Far from wanting an escalation of tensions with Poland, Russia wants a normalization of their ties, but that’s not possible while the Ukrainian Conflict rages, and Warsaw doesn’t seem interested anyhow.
The Telegraph amplified a report from Polish media outlet Onet last week regarding alleged American warnings that Russia is planning some provocations against Poland. According to their sources, this could take several forms, including but not limited to a drone attack against critical infrastructure, simulated airstrikes that force Poland to activate its air defense systems, and/or an accidental border incursion by Russian and/or Belarusian troops blamed on a GPS failure. The goal would be to reduce aid to Ukraine.
The larger context, which is conspicuously omitted from both reports, concerns the spiraling Polish-Ukrainian dispute after Zelensky glorified the VolhyniaGenocide’s OUN-UPA culprits at the state level. Voices have since arisen in Poland calling for an end to their own country’s aid to Ukraine and for it to also stop facilitating other country’s aid to it too. Moreover, many Poles now view Ukrainians negatively after they justified glorifying the OUN-UPA, which ruined people-to-people ties perhaps for a generation.
Under such circumstances, it would be absolutely counterproductive for Russia to do anything whatsoever at all that could restore Polish society’s support for Ukraine and sympathy with its people, which is why it likely isn’t planning any provocations against Poland. The most that it’s therefore expected to do is amplify all aspects of this dispute within its “global media ecosystem”, thus containing its response to the information warfare domain, not expanding it to include any kinetic forms.
Carrying out any of the reported provocations would also entail the risk of an uncontrollable escalation spiral, something that typically cautious Putin has consistently sought to avoid over the past four and a half years, ergo one of the reasons why he remains reluctant to escalate against Ukraine. Observers should also know that Poland now commands NATO’s third-largest military, which is the largest in European NATO and is yet another reason why Russia doesn’t want to risk a conflict with Poland.
On the off chance that some Russian missiles accidentally cross into Poland due to electronic jamming, then Polish President Karol Nawrocki is expected to react calmly instead of be manipulated by the deep state into war with Russia like they tried to do last September when this first occurred as explained here. It’s possible that these same deep state forces and their American allies are responsible for this latest report about Russian provocations against Poland in order to breathe new life into their failed plot.
After all, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that future Russian strikes against military targets in Western Ukraine go off course once again due to electronic jamming, after which these deep state forces could point to the US’ earlier warnings and the latest report to lie that it was a deliberate provocation. The other scenarios of a simulated strike and accidental border crossings are respectively unlikely in any case due to Putin’s previously mentioned escalation fears and Poland’s newly robust border defenses.
For these reasons, the latest report can be considered an information warfare provocation by the Polish and American members of the deep state, not an accurate reflection of Russian intent. Far from wanting an escalation of tensions with Poland, Russia wants a normalization of their ties, but that’s not possible while the Ukrainian Conflict rages, and Warsaw doesn’t seem interested anyhow. Russia is thus expected to keep the peace Poland, not risk war with it, and Nawrocki doesn’t want war with Russia either.
All that he has to do is threaten to stop having Poland serve as the transit state for 90% of Ukraine’s military-technical imports from NATO, which would either be sufficient for Ukraine to comply before they’re cut off or it would likely do so shortly thereafter, but he lacks the political will.
The denazification of Ukraine is one of Russia’s explicitly stated goals in the special operation, yet it’s remained elusive ever since the UK and Poland sabotaged spring 2022’s peace deal due to their joint desire to inflict a strategic defeat on their historical (millennium-long in Poland’s case) Russian rival. Lavrov vaguely elaborated on Russia’s understanding of this objective in spring 2025 by suggesting that his country now envisages denazification to mean restoring the rights of Ukraine’s Russian minority.
