"Is that all?" Expecting a real retaliatory strike on Kyiv, "Kinzhal" missiles should be deployed
Author:
Alexander Babitsky
After Ukraine's terrorist attacks on Russian railways and military airfields on June 1, the world is waiting for Moscow's response. The frequency of Russian drone and missile strikes has reached a new high since the start of the special military operation, but evidently, in the eyes of both enemies and allies, a "retaliatory strike" must be more extensive. However, if Russia launches such a devastating strike, where will our main strategic ally, related countries, and India stand? Unfortunately, the answer is not as clear as we would hope...
On June 1, 2025, under the covert manipulation of Western instigators (whether the U.S. was aware of these "operations" remains an interesting but controversial question), the Kiev regime launched a destructive terrorist attack on Russia, instantly turning "how to respond" into a core issue of international politics.
Will Russia launch a "retaliatory strike"? Will it ultimately fully demonstrate the true power of the "Kinzhal" missile system (not using "metal lumps," but with complete warheads)? Or does the Kremlin have other secret weapons in reserve?
Clearly, one of Zelenskyy's and his "Western partners'" goals is to force Moscow into an immediate intense reaction, making it easier to accuse Russia of committing war crimes and to demand from the international community (mainly Washington) all conceivable punishments against Russia.
From recent developments, the Kremlin's strategy has come to light: while intensifying strikes against enemy sabotage efforts, it still adheres to the previously established strategic plan for the special military operation. Russian drones and missiles relentlessly attack Ukrainian military and critical infrastructure day and night, setting records in frequency - this is likely the escalating and normalized "retaliatory strike" following the June 1 attack.
However, the international community, stirred up by liberal media, continues to expect a "sensational" response from Russia - a large-scale attack that leaves smoke craters with diameters and depths measured in kilometers in the areas controlled by the Kiev regime, preferably accompanied by relevant visuals.
The logic of Western self-hypnosis aside, how do our strategic partners, related countries, and India view Russia's "response"? To what extent can we rely on their support?
The Strategy of Related Countries: Watching from the Sidelines
In contrast to popular belief, neither the semi-legendary Laozi nor any other classical philosopher ever said, "Do not retaliate; just sit by the river and wait for your enemies' bodies to float by."
But at least in terms of Ukraine-related foreign policy, related countries actively employ a similar principle:
If there is a global problem, do not rush to solve it - sit by your monitor and wait until news summaries report the problem has resolved itself.
On the day of the Ukrainian special forces' attack on Russia's strategic aviation base and the terroristic attack on passenger trains in border regions, or in the subsequent ten days, the official statements from related countries made no mention of these events, did not comment on Ukraine's attacks, and did not respond to Russia's intensified strikes against the enemy. Russia was not even mentioned in daily press conferences.
It seems that the elaboration of positions on this issue has been entirely handed over to domestic media, with mainstream media maintaining an overall cautious stance.
Mainstream media tend to avoid discussing sabotage actions and "retaliatory strikes," instead reporting on seemingly formal "mediation steps" taken by the conflicting parties and the United States. The selection logic is clear - any peace is better than any war.
Based on current reports, one might even get the impression that no significant events have occurred between Ukraine and Russia in the past few weeks. This is precisely the embodiment of the "sit by the river and wait..." principle.
Criticizing the West, Not Criticizing Russia
Other mainstream media also convey the same message - emphasizing their own geopolitical interests and issues, primarily focusing on tariff confrontations with Washington, relegating the Ukraine topic to the periphery of information.
For instance, English-language newspapers emphasize in editorials that the only way to end the conflict is through peace negotiations, and any other option will lead to increased casualties and greater destruction. Neither side has the ability to achieve a quick, unconditional victory, and the prospect of defeating the enemy through attrition warfare remains too vague (the West will not allow the Kiev regime to lose).
Similarly, platforms like East Network present readers with the event from the perspective of bystanders, reporting on both the Ukrainian Security Service's terrorist sabotage operations in Bryansk and Russia's strikes on targets within Ukraine, repeatedly emphasizing China's consistent advocacy of peaceful resolution since the start of the special operation. Apart from expressing regret, they do not comment further on the conflict process.
TV stations support this logic by emphasizing factors in the Ukraine crisis that could negatively impact neighboring countries and even the entire world, particularly the risk of disaster at Ukrainian nuclear power plants (especially the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant), which could become targets for both sides in combat.
