Ricardo López Risso | Peruvian Communist Party
The recent advances of the Russian forces in Advinka, Chasov Yar and Chigari, call into question the defensive capabilities of Ukraine and the effectiveness of the Western armament to defend and counterattack, as well as the fragile fence of the thermonuclear war begins to weaken.
To this we can add the recent changes in NATO, which maintains the warmongering and provocative sense towards Russia, already in the statements of V. Putin in which he announced the asymmetric content of the Russian response to the use of long-range weapons on its territory, indicating that it could lead to “very serious problems” and added that Moscow could provide long-range weapons to others (to the Houthis, to the pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, etc.) to attack Western targets. This appears to be Russia’s asymmetric response to the Ukrainian attack on an S-300 system in Belgorod using the U.S.-made HIMARS system that would end the rhythmic back-and-forth over the nuclear abyss, which is the biggest risk of NATO countries’ involvement in the Ukrainian war. Russia has not confirmed the attack (as usual), neither has the United States, the only source is Volodymir Oleksandrovich Zelensky.
Closer to nuclear war.
Let us recall that some U.S. allies had already authorized the use of long-range weapons on Russian territory. The United Kingdom authorized Ukraine to use British long-range Storm Shadow missiles in attacks against any point in Russia. Recently, France and Germany took the same position in agreement with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who stated: “Under international law, Ukraine has the right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense also includes attacking military targets inside Russia.”
If indeed the attack occurred with Biden’s permission (in election mode), one expects the “asymmetric” response to say V. Putin or the ambiguous statement of Kremlin spokesman Peskov to “strike the countries where the attack came from” or the background of the repeated warning to Ukraine’s Western allies that allowing attacks inside Russia would carry serious consequences. “We would like to warn U.S. officials against miscalculations that can have fatal consequences,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Monday, according to Interfax news agency. “For some unclear reasons, they underestimate the severity of the response they may get.” The asymmetric response amounts to saying that they will not respond “tooth for tooth” and “hitting the countries where the attack came from” amounts to saying that they will hit territory or interests of the United States or European (UK, Germany, Poland) NATO countries that have authorized the use of Western weapons on Russian territory.
What is evident in the escalation of announcements of participation of NATO countries in the Ukrainian theater of war, are paid, first: by the desperation of the West to stop the Russian advance in Kharkov and prevent the fall of the second largest city of Ukraine, tactically to prevent a defeat in Volchansk, which would allow the Russian Army to move to the rear of the Ukrainian Group of Armies in Kupiansk and isolate the Ukrainian forces in the east of the Kharkov region. Likewise, the loss of Chasov Yar in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) will lead to the division of the Ukrainian group in the Donbas, which would allow Russia to develop an offensive both in the north and in the south. Second, the intimate object of these authorizations: to make it easier for Ukraine to attack strategic early warning radar systems in case of nuclear attack. Ukraine recently disclosed that “a Ukrainian drone targeted a second Russian military long-range radar”. This is an early warning radar, designed to identify ballistic missiles, including hypersonic ones, and other flying objects even 10,000 kilometers away from the warning installation, but to have carried out this attack it has relied on the use of a network of NATO and US military satellites, which indicates that those directing this type of attack against Russia are in fact the US and NATO armed forces, the latter acting under the orders of the US Pentagon. Although by US and NATO calculations these attacks are “risk-controlled” in the belief that Russia will not resort to nuclear response when it considers that its existence as a nation is at risk (a situation that could arise from systematic attacks on its early warning radar systems and Kiev’s attempts with NATO advice to hijack strategic bombers for bribes).
It should be clear to us that the rhythmic back-and-forth of threats and warning responses that have taken place between NATO and Russia since the beginning of the special military operation are coming to an end. Russia will not allow its strategic defenses to be breached (in the cover of the Ukraine war) to be liable to “preemptive” nuclear attack (a strategy that emerged in the 1950s and updated by the Rand Corporation) designed to neutralize Russia’s strategic nuclear capability, combined with a missile shield with which the United States believed it could shoot down most Russian missiles that could survive such an attack, might actually be viable. In October 2023 Sergei Karaganov, a Russian political scientist in an article entitled “A Difficult but Necessary Decision,” published on June 13, 2023 in the journal Russia in Global Affairs, argued in favor of Russia moving away from a nuclear posture based on nuclear strike in response to one that favors preemption (preemptive strike). According to Karaganov, “if we correctly construct a strategy of intimidation and deterrence, and even the use of nuclear weapons, the risk of a ‘retaliatory’ or any other nuclear attack on our territory can be reduced to an absolute minimum.” “Only a madman,” Karaganov argued, “who, above all else, hates the United States, will have the guts to strike back in ‘defense’ of the Europeans, thus endangering his own country and sacrificing the Boston (USA) parole, for the Poznan (Poland) parole. If such a madman existed, then, Karaganov pointed out, “we would have to attack a lot of targets in various countries to bring those who have lost their minds to reason. From the moral point of view, this is a terrible choice (…) But if we don’t do it, not only Russia may die, but most likely the whole human civilization will cease to exist.” President Putin called Karaganov to ask him a question. The Russian political scientist did not disappoint, asking the Russian President if the time had not come for Russia to change its approach to nuclear weapons and restore its deterrent strength in the eyes of Western elites who endlessly repeat that Russia is weak. “I have read your article,” Putin replied, “From the moment the missile launch is detected,” no matter where it comes from – from any point of the world ocean or from any territory, such a number, so many hundreds of our missiles appear in the air in a retaliatory strike that there is no chance of survival, there will not be a single enemy left, and in several directions at once.” in clear reference to the “Perimetr- PTS” system.
War as an investment.
But behind the provocations, the drive to useless war, the destruction and risks that war in Ukraine means, lies the patient and costly waiting for the business of reconstruction of Ukraine, which allows the logical deduction “the more weapons, the more war, the more destruction, the more reconstruction” on which the BlackRock corporation is inspired who have bought 30% of the Ukrainian territory including agricultural lands in the area of operations, having as partners Dupont, Cargill and Monsanto, which in turn is the owner, to whom last December 2023 President Biden awarded the contract to rebuild Ukraine”, thus making it clear once again that war anywhere is a business opportunity for large American corporations, as Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote: “Ukraine’s vast agricultural lands, among the most fertile in the world, are at stake, and U.S. companies like BlackRock are at the head of the line.”
About the economic interest instigating the US to provide “support” to Kiev. Recall that Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked about whether the U.S. “can really afford to spend 113 billion in Ukraine?” In response, McConnell stated that the money “in reality, will not go to Ukraine, but to U.S. defense manufacturers” (such as “Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed will have a captive market). “So,” said Robert Kennedy Jr, “he simply admitted that it’s a money laundering scheme” and added: “And who do you think owns each of those companies? It’s BlackRock.
In “direct” response to Karaganov, BlackRock and the US, Putin announced the restart of production of medium-range missiles with nuclear capabilities, which brings us closer to all-out nuclear war and forces us to deepen the struggle for world peace, agitate against NATO expansion and provocations, advocating a new world order and a new global security pact.
