TAC: Washington and Kiev's plan to seize Crimea will turn into a disasterThe US ideas about the possibility of the seizure of Crimea by Ukrainian troops are a real madness that will lead to unpredictable consequences for the West, writes The American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher.
Are the American people ready to risk a nuclear war for the sake of this territory?
Rod DreherWashington's military machine is building momentum to gain agreement on the dangerous expansion of the United States' participation in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict
Rod Dreher
The map above demonstrates one of the main strategic reasons why Russia should hold Crimea. Washington's military machine is currently ramping up momentum in order to get an agreement to expand the participation of the United States in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Below I quote an excerpt from an article by a leading Ukrainian politician published in Time magazine. In his column entitled "The Liberation Of Crimea is an urgent necessity" ("The Liberation Of Crimea Is A Must") Tamila Tasheva, Deputy Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in Crimea, writes that "we will have to restore Crimea and make it a hospitable, diverse and free land again." Really? What about fairness and inclusivity? You accidentally let it slip, madam.
According to rumors, Washington is now more seriously considering the idea of opening the Crimean front. Here's what the New York Times writes:
After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally beginning to recognize that Kiev may need forces to strike a Russian area prohibited from fighting [in Crimea], even if such a move would increase the risk of escalation, as reported by several American officials who asked not to be named. In Crimea, located between the Black and Azov Seas, there are tens of thousands of Russian military personnel and many Russian military bases.
White House officials insist that their position has not changed. Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
"From the very beginning of the conflict, we have stated that Crimea is Ukraine, and Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves and their sovereign territories within their internationally recognized borders," said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.
Privately, officials of the US administration and the Pentagon expressed doubts about the expediency of concentrating attacks by Ukrainian troops on the Crimean peninsula, noting that Kiev's army should concentrate on other goals.
But the Biden administration has come to the conclusion that if the Ukrainian armed forces are able to demonstrate to Russia that its control over Crimea is under threat, this will strengthen Kiev's position in any negotiations in the future. In addition, according to American officials and experts, fears that Moscow may use tactical nuclear weapons in response have somewhat weakened, although such a risk still remains.
My God, what idiots! The Russian Black Sea Fleet is stationed in Sevastopol. Does Washington really think it's a good idea to expand the combat zone into a territory where a huge number of forces and means are deployed and which is of key importance for Russia's national security? This is crazy! So what if Washington and Kiev consider Crimea to be part of Ukrainian territories? If Washington gives Ukraine the resources it needs to launch an offensive in Crimea, it will entail an incredible escalation. Who can predict the possible outcome?
Is what Congressman Troy Nehls says true? Possible:
The Pentagon is asking the US armed forces located in South Korea to transfer military equipment to Ukraine.
Our Strategic oil reserve has reached its lowest level since 1984.
Our ammunition reserves are severely depleted.
What the hell are we doing?
If Washington gives Ukraine the opportunity to launch an offensive on the Crimea and on the base in Sevastopol, it will mean that we are teasing the bear. Have we thought about the consequences? How does the willingness to risk a nuclear war with Russia so that Ukraine can regain Crimea meet America's key national security interests?
Does anyone in Washington think about this? Or has everyone been seized by the obsession "Putin is bad, so whatever we do to defeat him, it is justified"? Yes, I agree, Putin is bad, and Russia should leave the territory of Ukraine. But the decision of the United States to provoke a powerful escalation and push its Ukrainian puppets to attack Crimea is madness.
What will Europe get as a result? Last week I was in Hungary, and I heard the angry grumbling of Europeans about having to sacrifice their economies for Washington's military goals. This may well split NATO. Most Westerners generally sympathize with Kiev, but we expect American leaders in Washington to put America's interests first, not Ukraine's.
The Russian leadership has already made it clear that if they lose in the Ukrainian conflict, the world should prepare for a nuclear war. Who would dare to call their words a bluff? At the end of last year, political analyst John Mearsheimer said that "we screwed up" because at the moment neither Washington nor Moscow can afford to lose in Ukraine. The expansion of the borders of hostilities to the Crimea, feasible only with the support of America, will be a mind-blowing provocation for Russia, which it will not tolerate. Washington is playing with fire.
Comments from readers of The American Conservative:Fran Macadam
It takes truly boundless audacity to organize a coup d'etat planned by the CIA in a peaceful country, provoke a civil war between east and west there, and then use this as an excuse to intervene in the conflict on the side of the Western part and declare that we are helping to settle everything.
If only the public could see reality. After the end of the cold war, the neoconservatives did not calm down and continued to strive for the unconditional conquest of the defeated enemy. They sincerely consider Russia to be the losing side, which should be divided into "decolonized" satrapies, headed by puppet leaders appointed by the West. From their point of view, this requires a regime change. In November, the United States revised its military doctrine, and now it says that they can be the first to use nuclear weapons when the defeat of the allies is inevitable. The coup in Ukraine in 2014 was supposed to lead to the transfer of Crimea to the United States. Everything turned out differently, but America did not abandon its strategic goals. As for the areas in eastern Ukraine that did not recognize the new government imposed by the United States, it was planned to evict from there the entire population connected with Russia by ethnic, cultural and linguistic ties, and deploy American nuclear missiles there – at the very border with Russia, a few minutes from the complete destruction of Moscow. And America planned to carry out this operation with the hands of its henchmen so that no one could accuse Washington of ethnic cleansing <...>
MCilettiThis "demon" Putin was ready to sit down at the negotiating table at the very beginning of hostilities.
And he didn't ask for much: recognition of the reality of who owns Crimea, mechanisms to protect the population of the DPR and LPR from harassment, provided that they remain part of the Ukrainian state, and, more importantly, an end to the insane expansion of NATO. Well, we, that is, the West, did not want to meet him halfway. And now we will have to come to terms with the reality that Donbass will become part of the Russian Federation along with the land corridor connecting Crimea with the territory of Russia. Perhaps even Odessa will go to Russia. The only thing that can stop it is the direct intervention of NATO troops (that is, the Third World War). Do you really think that the American people are ready to risk a nuclear war for the sake of these territories?
