Putin Isn’t Bluffing. Here’s How I Know.
The Russian President has followed through on every threat he has made so far.
Many in the West are pushing for the United States to give the “green light” for Ukraine to use Western technology and Western weapons to strike at targets deep in Russian territory.
This is a dangerous proposition, and one which, if realised, could very easily lead to a nuclear World War.
The false narrative of Putin’s “redlines”
The warmongering psychopaths pushing to let Ukraine attack deep inside Russia usually base their arguments on a made-up “fact” that the West has already overstepped several of Putin’s “redlines” and nothing has happened.
This is a dangerously false argument. The so-called “redlines” cited were never Russian ones, but rather self-imposed limits set by the Western powers themselves.
Crying wolf: Biden’s fear mongering about WWIII
Almost immediately after the Russians launched their “Special Military Operation”, the Biden Administration started fear mongering about WWIII. President Joe Biden himself constantly invoked the spectre of “nuclear Armageddon” and claimed repeatedly that the world was the closest it had been to nuclear war since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
By October 2022, Biden’s warnings about nuclear world war were even part of his standard fundraising speech:
Biden veered into talk about Ukraine at the end of his standard fundraising remarks, saying that Putin was “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons…”
Biden’s fear-mongering was no doubt just a lame attempt to compare himself favourably to John F. Kennedy, but the months and months of rhetoric about the “madman Putin” resorting to nukes left everyone on edge — and enticed everyone to start using their imagination as to what single step would be the one to trigger Putin to launch his nukes.
Nuclear fears were based on false propaganda
The narrative put forth by Biden and others was that Putin was on a hair-trigger because he was losing the war. Major news outlets from Foreign Affairs to the BBC all spent most of 2022 and much of 2023 crowing about the impending collapse of Russia in Ukraine.
This remarkably delusional train of thought was based on Ukrainian and Western propaganda during the fall of 2022 that Ukraine had the Russians “on the run” and were winning large swathes of territory, such as in Kharkiv and Kherson, while Putin’s forces were running away in chaos.
I wrote about the collective West’s self-delusion in my July 8, 2023 article, “How the West Descended Into Idiocy”
Indeed, by September 2022, Western news outlets even boasted of a “turning point” in the war, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken crowed to CNN that the Ukrainians had “already taken back about 50% of what was initially seized”.
These reports sought to portray the Ukrainians as defeating Russia on the battlefield, when in reality the Russians had merely made a strategic withdrawal in order to fortify their positions and “hunker down” for the coming winter, a time they used to build up their forces for a fight they never wanted in the first place.
What the Western media was characterising as “recapturing” and “taking back” was actually just a case of the Ukrainians marching into deserted areas that the Russians had vacated days earlier.
Nonetheless, by October, Biden was underscoring his warnings of nuclear danger with assertions that Putin was in a desperate situation:
“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he added. He suggested the threat from Putin is real “because his military is — you might say — significantly underperforming.”
Biden sets a redline
In March of 2022, Joe Biden made a dour comment to the Washington press corps. Speaking at a White House press conference, the President leaned into the microphone and said in hushed tones:
“But, look, the idea — the idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand — and don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say — that’s called World War Three. Okay?”
This quote was widely publicised at the time, and served as a sort of foundation for Biden’s continued fear mongering all throughout the rest of the year. The White House narrative was that Putin had “redlines” which Biden had to masterfully negotiate in order to avoid a nuclear catastrophe.
It was all poppycock.
Imaginary redline 1: Modern Western tanks
Many of the pro-Ukraine warmongers assert that Western countries delivering their modern tanks to supplant Ukraine’s Soviet-era T-72s was a “Putin redline”.
But this was never the case.
As mentioned above, the idea that tanks could ever be a trigger for WWIII first came from Biden — not Putin.
But the real “redline” about tanks was set by Olaf Scholz and Germany, who refused to provide German Leopard tanks for “fear of provoking Vladimir Putin”:
“The German leader has repeatedly voiced concern over his country being perceived as escalating the conflict and provoking Putin, who has hinted he could resort to nuclear weapons. Recent polls suggest a majority of Germans are opposed to supplying Ukraine with Leopard 2 tanks.”
