Q REPORTS — On Sunday, June 1, in the early hours of the morning, Ukraine delivered a stunning blow to Russian military forces many kilometers deep inside Russian territory, the likes of which no army had done perhaps since World War II.
Using strategically placed drones, after being surreptitiously introduced into Russian territory, it simultaneously attacked five military airfields housing a significant portion of the fleet of bombers equipped to carry nuclear warheads.
That same day, terrorist attacks were carried out on two bridges in the cities of Bryansk and Kursk.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately claimed responsibility for the attack on the airfields, announcing that they had destroyed at least a third of the Russian fleet by disabling or shooting down 41 aircraft.
The world was perplexed by the audacity of the action, even though the information was still uncertain.
Videos soon spread online showing the attack by more than 100 drones, wreaking havoc on the air bases without anyone being able to prevent it.
The spectacular attack achieved its main objective and set off all the alarm bells.
The Trigger
A day later, it became known that the figures were not as grim as those reported by Zelensky. Media outlets like the New York Times (NYT) reported that “at least a dozen aircraft were damaged, including Tu-95 bombers.”
“But the attack does not significantly alter Russia’s nuclear capabilities,” the newspaper added.
In response, the attack “will force Russian officials to consider redeploying Russia’s air defense systems to cover a much wider range of territories and possibly deploy mobile air defense groups that can react more quickly to similar Ukrainian drone attacks in the future,” the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said, according to the Reuters news agency.
But the NYT reported Tuesday that “satellite imagery captured Monday indicates that no aircraft were damaged at two of the other bases.”
“Dubbed Operation Spiderweb by Kyiv, the Ukrainian attack is part of a consistent and escalating campaign to take the war to the Russian heartland in an attempt to influence the Kremlin’s calculus,” said the NYT’s Paul Sonne.
“Biden supported it in several ways, including investing us$1.5 billion in Ukrainian drone production by the end of 2024 through a secret program spearheaded by former White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan,” the reporter reported.
The carefully planned strike could not have been carried out without the logistical support of its Western allies, but why did they choose that precise date, on the eve of the negotiators’ second meeting in Istanbul?
In May, Russian troops gained more than twice as much territory as in April, seizing approximately 449 square kilometers, according to DeepState, a Ukrainian research group that uses combat imagery to map the battlefield, the NYT reports.
According to experts, militarily, the attack makes sense as part of a direct confrontation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as it exposes a vulnerability in Russian nuclear reaction systems. But it may have other objectives.
NATO attacks, Trump and Putin remain silent
“Operation Spiderweb” was planned a year and a half ago, Zelensky said the following day, euphoric over what he called a “brilliant operation.” But that statement raised concerns.
On the one hand, it is impossible to believe that an action of this magnitude was carried out with the direct support of Western allies; therefore, they had to be informed, which would put President Trump in a very compromising position regarding his willingness to pacify the conflict and would break the trust he thus far seems to share with Putin.
The other option is that it was hidden from the president, which would provoke a security crisis in the US government.
The alliance is shifting from a strategy of a protracted war to suffocate Russia with sanctions and attrition to using all the resources allocated in the final weeks of last year by both Biden and the other allies to intensify actions beyond the battlefield, aimed at escalation, which in turn will justify further expenditures.
Provoke Escalation or War
After a blogger with a hasty and reckless mindset called this action “Russia’s Pearl Harbor,” many media outlets echoed the concept, believing it to be a possible trigger for World War III.
As has happened with other attacks that were expected to provoke an immediate, forceful, and violent reaction from Russia, such as terrorist attacks, a forceful response from Putin was expected after the June 1st attacks, but there seems to be only silence.
If Putin responds violently against his NATO aggressors, it would provoke a war in which the US would have to become involved.
So, although the attack has no effect on the war scene, it could have important political implications. One of the objectives could be to distance Trump and Putin.
It’s worth remembering that a week ago, Trump said Putin was “completely crazy” and that if it weren’t for his mediation, “very bad things could happen to Russia.”
But he also said that this isn’t his war, which could suggest he was distancing himself from the decisions of his NATO allies.
Furthermore, involving the US in a war would neutralize other Trump policies that harm the interests of his allies, such as the tariff battle.
Nuclear Threat
Last year, Putin modified his nuclear doctrine, precisely when attacks on Russian ships in the Black Sea occurred, which could mean attacks on vessels intended to transport nuclear weapons and serve as a deterrent.
The new doctrine states that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event that military assets intended to transport nuclear weapons are attacked.
“Operation Spider Web” appears to recklessly aim to test that doctrine.
Second Meeting in Istanbul
Despite the alarmism and tension the world experienced on Monday, June 1, the Kremlin’s response was to continue with what was agreed upon and send its delegation with the memorandum to the second meeting with Kyiv in Istanbul.
Representatives of both countries met for just over an hour and shared documents with a Russian delegation whose serenity disconcerted the Ukrainians, according to Zelensky himself on Tuesday.
A Kyiv envoy traveled to Washington on Tuesday to meet with President Trump, while the Ukrainian president asserted that pressure on Russia must be increased and encouraged his partners.
Polish Election
The victory of nationalist candidate Karol Nawrocki is a severe setback for the pro-European commitment and support for Ukraine promoted by the current government.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Tuesday that he will submit his government to a vote of confidence in Parliament on June 11 and avoid having to bring forward legislative elections, scheduled for 2027.
The president, with a five-year term, wields influence over foreign and defense policy and wields veto power at the legislative level.
The Polish process is bringing down the so-called “willing” coalition. Ukraine and Tusk, along with the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Germany, sought to become protagonists on the political scene. Poland seemed part of the backbone of a new Europe.
But if parliamentary elections are held in early 2026, current polls suggest that Law and Justice and the far-right Confederation Party could form a coalition.
“Mr. Nawrocki has said he would not support Ukraine’s future membership in either NATO or the European Union,” says NYT journalist Andrew Higgins.
Collapse in the Netherlands
Another political development at the beginning of this week that is disrupting European and Atlanticist unity is that far-right leader Geert Wilders overthrew the fragile coalition in power in the Netherlands on Tuesday by withdrawing his party, the PVV, from the government due to a disagreement over migration, a political crisis that paves the way for early elections, according to the AFP news agency.
The PVV’s departure from the government opens a period of uncertainty for the Netherlands, the fifth-largest economy in the European Union (EU), which is scheduled to host a NATO summit at the end of June, he added.
“I will remain on an interim basis (…) until a new government is formed because life in the Netherlands and abroad continues,” declared Prime Minister Dick Schoof.
US President Donald Trump will attend the NATO summit in The Hague on June 24 and 25, where his demands for increased defense spending will be the central topic of the agenda, the White House announced Tuesday.
This will be the first meeting with members of the transatlantic alliance since the Republican’s return to power in January, and Volodymyr Zelensky will also be present, suggesting tensions about the confrontation with Russia.
In Trump’s dizzying political career, three weeks is a long time, and much is yet to happen.
Britain Wants War
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Monday the construction of up to 12 attack submarines while announcing that he wanted to prepare his country for war and declaring that the new rearmament strategy is “a message to Moscow,” according to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
“This is about bringing together all the capabilities we have, from drones to artillery, intelligence and human instinct, to build a formidable, integrated fighting machine,” the British leader insisted.
The bellicose atmosphere in Europe has led to dangerous tensions, and the outlook is uncertain.
President Trump will speak with Xi this week about the tariffs, the main issue for both powers, but these developments require measures to define the Ukrainian conflict and avoid the irresponsibility of escalation.
Translated and adapted from SemanarioUniversidad.com. Read the original in Spanish here.
Source link
Q Costa Rica