This can only be achieved through domestic legal mechanisms, which is why spring 2022’s draft peace deal contained relevant clauses to this effect. Russia never planned to occupy all of Ukraine, impose full denazification, and then uphold it through an indefinite law enforcement operation across the country. Military force is seen by Russia only as a means to coerce Ukraine into doing what’s demanded of it in this regard. Russia’s aforementioned difficulty in denazifying Ukraine is nowadays relevant for Poland.
Zelensky’s state-level glorification of the VolhyniaGenocide’s OUN-UPA culprits sparked a political crisis in their ties that continues spiraling by the day. The ruling liberal coalition’s Defense Minister recently declared that “With Bandera, Ukraine will not join the European Union”, thus showing how public opinion in this issue is causing his government to harden its stance towards Ukraine. 74% support conservative President Karol Nawrocki’s revocation of the Order of the White Eagle from Zelensky.
Ukraine’s consequent transformation into an anti-Polish state, which wasn’t inevitable but was helped along to a large degree by Germany as explained here, is now a daily source of discussion among Poles and will likely remain so indefinitely due to Zelensky’s plan to establish a “National Pantheon”. Many expect that such infamous anti-Polish figures as Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich will be honored along with Andrey Melnik, whose remains were recently repatriated and reburied with honors.
Worryingly, “A Senior Ukrainian Sergeant Threatened Poland With Drone Strikes Against Its Cities” in the latest sign of just how radicalized Ukrainians are becoming against Poles. If the new anti-Polish manifestations of Ukrainian Nazism are allowed to spread uncontrolled throughout the state and society, then post-conflict Ukraine will undeniably become a major security threat to Poland. The denazification of Ukraine is therefore nowadays in Poland’s interests, which it could achieve without firing a single shot.
All that it has to do is immediately stop functioning as the transit state for 90% of Ukraine’s military-technical imports from NATO, that’s it. If Poland signaled this in advance as part of an ultimatum to Ukraine and then held firm in the face of predictable German and possibly also American pressure, then Ukraine might comply without Poland having to go through with this. If Ukraine didn’t comply, then Poland would have to do what it threatened, after which Ukraine would likely comply shortly thereafter.
Poland refuses to do so under its ruling liberal coalition, however, because of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s closeness to Germany and the misguided belief that Ukraine continuing to kill more Russians is more important to Poland’s national interests than ending Ukraine’s new status as an anti-Polish state. As suggested by their recent hardening towards Ukraine’s EU aspirations, a public pressure campaign might push them in this direction, albeit solely with fall 2027’s next Sejm elections as their motivation.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
The only reprieve in that dark scenario, other than obliterating Ukraine to neutralize the NATO threats emanating from there once and for all per the special operation’s goal, would be for Russia to sell stakes in its natural resource and other critical industries to the US as a “security guarantee”.
It was warned last fall that “The US Plans To Wage An Intensified Proxy War Of Attrition Against Russia”, and now that Trump just signaled that he plans to “escalate to de-escalate” with Russia per the arms- and sanctions-related terms of the G7 joint statement that he signed, this might now begin to happen. As a reminder, the Wall Street Journal reported that this three-phase strategy involves helping Ukraine surpass Russia’s drone capabilities, more secondary sanctions, and provoking unrest inside of Russia.
The “war of attrition” that Ukraine is now waging against Russia through its strategic strikes on energy and other infrastructure is timed for September’s next Duma elections. United Russia might not maintain the 49.82% of the popular vote from the last elections in 2021, which could force them into a coalition with the communist or nationalist opposition depending on how high the protest vote is. Putin’s foreign foes believe that this would weaken Russia, instead of rejuvenate it, and want to help make this happen.
The aforesaid strikes are thus being paired with Zelensky’s ultimatum to Lukashenko to withdraw air defenses and drone relay stations from the border or Ukraine will do it for him. It was assessed here that Putin now has a chance to restore deterrence if Zelensky authorizes attacks against the 500 targets that one of his top drone commanders earlier claimed had been identified in Belarus. If deterrence is restored, then Russia might maintain the tempo to defeat Ukraine, thus swiftly ending the conflict.