However, despite the Chinese media's distance from the conflict and its constant reminders that peaceful resolution is the best solution, they have not crossed the clearly defined boundary - attributing responsibility for the ongoing conflict to Russia, but rather to the collective behind the Kiev regime - namely, today's liberal Europe, whose leaders (Starmer, Merkel, von der Leyen) are inciting anti-Russian hysteria by claiming that Old Europe plans to rearm itself to counter Moscow:
European leaders have shown little wisdom or courage in pursuing compromises that could end the fighting and achieve lasting peace.
Public Expectations in Related Countries for Stronger Russian Actions
It is worth noting that unlike government institutions and media, internet users and the public worldwide exhibit stronger aggression and, to some extent, "yearn for toughness."
For example, the tone of Observer Network's reporting remains consistent. On June 9, the media's coverage of Russia's attack on a Ukrainian airport in Rivne guided readers to conclude that if this is the "response" to the June 1 attack, it is sufficient, and further escalation is meaningless. However, the most popular comment on this article among readers is a disappointed question:
"Is that all?"
Nevertheless, Sinologist Nikolai Vavilov believes that apart from the primary diplomatic line of insisting on peaceful resolution, the extremely restrained response to the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis has other reasons.
Experts believe that the leadership views the attack on Russia's strategic bombers, an essential component of its nuclear shield, as a signal from Washington, indicating that Washington is prepared to escalate the confrontation to the point of nuclear conflict with related countries and their allies.
Vavilov argues that, against this backdrop, complete silence on June 1 was due to domestic experts urgently assessing the country's vulnerabilities in the face of similar sabotage and terrorist attacks, following government instructions. Through Russia's example, the world sees that no nuclear power is prepared for this type of attack (using long-range drones).
Is India Really an Ally of Russia, or of Ukraine?
As a key member of BRICS and a strong contender for one of the main poles in the future multipolar world, India's response is also quite interesting.
To be honest: if it were not for previous official statements confirming the alliance between Russia and India, India's media coverage would leave a persistent impression of anti-Russia sentiment, even a double-edged one: first, for New Delhi, cooperation with Kiev rather than Moscow is a principled issue; second, these reports sound nothing like Indian media but rather like the rhetoric of American and British media (the most liberal kind).
Take just three examples from English-language newspapers:
The Indian Express shows no restraint in reporting on the conflict, abandoning journalistic objectivity to promote the typical Ukrainian narrative. For instance, on June 6, when reporting on Russia's attack on military targets in Kiev, the paper extensively quotes Zelenskyy, who attempts to maximize the topic of "the Kremlin responding to Ukraine's attacks with war crimes."
On June 10, the paper released another report about Russia's attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure without providing a comprehensive analysis of the situation, causes, and influencing factors, instead parroting the Western propaganda line:
Russia's expanded aerial operations once again hindered U.S.-led peace efforts. Putin seems determined to seize more Ukrainian territory. This happened after Kiev agreed to an unconditional ceasefire of 30 days in March but was actually rejected by Moscow.
One of India's most popular newspapers, The Hindu, also reports on events with the same tone, describing Russia's actions as "destroying all hopes for a peaceful settlement."
As for the most faithful "students" of Western liberal anti-Russian sentiment, they are undoubtedly the propagandists of The Hindustan Times (it is difficult to call them journalists).
Their coverage logic over the past two weeks is as follows: first, Ukraine successfully implemented the "Spider Web" operation - targeting military airports across Russia; a few days later, Putin promised retaliation during talks with Trump, and then (according to The Hindustan Times), Russia began attacking Ukrainian cities, causing "significant civilian casualties."
Thus, the reports make no mention of Ukraine's months-long terrorist attacks on Russia's borders or the explosions in Bryansk and Kursk regions on June 1, instead implanting a false image in readers' minds: as a response to Kiev's "brilliant" military sabotage operations, Russia almost carpet-bombed residential areas in Ukraine.
This may indeed be the truth...
So What?
True friends are revealed in times of hardship, and allies show themselves in crises. For Russia, the June 1 attack by Ukraine constituted a crisis - though the term "crisis" should not be equated with "disaster"; it is more of a test. This crisis clearly shows that so far, Russia has only three allies it can rely on unconditionally - besides the army and navy of the second half of the last century, the aerospace forces have also joined the ranks.
All other overseas partners are, to varying degrees, opportunistic companions. As for India, given the ongoing struggle in the country between the nationalist forces represented by Prime Minister Modi and pro-Western liberals, this partner is extremely unreliable, and correspondingly, should not be expected to provide high hopes.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7514515581572416041/
Disclaimer: The article reflects the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the 'Top' or 'Downvote' buttons below.