After Trump’s emphatic win in the US presidential Election held on the 5th of November, I was both surprised and concerned by the lack of trouble making from the Democratic incumbent and his supporters. They were just too quiet, so I suspected that they had something up their sleeves.
Silence before the Storm
We should have seen it coming in the wake of Trump’s massive win, as where was the expected rioting and legal challenges that we saw in 2016? When Trump won his first term as president, there was, in my opinion, an ominous silence, well, at least when you disregard the demented screeching and recriminations “online” of the more deranged fringe members of the Democrat voting base.
Trump had campaigned on a platform of ending the war in Ukraine urgently, even implying it was his number one foreign policy target, even promising, without providing details, that he would end the war in “24 hours” of assuming office.
Needless to say, this is typical of Trump’s aspirational style of rhetoric, rather than something that can be achieved, but the fact remains that he, and most of the US public, are deeply skeptical of continued support for Ukraine, both in the massive expenditure of national treasure and transfer of arms supplies, currently standing at an eye-watering US$175 BILLION dollars, as well as the authoritarian and, to be quite frank, anti-Christian nature of the Zelensky regeime.
It seems apparent now that the Biden administration has decided to hand Trump a poison chalice, in the form of allowing Ukraine to make deep strikes into Russia with ATACMS missiles. The official justification for this decision, is the western fever dream of “North Korean troops in Kursk”, for which no evidence has ever been provided.
The insanity beggars belief!
Needless to say, US lackeys in the UK and France quickly jumped on the bandwagon, with reposts in La Figaro that they were also supporting the use of the Storm Shadow/SCALP Anglo-French air launched cruise missile deep into “Old” Russia, a story that was joyfully broadcast by Ukrainian media in particular.
The usual chorus of psychopaths and want-to-be world rulers have applauded the decision, including Macron, who said, “It was a decision that was a totally good one”, Boris Johnson, who welcomed the news and also called for a US$500 billion dollar loan to Ukraine to provide more weapons, and the ever despicable son of George Soros, Alex, who commented “This is great news!”.
Of course, the usual rabid comments from the Baltic Chihuahuas have been doing the rounds, spurred by their traditional racism and hatred towards all things Russian.
When asked about these developments, the Russian response was blunt and to the point, as stated by Maria Zakarova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman:
… One thing is clear: considering the Kiev regime’s defeats, its Western curators are betting on the maximum escalation of the hybrid war unleashed against Russia, trying to achieve an illusory goal: to inflict a strategic defeat on Moscow. However, no wonder weapon that Zelensky and his henchmen pray to get is capable to affect the course of the special military operation.
President Vladimir Putin clearly stated on October 25 what “permitting” to use of NATO high-precision long-range weapons actually means. He stressed that Ukraine cannot execute such strikes on its own without using space satellites and flight assignments provided by NATO military personnel.
There was also significant anger from inside Trump’s campaign team, with his son, Donald Trump Jr. stating:
“The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives,” he tweeted. “Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!”
A view echoed by many of Donald Trump’s supporters and team.
It seems that the idea is for Biden and the Democrats to escalate the war by provoking Russia, leaving Trump with the unenviable option of either backing down, likely to be an anathema to the Don, or having to renege on his campaign promises. Either way, a poisoned chalice indeed.
The next question: What impact these strikes will have now that Ukraine is carrying them out?
While some Western media is again going down the road of promoting the next “wunderwaffen” that will “change the course of the war”, others are finally becoming more realistic, after the hype surrounding the use HIMARS, Patriots, NASAMs, Bayraktar drones, the western “super tanks” and Bradley AFVs, Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, and the Javelin ATGM, none of which have had any lasting effect on the battlefield after their initial deployment.
As the BBC points out:
The supply of the missiles will probably not be enough to turn the tide of the war. Russian military equipment, such as jets, has already been moved to airfields further inside Russia in anticipation of such a decision. However, moving equipment further back from the front lines may make life difficult for Russian troops as supply lines are stretched, and air support takes longer to arrive.
It is quite common knowledge that the Russians are well-prepared for defending against the ATACMS missiles, and the Storm Shadow/SCALP, all of which have already been used by Ukraine against targets in Donbass and Crimea. Russian Air Defense, in the form of surface-to-air missiles and jamming of guidance systems has already severely degraded the HIMARS/ATACMS system, and the relentless shooting down of Ukrainian Air Force Su-24 strike aircraft and bombing of their bases has reduced the launches of the Anglo-French cruise missiles to almost zero.
Given the fact that Russian jamming has severely reduced the effectiveness of western guidance systems, Ukrainian long-range strikes are likely, as in Donbass and Crimea using US and EU supplied weapons, and with Ukrainian drones against cities as far as Moscow, likely to be in the form of indiscriminate strikes against civilians. Given the destructive power of the ATACMS, particularly the cluster bomb warhead option, this will need an immediate response from Russia.
Such attacks are likely only to be “morale boosters” for the Ukrainian public, and their supporters in the west, with little, if any, effect on the front line, where the Ukrainian position is increasingly catastrophic.
The Russian response, however, is likely to be extremely painful, not only for Ukraine, but for its western backers as well. Putin has made it quite clear in September 2024, that he will consider such attacks as the direct involvement of the US and its NATO allies in the war, and respond accordingly.
“This would in a significant way change the very nature of the conflict. It would mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia, and if this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us”
Thus far, it has exercised significant restraint to minimize civilian casualties, contrasting sharply with the tactics of the “civilized West” in conflicts like Serbia (1999), Iraq, and Libya. Ukraine has exploited this restraint by storing military equipment in densely populated civilian areas.
Russia could abandon these self-imposed limits, escalating the conflict dramatically. This could lead to a substantial increase in Ukrainian casualties, overwhelm UAF air defenses, and further cripple Ukraine’s energy grid.
The Russians could also feel justified in attacking the logistics that support the UAF outside Ukraine. Finally, there is the new Russian nuclear doctrine.
Let us hope it does not come to that, and that cooler heads prevail in the west, but it is not looking good. Staring defeat in the face, Ukraine and its Western backers are looking like they are gambling the future of billions on a roll of the dice.
It really does seem that Biden is more than willing to push the nuclear button on Trump’s inauguration.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
