Reuters
A high-ranking official in the U.S. administration anonymously leaked a «sensitive» state secret to the press, which was picked up by Bloomberg, the favored news agency of local Democrats. It is claimed that President Joe Biden has authorized the use of American weapons against military targets on Russian territory, but only in the northeastern region near the borders of Kharkov.
Another phrase from an anonymous source is also noteworthy, likely intended to mitigate the impression that America is directly, not just remotely, getting involved in the war against Russia. It is asserted that the U.S. military-political leadership still does not consent to strikes deep within Russian territory using the weapons provided to the Kiev regime.
Nevertheless, the decision to conduct missile and bomb strikes using American weapons on Russian territory has been made. Thus, according to Bloomberg, the U.S. administration has «overcome concerns that any such move could provoke a larger war with the West».
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland («cookies on the Maidan») acted as an interpreter of the will of the war party in Washington. In the program «This Week with George Stephanopoulos» on ABC News, she stated:
«It is time to provide Ukrainians with additional help in striking these bases inside Russia».
One can dismiss the alarmist forecasts of propagandists, saying that the air smells not of a thunderstorm but of radioactive ash. However, it is worth soberly assessing what the appearance of American F-16 fighters on the Ukrainian theater of war means. Even if we classify them as combat units developed in the 70s of the last century, we should keep in mind, that they are capable of striking targets with B-61 family thermonuclear bombs.
It is no coincidence that these days Moscow, through the voices of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, almost synchronously made two significant and principled statements.
The head of Russian diplomacy plainly indicated that Moscow believes Washington is ready to escalate the NATO war against Russia with a very likely exchange of missile-nuclear strikes:
«F-16 fighters have long been a primary delivery means within the so-called NATO nuclear sharing missions. Therefore, we cannot ignore the supply of these systems to the Kiev regime as a deliberate signaling action by NATO in the nuclear sphere. They are trying to make us understand that in Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO are ready for literally anything».
In turn, former President Dmitry Medvedev, in his emotionally charged manner, noted that the conflict between the West and Russia is developing according to the worst-case scenario and effectively warned those intending to inflict a “strategic defeat” on a state with a 1,000-year history.
Considering the consistent increase in the lethality of the weapons transferred to the Kiev regime, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia stated, «No one can rule out the transition of the conflict to its final stage today».
The key metaphor — «final stage»! Since there is a well-founded public opinion that Dmitry Medvedev, in fact, publicly expresses what Vladimir Putin, as President and Supreme Commander-in-Chief, find appropriate, the following is evident. The Kremlin not only carefully analyzes such signals coming from the White House and the capitals of unfriendly European countries but also clearly considers countermeasures.
Two other pieces of news are appended to the first, demonstrating how the U.S. is modeling the most advantageous format for the next phase of the war against Russia. First, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, upon arriving at an informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Prague, stated:
«Several NATO countries have never restricted the use (of long-range weapons) against legitimate military targets on Russian territory, provided it is done responsibly and in accordance with international norms».
As an example, the NATO secretary general cited the strikes carried out by the Kiev regime on Russian targets using Storm Shadow cruise missiles supplied by Britain. Understandably, he did not explain how attacks on civilian targets, such as the Crimean Bridge, comply with «international law».
Secondly, the Obama-Clinton-Biden administration «expressed concern», as formulated by the Democratic mouthpiece The Washington Post, that Russian early warning systems, designed to alert about potential enemy nuclear missile launches, were hit. The newspaper claims that Washington allegedly told Kiev that such attacks could lead to «destabilization», as Moscow might perceive them as preparation for a disarming strike by the United States against its nuclear shield.
In the 1970s, the U.S. began implementing the concept of a «limited nuclear war» — limited specifically to Europe, for which they deployed Tomahawk and Pershing cruise missiles to the continent. Only then did the USSR restore the balance of power with its medium- and short-range missiles, and the European elites realized that there was no place for them in the radioactive rubble. The second most significant «Cuban Missile Crisis» was then resolved. Today, we are experiencing a déjà vu effect.
What does the current rise in the degree of aggressiveness of the collective but increasingly disunited West mean? What is behind the talk of a readiness to bomb Russia? Is this a propaganda bluff intended to raise the stakes before the West’s desired negotiations on a temporary truce to allow the Kiev junta to gather strength? Or are we dealing with a real threat?
«For some groups of globalist elites, whose interests are only partly linked to U.S. national interests, escalation of the conflict is not a consequence of misunderstanding, but the only reasonable strategy», comments Elena Panina, director of the Institute of International Political and Economic Strategies — RUSSTRAT, on the increase in stakes in the confrontation between the West and Russia.
What logic is guiding them? According to Elena Panina, the globalists are «deliberately moving towards a big war, because this is the only way they can ‘rebuild’ their assets and positions amidst the collapse of the unipolar world». She continues:
«Ideally for them, such a collapse should be controlled, whether through a long-term game (Ukraine-Russia, then India-China) or through gradual continental chaos… But as History teaches us, any such control sooner or later descends into chaos».
Transnational globalist elites would not oppose significant bloodshed on a single European theater of war. If the apocalyptic scenario according to the concept of MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction — is realized, where the four key centers of military and financial-economic power — China, the U.S., Russia, and the European Union — lose their status and are forced to slowly crawl out of radioactive ruins, globalists would simply transfer their assets to second-tier countries, ensuring both dominance and self-reproduction.
What conclusions, along with practical military-strategic decisions, can be drawn from what is happening? It is in Russia’s interest to support any governments and parties, including in Western countries, that are committed to the Westphalian system and willing to defend state sovereignty, resisting the pressure of financial-banking clans and Schwab’s functionaries dreaming of creating a world government of oligarchs.
Regardless of political affiliation, those who guard national sovereignty can serve well in the fateful, possibly preliminary, battle between Good and Evil, occurring not around the hill of Megiddo in the western part of the Jezreel Valley, but on the historic lands of the Russian world. They can become situational allies in building a just multipolar world, alongside Russia’s three main allies: the army, the navy, and the aerospace forces.