Operation “Spiderweb”: Ukrainian/NATO Attack on Russia: A new Pearl Harbor? Complete Escalation? Are the Lunatics back? Facts and Analysis.
The Ukrainian attack on Russia is not what Western media claims. It is a PR campaign, planned by Western powers, executed by its proxy. We’ve done the research and we’re presenting the facts and possible consequences.
Peter Hanseler / René Zittlau / Andreas Mylaeus / Denis Dobrin
Introduction
The Ukrainian attacks deep into Russian territory came as a surprise just one day before the second round of the Istanbul talks between Russian and the Ukrainian delegation.
In this article, we will start by describing the locations of the attacks and the extent of damage. It is war. The reporting on Ukraine’s success and the extent of the damage is contradictory. This article is the result of extensive research by a team of authors from Western, Ukrainian, and Russian sources. We started on Sunday, June 1, 2025, and concluded on Monday, June 2, 2025, evening.
Secondly, we will assess the involvement of Western entities. It is indisputable that Ukraine could not have implemented these attacks without Western intelligence.
Finally, we provide a definitive analysis of the impact these attacks will have on the war in Ukraine, the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and the relationship between Russia and the US.
Facts
Actual Locations of Attacks
The attacks targeted airfields in the Murmansk region in the north of the country, in the Ivanovo and Ryazan regions in central Russia, and in the Irkutsk region in Siberia and Amur in the Far East. Kamikaze and FPV drones were used in all attacks. Some of these attacks were launched from areas in the immediate vicinity of the airfields.
Further Claimed Attacks – False Propaganda (Fake)
Ukraine claims to have attacked other targets in addition to the six locations mentioned above. However, these reports are fake. For example, we show a fake report about a claimed attack: The Ukrainian Armed Forces struck an airfield in Voskresensk, near Moscow. Footage of the aftermath of the attack is circulating on Telegram channels.
The video was filmed in Olenegorsk. The Gornyak hotel is visible in the footage, which allows to pinpoint the location where it was shot. The Center for Information and Psychological Operations of Ukraine (ЦИПСO) is responsible for such fake reports. This organization is deliberately spreading panic by reporting non-existent damage to an airfield in the Moscow region.
Damage assessment
Ukrainian and Western sources claim that 41 bombers were hit and 34% of the Russian bomber force was destroyed.
Our research definitively shows that these figures are completely overstated. Firstly, only two of the five attacks were successful. The attacks on the other three locations were either averted by drone defense or because the drone launches malfunctioned.
Trusted sources also show some differences in their assessments, but their figures are much lower than Ukraine’s claims.
My friend and colleague Larry Johnson of Sonar21.com has analyzed video footage and has counted hits on five strategic bombers. Two are clearly beyond repair. It is clear that three to five bombers were lost, not 41. Larry estimates the size of the Russian TU-95 fleet at 58. The loss of three to five of these planes has reduced the fleet from 5 to 9%.
Andrei Martianov’s assessment is similar but slightly different. The damage report is clear: three TU-95MC and two TU-22M3 were damaged. There’s one old An-12. It is clear that some of the five damaged bombers will be repaired. Three TU-95 MCs and two TU-22M3s were destroyed or damaged, but some will return to service. This means there are roughly 70 heavy and 90 medium bomber aircraft in active service, for a total of 160. That means 5/160 is 3.125%.
This does not stop western outlets, such as the “Military Watch Magazine” to claim:
«Russia’s Tu-95 Bomber Fleet Will Never Recover From Ukraine’s Latest Drone Attack […]”
Military Watch Magazine
We are certain that the damage to the Russian strategic bomber fleet will not affect Russia’s ability to deploy them, as their overall losses are between three and eight percent of their total force.
