By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb, a large-scale drone attack on Russian air bases, was not pre-approved by the White House, Press Secretary Leavitt confirmed. While Trump was not informed beforehand, Leavitt emphasized his desire for the war’s conclusion and attributed recent Ukraine-Russia talks to his efforts. She deflected questions regarding Trump’s stance on further sanctions against Russia, stating that such decisions would follow the president’s judgment. Finally, U.S. defense officials are currently assessing the implications of the operation for American security.
Read the original article here
President Trump’s lack of knowledge regarding Ukraine’s drone strike on Russian warplanes, as confirmed by the White House, highlights a significant geopolitical shift. It underscores the complex relationship between the US, Ukraine, and Russia, and the calculated decision by Ukraine not to inform a potentially compromised source.
The assertion that President Trump was uninformed about the attack isn’t surprising, given his past record and well-documented communication style. His alleged inability to process complex intelligence briefings, coupled with his history of public pronouncements, would make him a high-risk individual to confide in regarding sensitive military operations.
The success of the drone strike is directly attributed to its secrecy. Had President Trump been aware of the planned attack, the likelihood of the information leaking to Russia, either directly or indirectly, would have been substantial. This inherent risk makes it understandable why Ukraine chose not to include him in the planning or execution.
The notion that Ukraine would share such sensitive intelligence with a former US President known for his pro-Russia stance, or at least perceived pro-Russia stance, is simply illogical. The potential for compromised security outweighs any perceived benefit of informing him. This lack of communication is a strategic decision, not an oversight.
Furthermore, the lack of US weapon systems in the attack removes any obligation to provide prior notice to the US government. This further reinforces the decision to keep the operation secret, reducing the risk of intelligence leaks. The successful operation demonstrates Ukraine’s capability to plan and execute complex military strategies independently.
The repeated media coverage focusing on President Trump’s lack of awareness underscores a broader point: his political influence and access to information seem to be significantly diminished. The fact that this news cycle continues is perhaps less about the military operation itself, and more about the symbolic weight of a former president’s exclusion. This symbolizes a changing power dynamic, one where the US’s role in Ukraine’s security is viewed with more nuance and potentially less trust.
This incident isn’t simply about whether President Trump knew; it reflects a deliberate choice by Ukraine to safeguard its national security and the success of its military operations. This highlights a growing distrust in certain political figures, a distrust that extends beyond the current US administration.
The idea that President Trump would have immediately informed President Putin, if he had known about the attack, is a prevailing concern within the context of his perceived relationships with foreign powers. This belief reinforces the inherent risk involved in sharing such sensitive information with him.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s decision to keep President Trump uninformed reveals a calculated strategy grounded in protecting operational security. The silence speaks volumes, highlighting both the success of the operation and the complexities of the international relationships at play.
The lack of communication should not be viewed as an act of disrespect toward the US, but rather as a prudent security measure. It underlines a strategic shift where Ukraine prioritizes its own interests and operational security above potential political ramifications or the need to keep a particular former leader informed. The successful attack showcases Ukraine’s growing military capabilities and its ability to act independently on the world stage.
The ongoing news cycle, repeatedly focusing on President Trump’s lack of knowledge, serves as a reminder of the delicate balance of power and the shifting alliances in the current geopolitical landscape. The silence surrounding his exclusion speaks volumes about the current climate and the evolving dynamics between Ukraine and the US. The success of the drone strike, and the deliberate decision to exclude President Trump, underscore Ukraine’s independent strength and its willingness to act decisively in its own self-interest.
Finally, the reactions ranging from indifference to satisfaction surrounding this confirmation suggest broader sentiments toward President Trump’s influence and his suitability for future involvement in high-level strategic conversations. The lack of widespread outrage over his exclusion might, in fact, highlight a collective awareness of the potential dangers associated with his involvement in such matters.