The reasons were obvious: seeing German tanks once more rolling eastward across the Ukrainian Steppe could be … well, “triggering” for a country that still celebrates its WWII victory every year by remembering the 27 million people who died fighting the Germans in what they still call “The Great Patriotic War”.
But Putin himself never made any mention of Western tanks being a redline. And his “hinting” at using nuclear weapons was nothing more than Putin reminding the West that Russia is a nuclear power.
“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction … and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin said. “It’s not a bluff.”
Eventually, Germany did agree to allow Leopards to be sent to Ukraine, and the United States followed suit with a brigade of 31 M1 Abrams tanks, and the United Kingdom sent a squad of 14 of its Challenger 2 tanks.
Putin responded sourly as he laid a wreath to commemorate the Battle of Stalingrad in World War Two:
“It’s unbelievable but true,” he said. “We are again being threatened by German Leopard tanks.”
Russia: NATO tanks will “burn like all the rest”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was more laconic — and ironic. He brushed off the importance of the Western tanks, telling reporters.
“Technologically, this is a failed plan. This is an overestimation of the potential that this will add to the Ukrainian army. These tanks burn like all the rest. They are just very expensive.”
In other words: Western tanks were NEVER a “redline” for Moscow; that was just an idea that the West invented.
Imaginary redline 2: Advanced fighter jets
In January 2023, Joe Biden told reporters that, although he did approve sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, he would not be sending F-16’s. Reporters and others naturally linked Biden’s refusal to his “World War Three” remarks a year earlier.
In other words, Biden set himself another self-imposed “imaginary” redline.
Then, in May, 2023, Biden reversed himself, and gave European NATO allies such as the Netherlands and Norway permission to send their F-16s to Ukraine.
Putin, however reacted calmly and matter-of-factly:
“We will destroy the aircraft just as we destroy today tanks, armoured vehicles and other equipment, including multiple rocket launchers.”
This was because F-16s had never been a redline for Russia.
Then came a REAL redline
First of all, any discussion of Russian “redlines” has to start with the famous memo that then- US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns sent to President George W. Bush in January 2008.
NATO in Ukraine: “the brightest of all redlines”
Burns, who is now Director of the CIA, sent a secure cable back to Washington, in which he outlined the seriousness of the Russian objections to NATO expansion, and specifically any NATO presence in Ukraine.
The subject line of the memo was: “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES”.
In it, Ambassador Burns warned the Bush Administration:
“Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine’s intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat.
Burns went on to specifically address Ukraine:
In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”
Burns wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”
Burns was right. What he had warned of is exactly what happened in the aftermath of the US-backed Maidan Coup in 2014, which saw a hand-picked pro-NATO, pro-Western government installed in Kiev. The resulting civil war led eventually to Russia’s incursion into Ukraine.
The REAL Redline: NATO missiles used against Russia
Putin has now delineated another REAL redline: use of long-range, high tech US or Western weapons to strike into the heart of Russia.
On September 12, 2024, Putin told Russian reporters his stance regarding the use of such weapons. He explained in very clear terms that using Western high tech weapons would change the entire nature of the conflict, putting NATO and Russia at war with each other:
“[Ukraine] is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story”.
Putin went on to explain that US or Western military personnel would need to operate these weapons:
“The fact is that…the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West…This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or U.S. satellites — in general, NATO satellites… only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.”
Using these weapons would mean that NATO countries “would become directly involved in the military conflict in Ukraine”, Putin said.
“This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”
Putin’s warning was echoed by the Russian Federation’s representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya. NATO countries will start a “direct war with the Russian Federation” if they give Kiev the go-ahead to use long-range weapons, he said.
The headline in Russia’s Kommersant newspaper the next day: “Vladimir Putin draws his red line.”
