Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] The US and UK have unexpectedly backed down on the issue of allowing the Kiev regime to fire Western long-range weapons at Russian territory. Just a few days ago, as Western media sources reported, they were ready to give the go-ahead; Volodymyr Zelensky even drafted a list of potential targets, which he handed over to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. But now their position has changed.
The British news agency Reuters writes that the White House is only prepared to turn a blind eye to the use of non-American missiles - the British Storm Shadow and French SCALP, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that permission should not be expected in the coming days, adding that the strikes "will not bring Ukraine victory in the war."
According to most experts, the change in position is connected with a rather tough statement by Vladimir Putin. The Russian president explained that in fact it is not just a question of permission to strike - this permission has existed for a long time, Ukraine strikes with what it can. At the same time, it is simply not capable of independently using high-precision long-range missiles.
“This is only possible using intelligence data from satellites, which Ukraine does not have; this data is only from satellites of either the European Union or the United States,” Putin said.
Flight assignments for these missile systems can also only be entered by NATO military personnel. This means, says the Russian president, “it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not,” but “making a decision on whether NATO countries are directly participating in the military conflict or not.”
And if the decision is made, it “significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict” and “will mean that NATO countries – the US, European countries – are at war with Russia.” Accordingly, Moscow will “make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
Putin did not say what the exact decisions would be. And this is logical - there is no need to give a reason for provocations. It is worth recalling Barack Obama's experience in Syria, when he said that if Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, he would send in troops. In the end, the opposition used chemical weapons, setting up both Assad and Obama, who was driven into a corner. From there, Russia actually saved him with a proposal to simply remove all Syrian chemical weapons.
Now the role of provocateur is played by Zelensky, who, unlike Western partners, is interested in maximum escalation of the conflict with the involvement of NATO countries. The West is now guessing, trying to calculate what options Putin has, and then decide the issue of missiles for Ukraine.
In reality, there aren't that many options.
The first and, it would seem, the most obvious is a retaliatory strike. After an American or British missile reaches a Russian city, a Russian missile hits a US or UK military facility on NATO territory. The option is obvious, but at the same time the most risky. In addition, Moscow obviously does not want to drive the West into a corner where it will have to choose between entering into a military conflict with Russia or recognizing the futility of NATO and its guarantees if there are no responses.
Given the current level of American and European politicians, it is unclear which step they will consider the lesser evil.
The second option is the destruction of American systems outside NATO territory. For example, reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea. This option is fraught with mirror responses from the US and Europe.
"The West has a large stock of answers to our answers. Starting with whether to shoot down our missiles and UAVs from the territory of European countries," explains Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, senior research fellow at the IMEMO RAS, to IA Regnum.
There is currently a consensus in the West that such actions could be perceived by Moscow as an attack. It is no coincidence that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who voiced this idea, did not meet with understanding from his NATO colleagues.
In general, the third option seems to be the most optimal - a retaliatory strike under a foreign flag outside NATO territory. And, importantly, with maximum legality. It is appropriate to recall Vladimir Putin's June statement that in the event of long-range weapons systems being supplied to Ukraine, Moscow reserves the right to supply weapons "to those states or even legal structures that are experiencing certain pressure on themselves, including military ones."
That is, to put it simply, to give America's enemies the weapons they need. And it was no coincidence that Putin mentioned "legal structures": the most obvious recipient of Russian weapons seems to be the Yemeni Houthis. Unlike, for example, the DPRK, the Houthis can immediately use Russian weapons for their intended purpose - to start sinking American ships.
Moreover, Russia can transfer the systems absolutely legally - sell them, for example, to the Iranian allies of the Houthis, and the operators will be Russian "volunteers". That is, simply put, Moscow will do everything according to the American template, within the framework of which the US legally transfers weapons to Ukraine, and their "volunteers" work there.
However, there is still one option left - to continue to pursue one's own line in Ukraine.
