We live in dangerous times. Ukraine’s attack on the Russian strategic bomber fleet would have started a nuclear exchange 50 years ago during the Cold War. Strategic nuclear assets are referred to as, “strategic,” because they are meant to influence the balance of power without being used. According to some reports, the Russians cannot easily make up these losses. Its strategic position has been degraded.

The demonstration videos depicting the mechanics of the attack show that the Ukrainians smuggled truckloads of drones deep into Russian territory. This operation had to take months to plan and execute. Ukrainians outfitted civilian trucks to perpetrate the most devastating surprise attack on military assets since the Japanese disabled most of the American Pacific fleet on Dec. 7, 1941.

An attack on nuclear weapon assets, however, always invites consideration of a nuclear response. Russia has already committed most of its conventional forces that are not otherwise needed to secure its far-flung territory. Russian planners are undoubtedly asking what can be done to prevent another such attack. How can it retaliate in a meaningful way to deter a second wave of drones? A nuclear attack on Ukraine is surely being discussed.

What deters Russia from using its nuclear deterrent on Ukraine? Does Ukraine shelter under the American nuclear umbrella? The U.S. successfully deterred a Chinese attack on Taiwan for years by implying, but not promising, a nuclear response should China attack Taiwan. Have nuclear-armed Britain or France provided guarantees should Russia resort to a nuclear retaliation? On June 1, the same day as the attack, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled plans to ramp up Britain’s war production, warning that the United Kingdom must be prepared to confront and defeat hostile states with modern military capabilities. Can that mean anything other than preparing for war with Russia?

The Trump administration and Ukraine both claim that Trump received no advanced warning of the June 1 attack. Trump’s press secretary declined to react to the attack, neither condemning it nor supporting it. Instead, Karoline Leavitt said, “I would like to let the president speak on that himself,” adding that Trump wants the war in Ukraine to end.

One recalls that long before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, House Democrats passed articles of impeachment condemning Trump for asking Zelensky about the financial ties between Ukraine and Hunter Biden. Even before the first primary vote was cast, Joe Biden had been informally anointed as the next Democratic nominee for president. In hindsight, the impeachment now looks like a brushback pitch warning Trump not to interfere in the Ukraine project. 

But was the entire U.S. military and intelligence community in the dark? As with the September 2022 Nord Stream pipeline attack, we’re left to speculate how much of the complex operation Ukraine actually conducted on its own. If the U.S. military and/or intelligence community supported Ukraine in these attacks, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. It would mean the elected president is not in charge of the most consequential aspects of U.S. military and foreign policy. To date, Russia has not accused the U.S. of supporting this particular attack.

The good news is that Russia has reacted to the strike with restraint. It has not broken off peace talks and its retaliation has been relatively muted. Russia’s key demand is that the West withdraw from Ukraine as a base of operations and that Ukraine becomes a neutral country. Will the West agree to this? Ukraine has become a key strategic asset for the West in the European theater. While talks are always good news, the path to peace is not in plain view.