It is not Ukraine firing those longer range missiles on targets inside Russia. These cruise-missiles are owned and operated by NATO-countries. By the US. By the UK. And by France. NATO-countries therefore attacked Russia this past week, declaring war on a nuclear superpower, assuming they could get away with it.
In this game of chicken, Russia subsequently launched a brand new, MIRV-ed hypersonic missile, which struck the industrial zone of Djnepro. As far as we know, NATO doesn't have anything even remotely like that. Nor do they have some kind of missile to intercept that missile once it is launched, or missiles like that with a much longer range. Unless some highly secret system not yet revealed exists, which has not yet been fielded. With France jumping in after that missile struck, it does look like NATO is set to test Russia's resolve with further strikes.
So far, taking it from 2007, when Putin asked his NATO 'friends' to sit down and talk about a diplomatic solution to this problem of NATO expansion, so as to avoid war with Russia, NATO escalated every step of the way to indicate that they were not afraid of war with Russia. That they were actually seeking it. And every step of the way Russia made it clear they were serious, responding in kind, while insisting on a diplomatic solution.
Back in 2007 Russia was still in full possession of its nuclear capability, and therefore they could not be pushed around. But at the conventional level NATO-planners saw possibilities. This assumes that those in power understand that a nuclear exchange will be the end of everything. While they reached the conclusion that Putin wouldn't go nuclear either. Therefore escalating was 'safe'. In fact, some 'Think-Tankers' on our side argue that a 'limited nuclear war' is possible, even with a superpower.
That is the 'Thrill Ride' we're in right now. Who will go nuclear first, and will it be sufficient to stop Nuclear Armageddon? Who blinks first?
Those involved in decision making within NATO are motivated in various ways. I, and others, tend to bring them in under one header, and call them 'neocons', or 'Warparty', but they are actually a very diverse lot. We've got this 'War Hawk' Lindsey Graham who is in love with war, while identifying Ukraine as a valuable asset because of all the 'Rare Earth Minerals' and the country being the 'Bread Basket' of the world. Trillions of Dollars worth of stuff 'Wallstreet' and the 'City' can grab, at the cost to the taxpayer of turning the country into a testing ground for obsolete weapons and new ones. Cheering for this war in Ukraine from before the Victoria Nuland regime change operation, he has been candid about his objectives to let the Ukrainians die fighting the Russians, saving American lives. Very much in line with how the US used Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to sink the Soviet Union. And he won't shed a tear if Europe is destroyed as well if shit comes to shove. It may not have been in the original plan, but who cares.
Trump may well be like that. If targets in Europe are visited by non-nuclear Oreshnik missiles in retaliation as Europe pushes to prolong the war with Russia they rushed head-first into, who cares? All of this assuming the Russians will do their utmost to avoid a nuclear Armageddon, while not shying from going to war with the European nations which now declared war on it. And no, 'Article 5' does not apply if a NATO country attacks first. Leaving Trump plenty of leeway to stay out of the fight, while 'Making America Great Again', as Europe destroys itself.
Yesterday I saw a video of a meeting between Biden and Starmer, where Biden praised the UK for being in the lead on 'Project Ukraine'. This may sound weird to those who focussed on the US and Biden as the driving forces behind it, even remembering how Victoria Nuland, working directly under Biden, operated in Ukraine back in 2014 during the regime change operation which kicked of the conflict with Russia in earnest. Not to mention the role Biden and his son Hunter played in that country after the coup. With Nuland telling her ambassador 'F.ck the EU', as both Germany and France objected to that undemocratic 'solution' to turn Ukraine into a proxy. At the time the UK was still an EU-memberstate, remember?
There cannot be any misunderstanding about the role Boris Johnson, prime minister by the time things grew more tense, played in attempts to provoke Russia into a war. British and Dutch warships desperately tried to trigger World War III by sailing through declared Russian territorial waters around Crimea. And by the time Russia launched this 'Special Military Operation' to force Zelensky's hand, the same Johnson convinced Zelensky to throw his country under the bus, and martyr the population. I've described, over and over, with solid references, where this British desire to return to these days of the 'Empire' they lost during the Second World War originated, as they gambled on Hitler to conquer Russia for them, and lost. This is a different argument than the one Lindsey Graham, and 'neocons' like him, are motivated by. In fact, it relies on using the US to carry the heavy load. If Trump does what I expect him to do, that would be the second time the British bet on the wrong horse. And this 'compliment' offered to Starmer is likely the prelude, or so it seems. Played like a fiddle, while thinking they were gaming others.
Others, unaware of the economic angle, and in denial about this British desire to reestablish their 'Empire' spanning the globe, with their 'Royals' in the driver's seat, are motivated by blind hatred towards everything 'Russia'. Either because they were conditioned that way during their upbringing, hardly noticing that the Soviet Union evaporated, or because they came of age in a country occupied by the Soviets, looking for revenge on the people, who were victims themselves. Or 'just because'. Racial prejudice.
Yet another group of contestants eager to poke the bear, are the 'adventurous' types. The 'mercenaries' seeking their shot of adrenaline and to 'prove themselves in battle', bored by those silly video-games, or the stupid exercises on the training ground. Among those at least a couple of NATO-staff officers who were in charge of military units providing support and advice to Ukraine as it went to war with its own civilians in 2014, and got their asses whipped at Debaltseve by a bunch of rag-tag nationalists hostile to a NATO-take-over of their country.
Some of those desires and needs I identify above cannot be addressed and solved through diplomacy, and how these driving forces behind this war on our side respond to this recent demonstration of this Oreshnik missile system will be different too.
The people do not get to vote on war or not. They never do. Not even those in Ukraine. They can drop dead, because those with invested interests in war with Russia don't care about them. This war is consuming them. Even if they would have rejected the plan proposed by the Rand Corporation, to use Ukraine to overextend and unbalance Russia through throwing Ukraine under the bus, if they would have understood what it meant, they are committed today. Meaning they do not work out what throwing Europe under the bus as well might accomplish. They stopped thinking years ago. They are all ideologues now. This is sick, but far from uncommon in wartime, obviously. This poison-pill has to be taken, and swallowed bravely.
As with most wars, they stop when the economy cannot carry the heavy load, or when the military are left fighting with their bear knuckles, crying as they realise what they've been part of, going into denial first, and subsequently all the other stages of serious loss, death and destruction. Because NATO wanted to have Ukraine for itself. O, really……..? Yes, really. Isn't it astonishing?