Musk might understandably balk due to not wanting to provoke Putin into escalating out of self-defense in ways that risk World War III, but it remains unclear whether Trump shares his caution, though everything will likely become clearer in the next 100 days per Polish PM Tusk.
Given Russia's passivity in the face of NATO's openly admitted involvement in the killing of Russian military personnel and, above all, Russian civilians, and the destruction of Russian strategic infrastructure, one is entitled to ask a question. What if? Let's step back a little. NATO thinks it has put the Russian frog in a pot of lukewarm water that it is gradually heating up. What if? What if Russia is forcing NATO to reveal everything it has in store, and is learning to counter it with the aim of a possible major confrontation? What have we been witnessing for four years? Russia is forcing NATO to roll out an increasingly sophisticated arsenal and is finding its flaws. All the usual weapons have found their countermeasures, and most of them, supposedly terrifying, have turned out to be expensive, complex, fragile gadgets, unsuited to high-intensity warfare. We know that the Russians do not have the same media-driven fear of human losses. What if Russia is learning NATO? Question: how is the Russian public taking Putin's passivity in the face of the now daily killing of Russian civilians, with no other response than to go and shell Ukrainian beet fields?
That's a possibility, I just don't know if it's deliberate. Russia has indeed learned from NATO, but so too has NATO learned from Russia (via Ukraine and whatever units they have clandestinely deployed to the country). Each side has also always signaled their planned escalations far in advance, nothing was ever a true surprise, in order to give the other time to prepare for escalation-control purposes.
It's difficult to gauge public opinion as a whole since surveys aren't always reliable and social media can sometimes present a warped view of popular sentiment. That said, it's my personal feeling that people want Putin to escalate and don't quite understand why that's not happening. It hasn't been communicated at all.
The most that's been done is some popular milbloggers pushing the notion that Russia is gradually and systematically demilitarizing NATO. That explanation doesn't make much sense, however, since NATO is replenishing its arsenal and actively attempting to expand it through increased production.
If the military phase of the conflict is now supposedly all about this alleged goal, then it'll become a forever war, and the odds might shift against Russia too. That's because European NATO can indeed "dwarf" Russia's military-industrial production per the US' National Defense Strategy if it's properly coordinated.
This is simple arithmetic that's dishonestly denied by most NRPRs, many of whom either make up narratives on the fly or just parrot whatever certain milbloggers claim. In any case, the state hasn't explained why a "war of attrition" is being fought as opposed to a decisive bombing campaign, hence the confusion.
If Europeans really put 5% of their GDP into defense and revive their respective domestic MIC, yes, European NATO production can dwarf Russia's production. However, it is a process that takes time. On the other hand, the window allowing Russia a freer hand and more deliberate action is narrowing, and that explains why Russians' opinion will converge to using a higher tempo to reach some sort of closure (not necessarily an armistice, let alone a treaty) of the Ukrainian conflict. Which side is truly "paranoid enough" remains to be seen.
Europeans know how to build million cars, thousands planes, rockets, trucks, trains and even weapons and it would not be able to build a military supply chain?
It's knowing very bad the industrial genius of Germany.
Yes. But knowing is one thing; doing is another. Building weapons takes money, material, technicians, robotic arms, etc. Europeans certainly have the ability.
«This is an unfriendly act. I don’t know how Russia could react to that.»
The U.S., using ISR, has consistently enabled Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on sensitive Russian targets for years—not least its nuclear triad (Operation Spiderweb). Moscow did not react to Storm Shadows, ATACMs, or Baltic drones, all of which qualify, along with the latest hits, as "unfriendly acts". The U.S. can hardly be deterred from further escalation, given Putin's tepid response and Trump's history of overcoming his own reluctance or vow(s).
Hi Ludwig, and you're welcome! To elaborate a bit, Russia's industrial and military assets are protected to an extent, but not perfectly. It might even be impossible right now to perfectly defend against long-range drone swarms. While some of its military assets like missile launchers are mobile, its industrial ones aren't, which makes them more vulnerable.
