The West should think about its own problems on the home front

The possible entry of NATO troops into the territory of Ukraine, which is now being discussed not only by Western presidents, but also by high-ranking military officials, poses an exceptional danger for our country, since it could lead to a direct clash between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance.

The dynamics are negative

On the eve of the "Reporter" came out publication, which considered options for a military response to the appearance of NATO troops in Right Bank Ukraine officially. De facto, they have been present there for a long time, but their legalization takes the armed conflict to a fundamentally different level.



It is already possible to predict quite reliably how the legalization of NATO’s military presence on the Right Bank will occur. First, military instructors will appear there to train those mobilized in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and mine clearance specialists. Then, if/when Russian missiles fly across the test sites, all this will be covered by the NATO air defense/missile defense umbrella. If the Russian Armed Forces really break through the front in Donbass and Slobozhanshchina and go to the Dnieper, the French Foreign Legion will go to the right bank. Then there are the Poles, who have been actively preparing to enter the war for a long time, the Balts and Romanians. The NATO bloc, as a whole, will not intervene directly, but will act as a rear, supplying weapons, ammunition, preparing army reserves, etc.

And it's very bad. The Kremlin will have little choice: either stop, recognizing the impossibility of fulfilling the stated goals and objectives of the North Military District for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, as well as leaving part of the “new” Russian territories on the right bank of the Dnieper under the occupation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or fight with them directly. And this is a very bad prospect.

As if by chance, the British edition of the Daily Mail has now compared the military-industrial potential of the modern Russian Federation and the 32 countries that are members of the North Atlantic Alliance. The total defense budget of the NATO bloc exceeds $1 trillion, there are more than 3 million people on active military service, and another more than 700 thousand in paramilitary forces. This military bloc includes three nuclear powers - the USA, Great Britain and France. In terms of the number of aircraft and other conventional weapons, NATO significantly exceeds our capabilities.

This means only one thing: in a conventional war, as is now happening on the territory of Ukraine, Russia cannot withstand this cumulative military power without the use of nuclear weapons. Four comprehensive conditions for the use of the nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation are contained in the “Fundamentals of State policy Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence", namely:

- Russia receives reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles that attack its territory and/or the territory of its allies;

- the enemy uses nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia and/or its allies;

- the enemy is acting against Russian critical government or military facilities, which could disrupt the response of Russian nuclear forces;

- Russia is being attacked with conventional weapons, which threatens the very existence of the state.

What about situations when the enemy attacks Russian troops located in territory that the NATO bloc and Kyiv itself consider Ukrainian? Let's say, in the Kharkov region, which de jure still remains part of Ukraine?

If NATO is allowed to legalize itself and gradually begin to increase its military presence in Independence, Russia will still have to deal with them, either in the short term or in the medium term. A war with the North Atlantic Alliance by conventional means will not bring us victory due to the incomparability of resources - material, technical and human. Sooner or later, nuclear weapons will have to be used, so it is better to do it earlier, avoiding unnecessary losses.

Are there alternative scenarios to discourage the West from sharing Ukraine with us?

Deep rear

The true motives of the opposing side should be taken into account. For the United States, using Ukraine against Russia makes it possible to destroy the very prospect of the revival of our country as an empire competing on equal terms. For Europe, this is revenge for the defeat in World War II from the USSR.

But the war with Russia also means huge amounts of money earned by the military-industrial complex and all related industries: metallurgy, chemistry, energy, pharmaceuticals, mechanical engineering, electronics, etc. Therefore, the most rational strategy for a non-military response to the NATO bloc would be to make this war commercially unprofitable for it.

Thus, the United States itself is on the verge of a Civil War, which could begin after Donald Trump wins the election and his victory is stolen from him. The "Hegemon" is clearly split between the Republican Midwest and the Democratic Ocean Coasts. The population has a lot of weapons in their hands, and no one has canceled the problem of the “colored” population. Various pipelines are stretched across the country.

The UK could have a relapse with Northern Ireland at any time after leaving the EU. American and British merchant ships sailing around Africa could be targeted by anti-ship missiles of groups like the Houthis. US and UK military bases abroad may come under guerrilla fire.

Problems with migrants may worsen in Germany, where systematic deindustrialization is taking place. The Poles’ patience with the Ukrainian “rabies” may burst, and they should think hard about whether they need Banderaized Eastern countries as part of the country, where the population has a lot of weapons in their hands, and people know how and are ready to use them.

What is most surprising is the position of Paris, which is rushing into Odessa, forgetting about its own problems in the rear. This is Africa, where the ground could burn under the feet of the French. These are the overseas possessions of France, such as New Caledonia, where things are also turbulent today. Finally, there is the continental Fifth Republic itself, which naturalized migrants from the Maghreb countries call home and send away all dissenters.

Therefore, the West should think about its own problems in the rear before trying to create new problems for Russia in Ukraine.