It definitely seems Estonia droned Russia's biggest airfield .
It definitely seems Estonia droned Russia's biggest airfield .
A rumor that the Pskov strike could have been launched from Estonia circulated on social media and Russian television.
Our left wing media also says so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVAC5HlBuWM
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
I understand and sympathize or agree with most of your comment, but I feel its built on the predicate assumption that NATO cares about international law. NATO could blow up a fucking school bus and most of the wealthiest countries in the world would still blame Russia.
Where did I insinuate NATO care about international law? They care about self-preservation and all the preaching in the world and self-righteousness they know will not protect them from nuclear blasts.
Oh, well my point with international law was it was for the eyes of the global south, partners, friends, etc. They are in the clear based on the post WW2 consensus. Legally, existing UN conventions can't touch them. The west is of course hypocritical and they don't believe in international law, hence the constant refrain of "rules based order", whose rules? Theirs. And subject to change.
Russia cares about and should care about the perception of their actions not from NATO but of the global south, of those outside it. And those countries do want a certain fairness. If Russia just one day nuked a major Polish city for no reason they wouldn't be supported for that. On the other hand if they were backed into a corner, attacked, engaged by a NATO member country and retaliated through whatever means after many warnings most of the global south would understand and correctly say the blame lay on that NATO nation and Russia had tried to be reasonable. So yes following international law is important, it shows that Russia/China are unlike the west upholders of an actual unchanging order of rules, law, order, fairness. What I was outlining is Russia has stuck to the process, the laws. They have upheld the letter and spirit better than the west and exercised more restraint than the west ever would.
I understand your last paragraph, I'm just pointing out that unfortunately in international relations, the Global South doesn't have anywhere near enough influence to challenge the west in it's imperialist hypocrisy. All Russia has to do is be half-decent, and that's automatically a boost compared to the west.
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.
While it is true that the yanks wouldn't give a shit if eastern europe were nuked beyond empty performative gestures, they would be concerned about Russia nuking them. And in turn, if they were dealing with a Russia that is willing to use nukes in combat, they would prefer a pre-emptive strike of their own nukes in order to eliminate the threat before a war between the two. The US has been straining at the leash for an excuse to use nukes since Korea. The last thing any country should do is give them that excuse.
They wouldn’t be concerned with Russia nuking them because Russia has shown such restraint. Their propagandists and narrative are one thing, their intelligence analysts are not so blind as to genuinely believe Putin would be coming for them next. The only real factor is how much they feel they need to put on a show so they don't look weak to their vassals but a show is not the same as inviting full nuclear war and they've already been humiliated in various ways and just ignored it or taken it.
The west would know if Russia conducted a single nuclear strike that it was not part of an opening salvo. Why? Because basic nuclear doctrine dictates if you intend to do that you strike full force with the hopes of catching your enemy with their guard down and minimizing retaliation. Once you've done that they're on high alert, they're on hair-trigger alert and Russia would most likely be smart enough to take steps to show their nuclear forces are ready, but not about to imminently launch any further attacks and the west would believe them. A pre-emptive strike against Russia would not work right now. They know this. Russia has a dead-hand system that will ensure their arsenal is launched even in the event of a successful decapitation strike. Washington would know Russia doesn't want to be eliminated and see how much it took to push them to use just one, they would know Russia won't launch full on them unless they escalate much further on their own.
Even a hypothetical escalation of tit-for-tat would have several off-ramp points for both the US and Russia and I don't think that would happen.
Excuse? Absurd. The US is the only country to have used nukes in anger. Are we talking about the same country? The one that shamelessly invents false flags for all its wars and changes the rules on the fly to suit it? That US? It's not about excuses, if they had the capability to intercept 95% of Russia's strike response they'd have launched already and obliterated them, they'd come up with an excuse after the fact and justify it. It's not about Russia giving them an excuse, they don't need one, the west operates in their own delusional sphere of justification and supremacy. It's about cold, hard, facts. Western planners know they'd be eliminated at this juncture by engaging in a nuclear war with Russia. The west doesn't need an excuse, they need an ability to do it and not be destroyed and they don't have that.
People, even here struggle to be sober and thoughtful, they knee-jerk react to nuclear war with sweeping declarations any use will automatically trigger the end of the world. This is materially false. The capitalists would have been willing to end the world rather than let the Soviet Union win, but they aren't willing to commit suicide to avenge a cannon fodder eastern vassal state in a power fight with another capitalist nation that just wants their aggressive alliance further from their borders. They may yet end the world in a fight over China rather than let it (and proletarians) win but I don't think this conflict, this issue of Ukraine or even some fodder buffer NATO state (which was engaged in de-facto hostilities against Russia and fair game) being injured is going to get their fingers on the trigger to tighten.
That's my thinking. I think it's rational, sober, but I also freely admit no one can fully understand all that goes into the thought processes of western military leadership or predict their actions, that's as true for me as it is for a Rand Corpo analyst with high security clearances or for Russian intelligence. I don't trust the west and its leadership to behave morally and their rationale can be a bit twisted at times but it's for that reason I think in many ways a small event doesn't matter. What the west intends to do, they will do, they don't really need excuses, they're happy to manufacture them when their plans demand it, that's always been the case. They're going to do what they're going to do. They navigate the road they're given, invent things, use what they can as excuses for what they wanted to do anyways.
You're right. I was thinking about this from the position of "Nuclear weapons are monstrous and should never be used." and that was clouding my judgement here. It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not in charge of the Russian military. I do hope that your analysis is wrong, as any nation using tactical nuclear weapons will normalise it and make it commonplace, just "another weapon" in the arsenal. But again, what I hope happens doesn't actually have any bearing on reality.
A more sober analysis from my perspective would be that Russia doesn't want to actively attack NATO and turn this conflict into an active war with NATO, but that does rely on NATO also not escalating things on their own, and if they are willing to station Ukrainian troops and air forces, it seems likely that Russia would understand that NATO wants the escalation and so would respond in kind.
Oh thanks for the info. It seems plausible. Russia is also losing lands slowly but they should make a hard push.