On Thursday, the New York Times posted a headline stating that the Biden administration was prepared to green-light attacks deep into Russian territory. Here’s the headline followed by an excerpt from the article:
Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia
President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn’t use arms provided by the United States, European officials say…
Britain has already signaled to the United States that it is eager to let Ukraine use its “Storm Shadow” long-range missiles to strike at Russian military targets far from the Ukrainian border. But it wants explicit permission from Mr. Biden in order to demonstrate a coordinated strategy with the United States and France…
Mr. Biden himself has signaled that a loosening of restrictions is coming. He was asked on Tuesday whether he was ready to grant the increasingly insistent requests from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
“We are working that out right now,” he said…. Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia, New York Times
The proposed escalation is a response to the rapidly deteriorating situation on the battlefield where the bedraggled Ukrainian Armed Forces have been steadily retreating along the Line of Contact as their frontlines crumble under relentless Russian air strikes and artillery bombardment. When seen in this light, the plan to attack targets deep inside Russia is not expected to be a gamechanger but merely a way of inflicting some measure of pain on an adversary on his way to victory. Even so, the response from Moscow was swift and harsh. Putin was not ‘pulling his punches’ when he addressed the issue in terms more ominous than anything he’d uttered in his 2 decade-long career. Here’s what he said:
What we are seeing is an attempt to substitute notions, because this is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story.
The fact is that – I have mentioned this, and any expert, both in our country and in the West, will confirm this – the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.
The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us. President of the Russian Federation, RU
Putin’s statement needs some clarification. Yes, Ukraine has already launched numerous drone attacks on targets in Russia. But the distinction Putin is making between a drone attack and a long-range missile attack is not the impact of the explosion or the amount of damage they cause, but who is actually producing, firing, guiding via overhead satellites, and selecting the targets. If the entire operation is manned and controlled by NATO and the US, then it makes no difference if the missile is launched from Ukrainian territory or not. It is still a US-NATO operation.
Let’s summarize:
It all boils down to this: If the missiles are furnished by NATO, launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO, then, in every respect, NATO is responsible. And if NATO is responsible, then NATO is effectively declaring war on Russia which is why Putin added this final point:
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.
Western leaders are so consumed by their “vast tapestry of lies” that they think other leaders can’t see right through them. This incident simply shows that Putin is no dupe and has a good grasp of what is going on. His response is: ‘If you fire missiles at targets in my country, then we are at war.’ What’s hard to understand about that?
Fortunately, it appears that Putin’s message got through to a few high-ranking officials at the Pentagon. Here’s a short clip from a post at Tass:
The US Department of Defense believes that no type of weapon will become a game changer allowing the Kiev government to emerge victorious in the current conflict, Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick Ryder told reporters at a regular briefing.
“I would point you to [Defense] Secretary [Lloyd] Austin’s comments at Ramstein [US air base] last week, where he highlighted there is no capability… no silver bullet that is going to enable Ukraine to succeed,” he said.
Ryder added that, in Washington’s opinion, Ukraine should focus on employing capabilities currently at its disposal in a way that that gets them a stronger hand at the negotiating table. No weapon can become game changer for Kiev — Pentagon, Tass
(The Pentagon does not want to create a situation where it would have to go to war with Russia.)
The question that remains, however, is what the White House response will be? As of this writing, we can’t answer that although a number of leaders in the foreign policy establishment have expressed their support for escalating to WW3. According to the NY Times:
“Easing the restrictions on Western weapons will not cause Moscow to escalate,” 17 former ambassadors and generals wrote in a letter to the administration this week. “We know this because Ukraine is already striking territory Russia considers its own — including Crimea and Kursk — with these weapons and Moscow’s response remains unchanged.” New York Times
A number of experts are convinced that “Putin is bluffing” (check Google) and that Russia’s so-called “red lines” can be ignored. This line of reasoning strikes me as particularly reckless and foolhardy. After all, no one knows what Putin is thinking, so one should implement the policy that involves the least amount of risk, not the policy that could end in a nuclear exchange. Here’s more from an article at the AP:
The head of NATO’s military committee said Saturday that Ukraine has the solid legal and military right to strike deep inside Russia to gain combat advantage — reflecting the beliefs of a number of U.S. allies — even as the Biden administration balks at allowing Kyiv to do so using American-made weapons.
“Every nation that is attacked has the right to defend itself. And that right doesn’t stop at the border of your own nation,” said Adm. Rob Bauer, speaking at the close of the committee’s annual meeting, also attended by U.S. Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NATO military committee chair, others back Ukraine’s use of long range weapons to hit Russia, AP
So, much for restraint, eh?
Many western powerbrokers in the foreign policy establishment are simply unable to accept the humiliating defeat Ukraine now faces. But Putin can hardly be blamed for that. Didn’t Putin sincerely try for 7 years to implement the Minsk agreements while his counterparts in Germany and France simply used the accords as a means for building up Ukraine’s military capability? And didn’t Putin provide Washington with modest security demands a full month before the invasion that Washington brushed off without even addressing? And didn’t the US-UK scuttle a peace plan that Putin and Zelensky had already approved just one month into the war that could have ended the conflict immediately and led to the withdrawal of Russian troops?
Yes, yes and yes. At every turn Biden could have ended the war and saved face on the international scene; instead, he plowed ahead believing he could bloody Putin’s nose and send his troops scampering for the border. Now he is faced with the dismal option of either admitting defeat and negotiating a final settlement or pouring more gas on the fire and risking a Third World War. Which will he choose?
We are reminded of what Barack Obama famously said about Biden: “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to fu** things up.” We hope he’s wrong.
This is from an article at Tass News Service:
NATO countries that have approved strikes with their weapons on Russian territory should be aware that their equipment and specialists will be destroyed not only in Ukraine, but also at any point from where Russian territory is attacked, the Russian Security Council’s Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said on his Telegram channel, noting that the participation of NATO specialists could be seen as a casus belli.
“All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of former Ukraine and on the territory of other countries, should strikes be carried out from there against Russian territory,” Medvedev warned.
He added that Moscow proceeded from the fact that all long-range weapons supplied to Ukraine were already “directly operated by servicemen from NATO countries”, which is tantamount to participation in the war against Russia and a reason to start combat operations. NATO weapons to be hit in any country from where Russia may be attacked — Medvedev, Tass
In our humble opinion, the question of whether Putin is “bluffing” or not is irrelevant. The consensus opinion of the entire Russian political leadership is that long-range missile strikes on targets in Russia are an act of war. So, if Biden listens to his gung-ho advisors and pursues this lunatic course of action, we are confident the country will be at war with Russia within the week.
God help us