Russia’s Seductive Game with the U.S. Could Lead to Explosive Consequences!

Former President Donald Trump seems to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin harbors intentions of a beneficial compromise with the United States. Similarly, Vice President Kamala Harris operates under the notion that fortifying NATO can coexist with a relaxed stance on European countries relying on U.S. defense without substantial contributions. Yet, both assumptions miss the mark, as Russia continues to assert itself as a direct and dangerous adversary to U.S. interests, evidenced by increasingly aggressive actions.

Recent reports from The Wall Street Journal reveal that Russia has been involved in the insertion of incendiary devices into transatlantic air cargo routes from Europe to North America. This summer, two of these devices detonated within sorting facilities in the U.K. and Germany, allegedly planted by Russia’s military intelligence, the GRU. Although these incidents occurred on the ground, the implications are alarming, exposing Russia’s readiness to inch toward actions that could verge on warfare.

For those who might still see Putin’s Russia as a potential partner, these tactics serve as a rude awakening. Putin, a product of the Soviet KGB, holds a deep-seated resentment toward the U.S., especially due to the latter’s influence in post-Cold War Eastern Europe. To consider any diplomatic alignment with Russia, Putin would demand that the U.S. abandon support for Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, and other regions that Russia sees as within its sphere of influence. In return, he might expect U.S. complicity in Russian maneuvers and energy control over Europe. This compromise, however, would only strengthen Russia’s grip, while eroding the West’s moral and political standing.

The latest parcel bomb plot is just a small part of Russia’s extensive sabotage campaign, intensifying throughout 2024. The Washington Examiner first highlighted these patterns back in April, where Russia targeted warehouses, factories, and specific individuals connected to Western support for Ukraine. This stealthy attack strategy seems designed to stir fear and create division among NATO members, carefully skirting actions that would trigger NATO’s collective response. Russia’s evident disregard for U.S. deterrence measures implies a perceived leeway to edge closer to a direct threat against civilians without fearing American retaliation.

Among Russia’s intelligence agencies—the GRU, SVR, and FSB—the GRU has proven to be the most relentless in executing operations with potentially high casualties. GRU head Igor Kostyukov is known for his unapologetic zeal for chaos. The GRU’s penchant for high-stakes maneuvers has earned it a reputation for aggression, as seen in the 2018 incident where two GRU agents exposed a powerful nerve agent in the U.K., inadvertently killing a British civilian.

The actions of the GRU also reflect the rising influence of Nikolai Patrushev, one of Russia’s top security officials known for his anti-Western stance. A staunch critic of Western influence, Patrushev has previously led the national security council and now serves as an influential presidential adviser. While some analysts misinterpreted his recent job shift as a demotion, Western intelligence sees it as a strategic move that positions him for more direct oversight of Russia’s intelligence actions. Patrushev’s suspected orchestration of the “Havana Syndrome” attacks on U.S. personnel further signals his ruthlessness in targeting American interests.

The recent incendiary devices targeting air cargo represent an unmistakable escalation. The U.S. should consider responding by allowing Ukraine to utilize long-range U.S. weaponry against Russian military sites, delivering a message that American and allied territories are off-limits. Failure to do so could embolden Putin, signaling that his subversive tactics may continue unchecked.

In the eyes of Putin, any display of Western hesitation is akin to a predator sensing vulnerability. The U.S. and its allies must now weigh a firm stance to prevent this situation from spiraling, recognizing that diplomatic timidity may only invite further aggression from Moscow.