Six ATACMS were fired at a depot in Bryansk. According to the Russians, they shot down five of them, and damaged the last one, which nevertheless struck the targeted area, and caused a fire. This was done on the very same day Putin signed off on a new nuclear doctrine, which marks such an attack as a possible cause for a nuclear response. The reasoning behind it being that US personnel has to be directly involved in such an attack, therefore it has to be seen as an attack by the US itself, which is a nuclear armed adversary. Moreover, that same doctrine says that partners in alliances the US (in this case) is associated with, bear responsibility as well. And therefore can be hit in a retaliatory, or preemptive strike too.
A doctrine like this does not stipulate that the president of Russia *has* to respond by striking with nukes. It merely provides him with the freedom to do so, as he sees fit. Therefore the 'reasoning' that this next breach of Russia's stated 'Red Lines', *should* have resulted in a nuke being fired, but since that didn't happen (yet), those 'Red Lines' are bogus, is itself bogus. But what *must* be clear, is that the US (and their NATO partners) were willing to risk it. Willing to risk total nuclear annihilation for a chance to launch six missiles, and posting one near hit.
Explain to me how this may be justified.
The American embassy in Kiev posted a message that they expect a massive Russian strike today, and their staff would be in the bunker taking cover preemptively. Likely they meant a strike on Ukraine, killing the last of the 'nodes' to take out all the electricity in the country, and plunging it into cold and darkness. Rather than a strike on their embassy specifically. Such a 'final' strike to plunge Ukraine into the dark has been expected for some time, and it cannot be seen as a response to that strike on the depot. In fact, Russia does not do retaliatory strikes as far as I can see. Yes, they will try to locate the launchers, and command centers, and hit those. They did hit a Himars launcher, of which there are precious few, shortly after that attempt to hit the depot. There is video of that particular hit. And if the Russian assessment is correct, with only one half-hearted hit, and a minor fire which could be extinguished without causing further damage, that loss of a Himars couldn't have been worth it.
No matter on which side of the equation you are, but *reality* bites much harder than any narrative. To lie, or post simulations instead of the real thing is likely making things worse. Zelensky showed up in Kupiansk and Pokrovsk, two key fortress cities. The legend of the 'Zelensky Curse' says that whenever the president visits a frontline city, it is the next to fall. Same superstition is surrounding politicians who came out to hug the 'Man in Green'. Next they would be history as the leader of their country. A deadly virus, rather than a morale boost, sending those who are touched by it to the Heavens.
Like I suggested earlier, instead of looking for a nuclear response, we need to be ready for a 'thousand cuts'. Are those damaged cables transiting the seabed of the Baltic, used to serve internet connections, an act of sabotage? By whom? If the Houthi's strike a Turkish ship bound for the Israeli port of Eilat, while Turkey is supposed to be siding with the Palestinians, what are we to make of that? If two nuclear power stations in Finland shut down over the weekend, is that some sort of freak coincidence? If a huge Norwegian oil field loses access to its source of electrical power in the same time-frame, what happened?
NATO is spread thin and wide. To defend all its assets and connections is next to impossible. Less so if the US under Trump pulls the plug. That country has served as the backbone of the alliance, but today it has a debt of no less than 36 trillion Dollars, after adding 12 trillion in the last four years alone. It's gargantuan financial conglomerate relies on fast connections to transfer money back and forth. Rumour has it that the Russians and the Chinese are testing an alternative for the internet, cut off from what we in the west are using. They are also busy replacing the Dollar and the Euro by alternatives in trade worldwide.
As with every war, the ultimate question is what any of the countries participating are prepared to list as 'winning'. Run past the wars NATO fought since the start of this millennium. Which ones did they win? In which way? All of them strike me as a huge loss. At the beginning of this century the US posted a debt of around 7 trillion, or 55% of GDP. Today we're talking 123%, and climbing rapidly. With GDP 'redefined' to make it look bigger. What did all that money spent on all these wars offer the average American citizen? Do they feel better off today? If not, how is continuing down this path going to improve things for them?
Some kind of 'Big Reset' is going to happen. And severing the ties that bind us to the countries which own us in an economical sense doesn't strike me as very smart. Now, I know, the US and the European economies are said to be real strong. I'm slightly old fashioned, and I insist that your 'worth' is what you own, minus your debt. So any country with no, or hardly any debt, and posting a surplus year on year, is far richer than a country which has negative wealth by a margin of 23%, and short of money each and every year. Not even counting truckloads of other forms of debt, private and corporate, and obligations which are not covered. My pension fund is healthy by a large margin, but if it wasn't, regulators would order it to cut down on paying pensioners, and look for better ways to improve the revenues on their holdings. Yet, the trouble is, that pension funds are huge owners of Treasury bonds, considered safe because a country capable of printing its own money can always print more. But under the circumstances, that would be something akin to putting the barrel of a gun in your mouth, and pulling the trigger, right?
Don't bother if you feel like explaining how the US is still the largest economy, and doing well. With those nifty Europeans doing great producing luxury goods, and plenty of free advice to Ukraine to stay in the fight, throwing Hermes and Gucci handbags at those pesky Russians, since we have nothing else to offer them.
A 'Gallup' poll revealed that 52% of the Ukrainians still in the country want Zelensky and the Rada to sit down with Putin, and strike a deal. Only 38% want to continue until there is no country left. And 10% doesn't trust the pollsters not to sell them out to Zelensky, opting for 'undecided'. I suppose we don't really need to ask ourselves how those who left the country, waiting for the war to stop, would be voting. But we keep sending handbags. What are we hoping to achieve? The final curtain?