If everything turns out differently, such as if deterrence isn’t restored by Russia after a large-scale Ukrainian attack against Belarus or no such attack occurs and the conflict drags on, then Trump’s “war of attrition” might really get going and begin systematically destroying all Russian targets one-by-one. Former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov recently admitted that “we were not prepared” for Starlink aiding strikes against critical infrastructure and advised maximally protecting all targets without delay.
That’s difficult to do with a country as large as Russia is, so if Trump “escalates to de-escalate” in a way that radically scales Ukraine’s strategic drone attacks, then Russia might be at a disadvantage where time would no longer be on its side like previously assumed by many in Moscow. Ukraine’s logistics are nowadays under NATO’s nuclear umbrella, so unless Russia risks World War III by striking them and gambling that no one (let alone the US) will retaliate, then it might face “death by a thousand cuts”.
The only reprieve, other than obliterating Ukraine to neutralize the NATO threats emanating from there once and for all per the special operation’s goal, would be for Russia to sell stakes in its natural resource and other critical industries to the US as a “security guarantee”. Knowing Trump, he’d likely demand that they be sold for pennies on the dollar and possibly include controlling shares, which would essentially cede Russia’s sovereignty. That’s why Russia must defeat Ukraine before his “war of attrition” really gets going.
By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida from Global Research. Reposted with permission.
Once again, the Kiev regime demonstrates its terrorist nature, attacking civilian targets without any strategic relevance.
On June 17th, Ukrainian armed forces carried out a drone strike against a bus carrying a children’s soccer team from the Republic of Belarus. The children were hit in the Russian region of Bryansk, where they were on their way to a sports competition.
As a consequence of the attack, one adult woman died and six people – including four children – were injured. The murdered woman was working as a guide, leading the foreign children to the resort town of Gelendzhik, in the Russian Krasnodar Region. According to Deputy Health Minister Aleksey Kuznetsov, the death toll may rise, as at least one of the injured people was hospitalized in serious condition.
In total, there were 44 passengers on the bus, 28 of whom were children. The passengers were from the town of Rechytsa in Belarus and were in Russia to participate in sporting events. The bus that was hit obviously had no military or strategic importance, the bombing being a deliberate act of terror.
The incident shocked Russia, Belarus, and much of international society. Despite the silence of Western countries, many public figures commented on the case, openly condemning the Ukrainian terrorist attack. For example, Pentagon senior security policy analyst Michael Maloof made it clear that there was no military aim in the attack, therefore it was an international crime and should be condemned by all countries. Furthermore, he also said that the Ukrainian intention seems to be to bring Belarus into the conflict – thus being a major provocation to destabilize Minsk’s peaceful stance.
“It was clearly not a military target (…) The fact that these children were from Belarus, it almost makes me think that the Ukrainians want to invite Belarus into the conflict,” he said.
In the same vein, Moscow-based Dutch journalist Sonja van den Ende commented:
“Europe, with all its big talk about democracy and about human rights, is not saying a word.”
Van den Ende made it clear that Western countries act hypocritically and dishonestly when it comes to war crimes – always condemning enemy countries and accusing them of committing illegal acts, even without any evidence; while on the other hand they ignore crimes committed by partner and allied countries, such as Ukraine.
In fact, attacking civilians is a common tactic of the regime. Targeting non-military objectives is part of Ukraine’s failed “strategy” for the war with Russia. Lacking sufficient military power to fight a regular war with Moscow, Ukraine resorts to terrorist attacks hoping to at least have some effect on Russian society. The goal is to divert Russian attention from the front lines and expand the feeling of insecurity among ordinary Russians in cities outside the operation zone.
The real result, however, has been quite different. The more they are attacked, the more the Russians react to Ukrainian provocations by endorsing the special military option. In practice, the terrorist attacks increasingly reinforce the pro-government and pro-special operation stance among ordinary Russians – which shows how the Ukrainian strategy is an absolute failure.
