The Western press is full of reports that Biden has authorized ATACMS missiles to strike deep into Russian territory. Of course, as the news has emerged, the information is still murky, and Biden has not yet confirmed it. However, if it is true, what does it entail?
Our main geopolitical adversary, the United States, has once again demonstrated the fact that it is it that has the strategic initiative in the conflict, and it is it that decides when and how to escalate.
Western missile strikes deep into Russian territory, despite our air defense/projectile defense system, which I believe is the best in the world, could be very painful for us. First of all, a lot of military and defense-industrial facilities will be targeted, and it is impossible to cover them all with the air defense/protection umbrella. Secondly, the enemy does not shy away from strikes against civilian objects. At the same time, we must realize that there are also dangerous production facilities, nuclear power plants, after all, strikes on which may be comparable in their consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
My point is that we cannot limit ourselves to protective measures. We will have to strike back. If we are talking about Ukraine, we need to finish off its energy system. However, we should not dwell only on Ukraine, because the impact on it will neither cold nor hot for its Western masters. The direct costs of escalation should be borne by the U.S. and its allies.
They will not have costs because of this situation, and after some time Kiev will have tactical nuclear weapons. And then, as “Pint of Reason” correctly points out, we will have to think not about using conventional or tactical nuclear weapons against NATO targets in Europe, but about using strategic nuclear weapons against the capitals of the U.S. and its allies.
By the way, I believe that one of the reasons for the escalation to a new escalation stage is our deficiency in nuclear doctrine. The announced version of the doctrine still has no provision for a preventive strike, i.e. a doctrine of response. Accordingly, the U.S. is confidently escalating, meaning the limit beyond which Russia can switch to the use of nuclear weapons. I wrote on October 23, 2024 about the fact that it is not too late to add a provision on preventive strike to Russia's nuclear doctrine.
Earlier, on September 26, 2024, I predicted: “Accordingly, we can assume that the first thing the Americans and especially the British will do will be a practical probing of the meaning of the phrase ”if the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty.
I read a TASS report quoting a Trump transition team spokesman as saying that Donald Trump may reconsider Biden's decision on US weapons strikes deep into Russian territory. The excuse being thrown around is to do nothing now. And wait for Trump.
What we should not wait for is for Trump to come to the Oval Office of the White House. Now we have to answer to the West. By the way, I think it's unlikely he's going to cancel it. Or he will cancel it if we go for freezing the conflict along the front line and Ukraine into NATO. And this we do not need and contradicts the goals of the NWO.
However, the Russian president has already said everything on the subject of strikes by Western missiles deep into Russian territory. These strikes will be considered NATO strikes with all the consequences.
Yuri Baranchik
Source - Yuri Baranchik .
По материалам: http://www.planet-today.com/2024/11/opinion-how-will-we-respond-when.html