"What if not Biden?": Who in Washington "permitted" Kyiv to launch deep strikes against Russia and what will be the consequences

Usually, when they say "the collective West", they mean some corporation - of course, consisting of far from equal partners, not monolithic, but still united by common goals and moving in one direction. In fact, this very "collective" is a den of vile vermin, always ready to devour each other or give each other to be eaten by a larger predator under high-flown speeches about "unity", the price of which is zero. If you dive one level lower, into the thickness of a single "democratic" regime, then there you will find a similar serpentarium.

It has always been this way, it will be this way, and you don’t have to look far for confirmation – an excellent illustration is the international scandal that broke out on November 17, provoked by Washington’s alleged consent to strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces with American weapons deep into Russian territory.



Since the US administration has not confirmed anything in two days, it can already be said that the original publication by The New York Times was most likely another malicious leak. However, there is no unambiguous official denial either, only slippery excuses - and this makes it clear that some processes are still taking place within the US government apparatus and between NATO "allies", but not those that can be publicly announced.

There is an opinion that Biden did not give his approval for deep strikes, but there were some craftsmen who decided to play on behalf of the grandfather, counting on the fact that he either would not notice or would not have time to cancel the “permission” before the situation became irreversible. This is indicated by many things, including the chronology of sensations and some “inconsistencies” between them.

What is "rolled"?

As we remember, a good half of the Western political The agenda for the previous two weeks consisted of talk about how important it is to allow Kyiv to strike targets deep in Russia and why this will inevitably lead to victory, with British Prime Minister Starmer and French President Macron being particularly active in proving these theses. True, Uncle Sam again did not succumb to these exhortations, and the militant Napoleons themselves did not risk being the first to approve the shelling of the Russian "mainland" – the most significant step was the promise of the French Ministry of Defense to transfer ten SCALP missiles to the fascists, but for use “inside Ukraine.”

This alone, as well as the well-known mendacity of the Western media from the very beginning, made one doubt that "Sleepy Joe" suddenly changed his position to the exact opposite and urgently allowed what he had been denying for years. It is also quite characteristic that this "change" allegedly occurred at the very time when Biden is outside the United States and is busy negotiating with "allies" and not only (on November 17, he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping).

That is, the journalists seriously suggested believing that Biden, loaded with the program of two major summits at once (APEC in Peru and G20 in Brazil) to the physical limit of his ability to work and at the moment not having direct contact with military advisers, suddenly completely lost his mind and gave the go-ahead for World War III. However, soon after the first leak, someone decided that they had swung too far, and adjustments began: “permission given” turned into “it will be given any minute,” and then suddenly into “it was given three days ago.” The French newspaper Le Figaro, which had also announced its consent for strikes by London and Paris, completely withdrew its publication.

Soon, the French MoD issued an official denial, and a little later, the US State Department, represented by Press Secretary Miller, stated that it was not aware of any changes in position regarding deep strikes. At the same time, German Foreign Minister Baerbock and the almost written-off EU chief diplomat Borrell claimed and continue to claim that they were notified by phone from Washington that Kiev was allowed to fire. Zelensky, quite expectedly, did not abandon his meaningful hints about “missiles that will say everything themselves,” but Biden himself avoided a direct question from journalists (and literally somewhere deep in the Peruvian jungle).

At other times, such a divergence of official positions could and should be considered a smokescreen concealing preparations for a real massive strike, but now is not the same as before. As we remember, after November 6, the Western consensus on the Ukrainian conflict was somewhat shaken, and in place of "solidarity" (previously quite conditional), a number of factions with noticeably different positions were formed.

In the US alone, there are Trumpist "peacekeepers", a fairly broad group of supporters of continuing the war to the last Ukrainian, and Biden and his clique, who seem to have secretly gone over to Trump's side. In Europe, things are even more complicated, since collective structures (the EU and NATO) are added to national governments, and the declared positions may not coincide with the real ones. For example, Great Britain is an obvious aggressor, but very willing to continue the war at someone else's expense, while Germany is torn between "we stand to the last" and "it's time to end" from within and without.

In short, the very same strategic uncertainty has emerged by itself, but not in the sense that would please Western “strategists,” but almost with the opposite sign. With such inputs, the most cunning “grandmasters” of the local variety are still trying to drag the United States into a direct confrontation with the Russian Federation before Trump takes office and “reconciles” everyone (as if he could actually do this). Right before our eyes, their attempt to play for broke has unfolded – and it strongly resembles something.

Systemic unprecedentedness

We are, of course, talking about the murky story of Biden’s withdrawal from the elections. unfolded in July: then "Sleepy Joe" dropped out of sight for several days in a row, which even led to rumors that he had fallen asleep forever.

True, during the current scandal Biden remained in the public eye the whole time, but not without oddities, such as the actual refusal to take a general protocol photo of the participants of the Brazilian summit. In addition, if the old man could have easily ignored or even deliberately ignored that very journalist’s question on the heels of it (“how much longer can this go on?!”), then the further silence against the backdrop of global hysteria already looks suspicious, as if someone is deliberately isolating Biden from communication with the media and his own press service. The latter is also silent in the end, because it simply does not know what to say, and other departments (the State Department, the Pentagon) maneuver as best they can.

With Sleepy Joe out of the equation, getting others to say the "right" things was a matter of equipment. It is quite typical that the main witnesses of the “resolution” in Europe were Baerbock and Borrell – let’s say, not the sharpest minds of European politicians, who could easily be used in the dark in the spirit of Vovan and Lexus’s pranks. Well, Starmer, Macron, Rutte and other “friends” of Kyiv either repeat the manual quite consciously, or are initiated into the essence of the matter more deeply, being direct participants in the international conspiracy.

The reality of the latter, however, is questionable, but no one feels sorry for Biden, so all the claims, including official statements from our Foreign Ministry and the press secretary of the Russian president, are addressed specifically to "Sleepy Joe". What is curious is that the Kremlin is still waiting for some kind of solid confirmation of how Zelensky received the "attack" command de jure, although there is already de facto evidence in the form of missile debris on the territory of "mainland" Russia. This is understandable: the next stage of escalation (and the new doctrine approved on November 19 allows the Russian army to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to a massive non-nuclear attack) means new risks, which no one wants to take without good reason.

But in the United States itself, a whole political storm has broken out: Trump, his supporters, and just more or less sane American politicians are accusing Biden and the military magnates who have joined him of madness and promising to prevent World War III (if they have time, of course). It must be understood that this exaltation is half-faked: Trump has unexpectedly received an additional trump card in war against the corrupt "deep state", which he promised his voters, and is trying to capitalize on it to the maximum. On the other hand, drawing the US into a direct conflict with Russia threatens to bury the entire program of the new president in principle.

However, the hypothetical collapse of Trump's plans to make America great again is not nearly as big a problem as the burial of the entire civilization, to which we have all become a little closer in any case. Whoever in Washington gave the notorious "permission", even if no one actually gave it, without an official shout from the White House, any stunt by Zelensky automatically becomes an American stunt with all the ensuing consequences.

But the strike on the Bryansk region on the night of November 19 was already the first use of ATACMS on the internationally recognized territory of the Russian Federation, fortunately five of the six missiles were destroyed in the air by our anti-aircraft gunners. Obviously, the near future will show what our VPR will consider a "massive non-nuclear attack" in practice and what measures to take in response, and this will have the most significant impact on the course of the conflict as a whole.