Ukraine's most important military-industrial production capabilities and logistics are inside NATO, thus making them beyond reach for Russia, while practically all of Russia's (which are concentrated in its European part) would be within reach for Ukraine if Starlink/Starshield covered Russia's pre-2014 territory.
In that dark scenario, Ukraine might ultimately overwhelm Russia's drone defenses with larger and larger swarms till it scored critical hits on enough of its industrial (including energy) infrastructure to inflict significant strategic damage. It might also begin successfully hitting more of its mobile military assets too for similarly significant strategic effect.
If Russia's industrial and military assets are systematically destroyed, then Russia will either have to accept an unfair ceasefire or escalate to restore deterrence, neither of which Putin wants to do. The difference between Ukraine and Russia is that the first is a full-blown dictatorship whose military-industrial production and logistics are protected by NATO.
It can therefore put down any unrest, force as many people to the front as required, and thus continue fighting with NATO backing even if the country itself is utterly destroyed through hypothetical large-scale Russian conventional strikes. By contrast, Russia's military-industrial assets are finite and cannot be replaced if taken offline.
Russia also isn't a hardcore dictatorship that can do what Ukraine can as described above. China is very unlikely to step in and replicate NATO's military-industrial and logistical role vis-a-vis Russia for fear of crippling US sanctions and wider escalation. Any thoughts about it doing so are purely wishful thinking and/or deliberate media disinformation.
For these reasons, the Starlink/Starshield factor might truly be a game-changer in the worst way possible for Russia, God forbid. It would put Russia up against a wall and force Putin into precisely the zero-sum choice that he's sought to avoid for 4.5 years already. I'm personally very worried about this possibility.
Thanks Andrew - I very much appreciate that comprehensive reply.
It appears to me that time is no longer necessarily on Russia’s side, and it needs to stop pulling its punches and end the conflict as quickly as possible.
Perhaps that’s why we’re currently seeing the intense attacks on the Odessa and Danube ports and shipping etc..
Yes, that's precisely what I worry about, namely that the prior bet that time was on Russia's side -- the assumptions being that the front lines would collapse, the EU would undergo a wave of populist electoral revolutions that lead to it bowing out of the proxy war, and/or Trump growing bored and giving up - is no longer viable.
From now, as time goes on, the strategic dynamics will risk turning against Russia one-by-one. The process might even be an accelerated one in the worst-case scenario of Starlink/Starhield helping Ukraine deal a "knock-out blow" to Russia's industrial and military assets.
If the Starlink/Starshield scenario doesn't come to pass, then the "war of attrition" could still possibly continue inflicting gradual damage to Russia due to the asymmetries that I described above (i.e. Ukraine's most important assets being under NATO protection while Russia's remain vulnerable).
As for the ramped-up strikes that we're seeing from Russia, they raise the question of why the decision wasn't made years ago to do precisely this when Ukraine was politically, economically, and militarily weaker. One can only speculate why, but it's possible that Russia's missile production capabilities weren't as high as thought.
The Russian-backed governor of Crimea said on Wednesday that the fuel and energy situation on the Black Sea peninsula was "tense" and likely to remain so, amid escalating Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure and supply lines.
In a statement on Telegram, Sergei Aksyonov, the governor, said: "The fuel supply situation remains tense and will continue for some time. On certain days there will be no fuel available to be freely sold."
The report comes as the Russian-installed energy operator Krymenergo said on July 27 that power restrictions are in effect across Crimea, citing a "difficult" situation in the northwest, east, and south of the peninsula following Ukrainian strikes.
"Outages are occurring on short notice, depending on the situation in each power grid area," Krymenergo said in a statement published on its website, adding that it is currently "not possible to supply electricity to some settlements on the peninsula."
Russian-installed Governor of Sevastopol Mikhail Razvozhaev said early on July 27 that the city's electricity supply has been "temporarily restricted" as a "necessary measure," adding that public services have switched to backup power supplies.
"It is required to alleviate the overload on power grids outside our region in order to prevent a failure of the entire power system," Razvozhaev said in a Telegram post.
Temporary electricity restrictions have been introduced across Crimea as of July 31. The Russian-installed authorities are warning residents of the risk of a large-scale power system failure, according to Krymenergo.
