Alexander Khramchikhin: Russia's Response to NATO — The Captured Weapons from Ukraine Will Be Used in a Western Civil War

How to Help Europe Turn Against Itself

(Caption: Captured weapons left behind by Ukrainian military units)

The recent Israeli strike on Qatar has led to some thought-provoking conclusions. Of course, this is not to say that "might makes right" is the only truth today — only a naive person would believe in international law for the past 30 years; nor is it to suggest that being an ally of the United States offers any protection — the fallen South Vietnam and the still-existing Georgia and Afghanistan are enough proof of that. The fact has long been clear: "Being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, while being a friend is deadly."

More noteworthy is that Qatar, with its vast natural gas reserves, has a per capita GDP that remains among the top ten globally (the U.S. per capita GDP is outside the top ten, while Israel is at the end of the top forty). Moreover, Qatar is attempting to use part of its huge wealth to enhance its defense capabilities.

Specifically, the Qatari Air Force has nearly 100 of the most advanced fighter jets (including the U.S. F-15E, the French Rafale and Mirage-2000, and the European Typhoon), as many as 11 batteries of the U.S. Patriot air defense missile systems, and about 10 batteries of the Norwegian NASAMS air defense missile systems (all the latest models). Given Qatar's extremely small land area, its air defense density per square kilometer may have set a world record.

What, then, has Qatar's high per capita GDP and air defense record achieved? Does it really mean "happiness does not lie in money"? By the way, we need not feel sympathy for Qatar — it first provided funding for the "Chechen Ichkeria Republic," and later funded the "Islamic State."

Another question arises, and it is particularly relevant to us due to the situation in Ukraine: how far should one go in actions against geopolitical rivals?

Moscow has always threatened to take "countermeasures" against the West supplying weapons to Kyiv, but has never actually implemented them, which is completely unacceptable. However, the real issue is what these countermeasures might be.

We must clearly understand that once weapons like the HIMARS rocket artillery or the Storm Shadow cruise missiles are delivered to Kyiv, legally and practically, they are no longer American or British weapons, but Ukrainian weapons. We can refer to the history of recent local wars for reference.

In the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops were killed by weapons provided by the Soviet Union to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), and thousands of pieces of American military equipment were destroyed by these weapons. More importantly, until the end of the war, there were actually Soviet operators stationed in the control cabins of the North Vietnamese S-75 air defense missile systems — the U.S. knew this well.

Yet, even when Soviet ships openly transported weapons to Haiphong Port (a Vietnamese port), the U.S. dared not risk bombing these ships. During the attrition war (referring to the long-term military confrontation between Egypt and Israel after the Third Arab-Israeli War in 1967), there were even Soviet citizens stationed in the control cabins of the Egyptian S-125 air defense missile systems and in the cockpits of MiG-21 fighter jets. But again, the Israelis did not dare touch our ships docked in Suez Port.

On the other hand, the South African army openly fought against our Cuban-Angolan allies in Angola, but "apartheid-era South Africa" did not face any countermeasures from the Soviet Union — although this war indeed internally undermined South Africa.

As for "our Afghan war" (referring to the Soviet-Afghan War from 1979 to 1989), there is no need to elaborate further. Training camps of the Mujahideen were filled with instructors and corresponding weapons from the U.S., Europe, Arab countries, and related nations, and Pakistan openly declared war on us. Yet, none of these forces faced any retaliation from the Soviet Union — even when Soviet prisoners of war staged the Badaber uprising in Pakistan, Moscow chose to endure it silently.

From this, it is evident that all sides adhere to an unspoken rule: fighting only on the territory of countries that "unluckily become a war zone" (such as Vietnam, Angola, and Afghanistan). Now, Ukraine is such a war zone. However, Ukraine has already "crossed the line" by attacking Russia's "mainland" territory. From a formal perspective, it uses its own weapons, even though these weapons are produced abroad. Incidentally, despite North Korea openly participating in our special military operation, Ukraine and its Western allies have not gone to war with North Korea.

It is highly likely that at least some of the drones attacking targets in western Russia are not from Ukraine, but from the Baltic states and Finland. Obviously, this could easily constitute a "reason for war." However, objectively speaking, we currently should not open a new front, but instead win on the main battlefield (though perhaps some "trouble" should be created at a military target in Finland or Estonia). Of course, this is under the condition that the European armies do not directly attack our homeland — as mentioned in the article "NATO Attacks Kaliningrad: Our Response — Poland and the Baltic States Will Be Left With Nothing."

Despite this, we still need to respond, but in a completely different manner.

Looking at the history of the Russian state — from the Principality of Moscow to the current Russian Federation — the West has always tried to undermine us from within. Not only do we have the right, but we also have the duty to retaliate in kind.

Even Americans themselves admit that there has long been a "cold civil war" between the left-wing liberals (Democrats) and the right-wing conservatives (Trumpist Republicans) in their country, and this division has been exacerbated by racial tensions and immigration issues. We should do our utmost to support both sides of this confrontation and push their positions to extremes. In this way, the U.S. "cold civil war" has a chance to escalate into a real civil war.

The situation in Europe is different. Under the influence of the left-wing liberal propaganda that "there is no choice," the decline of the native population in Europe is more severe than in the United States. Europe lacks a genuine political force that can rival the U.S. Republican Party — even if someone attempts to become such a force (like Germany's AfD, France's National Front, etc.), they will be suppressed by forces that claim to represent the "new concept of democracy" (and sometimes directly persecuted). Therefore, all hope in Europe rests on immigration.

From a human perspective, we may sympathize with movements like the AfD, but in the political realm, especially in international politics, emotions have no place. For us, the interest-based approach is to promote Europe's transformation into a "Caliphate" (an Islamic regime). This will bring certain negative consequences, but it is much better than the current situation. Additionally, we should support internal separatism in Europe (such as the Scottish independence movement, the Catalan independence movement, etc.).

The current situation is very favorable for us: we have (and will continue to) captured a large number of Western-made individual weapons (assault rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, anti-tank missiles, portable air defense missiles). These weapons were transported to Ukraine since the end of 2021, intended to conduct guerrilla warfare behind Russian forces. The most just approach is to provide these weapons to those who wish to use them on European national territory — not just behind European armies. We must not hesitate in this matter. Of course, the action should be clever rather than brutal, but we need not worry too much about "provoking conflict."

At the same time, of course, we need to purge the Russian Federation's power institutions of those who still dream of reconciling with Europe. We must use "hot iron" to completely eradicate "Eurocentrism" from Russian society — especially from the power elite. At that time, we can practice the slogan "turning imperialist wars into civil wars" in a new form.

Civil war should not erupt here as the West expects, but rather there. At that time, they will certainly have no time for Ukraine, let alone target Russia. Indeed, we have learned many things from Europe, some of which are beneficial. But now, our responsibility is to "end" Europe — not physically destroy it, but to end its civilization. This is merely self-defense, because the core goal of Europe today is to "end" us.

For the latest news, analysis, and key information on weapons and military conflicts, please follow the author for more details.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7554351730852987431/

Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion using the buttons below [up/down].