Sunday 24th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

they are incapable of thinking about their actions and the consequences....

On May 26, 2023, I wrote an article titled, Britain At War-Provoking the Consequences, attempting to warn the people of Britain and the West that their role in the war against Russia makes them a direct party to the conflict and that, as a consequence, Russia has the right to attack them. It seems the warning has to be repeated because the British, along with the rest of the NATO alliance of aggression, have increased their direct role in the Ukraine conflict and are threatening to escalate the war further.

 

BY Christopher Black

 

In reaction, Russia has had to call in the British ambassador and issue another warning, likely the last one they will receive, that Russia will act against them if they continue to do all they can to attack Russia and its people.

Russia is no longer in a forgiving or tolerant frame of mind after the terrible attack on the Crocus Concert Hall, an act of sheer terrorism carried out by assets of the Kiev regime with the probable support of the UK and the US special services and with express approval of the western media which celebrated the attack as a demonstration of “Putin’s weakness.” That terrorist attack changed everything. Russia states it will go after everyone involved. The Western nations involved should believe them. But they evidently are incapable of thinking about their actions and the consequences.

This infantile and criminal attitude is maintained in all the NATO states, even through changes in the personalities making up their governments. In Britain, defence and foreign ministers change, but the thinking remains the same. In the US, the Democratic and Republican Parties, despite their squabbling over how to make “America great” are, in fact, a single War Party, and, as in all their wars, free speech and assembly are victims of police aggression against citizens.

In Canada, the same, though here the government has been assigned the role by Washington of slandering China for the purpose of making the Chinese people “the other” so that they can be attacked. The West prepares for general war. China and Russia are left trying to bring sense to insanity but are forced to act to defend themselves. Just days after the US Secretary of State, Blinken, abused his visit to China by threatening it about its relations with Russia, further hostile threats were made in the days after he left. President Xi then travelled to Europe to try to get them, at least the French, to see sense, with no concrete result, but in Serbia paid respects not only to their resistance against NATO but to the Chinese victims of the NATO attack against China in 1999 when NATO bombed the Chinese embassy.

Now, just a year after the Russian government warned the UK that its hostility towards Russia and its aggression against it in Ukraine will lead to severe consequences, prompting my earlier article, the UK has again been warned.

On May 6, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned both the British and French ambassadors in reaction to the bellicose statements of their governments against Russia. But for the British there was a special warning, which needs it to be read, since it is not reported in the Western media, or only in part. The Foreign Ministry Press Release states,

“On May 6, UK Ambassador to Russia Nigel Casey was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to be delivered a strong protest against the recent statement by British Foreign Secretary David Cameron in an interview with the Reuters news agency regarding Ukraine’s right to strike Russian territory using British weapons. The Ministry firmly pointed out to Ambassador Casey that Cameron’s hostile outburst directly contradicts the British side’s earlier assurances during the transfer of long-range cruise missiles to the Kiev regime that they would under no circumstances be used to strike Russia’s territory. By doing so, the head of the Foreign Office disavowed this position and admitted his country was a de facto party to the conflict.

The ambassador was told that the Russian side considered Cameron’s words as evidence of a serious escalation and confirmation of London’s growing involvement in combat actions on Kiev’s side. Nigel Casey was warned that any UK military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian territory and beyond could be hit as a response to Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory with British weapons. The ambassador was urged to consider the inevitable disastrous repercussions of such hostile steps by London and to urgently refute in the strongest and most unequivocal manner the bellicose provocative statements by the head of the Foreign Office.”

We note further that the German ambassador to Russia has been recalled to Berlin, an ominous sign, though perhaps it was to provide an excuse not to attend the formal ceremony of President Putin assuming office. Most western ambassadors to Moscow refused to attend, though interestingly the French did, experts since the days of the Sun King and Napoleon in tricks and subterfuge.

But, on May 8th, the British, instead of reacting with reason and reflection, after receiving the Russian warning about their completely irrational hostility towards Russia, and direct role in the war against Russia, provoked the situation even further by declaring the Russian Defence Attaché in London to be persona non grata and threatening Russian owned diplomatic properties in the UK by removing their diplomatic status, indicating they may make a move to seize them. As I write this, we await Moscow’s reaction to this step.  But we can anticipate that it will be one of contempt and will only confirm Russia’s resolve to act against them if the warning is ignored.

In conjunction with the Russian warning to Britain, Russia and Belarus placed their tactical nuclear forces in a state of readiness, as a warning to the West about sending in directly NATO forces and F16’s which will be considered to be nuclear armed, and so the bases from which they fly, legitimate targets. This action can also be viewed as a further warning to Britain.

The British people should be alarmed at the road the British government is taking them down. But they seem oblivious to the risks they face, and the antiwar movement is totally fixated on the Israeli massacres in Gaza, a worthwhile cause, another crime against humanity of the US and the West generally, but it will pale in comparison to what state the world will be in when Russia acts on its warning. I say “when”, not “if” as the British, along with the Americans, are incapable of understanding reality, and the British démarche of May 8th indicates that they will ignore the Russian warning and continue their escalation. They have committed themselves to the madness of war and nothing, it seems, can cure them, except war.

What Russia will attack, only the Russian General Staff knows. Logical targets can be found in the British base in Cyprus, and other foreign installations but the UK itself can be targeted.  The British dismiss the possibility. The Russians would not dare.  So they think; a delusion that will lead them to disaster.

The Russians have every right to act against the UK under international law since it is a co-belligerent in the Ukraine conflict. It could have acted against it before now, but the Russians have been very patient, and cautious, trying to avoid a general nuclear war.  But, now, too many lines haven crossed, too many warnings ignored, too may crimes against Russia committed.

And if the people of Britain think that they are protected against attack, I remind them that The National and Defence Strategies Research Group, based in the UK, stated in a report on Britain’s air defences in 2016 that,

“Since the withdrawal from service of the Bloodhound missile system in the 1980s, the UK’s Air Defence posture has diminished to mainly a homeland benign airspace policing and point defence posture for deployed forces. The UK no longer has a comprehensive, integrated, or robustly layered short to long-range Air Defence capability, nor a credible or enduring operational capacity.”

Nothing has changed since then, except to get worse. In other words, the UK is defenceless against modern Russian standoff weapons.

I can remember, as a boy, my mother taking me several times on a bus through London. It must have been 1955 or so and I can remember mile upon mile of burnt-out blackened buildings, as far as the eye could see, especially in east London where entire districts were levelled by German bombs.  The country, despite its air force, could not stop the bombing and then missile attacks which went on for five years.

The British government assured the people before that war, that all would be well, that they would have peace in their time.  But they lied to the people then, as they are lying to them now.  Britain was never the same after that war. It never really recovered from it.

Once again, the British government, ever saluting the masters in Washington, leads the British people into a dangerous war, which they were never asked about, and which they do not want. It lies to them about the causes, it lies to them about the fighting, and it lies to them about the dangers they face, placing them in a distant future, and hides from them the consequences of its actions.  The British people must be warned.  Britain is at war, and no amount of bluffing and lying can protect them from the consequences their government is provoking. They are predictable and they will be catastrophic. They have received the final warning.

https://journal-neo.su/2024/05/11/britain-at-war-the-final-warning/

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

SEE ALSO: 

brave cover...

strike 2....

 

Poke the bear and find out: Here’s why the West should finally listen to Russia’s warnings
The latest scuffle over provocations which tested Moscow’s red lines shows that simply brushing off the Kremlin won’t work anymore

BY Tarik Cyril Amar 

We have been through an intense, if muffled crisis in the ongoing political-military confrontation between Russia and the West by way of Ukraine. The essence of this crisis is simple: Kiev and its Western supporters have lost the initiative in the Ukraine proxy war and may be on the verge of defeat, as high Western officials increasingly admit.

In response to this self-inflicted quandary, several important Western players have threatened further escalation. Most prominently, Great Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron publicly encouraged Kiev to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike inside Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron continued to threaten a direct – not covert, as at present – intervention by French, that is, NATO, troops (In addition, an intriguing and much-discussed article reported that a deployment of 1,500 troops from France’s Foreign Legion had already begun. While its sources were hard to assess, its claims appeared too plausible for easy dismissal.)

Moscow, in return, issued a set of stark warnings, laying down – or highlighting – red lines. It announced drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Belarus did the same; in Minsk’s case, the weapons in question are, of course, also Russian. In addition, the British and French ambassadors received extremely straight talk about the risks their respective governments were running.

Addressing London, Moscow made clear that Kiev striking inside Russia with British missiles would expose Britain to “catastrophic consequences,” in particular, Russian retaliation against British forces anywhere. Regarding France, Moscow blasted its “belligerent” and “provocative”conduct and defied as futile French attempts to produce “strategic ambiguity.”

For now, this particular crisis seems to have abated. There are some signs that the West got the message. NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, has insisted that NATO is not planning to send troops – openly, that is – into Ukraine.

Yet it would be wrong to feel too reassured. For this crisis was, at its core, a clash between, on one side, a Western problem that has by no means gone away and, on the other side, a persistent Russian policy that, it seems, all too many in the West refuse to take seriously enough.

