Yesterday The New York Times only published a tiny article on the Kremlin’s assertion that Ukraine had targeted Putin in a drone attack on the Kremlin. On the contrary, The Financial Times considered the issue to be of prime importance and gave it lead position in their online edition. And what about the Russians, how did they deal with this?
The hourly news programs were very restrained, giving the story top place but only a minute or two of attention. However, the talk shows gave it extensive attention. Sixty Minutes focused on the U.S. official reaction to the Kremlin charges, with an excerpt from the interview that Antony Blinken gave. In his remarks, Blinken first put in question the whole incident, saying dismissively that you cannot believe anything the Kremlin says. Then he went on to say that Kiev can do anything it deems necessary to repel the aggressor and recover its sovereign territory, for which it has American support. The hosts left it to the audience to interpret Blinken’s words, though none but blithering idiots would fail to understand from Blinken that the USA was in cahoots with Kiev on such an attack. Those who are politically informed about Washington would understand that Blinken is now wholly controlled by his nominal subordinate, Victoria Nuland, since what he said was exactly what she would say, meaning hawkish, anti-Russian in the extreme.
Beyond that, Sixty Minutes directed attention to Zelensky’s convenient departure for Finland shortly after the attack on the Kremlin. They also noted that his stay in Finland has been extended by a day, that he is now headed for Germany, where there was no expectation of his visit, and that he is being transported by a U.S. military plane. Here again, without saying it, the program hosts allow the audience to reach the logical conclusion that Zelensky was directly involved in the plot to assassinate Putin and that the United States was at his side all the way.
The talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov was less subtle. The host opened by reminding his audience of what Dmitry Medvedev, former President and head of the Russian Security Council said earlier in the day: that Ukraine is now a terrorist state, that there is no longer any justification for negotiating with Zelensky and that the Kiev regime must be destroyed.
For those who think that Solovyov and Medvedev were just sounding off and have no credibility, I point out that the Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma, yesterday also called for the destruction of the decision-making bodies in Ukraine, which means, of course, the presidential administration first of all.
While American and European newscasters opine over whether all this spells an escalation of the war, I will say with almost certainty that it does. It is hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin will be able or will even want to remain calm and restrained in the face of the latest U.S.-Kiev provocations. If his position is at risk in this war, it is from Russia’s super patriots.
The Russians have the ability to strike anywhere in Ukraine and to destroy any safe-places of the Kiev leadership including the deepest of bunkers. The question now is will they do so before Zelensky returns home, if he ever does? Will they do so during or immediately after the 9 May military parade in Moscow?
We are once again at a turning point in this war which has been provoked by Washington acting through the puppet regime in Kiev.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
Postscript: this same evening the President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters flatly that the United States was behind the attack on the Kremlin and Ukraine was just the implementer.
Translations below into German (Andreas Mylaeus), French (Youri), Spanish (Hugo Guido), and Brazilian Portuguese (Evandro Menezes)
Russlands bevorstehender Racheangriff auf die Ukraine wegen des versuchten Attentats auf Putin
Gestern hat The New York Times nur einen winzigen Artikel über die Behauptung des Kremls veröffentlicht, die Ukraine habe Putin mit einem Drohnenangriff auf den Kreml ins Visier genommen. The Financial Times hingegen hielt das Thema für äußerst wichtig und setzte es in ihrer Online-Ausgabe an die erste Stelle. Und was ist mit den Russen, wie sind sie mit diesem Thema umgegangen?