"On the instruction of the dispatcher of the Black Sea Regional Dispatch Office (a branch of the Unified Energy System Operator), a temporary electricity restriction regime has been introduced in Crimea," the statement said.
The Russian-installed authorities on the peninsula said the measure was unavoidable. They also claimed it was the only way to prevent the electricity grid from becoming overloaded, saying Crimea is currently at risk of a power system-wide failure.
The authorities also acknowledged that the restrictions would involve unplanned power outages. ... Krymenergo also said it could not specify when the electricity restrictions would be lifted.
Let's not forget that with modern weaponry, Crimea is not exactly "the rear". Both sides obviously have intelligence and military intelligence personnel penetrating the other side for hundreds of kilometers.
I have the impression that the current international laws treat Low Earth Orbits (LEO) as part of soverign air space. If so, then this may become the first war officially reaching LEO. MIG-31 plus R-37 might be able to be tuned for that purpose. How to identify enemy satellites is beyond me.
Satellites are covered by different treaties that deal with space. They are not “airspace”. (And very few remain over the same point on the Earth’s surface.) Currently it is not legal to attack satellites or any other space assets. Of course if anyone feels their national security is threatened- even the legalistic Russians - that could change fast.
With MUSK we have at least ONE intelligent person in thei world. Thank GOD we have MUSK living with us. Andrew ,thank you for all your excellent articles. The world needs guys like you.
It's not a matter of matador neither. In a corrida, if a matador is wounded or killed, that doesn't save the bull. Another matador is send by the presidence of the show.
I respectfully disagree and explained here why expanding the scope of these systems to pre-2014 Russian territory, or at least the entirety of its European part, could be a game-changer in the worst way possible for Russia:
Simply put, Putin would be forced into accepting an unfair ceasefire or radically escalating against Ukraine, neither of which he's wanted to do thus far, otherwise Russia risks deindustrialization and demilitarization, God forbid.
You misunderstood. My point was that Ukraine was already using StarLink to inflict significant damage on Russian infrastructure across Crimea and Donbas', leading to the kinds of effects you describe. In and of itself this is causus belli enough for Russia to escalate more than it has, regardless of whether StarLink-enabled strikes expand further.
So we should actually wish the expanding of the Starlink to pre-2014 Russia because it would force Putin to radically escalate against Ukraine and so win the war.
What would it take for Russia to knock out the satellites of the Starlink system? If Starlink were used as a weapon by Ukraine, it would seem a valid defensive response.
Given Russia's passivity in the face of NATO's openly admitted involvement in the killing of Russian military personnel and, above all, Russian civilians, and the destruction of Russian strategic infrastructure, one is entitled to ask a question. What if? Let's step back a little. NATO thinks it has put the Russian frog in a pot of lukewarm water that it is gradually heating up. What if? What if Russia is forcing NATO to reveal everything it has in store, and is learning to counter it with the aim of a possible major confrontation? What have we been witnessing for four years? Russia is forcing NATO to roll out an increasingly sophisticated arsenal and is finding its flaws. All the usual weapons have found their countermeasures, and most of them, supposedly terrifying, have turned out to be expensive, complex, fragile gadgets, unsuited to high-intensity warfare. We know that the Russians do not have the same media-driven fear of human losses. What if Russia is learning NATO? Question: how is the Russian public taking Putin's passivity in the face of the now daily killing of Russian civilians, with no other response than to go and shell Ukrainian beet fields?
That's a possibility, I just don't know if it's deliberate. Russia has indeed learned from NATO, but so too has NATO learned from Russia (via Ukraine and whatever units they have clandestinely deployed to the country). Each side has also always signaled their planned escalations far in advance, nothing was ever a true surprise, in order to give the other time to prepare for escalation-control purposes.
And concerning the russian public opinion?
It's difficult to gauge public opinion as a whole since surveys aren't always reliable and social media can sometimes present a warped view of popular sentiment. That said, it's my personal feeling that people want Putin to escalate and don't quite understand why that's not happening. It hasn't been communicated at all.
