Ukraine pulls off daring strike on Russian bombers—but what happens next?
In an attack some compare to Pearl Harbor, Ukrainian drones launched from inside Russia hit air bases thousands of miles from the front.
BECOME A MEMBER
Tonight, Russia and Ukraine are meeting for peace talks in Turkey—but it's uncertain how successful those are going to be, given Ukraine's surprise attack on Russia over the weekend.
In a strike some have compared to Pearl Harbor, Ukrainian drones, launched from within Russia itself, attacked Russian air bases across the country. Many of these bases—in the Arctic, in Mongolia—are thousands of miles from the Ukrainian front line.
Ukraine built structures resembling parts of modular homes, then hired semi-truck drivers to deliver these "modular home" components to various locations in Russia. At a key moment, the unsuspecting truck drivers were told to pull over. The roofs of these fake modular homes opened up, releasing swarms of drones that were piloted to nearby airbases, where they destroyed a significant number of Russia's strategic bombers.
These were Tupolev Tu-22s and Tu-95s—similar to American B-1s and B-52s. They aren't ultra-modern, but they have been updated over the years and remain the backbone of Russia's strategic bomber command. Ukraine claims to have destroyed one-third of Russia's long-range bomber fleet in a single day—an astonishing military feat, though that claim should be taken with a grain of salt.
There have been mixed reports on whether the United States was briefed on this mission—some say no, some say yes. It's hard to believe Trump would support such an escalation on the eve of the peace talks in Turkey, given how badly he seems to want those talks to succeed. On the other hand, perhaps Russia was not motivated to negotiate, and this sharp, swift attack may have adjusted their thinking about the risks of a continued war.
It's unclear whether Trump supported this strike, but it seems clear the deep state did. Throughout the Cold War, Western spies and generals could only dream of decimating Russia’s strategic bomber fleet in one blow, without losing a single soldier. And beyond that, striking fear into the heart of Russia’s military-industrial complex.
Yet Russia continues grinding away in World War One-style fashion, relying on sheer manpower and artillery. Almost like trench warfare—but with drones. They’ve largely expelled Ukrainian forces from the Russian province of Kursk and have seized another 100 square miles of Ukrainian territory in recent weeks. The war drags on, and Trump is right when he calls it a bloodbath that neither side should want.
The attack yesterday was spectacular, daring, and cutting-edge. It will stop Russia from using heavy bombers to launch missiles at Ukraine from within Russian territory, which was their advantage.
But here’s the thing.
The Pearl Harbor analogy fits: a sneak attack, far from home, destroying priceless military assets. But remember what Admiral Yamamoto of Japan reportedly said after Pearl Harbor? "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
That's what spurred America into World War II. It was the "day of infamy," as Roosevelt called it. America declared war on Japan, and the rest is history. Pearl Harbor was a tactical success, but an enormous strategic blunder.
It's what Professor John Mearsheimer has warned about repeatedly: if Russia faces an existential crisis—if its military is wiped out, if it's driven out of Crimea—its nuclear doctrine permits a first strike.
Putin appears calm. He has publicly urged against reacting from emotion and fear, and he may be more rational than his critics believe. He didn’t retaliate after the West’s involvement in the destruction of the Kerch Bridge or the Nord Stream pipeline. It’s unlikely he’ll do anything “crazy” here—like use a nuclear weapon.
But there could come a point where he might, if he genuinely felt Russia was on the verge of a military collapse, which is the stated goal of some U.S. leaders.
If you eliminate Russia’s strategic bombers, you’ve removed one part of the nuclear triad—land, sea, and air. The reason we avoided war with Russia for two generations was mutual deterrence—mutually assured destruction. But if you can wipe out a third of their bombers in a day, and maybe more tomorrow, what message are you sending?
It's not so much that you've helped things on the ground in Ukraine. You've eroded Russia's strategic security. Will they wait for a second drone attack? A third one? Will they allow their nuclear deterrent to be removed?
One final point: why were Russia's bombers parked out in the open? Why not in bunkers, or at least a shelter?
The answer may surprise you.
An arms reduction treaty signed under Obama required the U.S. and Russia to park their heavy bombers in the open, so the other side could verify their presence. It applies to Russian bombers—but also American B-52s, B-1s, and even B-2 stealth bombers.
In other words, Ukraine—and its CIA advisors—exploited that arms treaty to destroy Russian bombers.
Maybe you find that thrilling. Maybe you think the only good Russian is a dead Russian. Maybe you’ve wanted to degrade Russia’s military for decades, and you see this as a miracle. Fair enough—Putin is a former KGB agent, probably a murderer, certainly an authoritarian. And yes, he did invade Ukraine.
Put aside his justifications for war. Put aside right and wrong, even. Ask yourself: if Russia were truly facing political and military annihilation—as Zelenskyy and some NATO and EU leaders desire—would Putin use tactical nukes against Ukraine?
And what would America do in response?
Yes, Ukraine’s attack was a brilliant tactical move, just like Pearl Harbor was. But anyone who thinks the world is safer today misunderstands something crucial: authoritarian regimes prioritize survival above all. If they're faced with the nuclear version of "use it or lose it," they just might use it.
