The Two Drone Attacks Against Pskov Are Desperate Attempts To Provoke A Russia-NATO War
The importance of Russia’s calm and measured reaction to the latest drone attacks against Pskov can’t be overemphasized since it’s only through this mature response that the conflict didn’t spiral out of control like the US’ liberal-globalists, Kiev, the Baltic States, and Poland expected.
The northwestern Russian city of Pskov was attacked by drones twice the week. The first incident reportedly damaged an Il-76 military transport aircraft per Sputnik’s report here citing the regional headquarters of the Ministry of Emergency Situations while the second was stopped outside the city. Pskov’s proximity to NATO members Estonia and Latvia prompted speculation that the attacks were launched from that anti-Russian bloc.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday that “It is also clear that Ukrainian drones could not travel such a distance without a carefully planned route based on information obtained from Western satellites”, suggesting that they were launched from Ukraine and not the Baltic States. The next day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the “routes [of drone attacks] are being clarified, how this was done is being analyzed”. As can be seen, neither official jumped to conclusions about this.
In any case, the two drone attacks against Pskov are very dangerous precisely because of the possibility that they might have been launched from NATO territory. If they indeed were, then it represents an unprecedented escalation of the NATO-Russian proxy war that risks turning their indirect conflict in Ukraine into a hot war between one another. There’s also the chance, however, that these Baltic-originating anti-Russian drone attacks could have been carried out by non-state actors for that purpose.
If there’s any truth to either scenario, though no evidence has yet to emerge from the Russian side to suggest that there is, then it means that Moscow is exercising a saintly degree of patience by not responding reciprocally or asymmetrically. Although this approach would be predicated on avoiding a larger war that could end the world, “doom & gloom” conspiracy theorists like those that channel Igor Girkin’s views might claim that the Kremlin either “sold out” to the West or is “too weak” to confront it.
On the other hand, it might very well be that these attacks were launched from Ukraine with the assistance of Western satellites exactly as Zakharova claimed. In that event, it’s still a dangerous escalation, but short of the previously mentioned possibility that these drones came from the Baltic States. Regardless of whatever version of events one subscribes to, they both involve two drone attacks against Pskov over the past week, and this is very concerning due to the city’s proximity to NATO.
The preceding observation therefore strongly suggests that Pskov was targeted for psychological reasons that will now be discussed. The New York Times reported in late August that “Ukraine’s Drone Strikes Against Russia Are a Message for Its Own People” to boost morale by showing that it can strike back. This was followed by The Economist claiming that “The headline-making strikes on Moscow are intended to have a psychological impact, bringing ordinary Russians closer to the reality of war.”
The latest attacks against Pskov served to advance these psychological goals, but there are two others that they sought to achieve as well. By targeting that NATO-adjacent city, the US and Ukraine also wanted to discredit Russia in the eyes of its so-called “turbo-patriots” by manipulating their perceptions along the lines that were earlier described regarding Girkin-influenced narratives. Supplementarily but much less likely to succeed, they could have wanted to provoke an overreaction from Russia too.
Regarding the first of these additional psychological reasons, it’s self-explanatory why Russia’s enemies want to externally exacerbate preexisting differences between an increasingly vocal segment of society and the state. As for the second, it would predictably be spun as “unprovoked aggression against NATO”, with the consequences being to justify that bloc escalating matters further and/or delaying the resumption of peace talks.
The aforementioned motivations aren’t exclusively the US’ or Ukraine’s, or to be more specific, the motivations of the US’ liberal-globalist policymaking faction that believes in prioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s and is nowadays competing with their pragmatic rivals to stay the course. Poland and the Baltic States also want to escalate the NATO-Russian proxy war for ideological reasons related to their leaderships’ deeply rooted Russophobia and also to sabotage peace talks.
As the conflict moves closer towards what appears to be the inevitable resumption of these talks by year’s end or sometime early next year following the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive and resultant US-Ukrainian blame game, those four countries fear that they’ll be left in the lurch and possibly “sold out”. It doesn’t matter whether one agrees or disagrees with their perspective since all that’s important is that it’s the paradigm through which they’re formulating policy towards this proxy war.
With this in mind, it can’t be ruled out that at least some of the drones might have been launched from the Baltic States, whether unilaterally by their own armed forces without US approval, in collusion with the US’ subversive liberal-globalist faction, or by state-aligned but formally non-state actors. All of them want to complicate the path towards peace by provoking an escalation in the proxy war, even if it leads to a NATO-Russian hot war, but they’re unable to succeed so long as Moscow doesn’t bite the bait.
The importance of Russia’s calm and measured reaction to the latest drone attacks against Pskov therefore can’t be overemphasized since it’s only through this mature response that the conflict didn’t spiral out of control like the US’ liberal-globalists, Kiev, the Baltic States, and Poland expected. The exact truth of what transpired might never be fully revealed, but nevertheless, everyone should still appreciate that the proxy war’s dynamics remain comparatively stable and on the trajectory towards peace.
"...mature response..."
Thank God for the adults in the room! I wish I could be like that.
"...non-state actors..."
If a CIA agent gives a layabout, unemployable Russian malcontent in a NATO dwarf-partner country a million bucks and asks him to launch a drone, does that mean the malcontent is a state actor? Does he become a state actor if the dwarf-partner's government agrees to hide his income?
"...a saintly degree of patience..."
Bingo! That's gotta be the winning factor, then: no amount of money can buy that.
"... Girkin-influenced narratives."