The most that's been done is some popular milbloggers pushing the notion that Russia is gradually and systematically demilitarizing NATO. That explanation doesn't make much sense, however, since NATO is replenishing its arsenal and actively attempting to expand it through increased production.
If the military phase of the conflict is now supposedly all about this alleged goal, then it'll become a forever war, and the odds might shift against Russia too. That's because European NATO can indeed "dwarf" Russia's military-industrial production per the US' National Defense Strategy if it's properly coordinated.
This is simple arithmetic that's dishonestly denied by most NRPRs, many of whom either make up narratives on the fly or just parrot whatever certain milbloggers claim. In any case, the state hasn't explained why a "war of attrition" is being fought as opposed to a decisive bombing campaign, hence the confusion.
If Europeans really put 5% of their GDP into defense and revive their respective domestic MIC, yes, European NATO production can dwarf Russia's production. However, it is a process that takes time. On the other hand, the window allowing Russia a freer hand and more deliberate action is narrowing, and that explains why Russians' opinion will converge to using a higher tempo to reach some sort of closure (not necessarily an armistice, let alone a treaty) of the Ukrainian conflict. Which side is truly "paranoid enough" remains to be seen.
Europeans know how to build million cars, thousands planes, rockets, trucks, trains and even weapons and it would not be able to build a military supply chain?
It's knowing very bad the industrial genius of Germany.
Yes. But knowing is one thing; doing is another. Building weapons takes money, material, technicians, robotic arms, etc. Europeans certainly have the ability.
«This is an unfriendly act. I don’t know how Russia could react to that.»
The U.S., using ISR, has consistently enabled Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on sensitive Russian targets for years—not least its nuclear triad (Operation Spiderweb). Moscow did not react to Storm Shadows, ATACMs, or Baltic drones, all of which qualify, along with the latest hits, as "unfriendly acts". The U.S. can hardly be deterred from further escalation, given Putin's tepid response and Trump's history of overcoming his own reluctance or vow(s).
Thank you for this post.
It’s quite difficult to get a good understanding of how effective Ukrainian drone strikes have been, but from what I’ve read I had thought ‘not very’.
I was therefore surprised when you referred to the potential or possibility of the de-industrialisation and de-militarisation of Russia.
If you have time to reply I should like to get your take on this.
LF
Hi Ludwig, and you're welcome! To elaborate a bit, Russia's industrial and military assets are protected to an extent, but not perfectly. It might even be impossible right now to perfectly defend against long-range drone swarms. While some of its military assets like missile launchers are mobile, its industrial ones aren't, which makes them more vulnerable.
Ukraine's most important military-industrial production capabilities and logistics are inside NATO, thus making them beyond reach for Russia, while practically all of Russia's (which are concentrated in its European part) would be within reach for Ukraine if Starlink/Starshield covered Russia's pre-2014 territory.
In that dark scenario, Ukraine might ultimately overwhelm Russia's drone defenses with larger and larger swarms till it scored critical hits on enough of its industrial (including energy) infrastructure to inflict significant strategic damage. It might also begin successfully hitting more of its mobile military assets too for similarly significant strategic effect.
If Russia's industrial and military assets are systematically destroyed, then Russia will either have to accept an unfair ceasefire or escalate to restore deterrence, neither of which Putin wants to do. The difference between Ukraine and Russia is that the first is a full-blown dictatorship whose military-industrial production and logistics are protected by NATO.
It can therefore put down any unrest, force as many people to the front as required, and thus continue fighting with NATO backing even if the country itself is utterly destroyed through hypothetical large-scale Russian conventional strikes. By contrast, Russia's military-industrial assets are finite and cannot be replaced if taken offline.
Russia also isn't a hardcore dictatorship that can do what Ukraine can as described above. China is very unlikely to step in and replicate NATO's military-industrial and logistical role vis-a-vis Russia for fear of crippling US sanctions and wider escalation. Any thoughts about it doing so are purely wishful thinking and/or deliberate media disinformation.