GUEST: David Menzies interviews Juno News' Sue Ann Levy on the continued rise of antisemitic attacks in Toronto.
COMMENTS
-
Robert Pariseau commented 2025-06-03 19:23:15 -0400If Zelenskyy is aiming to deceive the heavens and cross the ocean, Putin isn’t going to fall for it.
-
Vara La Fey commented 2025-06-03 18:23:30 -0400I don’t think I’ve ever seen a discussion forum where we could post but not reply. Or one where line breaks are inserted where there are no special characters (I checked for them). Or one which in the past deleted my comments (because tech censorialism is bad only when the left does it) while simultaneously allowing low-grade commercial spam (which finally you seem to have gotten rid of). Social conservatives are SPECTACULARLY incompetent, as the zRump hired-for-their-looks bimbo/bimboi administration proves daily.
And I am NOT a leftist. I’m an Ayn Rand Objectivist. I’m far to the right of you on about half the issues. (Guns, free speech, constitutionalism, laissez-faire economy, etc.)
Anyway. To Robert Pariseau, Lillian Kelly, and Anna Lewis: you are all saying false things which are kremlin talking points. I think you are actual ruzzian trolls paid and controlled by the ruzzian government.
But you can tell us for sure whether you are.
Because no freethinker can agree with everything an autocratic government does. So right here in front of everybody who can see you, please criticize putin, the ruzzian military, the invasion of Ukraine, or ANY OFFICIAL ruzzian policy or law.
Freethinkers can do this immediately and easily. Trolls have to come up with excuses about why they “refuse to”. -
Vara La Fey commented 2025-06-03 17:59:38 -0400I’m watching Canadian MAGA (!) cower because somebody else committed a brave act of resistance against imperialist russia. That attitude has very recent historical precedent. Here’s a comparison we all might want to carefully consider.
• TWO GROUPS of addled, angsty, disaffected Westerners (hippie pro-soviet communists then, MAGA pro-ruzzia socio-cons now);
• who are manipulated by the kremlin (via CPUSA then, via Tenet Media and online trolls now);
• to sympathize with russian domestic policy values (anti-capitalist worker’s paradise then, anti-trans social conservative’s paradise now);
• to openly and shamelessly promote kremlin interests (stopping SDI then, stopping aid to Ukraine now);
• treasonously trying to degrade Western capacity to resist (advocating Western unilateral nuclear disarmament then, the US implementing pieces of unilateral cyber warfare disarmament now);
• and all of it under the constantly cited fear of nuclear WWIII (’don’t antagonize the ussr’ then, ’don’t antagonize putin’ now).
These are way beyond parallels; they are clear symptoms of the same actual playbook being consciously used against the same type of useful idiots – TWICE and WELL WITHIN MANY OF OUR LIFETIMES.
Thus some of these peaceniks could even be the same actual individuals. ‘I was an idiot hippie then, but I grew up and I’m MAGA now. Good thing I got smart!’
Russia 2. West 0.
Russia is simply better at recruiting useful idiots HERE IN THE WEST than the West is at defending our values of human rights, political freedom, and constitutional government.
And I mentioned online trolls above. Let’s test some of these commenters below to see if that’s what they are…. -
Robert Pariseau commented 2025-06-03 10:11:55 -0400If you are being conscripted into fighting Russia… bring along a white flag. The Russians won’t hurt you. They want the big fish.
-
Lillian Kelly commented 2025-06-03 00:30:04 -0400I find it seriously questionable that you Ezra do not acknowledge that Nato was crossing the line by putting missles on the border of Russia in Ukraine. -
Lillian Kelly commented 2025-06-03 00:24:05 -0400What makes you think Russia was not willing to negotiate peace? It seems clear the Zelensky wasn’t willing to negotiate peace, and his supporters in the EU did not want peace.
-
Anna Lewis commented 2025-06-02 22:56:34 -0400Zelensky is an unpredictable dictator and an idiot. He does not want peace, he wants American money. Sadly our moronic PM Carney is supplying money to them and bankrupting Canada while he does it.
-
Paul Scofield commented 2025-06-02 22:37:21 -0400My guess is that the Trump administration did not have piror knowledge of Zenenskyy’s antics. Ukraine’s “victory” will very likely be short-lived and pyrrhic.
-
Anna Lewis commented 2025-06-02 22:09:37 -0400There will never be a WWIII and we will never use nuclear weapons. If a nuclear weapon is deployed our alien friends from the stars will not allow that to happen. A nuclear weapon, if deployed it would alter our whole universe. It won’t happen.
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-06-02 21:00:48 -0400Somebody someday will get so angry with these Hamas support that that person will drive a vehicle through their prayer time. I hope it never happens but somebody just might snap at yet another street closure by those thugs. And if the authorities want to quell “Islamophobia,” they must do something about these hateful people shouting genocidal slogans every weekend. They’re the wackos, not anti-COVID protesters.
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-06-02 20:57:52 -0400I saw a video about a Russian submariner who voted not to launch a nuclear missile at America when two other crewmen wanted to. They lost contact with Moscow and were hearing reports about the American military on alert. There was a rule that all three officers had to agree on launching the missile or it wouldn’t be launched. One man saved the world in 1962. Will Trump be the man to save the world now? I hope so.
