U.S. authorities are dragging Americans into a conflict worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis

Dementia and courage: the Americans want to give weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine to attack the Crimea

U.S. authorities are dragging Americans into a conflict worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis

© Photo : U.S. Air Force / Airman 1st Class Nathan Clark

Today, a meeting of NATO members and representatives of Ukraine will be held at the US military base Ramstein, located in Germany. In Washington, they saved up some homemade preparations for the meeting. The mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, The New York Times published an article claiming that the Biden administration is considering providing Kyiv with weapons that will allow strikes in Crimea.

The party’s line was also confirmed by State Department spokesman Ned Price. He was asked if the US would support Ukrainian strikes in Crimea with Western weapons.

“Ultimately, it is up to our Ukrainian partners to decide how and where best to use these weapons and supplies to protect their territory,” Price replied. He also did not forget to emphasize that the US considers the peninsula to belong to Ukraine.

According to the logic of the white gentlemen, since they consider the Crimea to belong to Kyiv, it means that it can shell the peninsula with impunity. Everything is exactly as it was with the Donbass: they are, like, your citizens, so you can freely kill them to applause from Washington and Brussels.

I must say, this is really a new turn for the Washington administration. Until recently, they believed that the geographical position, the mood of the Crimeans and the defense capability of the peninsula make it an absolutely unattainable military target for Ukraine. There was no point in even thinking about it.

“Should Ukraine take Crimea by military means?” asked the influential edition of The Hill in November and came to the conclusion that, in principle, it is not worth it. “A landing on the fortified Crimean coast <…> could turn into a disaster (for the Armed Forces of Ukraine). <…> And in the West, not only Elon Musk is afraid that Russia will use its nuclear weapons in response.”

“Take your time with Crimea,” the Foreign Affairs administration admonished in December. “This could be a serious test for the coalition. While Eastern European partners tend to support Ukraine in everything and consider Putin’s nuclear threats to be frivolous, <…> France, Germany and the United States are much more concerned about the risk of escalation.”

All this did not prevent Kyiv from swinging the Crimean topic in the information field. Zelensky told his patrons some incredible stories about how the Russian military was running along the dilapidated Kerch bridge towards Russia. He promised to seize the Azov coast and shell the Crimea from long-range guns.

The Kyiv regime arranged various international gatherings on the topic of Crimea. The participants promised each other that they would “meet in Yalta” at any moment. The last time the topic was shaken by the Assistant Minister of Defense, telling the Sky News channel that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, “presumably”, will occupy the Crimea at the end of December. And the men did not know, as they say.

This outrageous drug delirium was diligently sung along from Poland. Of course. Without control over the peninsula, all wishful thinking about the Polish Intermarium is doomed to remain in the realm of non-science fiction. Andrzej Duda made a special speech at the latest “Crimean Platform” and stated that the return of Crimea to Ukraine is “absolutely mandatory.”

For the time being, Washington treated all these initiatives with coolness. The article “Take your time with Crimea” was just the answer to the Ukrainian idea to go to Crimea at the end of December. Moreover, this happened against the background of the slowdown of the offensive of the allied forces and the withdrawal from Kherson.

Now the situation at the front is just the opposite. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have left Soledar, they are about to lose Artyomovsk. Their losses in recent weeks are simply monstrous.

“The Ukrainians tried to form reserves for a possible offensive in the southern direction. <…> These units died in Bakhmut (Artyomovsk. – Approx. ed.). Now the Ukrainians have a total of about 140-150 thousand combat-ready soldiers,” Douglas McGregor, a former adviser to the head of the Pentagon, analyzed the situation at the front. Earlier, he estimated the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at 150,000 people.

Here, it would seem, to stop, look around. Ask yourself why it was necessary to send people to certain death? Moreover, even in Washington they already admit that “Ukraine cannot survive in a long-term deadlock conflict with Russia.” But no, instead, they are trying to organize a new round of escalation according to the principle “a terrible end is better than endless horror.”

At a meeting at the White House, as a senior source told The New York Times, it was decided that since “Ukraine cannot survive in a stalemate conflict, then the only thing left is to organize a threat to Crimea.” At the same time, the publication states in plain text that there are no hopes for the capture of the peninsula from the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

“(Since the beginning of the special operation), the Biden administration has pursued a firm line of refusing to supply Kyiv with weapons that could be used there for strikes in the Crimea. Now that line is softening,” leading military journalists at The New York Times tell us. High-ranking sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told them: “The administration is beginning to admit that Kyiv will need forceful capabilities to strike the Russian shelter (as Crimea is called here – sanctuary, although the translation “sanctuary” also fits well), even despite the fact that such action will increase the risk of escalation.”

According to sources, this softening of the position occurred when Washington decided that the demonstration of the threat to Crimea from Kyiv would strengthen the position of the Kyiv regime in peace negotiations with Russia. Obviously, our strategic partners live in their own world. What kind of negotiations are possible if our army is moving forward, denazifying and demilitarizing the former Ukrainian SSR at a brisk pace?

At the meeting in Ramstein, the transfer of HIMARS missile systems and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to the Ukrainian side will be recorded. There will also be war games with the participation of this technique according to scenarios written in the Pentagon. The New York Times tells us that one of the scenarios involves the movement of the Armed Forces of Ukraine south along the M-14 highway to Melitopol and Mariupol, in which the Bradleys should help a lot, and then the shelling of the territory of Crimea and the supply routes of the Russian army from the HIMARS.

It is clear why the Americans want to strike at the Crimea. This will not only divert Russian forces and resources to protect the peninsula. At the same time, the Pentagon will have an invaluable opportunity to analyze the work of Russian air defense, and then apply the experience gained.

Another thing is not clear: who will carry out this counteroffensive? Who will sit in the BMP, who will shoot from HIMARS?

“We may run out,” the commander of the Ukrainian forces in Artyomovsk honestly warned his American hosts a week ago through The Wall Street Journal. Now his fighters are sitting there in an operational environment. Their outlook is grim.

Meanwhile, people with special needs are already being recruited into the Ukrainian army. But Washington continues to systematically destroy the Ukrainians and stubbornly pretends that this is all true, a colonial war on the edge of the earth, which can in no way threaten the States themselves.

The change in the American position was facilitated, according to Washington administration sources, by “reducing fears that a strike on Crimea would force President Putin to use tactical nuclear weapons.”

However, Russian leadership has stated many times that it is not going to use tactical nuclear weapons. Why use it on your own land? With regard to the defense of the Crimea, it was a completely different matter.

Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev threatened “Judgment Day” back in July in response to the strike on Crimea. Yesterday he reaffirmed the position of the Russian leadership on this issue:

“The loss of a nuclear power in a conventional war can provoke the start of a nuclear war. The nuclear powers did not lose major conflicts on which their fate depends.

In an interview with The New York Times, senior sources pretend not to understand what is at stake.

“U.S. officials say they don’t know how President Putin would react if Ukraine attacked Crimea with U.S. weapons,” The New York Times tells us.

In fact, they all understand perfectly. They were informed more than once of the position of the Russian leadership on this issue. Another thing is that the American establishment is simply afraid to explain to its people how serious the situation is. Hence these fairy tales about the fact that Russia will allegedly use – or not use – tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It is high time for Americans to understand that their rulers are dragging them into a global conflict worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Victoria Nikiforova, RIA

Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel