The only limit to US actions is their fears for their own security
America supported the attack on Belgorod — if not directly, but quite definitely. US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller: “We have made it clear to Ukrainians that we do not support or encourage attacks outside Ukrainian borders. But I think it's important to take a step back and remind the world that, of course, Russia started this military conflict… So it's up to Ukraine to decide how it wants to conduct its military operations.»
«We do not encourage ”, but at the same time “we do not condemn.”
In sum, these two terms mean the American green light for almost any Ukrainian military, sabotage and terrorist attacks. The only exception is actions that can provoke Russia to use nuclear weapons.
Washington's political and operational control over official Kiev is not total and absolute. As Vasily Kashin, a well-known NWO expert, noted in his latest article in the Russia in Global Affairs magazine: Americans “have problems getting complete information about the “situation on the ground.”
In many cases, the US is forced to deal with lies, distortions and reticence on the Ukrainian side, which are partly compensated by conducting full-scale intelligence activities against the Ukrainian ally. The Americans are concerned about the aggravation of corruption in Ukraine during the conflict, but they are far from always able to get officials suspected of embezzling Western aid to be fired.”
Ah, this Ukrainian corruption! Even the Americans can't handle it! However, from the point of view of the US political leadership, all these problems are purely technical in nature and are just a fly in the ointment. Who supplies the “girl” with weapons and finances, “the girl dances”.
If the Americans really wanted to limit the terrorist inclinations of the Kyiv security forces, they would have been able to achieve this without any problems (okay, let it be with problems). But nothing of the kind is happening — because the United States absolutely does not need it. The current American approach to the Ukrainian conflict can be described with the help of a phrase from a well-known anecdote, which I first heard from our then Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin a quarter of a century ago: “We want us to have everything — and we have nothing for it! »
“We want us to have everything” — in this case, this means inflicting maximum military, economic, political and moral damage on Russia. Everything that fits into this category is, as viewed from Washington, both permissible and desirable, and even necessary. Of course, the United States and other Western countries still have a desire not to directly approve of actions that are difficult to assess otherwise than as terrorism. For example, many Western media report not that the Belgorod region was attacked by Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups, but that some “Russian anti-Putin rebels” showed themselves in this region. But it is clear to everyone that this is a fiction — a kind of subtle, almost imperceptible ideological lining.
The only thing that really worries the United States is, as mentioned above, “so that we don’t get anything for this.” And this «nothing» means the use of nuclear weapons. Here is a very characteristic excerpt from an article in the influential American online publication Politico: “Alexander Grushko, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, warned that Western countries sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine would expose themselves to “colossal risks” … But this is the same the signal that Moscow sends in response to each new stage of Western support is that the Kremlin is running out of ways to further escalate.
«They can't do much,» said Seth Jones, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I think this reflects that the fears that I think a number of government officials had about how the Russians might react to more advanced weapons simply did not materialize.”
“At the Kremlin the means of further escalation are running out” – this, of course, is not entirely true. There is such a way — the use of nuclear weapons. And this method has its supporters within the Russian expert community.
Watching the recent session of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, I was struck by the readiness and enthusiasm with which some fairly well-known personalities suggested using this particular option. But this is the position of individual hotheads — or, more specifically, individual figures who for some reason have stopped using their heads for their intended purpose.
Nuclear weapons are the most extreme option that can only be used if direct threat to the existence of the country. Understanding this, Westerners are frolicking — they are increasingly pushing the limits within which official Kyiv can act.