Ukraine hit a large storage facility for ammo at Toropets in the Tver region, at a considerable distance from its border with Russia, after Putin warned NATO that if long range weapons were used to hit targets inside Russia, it would consider itself at war with NATO. Reports claim it was actually Russia's biggest facility, but irrespective of whether that is true, or not, it was a huge blast, even if it is difficult to assess the damage done from satellite images released. Not exactly something you'd expect to be triggered by an improvised, low-speed, propellor driven drone sneaking through after flying for hours to reach the place. Moreover, by the looks of it, it was not just a single drone, and it would have had serious bunker penetrating capabilities to boot. Some suggest that maybe this was the work of Special Forces, launched with the Kursk offensive, covered by drones serving as decoys? Or maybe a recently unveiled jet-powered cruise missile developed in Ukraine and already mass produced?
At least one of my outspoken pro-Russian sources on 'X' criticised Putin for being way too soft. What the country needed now, was a 'Stalin', and not a leader hoping to appease NATO and China, and keep the door open for a negotiated conclusion of hostilities. It is not clear to me whether this individual can be seen as the representative of a 'common thought' in Russia at some important level, but nearly all the 'Realists' in the West who opposed NATO-expansion warned that if Putin lost traction among the Russians, his replacement was likely to be someone who would have no mercy with either Ukraine, or the 'Collective West'. In other words, if those planning this NATO-expansion strategy felt that removing Putin from power would result in chaos in Russia, or a leader kissing our ass, they may be in for a rude awakening.
Putin warning NATO against allowing Ukraine to hit targets deep inside Russia, which the country would not be able to do without NATO itself being directly involved, made me warn my readers that soon Ukraine would launch such an attack, in an attempt to drag NATO into the war. So now what? I need to emphasise that I do agree wholeheartedly with Putin's assessment that this strike, if done with missiles/drones, was not possible without NATO-involvement, likely at multiple levels, including the development of this all new cruise missile. So now we're at war with Russia, unless the Russians discover some 'Special Forces' cell and write it down on sabotage. A barrage of nuclear tipped doomsday missiles did not leave their silo's in a 'First Strike' approach to nuclear warfare, nor did Russia hit Kiev with a tactical nuke, as some suggested it might.
Most observers concur that Russia is rapidly advancing towards the Djnepr, and that the Ukrainian forces on the ground are being shredded, even though nobody seems to know where the frontline is, which parts of what used to be Ukraine are in Russian hands, and which parts are still, somehow, controlled by 'Kiev'. While I'm in no position to inform you in a decent manner about the situation on the ground, I maintain that Ukraine has lost the war many months ago, if they ever had a chance of winning at all. And NATO is in no position to change the outcome. Nor did they want to save Ukraine, and its people. All they ever wanted, was to see Putin trip and fall, and too bad if Ukraine went to the dogs, but such is life. The 'Afghan-script', in other words, which caused the Soviet Union to collapse back in the Eighties, and gave us Al Qaeda and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, as the US and its allies left Afghanistan to the dogs after it was no longer of use. Causing Putin's downfall, but leaving Ukraine and Europe in the 'caring hands' of fascists was not exactly something they worried about in 'Brussels', at the NATO and EU headquarters. Nor in Washington. And they still don't.
At this stage I need to conclude that Ukraine and Europe are lost, but that Putin is not going anywhere, even though he will have to 'upgrade' his image to be more like a 'Stalin' from a military point of view, while saving his relatively benign image of being a 'caring leader' towards the people of Russia, and his 'BRICS'-partners. But he can't afford more 'mishaps' like this bonfire in the Tver region. Not primarily because it will hurt Russia's ability to fight, but because it is 'Bad PR'. So, how to convince NATO to back off, without mushroom clouds? Look for signs which go beyond diplomatic language.
Meanwhile, Zelensky finished his plan to achieve a military victory, and will present it to his 'friends' in NATO as he is set to meet with Joe Biden for the last time. Biden may sign off on using long-range missiles provided by NATO after all, as a farewell present to humanity. A military victory is unrealistic without open, full scale NATO involvement, and even if that happens NATO will have to pray China and other 'BRICS'-nations don't intervene on Russia's behalf. What is ill understood, is that China is fully aware of NATO's plan to 'neutralise' Russia first, and take on China, and the rest of the world next. It is highly unlikely that the 'BRICS' countries will allow that to happen. With mass lay-offs in Germany and elsewhere in Europe being announced, while the EU is still being flooded with immigrants, economic hardship is just around the corner. I wonder if those in charge feel that this army of futureless former employees and non-native refugees they are creating will be only too happy to serve them in a war that was never theirs.