Die stündlich ausgestrahlten Nachrichtensendungen waren sehr zurückhaltend und räumten der Geschichte zwar den ersten Platz ein, sprachen aber nur ein oder zwei Minuten darüber. Die Talkshows hingegen widmeten dem Thema große Aufmerksamkeit. Sechzig Minuten konzentrierte sich auf die offizielle Reaktion der USA auf die Anschuldigungen des Kremls und brachte einen Auszug aus dem Interview, das Antony Blinken gab. In seinen Ausführungen stellte Blinken zunächst den gesamten Vorfall in Frage und sagte abschätzig, man dürfe dem Kreml nicht alles glauben, was er sage. Dann fuhr er fort, dass Kiew alles tun kann, was es für notwendig hält, um den Angreifer zurückzuschlagen und sein souveränes Territorium zurückzuerobern, wofür es die amerikanische Unterstützung hat. Die Moderatoren überließen es den Zuhörern, Blinkens Worte zu interpretieren, obwohl niemand außer Vollidioten aus Blinken nicht herauslesen konnte, dass die USA bei einem solchen Angriff mit Kiew unter einer Decke steckten. Diejenigen, die sich in Washington politisch auskennen, verstehen, dass Blinken jetzt vollständig von seiner nominellen Untergebenen Victoria Nuland kontrolliert wird, denn was er sagte, war genau das, was sie sagen würde, nämlich extrem russenfeindlich.
Darüber hinaus lenkte Sechzig Minuten die Aufmerksamkeit auf Zelenskys zweckmäßige Abreise nach Finnland kurz nach dem Angriff auf den Kreml. Sie wiesen auch darauf hin, dass sein Aufenthalt in Finnland um einen Tag verlängert wurde, dass er jetzt auf dem Weg nach Deutschland ist, wo sein Besuch nicht erwartet wurde, und dass er mit einem US-Militärflugzeug transportiert wird. Auch hier lassen die Moderatoren, ohne es auszusprechen, die logische Schlussfolgerung zu, dass Zelensky direkt in das Komplott zur Ermordung Putins verwickelt war und dass die Vereinigten Staaten ihm die ganze Zeit zur Seite standen.
Die Talkshow Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov war weniger subtil. Zu Beginn erinnerte der Moderator seine Zuhörer daran, was Dmitri Medwedew, ehemaliger Präsident und Vorsitzender des russischen Sicherheitsrates, am Vortag gesagt hatte: dass die Ukraine jetzt ein terroristischer Staat ist, dass es keine Rechtfertigung mehr für Verhandlungen mit Zelensky gibt und dass das Kiewer Regime zerstört werden muss.
Für diejenigen, die meinen, Solowjow und Medwedew hätten sich nur verplappert und seien nicht glaubwürdig, weise ich darauf hin, dass Wolodin, der Sprecher der Staatsduma, gestern ebenfalls die Zerstörung der Entscheidungsgremien in der Ukraine gefordert hat, womit natürlich in erster Linie die Präsidialverwaltung gemeint ist.
Während die amerikanischen und europäischen Nachrichtensprecher darüber streiten, ob all dies eine Eskalation des Krieges bedeutet, kann ich mit ziemlicher Sicherheit sagen, dass dies der Fall ist. Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass Wladimir Putin angesichts der jüngsten Provokationen der USA und Kiews ruhig und zurückhaltend bleiben kann oder gar will. Wenn seine Position in diesem Krieg gefährdet ist, dann durch Russlands Superpatrioten.
Die Russen sind in der Lage, überall in der Ukraine zuzuschlagen und alle sicheren Orte der Kiewer Führung zu zerstören, auch die tiefsten Bunker. Die Frage ist nun, ob sie dies tun werden, bevor Zelensky nach Hause zurückkehrt, falls er es überhaupt tut. Werden sie es während oder unmittelbar nach der Militärparade am 9. Mai in Moskau tun?
Wir stehen wieder einmal an einem Wendepunkt in diesem Krieg, der von Washington durch das Marionettenregime in Kiew provoziert wurde.
La Russie va se venger de l’Ukraine pour la tentative d’assassinat de Poutine
Hier, le New York Times n’a publié qu’un article minuscule sur la déclaration du Kremlin selon laquelle l’Ukraine avait pris Poutine pour cible lors d’une attaque de drone contre le Kremlin. Au contraire, le Financial Times a considéré la question comme primordiale et l’a placée en tête de son édition en ligne. Et qu’en est-il des Russes, comment ont-ils réagi ?
