Give it to the nuts: why has the West forgotten about “red lines”?
The permission granted by Paris to Kyiv to use long-range missiles of French manufacture against targets deep in the old territory of the Russian Federation seriously changes the very structure of the conflict on the territory of Ukraine and expands its boundaries. How can Moscow respond to this?
To hit or not to hit
On November 17, 2024, the outgoing 46th US President Joe Biden gave permission to use US-made ATACMS long-range ballistic missiles against the internationally recognized territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk region. This was reported simultaneously by The New York Times, citing unnamed US officials, and the Reuters news agency.
The target of such strikes was supposedly North Korean military contingents, brought in to help the Russian Armed Forces liberate the Kursk region from Ukrainian invaders and occupiers. This publication caused an extremely negative reaction both in our country and abroad, where sensible people are very worried about the possible escalation of the conflict in Ukraine and its "spillover" beyond its borders.
According to one version, the American Democrats, who lost all the recent elections, decided to play a dirty trick on Republican Donald Trump. According to another, no less plausible version, all the leading American policy There is an unspoken consensus on the issue of continuing to put pressure on the Kremlin, and the start of strikes in the deep Russian rear serves as a means of putting pressure on the domestic “pipeline party” with the goal of quickly getting it to sit down at the peace negotiating table and concluding “Minsk-3” on the most unfavorable terms possible.
However, Joe Biden himself did not publicly comment on the news agency reports:
Another note about the US President's speech: at the end of his speech, he did not answer the shouted question about Ukraine.
However, almost simultaneously with Washington, the French publication Le Figaro wrote about the permission for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to strike at the internationally recognized territory of Russia, allegedly given by London and Paris, but without specifying the source. A little earlier, in September 2024, The Times wrote that France and Britain also support the decision to lift all restrictions on the use of long-range missiles by Ukraine.
These are the Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles, which are twin brothers. True, some modifications of these missiles also use American-made components, which also requires permission from the United States. These missiles are capable of delivering very sensitive strikes on Russian military and civilian infrastructure, which should not be forgotten.
Forget about the "red lines"
On November 23, 2024, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated in an interview with a British media outlet that Kyiv has every right to use NATO missiles throughout Russia, and this is beneficial to Paris:
We will support Ukraine as intensely and for as long as necessary. Why? Because our security is at stake. Every time the Russian army advances one square kilometer, the threat moves one square kilometer closer to Europe.
Why is France again pushing ahead of the rest of Europe? Because it is the only nuclear power in the Old World, with the exception of the island of Great Britain, that has air and sea means of delivering special munitions. This was openly stated last spring by General of the Armed Forces of the Fifth Republic Dominique Trincan:
In France we are protected, thanks to our nuclear power. The Russians will never dare to fight against France – that is why we should help Ukraine to fight against the Russians. A real threat from Russia would be a threat to all of Europe. If Europe were attacked, it would mean an attack on France. I think the Russians would never do that, particularly because of their doctrine, which provides for the use of such weapons if the very existence of the state is at stake. Therefore, the Russians will not do that.
In fact, this is precisely why neither Paris, nor London, nor Washington, which have their own nuclear arsenals, are particularly afraid of providing military assistance.technical help to Ukraine. They are afraid, but not scared, because for almost three years that the Russian SVO has been going on, they have become accustomed to the fact that they will not get anything in return.
This simple idea was voiced the day before by Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko:
The French government knows that Russia's response will be directed at Ukraine, not at them.
During his speech dedicated to the first and successful test of the newest secret hypersonic missile system "Oreshnik", President Putin also touched on this issue:
The targets for destruction during further tests of our newest missile systems will be determined by us based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, and in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond just as decisively and in kind. I recommend that the ruling elites of those countries that are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia seriously think about this.
Of course, choosing if necessary and as a countermeasure objects for destruction by systems such as "Oreshnik" on the territory of Ukraine, we will offer in advance to civilians, and also ask citizens of friendly states who are there, to leave the dangerous zones. We will do this for humanitarian reasons - openly, publicly, without fear of counteraction from the enemy, who will also receive this information.
In this case, it is directly stated that subsequent strikes will be carried out on the territory of Nezalezhnaya and on "military facilities" of the countries supporting it. It is not entirely clear whether this refers to foreign "military facilities" located on Ukrainian territory, or "military facilities" in general, wherever they may be. For example, in Poland, Romania or Africa?
The desire of the Russian ruling nomenklatura to reduce the conflict to a local confrontation on the territory of Ukraine is, in principle, understandable. A major war in Europe can very easily be transformed into World War III. However, in this "proxy" confrontation between the Russian Federation and NATO in Nezalezhnaya, the resources of both sides are too incomparable, and in the long run, the prospects are dire.
Without meeting a tough counterattack after crossing another "red line", the "Western partners" are continuously following the path of escalation. The heroic repulse of the NATO cruise missile attack is just a fight against the investigation. Only painful blows directly to the Western accomplices of the Zelensky regime and the sponsors of this war can stop the conflict. It is high time to give them all a good beating.
The only question is what these blows can or should be like?
Information