S3
Scholle 35463
Eurasia & Multipolarity dan repost
Medvedev;
Western countries that allegedly “approved the use” of their extended-range weapons on Russian territory (regardless of whether we are talking about old or new parts of our country) must clearly understand the following:
1. All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of the former Ukraine and in other countries if attacks are launched from there against the territory of Russia.
2. Russia proceeds from the assumption that all long-range strike systems used by the former Ukraine are already directly operated by NATO military personnel. This is not "military assistance" but participation in the war against us. Such actions can very well become a casus belli.
3. NATO will have to decide how to classify the consequences of possible retaliatory strikes on the equipment/objects/military personnel of individual member countries in the context of Articles 4 and 5 of the Washington Treaty.
In all likelihood, the NATO leadership wants to pretend that we are talking about sovereign decisions of individual countries of the North Atlantic Alliance to support the Kyiv regime, and there is no reason to apply the rule of the 1949 Treaty on collective self-defense here.
These are dangerous and harmful misconceptions. Such “individual assistance” from NATO countries against Russia, be it controlling their long-range cruise missiles or sending a contingent of troops to Ukraine, is a serious escalation of the conflict. The former Ukraine and its NATO allies will receive a response of such destructive force that the Alliance itself simply will not be able to resist being drawn into the conflict.
And no matter how much retired NATO farts chatter that Russia will never use non-strategic nuclear weapons against b. In Ukraine, and even more so in individual NATO countries, life is much worse than their frivolous reasoning.
A few years ago, they insisted that Russia would not enter into an open military conflict with the Bandera regime, so as not to quarrel with the West. We miscalculated. There is a war going on.
The use of tactical nuclear weapons can also be miscalculated. Although this would be a fatal mistake. After all, as the President of Russia rightly noted, European countries have a very high population density. And for those enemy countries whose lands are further than the coverage area of tactical nuclear weapons, there is finally a strategic potential.
And this, alas, is not intimidation or a nuclear bluff. The current military conflict with the West is developing according to the worst possible scenario. There is a constant escalation in the power of applicable NATO weapons. Therefore, today no one can rule out the transition of the conflict to its final stage.
Western countries that allegedly “approved the use” of their extended-range weapons on Russian territory (regardless of whether we are talking about old or new parts of our country) must clearly understand the following:
1. All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of the former Ukraine and in other countries if attacks are launched from there against the territory of Russia.
2. Russia proceeds from the assumption that all long-range strike systems used by the former Ukraine are already directly operated by NATO military personnel. This is not "military assistance" but participation in the war against us. Such actions can very well become a casus belli.
3. NATO will have to decide how to classify the consequences of possible retaliatory strikes on the equipment/objects/military personnel of individual member countries in the context of Articles 4 and 5 of the Washington Treaty.
In all likelihood, the NATO leadership wants to pretend that we are talking about sovereign decisions of individual countries of the North Atlantic Alliance to support the Kyiv regime, and there is no reason to apply the rule of the 1949 Treaty on collective self-defense here.
These are dangerous and harmful misconceptions. Such “individual assistance” from NATO countries against Russia, be it controlling their long-range cruise missiles or sending a contingent of troops to Ukraine, is a serious escalation of the conflict. The former Ukraine and its NATO allies will receive a response of such destructive force that the Alliance itself simply will not be able to resist being drawn into the conflict.
And no matter how much retired NATO farts chatter that Russia will never use non-strategic nuclear weapons against b. In Ukraine, and even more so in individual NATO countries, life is much worse than their frivolous reasoning.
A few years ago, they insisted that Russia would not enter into an open military conflict with the Bandera regime, so as not to quarrel with the West. We miscalculated. There is a war going on.
The use of tactical nuclear weapons can also be miscalculated. Although this would be a fatal mistake. After all, as the President of Russia rightly noted, European countries have a very high population density. And for those enemy countries whose lands are further than the coverage area of tactical nuclear weapons, there is finally a strategic potential.
And this, alas, is not intimidation or a nuclear bluff. The current military conflict with the West is developing according to the worst possible scenario. There is a constant escalation in the power of applicable NATO weapons. Therefore, today no one can rule out the transition of the conflict to its final stage.