Les journaux télévisés se sont montrés très discrets, accordant à l’affaire la première place, mais seulement pendant une minute ou deux. En revanche, les talk-shows lui ont accordé une grande attention. Sixty Minutes s’est concentré sur la réaction officielle des États-Unis aux accusations du Kremlin, avec un extrait de l’interview donnée par Antony Blinken. Dans ses remarques, Blinken a d’abord remis en question l’ensemble de l’incident, déclarant dédaigneusement qu’il ne fallait pas croire ce que disait le Kremlin. Il a ensuite affirmé que Kiev peut faire tout ce qu’il juge nécessaire pour repousser l’agresseur et récupérer son territoire souverain, ce pour quoi il bénéficie du soutien des États-Unis. Les présentateurs ont laissé au public le soin d’interpréter les propos de M. Blinken, même si, à l’exception des imbéciles, personne n’a manqué de comprendre que les États-Unis étaient de mèche avec Kiev dans le cadre d’une telle attaque. Ceux qui sont politiquement informés sur Washington comprendront que Blinken est désormais entièrement contrôlé par sa subordonnée Victoria Nuland, puisque ce qu’il a dit correspond exactement à ce qu’elle dirait, c’est-à-dire des propos de faucon, anti-russes à l’extrême.
En outre, Sixty Minutes a attiré l’attention sur le départ opportun de Zelensky pour la Finlande peu après l’attaque du Kremlin. Ils ont également noté que son séjour en Finlande a été prolongé d’un jour, qu’il se dirige maintenant vers l’Allemagne, où sa visite n’était pas attendue, et qu’il est transporté par un avion militaire américain. Là encore, sans le dire, les présentateurs de l’émission permettent au public d’arriver à la conclusion logique que Zelensky était directement impliqué dans le complot visant à assassiner Poutine et que les États-Unis étaient à ses côtés tout au long du processus.
Le talk-show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov a été moins subtil. L’animateur a commencé par rappeler à son public ce que Dmitri Medvedev, ancien président et chef du Conseil de sécurité russe, avait déclaré plus tôt dans la journée : l’Ukraine est désormais un État terroriste, il n’y a plus de raison de négocier avec Zelensky et le régime de Kiev doit être détruit.
Pour ceux qui pensent que Solovyov et Medvedev n’ont fait que s’exprimer et n’ont aucune crédibilité, je rappelle que Volodin, président de la Douma d’État, a lui aussi appelé hier à la destruction des organes de décision en Ukraine, ce qui signifie, bien sûr, en premier lieu, l’administration présidentielle.
Alors que les journalistes américains et européens se demandent si tout cela signifie une escalade de la guerre, je dirais avec une quasi-certitude que c’est le cas. Il est difficile d’imaginer que Vladimir Poutine pourra ou voudra rester calme et modéré face aux dernières provocations américano-kiéviennes. Si sa position est mise en péril dans cette guerre, c’est par les super patriotes russes.
Les Russes ont la capacité de frapper n’importe où en Ukraine et de détruire tous les lieux sûrs des dirigeants de Kiev, y compris les bunkers les plus profonds. La question est maintenant de savoir s’ils le feront avant que Zelensky ne rentre chez lui, s’il le fait un jour. Le feront-ils pendant ou immédiatement après le défilé militaire du 9 mai à Moscou ?
Nous nous trouvons une fois de plus à un tournant de cette guerre qui a été provoquée par Washington agissant par l’intermédiaire du régime fantoche de Kiev.
El próximo ataque de venganza de Rusia contra Ucrania por el intento de asesinato de Putin
Ayer, The New York Times solo publicó un pequeño artículo sobre la afirmación del Kremlin de que Ucrania había dirigido un ataque con drones contra Putin en el Kremlin. Por el contrario, The Financial Times consideró que el tema era de primordial importancia y lo ubicó en una posición sobresaliente en su edición en línea. ¿Y qué pasa con los rusos, cómo lidiaron con esto?
