Ukraine struck a production center for drones in Russia, 1200 kilometers from its border, with an aircraft looking a lot like a converted Cessna, apparently filled with explosives. It was either piloted, or converted to be remotely piloted, using a satellite link. The normal range of such a tiny single piston-engine propellor driven aircraft is normally far less than 1200 kilometers, suggesting it might have been launched from inside Russia. A conversion with extra fuel tanks might be possible, but getting it to sneak into Russia undetected would be a gamble, and you can't just launch it close to the border, so add another 200 kilometers.
Increasingly, Ukraine is hitting targets inside Russia, usually oil refineries, while losing ground to the Russians in Ukraine. Zelensky said in an interview that the military situation is dire, and that his troops are forced to retreat, given the lack of support. I came across an analysis from a Russian war correspondent who implied that given the huge Ukrainian losses in men these past three months, it would be silly for the Russians to launch a huge offensive as various commentators expect. Instead it would be better to just continue what they are doing, slowly but deliberately moving West, towards the Djnepr, while destroying the bridges and killing the power driving the mostly electrical trains. And possibly opening a new front, like in the Kharkiv direction, to stretch the already exhausted Ukrainian army even thinner.
Because Ukraine can't win on the battlefield, it shifted its attention to causing as much damage to Russia itself, which is why Putin admitted that they are now at war, and that it is no longer a 'Special Military Operation'. This is no longer about securing Russian speaking, Russia oriented people in the Donbas and offering them safety and security after the 2014 coup and subsequent civil war. Jaques Baud, one of the few military men and analysts in the West worth paying attention to, compared the way NATO is viewing war to how the Russians are managing such large scale armed conflicts. How NATO after the 'Cold War' transformed into fighting 'colonial wars', using sophisticated, vulnerable, mighty expensive artillery 'sniping' on positions with a limited number of adversaries, and no counter-fire, while the Russians based their war machine on 'raw power'. Also because NATO cannot drag limitless amounts of ammo around the globe, while the Russians, with a focus on their own territory and borders do not have a logistical problem, nor a lack of industrial capacity and raw material.
Now, back to my original take on this entire war, I've been on record as saying that NATO wanted this war, and that they had a strategy prepared, which reflected their own thinking in military matters. It called for Russia to take all of Ukraine in a matter of days, and declare victory. Leaving them vulnerable to 'Stay Behind Forces' inside Ukraine, which would serve as a Neonazi version of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the Eighties, which exhausted the Soviet Union, and caused it to collapse. This time supported by 'Sanctions from Hell', which had been prepared as well. But that strategy failed, because the Russians saw right through it, and came prepared. Read all about it in previous articles. But NATO lacked a 'Plan B', and was left gasping for air, looking for ways to find equipment and ammo to keep Ukraine afloat.
They actually thought, for a moment, that the Russian withdrawal, after 'Istanbul' was cancelled, was due to Russian weakness, and Ukrainian strength, which was why they announced this Spring Offensive last year. Larry Johnson says that this was stupid, because no general in his right mind would announce an offensive, and take away the element of surprise. But it wasn't Zalushny who ran his mouth, but Ukraine's 'supporters', who probably felt that the Russians were in trouble, and telling them they would come for them would result in fatal stress among the troops. The Russians did have a 'Plan B' however, which called for a war of attrition, executed flawlessly, but now what?
This next phase of slowly, deliberately, expanding their territory hinges on NATO/Ukraine not changing their strategy, and restricting themselves to finding ways to stop the Russians on the battlefield. However, by the looks of it, NATO reverted to its original plan which calls for Russia taking most of Ukraine, but without the 'Stay Behind Forces', and the 'Sanctions from Hell' already failed, reverting to terror on Russian soil, launched from whatever is left of Ukraine, for as long as there is something left. In itself Ukraine has every right to strike at targets inside Russia, given the fact that Russia is hitting similar 'nodes' in Ukraine. But that does turn a localised conflict over a Russian 'minority' into a real war. Without the means for Ukraine to win, which is why these strikes do not serve a true military purpose, but have to be considered as a form of terrorism. I don't mean to argue with Ukraine supporters over 'legitimacy', and 'tit for tat', but is it a wise decision?
Now consider that NATO, in my reading of their strategy, didn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine or its people. It was always as cynical as Lyndsey Graham 'translated' it, ever since 2014, that the 'heroic' (stupid) Ukrainian proxies died to fight the Russians, so that Americans could stay home and watch the Rachel Maddow show, and the political circus in 'DC', enjoying the coke and pop-corn. But that was not exactly in the best interest of the Ukrainians without a 'Death Wish'. I'm not talking about the 'Would Be SS-Strumtroopers', the real haters, but the average 'Joe'. Rendering Ukraine, or what will be left of it, into a failed state somewhat like Gaza, firing missiles and drones into Russia at irregular intervals, is unlikely to be what 'Joe' is dreaming about. But that is on the agenda as we speak.
This is a headache for Russia too, as it doesn't want to end up like Israel, split between 'hardliners' and people who would like to make peace with the neighbours, despite their differences. Russia cannot afford to let NATO run a failed terrorist state next door for any length of time, but they will have to find a way to get to NATO itself to prevent this outcome. You would expect the people in Europe, first and foremost, to lash out at the political class aiming for a permanent war on its doorstep, demanding that parties return to the negotiating table and find a way to settle the score, and stop seeking regime change and world dominance for NATO and the WEF. But so far the political class in Holland, including those who were supposed to be skeptical about war in general, and war with Russia in particular, are moving in the opposite direction. I'll keep my eyes peeled to look for signs of reality returning to our collective mind, but I'm not hopeful. Accusations that the Russians toyed with the brains of peace-loving American diplomats in Cuba and elsewhere using electromagnetic waves to fry their grey mass may have had some undesirable side-effects, because people are starting to behave as if they don't want to see any 'tomorrow'. Or would that be a 'false flag'? Which Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theory do you favour?