What is Putin to Do Now
Lenin hasn’t been a favourite of President Vladimir Putin’s. He’s derided him: “Ukraine appeared in 1922…Now the grateful descendants are smashing monuments to Lenin, the founder of Ukraine.”
The second last time he mentioned Lenin, in February 2024, Putin blamed him. “For some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.”
The last time Putin spoke of Lenin he said he was in favour of burying him, but not of going against public opinion on preserving him in Red Square. Last December he said “The same goes for the burial of Lenin’s body. Someday, society will probably come to this. But today, especially today, we must not take a single step that would split the society in Russia. That’s how I see it.”
Putin has had less to say about Lenin’s method for deciding what to do at crisis moments for the survival of the country and himself. When Lenin asked in his 1902 book, What is to be Done? he described the choice to be faced this way. “We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” .
Now that Putin agrees that in the present war Russia is surrounded by enemies on all sides, and he must make the choice between the “path of struggle” – since Sunday, June 1, this is now war at the point of nuclear arms — and the “path of conciliation” – that’s President Donald Trump’s peace terms – what will Putin decide to do?
Moskovsky Komsomolets, a mass circulation newspaper and tribune of popular opinion, has called for the same “determination and harshness” against Ukraine as Israel has shown against Hamas. Boris Rozhin, speaking for the Russian military opinion and editor-in-chief of the widely read military blog, Colonel Cassad, said: “I hope that the military-political leadership will find a way to adequately respond. The blow should be painful… As long as we are waging a limited war, the enemy is waging a total war, the purpose of which is the destruction of our country and people. And no peace talks will change this. The longer it is in coming, the more unpleasant surprises.”
The circle of advisors around Putin urge him to downplay the attack as “terrorism” and ignore the “terrorists” as European, not American proxies in the attack. Vzglyad, a Kremlin platform for strategy, has editorialized that “all this is being done with the connivance of Ukraine’s European partners. But such actions are not capable of intimidating Moscow. Now the initiative in the conflict belongs to Russia.” Vzglyad added: “Maybe our new successes will still be able to bring Ukraine to reason. We openly demonstrate the ability to show mercy, which says a lot about the sincerity of the Russian authorities in their aspirations for peace.”
A well-informed Russian military source says Putin has decided not to retaliate for the moment. The launch of the Oreshnik is unlikely now, the source believes; perhaps later “only if there is certainty that Trump will not deliver. But [now] maybe a measured one [strike] to help him focus.”
The source explains Putin’s decision-making. “The political functionaries [Kremlin, Foreign Ministry] have their focus on the Memorandum and expect it will be signed. Now we wait for Trump to deliver. Rubio sent [Senator Lindsey] Graham to [Vladimir] Zelensky to accept it. He talks best with Zelensky. Our side has some more patience before replying to the ‘terror attacks’ [sarcastic laughter]. This is because all the assurance we have from the Americans is that the outcome of discussions will be positive. A Russian military response of large proportions can wait. We have patience. It will happen if [emphasis] Trump will not deliver Ukraine on Memorandum-1.” How long will the Kremlin give Trump? the source was asked. “Several weeks, not months.”
Several hours after the source said this, Putin confirmed this at a meeting on Wednesday afternoon with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and other officials. Putin did so by ignoring the Ukrainian attacks on the five nuclear bomber airfields. Focusing only on the bridge and railway attacks in Kursk and Bryansk, he called them “a targeted strike against civilians, and for all international standards such actions are called terrorism. All crimes that were committed in relation to civilians, including women and children, on the eve of the next round the proposed peace talks in Istanbul were certainly aimed at disrupting the negotiation process. [This was a] strike on the civilian population intentionally. This only confirms our fears that the illegitimate regime in Kiev, which once it had seized power, has gradually degenerated into a terrorist organization, and its sponsors become Accomplices of terrorists.”
Lavrov responded at the meeting, also by avoiding explicit mention of the airfield strikes: “Despite all this, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and despite the new major criminal provocations in the last few days, I would consider it important not to succumb to these provocative actions, clearly aimed at disrupting negotiations and continuing to receive weapons from European countries.”
Russian retaliation, it has been decided and now announced publicly, waits on the Trump Administration to respond to the Russian terms which have been tabled in Istanbul. Read Sections I, II, and III of the Russian Memorandum here.
Over the 72 hours since the Kiev regime claimed credit for planning and executing the successful attack on Russia’s nuclear bomber fleet, Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth have kept silent. Asked for Trump’s reaction, the White House press spokesman was evasive, saying instead: “Well, look, the reaction is this war needs to come to an end. And this war has been, uh, brutal from both sides. Too many people have died and the president wants this war to end at the negotiating table. And he’s made that very clear to both leaders, both publicly and privately.”
