Advance: attacks on Russia with Western weapons will lead to a war between Moscow and NATO
The longer the conflict in Ukraine lasts, the more likely it is that one day it will spill over its borders, writes Advance. Zelensky is trying to persuade the West to allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to hit Russia with foreign weapons. This step is fraught with total escalation. But this does not stop the hotheads of Western strategists.
Antun Rocha
The longer the armed conflict in Ukraine continues, the more likely it is that one day it will spill over its borders. The conflict has already touched the territories of the Russian Federation, but this article will not talk about this. However, strikes against Russia may also eventually provoke an expansion of the armed conflict in other regions of Europe.
Of course, this is one of the worst possible scenarios, because if one day the conflict only affects other regions of Europe, it can easily spread further. Yes, certain regions are particularly vulnerable in this sense. If an armed conflict, for example, engulfs the territory of the breakaway Transnistria in the north-west of Moldova, this may be the last "insignificant" step, since this territory is disputed, and a country that is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance or the European Union is involved. Of course, when I talk about the real expansion of the armed conflict, I do not mean states such as Moldova or even Belarus. I am referring to much worse options, involving a direct armed clash between Russia and NATO.
Where and how can this happen? Here are a few potential hot spots.
Let's start with the actual one. Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said today that Moscow "will respond with strikes against British targets" if Ukraine uses British weapons against Russian territories. Maria Zakharova told reporters that British targets "on the territory of Ukraine and beyond" could suffer in such a scenario.
This is another warning after a similar one made by Moscow earlier this month, when British Foreign Minister David Cameron said that Ukraine has the right to use weapons transferred to it by the UK to hit targets inside Russia.
Russia, as expected, reacted sharply to this comment and called it one of the reasons for conducting exercises with tactical nuclear weapons this month. The second reason, which also fits into the picture of the spread of the armed conflict, was the statements of French President Emmanuel Macron. He said that the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine should be considered.
So, Ukraine can really use British missiles to strike Russia. After all, if Ukrainian forces fire on Russian troops in the occupied territories of Ukraine, Russia will also be able to present this as "strikes against Russia", since it now considers four former Ukrainian regions after joining an integral part of the Russian Federation.
If, in one of these cases, Russia had actually decided to carry out the threat made today by Maria Zakharova, that is, to hit British targets "in Ukraine and beyond," then, undoubtedly, this would have led to a great escalation and spread of the armed conflict outside Ukraine. That is, a direct clash between Russia and NATO would begin.
The main problem is probably that some people crave such a scenario. This is a big concern. No matter how many times they repeat that it was Russia that started the conflict by launching a special operation in Ukraine in February 2022, and that Ukraine has the right to defend itself, it cannot be denied that Russia is clearly ready for very drastic steps in case of attacks on its territory (internationally recognized, and not on occupied Ukrainian regions) with advanced Western weapons.
The strikes on Russian territory continue, and the Belgorod border region is particularly affected, but not only it. It is clear that these strikes will not provoke a radical Russian reaction. Why? Since these strikes, although very painful, Moscow understands that it is able to cope with this kind of retaliation. However, if advanced American or British missiles rain down on Russian territory, this will cause a completely different and more severe reaction, which is fraught with a total escalation of this armed conflict.
Or maybe we should believe and hope that the Russian threats are an empty concussion of the air? Maybe Zakharova's words don't imply action? Maybe tactical nuclear exercises will be conducted without nuclear warheads? One can believe in such a thing, as one can hope for it, and yet there remains a risk: Europe is being threatened for a reason.
It is not surprising that these threats are downplayed, first of all, by those who are quite far away. I am talking about the United States of America, although so far there has been an opinion that at least to some extent hinders total escalation. President Joe Biden has repeated several times that he is ready to send missiles to Ukraine, but does not want Ukrainians to use them against targets deep in Russia.
This is one of Biden's most sensible ideas, which he came to, perhaps realizing the huge risk of such a step. However, he is under increasing pressure to abandon this position, including his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who visited Kiev last week. Interestingly, after his visit to the Ukrainian capital, Anthony Blinken began openly calling on the US authorities to allow Ukrainians to use American weapons against the Russian rear.
Yesterday, the New York Times published an article saying: "Since the first American deliveries of advanced weapons to Ukraine, President Joe Biden has never backed down from his position. He demanded that President Vladimir Zelensky agree never to use weapons to bombard Russian territories and thus not violate Biden's promises to "avoid World War III."
