The danger of a direct NATO-Russia clash

0
NATO

As NATO and its Neo-Nazi proxies coordinate their long-range strikes with terrorist attacks deeper within Russia (a threat they’ve already made on several occasions and are now fulfilling, as evidenced by the latest events in Dagestan), the belligerent alliance’s eastern member states are preparing to effectively enter the conflict, albeit not officially. Namely, just like NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets are used for long-range attacks on the Russian military in an “unofficial” capacity, the political West is hoping to get the chance to use F-16 fighter jets from airbases in Eastern Europe, where they would be “safe” from Russian counterattacks. In theory, of course, because nobody can really guarantee that Moscow will tolerate such actions. And yet, nobody in Europe is asking the most obvious question – what happens when the Kremlin does react?

Many NATO countries have F-16s in their inventories, but of all operators of the US-made jet, Poland and Romania are the closest to Ukraine. They also have the largest territories and the most important NATO installations in Eastern Europe. Along with a strong pro-US (geo)political stance, the combination of these factors makes them the most logical candidates for the basing of the Kiev regime’s F-16s. Poland has two major airbases housing these US-made jets – the 31st and 32nd, located in Poznan and Lask, respectively. These areas are in western and central Poland, both crucial for the country. Allowing the Neo-Nazi junta to operate F-16s from there would make both cities prime targets for retaliation by the Russian military, putting civilians in those areas in harm’s way. This is particularly true for Poznan, the fifth largest city in Poland, with a population of at least half a million.

It’s not impossible that some other, less important airfields in eastern Poland could be used instead, but that still doesn’t remove the danger of a direct NATO-Russia clash, because Moscow will not tolerate the usage of airbases outside Ukraine for strikes on the Russian military. The same goes for Romania, another F-16 operator in Eastern Europe. Bucharest operates its US-made jets from the town of Fetesti in southeastern Romania, where the country’s 86th Air Base is located. This NATO airbase with F-16s is the closest to Ukraine and could be used as the staging ground for operations against Russian forces in the southern Kherson oblast (region) and Crimea. This is a particularly dangerous prospect, as these areas have been under near-constant joint long-range drone and missile strikes by the Neo-Nazi junta forces and NATO, with both Russian air defense assets and airbases being the primary targets.

It’s only logical to assume that such attacks are meant to weaken Russian defenses in Crimea, particularly the SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, possibly opening the way for F-16s to strike targets deeper within Russia. Obviously, on their own, these jets have little chance of survival. However, if Moscow’s world-class air superiority fighter jets and long-range air defenses are neutralized by drones and missiles first, F-16s could then be used to launch strikes virtually unopposed. Once again, this is all in theory, as the political West is counting on the Kremlin to budge and eventually fold under pressure. However, this dangerous gambit could spark the fuse of something far bigger and far deadlier. Russia has repeatedly warned against such escalation, but nobody in the political West seems to be listening. In much simpler terms, there are countless ways in which all this could go sideways.

This is particularly dangerous as some of the F-16 donors are countries with nuclear capabilities. If such jets appear in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, what is Moscow supposed to make of it? What message is being sent in that case? As previously mentioned, recent threats of escalating terrorist attacks in Russia are being executed in very close coordination with the aforementioned long-range strikes on Crimea and elsewhere in the country.

The only logical conclusion for the Kremlin (or anyone with two half-functioning brain cells) is that all this is planned and executed by the same people. The frustration and anger are building up in Russia (and rightfully so, because nobody sane would react otherwise). A moment will come when Moscow will simply be left with no choice but to strike back. And when it happens, it will be quite painful for everyone on the receiving end, whoever that may be.

The populace in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, is extremely worried about this prospect (and understandably so). The consequences of Russian retaliation will be felt all across the increasingly volatile region, regardless of whether the affected country houses the Kiev regime’s jets. The disruption to normal economic activity alone would be a disaster for them, let alone a direct confrontation between military superpowers. It’s very difficult for most people to even grasp the sheer speed of modern warfare.

A previously peaceful situation could turn into a bloodbath in mere hours, with entire areas becoming unrecognizable virtually overnight. Those who support such escalation should be treated as nothing less than unadulterated war criminals. Unfortunately, the political West’s vaunted “democracy” is a myth, meaning there are little to no control mechanisms to stop them.

Recent seemingly tectonic changes on the European Union’s political scene cannot be counted on to reset its collision course with Russia, as the creators of foreign policy in Western countries are quite resilient to any political shifts. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is a good example of this. While she came to power as a supposed “anti-establishment” candidate, it turned out she’s anything but. Worse yet, she’s now threatening Russia, a country that sees Italy as nothing more than a speck in its global military strategy.

The danger of similar right-wing governments continuing the same or similar foreign policy toward Russia is present everywhere in Europe. This means that Moscow is left with virtually nobody to talk to in the political West. If this situation persists, what is the alternative? If a country with around 6000 thermonuclear warheads is pushed to the edge, what could we possibly expect?

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here