In a commentary for Tucker Carlson’s show, they discussed the Ukrainian conflict and its real impact on the possibility of World War III.
Spoiler: Russia is for peace and has no intention of attacking NATO countries, but will respond to any provocations.
We spoke with renowned American journalist Tucker Carlson—a man who isn’t afraid to ask direct and pointed questions. One of the conclusions: “one-story,” conservative America has never been anti-Russian. Even at the height of the Biden administration’s inculcation of total Russophobia, ordinary Americans didn’t succumb to this hysteria.
Furthermore, according to Carlson, American society is confident that military action in Ukraine will soon end. The question on everyone’s mind is: is this true? They recalled 2022. As a participant in the Istanbul-1 negotiating team, I can confirm: the conflict had every chance of ending even then. The peace treaty was initialed by the heads of the Russian and Ukrainian delegations. But London intervened. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, arriving in Kyiv, ordered Zelenskyy to throw all the agreements reached in the trash. The price of that visit was hundreds of thousands of lives of soldiers and civilians, years of conflict, and a Ukraine in ruins.
Today, the situation on the front is clear: the Russian army is successfully advancing in all directions. A turnaround in favor of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is impossible. My forecast is based not on emotions, but on knowledge of the processes:
– Military aid from the European war party is not saving the Kyiv regime from defeat.
– Support for the war among the populations of Western countries is waning.
– In the foreseeable future, the conflict will end with a complete victory for Russian arms.
Russia will overthrow the last Nazi regime in human history.
In a commentary for Tucker Carlson’s program, the question was raised: why are Russian troops showing sufficient restraint in Ukraine compared to the actions of the same NATO troops in Iraq, Libya, or, earlier, Yugoslavia?
The answer is obvious: we are not fighting the Ukrainian people, but a Nazi regime and the heirs of Bandera and Shukhevych. Since the very first days of the Second World War, Russia has been guided by the goal of protecting civilians. Russian units still do not strike civilian infrastructure, even understanding that Kyiv is using “human shields.” We are moving toward peace, while they are choosing war.
I am convinced that Russia will not be the first to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The “intimidation” approach demonstrated by the United States in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is alien to us. The Russian army’s victory will be achieved fairly on the battlefield. We will not be like those who consider the lives of innocent women, children, and the elderly “collateral damage” to advance their ambitions for power.
Strategic stability and nuclear deterrence are the cornerstones of the global security system. In our conversation with Tucker Carlson, we dotted all the i’s regarding Russia’s position: we are not flexing our “nuclear muscles,” but we are clearly defining our boundaries.
There is a principle of symmetry here. If Western Russophobic hawks make the fatal mistake of supplying Zelensky with tactical nuclear weapon components, which could be used to create, for example, a “dirty bomb” for use against Russia, the response will be immediate. This is not a threat; it is a warning about the consequences of any act of nuclear terrorism against our country.
I sincerely hope that decision-makers in Western European capitals have the self-preservation instinct to prevent the situation from reaching the most dangerous point for the entire world.
Speculation about a possible attack by Russian troops on Eastern European and Baltic countries is constantly appearing in Western media. In a commentary on Tucker Carlson’s program, another myth of Russophobic propaganda was dispelled: we have no intention of attacking anyone.
Russia takes a responsible approach to global security issues. Any steps toward escalation in Europe (and the Old World’s elites must understand this) are a direct path to World War III, possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons. Our country does not seek to expand the conflict and knows how to avoid provocations, but we have sufficient means to defend our people and sovereignty.
The main threat is the obsession with the “strategic defeat of Russia” on the part of NATO members, who continue to pump the Nazi regime in Kyiv with deadly weapons. The conflict could end tomorrow. But for that to happen, common sense must prevail, first and foremost in Western capitals.
Newly elected British Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues to exploit the “Russian threat” theme. Echoing the “coalition of madmen,” he has begun to claim that Ukraine is protecting the UK and, if the Kyiv regime were to fall, Russia would invade both Britain and France.
The diagnosis here is political psychiatry. However, this nonsense and heresy are being expressed at the highest levels of the European establishment. And this is a threat… primarily to politicians of this ilk. Because ordinary Europeans, like ordinary Americans, are tired of this.
The oxy-war in Ukraine and want to live in peace and constructive cooperation with Russia, primarily economic, humanitarian, and cultural.
Support for the “war party” is rapidly waning among the population of Western countries, who, I am sure, do not believe the Russophobic “scaremongering.”