Los programas de noticias actualizados cada hora se restringían bastante, dando a la historia el lugar preponderante, pero solo otorgándole uno o dos minutos de atención. Sin embargo, los programas de entrevistas le prestaron mucha atención. Sixty Minutes se centró en la reacción oficial de Estados Unidos a las acusaciones del Kremlin, con un extracto de la entrevista que dio Antony Blinken. En sus comentarios, Blinken primero cuestionó todo el incidente, diciendo despectivamente que no se puede creer nada de lo que dice el Kremlin. Luego continuó diciendo que Kiev puede hacer lo que considere necesario para repeler al agresor y recuperar su territorio soberano, para lo cual cuenta con el apoyo estadounidense. Los anfitriones dejaron que la audiencia interpretara las palabras de Blinken, aunque sólo los idiotas parlanchines dejarían de inferir por lo dicho por Blinken, que Estados Unidos estaba confabulado con Kiev en tal ataque. Aquellos que están políticamente informados sobre Washington entenderían que Blinken ahora está totalmente controlado por su subordinada nominal, Victoria Nuland, ya que lo que dijo fue exactamente lo que ella diría, es decir, extremadamente agresivo, antirruso en extremo.
Más allá de eso, Sixty minutes dirigió la atención a la conveniente partida de Zelensky hacia Finlandia poco después del ataque al Kremlin. También señalaron que su estadía en Finlandia se había extendido por un día, que ahora se dirige a Alemania, donde no había expectativas de su visita, y que está siendo transportado por un avión militar estadounidense. Una vez más, sin decirlo, los presentadores del programa permiten a la audiencia llegar a la conclusión lógica de que Zelensky estuvo directamente involucrado en el complot para asesinar a Putin y que Estados Unidos estuvo a su lado durante todo el trayecto.
El programa de entrevistas Evening with Vladimir Solovyov fue menos sutil. El anfitrión abrió recordando a su audiencia lo que Dmitry Medvedev, ex presidente y jefe del Consejo de Seguridad ruso, dijo más temprano durante el día: que Ucrania es ahora un estado terrorista, que ya no hay ninguna justificación para negociar con Zelensky y que el régimen de Kiev debe ser destruido.
Para aquellos que piensan que Solovyov y Medvedev simplemente estaban sondeando y no tienen credibilidad, señalo que Volodin, Presidente de la Duma Estatal, también pidió ayer la destrucción de los órganos de toma de decisiones en Ucrania, lo que significa, por supuesto, la administración presidencial en primer lugar.
Mientras que los presentadores de noticias estadounidenses y europeos opinan sobre si todo esto significa una escalada de la guerra, diré con bastante certeza que sí lo hace. Es difícil imaginar que Vladimir Putin pueda o incluso quiera mantener la calma y la moderación frente a las últimas provocaciones de Estados Unidos y Kiev. Si su posición está en riesgo en esta guerra, lo está debido a los súper patriotas de Rusia.
Los rusos tienen la capacidad de atacar cualquier lugar de Ucrania y destruir cualquier lugar considerado seguro por el liderazgo de Kiev, incluidos los búnkeres más profundos. La pregunta ahora es ¿lo harán antes de que Zelensky regrese a casa, si es que alguna vez lo hace? ¿Lo harán durante o inmediatamente después del desfile militar del 9 de mayo en Moscú?
Estamos una vez más en un punto de inflexión en esta guerra que ha sido provocada por Washington actuando a través del régimen títere de Kiev.
O ataque vindouro da Rússia à Ucrânia vingando a tentativa de assassinato contra Putin
Ontem, o New York Times publicou apenas um pequeno artigo sobre a declaração do Kremlin de que a Ucrânia tinha como alvo Putin em um ataque com drones ao Kremlin. Pelo contrário, o Financial Times considerou o assunto de primordial importância e colocou-o em posição de destaque na sua edição online. E os russos, como eles lidaram com isto?
