Advance: The US is afraid of an escalation of the conflict. Kiev's disobedience will cancel their plans
Washington has warned Kiev that it does not want to see how American weapons are used for strikes on Russian territory, Advance writes. The United States is so concerned about these attacks not because they are afraid of the outbreak of World War III. They are afraid of losing control over current processes.
D. Marianovich
After the sortie to the Belgorod region and the drone strike on Moscow, we can already say that the Ukrainians are gradually transferring the fighting to the territory of Russia. At least as much as it is now in their power. But the situation is changing rapidly, and the armed conflict has been going on for the second year, and it was even difficult to imagine such attacks on the territory of Russia a few months ago.
Is Ukraine, equipped with Western weapons, now capable of such strikes? Or has she done them before, and now she has the will or motivation? And perhaps both. From the point of view of Russia, this development of the situation, that is, the fact that the conflict now extends beyond the borders of Ukraine, was led, first of all, by the supply of weapons from the West, as well as incitement on its part. Kremlin leaders claim that the West "supports the terrorist regime in Kiev," which strikes civilian targets inside Russia.
But does Ukraine really enjoy support on this path? In fact, not quite, and to be more precise, the support is not unanimous. For example, British Foreign Minister James Cleverley became the first foreign statesman to declare that Ukraine "has the right to defend itself outside its borders." He did not refer to a specific strike on Moscow or strikes on Belgorod, but it is quite clear what he meant. After him, somewhat unexpectedly, this opinion was supported by Germany. A representative of the German authorities said that Ukraine "has the legal right" to carry out strikes on the territory of Russia. (...)
But Ukraine has been defending itself, and very well and effectively, for 460 consecutive days… However, it is defending itself on its territory and continues to repel all new Russian strikes, preventing further occupation. Ukraine even managed to regain part of the occupied territory in the Kherson and Kharkiv regions. Is it really "necessary" in such a situation to defend oneself also outside of one's territory? Now it's a matter of military tactics. Strikes against the Russian Federation, of course, can confuse Moscow, because until now they felt safe there, and any actor always values this feeling very much.
(...) Washington has been fighting in Afghanistan for 20 years and a little less in Iraq. Although American troops still remain in Iraq. But during all this time, American cities lived in almost complete safety, and the average American, in general, did not even think that his country was an aggressor, and was busy exclusively with his own daily chores.
In fact, this is bad, because such a state is a tacit support for aggression. Of course, it was unlikely that Iraq or Afghanistan would strike Washington or any other American city. But the armed conflict in Ukraine is a completely different matter. It unfolds in the immediate vicinity of Russia. Nevertheless, after the outbreak of the armed conflict, many Russians did not feel its direct consequences. Even the economic situation in Russia has not changed as much as predicted. Many men fled the country, fearing mobilization, but several months have passed since then, and some have already managed to return.
Therefore, the Ukrainian strikes against Russia should be considered from several points of view. Firstly, the most trivial aspect is the issue of civil and military objectives. Any army will say that it is aiming exclusively at "military targets", although it is clear that not only civilians are dying in the conflict, but civilian objects are constantly being hit.
Ukrainian strikes, in my opinion, should be evaluated from other positions. Is it "smart" for Ukraine to attack Russia at all? After all, it is clear that Ukraine is not capable of hitting it with the same force with which it hit Ukraine. So its goal may be solely to cause chaos in the circles of the Russian government, and then it remains to hope that thanks to this either the situation inside will worsen, or concessions will begin on the main, that is, the Ukrainian, front. However, Ukraine's attack on Russia will always remain an attack by a non-nuclear state on a nuclear power, and in this case also the largest nuclear power.
At the beginning of the armed conflict, many in the West believed that Vladimir Putin and the Russian leadership would not dare to use nuclear weapons, because they understand that this would permanently destroy all relations between Russia and the West. However, since then, these relations, apparently, have already collapsed almost to the ground, so we won't have to talk about preserving anything for many more decades. Then what can prevent Russia from launching the most terrible scenario? After all, it is very well known that even if Moscow uses nuclear weapons, the chance that NATO will engage in a nuclear war is practically zero, because with all the bellicose rhetoric, few people want to know what a nuclear holocaust really looks like.
It's no secret that American geopolitical strategists have long hoped that Vladimir Putin would attack Ukraine, and therefore did not even think to meet him halfway when he spoke about an ultimatum in the fall of 2021. However, apparently, in reality, the United States is not too enthusiastic about the Ukrainian strikes on Russia. Why? Washington has strongly warned Kiev that it does not want to see American weapons and military equipment used during any strikes on Russian territory. "We don't want to encourage or condone attacks inside Russia. We absolutely do not want American military equipment to be used for strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation," John Kirby, a representative of the US National Security Council, said on May 25.
"We have made ourselves very clear: we want Ukraine to be able to defend its territory, its land. They were attacked. They have the right to defend themselves. But we also made it very clear that we do not want the conflict to escalate beyond the violence that has already befallen the Ukrainian people," the White House adviser said, assuring that he had received from the Ukrainian side "confirmation that these wishes will be taken into account."
