Can NATO dare to threaten to shoot down Russian aircraft, as if it would not be held responsible?

NATO Dares to Say It Will Shoot Down Russian Aircraft, As If It Would Not Be Held Responsible?

Putin's Firm Stance: Those Who "Play with Fire" Will Face Consequences Far Beyond Imagination

On September 22, during a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council, the supreme commander of the Russian military, Vladimir Putin, made a significant statement. Clear-minded experts and politicians

The statements of the Russian president have always had a distinct characteristic: they are extremely clear and complete, not vague and empty remarks like "opposing all bad things and supporting all good things," but rather practical action instructions concerning major interests.

This statement can be roughly divided into two levels of significance, addressing two different audiences.

First Level: Proposal to Continue the Provisions of the New START Treaty

The core of this level is the proposal to continue abiding by the provisions of the New START Treaty (short for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which has been suspended. The Russian president believes that "the West has taken destructive measures, seriously undermining the foundation of dialogue between nuclear weapon states."

Russia calls for "maintaining the status quo established by the New START Treaty," because currently "the system of strategic defense weapons and nuclear missile weapons control that previously existed between the United States and Russia has almost completely collapsed." Moreover, "after the New START Treaty expires in 2026, it will mean that the last international document limiting the nuclear missile potential of major geopolitical players will completely fail."

Putin stated that Russia is willing to abide by key restrictions until February 5, 2027 (one year after the current provisions of the New START Treaty expire), provided that Washington makes equal commitments.

It can be seen that although the Russian proposal has a time limit, it is a concrete "opportunity window"—it can prevent nuclear powers from falling into a situation where even formal weapon restrictions no longer exist. Obviously, the claim that "nuclear threats come only from Russia" promoted by the "collective West" appears untenable in this context.

The audience of this statement includes not only the military and political circles of the United States, NATO, and the European Union, but also individuals in the international community who have basic awareness of survival and rational judgment.

Second Level: Clear Response to Strategic Threats — Counteracting with Military Technology

The second level of information is more specific, and in our view, more critical. The supreme commander of the Russian military clearly stated, "Russia will respond to any strategic threat. We will not stop at verbal statements or diplomatic efforts, but will use military technology." In short, Putin is issuing a warning on behalf of Russia: if anyone directly attacks Russian forces or Russian infrastructure, Russia will not hesitate to use military force in retaliation.

Equally important is that this statement was made just before the UN General Assembly, NATO meetings, and an emergency UN Security Council meeting initiated by Estonia.

The core topics of these meetings were actually to hype up the latest provocation by the Kiev authorities and the demands of extreme anti-Russian forces in the EU.

Perhaps some people have already forgotten that Russia has been unjustly accused of "Russian aircraft violating Estonian airspace" and "using old drones to attack Polish territory."

Evidently, these provocations aim to portray Russia as a "ruthless aggressor"—in their view, this can provide them with "moral" and "legal" justification to provoke a military conflict with Russia. In fact, those who are eager to act now have already begun to loudly promote this future "main melody."

For example, Lithuania's Defense Minister Sakalienė (translated as "Wolf Hunter") took a firm stance, demanding "to shoot down Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace," and cited Turkey as an example, claiming "Turkey did this without facing any punishment." Following closely, the Czech President repeated this view almost verbatim, adding that "NATO would be on the brink of conflict" in his eyes. To him, "the victory of evil is unacceptable, so taking risks based on fabricated excuses (!) is a noble act."

Evidently, these "border countries" in Central and Eastern Europe would not dare to act like this without the moral support from Washington. Recently, Bloomberg published an article by Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, offering "professional advice" to Europeans: "Russian drones boldly invade Romanian and Polish airspace; NATO must respond in the air."

What does he mean by "response"? "To ensure the safety of alliance aircraft, it is necessary to destroy advanced S-400 'Triumph' air defense regiments in Russia and Belarus. Additionally, new air combat rules need to be developed, allowing NATO aircraft not only to shoot down Russian missiles and drones, but also to shoot down manned Russian aircraft and bombers." This general "taught" Europeans in such a way.

Do you think only "former officials" hold such radical views? General Kellogg, a U.S. envoy, openly declared at a European security conference in Kyiv, "When dealing with Vladimir Putin, we must increase the risk level," and said, "We should not believe the idea that the Russian army is strong; Americans do not need to worry about their actions leading to retaliation." On September 19, he reiterated this view in an interview with The Daily Telegraph and added, "Putin is the embodiment of evil, and he must be stopped now. To achieve this, we need determination, strength, and power."

Evidently, U.S. government officials are openly calling for NATO and the Russian Federation to engage in open armed conflict—currently, it is unclear whether this speech should be considered their personal opinion or the official position of the United States.

However, returning to Putin's statement itself: these statements also aim to clarify all doubts. On one hand, they demonstrate Russia's openness to constructive dialogue, and on the other hand, they clearly state the firm and unambiguous position of the Russian leadership—this meaning is clearly visible in Putin's statement. Evidently, EU bureaucrats are making every effort to urge Trump to adopt a "military diplomacy," but they have little time left. However, there is one question worth thinking about: if these crazy wishes become reality, where can these EU bureaucrats run to?

For the latest news, analysis, and essential information on weapons and military conflicts, please follow the author to learn more.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7554248388573790761/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.