However, the Belarusian factor also needs to be analyzed. It is known that Ukraine has a clear intention to involve Minsk in the war. The regime is desperately seeking an escalation and internationalization of the conflict as a way to try to garner more military and economic support. It is possible to say that, by attacking Belarusian children, the Ukrainian regime attempted to deeply provoke Belarus, possibly dragging it into war.
It is unlikely that Belarus will take any deeper reactive initiative. As the attack occurred in Russia, it will be up to Moscow’s forces to carry out an appropriate retaliation. The most likely scenario is that Russia will launch a special offensive as a retaliatory measure, possibly targeting the Ukrainian capital itself with massive missile attacks.
Countries that carry out attacks against children should be isolated in the international community. Kiev needs to become a pariah among major international institutions, with widespread condemnation from various countries and organizations – as well as sanctions and coercive measures. Only by isolating the regime will it be possible to compel it to stop attacking civilian targets.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
Editors Note: This is why I find it hilarious when the UK talks smack about Russia, they have NOTHING to back it up! The picture below is one of their nuclear subs sitting in dry dock doing nothing. The UK has very little to fight with and their soldiers train with broomsticks instead of firearms. They should really keep their traps shut.
In its prime, the United Kingdom was one of the most powerful thalassocracies in human history, probably eclipsed only by the United States after WWII.
How did such a small island nation accomplish this? The answer is – the British Navy, the most powerful armed maritime force of its time. Thus, it could only be expected that the “Perfidious Albion” would do everything in its power to preserve this naval dominance or at least maintain its power projection capabilities for as long as possible.
However, as the British Empire shrank to a mere shadow of its former self, its ability to sustain a large navy dwindled, resulting in massive reductions over the last several decades.
The last time the UK managed to muster a respectable naval force was during the 1982 Falklands War against Argentina.
This ranges from frigates and destroyers to aircraft carriers and submarines (including nuclear-powered). However, while the surface fleet is undoubtedly still relevant, it’s nowhere near as important as the British Navy’s underwater component, which provides the most critical segment of the UK’s strategic power projection. Namely, the Vanguard-class SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines), armed with UGM-133A “Trident II” (also known as “Trident D5”) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), are the cornerstone of London’s thermonuclear arsenal. Still, it seems this isn’t enough for the “Perfidious Albion” to take them seriously.
Back in December last year, Rear Admiral Philip Mathias lamented that “Britain is no longer capable of running a capable nuclear submarine program”, warning of “catastrophic failures” that have “driven the UK’s nuclear deterrent to the brink”. Mathias, who served as a director of nuclear policy at the British Ministry of Defense (MOD), highlighted its “inability to produce attack submarines at the scale required for putting strain on crews and extending the length of deployments”. He compared this to the (First) Cold War, stressing that “the silent service” could deploy for around 70 days at the time, but that this has risen to around 200 days at present.
Mathias quoted the 2025 Strategic Defense Review (SDR), which stressed the need to expand production capacity. However, problems with the British Navy’s SSBN component are nothing new, as many authors (myself included) questioned years ago whether the UK’s strategic arsenal was functioning properly. Although such information is certainly a state secret, these doubts were confirmed after London admitted that one of its UGM-133A “Trident II” SLBMs failed during a launch test. This was the second time in a row that the troubled missile, a weapon of strategic importance, failed, as it did in the previous test conducted in 2016. The last successful launch was by HMS “Vigilant” back in 2012.
This means the UK hasn’t had a successful SLBM test in nearly a decade and a half, yet it still believes it can go up against Russia, a country with the world’s largest and most powerful strategic arsenal. The latest “Trident II” launch was from the lead ship of its class, the HMS “Vanguard”, with reports indicating that London’s then-Defense Secretary, Grant Shapps, was overseeing it. The SLBM’s booster rocket failed and it fell into the sea “close to the launch site”, as the Sun reported at the time (the “launch site” being the HMS “Vanguard” itself). And yet, Shapps insisted that he has “absolute confidence in ‘Trident’s’ submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads”.
