{"id":288226,"date":"2024-05-26T07:30:34","date_gmt":"2024-05-26T07:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=288226"},"modified":"2024-05-28T06:46:22","modified_gmt":"2024-05-28T06:46:22","slug":"giving-ukraine-missiles-to-shoot-into-russia-is-a-declaration-of-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=288226","title":{"rendered":"Giving Ukraine Missiles to Shoot Into Russia Is a Declaration of War"},"content":{"rendered":"

Congressman calls for direct strikes on Russia <\/strong><\/a>\u2014House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul shows a map of potential targets in Russia<\/em><\/p>\n

Mike Whitney \u2013 The Unz Review May 24, 2024<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In a desperate attempt to stave off a humiliating defeat in Ukraine, \u201cSecretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly asked President Biden to greenlight Ukrainian missile strikes on targets deep inside Russia.\u201d The change in policy will have no material impact on the ongoing ground war in Ukraine, although it could trigger a response that would put NATO in direct conflict with Moscow.<\/strong> In short, Washington\u2019s looming defeat in Ukraine has compelled administration decisionmakers to implement a strategy that could precipitate a Third World War. This is from the New York Times<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Since the first American shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymyr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden\u2019s mandate to \u201cavoid World War III.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the State Department, there is now a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia <\/strong>\u2014 targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow\u2019s recent territorial gains\u2026.<\/p>\n

For months, Mr. Zelensky has been mounting attacks on Russian ships, oil facilities and electricity plants, but he has been doing so largely with Ukrainian-made drones, which don\u2019t pack the power and speed of the American weapons\u2026 Now, the pressure is mounting on the United States to help Ukraine target Russian military sites,\u2026 with American-provided arms<\/strong>\u2026.<\/p>\n

The United States is now considering training Ukrainian troops inside the country, rather than sending them to a training ground in Germany. That would require putting American military personnel in Ukraine,<\/strong> something else that Mr. Biden has prohibited until now. It raises the question of how the United States would respond if the trainers, who would likely be based near the western city of Lviv, came under attack. The Russians have periodically targeted Lviv, though it is distant from the main areas of combat\u2026.<\/p>\n

The Russians\u2026 have been unsubtle in playing to American concerns about an escalation of the war. This week they began very public exercises with the units that would be involved in the use of tactical nuclear weapons<\/strong>, the kind that would be used on Ukrainian troops. Russian news reports said it was \u201ca response to provocative statements and threats from Western officials against Russia.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

The current exercises\u2026 are being dismissed as bluster and muscle-flexing\u2026.<\/p>\n

In his interview with the Times<\/em>, Mr. Zelensky dismissed fears of escalation, saying President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had already escalated the war. And he thought it unlikely that Mr. Putin would ever make good on his threat to unleash a nuclear weapon\u2026. Inside the White House, a Debate Over Letting Ukraine Shoot U.S. Weapons Into Russia<\/a>, New York Times<\/em><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s not mince words: Missile attacks on Russian territory is a flagrant act of aggression against the Russian Federation. It is an open declaration of war. <\/strong>The Biden administration is committing to a policy that will pit the United States against Russia in a war between two nuclear superpowers.<\/p>\n

Why? Why is Biden doing this?<\/p>\n

He\u2019s doing this because the US is heavily invested in the outcome of the war in Ukraine, and Ukraine is losing the war quite badly. Here\u2019s a short recap from combat veteran and military analyst Colonel Daniel Davis:<\/p>\n

Trust me when I tell you that there is no chance that Ukraine will ever succeed in a war against Russia. There is no path to military victory for Ukraine. Period<\/strong>. It doesn\u2019t matter whether we give them $60 billion or $120 billion or $200 billion. It won\u2019t change anything, because the foundations on which the fighting power at the national level is built are irrevocably on the side of Russia. You can\u2019t reverse the tide because you can\u2019t change the basics.<\/p>\n

