UKRAINE'S "PEARL HARBOR" ATTACK ON RUSSIA. WHAT IS THE WORLD IN FOR, NOW?

THE ROGUES' GALLERY OF BAD ACTORS

This situation—if reports of the Ukrainian "Pearl Harbor-style" drone strike against Russian strategic bombers and other assets are accurate—marks a major inflection point in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Strategically, politically, and psychologically, it raises the stakes not just for Kyiv and Moscow, but also for the Western and non-Western powers circling the periphery. Let's break this down from both military and political perspectives, then analyze potential beneficiaries and nuclear escalation risks.

I. Military Strategic Assessment

1. Impact of Strategic Bomber Losses on Russia

• Russia’s Tu-95 and Tu-160 fleets are the crown jewels of its long-range strike capabilities. If Ukraine has indeed destroyed a significant portion of these, it cripples Russia’s ability to project power conventionally beyond its immediate front lines.

• These bombers are used to launch Kh-101 cruise missiles and other stand-off munitions, allowing Russia to strike from deep inside its own territory. Without them, Russia must rely more on shorter-range systems and ground-based ballistic or cruise missiles, which are:

  • Less flexible

  • Easier to intercept

  • Already heavily expended during the war

2. Implications of Targeting Submarine Pens

• If Ukraine successfully targeted Russian strategic or nuclear-capable submarines (e.g., at bases like Severomorsk or Murmansk), it signals a deliberate escalation to threaten Russia’s second-strike nuclear capability.

• This would force the Russian military to reassess deterrence posture, possibly shifting submarines or escalating aerial/space surveillance, and justifying more aggressive strategic posture in return.

3. Ukrainian Objectives

• This is shock-and-awe on a budget—Ukraine cannot win a grinding war of attrition, but it can execute decapitation and attrition-of-assets campaigns to degrade Russia’s ability to sustain prolonged high-intensity warfare.

• Also, it embarrasses the Russian security apparatus right before peace talks, asserting Ukraine's hand on the battlefield and diplomatically.

II. Political Dimensions

1. Why Peace Talks Fell Apart

• Zelensky is under immense pressure from EU interventionists and U.S. neocons and liberal hawks not to accept any peace that leaves Crimea or the Donbas in Russian hands.

• Putin, for his part, faces internal hardliner pressure, Chechen and FSB factions, and is desperate to avoid looking weak before his military-industrial elite.

• Both men have survived assassination attempts and know that losing power likely equals death or imprisonment—which explains the tendency to escalate rather than negotiate.

2. Head of State vs. Dictator Framing

• Russia, with its deep historical reverence for strongmen, can sustain Putin’s “wartime Tsar” image more easily than Ukraine can accept a Zelensky perpetually canceling elections and ruling by decree.

• Western media continues to portray Zelensky as democratic, but internally, his legitimacy erodes as the war grinds on without victory, especially if conscription deepens and casualties mount.

THE WHO'S AND WHAT'S OF POST ATTACK UKR-RUS THEATER

III. Is Nuclear Use Now Plausible?

1. Russia’s Dilemma

• If strategic bombers and submarines are neutralized, tactical nuclear weapons become more attractive:

  • They offer psychological and military shock power

  • They can break enemy morale or halt a counteroffensive

  • They restore Russia’s deterrence credibility

• Russia has doctrinal pathways for limited nuclear use, particularly in a scenario where the homeland or nuclear deterrent is threatened.

2. Would the West Respond Militarily?

• Unclear. NATO would likely escalate economically and diplomatically, and potentially provide direct ISR (intelligence, surveillance, recon) and air defense assets, but it would stop short of troop deployment unless a NATO country is hit.

IV. Who Stands to Benefit from Escalation?

1. China

• China can play the peace broker in a post-nuclear or post-collapse scenario, stepping in as the "responsible" power.

• Meanwhile, Russia's dependency on Beijing deepens strategically and economically, turning it into a junior partner, especially in Central Asia and energy markets.

2. U.S. Neoconservative and Socialist Hawks

• Escalation helps:

  • Justify increased defense budgets

  • Expand NATO’s role

  • Distract from domestic political issues (useful for Biden-aligned factions or GOP warhawks)

• It also prevents Trump from claiming a peace victory, which would devastate their electoral messaging.

3. Defense Contractors and Intelligence Bureaucracies

• A drawn-out, high-tech, semi-proxy war across Eurasia enriches the military-industrial complex and justifies expanded global surveillance infrastructure.

V. Conclusion: Where Does the War Go Now?

Domain	Outlook
Military	Expect retaliatory strikes from Russia, possibly escalating to tactical nuke posturing if their strategic edge remains degraded
Diplomatic	Peace talks are effectively dead in the short-term; EU and U.S. deep state actors have spoiled it
Leadership	Both Putin and Zelensky are cornered autocrats; regime change equals death, so diplomacy is disincentivized
Nuclear	Non-zero probability of tactical nuke use in 2025 if battlefield losses worsen and deterrent capabilities erode further
Beneficiaries	China, deep state globalists, and the defense establishment; possibly Trump, if he remains the only voice of de-escalation