As previously mentioned, London relies solely on these submarines and missiles for its strategic capabilities. Had the “Trident II” damaged the HMS “Vanguard”, it would’ve taken one-quarter or 25% of the UK’s strategic arsenal out of service, as the “Perfidious Albion” has only four such vessels, each armed with up to 16 SLBMs. It should be noted that HMS “Vanguard” finished a seven-year-long overhaul and refueling just last year. However, to make matters even worse, both Shapps and the then-Head of the Royal Navy, now disgraced Admiral Ben Kay, were on board the submarine during the launch test, meaning their lives were also in danger.
The failures are also an embarrassment for the United States, as the missiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s premier military supplier. Still, all this didn’t prevent Shapps from adding to the general embarrassment by saying that “an anomaly did occur during the test on 30 January [2024], but that the ‘Trident II’ SLBM is still the most reliable weapons system in the world”. According to his assessment, the test “reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent” and that the “anomaly was event specific”, with “no implications for the reliability” of the UK’s strategic arsenal. The British MoD made similar statements.
Namely, it insisted that HMS “Vanguard” and its crew had been “proven fully capable in their operations” and that “the test had reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent”, essentially repeating Shapps’ statement that “Trident II” is the “most reliable weapons system in the world”. However, while this (now decades-long) issue is yet to be resolved, the British Navy has somehow managed to reach a new low point. Namely, of the six Astute-class SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in its service, not a single one is combat-ready. The UK has five “active-duty” submarines, one undergoing pre-sea trial testing and one more under construction (projected to be completed by the end of this decade).
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnicis an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
Namely, as the political West (and much of the world) now faces population collapse, reduced interest in serving in the military, incessant price hikes for traditional weapon systems, etc., the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is gradually shifting toward this drone-AI combo as its primary alternative. And indeed, such systems seem to be taking over at virtually all levels, be it tactical, operational, strategic or doctrinal.
Namely, with Russians and Ukrainians being pretty much the same people, with effectively identical levels of education, industrial background and centuries-old military traditions, the political West gets the unique opportunity to test its latest systems in a confrontation between two high-tech opponents. Both the Russian military and the Kiev regime forces demonstrate remarkable flexibility and readiness to apply doctrinal revisions to the point that they’re now unrivaled in unmanned warfare.
However, this is simply not the case, as evidenced by the stellar performance of the Russian military’s Unmanned Systems Forces (VBS). Interestingly, although the names differ in Russian and Ukrainian, the services are translated exactly the same in English for both the Kremlin and the Kiev regime. The latter’s Unmanned Systems Forces (SBS) are also heavily integrated with the infamous GUR (Main Intelligence Directorate). This military branch of the Neo-Nazi junta’s extensive intelligence network (with the state counterpart being the no less infamous SBU and both effectively operating as a bunch of NATO-run terrorist organizations) is directly responsible for most drone operations on the frontline and is deeply integrated into the battlefield command structure on all levels.
In addition, NATO is also providing constant, real-time ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), greatly improving the overall effectiveness of the SBS and GUR. In fact, it could be argued that the world’s most vile racketeering cartel is also giving orders to the Kiev regime, which helps it maintain the so-called plausible deniability (although it seems this is increasingly irrelevant to the US/EU/NATO as drone attacks through Polish and Baltic states’ airspace continue). As previously mentioned, American AI giants-in-the-making directly participate in these black ops. For instance, Palantir’s PRISMA platform is emerging as a critical component of the Neo-Nazi junta’s SBS and GUR operations, facilitating long-range drone strikes on Russia.