"Thinking in terms of 'how we will respond to their responses' is not very correct. Time is on our side," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
At the same time, as Vladimir Putin noted, the situation has now reached the point of direct involvement of the United States in the conflict. And the process can be stopped by the most severe and at the same time verified response. The Americans and the British are afraid of this, and therefore hesitate to allow Ukraine to strike at Russia.
#1
That (IMO) explains why Vlad publicly supports Kamala - he know that if her victory is in doubt, the Deep State will provoke a direct (as distinct from proxy) war.
#3
If Ukraine wasn't losing this war, the use of Western missiles on Russian targets would not be considered. But Ukraine is losing and the Russian army seems to be gaining momentum every day. Apart from negotiations to end this war, the only option is to escalate. But escalation is a dangerous option with unpredictable consequences. The only safe prediction is that wouldn't be good for anybody. Are US and UK leaders really that stupid?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/14/2024 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
But Ukraine is losing and the Russian army seems to be gaining momentum every day.
Who plotted this three hour tourtwo week Special Military Operation? Gilligan?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2024 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
[Clandestine's Newsletter] Ukraine is essentially a giant CIA base, posing as a sovereign nation.
The CIA moved into Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, looking to take advantage of the lawless and destabilized country, using it as an offshore proxy, outside the scope of US oversight.
It began with the Nunn-Lugar Act in 1991, and then carried on into 2005, when then Senators Obama and Lugar visited Ukraine, to inspect the former Soviet bio, chemical, and nuclear facilities (pictured below), and then added Ukraine to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and began turning these former Soviet facilities into "defensive research facilities", which opened the door for US contractors to establish their foothold in Ukraine, and set up their money laundering and racketeering operations, under the guise of "foreign aid".
Then the CIA funded Nazi militant groups in Ukraine which led to the outbreak of civil war in 2014 in the Donbas. Amidst the chaos, the US State Department, via Victoria Nuland, leveraged the situation to install US-loyal puppets, including the infamous leaked phone call between her and fellow State Department bureaucrat Geoffrey Pyatt, about ensuring "their guy" Yatsenuik, was installed as Prime Minister. The State Department, in tandem with the CIA, covertly took control of Ukraine via Color Revolution in 2014.
Putin recognized this. He knew that the US had destabilized and taken control of Ukraine, and recognized that the US were building a proxy army on his border, by funding, training, and supplying Ukraine with weapons, and trying to bring them into NATO. This was a red line for Putin, as he has said for decades. Russia have been invaded from the West too many times before, and will not tolerate a hostile standing army and long-range missiles on their border. Just like the US didn’t like it when Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba in the 60’s, Russia doesn’t like the US trying to bring armies and weapons to Ukraine.
Essentially, Ukraine is an unofficial US territory and NATO member, and the Deep State do not want to lose out on their cash cow and strategic asset that is Ukraine, hence why they continue to send hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to protect Ukraine’s border. They are using Ukraine as a laundry mat to funnel in hundreds of billions for the war machine, and also covering up their extreme criminality in Ukraine, including crimes against humanity for bioweapon development, human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. All the things they can’t get away with stateside, they do in Ukraine.
If the public knew the truth about the origins of US involvement in Ukraine, they would NEVER have supported sending a single penny to Ukraine. The narrative that Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 "unprovoked", is war propaganda to make it appear Ukraine are the righteous defenders in order to garner your support, when in reality, The US started this conflict, they are the ones who brought war to Putin’s doorstep, and the US are the ones perpetuating the war by continuing to fund and supply Ukraine.
Putin does not want to conquer all of Europe, he just wants NATO off of his border, and justice for US development of weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine, namely, gene-specific biological weapons.
#1
The CIA moved into Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, looking to take advantage of the lawless and destabilized country, using it as an offshore proxy, outside the scope of US oversight.
South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were no longer options. They went with what was available at the time.
