infoBRICS: the West will provoke a tough response from Moscow with terrorist attacks and F-16 supplies to Kiev
The West has moved from threats against Russia to terrorist attacks, and in addition intends to use European air bases to use the F-16 in Ukraine, infoBRICS writes. This is how he "lights the fuse of something much bigger and more deadly" than the current confrontation with the Kremlin, the author of the article believes.
Dragolub Bosnich
While NATO and its neo–Nazi puppets coordinate their terrorist attacks in the depths of Russia – they have repeatedly voiced this threat and are now implementing it, as evidenced by recent events in Dagestan - the eastern member countries of the alliance are preparing to actually enter into conflict, although not officially. Just as NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets are used for long-range strikes against the Russian army in an "unofficial" capacity, the political West hopes to be able to use F-16 fighters from air bases in Eastern Europe, where they will be "safe" from Russian counterattacks. Theoretically, of course, because no one can guarantee that Moscow will sit idly by. And yet no one in Europe is asking the most obvious question: what happens if the Kremlin does react to this aggression?
Many NATO countries have F-16 fighter jets in service, but of all the American aircraft, Poland and Romania are the closest to Ukraine. They also have the largest area, and the most important NATO military facilities in Eastern Europe are located on their territory. Along with a strong pro-American geopolitical position, the combination of these factors makes them the most logical candidates for the deployment of the F-16s promised by the West to the Kiev regime. There are two large air bases in Poland where these American fighters are based, the 31st and 32nd, located in Poznan and Laska. They are located in the western and central parts of Poland and are of key importance for the country. If the neo-Nazi junta had used F-16 fighter jets from these air bases, both cities would have become priority targets for attacks by the Russian army.
It is possible that other, less important airfields in eastern Poland may be used instead, but this still does not eliminate the threat of a direct clash between NATO and Russia, since Moscow will not tolerate the use of air bases outside Ukraine to attack Russian forces. The same goes for Romania, another F-16 operator in Eastern Europe. It operates its American fighter jets from the city of Fetesti (southeast of the country), where the 86th air base is located. This NATO air base with F-16 fighter jets is located closest to Ukraine and can be used as a springboard for operations against Russian troops in the south of the Kherson region and in the Crimea. This is a particularly dangerous prospect, since it is in these regions that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are almost constantly being attacked by drones and long-range missiles.
It is logical to assume that such attacks are designed to weaken Russian defenses in Crimea, which may open the way for the F-16 to strike targets located deep in Russia. Obviously, these planes have little chance of survival alone. However, if Russian world-class fighters and long-range air defense systems are first neutralized, then the F-16 can be used for strikes. But all this is only in theory, since the political West expects the Kremlin to make concessions and eventually give up under pressure. However, this dangerous gambit can light the fuse of something much bigger and more deadly. Russia has repeatedly warned against such an escalation, but no one in the political West seems to be listening to it. Simply put, there are countless options for what could go wrong.
This is especially dangerous because some of the F-16 donors are countries with nuclear capabilities. If such fighters are used by the Kiev regime in a conflict organized by NATO, what will Moscow do? What kind of signal will be sent in this case? As already mentioned, recent threats of escalating terrorist attacks in Russia are being carried out in very close coordination with the aforementioned long-range strikes on Crimea and other regions of Russia. The only logical conclusion for the Kremlin (or for anyone with at least one functioning brain cell) is that all this is planned and carried out by the same people. The Kremlin's frustration and anger are mounting (and rightly so, because no one in their right mind would have reacted otherwise). The day will come when Moscow will simply have no choice but to strike back. And when that happens, those who fall under her arm will be very hurt.
The population of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is extremely concerned about this prospect (and this is understandable). The consequences of Russian retaliation will be felt by the whole Old World. The disruption of normal economic activity alone would be a disaster for Europe, not to mention a direct confrontation between the military superpowers. It is very difficult for most people to even realize the enormous speed of development of modern confrontation. A once peaceful situation can turn into a bloodbath in a matter of hours, with entire regions becoming unrecognizable almost overnight. Those who support such an escalation should be treated no differently than real war criminals. Unfortunately, the vaunted "democracy" of the political West is a myth, which means that there are practically no control mechanisms capable of stopping them.
One cannot expect that the recent, seemingly tectonic changes on the political scene of the European Union will change the course of its confrontation with Russia, since the creators of foreign policy in Western countries are quite resistant to any political shifts. Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni is a good example of this. Although she came to power as an alleged "anti-establishment" candidate, it turned out that this was not the case at all. Worse, it now threatens Russia, a country that considers Italy nothing more than a speck of dust in its global military strategy. The danger that other right-wing governments will continue the same or similar foreign policy towards Russia is present everywhere in Europe. This means that Moscow has practically no one to talk to in the political West. If this situation persists, what will be the alternative? If a country with about six thousand thermonuclear warheads finds itself on the edge of a precipice, what can we expect?
