President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine quickly reached its recipients in the West. Photo: Alexey Nikolsky/POOL/TASS
President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine quickly reached its recipients in the West. Undoubtedly, they took into account the words that Russia could use weapons of mass destruction if someone (for example, the Zelensky regime) had a suicidal desire to attack our country with conventional weapons with the support of a nuclear power. Our main retaliatory blow will be against the aggressor, but the country that supported him will also receive the nuts. Meanwhile, as is known, senior EU and British officials are already openly calling for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to be allowed to strike “deep into Russia” with weapons produced in the EU, and in the United States there is a dangerous discussion about such permission.
Clearly understanding that now, according to Ilf and Petrov, “they will be beaten and maybe even kicked,” the representatives of the West became worried. Both the European and American media began to call for caution, reaching the point: it’s scary to say it! – criticism of the political leadership itself. This is what The Wall Street Journal writes in its editorial today:
“It was simply unbearable to listen to President Biden’s farewell address to the UN. He was proud of his work for global democracy. It’s impossible not to wonder: does he even understand what kind of world he lives in? Certainly not in the real world, not in today’s world of increasing global disorder.”
Many Western publications suddenly remembered that Putin actually warned the United States and other NATO members about such a development of events. In June of this year, in his speech at a forum in Saint Petersburg, as well as during his visit to Vietnam, the Russian president stated that it is necessary to change the Russian nuclear doctrine, recalls the French newspaper Le Figaro. And The Wall Street Journal suddenly recalled that Russian leaders then mentioned the possibility of Russian weapons and their counterparts falling into the hands of those regimes with which the West disagrees. Naturally, Russia issued this warning in response to the open supply of Western weapons to Ukraine. And also in response to the fact that Western instructors aim these weapons at targets inside Russia. Then, in June, both Washington and European capitals proudly ignored these warnings as “bluff.” But now Reuters writes about the possible appearance of Iranian missiles by the Houthis, the design of which resembles their Russian counterparts. And this could “help the Houthis” interfere more effectively in Western shipping, laments the American publication. Yes, now you can. What were you thinking before?
Le Figaro tries to reassure its readers by quoting experts who still adhere to the “bluff concept”: “Some experts believe that Russia’s nuclear deterrent has ceased to be effective because it has not stopped the increase in Western military assistance to the Armed Forces. Ukraine, and Moscow considers that aid as participation in the war,” the newspaper notes.
Other Western publications, however, are more alarming. Thus, the London Telegraph writes: “The new doctrine provides a vaguer formulation of the conditions under which Russia can use nuclear weapons. This means that the conditions for such use become less strict than in the previous version of this document.”
And the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung points out that “militarily Russia is invincible”, so one can hardly expect a softer position from Moscow on the Ukrainian question. The newspaper recalls the proposal that Putin made in June during his speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry: the four new regions remain within Russia and Ukraine becomes a neutral state. The newspaper cites the statements of the vice president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitri Medvedev, who reminded the West that he did not believe in a “military-technical solution” to the Ukrainian problem by Russia until February 24, 2022.
The author SZ reminds that in the West there is no unity on the issue of confrontation with Russia. And he asks the question: what is so terrible about the neutrality of Ukraine and the fact that the Russian population, who previously lived in Ukraine, lives in Russia? In any case, SZ writes, time is on Putin’s side, because nothing threatens his power inside Russia and the country’s economy is stable.
LISTEN TOO
Zelensky took his plan to the US and received an ingenuity award (more details)
