US Attacks, How Will Russia Respond?

So, just a couple of hours ago the US, acting from Ukrainian territory, attacked a Russian arsenal located in the Bryansk region of Russia. The attack consisted of 6 ATACMS missiles, which cannot be operated without US cooperation. Russian claims 5 were shot down and the 6th was damaged before striking within the region of the arsenal.

Megatron @Megatron_ron

BREAKING: Russia confirmes: Ukraine has fired US-made long-range missiles into Russia's Bryansk region - Russian state media

7:19 AM · Nov 19, 2024

East_Calling @East_Calling

 Today at 03:25, the enemy launched strikes by six ballistic missiles targeting a facility in Bryansk region.

According to confirmed data, U.S.-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles have been used.

As a result of anti-missile operation, S-400 and Pantsir SAM systems shot down five missiles and damaged one.

Its fragments hit the technical territory of the military facility in Bryansk region, causing a fire that was quickly eliminated.

There are no casualties or damage.

 Russian Defence Ministry

Keep informed with https://t.me/EastCalling

7:39 AM · Nov 19, 2024

Various usually knowledgeable commentators have argued that Russia won’t escalate, despite the new and revised Russian policy. NB: I believe this statement by Medvedev is not one that was made after the US attack (as implied) but after the revision of Russian policy.

Mega Geopolitics @MegaGeopolitics

JUST IN:  Russia's Medvedev:

"Russia's new nuclear doctrine means NATO missiles fired against our country could be deemed an attack by the bloc on Russia. Russia could retaliate with WMD against Kiev and key NATO facilities, wherever they're located. That means World War III."

The operative word in that paragraph is “could”, which is different than “will”—as Scott Ritter suggested yesterday.

Also yesterday, Glenn Diesen retweeted a link to his previous speculation on how Russia would respond to such an attack. I’m of the school that believes that Russia will be forced to respond in some notable way because it will not want to be trapped inside NATO’s escalatory incrementalism—Russia will be inclined to put an end to the escalation, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Diesen—and I excerpt from the concluding paragraphs of a longer substack—suggests that those notable possibilities for a Russian response could take various forms. That makes sense, since Russia would not be inclined to box itself into a position where anyone could press a button and induce a foreordained response. On the other hand, Russia—in my opinion—is likely to send a strong message. The original Diesen substack was published on 9/14/24:

An Act of War! Putin’s Final Warning as NATO Prepares to Attack Russia

How will Russia Retaliate Against a NATO Attack?

Russia can pursue either horizontal or vertical escalation. Horizontal escalation is more restrained by retaliating in other areas by for example supplying air defences to Iran, making arms deals with North Korea, sending Russian warships to the Caribbean, sending advanced weaponry to NATO adversaries, or even providing intelligence for strikes on for example US occupation troops in Syria and Iraq.

Please note, it’s nearly certain that Russia has done all of the above already. That means that Russia will be likely to up the ante.

However, a direct attack by NATO on Russia will likely pressure the Russians to respond directly with vertical escalation irrespective of the risk of a nuclear exchange. F16s and other weaponry that will be used against Russia have been placed in Poland and Romania as these are considered “safe spaces” as long as NATO is not directly involved in the war. NATO drones operating over the Black Sea and providing targeting data to Ukraine seem like an obvious target. NATO satellites that are used to guide missile attacks on Russia can also be destroyed. Attacks with tactical nuclear weapons in Western Ukraine would also be a powerful retaliation that send a strong message without attacking NATO directly.

Ritter maintains that Russia, rather than using tactical nukes, will respond with thermobaric weapons that could have a similar effect. Contrary to the argument that Russia is always just bluffing, Diesen points to notable acts of escalation by Russia—decisive and drastic actions taken in the face of serious threats. If Russia regards this new development as leading toward a serious threat, all bets would have to be off. On the other hand, would Russia be inclined to wait for Trump?

It appears that NATO has deluded itself with incrementalism as it now plans to attack Russia without expecting any significant retaliation. Whenever Russia responds it is portrayed as occuring in a vacuum, thus Russia is presented as both weak for not responding to red lines and aggressive for acting unprovoked. Russia responded to the coup and covert war in 2014 by taking back Crimea; Russia responded to NATO’s sabotage of the Minsk peace agreement and the refusal to give security guarantees by invading in 2022; and Russia responded to the sabotage of the Istanbul agreement in favour of sending weapons by annexing Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhya and Kherson.

What was previously recognised as possibly triggering World War 3 is now dismissed as Russian propaganda as NATO is merely helping Ukraine defend itself. The Western political-media elites continue to argue that Russia has threatened retaliations in the past that did not materialise. Russia’s restraint is thus interpreted as weakness, and NATO continues to escalate until Russia responds sufficiently.

The problem is that Russia has been restrained because any response could result in a rapid and uncontrolled race up the escalation ladder that results in a nuclear exchange. As NATO takes the world to the brink of world war, should we not at least have a sensible discussion about what is being done instead of hiding behind meaningless slogans such as “Ukraine has the right to defend itself”?

My guess is that the Anglo-Zionist aim with this attack—and probably similar attacks to follow—is to induce a drastic response from Russia, short of a direct attack on the US or its overseas bases (say, in Poland or Romania). That major Russian response will be used for propaganda purposes in the West to portray Russia as the implacable, inhuman, and irrational aggressor against “civilized” supporters of genocide—in Palestine and, for practical purposes, by proxy against Ukraine. They hated us for no reason. That, the Anglo-Zionists hope, will tie Trump’s hands and prevent him from making peace with Russia.

More guessing. I’m open to the idea that the American public will react badly to the Zhou regime poking the Bear.