Os programas de notícias de hora em hora eram muito contidos, dando à história o primeiro lugar, mas apenas um ou dois minutos de atenção. No entanto, os programas de entrevistas deram grande atenção. Sessenta Minutos enfocou a reação oficial dos EUA às acusações do Kremlin, com um trecho da entrevista que Antony Blinken deu. Em seus comentários, Blinken primeiro questionou todo o incidente, dizendo com desdém que não se pode acreditar em nada do que o Kremlin diz. Em seguida, disse que Kiev pode fazer tudo o que julgar necessário para repelir o agressor e recuperar seu território soberano, para o qual conta com o apoio americano. Os apresentadores deixaram ao público a interpretação das palavras de Blinken, embora ninguém, exceto idiotas irresponsáveis, deixasse de entender do que disse Blinken que os EUA estavam em conluio com Kiev em tal ataque. Aqueles que são politicamente informados sobre Washington entenderiam que Blinken agora é totalmente controlado por sua apenas nominalmente subordinada, Victoria Nuland, já que o que ele disse foi exatamente o que ela diria, ou seja, um belicista anti-russo ao extremo.
Além disso, Sessenta Minutos chamou a atenção para a conveniente partida de Zelensky para a Finlândia logo após o ataque ao Kremlin. Eles também notaram que sua estada na Finlândia foi estendida por um dia, que agora ele está indo para a Alemanha, onde sua visita não era esperada, e que está sendo transportado por um avião militar dos EUA. Aqui, novamente, sem dizer, os apresentadores do programa permitem que o público chegue à conclusão lógica de que Zelensky estava diretamente envolvido na conspiração para assassinar Putin e que os Estados Unidos o apoiaram o tempo todo.
O programa de entrevistas Noite com Vladimir Solovyov foi menos sutil. O apresentador começou lembrando ao público o que Dmitry Medvedev, ex-presidente e atual chefe do Conselho de Segurança da Rússia, disse no início do dia: que a Ucrânia é agora um estado terrorista, que não há mais justificativas para se negociar com Zelensky e que o regime de Kiev deve ser destruído.
Para aqueles que pensam que Solovyov e Medvedev estavam apenas dando palpites e não têm credibilidade, ressalto que o Volodin, presidente da Duma, também pediu ontem a destruição dos órgãos decisórios na Ucrânia, o que significa, é claro, a administração presidencial principalmente.
Enquanto os apresentadores estadunidenses e europeus opinam sobre se tudo isto significa uma escalada da guerra, direi com quase certeza que sim. É difícil imaginar que Vladimir Putin possa ou mesmo queira manter a calma e a moderação diante das últimas provocações pelos EUA com Kiev. Se sua posição está em risco nesta guerra, é dos super patriotas russos.
Os russos têm a capacidade de atacar em qualquer lugar da Ucrânia e destruir qualquer lugar seguro da liderança de Kiev, incluindo o mais profundo dos abrigos. A questão agora é se eles o farão antes que Zelensky volte para casa, se é que ele o fará. Farão isto durante ou imediatamente após a parada militar de 9 de maio em Moscou?
Estamos mais uma vez num ponto de virada nesta guerra que foi provocada por Washington agindo por meio do regime fantoche de Kiev.
Gilbert Doctorow 
No-holds-barred commentary! — appreciated.
LikeLike
The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a major childhood trauma for most Americans of my generation. It never seemed to add up that a single assassin, armed with a bolt action rifle, not an automatic loading one, could have caused so much carnage in an instant. And from a fair distance. Many years after, I recall my father musing about the event and the controversy surrounding the narrative that Oswald had acted alone. He mentioned that JFK had signed off on CIA executions of inconvenient foreign adversaries and pointed out that it may have been a case of: ‘He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.’ The American vassal states of Europe have descended into a lynch mob. The Biden Regime and their European vassals all want the inconvenient Putin gone, and by any means necessary. Putin is no angel and has likely ordered assassinations carried out more than once. The Ukraine backers in this proxy war are becoming increasingly desperate. As Russia slowly but surely snuffs out the military threat from the Ukraine puppet administration. The Uniparty in Washington D.C. has been drunk on absolute power for long enough now to have become a danger to itself. What goes around, comes around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the accompanying piece to yours might be here: https://open.substack.com/pub/aurelien2022/p/war-is-complicated
No statesmen in the West!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A logically-based, impressive presentation! My too-quick scan didn’t do it justice. I had/have no time to look at the 20 comments.