The term “Pearl Harbor” is a debatable choice to describe this attack. This was not a military attack by the Ukrainian forces, but a long-planned tactical operation by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU). The Japanese had one clear goal in December 1941: destroy the aircraft carrier fleet at Pearl Harbor to push the US Navy out of the Pacific to stop the blockade against the supply of raw materials for Japan. They failed to achieve their primary objective: the carriers were not in port at the time of the attack. It remains unclear whether Roosevelt knew about the attack beforehand or allowed it to happen to enter World War II. It is clear that both Pearl Harbor and the attack on Sunday were Pyrrhic victories. In that regard, the term “Pearl Harbor” is fitting.
CIA, MI-6, Mossad-Involvement
It’s clear that the Ukrainians couldn’t have carried out this attack without Western support.
According to Ukrainian sources, the attack unfolded as follows: The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has revealed details of an operation codenamed “Spider Web.” First, FPV drones were smuggled across the border. Then, mobile wooden houses were placed on trucks, each housing a drone. At the right moment, the roofs of the containers were opened by remote control, and the drones flew off to attack Russian bombers.
This description is correct. However, the Ukrainians needed information about targets thousands of kilometers away from Ukraine, which can only come from the US satellites. Communication with the drones also does not appear to be possible via the normal mobile phone network, which makes the involvement of NATO forces likely.
Colonel Larry Wilkerson and numerous other geopolitical commentators are in agreement. Colonel Wilkerson’s interview with Nima on Dialogue Works is an excellent example of clear communication. Here is a snippet of it:
The question that Wilkerson asks at the end, whether President Trump knew about this, is politically highly sensitive.
Red Lines Crossed
The US and others played a significant role in the Ukrainian attack, a fact that the Western media has failed to mention.
Russia’s strategic bombers, such as Tu-95 and Tu-160, have been stationed in open areas as required by the START-3 treaty (Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms) between the United States and the Russian Federation. This treaty, signed in 2010, obliged the parties to ensure transparency regarding nuclear weapons, including the possibility of satellite monitoring and inspections. As of June 2025, the New START Treaty is still legally binding for the United States, even though Russia has in 2023 suspended (not ended!) its participation. The treaty itself remains in force until February 4, 2026, following its 5-year extension in 2021. The US has not withdrawn from the treaty or suspended its obligations. Therefore, the U.S. remains bound by the treaty’s limits and continues to report its compliance (although verification mechanisms have broken down since Russia’s suspension).
Attempts to undermine Russia’s nuclear capability are not limited to the current attacks on strategic bombers. Other incidents aimed at weakening the nuclear deterrence have been recorded earlier: attacks on the early warning system in 2023-2024, Ukrainian forces attempted to strike missile early warning system radar stations (e.g. Voronezh-DM radar at Armavir and the Voronezh-M radar near Orsk) These radars are integral components of Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent, designed to detect incoming ballistic missile threats.
We have to keep in mind: In late 2024, Russia revised its nuclear doctrine. The updates followed reports that US President Joe Biden had authorized Kyiv to use long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia, a move the Kremlin warned could lead to a significant new round of escalation. But of course this was also an answer to the forementioned attacks. The updated doctrine, approved by President Vladimir Putin in November 2024, expands the conditions under which Russia might consider using nuclear weapons. Key changes include:
- Treating aggression from a non-nuclear state, supported by a nuclear power, as a “joint attack” warranting potential nuclear retaliation.
- Considering large-scale conventional attacks using missiles, drones, or aircraft as possible triggers for a nuclear response.
- Lowering the threshold for nuclear use from situations threatening the “very existence of the state” to those posing a “critical threat to sovereignty or territorial integrity.”
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasized that attacks on critical facilities, including nuclear infrastructure, are a direct challenge to Russia’s security and require a tough response. In case of further provocations, Moscow may consider “asymmetric measures”, including strikes on NATO decision-making centers.
Thus, operation “Spiderweb” not only jeopardizes strategic stability, but also brings closer the moment when any mistake could lead to a global crisis.
Therefore, the very limited tactical success of the attack comes at a huge price not only for the US. They crossed a line, which Russia drew in the sand with blood-red paint. All this, for a propaganda victory that will last a few days?
