US Attacks Russia

ATACMS Attack on Briansk

Following the Biden Administration’s decision last Sunday to green-light the use of advanced missiles from Ukraine against targets in Russia, Russian and Western media have reported that a swarm of 6 ATACMS missiles was fired in the middle of last night from Ukraine against an arms depot in the region of Russia just bordering Kursk called Bryansk.  Official Russian sources say that they shot down 5 of the missiles, but the sixth got through and reached its target causing explosions at the depot.

Within the last hour (8:30am on the Pacific Coast, California on November 19) CNN, citing the Russian Ministry of Defense, reported that at 3:25 a.m. local time (7:25 p.m. ET) Tuesday, Ukraine fired six ballistic missiles at a facility in Bryansk. It said that American-made ATACMS missiles had been used in the attack.

Russian air defenses said they shot down five of the missiles and another was damaged. Fragments from the damaged missile fell on the territory of a military facility, causing a fire that has since been extinguished. There were no casualties or damage.

This attack might just fall into the category of a target that is somehow associated with conflict in Kursk (where Ukrainian sources claim, dubiously, North Korean forces have joined with Russian). Some administration sources yesterday were implying that the use of ATACMS might be subject to such a limitation. We should note in passing that in the event of a US missile strike on North Korean troops in Kursk, or anywhere else for that matter, the US will have engaged in war with North Korea whose nuclear weapons can reach the west coast of the US.

Trump Reaction

In an Agenda47 video released on March 16, 2023, President Elect Donald Trump has said the following:

“We have never been closer to World War Three than we are today under Joe Biden. A global conflict between nuclear powers would mean death and destruction on a scale unmatched in human history. It would be nuclear Armageddon. Nothing is more important than avoiding that nightmare. We’ll avoid it, but we need new leadership. Every day this proxy battle in Ukraine continues we risk global war. We must be absolutely clear. Our objective is to immediately have a total cessation of hostilities. The shooting has to stop. This is the central issue. We need peace without delay. In addition there must also be complete commitment to dismantling the entire global necon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars pretending to fight for freedom and democracy while they turn us into a third world country and a third world dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted to fire the “deep staters” and put America first. We have to put America first…

“We have to fundamentally reevaluate NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission. Our foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict with a nucear-armed Russia based on the lie that Russia represents our greatest threat. The greatest threat against civilization today is not Russia but it is probably, more than anything else, ourselves and the horrible US-hating people that represent us. These globalists want to squander all America’s strength, blood and treasure chasing monsters and phantoms overseas while keeping us distracted from the havoc they are creating here at home. These forces are doing more damage to America than Russia and China could ever have dreamed. Evicting the sick and corrupted establishment is the monumental task of the next president.”

While applauding this bold stance of Trump’s albeit from over a year ago, we should note Doctorow’s caveat this morning, and I agree with him, that for Russia there is more at stake, much more, than a simple immediate cessation of hostilities. The Trump administration needs to be aware that something far more profound is at foot, and it has to do with the need for a new, multipolar framework of international relations.

Russian Nuclear Posture

President Vladimir Putin has put his signature to Russia’s revised nuclear weapons policy which loosens the conditions for Russia’s use of the nuclear deterrent so that it can incorporate a non-nuclear adversary that is being aided by an allied nuclear adversary and on September 8 this year Putin made it clear that if long-range missiles are fired on Russia by Ukraine with weapons provided by, targeted by, using data supplied by NATO powers, then Russia will conclude that it is at war with NATO. It is an arguable red line, perhaps, but it is a red line. The fact that such missiles have been used by Ukraine against Russia in the past is no longer important: the red line did not exist before. It exists now.

Gilbert Doctorow this morning in interview with Judge Napolitano worries that Zelenskiy (but presumably with the full participation of NATO) will target a Russian nuclear site in such a way as to spread radiation over a large part of Russia and that it would take such a strike to compel Russia into a nuclear response. I am not entirely sure about that, and I also note that Russia has disabled Ukrainian nuclear power stations in situations of what are likely to be comparable risk. But still, there can be no question that Biden’s escalation is reckless and very, very dangerous.

ATACMS missiles have a range of approximately 190 miles, well short of the 400 miles between, say, Kharkiv and Moscow. Russia has moved a significant quantity of vulnerable military assets to a line behind the 190 miles, but of course plenty of potential targets remain and have to remain because of Russian progress in its steady eviction of Ukrainian forces from the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zapporizhzhia and Kherson now integrated into the Russian Federation. Furthermore, if Germany does send Taurus missiles, as it is expected it will when the CDU takes power in February 2025, then the range of fire power extends upwards towards 300 miles.

It is possible, though I think unlikely, that Russia has already begun to respond if it is behind - and there is no evidence that it is behind - the cutting of undersea cables that have been reported between NATO’s new members Sweden and Finland, on the one hand, and Germany and Lithuania. I suspect a Russian response to the ATACMS attack will need to be more visible and more directly connected to the proxy war over Ukraine and it will need to be of a similar or greater scale, though I don’t think we need expect anything massive.

I note that Russia’s own recent attacks on Ukrainian energy and transport systems have been massive already and may have hit a number of F16s or airfields used for the deployment of F16s, and it might be a logical extension for Russia to target similar airfields in Poland and Romania. I dont think that Russia can sit back, as some Russian analysts imply, with the comforting thought that Biden and his team are merely consolidating what they foolishly see as their “legacy,” or that the latest attack was not directed at a residential area and not at a nuclear facility so therefore was strictly limited or symbolic. As Russia’s ambassador to the UN has made clear, Russia needs to be alert to the efforts of the UK and France to jump behind just such an escalation for their own purposes. This is not to say that they will, but that the current situation will merely excite their infinite interest, from the standpoint of declining retro-imperial powers, in causing mischief.

It is not inconceivable that the Trump administration is acting on behalf of special interests, notably those of Blackrock, who must worry about the damage to their investments in Ukraine as Russian progress on the battlefield sucks up exceptionally valuable mining and other mineral-rich as well as fertile agricultural assets and territory in Ukraine.

There is comfort, in this respect, in Trump’s attitude as outlined above. But Trump is still a grave worry with respect to developments in the Middle East, having made a series of deeply pro-Zionist (including, by the way - I learn from Ray McGovern - Tulsi Gabbard) and anti-Iranian appointments (mostly still to be confirmed by the Senate). In interview with Judge Napolitano yesterday, Alastair Crooke observed that inside Israel it is taken for granted, given Trump’s election win, that Israel will indeed annexe Gaza, the West Bank and, perhaps, southern Lebanon (it has already annexed the Golan Heights from Syria, to all intents and purposes).

On the other hand, Crooke also notes the curious dangers accumulating against the security of Prime Minister Netanyahu whose attorney general continues to prosecute numerous charges against him, including with reference to issues connected to October 7th, and against others in his administration, notably Ben Gvir, and is even requiring Netanyahu to testify against himself. Netanyahu’s chief spokesman languishes in prison without bail.

Also from yesterday, I note with interest Pepe Escobar’s confidence that the security partnership between Iran and Russia will be signed before the end of the year (although that reassurance is hardly commensurate with the urgency of the situation that Iran faces), and that he confirms the presence in Iran of Russian S-400 advanced air defense systems. Further, I was interested to hear Larry Johnson say that the news of a conversation last week between Elon Musk and the Iranian ambassador to the UN had been denied by Tehran, suggesting another fake news item inserted into the mainstream media similar to the earlier fake story about a call from Trumn to Putin in which Trump was reported to have told Putin to wind down in Ukraine.