How fortuitous that the adults foresaw this, as you described in your post of 22/08/23 (hyperlinked above). I wish I could be like that. I'm sure my children would have been raised in a far healthier manner and consequently grown up to be far healthier — better — adults if I had been.
(Which makes me want to think and talk about all sorts of really promising things said and done yesterday in Russia, on День знание — 01 September, when kids go back to school. But I won't go there from here. What a wonderful country they're making there, now that they no longer feel obliged to conform to others' values! How lucky the world is that the Americans were so stupid as to actually believe they might be able to overwhelm humanity's will to live (with nonsense 'values')! But I digress.)
"...the motivations of the US’ liberal-globalist policymaking faction..."
See above.
"...Poland and the Baltic States..."
What if it's not the CIA (or MI5, or whatever) in the theoretical question I posed above, but a representative of a NATO state's government, e.g. someone responsible for ascertaining eligibility for access to the the public purse, e.g. 'welfare benefits', asks the malcontent to do something; does that make them state actors? What a good thing we've got rules in a rules-based order: just make 'em up as you go along!
"...the trajectory towards peace."
Yes...
Girkin, however, does have a point (and a damn good, strong one it is).
I DON'T agree with Girkin on any of his main points, which you outlined in your analysis of 22/07/23:
"he continued defaming the armed forces,
discrediting the Russian leadership,
demanding the purge of supposed traitors at the highest levels,
and agitating for regime change."
and most certainly not the last of the above.
“save their country from an otherwise inevitably humiliating failure.”
And I'm not too worried about humiliation.
In fact, I don't really find very many '5D Chess' theorists or 'Doom & Gloomers' worthy of very much attention.
I do, however, worry, particularly in view of Putin's personality as an essentially extraordinarily open-hearted and forgiving individual who goes to great lengths to exercise patience to provide space for the deliberately intransigent and just downright bloody-minded and pig-headed to come around. The eight years, 2014-2022, he waited for the Americans to grow up and realise what they'd done in the Donbass is, perhaps, the best example of this. 'Patience of a saint...' is hardly a fitting description. And I remain convinced, whether this provides the basis for a '5-D Chess' mentality or not, this is the core reason, from which so many others stem, on the battlefield, in domestic policy and in foreign relations for Russia's success. This is the future for politicians: when we've all grown up a bit more and the world is a bit better place, more and more politicians like this will start to emerge, I have no doubt. We started life from sludge and made our way up through whales and monkeys to become what we are now. It's not going to stop: there will come a day when more and more politicians are like Putin until, one day, it will suddenly seem like any other sort is something irrationally unusual, like spitting in the street seems to most people now. But I digress. (Sorry!)
The point is, I share the fear, whether it's Girkin's or not, that NATO, or America, or whatever you want to call it — which represents those very people who DO NOT wish for the future to include any days when more politicians are like Putin — may somehow be able to manipulate a peace, like the did the lull in hostilities in the Donbass ('14-'22) which could result in them ultimately being able to hurt (dismember and overwhelm) Russia. I know there are many among those who started this war and came to rely on their now-failed '(counter-)offensive' who placate themselves with the thought, 'Well, Putin can't live forever, and the likelihood of the Russians getting another leader like that' though they use other words 'twice in a row is infinitesimally small. We'll win next time.'
The Ukraine is in a really bad way. It can't be brought back to health without the help of the Russians. More than just joined at the hip, the Russians and the Ukrainians are, for want of a better term, 'soul mates'. They need each other. They need to learn how to love themselves by loving each other. This is the lesson they have for the rest of the world. I'm afraid if the Americans aren't exposed for who they are and what they've done they will continue to delude themselves by deluding the Ukraine. Like a spoilt child who will not accept that his/her unacceptable behaviour is neither justifiable nor acceptable, a step beyond patience is necessary. The Americans, or NATO or whatever you want to call it, must be so thoroughly and indisputably defeated in the Ukraine that they themselves drop to their knees, begging for forgiveness, weeping on their knees, 'We thought you were as weak as we were when we unleashed the nuclear age by dropping atomic bombs on Japan, that we could force you to prove you are not better than us by forcing you to use nuclear weapons against us, but we were wrong. We're so sorry. Please forgive us.' They must then undertake to make reparation for what they have done. I can't see any other way a viable, lasting peace may be reached in the Ukraine.
For a long time, I was convinced the Americans needed to be defeated by the use of nuclear weapons. I felt that was the karmic path they needed to fulfil: that nuclear weapons should be used to reduce concentrations of their (or NATO's or whatever you want to call it) troops not just once, but twice; in exactly the same manner as they overwhelmed Japan. Gradually, as I watched the Russians thrash three all three shades of shit out of the Americans in the Ukraine on Telegram over the summer, a hope was somehow conceived in my heart, which eventually spread to my brain, that it might be possible to get the Americans begging for mercy on their knees without nuking the shit out of the c**ts. It's a lovely thought. I see it rewarded by beautiful things, like the law that came into effect in Russia yesterday, whereby vehicles transporting children to school were no longer liable to pay for the use of toll roads. I saw how the people in Putin's grandfather's hometown in Tverskoi oblasti eagerly awaited and greeted the great man, who has become their true hero; and I was nearly moved to tears by the thought, 'Someday my kids may have politicians like that.' Because we certainly don't have anything like that now. (And I'm in danger of digression again.) The long and short of it is, there must be no peace until the aggressors accept and undertake to help make better what they have done. I don't know if that's what Girkin thinks or not, but I'd like to think I'm not alone (but it won't change my mind if I am).