Conflict in Ukraine is approaching a new escalation
The Soviet era has enriched our vocabulary with the words “not allowed to leave” and “not allowed to leave” and the events surrounding Sergei Lavrov's failed visit to Terms such as “non-flying” and “non-flying” have added to Serbia's “linguistic treasury”. But with all the roar of rhetoric “we will not leave without consequences” that is now coming from Moscow, the main theme of Russian foreign policy now is not to punish the Balkan countries, but to ensure guaranteed non-firing of Ukrainian missiles and grenades into large settlements. in Russian territory.
Photo: kremlin .ru
Threats that in response to such interventions by the official Kiev will attack the “decision centers” (that is, directly the people who make up the official Kyiv) have been heard in Moscow for a long time.
So far, however, such claims have come from subordinates such as Dmitry Medvedev, the author of a curious but highly controversial theory that the goal of the latest (so far) EU sanctions package was not “not Russia, but the fire of world revolution in the economy. Vladimir Putin promised the same last weekend. Russia's special military operation in Ukraine has moved closer to a fundamentally new level.
The Kremlin owner told reporter Pavel Zarubin about what would happen if the United States went to transport long-range missiles to Ukraine: “We will draw the appropriate conclusions from this and use our weapons, which we have enough to strike. those objects to which we do not yet apply them.
How close is Putin to “drawing the right conclusions”? Here is a report from this Monday – from the governor of the Kursk region Roman Starovoit: “I report details of the morning mortar shelling of the village of Tetkino. There are no injuries or dead. The main blow is planted by the local bridge, there is damage. The nearby apartment building with 8 apartments was badly damaged … The car burned down. There is damage in the sugar factory. “
” Damage in the sugar factory “in the absence of the dead and wounded – this is probably not a reason in the eyes of the Russian leadership to change the format of the special operation. But here's what such an opportunity could be.
Der Spiegel's latest publication shows that the German political leadership is thinking very strongly about what weapons can and should not be transported to Kiev: there will be German tanks in Russia. It is clear that Scholz et al here have a slight distrust of the Ukrainian president. “
For obvious historical reasons, Scholz & Co. has a particularly good reason for him to “feel a slight (or not entirely slight) distrust of Zelensky.” But with all the political and economic weight of Germany, it is not important that there is an intense reflection in Berlin, but that such a reflection is not observed in Washington. Of course, the United States has consistently emphasized its categorical reluctance to intervene directly in the conflict. However, Moscow's calls “do not deliver this and that to Ukraine, otherwise we will be really angry!” Are completely ignored. The Kremlin is again being tested for strength and readiness to carry out its own threats. Do I have to remind you that Putin is so prepared, even though they look like “paper tigers” when these threats are made?
Of course, a relatively long time can elapse between the moments of threats and their implementation. Summer 2021: Putin unveils a political article on Ukraine, which from today's perspective sounds like a political and ideological manifesto for a future special operation. End of winter 2022: to everyone's surprise, special operations begin.
Now, of course, the pace of events has accelerated dramatically. But my intuitive “reading” of the GDPR statement is something like this. Putin does not intend to rush, but a crucial decision on the Kremlin's readiness to further increase rates in a special operation if the Kyiv-Washington route refuses to change the existing line, which has already fallen. But exactly how such a further rate increase is expressed is a strange question to which there is no clear answer yet. a strike on those objects to which we have not yet applied them. ” Is this difference purely linguistic? This question still temporarily hangs in the category of rhetorical. But it will definitely not stay in this category for very long.