(I’m somehow reminded of the (WWII?) general or admiral [Nimitz?] who growled to his staff something like “I don’t know what this term ‘logistics’ encompasses, but I want some of it.”)
LikeLike
The Allied powers advantage in resources and production capacity won WW2 and WW1 and so forth. But resources alone are of no value unless and until they can be processed and delivered to the front. Logistics are the ability to deliver stuff and things in the most efficient and timely manner possible. That makes logistics the primary force multiplier in any conflict. That is, assuming that adequate resources and production are available. Consider the logistical challenge of going to war with a collection of different tanks. Leopard I and II, Challenger, Abrams, etc. as provided to Ukraine. Each of these machines has unique spare parts and maintenance requirements. They use a variety of bullets and shells. They use different fuels and lubricants. It is enough of a challenge to optimize the supply logistics of a single tank model, let alone a half dozen different types. With instruction manuals in several different languages. Training for one type does not often apply to another. Just getting these machines onto the field and operational will be a nightmarish logistical challenge. NATO will presumably work to backstop logistics for the Ukraine forces. But this hodgepodge of arms will create all sorts of Rube Goldberg like supply conditions for Ukraine commanders. As Ukraine is already outnumbered in men and arms, there is no chance that this overly complex logistical process can achieve a decisive victory. Of course, Zelensky’s decision to go to war against Russia was suicidal from the start. The situation is already dire for Ukraine and about to get much worse. The reporters and media paid former Generals were either lying or delusional when they uniformly proclaimed about NATO sending tanks: ‘This is a game changer!’
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always appreciate your review of the Russian news. My Russian listening skills are just now there yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is really beyond belie, and Blinken’s non-chalant reaction shows that he’s not really connected to America. I personally think that retribution should be “contundente”, as the Spamish say. There’s a limit after all. Kinzahl, kinzahl, kinzahl! Zelensky, you ain’t never going back to Ukraine. The obvious US complicity is really dumbfounding. Downright insulting to say the very least.
Robert Keith
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand that this is what the Russians are saying. But on the other hand, such an act (demonstrative, unlikely to succeed) will very likely serve as a motivation for escalation or further mobilisation, so it is not impossible that it is a false-flag operation. No matter who provoked this war, the revenge that will come will claim more civilians lives than those drones did (which is zero) or would have (if they had indeed killed Putin). Actually, I think the Russians already have taken a disproportionate revenge with their missiles in the night. So, tragic news, as usual.
I’m really not an expert but I find unlikely that the West would attempt to kill Putin in such a stupid way. On the other hand, I can see the Russian population being easily outraged by Peskov blaming the US right away.
LikeLike
“disproportionate revenge with their missiles in the night”
I view the missile attacks yesterday as the continuation of the attacks since May 1st, which are aimed to disable much of the Ukrainian strike capacity, to cripple the much advertised “counter offensive.
I wonder if the assessments of either a coolly strategically, in the context of aforementioned offensive, action, or as a emotion drive retaliatory measure, depend on ones view of what guides Russian actions.
Following Russian actions since way before the Ukrainian putsch, the reactions towards the various colour revolutions since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, I have no idea how either the political leadership of the RF since Yeltsin the perpetually drunk, or the military leadership, can be called driven by emotions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ms. Elena, The Moscow Victory day parade is scheduled for 9-May. The drone is likely a message from Zelensky that spectators will not be safe from attacks during the parade. It is a terror threat. Of course, Russia has sent missiles and bombs into Kiev, but they have not yet attacked the government buildings. So this is an escalation. Even if Ukraine acted without U.S. approval, the U.S. and NATO are supplying arms to fight a proxy war with Russia. Russia would consider any drone supplied by a NATO country to Ukraine, used in the Kremlin attack, to be an act of war by that country supplying the drone or munitions. It is yet another push in the direction of WW3. And what if Russia now drops a bomb or missile on the Ukraine President’s office. It makes no sense that this would be a Russian false flag operation. Russia is busy advancing and winning the war. It has no need for any kind of diversion like this. Zelensky plays these kinds of games for dramatic effect and propaganda purposes. Because he is losing badly in the field.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. White, as someone replied below, I don’t see a great qualitative difference between striking civilians and military and attacking (symbolically) the government buildings. Plus, in the early days Russia did try to kill Zelensky, if I remember correctly. I don’t think war is necessary chivalrous, and any part involved should expect retaliation for their acts. What’s unfortunate is when civilians who have no part in the decision-making process lose their lives. Great nuclear powers think their territory is safe so they go and attack other countries (like the US did multiple times). Well, terroristic attacks show that this is not always the case.
