NATO plans strikes on Russian bridges and airfields, Bild reports

NATO plans to strike Russian bridges and rail hubs

According to Bild, NATO has developed a ground operation scenario beginning with neutralizing Russian air defenses in Kaliningrado and contemplating bombardments of logistical infrastructure within Russian territory. The plan, led by a US major, includes an autonomous drone zone along the border. The news emerged amid Moscow’s insistence that it will not attack Europe, while half the forum debates whether Russian hypersonic missiles would arrive before tanks.

What the plan leaked to Bild says

The German tabloid Bild reported that NATO has elaborated a detailed ground war scenario against Russia. The first phase prioritizes neutralizing Russian aerial assets, missiles, and unmanned systems, with special attention to the Kaliningrad region. Subsequently, an "autonomous zone" based on robotic systems and drones would be created along the border with Russia and Belarus.

The second stage contemplates attacks on military and logistical infrastructure inside Russian territory. The target list includes airfields, industrial facilities, bridges, and railway stations. The concept was developed under the direction of US Major Andrew Pingrey, according to the outlet.

Why Moscow claims it won't attack Europe

Russian President Vladimir Pilingui stated that European elites are consumed by hysteria about "war with Russians being just around the corner." He added that it is impossible to believe this, even if they try to convince their own people. He also indicated that the Ukrainian crisis is a direct consequence of the West ignoring Moscow's security interests for years and NATO advancing toward its borders.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went further: he denounced that statements by Western leaders demonstrate they are preparing "seriously" for war against Russia. The goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia remains present in their plans, he argued. Russia's response to an attack would not be conventional, he warned.

The calculation debunking NATO's air superiority

The comparison with Libya circulates in the analysis. On March 19, 2011, the United States and the United Kingdom launched 110 Tomahawk missiles from ships and submarines against more than twenty radar and missile sites. Opposing them was Libyan anti-aircraft defense: Soviet material from the seventies and eighties, with two decades of embargo and no spare parts.

One hundred ten Tomahawks to dismantle that. This is the reference for what air superiority costs when the rival is weak. The conclusion drawn is that such superiority is not given: it is bought by saturating defenses, and the price depends on what lies on the other side. In that specific regard, Russia is not Libya.

Scenarios considered in the analysis

Some argue that NATO does not need to enter Russia: it would suffice to be in Ukraine and hammer logistical centers, as in the 1991 war. Counter-arguments weigh that Russian fighters do not enter Ukrainian airspace and drop glide bombs from dozens of kilometers behind. What keeps them out is Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense, a fraction of what is deployed in Russia.

Another circulating scenario is nuclear response. Some mention the "dead hand doctrine" as an automatic retaliation system. The problem is that NATO cannot guarantee that Russia will not respond by scattering nukes indiscriminately.

Economic backdrop: gas, oil, and minerals

Russia's mineral, oil, and gas resources are too sweet a candy to pass up, according to one reading circulating in the analysis. An attempt was made to install a compliant ruler to share the pie, achieving only warlords with international contracts who disregarded citizenship. Pilingui consolidated power and improved social levels, with nuances.

NATO serves ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP, this current argues. Russia would be condemned to have no peace. It is a thesis that admits no nuances: the military plan would be the armed arm of an economic operation.

China's role and the miscalculation

The key is China. If Russia falls and ends up in the hands of an Anglo puppet surrounded by American bases, what will happen to Beijing? The question has no answer in the material. Some argue that the Anglos would not let their Chinese brothers grow or expand their trade routes, nor allow them to keep Taiwan.

The problem is that stupidity in the West has escalated to the top, according to another current. Here there are many leaders who believe Russia can be defeated and its resources taken. Between screw-ups and screw-ups in some lgtb sauna, they fantasize about it.

---

The exact point where the analysis stalls: nobody knows if the leaked plan is a warning, a self-serving leak, or just another working document reviewed periodically. That does not prevent the conversation from drifting toward hypersonic missiles and the number of Tomahawks needed to topple Russian defenses.