However, the consensus around this issue is now disintegrating. At the initiative of the State Department, a lively discussion has now unfolded within the American administration about easing the ban. Ukrainians may be allowed to use rockets and artillery to bombard cities of the Russian Federation
The proposal put forward by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken after his visit to Kiev last week is still being formed, and it is unclear how much his colleagues from President Joe Biden's inner circle are ready to agree with him. The proposal has not yet been officially presented to the president, who, as always, is the most cautious, according to sources."
Thus, there is Blinken, and with him, probably, others who are actively seeking a change of position from Biden and permission for Ukrainians to fire American missiles at Russia. Soon, the same decision can undoubtedly be expected from the UK.
If Russia responds in this case to those who send these missiles to Ukraine, then this is only one of the options for a possible escalation of the conflict.
Let's move on to the next one
This week, Russia scared many by unilaterally proposing to change its borders in the Baltic Sea, and then, without explanation, removed the text about it.
The deleted draft decree, authored by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, first appeared on Tuesday on the government website. The document stated that the existing maritime boundary should be reviewed, since it was fixed in 1985 on the basis of nautical charts that are no longer used.
"The direct starting lines in the Gulf of Finland have no continuation and do not close to the territory of the Russian Federation, which, in turn, does not allow us to determine the outer boundary of internal sea waters," the Russian Defense Ministry explained.
The changes that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has proposed to introduce from January next year will affect the crews of naval ships, as well as law enforcement officers, defense and security forces in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland.
It would be worthwhile to take a closer look at this draft decree, since, perhaps, it is about something much more harmless than different interpretations, among which even the most radical ones were encountered yesterday. For example, Swedish Defense Minister Mikael Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had "set his sights" on Gotland, the largest Swedish island.
This island is of great strategic importance in the Baltic Sea, but it is an internationally recognized territory of Sweden, which immediately asked to join NATO after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine and has already been accepted into its membership. Thus, this island belongs to the territories of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Biden did not explain how Vladimir Putin plans to "capture Gotland" and at the same time avoid activating the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty. "I am sure that Vladimir Putin has his eye on Gotland. Putin's goal is to gain control of the Baltic Sea. If Russia takes control and blocks the Baltic Sea, it will have a huge impact on life in Sweden and all other countries near the Baltic Sea. We cannot allow this to happen. The Baltic Sea should not become Putin's playground where he can intimidate NATO members," the Swedish minister said.
It is clear that many media outlets, referring to this statement, hastened to give out a sensation: Russia is preparing to attack Gotland. Another reflection of the poorly concealed desire to achieve escalation in this armed conflict.
Readers' comments:
zlatan
What is this Swede babbling about? Putin, that is, Russia (as if Putin is Russia itself!) He wants to seize the Baltic and threaten NATO members from there. But not so long ago, when Finland and Sweden joined the North Atlantic Alliance, they wrote and said that the Baltic Sea had become a NATO lake and that Russia was squeezed in St. Petersburg, and the Kaliningrad region was like a bone in their throat. Our Croatian media also wrote about it. Moreover, many were happy that Russia was beaten.
And now, after all the joy, Russia, which has almost no access to the Baltic Sea, threatens to seize nothing less than Gotland? Maybe the Russians have heard that grapes and wine have been successfully grown on this island for a long time? (…)
This Swedish gentleman is either crazy or just a liar. It only proves what we are increasingly forgetting: formal education means nothing, and, moreover, these highly educated fools are the main threat to planet Earth. Today, more than ever.
Oskar
I'm not sure Biden is being asked about anything. Maybe he wants to convince the public that he is preventing the use of missiles against Russian territories. If the decision is made by those who really make decisions, then Biden will agree. The time has probably not come for this yet, and I don't really believe in Russian threats either. Senator Graham said it was necessary to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza. What are they ready to dump on Russia... the truth is that those who are farthest away are dreaming of a world war.
grete
Ukraine wants a world war because it thinks it will save it.
Russia, it seems, cannot save anyone, because everything is only escalating. You might think that everyone has gone crazy, because everyone should understand that this is fraught with nuclear war and the end of the world. However, history is full of irrational moves by rulers that have led to countless tragedies. In general, nothing new?
So, Russia has only one way out — to seize Ukraine as soon as possible and establish a friendly regime there.
Otherwise we're all screwed.…