A new “nuclear doctrine”
What people do not realise about the Russians, is that they arevery correct. Putin especially, is very dedicated to following the law. That is why he updated the country’s nuclear doctrine to support what he has stated publicly, as well as serve as a warning to the West of his seriousness.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, summarised the new doctrine as follows:
1) Aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear State, but with the support or participation of a nuclear-armed country, will be considered a joint attack. It is clear to everyone which countries we are talking about.
2) To the joy of Poland and numerous NATO pygmies, equivalent nuclear protection will be established for our closest ally, Belarus.
3) Under certain conditions, a massive launch of enemy air power, including airplanes, missiles, and UAVs, resulting in a violation of our border may be justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Something to reflect upon for not only the rotten neo-Nazi regime, but also all the enemies of Russia who are pushing the world towards a nuclear catastrophe.
Medvedev concluded:
“…this change in our country’s guidelines for using nuclear weapons, in and of itself, may cool the ardor of those of our opponents who have not yet lost their sense of self-preservation.”
He was obviously trying to be optimistic.
What this means
Putin is not bluffing. Knowing that these Western weapons can only be operated by NATO techs, using NATO data and NATO satellite info for guidance and targeting, means — obviously — that Russia will be at war with NATO — and not just on a proxy basis.
One must remember that Putin and the Russian government have been portraying the conflict in Ukraine to the Russian people as a “hybrid war” with NATO and the West. This is why their volunteer enlistment rates are so high (40,000+ per month).
So the Russians are already on a war footing, and have been since 2022. They are serious.
Unfortunately, not all NATO allies have retained what Medvedev sardonically called their “sense of self-preservation”.
The Neocons persist
On September 11, 2024, one day before Putin made his declaration of intent, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Minister David Lammy. At a press conference, both officials hinted strongly that Ukraine would be given the “green light” to strike deep inside Russia using US ATACM and UK Storm Shadow missiles.
In fact, the UK government was fervently in favour of giving Ukraine permission to strike Russia, but the US administration was split. While warmongering neocons such as Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan were in favour of the escalation, the Defense Department and CIA were opposed.
For the moment, it seems that cooler heads have prevailed — at least in the United States. But that may not last long …
A full court press from the bloodthirsty British
The United Kingdom was especially eager to push for escalation. On September 13, 2024, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer flew personally to Washington to press the case for giving Ukraine the go ahead. Claiming that Putin was just bluffing, Starmer arrived at the White House with a list of prepared targets in hand.
Meanwhile, ex-PM Boris Johnson was “piling on” the pressure, telling reporters:
Ukraine should be able to use the weapons, including Storm Shadow missiles, “as fast as possible against targets in Russia itself,” he said. “Every day that goes by means more pointless and tragic loss of Ukrainian lives”.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy epitomised the neocon insanity when he insisted that the West would not be “bullied by Putin’s threats”. He recently told Sky News:
“Putin said ‘don’t send tanks’. We sent them. Putin said ‘don’t send any missiles’. We sent them.Putin threatens every few months to use nuclear weapons.”
Such statements are not just puerile and stupid; they are completely UNTRUE.
Unfortunately for the Brits, the Storm Shadow missiles are used alongside classified US systems, meaning they require permission from Washington. And on Friday the 13th, it seemed like Joe Biden was inclined to give such permission.
How close we came to WWIII
In a surprising, last minute reversal, a visibly angry Joe Biden said that the US would not sanction the use of long range missiles to hit targets inside Russia. Despite pleadings from the UK Prime Minister, the US position on such strikes would not change.
The day was saved, apparently, through a direct intervention by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who succeeded in convincing Biden of the seriousness of Putin’s threat. The announcement of the “green light” to start WWIII never came.
Warmongers continue to apply pressure
Unfortunately, the people who are willing to risk a nuclear world war in Europe are not giving up. The British, for example, continue to call for the missile strikes. In fact, a bloodthirsty cabal led by Boris Johnson and including five former UK defence secretaries continue to bay for blood:
“The former prime minister, as well as Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox, said Kyiv should be allowed to use the long-range missiles against Vladimir Putin — even without the backing of Joe Biden and the US.”
Ben Wallace, as unhinged as ever, told The Independent:
“Britain is in danger of falling behind into the pack of ditherers, appeasers and delayers, when the only real way to stand up to a bully such as Putin is to be strong, united and determined to see it through.”
