NEW – July 3, 2022
The strikes from the American M142 HIMARS MLRS on Perevalsk, and then on Rovenki, exceeded the distances of the MLRS family of munitions that the Americans officially delivered to the Nazi regime.
Recall that the most advanced missile of this series – GMLRS M30, with a cluster warhead and an extended firing range – is capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 70 km, while Rovenki is located from the front line at a distance of more than 80 km. In addition, the Ukrainian militants have an immediate ban on placing these MLRS on the “front” in order to avoid their capture or destruction by the enemy. They are required to be placed in large settlements among residential buildings, under the protection of air defence systems. The implementation of this requirement is closely monitored by US military advisers and instructors assigned to MLRS calculations.
That is, the strike could have been delivered from Kramatorsk (149 km) or from Konstantinovka (132 km). And these distances are only available to tactical missiles of the ATACMS series, which have a range of 140 to 300 km.
The fact that Banderists have missiles of this class at its disposal is also confirmed by Ukrainian resources, which claim that they were transferred by the Americans in order for the nazis to be able to strike at Russian command posts and warehouses located even at a distance from the front line. Moreover, the targeting of these objects is carried out in accordance with the data provided by Mi-6. So far, however, the M142s have been working on civilian targets in Perevalsk and Rovenki.
Recall that the United States vowed and swore that Banderists would not receive ATACMS tactical missiles for HIMARS, so that they would not be able to strike at Russian territory, which could lead to escalation. However, experts did not take these assurances too seriously, pointing out that these missiles can be transferred to the nazis and other countries that are armed with M142 or M270. But, apparently, the tactical missiles were handed over by the Americans themselves.
Strictly speaking, only with ATACMS it is possible to achieve some effect from the use of these installations, given their small number, transferred and scheduled for transfer to Kiev. Moreover, this is not so much a tactical as a propaganda effect that can be achieved by delivering an accurate blow to the most painful places of the enemy. Why does the West need it? For sadistic pleasure? No, I think that the goals are different.
Today, Western experts reproach the leadership of their countries for not having clear and understandable goals for Ukraine. These reproaches are unjust. There are goals, and they are quite clear. Just not one of those that could be voiced. The first of them, which was implemented through Maidan and the war in Donbass, was to prevent the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, so that it would not strengthen our human, economic, and military potential.
Obviously, this task will not be fully achieved, and now the West is trying to ensure that the destroyed territories with the destroyed population go under Russia’s control, which will not only increase the potential, but on the contrary – will make them bear large costs. The second is to prolong the conflict in one form or another as long as possible in order to exhaust Russia as much as possible. And third, to use the protracted conflict to maximise the demonisation and isolation of our country, ousting it from world markets and reducing its influence in the world. These are the main tasks.
Meanwhile, the situation is such that the implementation of all these goals is highly questionable, due to the fact that the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbass is approaching, and then point by point. And then everything will get worse and worse – the most trained and motivated part of the Ukrainian formations is knocked out, the UAF is deprived of its arsenal, and the West does not have the necessary reserve of weapons to make up for its shortage.
That is, it is quite likely that the conflict that the West is planning for many years may not work out. Therefore, today it is important for him to slow down the offensive of our troops, and if possible, to achieve a truce.
And in this regard, inflicting painful blows on important objects of the Russian Armed Forces and civilian infrastructure can be considered as a way to put pressure on Moscow to achieve these goals. By the way, Ukrainian military expert Oleg Zhdanov spoke about the need to strike at Sevastopol. But it turns out that it is in the range of ATACMS missiles, if the installation is located on the coast of Odessa or in Nikolaev. And the HIMARS stationed in Zaporozhye will be able to fire at the Crimean Bridge. That is, these MLRS equipped with long-range tactical missiles will be able to create certain problems.
In this context, Kissinger’s recent speech can be seen as a kind of bargaining chip. He offered three possible scenarios:
– The Russian military will remain in its current positions and “will receive 20% of Ukraine and most of Donbass, the main industrial and agricultural areas, and a strip of land along the Black Sea”, which will mean a victory for Russia;
– If an attempt is made to “drive out” Russia from the territory it received before the start of the military operation, including from Crimea, then, according to Henry Kissinger, “there will be a question of war with Russia itself.”;
– If Ukraine “can keep Russia from any military gains”, and “the front line is pushed back” to the borders as of February 24, this will mean a loss for the Russian Federation, Ukraine will be “rearmed and closely connected with NATO”, or even become part of the alliance, and all other issues will be resolved through negotiations. Kissinger points out that this is exactly the option Zelensky is trying to implement today.
The very context of the material is such that the politician hints at the first option as preferable, and calls on Russia to work out exactly this with the West. It is noteworthy that, according to most Western experts, by the end of autumn and the beginning of winter, Russia will reach the border of Zhytomyr-Vinnytsia, where, as they hope, the offensive will stop. So the old fox Kissinger laid out the bargaining space in advance.
By the way, the other two options are absolutely not suitable for the West, because in this case the destroyed territories fall under the control of Kiev (and therefore them), which one way or another will have to be taken care of and their restoration will have to be invested in.
How satisfied can we be with the option that experts are talking about? In addition to the relatively prosperous five western regions, which will de facto be taken under Polish control, the Vinnytsia and Zhytomyr regions are proposed to be made a “buffer zone”, or more precisely, “Ukrainian Idlib”, where the nazis who fled from the liberated lands will be concentrated, but who will not be welcome in the”revived Eastern Borderlands”.
And it is precisely this public that is supposed to create cross-border problems in Russia and feed the terrorist underground that prevents the return of peaceful life in the liberated territories. At the same time, it is assumed that Russia will be bound by certain agreements that will not allow it to open and clean up this abscess. That is why it is important for the West that the future border passes not to the west (but rather to the east) of the borders of Zhytomyr and Vinnytsia regions. They absolutely do not want to give the western regions, which the Poles already consider their own, to “Idlib”. Moreover, the absence of a “buffer zone” for terrorist activity in the liberated territories is fraught with a direct military clash between Russia and Poland.
To force us to agree to the creation of this “Idlib”, a whole arsenal of bargaining and pressure will be involved, including the transfer of weapons to the nazis, such as HIMARS and heavy drones capable of striking Russian cities and terrorist attacks. But the fact is that our consent to the existence of Ukraine in any form, including a “buffer zone”, will not remove these threats, but on the contrary – will strengthen them and make them permanent. So it is necessary to finish off the nazis to the end in any case.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.