Russia Escalating?

Over the past few weeks we seem to have witnessed an ever increasing Russian bombing campaign—including missiles, suicide drones, and more traditional (just smarter) bombs—targeting Ukrainian munitions and fuel storage sites as well as critical infrastructure such as key bridges and rail junctions. This morning MoA took note of what could be a significant development. I’ll quote the first few paragraphs and readers can follow the link for the rest:

Drones Strikes In Moscow - Missile Strikes In Ukraine

Today the Russian government revealed some numbers and information about its 'Special Military Operation'.

Today's 'clobber report' by the Ministry of Defense leads with this (machine translation):

During the day, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out group strikes using long-range high-precision air-launched weapons at central decision-making points where, under the guidance of specialists from Western intelligence agencies, terrorist acts were planned on Russian territory.

All assigned objects are hit.

'Central decision-making points' are ministries and main headquarters. These had so far not been targets. More to that below.

Among targets hit—and confirmed by Putin himself—was the HQ of Ukraine’s Military Intelligence, headed by the guy that some now say is, in effect, the Defense Minister: Kyrylo Budanov. This strike occurred in the midst of an almost continual 48 hours of bombing. Was this, in part, retaliation for the attempted drone attacks on the Moscow region or Budanov’s incendiary statements suggesting future genocide against Russians? The Russian MoD made a special point of specifying that “specialists from Western intelligence agencies” provided “guidance” for the terrorist attacks on Russian territory. There have also been repeated but unconfirmed claims of significant NATO casualties involved in the recent Russian strikes, especially during the past week. Does all this signify a Russian escalation?

To put this in context, at the risk of engaging in some speculation, we should note that since the beginning of large scale supply of NATO weapons and munitions to Ukraine commenters have repeatedly wondered why Russia wasn’t doing more to interdict these supplies. This wonderment was fueled by the assumption—which I share—that Russian intelligence coverage (both technical and human) of shipments of war materials within Ukraine is probably very good. Various reasons have been advanced. For example:

The Ukrainian air defense (AD), equipped with Russian S-300 missiles was still very capable.

Russian supplies of missiles, drones, and glide bombs had not reached the point at which “saturation” bombing campaigns could be waged.

Ukrainian supply depots were widely dispersed.

I offer the following as speculation.

It appears clear that the current intensified bombing campaign is intended to interfere with and possibly entirely disrupt the much ballyhooed Ukrainian offensive. Targeting of command and control centers, which have also been reported, fits in with that approach. However, at a certain point, any large offensive operation will require the gathering of previously dispersed men and materiel into large targetable concentrations. It seems to me at least possible that the Bakhmut attrition campaign was in some sense a prelude to this intensified bombing campaign. Here’s what I mean.

Obviously, to commit the amount of resources to Bakhmut over a long period of time drew off a fair amount of the reserves of men and materiel that were originally intended for the Ukrainian “spring offensive”. There have been numerous reports to that effect that have noted that some of the newly supplied NATO weapons actually showed up in Bakhmut. Nevertheless, we have also been told that the 30k - 60k of NATO trained troops and their equipment were withheld from Bakhmut but are now being “staged” for the offensive. So, my idea is that Bakhmut allowed the Russians to “bleed off” large amounts of Ukrainian resources, while waiting for concentrations of men and materiel into staging and storage areas from which they could be drawn for the planned offensive. Is it possible that the Russians chose to allow this process to proceed while keeping a close eye on it, and are now striking based on their accumulated intelligence? If so, this would appear to me to be a very efficient way of waging war.

Returning, then, to our original question regarding escalation. We may be witnessing now escalations—both with regard to Ukrainian war making resources and NATO guidance—that were long planned, but were delayed until critical moments. Telling against my idea, at least in part, would be that some—but not all—of the intensified strikes do appear to be retaliatory. In that regard, I would point to the strike on the military intelligence HQ which seems to be traceable to recent and specific provocations. Still, to me it all adds up to the gloves coming off.

On a related note.

On several occasions recently we’ve discussed the suggestion by various analysts—some with good records of prognostication—the idea that NATO is planning a direct intervention in the war. I have expressed my skepticism, despite my respect for some of these analysts. Today there’s a very brief excerpt from a Napolitano - Daniel Davis interview that directly addresses that issue. I’ve edited these excerpts from a spoken to a more written style, but nothing essential has been changed. You can find the excerpts here and the full video: Ukraine Attacking Russia, What's Next? - Col Daniel Davis.

SleepWalking into WW3 ? Will Putin continue to respond as we expect? What happens when he doesn't?

Napolitano: It's almost as if we're sleep walking into WW3.

Davis: My concern is that there may be many people who think that we can just keep supporting this war at a certain level. They haven't given Ukraine enough so that they can have a real Rolling Thunder offensive. The danger is in thinking: 'We can manage this, we can keep it contained, we succeed because Russia gets hurt, eventually it'll come to some sort of negotiated settlement and we'll move on.' That assumes that you can control it and that the Russians act like they're 'supposed' to. So many things could happen to lead to an escalation beyond our ability to control. That is the biggest danger for America and why I'm an advocate for wrapping this thing up.

UKRAINE - just a U.S. Battering Ram Are we happy Russians are Dying?

[1:15]

Napolitano: Do you see a slow movement toward a larger conflagration?

Davis: I don't know whether it's the way I think or the way I hope, but I don't think that anyone wants a wider war. What I think is that there are a lot of people like Sen. Graham that are gleeful at the prospect of harming Russia--that translates into killing Russians and destroying their military. They're happy to use Ukraine as the battering ram. People in Washington are happy to do that. I don't think they want to expand the war, they just want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Imagine how angry Lindsey!’s statements must make Russians, including their leadership. Graham is flaunting to the world—including Russians—that American money is killing Russian boys. If you want an escalation, that’s one way to go about it.