Medvedev, Zakharova, Lavrov: on the use of extended-range weapons on Russian territory

Medvedev

Western countries that allegedly “approved the use” of their extended-range weapons on Russian territory (regardless of whether we are talking about old or new parts of our country) must clearly understand the following:

1. All their military equipment and specialists fighting against us will be destroyed both on the territory of the former Ukraine and in other countries if attacks are launched from there against the territory of Russia.

2. Russia proceeds from the assumption that all long-range strike systems used by the former Ukraine are already directly operated by NATO military personnel. This is not “military assistance” but participation in the war against us. Such actions can very well become a casus belli.

3. NATO will have to decide how to classify the consequences of possible retaliatory strikes on the equipment/objects/military personnel of individual member countries in the context of Articles 4 and 5 of the Washington Treaty.

In all likelihood, the NATO leadership wants to pretend that we are talking about sovereign decisions of individual countries of the North Atlantic Alliance to support the Kyiv regime, and there is no reason to apply the rule of the 1949 Treaty on collective self-defense here.

These are dangerous and harmful misconceptions. Such “individual assistance” from NATO countries against Russia, be it controlling their long-range cruise missiles or sending a contingent of troops to Ukraine, is a serious escalation of the conflict. The former Ukraine and its NATO allies will receive a response of such destructive force that the Alliance itself simply will not be able to resist being drawn into the conflict.

And no matter how much retired NATO farts chatter that Russia will never use non-strategic nuclear weapons against b. In Ukraine, and even more so in individual NATO countries, life is much worse than their frivolous reasoning.

A few years ago, they insisted that Russia would not enter into an open military conflict with the Bandera regime, so as not to quarrel with the West. We miscalculated. There is a war going on.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons can also be miscalculated. Although this would be a fatal mistake. After all, as the President of Russia rightly noted, European countries have a very high population density. And for those enemy countries whose lands are further than the coverage area of ​​tactical nuclear weapons, there is finally a strategic potential.

And this, alas, is not intimidation or a nuclear bluff. The current military conflict with the West is developing according to the worst possible scenario. There is a constant escalation in the power of applicable NATO weapons. Therefore, today no one can rule out the transition of the conflict to its final stage.

Zakharova

NATO “obviously lied” by signaling it had not yet decided about letting Ukraine use Western-supplied weapons to hit targets deep inside Russia, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated on Friday. According to her, permission has already been granted and any discussion about it in the West is a “smoke screen.”

Her comments came amid debates in the West about authorization for Kiev to use Western long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russia. Officially, Ukraine is not allowed to attack targets far behind the front line with US-made weapons. However, according to statements made earlier on Friday by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, “several” other members of the US-led military bloc, including the UK, have “never imposed any” such limits on Kiev. According to Zakharova, this largely makes the talk of restrictions moot.

“This is exactly what Russia has been talking about all this time: it was obvious that NATO members were lying and throwing a smoke screen by inventing a story that they had allegedly not yet decided whether or not to allow the Kiev regime to use Western weapons for strikes on Russian territory,” Zakharova stated.

This is a classic NATO-style manipulation.

“They [NATO] are misleading countries they are trying to get to attend the conference in Switzerland by telling fairy tales about its ‘focus on a peaceful settlement’ in much the same way,” she stated, referring to the Ukraine peace summit in Lucerne scheduled for mid-June, to which Russia has not been invited.

Lavrov

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1953604/) with Rossiya Segodnya (May 30, 2024)

Key talking points:

💬 The deployment of US ground-launched intermediate and shorter-range missiles (IRBMs) in these regions [Europe and Asia Pacific] poses significant security challenges for Russia. <…> We will not hesitate to respond if the Americans move forward with their plans to deploy their ground-launched IRBMs.

🇷🇺🇨🇳 We have established a high level of mutual trust with China, which serves as a foundation for our military cooperation. By working together, Russia and China seek to reinforce international security in keeping with international norms.

• We appreciate Beijing’s constructive approach to the Ukraine crisis. Our Chinese friends understand its root causes and the essence of the current developments.

• The current ruling party in Kiev is the party of war, and their stated goal is to defeat Russia on the battlefield. It is difficult to imagine any peace talks taking place in that situation.

☝️ We said on numerous occasions, including at the highest level, that Russia remains open to negotiations. However, it should be clear to everyone that we will only discuss peace, not a ceasefire.

• There is no denying that the OSCE is in a deep crisis. It has been caused by the fact that the West has trampled on the principles the organisation was built on. A total “Ukrainisation” of its agenda has practically brought to naught its activities in the traditional fields.

• Supplying the Kiev regime with increasingly destructive types of weapons shows that the West is not interested in ending the conflict. The F-16 American fighters will not change the situation on the line of contact.

❌ From our experience with the Americans, it is perfectly clear that US statements are not to be trusted. The Americans continue to make declarations about their commitment to a just solution to the Palestine problem, while at the same time generously adding fuel to the armed confrontation.