That the June 1 attack may have removed the point for Putin to continue at the negotiating table is not accepted at the White House because the Kremlin has denied it. Putin’s message for Trump was conveyed Lavrov in a telephone call to Rubio eight hours after the attacks. Rubio’s “read-out” on the conversation was the shortest in the State Department history of crisis communications with the Russians.
The White House negotiator for peace terms, General Keith Kellogg, is, until now, the only senior US official to acknowledge that the Ukrainian strike was strategic warfare. “The risk levels are going up”, Kellogg told Fox News late on June 3. “Any time you attack the [nuclear] triad, it’s not so much the damage you do to the triad, it’s not so much the damage you do to the triad itself, the delivery vehicles, the bombers, it’s the psychological impact you have… it shows Ukraine is not lying down on this. We can play this game too.”
Kellogg added an apparent qualifier to his admission the Kiev regime has not been engaging in terrorism. “We [the Ukrainians] can raise the risk levels that are, to me, basically unacceptable”.
Listen to the discussion with Nima Alkhorshid and Ray McGovern.
The June 1 attack on the Tupolev nuclear-capable bomber fleet targeted five airbases which are located apart from each other by distances of 3,000 kilometres north-south and 5,000 kms west-east, simultaneously coordinating the launch of 117 drones – Zelensky’s number. The operation was planned and executed by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) under the direct supervision of Zelensky. “ ‘Thirty-four percent of strategic cruise missile carriers at the main airfields of the Russian Federation were hit,’ the SBU said on the Telegram messaging app. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, writing on Telegram, expressed delight at the ‘absolutely brilliant outcome…This is our longest-range operation.’”
In Russian terms, this is a a clear breach of the red line in the government’s nuclear warfighting and deterrence doctrine, issued last December, of Articles 11 and 19( c).
HOW RUSSIA DEFINES THE NUCLEAR WARFARE RED LINES
Source: https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/international_safety/1434131/
The published policy paper identifies “potential adversaries” as “individual states and military coalitions (blocs, alliances), that consider the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear and (or) other types of weapons of mass destruction or significant combat capabilities of general purpose forces”. No distinction is made between nuclear states, non-nuclear states, and terrorist formations.
The Russian law defining terrorism, enacted in 2006, refers to the ideology or purpose of “terrorist activities”, lists six types of “terrorist activity”, and defines a “terrorist act” as “making an explosion, arson or other actions connected with frightening the population and posing the danger of loss of life, of causing considerable damage to property or the onset of an ecological catastrophe , as well as other especially grave consequences.”
Terrorist organizations are defined in circular form as “an unlawful armed unit, criminal association (criminal organization) or an organized group for implementation of an act of terrorism”. For this reason, the Russian law fails to address the role of adversary states in financing, arming, training, and directing such units against Russia.
Also omitted from Russian law is the distinction between acts of terrorism and acts of war. Accordingly, in the official announcement of the June 1 attack by the Russian Ministry of Defense it was not claimed that the Kiev regime had carried out an act of war, but rather that “the Kiev regime carried out a terrorist attack using FPV drones against airfields in the Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur regions. All terrorist attacks were repelled at the military airfields in the Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur regions.”
In no other state, either allied with Russia in the present war such as China, Iran and North Korea, or allied with the US and NATO against Russia, is there a law differentiating between state acts of war and state acts of terrorism. They are one and the same, a retired Indian general comments. He points out that following the latest war between India and Pakistan, “India has treated terrorists as state proxies and established the norm that Pakistan will be punished for any act of terror against India starting yesterday. That is any acts of terror against civilians will mean Field Marshal [Army chief of Staff Asim] Munir and his generals will be culpable and they will be hit hard. Russians are doing the opposite. They are calling an act of war by a state against its strategic military infrastructure as an act of terror. Why is that?”
During Wednesday in Moscow Putin described terrorism as attacks targeting civilian populations; he also described the Zelensky regime as a terrorist organization. The Bryansk and Kursk attacks were “a targeted strike against civilians, and for all international standards such actions are called terrorism. All crimes that were committed in relation to civilians, including women and children, on the eve of the next round the proposed peace talks in Istanbul were certainly aimed at to disrupt the negotiation process…This only confirms our fears that the illegitimate regime in Kiev, which once it had seized power, has gradually degenerated into a terrorist organization, and its sponsors have become accomplices of terrorists.”
The Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova amplified the point in a briefing for the press held at the same time as Putin’s meeting with ministers. “The terrorist nature of the Kiev regime”, she began. “The Kiev regime and its European, Western sponsors have made a lot of efforts to disrupt another round of talks in Istanbul and thereby torpedo the emerging peace process. They have loved the terrorist methods.”
