possibility, and it would be a serious provocation of that's the case. That said, this obviously doesn't change anything strategically, and I expect Russia will likely just ignore this. It's pretty clear that Russia has been dictating the pace of the war for a while now, and the fact that they haven't escalated yet indicates that they're content with the current state of things.
I imagine that Russia would prefer avoiding a direct conflict with NATO, and the war with the west is relegated to economic and geopolitical spheres instead. However, if Estonia is responsible for the strike that would indicate that at least some western countries are trying to provoke further escalation.
I agree with this take. Also Russia is not obligated to retaliate in the same way. They can respond asymmetrically by causing problems for Estonia in other ways and at a time of their choosing.
I think the people on the "pro-Russian" side who are always at the slightest provocation calling for some big escalation need to cool their jets, that kind of emotional response is just what the West wants.
They do these things because they aren't getting anywhere on the actual battlefield, in either the physical or the economic dimension. Psychological operations of little real consequence are all they have left.
Hey to tag people you need to make sure you choose their name from the dropdown menu when you start typing @x… so it looks like this in your editor @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/yogthos) which goes to @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml when you actually post the comment
Hesitation will be taken by the west as weakness and a sign to escalate further.
Then again I’m not certain much as the US is sacrificing Ukraine and it’s people and already sacrificed Germany’s economy that they wouldn’t like to grab and throw the more deranged fascist eastern members of NATO into a hot war with Russia. Which could get very bad. The Biden regime I think may not be accepting of a defeat at all and think they can get into a direct war with Russia slowly, destroy them and push them out of all of Ukraine.
Quite honestly with these maniacs I can’t be certain they want an excuse for a full nuclear strike on Russia but thinking they can catch them with their pants down and come out on top for round two with China.
So using a nuclear strike could be playing into their hands but I’m not sure what options Russia has.
A YouTube link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
why would you downvote the bot, it's harmless 😭
is there really any firm reason to believe this beyond the baltics being closer? i figured after they droned moscow they had the range. ukraine not 'admitting to it' seems expected because their drone campaign is mostly just terrorism, and it doesn't seem like they accomplished anything here. the drones getting through belarussian airspace is also unsurprising while they're not on war footing & ukrainian drones have made it similarly far through active russian air defenses
btw this substack covers this attack well: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-83023-ukraine-smokescreens
TL,DR: Ukraine did attack pskov field, and the reasons how it happened are:
That's how the attack happened, really this is more of a stunt to get russia mad and for some publicity. But really from a practical and technical standpoint, this attack was once again, a useless one. This will be forgotten about in a month or two.
russia's air defense is lacking.
I do have another thought. RT claimed in a story a week ago or so that Ukraine had no working airfields in pristine enough condition to allow them to take-off and recover F-16 fighter jets they were going to be given. The implication being they would have to take off and land from surrounding countries and that would be uh an escalation. If that is true and the facts on the ground don't change (Ukraine getting airfields pristine enough in the far west to service them and dealing with strikes to damage them) then a provocation like this could be a minor test of that type of thing.
If they really are doing this, and Russia really needs to prove it if so. There is a good argument for Russia making good on their threat and letting fly tactical nuclear weapons against these military installations that are participating. The rub of course being that could draw NATO into things directly and may be something they're hoping for to rally people. The flip side being, if they don't and let them walk all over them, cross that line, they'll keep crossing lines forever. The most positive outcome of using such weapons is it could shock the west into backing off. The worst of course is it brings NATO including the western nations and not just the nuclear crumple zone ones in the east, into the fray directly and/or leads to a retaliatory nuclear strike on a Russian installation and spiraling escalation from there.
This is a ludicrous suggestion, Russia has ruled out use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, even so-called "tactical" ones (and i could go on about how stupid this concept is that westerners seem so enamored with, because there is no such thing as "tactical" use of nuclear weapons no matter how low yield since they would lead to an escalation spiral that can only end in all out nuclear war, but anyway...), especially because they don't need to use nuclear weapons to wipe out NATO air bases. Their conventional missiles are more than enough for that and they made a point to demonstrate early on in the conflict what it looks like when they use their serious hypersonic weapons when they struck that NATO merc camp in western Ukraine. That was a big wake up call for the West and probably contributed to them deciding not to intervene directly. The West may yet change their minds about that as they get more and more desperate, but if they do then Russia will respond appropriately and in a proportional manner that does not lead to global nuclear war.
Tactical nuclear weapons are typically just lower yield devices for use on the battlefield. The utility of such a weapon against an airfield/base versus a full sized non-tactical warhead is obvious as it limits damage outside the strike area. It's brain-worms to shit on the term as it does have a meaning. It's more moral to use tactical lower-yield weapons in strikes on military installations because it minimizes civilian casualties in areas nearby.
Russia has not ruled out use of nuclear weapons. They have very clearly stated they will be forced to use nuclear weapons if their existence is threatened. A NATO member attacking them could rise to meet that criteria though I grant this is a very weak fitting of that.
