Why the Biden’s administration is eager to force Ukraine to attack the Crimea?

What is hidden behind the NYT report that the United States recognizes the need to supply the Armed Forces of Ukraine with additional weapons to strike at Crimea

Why the Biden's administration is eager to force Ukraine to attack the Crimea?
Photo © TASS / Sergey Malgavko

All the near-victory rhetoric of Western countries has recently been reduced to the version: the Armed Forces of Ukraine can break through to Mariupol or Melitopol in order to reach the Crimea. Since the events of January demonstrate the strengthening of the Russian Army: the capture of Soledar, the battles for Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), the increase in the number of Russian troops, the Western elites are preparing Kyiv, probably for a large-scale offensive. And if it is lost by Zelensky, then Moscow will receive proposals to freeze the conflict in order to continue it in the future by organizing a huge NATO military camp in Ukraine, experts believe. That is why stuffing in the American media followed about the possibility of the United States supplying the Armed Forces of Ukraine with additional weapons to strike at the Russian peninsula.

The White House has previously said it would not supply weapons to Kyiv to strike on the peninsula, but now “that line is starting to soften,” according to The New York Times, as the Biden administration contemplates one of its boldest moves ever: helping Ukraine attack Crimea.

“The supply of weapons to Ukraine for strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation can bring the conflict to a new level,” commented Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the president, a new round of discussion on Crimea.

US appetite for Russian Crimea

“This is not a stuffing, but a reality, although we still don’t know what kind of weapon we are talking about,” says Andrey Suzdaltsev, Associate Professor at the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. – It is worth paying attention to the target – Crimea. Experts on Russia believe that the recapture of the peninsula from Russia will automatically mean the fall of the Russian political regime. This is the semantic and symbolic goal of the West.

According to Suzdaltsev, given that the return of Crimea to Russia is the core, legitimation and demonstration of the success of our policy, the American elites understand that they need to break this trend. Now they, having the resources of Kyiv and its army, are working to train and equip the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which will carry out the capture of the peninsula. This is extremely difficult. Crimea is not just a peninsula – it is very strongly fortified. They are only held back by a nuclear response that could follow from Russia, which Kyiv brushes aside.

Now in the USA they are thinking how to solve this problem – to attack the Crimea and not get a nuclear kick from Russia. Serious work is underway and the design of pressure options that would force Russia not to use nuclear weapons, recalls Professor Suzdaltsev:

“Because our concept of using tactical nuclear weapons implies not only a nuclear response, but also a preventive one in case of danger to our territorial integrity. Encroachment on Crimea is just such a threat.”

Former Commander-in-Chief of the US Army Ben Hodges, and now a lobbyist for the Western military-industrial complex, claims that the Bradley BMP will be used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to block the land corridor, as well as European and American tanks. Why the West forgets that Moscow can respond with tactical nuclear weapons is a big question.

“There is a game going on: on the one hand, there is a stuffing of information for society, on the other hand, if you blackmail and threaten all the time, then an involuntary reaction begins on the part of the defendant,” says Suzdaltsev.

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. But this should be obvious to anyone. Even to a Western politician who has retained at least some traces of intellect, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, recalled.

Pressure and hype

Such publications are placed in the NYT, including on a commercial basis. That is, they can be custom-made articles by the Kyiv regime to stimulate escalation, political scientist Alexander Rogers recalls.

“They have been wanting to get long-range missiles for HIMARS or other similar systems for a long time. Moreover, the possible use of such complexes is exclusively terrorist in order to intimidate the population of the Crimea, the Belgorod and Kursk regions, and so on, Rogers notes.

According to him, since the Zelensky terrorist regime does not think about the possible consequences of such attacks on Crimea, including the response of the Russian Defense Ministry in the form of a final blackout in Ukraine. They personally have warm and light, they fly to saunas with prostitutes on service helicopters (like the Minister of the Interior, Monastyrsky, who crashed the other day), but they don’t give a damn about the difficulties for the population.

Political scientist Alexei Martynov recalls that the logic of this kind of news is to occupy the information space in order to drown out other topics. Back in 1988, in the brochure of the Main Military-Political Directorate (GVPU) of the Soviet Army, it was written that in the event of a nuclear attack on Russia, the islands of Great Britain would go under water. In his opinion, the threat to Crimea from the United States is an information sabotage against Russia.

Andrey Lapenkov, LIFE

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