/ world today news/ America supported the attack on Belgorod – if not directly, then definitely. US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller: “We have made it clear to the Ukrainians that we do not support or encourage attacks outside Ukrainian borders. But I think it’s important to take a step back and remind the world that, of course, Russia started this military conflict… So it’s up to Ukraine to decide how it wants to conduct its military operations.”
We don’t encourage, but we don’t condemn.
In short, these two terms mean an American green light for almost all Ukrainian military, sabotage and terrorist attacks. The only exception is actions that could provoke Russia to use nuclear weapons.
Washington’s political and operational control over official Kyiv is not complete and absolute. As noted by Vasily Kashin, a well-known expert on SVO, in his recent article in the magazine “Russia in Global Politics”: the Americans “have trouble getting full information about the ‘situation on the ground.’
In many cases, the US has to deal with lies, misrepresentations and reticence on the part of Ukraine, which is partially offset by the conduct of full-scale intelligence activities against the Ukrainian ally.
The Americans are concerned about the worsening of corruption in Ukraine during the conflict, but they are far from always successful in getting officials suspected of embezzling Western aid to be fired.
Ah, this Ukrainian corruption! Even the Americans can’t handle it! However, from the point of view of the US political leadership, all these problems are purely technical and are just a fly in the ointment. Whoever supplies the “girl” with weapons and finances, “the girl dances” to him.
If the Americans really wanted to limit the terrorist encroachments of the Kiev security forces, they would have no problem (well, no problem). But nothing like that happens – because the United States absolutely does not need it.
The current American approach to the Ukrainian conflict can be described with a phrase from a well-known anecdote that I first heard a quarter of a century ago from the mouth of our then Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin: “We want to have everything – and we have nothing for it!”
“We want to have everything” – in this case it means inflicting maximum military, economic, political and moral damage on Russia. Anything that falls into this category is seen by Washington as permissible, and desirable, and even necessary.
Of course, the US and other Western countries still have a desire not to directly condone actions that are difficult to assess as anything other than terrorism.
For example, many Western media reported not that the Belgorod region was attacked not by Ukrainian subversive and intelligence groups, but that some “Russian anti-Putin rebels” showed up in that region. But it is clear to everyone that this is a fiction – some subtle, almost imperceptible ideological padding.
The only thing that really worries the United States is, as mentioned above, “getting nothing for it.” And that “nothing” means the use of nuclear weapons. Here is a very characteristic excerpt from an article in the influential American online publication Politico:
“Alexander Grushko, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, warned that Western countries sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine would expose themselves to “colossal risks” …
But it is the same signal Moscow sends in response to each new phase of Western support that the Kremlin is running out of ways to escalate further.
“They can’t do much,” said Seth Jones, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“I think it reflects the fact that the fears that I think a number of government officials had about how the Russians might respond to more advanced weapons just didn’t materialize,” he argued.
“The Kremlin is running out of ways to escalate further” is, of course, not entirely true.
There is such a way – the use of nuclear weapons. And this method has its supporters in the Russian expert community.
Watching the recent session of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, I was struck by the readiness and enthusiasm with which some quite prominent figures suggested that this particular option should be used.
But this is the position of individual hotheads – or, more specifically, individual figures who for some reason have ceased to use their heads for their intended purpose.
Nuclear weapons are the most extreme option that can only be used in the event of a direct threat to the existence of the country. Realizing this, Westerners are going crazy and raging – they are increasingly overstepping the boundaries within which official Kiev can operate.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#America #supporting #attack #Belgorod #hotter
