Ask A Genius 1413: Ukraine’s $7B Strike on Russian Bombers and the Future of Global Authoritarianism
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06
Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Ukraine’s recent strike that damaged a large portion of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, its symbolic and strategic implications, and the broader context of authoritarian leadership. They examine militarized economies, propaganda, protests, and the aging power structure of global strongmen like Putin, Xi, Trump, and Netanyahu.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us talk about something else. So Ukraine pulled off a military operation that’s been described with some journalistic flair, but the basic facts hold: they destroyed around a third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet in one strike. Some estimates place the value at $7 billion in aircraft. What are your thoughts on that?
Rick Rosner: It is heartening and exciting. Russia and its apologists—even within the U.S.—have spent the last three years trying to flip the narrative, portraying Russia as the victim. Moreover, sadly, tens of millions of people have bought into that framing—or at least into the idea that Russia should not be held accountable, that we need to find peace, and that Ukraine should cede the territory Russia invaded. It is, therefore, satisfying to see a decisive and symbolic win for the good guys. I hope it improves Ukraine’s negotiating position.
You have been to Ukraine twice, covering the war. Does this change the strategic balance in any significant way?
Jacobsen: Not immediately. Bombings are frequent—missiles, drones, FPVs. The destruction of bombers is heartening, but drone warfare is now central. Moreover, Russia is not bankrupt when it comes to waging war. Economically, it is a declining state in terms of long-term viability: the population is shrinking, the development indicators are weak, and they are headed toward the margins of global relevance—unless they are propped up as a vassal state of China.
There is also the possibility—though not signalled right now—that China could reclaim eastern territories that the Soviets seized in the past.
Right, but no sign of that for now. Still, just as I correctly predicted that Trump and Moscow would eventually fall out, I believe Putin and Xi will, too—especially as Xi continues to preside over much stronger economic growth. Russia’s economy is highly militarized. A third of it is now war-related.
For comparison, Canada’s military spending is only about 1.4 percent of GDP, even though we are similar to Russia in overall wealth but with a smaller population. NATO’s minimum target is 2%, and even with our recently promised multi-billion dollar increase, we are still underperforming.
Rosner: Is there inflation in Russia from all the war spending? They must be printing a lot of money.
Jacobsen: It is a good question. Wartime economies tend to generate inflation, mainly when financing is driven by monetary expansion.
Rosner: And then you have the American “military-industrial complex”—a term from Eisenhower’s farewell address that the left often invokes. Eisenhower warned about it back in 1961, and it has become part of the long-term architecture of U.S. defence spending. And Eisenhower—he saw it coming. What about now?
Jacobsen: Well, companies like Raytheon, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and other major military contractors—both hardware and software—still receive massive sums through defence contracts. War is very profitable for them. Maybe it is similar for Russia, though they are losing so many people that it is hard to say whether the economic gain offsets the human cost.
Rosner: Do you think that kind of loss will change public attitudes in Russia? Or does it even matter?
Jacobsen: Not really. Putin’s approval rating was in the low 30s when he first entered national politics. However, within nine months of becoming acting president in 1999, he launched a brutal second war in Chechnya. That war—along with a tightly controlled media blitz demonizing the Chechens—sent his approval ratings skyrocketing to around 80%. Moreover, for years, they hovered in that range.
One of his first acts was to suppress independent media and critical journalists. People like me. He systematically dismantled the opposition. So when you have near-total control over messaging and a population that’s been conditioned not to question, approval ratings become unreliable. An 80% approval number under those conditions tells you more about repression than popularity.
So internal Russian polling might give you a general sense, but it carries a wide margin of error. You cannot treat it as complex data. However, it gives you a very loose idea, assuming you interpret it within the context of fear, propaganda, and suppression. So, public opinion is turning against Putin after something like a bomber fleet loss? Not likely.
We have seen sustained protests around the world—hundreds of thousands in the streets, even in democratic states—and they do not always have an impact. Protests in the U.S. have not stopped U.S. military actions.
Rosner: They did not stop the Iraq War.
Jacobsen: Though some protests have impacted corporations. Tesla stock, for example, dropped sharply during some of the worst backlash against Elon Musk. At one point, it cut his net worth by tens of billions.
Rosner: True. However, that is the difference. With Musk, you are dealing with a publicly traded company in a capitalist democracy. With Putin, you are dealing with a closed authoritarian system. The informational control is much tighter, so the impact of protest on each person is diluted.
Jacobsen: Still, I think protests—tranquil forms like mothers mourning conscripted sons—do matter. A soldier dies, and the family sees it as a senseless loss. That kind of grief can ripple silently through society. It is not immediate, but it can build. There is also the generational factor. Xi, Trump, Putin, Netanyahu—they are all part of a similar cohort. What, mid-70s?
Rosner: Putin was born in 1952, so he is in his early 70s.
Jacobsen: Netanyahu is 75. Trump is 78. Xi Jinping is 71. They are all aging, but with today’s medicine, they could stay in power another 10 years—if not longer.
That is another decade of some of the most dangerous authoritarian and quasi-authoritarian leadership on Earth, all entrenched. We may be looking at a global reset when their era comes to an end. Interesting to think about.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 