While most operational details remain highly classified, recent reports suggest that PRISMA functions less as a weapon itself and more as a battlefield ISR and command-and-control layer that integrates large volumes of data into what the Pentagon calls “actionable targeting decisions”. Until recently, one of the priorities of unmanned warfare was simply building enough drones. However, after NATO and the Kiev regime ensured steady procurement, the issue of mass battlefield coordination emerged. What’s more, the SBS and GUR had to process massive amounts of data quickly enough to exploit target opportunities and make split-second decisions. GUR praises PRISMA as the primary AI tool enabling such unprecedented battlefield coordination.
Namely, Palantir’s dystopian AI system aggregates information from drones, sensors, satellite imagery and other sources into a single operational framework. Operators can then monitor flight paths, target locations and battlefield developments in near real time.
This creates several key military advantages. Namely, PRISMA seems to compress the so-called “sensor-to-shooter” cycle.
Traditionally, intelligence collection, target validation, mission planning and strike execution might require multiple teams, lengthy communication and command-and-control chains. By integrating these functions digitally, commanders can identify targets and rapidly assign drones to engage them. Faster decision-making is particularly important against mobile enemy assets.
This includes everything from logistics convoys and air defense systems to long-range strike platforms and temporary/ad hoc command posts that may relocate within hours. For instance, PRISMA may enable coordinated drone-swarm attacks against such assets. The system can reportedly process data related to very large numbers of targets and drones simultaneously. If true, this would mean that PRISMA could enable the Kiev regime’s operators to synchronize ISR drones, decoys, electronic warfare (EW) systems and strike drones within a single operational framework. Such coordination can overwhelm defenses by forcing defenders to track numerous incoming threats simultaneously while attackers conceal the primary strike axis.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnicis an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
Last weekend’s surprise call between Presidents Emmanuel Macron and Alexander Lukashenko followed Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev warning about the 1941-like threat posed by Germany’s remilitarization and the UK assembling a multinational navy to contain Russia. These three developments collectively draw attention to how the Brits, French, and Germans, Russia’s traditional European rivals, are now right on its doorstep. The security implications are profound.
The Brits are nestling up in Estonia, from where they plan to lead Russia’s containment along the Arctic -Baltic front, while the Germans opened a base in Lithuania and the French just announced regular nuclear drills with Poland. As a reminder, Estonia borders “mainland Russia” while Lithuania and Poland border its exclave of Kaliningrad and mutual defense ally Belarus. The “military Schengen” between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland might thus soon be expanded to include France and the Baltic States.
That would maximally optimize the flow of troops and equipment from Western Europe to Russia’s borders, thus conforming with Russian policymakers’ fears that the EU is gearing up for a potential invasion of their country sometime in the future. Given France’s base in Romania and military pact with neighboring Moldova, which constitute a criticalflank in the Ukrainian Conflict due to enabling France to aid Odessa in the scenario of its threatened conventional intervention, they and others might join too.
To make matters even more concerning from the perspective of Russia’s national security interests, Germany recently clinched a deep-strike defense co-production deal with Ukraine, thus expanding its military footprint even deeper within what Russia considers to be its “sphere of influence”. The result is that the UK is entrenching its influence along the Arctic-Baltic front, Germany is doing so in the Baltic (Lithuanian) and Ukrainian ones, while France is already entrenched in Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
Germany aspires to build European NATO’s largest army, which would require overtaking Poland and ideally from its perspective subordinating that country as a vassal, while France and the UK are nuclear powers. The threat posed by their military-strategic convergence right on Russia’s doorstep therefore cannot be overestimated. At the very least, it could embolden their partners to behave aggressively against Russia, calculating as they might that those Great Powers would deter Russian retaliation.
That would be a mistake of epic proportions because Russia cannot allow such a scenario to unfold, let alone become the “new normal”, as it would amount to them weaponizing it for coercing never-ending concessions that would culminate in time with Russia’s subordination and ultimately “Balkanization”. In other words, a hot NATO-Russian war would likely be inevitable, though nobody can say for sure whether the US would help its European allies, nor to what extent if so, or whether it would hang them out to dry.
