Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Russia accused the United States [last] Thursday of being behind what it says was a drone attack on Moscow's Kremlin citadel intended to kill President Vladimir Putin. A day after blaming Ukraine for what it called a terrorist attack, the Kremlin administration shifted the focus onto the United States, but without providing evidence… Ukraine has also denied involvement in the incident.” Reuters
“Russia's Wagner mercenary group appeared on Sunday to ditch plans to withdraw from Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, saying they had been promised more arms by Moscow… Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin had said on Friday that his fighters, who have spearheaded a months-long assault on Bakhmut, would pull out after being starved of ammunition and suffering ‘useless and unjustified’ losses as a result.” Reuters
The right is skeptical that Ukraine was responsible for the attack on the Kremlin, but notes that it would be a legitimate military target.
“The nature of the attack, the implausible implied systemic failure of Russian air defense networks, and the enduring Russian penchant for so-called ‘false flag’ attacks all indicate that Russia itself may have been responsible. This attack, helpfully caught on video, fuels the Kremlin's interest in mobilizing popular support for the war in Ukraine as a struggle for national survival…
“It is also worth noting that the U.S. intelligence community likely assesses that Putin's assassination would lead to his replacement with an even more hawkish president — security council secretary Nikolai Patrushev, for example…
“Indeed, rather than flirting with nuclear war, the Biden administration has gone to great lengths to tolerate Russian escalations. It retreated after Russia downed a U.S. drone in international airspace, it has failed to respond robustly to the kidnapping of U.S. citizens such as Evan Gershkovich, and it has whitewashed evidence of Russian attacks on U.S. government personnel. This is hardly the record of an administration that would order Ukraine to attack the Kremlin.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
“It’s certainly possible that Ukrainian drone operators and special forces got close enough to the Kremlin to launch some sort of lethal drone attack on the hardened facilities there, but still rather unlikely. Right now, Ukraine needs its drones to deal with the Russian invaders in its own country, and any use outside of it would be better applied to supply line facilities, such as in Belgorod…
“But even if this claim is on the level, it’s not a ‘terrorist act.’ The Kremlin is a legitimate military target, and Russia started the war by invading Ukraine. Putin himself is a legitimate target of the war that Putin started. If they don’t like their military installations or tsar coming under attack, maybe Vladimir Putin should refrain from invading his neighbors … or at least do so more competently than he has.”
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Some argue, “Putin’s invasion was illegal, brutal, and resulted in war crimes against innocent people. Yet one can acknowledge all that and still point out that, now that his chances of total victory are nonexistent, continuing a war that is being fought to reassert Ukrainian sovereignty over every inch of territory it controlled in 2014 has nothing to do with the national interests of the United States or the well-being of people in either of the countries that are doing the fighting…
“The GOP branch of the D.C. uniparty has lined up happily behind spending more than $100 billion in support of the Ukrainians. And there appears to be a bipartisan majority in favor of authorizing Biden to go on spending that much on a yearly basis for ‘as long as it takes,’ for Ukraine to ‘win’ the war. Yet no one in either party seems to be able to define what exactly victory over a nuclear power might be, short of fantasies about deposing Putin that might lead to an even worse outcome.”
Jonathan S. Tobin, The Federalist
The left argues that the recent developments are not good for Russia, and notes the significant economic cost of the war.
The left argues that the recent developments are not good for Russia, and notes the significant economic cost of the war.
“[Prigozhin] has stood before in front of the corpses of the Russian mercenaries and convicts he has launched at the frontline – without proper training or equipment – and demanded more ammunition. He has also apparently been stymied from emptying out Russia’s prisons for new recruits, by the Russian Ministry of Defense employing convicts directly. But he has never [before] said he will likely cripple one of Russia’s most symbolic frontlines by just walking away…
“The Putin administration does not like appearing weak. The bedrock of the President and his ministers’ hold on power is that they are the calm, controlled, ruthless masters of Russia’s geopolitical destiny – ensuring order in the storm. An attack on the Kremlin, and the declaration that a private mercenary group will walk out on a key frontline, are not a good look – whatever the truth behind each situation.”
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN
“The false flag theory seems a stretch. Putin has already tried to kill Zelensky several times; he needs no contrived rationalization to try again, or to escalate his violence against any other target in Ukraine. He has managed to escalate plenty on his own. Drones over the Kremlin also create the impression that the war has made all Russians everywhere, even the Russian state’s top leaders, vulnerable—and that can’t be a good feeling for people who look to their leader to keep them, at the very least, secure…
“[Expert Kirill Shamiev states] ‘It seems to me that Ukraine’s political leadership is doing its best to destabilize Russia’s domestic political situation,’… The attack, he said, is ‘another symbol of the fact that … Putin is losing.’ It ‘scares people … [that] Moscow and the Kremlin aren’t safe, something is still going wrong.’ If he’s right (and again, nobody knows just yet), the Ukrainian army’s much-anticipated counteroffensive may already have begun.”
Fred Kaplan, Slate
“Among the enduring mysteries of Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is why he wanted to. The financial burdens of empire were the principal reason for the Soviet Union’s dissolution back in December 1991. At the time, the Soviet bloc constituted 10.5 percent of the global economy, according to Nicolas Véron, an economist at Breughel, a respected think tank in Brussels. By April 2022, Russia’s share of the global economy (including its few remaining allies) had shrunk to 3.5 percent…
“Waging war against Ukraine has already cost Russia nearly $1 trillion. That’s a pittance compared to what Russia will have to shell out if it wins… There’s the cost of rebuilding Ukraine, the cost of military occupation sufficient to contain whatever underground resistance continues, and the cost of reabsorbing a population considerably poorer than its own…
“The smart financial move [is to go home]. But Putin clearly prefers to destroy Russia’s economy along with as much of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and population as he can get his hands on.”
Timothy Noah, New Republic
