Surovikin Unleashes Rain of Bombs on Ukraine Again as Revenge For Airfield Attack

Monday means getting back to the grind.

Ukrainian hit the Engels airfield deep in Russia with a UAV or perhaps even something heavier than that yesterday.

And then another field was hit right after.

This attack triggered another retaliatory salvo on Moscow’s part. This one was bigger than usual.

RT:

Strikes by Russian missiles in multiple regions of Ukraine targeted its ability to transport troops and their Western-supplied weapons, as well as equipment to the front lines, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said on Monday. Ukrainian officials reported power supply disruptions in the capital and several regional seats.

“Energy objects” in the Kiev, Vinnitsa and Odessa regions were damaged by Monday’s strikes, leading to power outages, said Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal.  

There were also reports of full blackouts in the Sumy region, as well as partial disruptions in Cherkasy, Kharkov, Krivoy Rog, Kirovograd, Nikolaev, and Zhitomir. Multiple targets were struck in Dnepropetrovsk.

In addition to power and water supply in the major cities, damage to the electrical grid has seriously delayed rail traffic across Ukraine.

This was the stated objective of the attack, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. In a statement on Monday, Moscow said it carried out a “massive” strike using strategic bombers, aiming to disrupt the transport of Ukrainian troops – as well as their Western-supplied weapons, equipment and ammunition – to the front lines by rail.

“All 17 assigned objectives were hit,” the Defense Ministry said.

The sortie went ahead despite an attack by Ukrainian drones on Russian airfields in Saratov and Ryazan regions, both more than 500km inside Russia, on Monday morning. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, three service members were killed and four injured when debris from the drones shot down by air defenses impacted the facilities. Two airplanes reportedly suffered minor damage.

Russia began striking Ukrainian infrastructure targets in early October, after a suicide bombing organized by Kiev damaged a span of the Crimean Bridge. Russian President Vladimir Putin told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz last week that, while Moscow had long refrained from hitting certain targets, such strikes became “necessary and unavoidable as a reaction to Kiev’s provocative attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure.”

I’m puzzled by this tit-for-tat game that KIev and Moscow are playing. Ukraine hits a Russian target and gets hit much worse by Russia’s retaliatory strike. It keeps happening and it begs the question: why does Kiev continue to play this dangerous game? What do they gain by it?

After all, Russia’s counter-strikes hurt more than their little mosquito bites.

I suppose it serves as good PR at home to show that Ukraine is hurting Russia or something like that. Also, the retaliatory strikes make it easier to ask for more money from the West. And more Ukrainian suffering leads to a hardening of hearts against Russia, I suppose.

The point is that the incentive structure for Kiev is rather unconventional.

Trying to analyze, predict and influence Kiev’s decision-making means having to understand their incentive structure. They seems very willing to incur huge damages that they would otherwise not need to occur to achieve propaganda goals and to secure funding from the West. Needless to say, no normal country would behave this way. But then, no normal country would have bombed its own people for eight years straight and have allowed itself to be converted into one giant organized money-laundering operation for the Democratic party and Jewish crypto-currency scammers, so that’s kind of a moot point already.

NATO quite likes the idea of a slow-burning war by they way. They don’t care about Ukrainians or Russians killing each other. In fact, they love it. It’s in their interests to get Slavs to butcher each other. They admitted as much in a recent TIME article, along with some other interesting insights that line up with what I’ve been starting to theorize on my own. Here, a relevant quote from the article:

This is the deadly dilemma for the West. Putin must not win, but Zelensky must not win too much. Right now, while Ukraine is advancing and Russia is flailing, negotiations will not soon bring about a lasting settlement. So how to crack the dilemma?

Only the principle is easy to lay out. The West is not doing the Ukrainians a one-sided favor by helping them to drive back Putin. The beleaguered nation also happens to fight for a precious European system unhinged by Russian expansionism. So, Ukraine is returning the favor big-time by defying him. It is also defending the rest of the West.

The point is not to dethrone Putin, which only his own people can do. It is to sober him up and to deter adventurism over the long haul. Crimea is presumably lost. But conceding his other conquests in this third act, would embolden him. On the global level, other ambitious revisionists like China and Iran are watching.

I don’t think ZOG’s plan was ever to militarily defeat Russia. No, their plan was to put pressure on Russia and incentivize an overthrow of Putin from within the county. This is the only way to defeat Russia while avoiding the nuclear last defense option - a strategy that served them well once already.

I believe that the US goal with this war is finally starting to become clear.

It is to force a treaty out of Russia that will prove politically ruinous for Putin should he be forced to accept it. By creating a situation in which Putin is pressured internally by Russia’s oligarchs or perhaps even the spook community, they will lay the groundwork for his eventual overthrow from within. Western media outlets and pundits and politicians have been admitting as much even before the war in Ukraine began.

In the meantime, should the war continue and escalate, this will only strengthen Russia’s military faction, which the US doesn’t want anywhere near power, because they rightly fear an actual right-wing government taking control of Russia and running out the merchant caste that the US relies so heavily on to keep Russia in line.

You know what would have been a winning move for Russia with this war? Winning quickly and decisively with overwhelming force instead of getting pulled into this bizarre war of energy-attrition and WWI-style trenches. The longer the war goes, the more strain is put on all the parties in the conflict. But the Western elite seems to think that they can handle the strain better than Russia can. It’s like a game where the two contestants have to hold their hands on a hot stove for the longest. Sure, they both get burned, but if one of the contestants feels that they can take more damage than their opponent, he will initiate the deadly game. We can only wait and see who can take more damage before throwing in the towel because, at this point, short of a much larger mobilization, this is looking to become a long and bloody stalemate of a conflict.

NOTE: I am aware of how bad things are getting for Europe, and you guys point this out in every other post, but that is a moot point because they are a colony of the US and the one world global government and so can govern and pursue policies that are actively against their own country’s and people’s interests so long as it advances the greater agenda. What are Europeans going to do? Rise up? Please.

Also worth noting is that the strikes are popular in Russia. But I think that the pessimist-analysts have a point when they say that these strikes are not the way that this war gets won. I’ve written about this before. Only mobilization of a large army can achieve Russia’s military objectives. For one reason or the other, the Kremlin hasn’t announced the big mobilization just yet, but I think it is only a matter of time at this point. Once they do, it will be yet more proof that the strikes were not enough and the people saying that further mobilization would be unnecessary were wrong. Again.