Air power is on Russia\u2019s side, air defense is on Russia\u2019s side, military-industrial potential is on Russia\u2019s side, enabling the production of a large amount of artillery, ammunition, the weapons themselves, drones, electronic warfare equipment and, above all, people are all on Russia\u2019s side.<\/strong> Russia has more people and will always have more people\u2026 In my opinion, it is unreasonable to continue to hope that the Ukrainian side will be able to win if we give just a little more money, because it will not work\u2026.UKRAINE WILL NEVER WIN\u2026.Period.<\/strong> Retired US Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis: I have over 20 years of military combat experience. Daniel Davis<\/a>@peacemaket71<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, Davis\u2019s views are shared by the vast majority of military experts who have been closely following events on the ground. The overall assessment of these experts is invariably the same: Ukraine is losing, and losing badly. There won\u2019t be any reversal of momentum because\u2014in every area of combat capability\u2014Russia has a clear advantage. <\/strong>Ukraine doesn\u2019t have the firepower, the aircraft, the tanks, the armored vehicles, the missiles, the heavy artillery, the air-defense systems, the munitions, the industrial capacity or the manpower to roll back the Russian army or to even stop the persistent Russian offensive. Simply put, Ukraine cannot and will not win. And<\/strong>, this is not just the view of men like Davis who think the fighting should stop immediately. It is also the view of globalist elites, like Richard Haass, who think the war should be prolonged. Haass is the president emeritus of the prestigious Council On Foreign Relations, and his views on Ukraine are likely shared by a large cross-section of wealthy elites who think there is something to gain by dragging the conflict out for another year or so. Take a look at this excerpt from a recent article by Haass and see if you can spot the similarities between his analysis and Davis\u2019:<\/p>\n

...what should Ukraine and its backers in the West seek to achieve? What should constitute success?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some answer that success should be defined as Ukraine recovering all of its lost territory, to re-establish its 1991 borders\u2026. This would be a serious mistake. Don\u2019t get me wrong: re-establishing rightful, legal borders would be highly desirable, demonstrating that aggression is not acceptable. But foreign policy must be doable as well as desirable, and Ukraine is simply not in a position to liberate Crimea and its eastern regions through military force.<\/p>\n

The maths is unavoidable. Russia has too many soldiers and a wartime economy capable of producing large amounts of arms and ammunition. Despite sanctions, Russia has been able to ramp up its military-industrial base and has access to weaponry and ammunition<\/strong> produced in Iran and North Korea and to Chinese manufactured goods and technologies that contribute to the Kremlin\u2019s war effort.<\/p>\n

Another factor militating against a Ukraine effort to recapture its lands by force is that offensive operations tend to require much more in the way of manpower, equipment, and ammunition than do defensive efforts. This is especially so when defences have had the chance to build fortifications, as Russia has in much of the Ukrainian territory it occupies. Why Mounting another Counteroffensive in 2025 would be a Mistake<\/a>, Novaya Gazeta<\/em><\/p>\n

So, Haass openly admits that the war is a mismatch and that Ukraine cannot reasonably expect to retake the territory it has lost. He admits that \u201cRussia has too many soldiers\u201d (unlimited manpower) \u201ca wartime economy capable of producing large amounts of arms and ammunition\u201d(Unlimited industrial capacity) and \u201cRussia\u2026 has access to weaponry and ammunition\u2026 that contribute to the Kremlin\u2019s war effort.\u201d (Unlimited weapons production) In short, Haass\u2019s analysis is identical to Davis\u2019s. They both agree on the fundamentals, that is, that Ukraine cannot and will not win.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But then the article takes an unusual turn, in which, Haass inexplicably draws the exact opposite conclusions from his analysis than Davis. It is an astonishing rhetorical sleight-of-hand that would make Svengali envious. Here\u2019s what says after listing the numerous reasons why Ukraine will not win the war:<\/p>\n