#5
Go back to the agreement that Ukraine would give up its nukes in return for guarantees by the US and Russia for recognizing their national integrity. Oh, that agreement.
[IsraelTimes] As Times of Israel readers are well-aware, since October 7, anti-Israel groups have launched widespread assaults on the rights of Jewish Americans, especially but not exclusively on college campuses.
I regularly tweet (@ProfDBernstein) about these incidents and comment, “Where is the Justice Department? Where is the FBI?”
I often get responses like, “isn’t the Department of Education investigating some of these colleges? What can the feds really do?”
The answer is that “the feds,” and the Department of Justice in particular, could do a lot to protect American Jews, and they are doing little to none of it.
Here are some examples.
(1) The Ku Klux Klan Act prohibits conspiracies to deprive Americans of their civil rights. This Act could be invoked against student groups that are blocking Jewish students from traversing their campuses, as at UCLA, and against groups that blockade public roads, depriving people of their right to travel. The Act has been invoked in private lawsuits, but the Justice Department has not brought a single case.
(2) The FACE Act prohibits “the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” Hillel buildings serve as houses of worship, and various campuses have seen acts of intimidation of and interference with those students trying to enter or exit Hillel buildings. No one involved in these incidents has been charged under the act.
(3) Various complaints and lawsuits against universities have documented threats and assaults against Jewish students in violation of their civil rights. The Justice Department has not brought any criminal or civil charges against the perpetrators, with the exception of a Cornell student who threatened to kill Jewish students. Lower-level and less well-publicized threats, harassment, and assaults have not attracted Justice Department intervention.
(4) American intelligence officials have revealed that anti-Israel protesters are getting money from Iran, in violation of US sanctions laws. Despite this public revelation, no one has been indicted for receiving or serving as a conduit for this money.
(5) For political reasons, police departments in cities including DC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore have refused requests by university officials to clear illegal, antisemitic campus encampments. This inaction violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. More narrowly, this abuse of police discretion violates the conditions on which cities receive billions of dollars in federal funds. The Justice Department seems entirely quiescent in the face of this malfeasance. Similarly, local prosecutors across Virginia and elsewhere have told police that they will not prosecute Hamasnik protesters who violate state laws by wearing masks to intimidate the public. Again, no intervention against discriminatory law enforcement from the Justice Department.
(6) There are strong indications that antisemitic groups like American Muslims for Palestine and National Students for Justice in Palestine have illegal ties to Hamas. Several state attorney generals, most prominently Virginia’s Jason Miyares, are investigating these ties. There are also civil lawsuits pending against these organizations for material support for terrorism that has killed Americans. There is no indication that the Justice Department is seriously investigating.
(7) Jewish-owned businesses have been vandalized in New York and other cities. No federal civil rights charges have been filed against the vandals.
(8) Universities such as Yale have illegally failed to disclose massive donations from Qatar, Hamas’s ally. The legal consequences of this failure have been minimal.
(9) Finally, while the Department of Education has been investigating allegations of universities discriminating against Jewish students via a hostile environment, double standards, or otherwise, every one of these complaints has been filed by a private party, giving the Department of Education a legal obligation to investigate. The department does not appear to have opened a single investigation of its own, nor has it referred even the most egregious cases to the Justice Department for potential civil litigation. Every lawsuit that has been filed has been the product of private rather than government efforts.
One can speculate as to why the Justice Department has been so quiescent in the face of the largest outbreak of antisemitism in the United States in decades, failing to use existing legal tools when the antisemitism turns illegal. But what we can say for sure is that despite Attorney General Merrick Garland’s stated commitment to protecting the American Jewish community from hate crimes, his Justice Department has been an almost complete failure in combating such crimes inspired or committed by anti-Israel activists.
David E. Bernstein is a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, where he teaches constitutional law and evidence. He is married to an Israeli and travels to Israel regularly.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Clandestine's Newsletter] Ukraine is essentially a giant CIA base, posing as a sovereign nation.