Even a group of Democratic US Senators have written a letter to Biden, demanding that he give Ukraine permission to strike deep within Russia.
But the real threat may lie in America’s European NATO allies.
NATO allies are suicidal
In my article, “NATO is a Farce, Part 6: Europe’s New Militarism”, I explain how for the EU, making peace with Putin is a “non-starter’. This is because the war in Ukraine has been an absolute catastrophe for the European Union. The loss of Nord Stream and the anti-Russian sanctions that backfired have led to the de-industrialisation of the bloc, the immiseration of its people, and the demilitarisation of its armed forces.
While the Russian economy booms, the European economy is sliding into recession, if not depression. Meanwhile, the European manufacturing base is moving to the United States, while impoverished Europeans have to pay 4 to 7 times more for energy in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG) rather than the abundant, cheap Russian pipeline gas they used to have.
The Europeans, in short, are looking for someone to blame for all their troubles, and Russia is the perfect scapegoat. Forget the fact that America is the one that has destroyed their economies, with its sanctions regime and Nord Stream shenanigans. It’s Putin who must bear the blame for their self-imposed misery.
And they want payback.
Europe will “go it alone”
Biden and now Harris make the argument that Putin must be stopped, because he will not stop with Ukraine, but will roll across Europe, etc. etc. But for Americans, literally oceans away, such threats seem hypothetical. For Europeans, it is much more immediate and real.
According to a RAND Corporation report, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley first briefed President Joe Biden on Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine in October 2021.
Milley, according to RAND, kept a list of “U.S. interests and strategic objectives” in the crisis: Number 1 was “Don’t have a kinetic conflict between the US military and NATO with Russia.” The second, closely related, was “contain war inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine”.
Although the US has invested billions in the war, and has repeatedly crossed its own red lines in terms of the weapons systems it supplies to Kiev, the Americans remain committed to following Milley’s two primary objectives.
But increasingly it appears that the US objectives of “containing” the conflict are simply not acceptable to the European war-hawks.
For European leaders, Russia poses an existential threat that must be soundly defeated, and Ukraine is a sacred bastion of democracy that must be saved “at all costs”, while Putin is an imperialistic megalomaniac who represents the reincarnation of both Hitler and Stalin combined.
When diplomacy dies
Kaja Kallas, the new “top diplomat” for the EU, refuses to talk with Putin, and indeed is wanted for crimes in Russia because of her destruction of Russian soldiers’ monuments from WWII. Her Russophobia knows no bounds.
The fact that the EU would choose a head of foreign policy who literally cannot travel to Russia demonstrates how far gone the Europeans are.
In short, for Europeans like Kallas, Von der Leyen, Borrell, Baerbock and Macron, the line has been drawn: Ukraine cannot be allowed to lose, and Putin cannot be allowed to “get away with it”.
Increasingly, Europe is willing to go it alone, without US approval or support. This may even extend to long range guided missiles, or it could involve direct participation of European troops in the fight. Indeed, several EU countries have now expanded or re-introduced compulsive military service in preparation for a wider war.
Wither World War Three?
As I have described above, it would seem that for now, the world has dodged a nuclear bullet regarding the use of NATO weapons systems to attack Russia directly.
But we are not out of the woods yet.
The Europeans, spearheaded by the endlessly Russophobic and bellicose British, will continue to try to provoke Putin into a wider conflict, because they simply cannot bear to see him win.
Should Donald Trump win the Presidency, he has promised to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours”. While such a goal is not practical, Trump will no doubt seek to broker a deal that will give Russia territory it has won on the battlefield.
Whether the Europeans will accept this, and whether NATO itself can even survive a second Trump Presidency, remain to be seen. Equally uncertain, however is whether the nuclear Armageddon predicted by Joe Biden in 2022 will yet come to pass.
#End
If you liked this post, please consider leaving me a tip! Donations support my independent, ad-free writing.
============================================================================
Another excellent article. A small beacon of truth in a landscape of darkness.