Russia can’t afford to discredit itself abroad, nor can Putin’s ruling United Russia party afford to discredit itself at home four months before the next polls, by threatening overwhelming retaliation against Ukraine if it attacks Moscow’s Victory Day parade only to symbolically retaliate or do nothing at all.
To read this article in the following languages, click theTranslate Websitebutton below the author’s name.
Русский, عربي, Deutsch, Español, Italiano, Farsi, Hebrew, Portugues, 中文,Français, 日本語,한국어, Türkçe, Српски. And 40 more languages.
The Russian Defense Ministrywarnedlocal civilians and the staff of diplomatic missions in Kiev of their country’s plans to launch a massive retaliatory strike on the city center if Ukraine goes through with Zelensky’sthreatto attack Moscow’s Victory Day parade on 9 May. This was followed by Russiaannouncingballistic missile tests from Kamchatka from 6-10 May. Shortly afterwards, the Russian Foreign Ministryreiteratedthe Defense Ministry’s warning, thus ensuring that the world is aware of it.
This threat likely isn’t a bluff for three sequential reasons.
The first is that Russia wants to deter Ukraine from attacking Moscow’s Victory Day parade for self-evident reasons, both relating to optics and the security of its VIPs, to which end it threatened overwhelming retaliation if this happens.
The second reason is that Russia cannot threaten such a response without actually going through with it if provoked, otherwise it would irredeemably discredit itself, and more audacious attacks would then likely follow.
And third, Russia is finally signaling its willingness to overwhelmingly retaliate against decision-making centers in Kiev per the Foreign Ministry’s additionally specified threat in the event of Ukraine carrying out this high-profile provocation due to itshardline Kremlin factionpartially superceding its moderate one.
To explain, Putin hitherto restrained his military due his belief in “The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” as well ashis concernsabout an uncontrollable escalation spiral sparking World War III.
Once Trump returned and responded positively to Putin’s offer of dialogue for resolving theNATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, which Biden rejected, Putin and his fellow moderates dangled aresource-centricstrategic partnershipfor incentivizing compromises. The US was receptive to such a partnership, but Russia rejected its demanded compromises that were presented as a precondition, while the US rejected Russia’s own such demands and didn’t coerce compliance from Ukraine or NATO either.
Source: Global Research