\u201cSome answer that success should be defined as Ukraine recovering all of its lost territory, to re-establish its 1991 borders\u2026. This would be a serious mistake.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Think about that for a minute. So, according to Haass\u2014winning the war no longer means winning the war. It does not mean retaking captured territory, it does not mean expelling the Russians from eastern Ukraine, and it does not mean prevailing in the ground war. It means, \u2018what\u2019 exactly?
\nHaass explains:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat strategy\u2026 should Ukraine and its supporters pursue? First, Ukraine should emphasise the defensive, an approach that would allow it to husband its limited resources and frustrate Russia.<\/p>\n

Second, Ukraine should be given the means \u2014 long-range strike capabilities \u2014 and the freedom to attack Russian forces anywhere in Ukraine, as well as Russian warships in the Black Sea and economic targets within Russia itself.<\/strong> Russia must come to feel the cost of a war it initiated and prolongs.<\/p>\n

Third, Ukraine\u2019s backers must commit to providing long-term military aid. The goal of all of the above is to signal to Vladimir Putin that time is not on Russia\u2019s side and that he cannot hope to outlast Ukraine.Why Mounting another Counteroffensive in 2025 would be a Mistake<\/a>, Novaya Gazeta<\/em><\/p>\n

So, this is the new strategy? This is Plan B?<\/p>\n

Yes, apparently. And look at what Plan B involves:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Hunkering down in a defensive posture<\/li>\n
  2. Using \u201clong-range strike capabilities\u201d to attack targets in Russia<\/strong> (Is this where Blinken got the idea?)<\/li>\n
  3. Pumping billions more into the Ukrainian \u2018black hole\u2019 to prolong a war that cannot be won.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In short, provoke, hector and inflict as much pain as possible on Russia for as long as it takes.<\/p>\n

    As long as what takes? What does that mean?<\/p>\n

    Haass explains that too:<\/p>\n

    An interim ceasefire almost certainly would not lead to anything resembling peace, which will likely have to wait for the arrival of a Russian leadership<\/strong> that chooses to end the country\u2019s pariah status.<\/strong> That might not happen for years or decades.<\/p>\n

    Oh, so the real objective, is regime change. What a surprise!<\/p>\n

    This is more than just \u201cmoving the goalposts\u201d (by changing the definition of \u201cwinning\u201d a war). This is a revelation of the elite agenda,<\/strong> which looks beyond the fatuous propaganda about \u201cunprovoked aggression\u201d and focuses entirely on geopolitics, the driving force in international relations. In Haass\u2019s mind, Ukraine is not a battlefield on which Ukrainian and Russian patriots sacrifice their lives for their countries. No. In Haass\u2019s mind, Ukraine is the critical gateway to Central Asia which is expected to be the most prosperous region of the next century. Western plutocrats intend to be the main players in Central Asia\u2019s development,(pivot to Asia) which is why they are trying to remove the biggest obstacle to western penetration, which is Russia.<\/strong> Once Russia has been weakened and rolled-back, Washington will be free to spread its military bases across Eurasia laying the groundwork for containing rival China through provocations, encirclement and economic strangulation.<\/p>\n

    That is why Haass\u2019s definition of \u201csuccess\u201d is more flexible than ordinary people who evaluate these matters in terms of the enormous human suffering they cause. In the globalist view, these things are only of secondary importance. What really matters is power; raw, geopolitical power in the form of global hegemony. That is the ultimate strategic objective. Nothing else matters.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    And that is why the Biden administration is about to approve the use of American-made long-range strike weapons to destroy targets on Russian territory. Because\u2014even though it does not increase Ukraine\u2019s chances of winning the war\u2014it does help to advance the globalist geopolitical agenda which regards Ukraine as a mere springboard for launching attacks on Russia.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The elites are so drunk with hubris, they have convinced themselves that Putin will not see these missile-strikes on Russian territory as a declaration of war. Which they are.<\/p>\n

    Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Contrary to what the Western mainstream media would have us believe, the main problem facing the West isn\u2019t Russia or its president. The West\u2019s problems are its own leaders, who are intent on igniting war with Russia. Mike Whitney explains <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":288225,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[91,116],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-288226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-russia","category-ukraine"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=288226"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288227,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288226\/revisions\/288227"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/288225"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=288226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=288226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=288226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}