For these reasons, the Starlink/Starshield factor might truly be a game-changer in the worst way possible for Russia, God forbid. It would put Russia up against a wall and force Putin into precisely the zero-sum choice that he's sought to avoid for 4.5 years already. I'm personally very worried about this possibility.
Thanks Andrew - I very much appreciate that comprehensive reply.
It appears to me that time is no longer necessarily on Russia’s side, and it needs to stop pulling its punches and end the conflict as quickly as possible.
Perhaps that’s why we’re currently seeing the intense attacks on the Odessa and Danube ports and shipping etc..
Yes, that's precisely what I worry about, namely that the prior bet that time was on Russia's side -- the assumptions being that the front lines would collapse, the EU would undergo a wave of populist electoral revolutions that lead to it bowing out of the proxy war, and/or Trump growing bored and giving up - is no longer viable.
From now, as time goes on, the strategic dynamics will risk turning against Russia one-by-one. The process might even be an accelerated one in the worst-case scenario of Starlink/Starhield helping Ukraine deal a "knock-out blow" to Russia's industrial and military assets.
If the Starlink/Starshield scenario doesn't come to pass, then the "war of attrition" could still possibly continue inflicting gradual damage to Russia due to the asymmetries that I described above (i.e. Ukraine's most important assets being under NATO protection while Russia's remain vulnerable).
As for the ramped-up strikes that we're seeing from Russia, they raise the question of why the decision wasn't made years ago to do precisely this when Ukraine was politically, economically, and militarily weaker. One can only speculate why, but it's possible that Russia's missile production capabilities weren't as high as thought.
The Russian-backed governor of Crimea said on Wednesday that the fuel and energy situation on the Black Sea peninsula was "tense" and likely to remain so, amid escalating Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure and supply lines.
In a statement on Telegram, Sergei Aksyonov, the governor, said: "The fuel supply situation remains tense and will continue for some time. On certain days there will be no fuel available to be freely sold."
https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/russian-backed-crimea-governor-fuel-situation-likely-remain/
The report comes as the Russian-installed energy operator Krymenergo said on July 27 that power restrictions are in effect across Crimea, citing a "difficult" situation in the northwest, east, and south of the peninsula following Ukrainian strikes.
"Outages are occurring on short notice, depending on the situation in each power grid area," Krymenergo said in a statement published on its website, adding that it is currently "not possible to supply electricity to some settlements on the peninsula."
Russian-installed Governor of Sevastopol Mikhail Razvozhaev said early on July 27 that the city's electricity supply has been "temporarily restricted" as a "necessary measure," adding that public services have switched to backup power supplies.
"It is required to alleviate the overload on power grids outside our region in order to prevent a failure of the entire power system," Razvozhaev said in a Telegram post.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military/ukraine-war-latest-ukraine-reports-hitting-14-energy-facilities-in-occupied-crimea-over-3-days-amid-widespread-power-outages/ar-AA28NtaJ
Temporary electricity restrictions have been introduced across Crimea as of July 31. The Russian-installed authorities are warning residents of the risk of a large-scale power system failure, according to Krymenergo.
"On the instruction of the dispatcher of the Black Sea Regional Dispatch Office (a branch of the Unified Energy System Operator), a temporary electricity restriction regime has been introduced in Crimea," the statement said.
The Russian-installed authorities on the peninsula said the measure was unavoidable. They also claimed it was the only way to prevent the electricity grid from becoming overloaded, saying Crimea is currently at risk of a power system-wide failure.
The authorities also acknowledged that the restrictions would involve unplanned power outages. ... Krymenergo also said it could not specify when the electricity restrictions would be lifted.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/power-restrictions-imposed-across-crimea-authorities-warn-of-grid-failure/ar-AA2984oJ
Let's not forget that with modern weaponry, Crimea is not exactly "the rear". Both sides obviously have intelligence and military intelligence personnel penetrating the other side for hundreds of kilometers.
I have the impression that the current international laws treat Low Earth Orbits (LEO) as part of soverign air space. If so, then this may become the first war officially reaching LEO. MIG-31 plus R-37 might be able to be tuned for that purpose. How to identify enemy satellites is beyond me.