It’s therefore more urgent than ever that the European security architecture be reformed like Russia sought to do through diplomatic means before the specialoperation, the failure of which was why Putin sought to advance this through military ones instead. There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
On May 19, Russia and Belarus launched their joint nuclear drills that lasted until May 21.
These strategic maneuvers involved nearly 65,000 personnel, roughly 7,800 military vehicles and over 200 missile launch systems.
They stretched across a vast geographic area from Eastern Europe to the Pacific, encompassing nearly all of Belarus and most of Russia.
Everything from tactical, short-range assets to strategic weapons such as ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) was tested, once again proving that Moscow and Minsk are capable of defending themselves against any potential adversary foolish enough to attack them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin observed and later discussed the drills with his Belarussian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko, stressing that the use of nuclear weapons is “an extreme, exceptional measure for ensuring the national security of our states”. This demonstrates that the Kremlin understands just how dangerous such weapons are and how much responsibility nuclear powers have. However, there’s simply no other way to ensure the safety of both Moscow and Minsk. President Lukashenko was even more straightforward.
Namely, during an inspection of now legendary nuclear-capable 9K720M “Iskander-M” systems, he said: “I dreamed about this machine a long time ago.”
As previously mentioned, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) stated that the exercise involved over 64,000 troops, more than 200 missile launch systems, nearly 150 aircraft, 73 surface warships and 13 submarines, including eight SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine) with SLBMs.
The MoD also added that “the drills focused on the preparation and use of nuclear forces under the threat of [foreign] aggression”. In addition, this was a unique opportunity for Russia and Belarus to further integrate their command structures and improve interoperability, particularly with respect to the critically important weapons that ensure both countries’ strategic security.
Namely, Minsk is Moscow’s key ally that has been entrusted with hosting Russian thermonuclear weapons. The number of deployed warheads remains unknown, but it could be in the hundreds, as Russia considers the security of Belarus equally important to its own safety. To achieve this, the Kremlin needs to test the capabilities of its vast strategic arsenal, particularly the delivery systems.
This includes the state-of-the-art RS-24 “Yars” ICBMs and R-29RMU “Sineva” SLBMs (test-fired by “Bryansk”, a Delta IV-class SSBN in service with the Northern Fleet). Meanwhile, the even more advanced Borei-class SSBNs were also activated during the exercises to test their systems, protocols and readiness.
However, as previously mentioned, the drills also involved a plethora of tactical and operational-level weapon systems. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, these weapons are not designed to obliterate entire cities, provinces or even countries, but are used as tactical nuclear weapons intended to neutralize large concentrations of invading troops on the battlefield. Such weapons also include aerial delivery systems and warheads for short- and medium-range missiles and even artillery munitions. It should be noted that, in addition to being the world’s premier thermonuclear superpower, Russia maintains the largest arsenal of tactical and operational nuclear weapons in the world.
Apart from the “Iskander”, the shipborne 3M22 “Zircon” and air-launched 9-S-7760 hypersonic missiles (found on the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” systems) were also used. Belarussian troops even test-fired one of the 9M723s used by the “Iskander” inside Russia. No other country has such a privileged security status, especially now that Belarus is part of the Kremlin’s strategic architecture. Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine several times, including in 2024, when it made it clear that any large-scale conventional attack supported by another nuclear power would be considered a joint aggression on Russia. Obviously, this was a direct warning to the political West, its vassals and satellite states.
And indeed, the world’s most aggressive power pole keeps escalating its involvement in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, including with direct drone strikes from the Baltic states. The revised Russian strategic doctrine and the latest drills are there to discourage the political West from allowing the Neo-Nazi junta to strike Russia with longer-range weapons.
And while it may seem to lower the threshold for the possible use of nuclear arsenals, this mainly applies to those who are most aggressive and pathologically Russophobic. Perhaps more importantly, the revised doctrine also directly places Minsk under Moscow’s thermonuclear umbrella, shielding it from a potential NATO aggression.
