By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A surprise Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airfields, resulting in the destruction of over 40 planes, was conducted without US involvement. President Trump, who recently criticized Putin and considered lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s war effort, was unaware of the operation. Following the attack, Secretary Rubio spoke with Lavrov, reiterating Trump’s call for direct talks between Russia and Ukraine. Pro-Ukraine Republicans praised the Ukrainian operation, highlighting its strategic targeting of Russian military assets. The attack comes amid a US Senate push for stronger sanctions against Russia.
Read the original article here
Trump ‘Not Given Heads-Up’ on Ukraine’s Far-Reaching Drone Strikes in Russia, Officials Say. The complete lack of communication regarding Ukraine’s recent drone strikes into Russia speaks volumes. It underscores a fundamental distrust in the former president, stemming from his perceived ties to Russia and his history of leaking sensitive information. Why would Ukraine risk compromising the operation by including someone known for their loose lips and alleged pro-Russian leanings?
The decision to keep Trump in the dark highlights a deep-seated concern about potential leaks. It’s common sense; you wouldn’t share a carefully crafted military strategy with someone who has a history of divulging secrets, especially if that person has alleged connections to your adversary. The potential consequences of such a leak are too significant to risk, considering the possible compromises that could ensue.
The scale and success of the operation likely played a role in the decision to maintain secrecy. This was not a small-scale operation; it was a far-reaching, meticulously planned strike. Keeping information about such an ambitious mission extremely limited naturally ensured the element of surprise was maintained. Leaking information prior to execution would undermine the strategic advantage built into the operation.
The years of planning and preparation preceding these drone strikes, a period during which the operation remained utterly clandestine, emphasizes the gravity of the situation and the critical need for secrecy. This secrecy is a testament to the trust and confidence placed in those directly involved in the operation, an appropriate level of security for such a strategic undertaking. It is a far cry from the freewheeling sharing of intelligence that has been characteristic of past administrations.
Given Trump’s past statements downplaying the importance of Ukraine’s struggles and his often complimentary comments about Russia’s leader, it’s entirely understandable that Ukrainian officials would not extend the courtesy of a heads-up. It is a realistic assessment of the risks of such an action; the potential damage inflicted by revealing the details of such a large-scale mission to someone considered to be a potential threat to national security far outweighs the benefits.
Furthermore, the idea of Trump himself being directly informed even as a courtesy is problematic. It’s not just a matter of potential leaks, but also his potential reaction. Imagine the scenarios: Would he have attempted to halt the operation? Would he have communicated his knowledge to the wrong people? It’s impossible to guarantee that the operation would have succeeded if the former president was involved.
It is a matter of simple logic: why would you involve someone with a history of disseminating sensitive information and alleged ties to the opposing side in planning a covert operation? This is not personal; it’s a question of operational security and calculated risk management. It’s standard procedure to limit sensitive information flow to essential personnel only.
The silence surrounding Trump’s exclusion underscores a growing trend of nations recalibrating their trust in the United States in sharing sensitive information. With leaks and breaches becoming increasingly common, it’s no surprise that other countries are taking extra precautions to protect their national security.
In conclusion, the decision to exclude Trump from this operation was a pragmatic one, born from a clear understanding of his past behavior and alleged ties. It’s a sobering reminder of the delicate balance between international cooperation and safeguarding national security interests in today’s complex geopolitical landscape. Secrecy, in this instance, is undeniably the superior strategy. The success of the mission further validates this approach.