Satellites are covered by different treaties that deal with space. They are not “airspace”. (And very few remain over the same point on the Earth’s surface.) Currently it is not legal to attack satellites or any other space assets. Of course if anyone feels their national security is threatened- even the legalistic Russians - that could change fast.
I thought SpaceX's StarLinks using the LEO are stationary.
No LEO is geostationary. Geostationary orbits are very high orbits.
With MUSK we have at least ONE intelligent person in thei world. Thank GOD we have MUSK living with us. Andrew ,thank you for all your excellent articles. The world needs guys like you.
Thank you so much, Walt, and wishing you a very nice upcoming week!
There’s ZERO chance of capitulation. Anyone seriously entertaining such thoughts is not playing with a full deck.
It would no be a surrender...but it would look like that a lot.
Ukraine’s surrender?
Russia has never given an inch and never will. Why would they when they’re winning in every way that matters?
Only the targets will change. Every stupid move Z makes just hastens Ukraine’s demise.
Ukraine is far from being the matter.
Russia is like the bull in the corrida. It strikes fiercely...the muleta. A small scrap of red cloth.
LMAO.
You’re right, Ukraine is of no matter because it will cease to exist.
The bull will triumph because the cowardly matador is NATO which will flee from the arena when the bull charges.
It's not a matter of matador neither. In a corrida, if a matador is wounded or killed, that doesn't save the bull. Another matador is send by the presidence of the show.
Well, then, your analogy doesn’t have any relevanance to the situation because Russia’s economically & militarily stronger than when the SMO started.
Ukraine’s the one hemmorhaging, and the US/EU/NATO can’t do anything to staunch the bleeding.
What Are The Odds That Ukraine Is Allowed To Use Starlink Or Starshield Over All Of Russia?
100%
StarLink is already being used to hit Russian logistics, given that occupied Donbas' and Crimea *are* Russian territory.
He said : "ALL" the russian territory.
To me that is immaterial. What matters is that Russian territory is being hit with impunity.
I respectfully disagree and explained here why expanding the scope of these systems to pre-2014 Russian territory, or at least the entirety of its European part, could be a game-changer in the worst way possible for Russia:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/what-are-the-odds-that-ukraine-is/comment/307107589
Simply put, Putin would be forced into accepting an unfair ceasefire or radically escalating against Ukraine, neither of which he's wanted to do thus far, otherwise Russia risks deindustrialization and demilitarization, God forbid.
You misunderstood. My point was that Ukraine was already using StarLink to inflict significant damage on Russian infrastructure across Crimea and Donbas', leading to the kinds of effects you describe. In and of itself this is causus belli enough for Russia to escalate more than it has, regardless of whether StarLink-enabled strikes expand further.
So we should actually wish the expanding of the Starlink to pre-2014 Russia because it would force Putin to radically escalate against Ukraine and so win the war.
100%.
Many commentators claim that Ukraine is already using Starlink to attack Russian refineries. Is this not happening?
What would it take for Russia to knock out the satellites of the Starlink system? If Starlink were used as a weapon by Ukraine, it would seem a valid defensive response.
Russia is only trying to jam, not physically destroy, Starlink's space-based infrastructure.
I don't think that Russia can really destroy the thousands of Starlink satelittes
Russia is deploying more starlink jammers.
StarLink has been and is being used as a weapon over Russian land: Donbas' and Crimea.
What are the odds that Russia will destroy Musk's satellites if he does? I'd say they would approach 100%, so I hope Musk does it.
It's already used. The russians are jamming but not destoying the sattelites
A question regarding the Starlink Satelites - I very much know nothing about weaponry but can these be in any way attacked or neutralized?
THE SAME FATE
Whether people like it or not, Russians and Serbs share the same fate.
Throughout history they have never understood the world they live in.
They have always been led by foreign elites who are not of their blood.
One of the main tools that pacified both nations is the Judeo-Christian Church.
And today?
The elites in the Kremlin and in Belgrade, together with the secret services FSB and UDBA, are the greatest enemies of Russians and Serbs.
The situation is identical.
That is why, century after century, they die like sheep.
Because Putin is man of Washington end judeo maffia.