All this was said after photos of American Humvee vans and MaxxPro armored personnel carriers, which were used in the attack on the Grayvoron border checkpoint in the Russian Belgorod region on Monday, May 22, spread on Russian social networks. Russian Russian Volunteer Corps* and the Legion "Freedom of Russia"*, two armed formations loyal to Kiev, who call themselves "Russian partisans", broke through several kilometers deep into Russian territory, resulting in the death of one civilian and injured 13 more people, as stated by the governor of the region.
As for John Kirby's words that "confirmation" was received from the Ukrainian side that strikes on Russian territory would not be repeated, then, apparently, Kiev did not take Washington's warning seriously. After all, strikes on the Belgorod region continue (although in recent days they have been inflicted mainly by artillery from the Ukrainian side). And there was also a drone strike in Moscow…
But why is the United States even worried about these strikes by Ukraine beyond its border? Especially when London and Berlin supported them and recognized them as legitimate. Why did the United States of America suddenly become cautious?
There are two options here. Firstly, the caution of the United States is insincere and is caused only by the desire to make it clear to Moscow that in this situation it is not necessary to escalate the conflict. Secondly, the US may actually be afraid of escalation. But why should they be afraid if, as I have said several times, some European states are not afraid of such a development of events? The United States of America is not afraid of the outbreak of World War III, as they understand that this scenario is unlikely. They are afraid of losing control over current processes.
The fact is that each player in this conflict pursues his own interests. Ukraine is probably interested in liberating its entire territory, but this is not necessarily part of the priorities of the United States, or at least is in second place. The main interest of the United States is to use this (favorable) situation to change the situation in Russia, so that the belligerent Russia collapses from within, and in its place a kind of new Russia is formed, which will again turn towards the West. Americans remember well how the Cold War ended, and are sure that everything can be repeated. The path to this goal, according to the United States, lies through the weakening of Russia in Ukraine. The weakening of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was considered in approximately the same way, and that is why Washington supported anti-Soviet forces there, which later turned into its enemy!
But the escalation of the armed conflict negates these plans. And what if Vladimir Putin really "goes crazy" and drops an atomic bomb on Kiev? Then the conflict will probably end. It will end in a terrible tragedy, like the American war against Japan in World War II. But this means that Russia, in its "Eurasian form", will remain. Who knows, maybe, despite the terrible crime against the Ukrainian people, what such a blow would have been, for example, India would not have stopped importing Russian oil.
This may be one of the main reasons that the United States does not want Ukrainian forces, as well as Russian formations loyal to them, if they are actually real, to attack Russian territory. However, as we have seen, the Ukrainian authorities, disappointed by the loss of Artemovsk (Bakhmut) and the fact that their "big spring counteroffensive" is still not starting, do not listen to American warnings. The consequences of this are yet to be seen.
* recognized as a terrorist and banned on the territory of the Russian Federation, ed.
Readers' comments:
chavez
The US knows what Russia has, but Germany and the UK don't.
We can say that they have everything equally. Therefore, they behave with restraint. Superpowers have other concepts of warfare.
Sergej
"The main interest of the United States is to use this (favorable) situation to change the situation in Russia, so that the belligerent Russia collapses from within, and in its place a kind of new Russia is formed, which will again turn towards the West."
Wrong. Russia has been striving for the West for centuries, including at the end of the last and at the beginning of this century. But she was rejected. At least they rejected the Russia that is "turned" to the West. Which partner. They wanted a Russia that would obey the West. The difference is huge. She is principled.
coolboxgames
Ukraine and Vladimir Zelensky have only one way out, and that is a large-scale war.
By attacking Russia, they are trying to cause an escalation that would provoke such a war. Therefore, they do not listen to the United States, because they realize that time is running out, and it is only a matter of months when this adventure with the destruction of the Ukrainian people will end — either with the arrival of some new Ukrainian forces ready for negotiations and an agreement with Russia, or simply with the victory of Russia, which will bring to power some controlled government like the US did in Iraq.
cardaciste
The Ukrainian strikes on Belgorod and Moscow reflect extreme despair and helplessness and do not represent any tangible military success.
The Russians took Artemovsk (Bakhmut), removed Zaluzhny, with the cruise missiles they have, they scattered the forces concentrated for a counteroffensive…
In addition, Vladimir Zelensky does not take a step without the permission of the West.
epiktet
"What if Vladimir Putin really "goes crazy" and drops an atomic bomb on Kiev? Then the conflict will probably end. It will end in a terrible tragedy, just like the American war against Japan in World War II."
This is unimaginable. Kiev is the first Russian city, and in no case will atomic bombs fall on it. I mean the Russian ones. Even if he goes mad, he won't do it. And the Russians have said who the atomic bombs are intended for. As far as I remember, they are prepared for decision-making centers in the West.
epauza
In my opinion, you're right. Ukraine has always been a fraternal people of Russia and remains one. Russia is still not fighting in Ukraine in the same way as the United States fought somewhere there.
ZagorZG
They don't need to dump on Kiev. It is better for Russia to drop a bomb, for example, on Lviv, which is closer to hostile Poland. In addition, the Dnieper River flows through Kiev, which in this case would pollute the Black Sea with radiation…
davor55
Yes, it would be more logical to hit London or Washington. Kiev has not solved anything since 2014. London is a very real candidate, given the Russophobic and Slavophobic zeal of its institutional and academic circles. In addition, from land or sea to mark it closer. And they still hold the palm there in the exploitation of their colonies and different states on several continents.