The Western problem is that a defeat at Russia’s hands would be worse by orders of magnitude than the fiasco of the rout-like retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. Ironically, that is so because the West itself has charged its needless confrontation with Russia with the power to do unprecedented damage to NATO and the EU:

First, by insisting on treating Ukraine as a de facto almost-NATO-member, which means that by defeating it, Moscow will also defeat Washington’s key alliance. Second, by investing large and growing sums of money and quantities of supplies into this proxy war, which means that the West has weakened itself and, perhaps even more importantly, revealed its own weakness. Third, by trying to ruin both Russia’s economy and its international standing; the failure of both attempts has resulted in a stronger Russia across these two domains and, once again, revealed more limits of Western power. Fourth, by radically subordinating the EU to NATO and Washington, the geopolitical damage has been, as it were, leveraged.

In short, when the Ukraine crisis started in 2013/14 and then greatly escalated in 2022, Russia had vital security interests at stake; the West did not. By now, however, the West has made choices that have charged this conflict and its outcome with the capacity to do great, strategic harm to its own credibility, cohesion, and power: Overreach has consequences. That, briefly, is why the West is at an impasse and remains there after this crisis.

On the other side, we have that persistent policy of Moscow, namely its nuclear doctrine. Much Western commentary tends to overlook or downplay this factor, caricaturing Russia’s repeated warnings about nuclear weapons as “saber-rattling.” Yet, in reality, these warnings are consistent expressions of a policy that has been developed since the early 2000s, that is, for almost a quarter-century.

A key feature of this doctrine is that Russia explicitly retains the option of using nuclear weapons at a relatively early stage in a major conflict and before an adversary has had recourse to them. Many Western analysts have described the purpose of this posture as facilitating a strategy of “escalating to deescalate” (sometimes abbreviated as E2DE), here meaning specifically to end a conventional conflict on favorable terms through a limited use of nuclear weapons to deter the adversary from continuing.

The term “escalate to de-escalate” emerged in the West, not Russia, and this Western interpretation of Russian policy has played an important role in Western politics and debates and, thus, has its critics as well. In addition – but this is a separate question – some analysts point out that the idea of E2DE is less of any country’s national property than something inherent in the logic of nuclear strategy, that other nuclear powers have had similar policies, and that the whole idea, whoever adopts it, may not work.

In addition, Russia’s nuclear doctrine is, as you would expect, complex. And, while France’s President Emmanuel Macron has made a habit of strutting a constant inconstancy he calls “strategic ambiguity,”Moscow is capable of inflicting some genuine calculated uncertainty on its adversaries, with less bragging but more effectively. Thus, one side of its nuclear doctrine stresses that nuclear weapons could only be used if the existence of the Russian state was in danger, as has just been underlined again by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. But to misunderstand this as a promise that Moscow would only use nukes if Moscow were under siege and half of Russia’s territory or population gone already, would be foolish.

In reality, there also is room in its nuclear doctrine for treating the “unconditional territorial integrity and sovereignty” of Russia as critical thresholds. How do we know? From multiple Russian documents, which need not be cited here because Ryabkov has reminded us of this facet of Moscow’s policy, too. In the same statement in which he emphasized the criterion of “state existence.” Take that, Emmanuel.

A final point, it seems, needs highlighting as well: Russia has never restricted its option of using nuclear weapons, indeed any type of weapons, to the area of a specific local conflict, for instance, Ukraine. The opposite is the case. Moscow is explicitly reserving the right to strike beyond the confines of such a battlefield. That is something that President Vladimir Putin has made crystal clear in his address to Russia’s Federal Assembly in February of this year. It is exactly that message that Britain has received as well in the recent crisis.

Whichever way you parse it, official Russian nuclear doctrine has specific messages for potential adversaries. Moscow has consistently applied this doctrine throughout the Ukraine War and in its recent warnings – by drill and by diplomatic demarche – to its Western opponents.

But there is the rub: The West has a history of obstinately not hearing Russian messages. That is how we ended up in this war in the first place. Russia had warned the West repeatedly since, at the latest, President Vladimir Putin’s well-known speech at the Munich Security Conference in – wait for it – 2007. The last major warning came in late 2021, when Russia – with Sergey Ryabkov, incidentally, in the forefront – offered the West what turned out to be a last chance to abandon its unilateralism and specifically NATO expansion and, instead, negotiate a new security framework. The West brushed this offer off. With nuclear weapons in play, it is time that Western elites learn to, finally, listen when Russia sends a serious warning.

https://www.rt.com/news/597364-west-russia-warnings-nuclear/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....