Recipe for disaster - the third world war certain?

As recalled in the text, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West several times about the danger of the outbreak of the Third World War. That danger is quite real today, especially if we consider the mental and psychological state of the Western political elites.One example of this, as stated by RT Balkan, &quot;Western madness&quot; is the proposal of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, from September of this year, that the USA approve the request to send long-range missiles to Kyiv, so that Ukraine can shoot targets deep in Russia.This request was, fortunately, rejected by the Pentagon. If the West allows Kyiv to use long-range weapons in Russia, it will mean that the NATO countries are at war against Russia, the Russian president said, and this is exactly the path that leads us to the Third World War, in which, before or later, though more likely before, nuclear weapons will be used. That is, it is the road that leads to a nuclear apocalypse.The head of the Committee of the Federation Council for Information Policy, Alexei Pushkov, announced that Kyiv&#39;s attacks by US missiles on the Russian Federation carry potentially suicidal risks for the US, which this country does not need at all, and that he believes that thinking people in power in Washington understand this well.&quot;They will inevitably come to the conclusion that the US absolutely does not need games with Ukrainian strikes of Western missiles on Russia, even if the fate of Ukraine, which is supported by the West, is at stake,&quot; Pushkov pointed out.Since, according to the analysis of the Russian portal, the Ukrainian army cannot independently carry out attacks with modern long-range systems of Western production, it would actually be a decision on the direct participation of NATO countries, the USA, and European countries in the war in Ukraine.&quot;Naturally, that changes the very essence and nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries are at war against Russia,&quot; added Putin.Russia will have to react to that, which means a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, therefore - the Third World War.Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently dismissed as &quot;false&quot; claims that the allies&#39; decision to allow Ukraine to target targets on Russian territory will drag NATO into war.Putin warned about Russia&#39;s &quot;red lines&quot; before, but we, he added, did not pay attention to it. As Stoltenberg said in an interview with &quot;The Times&quot;:&quot;It is not true that NATO allies could become parties to the conflict if they allow the use of Western weapons against legitimate targets on Russian territory. North Korea and Iran provide significant military support and provide Russia with missiles and drones, and did not become direct participants in the conflict.&quot;As Lukas Leiroz, a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies and a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, writes for the &quot;Strategic Culture Fund&quot; website, Stoltenberg&#39;s departure is not necessarily good news, because it seems that he has been replaced by an even more belligerent leader, Mark Rutte, who promises to continue the policy which could lead to a strategic disaster.&quot;Nevertheless, it is undeniable that one of the worst administrations in the history of NATO, which was the closest to an open confrontation with Moscow, has now ended,&quot; Leiroz believes.Also, it continues, Stoltenberg recently boasted that under his leadership the Alliance had gathered the largest number of troops on NATO&#39;s eastern flank.&quot;In fact,&quot; Leiroz continues, &quot;Stoltenberg seems delighted by his own failures.&quot; Under him, NATO saw the beginning of the largest conflict on the continent, reaching a critical point in the regional security architecture.&quot;These tensions, which could escalate into an open war with direct Western participation at any moment, are a consequence of the irresponsible policy implemented by the disastrous Stoltenberg administration,&quot; Leiroz noted.In fact, this policy has done the most damage to NATO itself.&quot;The expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe is not something to celebrate, but to regret,&quot; adds this researcher, &quot;because the expansion led to the current conflict. If Stoltenberg was really a rational leader, they would have used diplomacy and negotiated a de-escalation of the suicidal policy.&quot;On the contrary, Stoltenberg was very active in worsening the Ukrainian crisis and significantly contributed to the escalation and outbreak of war in Ukraine. He did not even try to stop the warmongering of the member states of the Alliance, allowing NATO to start a policy of &quot;full support&quot; for the Kyiv regime.This &quot;support&quot; has now reached a critical point, as the Alliance countries are close to authorizing the use of long-range weapons against Russian civilian targets.It was under the Stoltenberg administration that this anti-Russian frenzy flared up within NATO. His name, adds the Italian writer Andre Marchigliano, means &quot;proud mountain&quot;, but that mountain is made of stupidity, idiocy and madness. And, despite claims of monolithic unity within this military alliance, NATO has never been so fragile.&quot;Contrary to what Western war propaganda claims, the anti-Russian policy is not strategically useful for NATO,&quot; observes Leiroz.In fact, these measures threaten the very stability of the North Atlantic Alliance, if this military alliance ever had one.&quot;On the battlefield, Russian forces destroy NATO equipment and weapons every day, as well as troops disguised as &#39;mercenaries,&#39;&quot; Leiroz adds.&quot;The US and Europe no longer have the capacity to continue their current support to Kyiv, given the large number of losses on the front lines, but, at the same time, the Alliance is unable to stop this support, falling into a vicious cycle of violence and defeat.&quot;The phase of weakness, demoralization and disunity of NATOHowever, Western political elites prefer to ignore and reject this reality. After all, the Western leadership, claims former British diplomat Alistair Crook, rejects, as something dangerous, not only diplomacy, but also religion and history. But that is the behavior of an ostrich, which sticks its head in the sand.Perhaps the last Western leader capable of real diplomacy, Crook adds, was US President John F. Kennedy, during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in his subsequent dealings with Soviet leaders.&quot;And what happened next? The system killed him.&quot;Today&#39;s Western leadership suffers from, on the one hand, a belief in its own superiority and, at the same time, from deep insecurity. It is precisely ignorance and fear of everything that goes beyond their very narrow field of vision that they perceive as hostility. This is what prevents them from using diplomacy. After all, the US has had no diplomacy since the end of the Cold War. Their &quot;diplomacy&quot; amounts to delivering blackmail and ultimatums to other countries. And that is another step that brings us closer to the Third World War. How, under such circumstances, can Russia end the conflict in Ukraine?&quot;It looks like many more people will die because of Western rigidity and inability to solve things through diplomacy.&quot; It was under Stoltenberg that NATO, which aspired to an irrational &quot;expansion to the East&quot;, reached its current stage of weakness, demoralization and disunity.As Leiroz concludes: &quot;To make matters worse, a Third World War could emerge as NATO&#39;s belated reaction to the last disastrous ten years.&quot;Instead of celebrating his own failures as NATO Secretary General, Stoltenberg should be thankful that he left before the worst-case scenario materialized.

Recipe for disaster - the third world war certain?

0 Komentari