LikeLike
Ms. Elena, I agree entirely that the most important aspect of this war is the loss of lives, civilians and combatants. Countries who fight wars and terrorists are both responsible for killing innocent people. The U.S. and NATO threatened Russia by staging a removal of the Ukraine government in 2014 and replacing it with one hostile to Russia and ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Thousands of Ukrainians were killed by their own country and this was ignored by the world. The U.S. and NATO threatened Russia militarily at the same time by building up Ukraine’s armed forces and moving toward making Ukraine a member of the E.U. and NATO. Russia made clear that they would never accept NATO nuclear warheads in Ukraine. The U.S. and NATO ignored Russia’s interests and Russia finally acted to protect the ethic Russians in the Donbass and ensure that NATO missiles, pointed at Russia, would never be deployed to Ukraine. Russia could have decapitated the government in Ukraine by liquidating Kiev on the first day of the war. So far they have not. Putin understands that Ukraine is a neighbor and for hundreds of years was part of Russia and the Soviet Union. He also understands that this war will eventually end and that Ukraine and Russia must eventually co-exist once again. To prevent future wars, he knows that he must eliminate Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia ever again. He didn’t provoke the war, but now that Russia is in it, he intends to finish it, once and for all. The U.S. could stop the war immediately by cutting off the delivery of arms and funds. Zelensky could stop the war immediately by agreeing to Russia’s terms. Russia was issued an ultimatum by the U.S. and NATO that it could not and would never accept. The U.S. would never accept Chinese or Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada. But the U.S. and NATO expect Russians to accept a second class status where the Monroe Doctrine does not apply to them. As one of the world’s 3 great nuclear powers, there is no rational reason for Russia to accept this. Chivalrous or not, Russia has shown great restraint in conducting war operations in Ukraine. Russia offered at one point to join NATO and the West refused. It makes no rational sense that the West wants make Russia a military adversary, rather than trading freely to the benefit of all. Thus, one million Ukrainians will be sacrificed to prevent Russia from selling gas and oil to Europe. That is the deal that the U.S. and NATO are making. Not Russia. It is beyond cynical. Call it a war crime or genocide but it is entirely inhumane, should have been avoided and could end today if the U.S. and NATO acted with any sense of humanity rather than arrogance and hubris.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yours is a great, on-point comment (5-05, starting with “Ms. Elena, I agree entirely…”), James White! Thank you, sir!
LikeLike
Led by the CIA, the US has evolved into a purely terrorist state. Perhaps the most obvious symptom of this are the daily terrorist attacks on civilians in the US by individuals wielding assault weapons which are freely available to any citizen. I.e. these attacks are encouraged by the government, as a matter of policy. The apogee of this policy was the assassination of Qasem Soleimani which was greeted with applause by the government which basked in the addition that followed. Hillary Clinton’s, “We came, we saw, he died,” following the murder of Kadhafi is another example.
However a state based on terrorism should fervently pray that a stronger state does not object.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Revenge”? I don’t think that anything the Russians do is “revenge”. All very carefully calculated and — as it’s turning out — very effective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to find the aggravated reactions to this symbolic strike dishonest. After all, hasn’t Russia launched a proper war against Ukraine including frequent strikes against military and civilian targets in Kiev? Wasn’t there talk of a Russian bunker attack killing many NATO military leaders? So why is anyone surprised that also the Russian leadership has become a target? This is war.
LikeLike