WHAT do you think would have happened if Russia had trained and helped organise a mission that attacked a nuclear weapons base in Britain or the United States?

The answer is there would likely have been a nuclear response to the incident.

Yet this scenario played out in a different direction last week when the Ukrainians carried out what Russia describes as a terrorist attack on its air bases deep inside its territory.

More than 100 Ukrainian drones were launched at five Russian regions — Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur. It seems that planes were only damaged in Murmansk and Irkutsk, with the Russians shooting down the other projectiles.

The sophisticated mission seemed to involve the drones being smuggled into Russia and then placed inside wooden cabins mounted on lorries and hidden below remotely operated detachable roofs.

The lorries were then apparently driven near to air bases by allegedly unsuspecting drivers before the drones were remotely launched at their targets.

The drivers, according to Russian Telegram channel Baza, all tell the same story of being booked by businessmen to deliver wooden cabins to various locations around Russia.

This was an act as sophisticated and audacious as it was reckless. 

Although the Ukrainians obviously claimed multiple hits on Russian planes, it now seems that there were between three and five strategic bombers damaged.

While being far from a huge military setback to Russia, the attack is obviously a political embarrassment for Moscow.

It was certainly an audacious act carried out in the name of Ukraine after nearly three years of having been invaded by Russia. Most experts believe that the level of sophistication was such that it could not have been carried out by the Ukrainians alone.

It also came after seven people were killed and dozens injured after two bridges were targeted by the Ukrainians.

The British MI6 has been strongly implicated in the planning if not the implementation of the attack. But the US, the main military backers of Kiev, have also been implicated in this and other recent attacks on Russia.

Indeed, evidence has emerged about possible US involvement in the recent attempt to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ukrainian drones targeted the helicopter during an unannounced late night flight over the tense border region of Kursk. 
Air defence systems intercepted and destroyed the drone before it could reach the president’s flight path. Nobody was injured and Putin continued on to his destination.

Russian media described the strike as a “co-ordinated and deliberate” effort to hit the presidential convoy mid-air.

Putin’s travel arrangements are, of course, never announced in advance. So how was it that such a co-ordinated and full-on attack against the Russian president could be carried out? 

The answer of course is only with the help of Western intelligence. Most of this sort of intelligence comes from the US or Britain. There are reports that prior to the attack there was a notable increase in the level of US intelligence air flights nearby.

This took place as the Ukrainians made clear that they wish to continue to fight the Russians with the help of the “coalition of the willing” from Britain and Europe — if the Trump administration continues to be largely unwilling.

The enormity of the attack is entirely reckless. The bombers were on the tarmac and unprotected in line with the requirements of the New Start Treaty requirement, from 2010.

The treaty makes it clear that the strategic bombers of both sides should be visible to “national technical means of verification, such as satellite imagery, to allow monitoring by the other party.” 

This means that the status of bombers — whether nuclear-armed or converted to conventional use — should be always verifiable. This guards against any “surprise” first strike by the other side.

Hours after the attack on Russia, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the outcome of a defence review to, he claims, bring his country to “war-fighting readiness.” 

Is the timing of this announcement a coincidence? I think not.

He had already announced plans to divert money away from the country’s welfare to the military and put flesh on the bones by announcing plans to build up to 12 new attack submarines and invest billions of pounds in weapons.

Starmer specifically cited the threat of Russia as he has been particularly aggressive in pushing for the proxy war against the Russians to continue. 

Even though the US has made it clear that Britain and the Europeans are not being consulted over any potential ceasefire or peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, Britain has continued to be the main cheerleader for fighting to the last Ukrainian.

Starmer is clearly attempting to scupper any prospect of a peace deal between the two warring sides.

This is far easier than Starmer and the Europeans dealing with one of the fundamental reasons for the Russian invasion — the eastward expansion of the Nato military alliance.

In so doing Starmer seems content to paint a target on the back of every person in Britain.
US President Donald Trump reportedly claimed in a phone call with Putin that he knew nothing of the attack on the strategic bombers. 

If Trump knew nothing then this raises a number of serious questions.
Did Trump know about the attack on the Russian bases and then lie to Putin about it?

If Trump did not know, was anyone else in Washington in the loop about the attack on Russian nuclear assets?
Just who is in charge? Is the US deep state asserting its control over the governance of US strategic foreign policy?
Have the British and the European Union gone rogue, conducting their own independent military policy from the US?

The answers to these questions are important because the attack on the Russian bases has largely destroyed the New Start Treaty and could easily activate the revised Russian nuclear doctrine.

The doctrine, updated at the end of last year, says an attack on Russia from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint attack on Russia.

Any attack with conventional missiles, drones or aircraft could meet the criteria for a nuclear response.

The revised doctrine expands the number of countries and coalitions, and the kinds of military threats, subject to a possible nuclear response.

The bottom line is that the reckless attack on Russia’s strategic bombers were clearly designed to cross the line of the new Russian nuclear doctrine.

I have no idea why the Russians chose not to activate the doctrine last week but they could easily have done so and sparked the nuclear annihilation of us all.

This is a dangerous time for the world and far too many politicians from a range of countries — such as Britain, the US, Ukraine and, of course, Israel — seem intent on sparking a nuclear war.

Never has it been more important for us all to build the peace movement and remove these rogue politicians from power.