The aim was to provoke Moscow in order to demand more help from the West, but the consequences may be disastrous for the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. Writes Lucas Leiroz
Kiev has crossed a new red line in the conflict. On March 2, Ukrainian terrorists invaded the non-militarized territory of the Russian Federation, killing and hurting civilians in Bryansk oblast – region outside the combat zone. According to analysts, the aim is to provoke Moscow to encourage a new escalation in the conflict. Kremlin’s officials established new red lines for NATO after the event.
The attack took place in the morning, when Ukrainian saboteurs crossed the border and fired on civilians in Bryansk, killing at least one person and seriously injuring a 10-year-old girl. Because it is a demilitarized zone and far from the battlefield, the civilian population was vulnerable to the action of the neo-Nazis, therefore it was a real moment of terror for the locals. Videos were recorded by the terrorists and posted on social media. Due to the videos, some of the Kiev agents involved in the operation have already been identified.
The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin called the invasion a “terrorist attack” and compared the case with previous events, such as the genocide in Donbass and the murder of Daria Dugina, daughter of Russian famous patriotic philosopher Alexander Dugin. He also praised the role of the Russian Army in countering the Ukrainian threat: “Now the soldiers and officers of the Russian army are protecting Russia and our people from neo-Nazis and terrorists, who tortured and killed people in the Donbas for 8 years, who killed Daria Dugina in Moscow, who committed another crime today”.
For the retired US Marine and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the attack was an attempt to spread terror among the Russian population to encourage Moscow to react. With that, there could be a military escalation which would be the real Ukrainian objective.
“It’s clear there were no military objectives. This was a deliberately provocative attack, and it was an attack that was designed to anger Russia by intent. You don’t target women, children, you don’t target a civilian, a village, unless your goal is to anger Russia and provoke Russia into perhaps overreacting. I think that’s the objective. It’s the only thing that can explain it other than simply stating that the people involved are the criminal elements with zero redeeming qualities, purely animalistic. And I’m not going down that route” he said.
Ritter further emphasized that by provoking an escalation by Russia, Kiev would find a justification for asking the West for more weapons. Given the lack of public justification for continuing to help the Ukrainian regime, a strong Russian reaction to the Bryansk provocation could serve the interests of both Kiev and Western pro-war elites.
“What I believe is that these people were selected to do a mission that was designed to provoke Russia into an overreaction that could then be used by the Zelensky government as justification for requesting even more military assistance (…) Zelensky would say ‘this war has expanded and I now need the West to step up and deliver more equipment, F-16 fighters,’ things of that nature, because right now Zelensky has hit a brick wall. He’s not getting what he believes he needs to survive. And if he doesn’t get this, he will be facing the inevitability of the strategic defeat of Ukraine. And so I think you’re going to see more and more acts of desperation like this in an effort to push Russia into overreacting so that Zelensky could use a Russian overreaction as justification for demanding even more assistance from the West”, Ritter added.
In fact, the inspector’s opinion seems very substantiated and accurate. Kiev has already shown at other moments during the course of the conflict that it is capable of anything to achieve its bellicose objectives. It would not be unexpected that the Zelensky regime would order direct attacks on civilians in Russia, betting on a response that could “justify” his behavior as a “beggar” towards the West. However, the Ukrainian plan is unlikely to succeed.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reacted to the case by imposing a new red line to the West. According to him, if from now on NATO, in addition to sending arms to the regime, continues to train Ukrainian soldiers, this will be considered a direct entry into the conflict, thus generating a situation of open war with Russia.
““(…) if, in addition to supplying weapons, they (NATO countries) train personnel to operate them, (…) that would be direct entry of the Atlanticists into war against Russia, with all the consequences that entails”, he said.
Indeed, the situation now seems more serious than ever. Moscow had the protection of its demilitarized territory as a red line, and the Western-backed neo-Nazi regime violated it. Now a new limit has been created: the West can no longer train Ukrainian troops to use the weapons it provides.
In other words, a new margin of tolerance was given to the West. As for Ukraine, however, the response measures are still unclear. There are a number of possibilities to be analyzed. Russia can significantly increase its combat power. There are politicians considering a declaration of war. Some analysts predict that there will be a change in status of the conflict from “special military operation” to “counter-terrorist operation”. Others believe that a larger, perhaps, total mobilization will take place.
There is no consensus on what will actually happen to Ukraine, but one thing is certain: retaliation will be strong. And it will probably be big enough to prevent Kiev’s plans from coming to fruition.