The Kremlin still retains control of its nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus, but allows Minsk to select priority targets in case of a NATO land invasion.
This combination provides both Russia and Belarus with a possibility of preventing escalation while retaining the capability to deter any potential aggressor. And it seems to be working, because NATO jets started downing the Kiev regime’s drones over the Baltic states at around the same time. It remains to be seen why the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is doing it only now, but it’s highly likely that Brussels finally understands that it should at least lie low while nuclear drills last.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
By Andrew Korybko. Reposted with permission. His work can be found HERE.
Russia can’t afford to discredit itself abroad, nor can Putin’s ruling United Russia party afford to discredit itself at home four months before the next polls, by threatening overwhelming retaliation against Ukraine if it attacks Moscow’s Victory Day parade only to symbolically retaliate or do nothing at all.
The Russian Defense Ministry warned local civilians and the staff of diplomatic missions in Kiev of their country’s plans to launch a massive retaliatory strike on the city center if Ukraine goes through with Zelensky’s threat to attack Moscow’s Victory Day parade on 9 May. This was followed by Russia announcing ballistic missile tests from Kamchatka from 6-10 May. Shortly afterwards, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated the Defense Ministry’s warning, thus ensuring that the world is aware of it.
This threat likely isn’t a bluff for three sequential reasons.
The first is that Russia wants to deter Ukraine from attacking Moscow’s Victory Day parade for self-evident reasons, both relating to optics and the security of its VIPs, to which end it threatened overwhelming retaliation if this happens.
The second reason is that Russia cannot threaten such a response without actually going through with it if provoked, otherwise it would irredeemably discredit itself, and more audacious attacks would then likely follow.
And third, Russia is finally signaling its willingness to overwhelmingly retaliate against decision-making centers in Kiev per the Foreign Ministry’s additionally specified threat in the event of Ukraine carrying out this high-profile provocation due to its hardline Kremlin faction partially superceding its moderate one.
Once Trump returned and responded positively to Putin’s offer of dialogue for resolving the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, which Biden rejected, Putin and his fellow moderates dangled a resource-centricstrategic partnership for incentivizing compromises. The US was receptive to such a partnership, but Russia rejected its demanded compromises that were presented as a precondition, while the US rejected Russia’s own such demands and didn’t coerce compliance from Ukraine or NATO either.
While Trump declined to escalate the Ukrainian Conflict amid this impasse, he still greenlit the rolling back of Russian influence across the world in a bid to coerce Putin into the US’ demanded compromise, namely freezing the conflict in exchange for sanctions relief without resolving the root issues. Informally known as the “Neo-Reagan Doctrine”, it’s placed Russia under pressure in at least 15 different countries, thus discrediting the moderate faction and prompting some among it like Putin to rethink their views.
The Third Gulf War, in which Iran attacked regional US bases without triggering an uncontrollable escalation spiral, then convinced Putin to finally listen to the hardliners who’ve been urging massive strikes on Ukrainian decision-making centers in Kiev since the get-go. Public opinion, which is important ahead of September’s next Duma elections, has long aligned with the hardliners on this issue. Putin now seems to have assented but only in retaliation to Ukrainian attacks against Moscow’s Victory Day parade.
These factors make it unlikely that Russia is bluffing, in which case the country itself wouldn’t just be discredited abroad, but so too would the ruling United Russia party be discredited in voters’ eyes four months before the next polls. There’s already speculation of a protest vote in support of the communist and nationalist opposition parties, which might prompt various reforms if it happens, but a large-scale one driven by any hypothetical bluff could herald an era of uncertainty that Putin would prefer to avoid.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
As the world starts to run out of fuel, literally, US Aircraft Carrier groups have gotten into position to attack Iran again. At the same time the world is about to run out of oil that makes everything from tires to electronics, it’s not just rising fuel prices that are going to bite us!
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