Zakharova was then asked whether “the West was involved in attacks on Russian air bases and infrastructure that occurred over the weekend? If so, what countries are we talking about? What will Russia’s response be?”
She replied: “The West is involved in the terrorist activities of the Kiev regime. Firstly, the countries of the ‘collective West’ supply weapons precisely in order to carry out terrorist attacks. They do not impose any conditions or restrictions. To questions of how appropriate it is to supply weapons and to the extent, from a legal point of view, to supply weapons that are used for terrorist activities, they have long ceased to respond. Secondly, they act as gunners, provide coordinates. Only Western countries and Western companies have such opportunities. Thirdly, no terrorist attack, which was substantiated with all the facts, has ever received any condemnation. No one in Western countries (at the official level) has even tried to knock’ the Kiev regime…Fourth, the West provides political support and politically motivates the Kiev regime to such steps.”
HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS REACTED
For enlarged view, click on source.
Since the Sunday, June 1, operation in Russia, which took place in the early morning Washington time, the official schedule of the President has listed a golf game on Sunday, a lunch with Vice President JD Vance on Monday, and an intelligence briefing on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, the White House press spokesman was asked “what’s the president’s reaction to that Ukrainian drone attack, stunning drone attack on Russian air bases? I’m sure he saw that. What’s his reaction?” The spokesman’s answer was: “Well, look, the reaction is this war needs to come to an end. And this war has been, uh, brutal from both sides. Too many people have died and the president wants this war to end at the negotiating table. And he’s made that very clear to both leaders, both publicly and privately.”
There have been no comments or briefings at the State Department and Pentagon. The only press release from Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, was reported on June 2: “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is considering a major overhaul of President Trump’s daily intelligence briefing, which includes a version making it more like a Fox News show.”
On June 3, in an interview with Fox News, General Kellogg made the only explicit official statement on the airbase attack. “The risk levels are going up because you are not sure what the other side is going to do,” Kellogg said. “Any time you attack the triad, it’s not so much the damage you do to the triad, it’s not so much the damage you do to the triad itself, the delivery vehicles, the bombers, it’s the psychological impact you have… it shows Ukraine is not lying down on this. We can play this game too. We can raise the risk levels that are, to me, basically unacceptable”. — on Min 3:00.
Source: https://twitter.com/generalkellogg/
Kellogg also claimed that “what really concerned me” was that the Ukrainians “attacked the Northern Fleet headquarters in Severomorsk. If that’s the case, if we knew it [the attack] had two legs of the triad, first of all it’s a very bold attack, and when you do that it’s very clear the risk levels go up. And I think that’s what we are trying to avoid. We’re trying to get to a position when the risk levels are going so high, that this thing will expand, and that’s where we don’t want to be.”
Kellogg’s mention on June 3 of an alleged drone attack on the Russian nuclear submarine base at Severomorsk is surprising because the initial reports circulating in the afternoon of June 1 had mistaken the smoke and explosion noise at the Olenya airbase nearby for an attack at Severomorsk. The confusion was quickly clarified by the Russian authorities in the region. US military intelligence, to which Kellogg had access, had also ruled out the claim.
Source: https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1929154421897752916
Two days later, however, Kellogg knew there had been no attack at Severomorsk. According to the maritime publication gCaptain, which is close to US Navy intelligence, “unlike Russia’s Black Sea assets – which have suffered substantial losses at around 40 percent – the Northern Fleet’s surface ships and submarines have thus far not been successfully targeted by Ukrainian drone attacks. In September 2024 a number of long-range drones reached the Olenya Airbase to the south, where they were subsequently shot down, though unverified sources say some drones reached the airfield. It is unclear if those previous Ukrainian attacks targeted the Northern Fleet located 90 kilometers to the north of Olenya or were intended for the airbase.”
If Kellogg had been ordered to put distance between Trump and Zelensky, between the US Administration and the Kiev regime, on the strategic threats of the June 1 operation, it is unclear who is giving the orders, while Kellogg himself appears to be uncertain what Trump’s policy will be if Putin retaliates.
The uncertainty in Moscow does not appear to be Putin’s. “Why has Russia deliberately ignored the aggressive attacks of the Ukrainian side during the [June 2 Istanbul] negotiations?” asked Vzglyad. Promoting the policy of turning-the-other-cheek, the publication has been told by its Kremlin sources to support “stretching the peace process to the limit” in order to test how Trump will respond.
According to the Russian military source, “political functionaries [the Kremlin, Foreign Ministry] have their focus on Memorandum and expect it will be signed. Now we wait for Trump to deliver.”