It does however if true put NATO directly participating in carrying out attacks. Under US own doctrine they're long past culpable and even by the rules of war under international law a strike from within a country at another country (with the assent and agreement, participation of its military and government) does constitute an act of belligerence, aggression, and war and invites and allows for retaliation against that country in whole which is de-facto engaging in war on the victim country (Russia). Legally, their ass is covered I think at this point. That's what I'm saying.
One last thing. The Obama admin held a war-game that simulated a Russian tactical nuclear strike on a European NATO installation. Their response was to nuke Belarus, not Russia because they feared it invited retaliation. This was before the Belarus/Russia union state and stationing of nukes in Belarus occurred by the way so it was more swatting at a random ally state and partner.
The real problem around using a nuclear weapon against eastern NATO vassals is not necessarily any kind of doctrine-led spiraling escalation but the PR situation and Biden being a senile, belligerent, humiliated fool who reacts irrationally. You can kill ten thousand civilians with firebombs and cluster munitions and people shrug and call it war, but kill 5000 soldiers with a nuclear weapon and suddenly it's a monstrous act or barbarity. Pfft.
Right now there's less to gain than lose in using nuclear weapons for Russia.
However, if the deranged Biden regime keeps pushing and escalating as they seem intent on doing, there's going to come a moment of decision. The deranged Eastern European NATO members may host strikes from their countries (we could be here now), Russia may conventionally retaliate, they'll deny they were doing that and attempt to invoke Article 5. At that point even if the US/UK/France/Germany don't commit, if they get Poland on-board Russia will need to use nuclear weapons and the west and their media will still say they did it for no reason and call them monsters. And at that point if the US allows Poland to go marching in or fully unleashing their air force, they won't launch a single nuke in retaliation if Russia nukes their military because they're using them as canon fodder at that point which was the whole point of bringing them into NATO in the first place (so the western Europeans wouldn't have to die, a free crumple-zone for conflict with Russia full of people the west doesn't consider fully human). That's my assessment.
Uhh no. Let's not have anyone use nuclear weapons, "tactical" or otherwise. If Russia used nukes, the west would retaliate in kind, with greater force, which would result in further retaliation. The only way that is ending is with complete and utter destruction. There is no way it would "shock the west into backing off." Pretty much the entire northern hemisphere would become an irradiated wasteland.
Meh. You're silly if you think western strategic planners see eastern European NATO members as any less fodder than they see Ukrainians as. They don't want to invite a strike on NYC for the sake of avenging a military base in Estonia. They don't want to invite a strike on Guam, Pearl Harbor, or Rammstein in return for avenging Estonians.
Now could the deranged, incompetent, thoroughly senile, prone to aggression and unable to think clearly Biden do so anyways? Possibly but that's not to be taken as doctrine or strategic thought of the US so much as one angry, mentally unstable old man who bought into too many conspiracy theories (Russiagate) and vaguely hates Russians because he lived through the cold war.
In many ways the nuclear umbrella is a bluff. I mean thinking logically assuming your vassal gets wiped out by nukes, why would it make sense for you then to commit suicide by cop by attacking the same country and getting wiped out yourself just to punish them? There might be some white solidarity with western Europe and I wouldn't test it by trying to wipe out Britain or France or Germany but Poles, Estonians, Baltic fascists, most Americans don't know much about them or care. A minor retaliatory gesture maybe. Handing out nukes so countries can "defend themselves" maybe. But striking back and inviting your own demise for someone you were using as a pawn anyways? Eh. I'm just not entirely convinced.
It might have made some sense during the cold war when the Soviets had massive tank and troop divisions and could convincingly sweep into Europe and take over France, Germany, etc, where the idea was if you didn't nuke them then, it was but the opening gesture of a wider war and invasion, but with modern Russia which they know couldn't stand against NATO's combined forces without paying a terrible and too high price which they simply aren't willing to do, and which they know deep down has no intentions of trying to occupy or liberate western Europe, it makes little sense.
Oh thanks for the info. It seems plausible. Russia is also losing lands slowly but they should make a hard push.
Nice
You know that this is technically a declaration of war from NATO towards Russia. In the case of such an event Russia already stated its answer would be nuclear.
The very real threat of nuclear war is not "nice", you imbecile.
Three cheers for total nuclear annihilation!
yeah how can a swarm of Ukrainian drones travel to Pskov without any detection in Belarus ? its a sure warfare from Estonia
Hooray! No more melting icecaps
These fucking Baltic countries won't stop until they get us into a war with Russia. Congrats to the libs for destroying the Soviet Union, such prosperity that the world is experiencing right now.
USSR destroyed itself , liberal ideas crept into CPSU long time back and they didn't have nationalism like in China and Russia . Middle class hated everything in USSR.
well, it was being corrupted from within, but Amerika certainly helped destroy it at the end using Yeltsin, and I would be extremely surprised if they didn't have a few compromised CPSU members
The USSR was under attack from the moment it was born.
I don't think the Baltniks will be happy until the entire Global South is dead.