Did President Trump Know?
On May 27, 2025 Trump posted on Truth Social:
Is this an indication that Trump knew? – Yes, it is, even though, according to the Ukrainians themselves, the planning of these attacks began 18 months ago – that is, long before Trump took office.. However, Trump has always had a big mouth and it is also possible that this was only typical Trump talk and he did not know anything about the attack beforehand. In this case, however, the question arises, who is in control of the United States.
In a ZeroHedge article of June 12 with the title “Three Signs The Lunatics Are Back In Charge, Setting Up Nuclear-Armed Escalation With Russia”, ZeroHedge lays out the plans of the deep state lunatics in the US and EU to escalate the war with “bone-crushing” US sanctions, devastation of the Russian economy – yes, by the devastated EU. Furthermore, they plan NATO membership of the Ukraine. It is like Sleepy Joe Biden were back.
If these creatures will be successful, then any escalation is possible. The lunacy lies in the fact that these groups are selling the Ukrainian attack as if it were the first of a series of hard blows to Russia. But, the attack was a mere propaganda victory, though embarrassing to the Russians. All other cards the lunatics want to play are old and tested – and never succeeded – and in this case, the Russians will likely not fall for the provocation of taking measures under their new nuclear doctrine.
The Russians do not Change their Strategy
It was a mistake to think the Russians would change their strategy. The Russians traveled to Istanbul, where the second round of negotiations took place yesterday. The negotiations made progress, albeit incrementally. RT reports: “The two sides also agreed to their largest prisoner-of-war exchange to date, according to Medinsky. The swap will involve all sick and severely wounded POWs, as well as all prisoners under the age of 25.” – “It will include at least 1,000 people from each side, possibly more,” the presidential aide noted. Moscow will unilaterally return the remains of 6,000 Ukrainian service members to Kiev next week. This will allow for a proper “Christian burial.” Russia has also proposed a multi-day ceasefire in several frontline areas to facilitate the recovery of fallen soldiers’ bodies and prevent potential disease outbreaks as temperatures rise with the onset of summer.
RT also leaked information about the Russian peace proposal. No surprises and no changes in the position of Russia.
- It calls on Kiev to withdraw its troops from the former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia and confirm its neutral and non-nuclear status;
- Kiev would have to reaffirm its neutral status and introduce a ban on any military activities by third-party states on Ukrainian territory, as well as withdrawing from international treaties incompatible with this status.
- The memorandum expects Ukraine to set certain limits on the size of its armed forces, as well as military equipment, but does not provide any fixed numbers.
- All Ukrainian nationalist armed groups within the armed forces and the National Guard would have to be disbanded.
- Kiev would have to guarantee the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine and grant Russian the status of official language, stop the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, ban Nazi propaganda and any nationalist groups, as well as lifting sanctions imposed on Moscow.
This was not a surprise. In my next article I will discuss, among other topics, Ukraine and the EU behaving as victors, despite the fact that they are losing the war.
Conclusion
The attack was a tactical success, portraying Ukraine as a force that still has a pulse, but no more. It has no influence on the battlefield, where the Russian progress is accelerating steadily.
Whether President Putin will escalate the conflict by targeting decision centers in Kiev or even NATO-Members would be pure speculation on his Zen-Buddhist and famous patience with the West. We shall not speculate.
The most important question does not concern Moscow, but Washington. President Trump will have a major credibility issue with the Russians. Whether he knew or not is not of great importance for the Russians. The fact, however, that the above-discussed red line was crossed may have a long-term impact on the relationship. Anyway, the obvious heterogene stance towards Russia within the Trump Administration confirms once more to the Russians, that the US cannot be trusted.
25 thoughts on “Operation “Spiderweb”: Ukrainian/NATO Attack on Russia: A new Pearl Harbor? Complete Escalation? Are the Lunatics back? Facts and Analysis.”