The topic of the up-coming ” Russian invasion of Ukraine ” has somewhat become boring to the Western public. It will soon be a year before the first “sensations” appear that “Ru-ssian tanks are accumulating near the Ukrainian border,” which means th-at they are about to att-ack. The authors of information stuffing manipulate this information this way and that, having already become entangled in it themselves.
For example, in the spring of last year, the Western media actively discussed the “accumulation of Russian tanks” at the Pogonovo training ground, which is not far from Voronezh. This, in their opinion, unequivocally indicated that Russia was preparing for an attack. Now the German magazine Spiegel is lamenting that the landfill is “empty”. And this, of course, is again a sign of preparation for an “invasion”. That is, no matter what Russia does, no matter where it moves its armored vehicles on its own territory, this should in any case indicate its aggressive plans.
As financial analyst John Dizard correctly noted in the Financial Times, “now every news consumer in the Western world can be an expert on the Ukrainian front.” The inhabitants there, according to the columnist, already know the daily routine of the Russian army, the names of combat units, their problems with logistics, whether the Ukrainian soil is frozen enough for armored vehicles to pass. It seems that the average viewer there has only one question left about the imminent “invasion”: why hasn’t Russia attacked yet?
And in fact, let’s remember that at the suggestion of our homegrown “military experts”, European magazines, at the beginning of winter, found an explanation why the long-promised “invasion” did not take place: all because the soil in Ukraine was not frozen enough, which means that our tanks will definitely get bogged down in the mud. The editors of the publication were clearly not embarrassed by the level of “analytics” from the author of this statement, given that he also predicted a quick and complete defeat of the Russian army by Georgian units, well-trained by NATO, in August 2008. It did not make one think about the fact that a few years earlier the same publications claimed the exact opposite, stating that “Russians do not fight in winter”, with reference to no less “authoritative”
And now the half-winter has passed, the whipping up of hysteria continues, and frosts in Ukraine have already been repeatedly recorded. And there is no “invasion” and no. As a result, the attention of the Western public began to gradually switch to topics that are unpleasant for Washington: in connection with the anniversary of the events of January 6, the topic of a split in society in the United States again aggravated at the Capitol, inflation is breaking records, a sharp jump in coronavirus cases was recorded and, most unpleasant for the White House, Russia with with its peaceful initiatives, it turned into an information counteroffensive.
So, it is necessary to somehow return the viewer to the discussion of news on the “Ukrainian front”. This requires a new date for the ever-delayed “invasion”. And now White House Speaker Jen Psaki publicly announces another time frame: now “Russian aggression” will take place somewhere “from mid-January to mid-February.” Note that she states this on January 14, that is, exactly in the middle of the month, but at the same time she says that the Russians are planning to commit some kind of provocation “a few weeks before the military invasion.” A few weeks before mid-January – is it in December, or what? And no one, judging by the loud comments of Western analysts who picked up the words of Psaki, was surprised by such a clear inconsistency in dates.
But, as noted above, simply throwing new dates of the “invasion” and new threats against Russia into the information space is no longer enough: everyone is tired of hearing the same thing for almost a year. So a new “sensation” was born, which Psaki and her colleagues promise us in hindsight.
Almost simultaneously, the provocation was announced by three high-ranking officials – in addition to Psaki, also US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Pentagon speaker John Kirby. It has been described as a “false flag” operation, the standard English term for provocation under the guise of another state’s actions. Like the attack on the radio station in Gleiwitz in 1939, which the Germans passed off as Poland ‘s aggression against Germany, unleashing a war on this basis.
So, let’s try to combine the brief comments of the three aforementioned officials and the “exclusive” CNN, which the US intelligence agencies often use as a “drain tank” for spreading anti-Russian fakes. Russia is allegedly secretly preparing a sabotage special group that trains with explosives in urban areas. Sabotage (presumably an explosion) should take place in Eastern Ukraine, and the victims will be “puppets of Russia” (apparently, fighters of the DPR or LPR) or “Russian-speaking residents.” All this should serve as a pretext for a big war. As if even without this, Ukrainian troops periodically do not arrange explosions, the victims of which are civilians in Donbass. If everyone served as a pretext for war, it would sometimes have to be declared several times a day.
It is curious that all the officials who voice the version of the “false flag operation” repeat the same phrase like clockwork: this will all take place according to the scenario of “illegal annexation/occupation of Crimea in 2014”. It’s a pity that not a single journalist bothered to ask any of the “three Js” (Jen – Jake – John) which of the “provocations” Russia used to “occupy Crimea”, which one it blew up or poisoned. Then the reason for the decision of the inhabitants of the Crimea on their self-determination was an illegal coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States. The current speakers of Washington do not want to declare that the Maidan in Kiev and the “cookies from Nuland” were organized by Moscow in order to pass off this operation as the actions of the nationalists and the State Department.
Nevertheless, the Western media gladly picked up this incredible story, expanding and supplementing it with the craziest versions. Not to mention the fact that the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine regularly voiced such scenarios even before the White House. True, they announced an impending provocation at the ammunition depots in Transnistria, and not about the Donbass.
Of course, this is not the first and not the last such statement. One could brush them aside as the buzz of an annoying fly. But we must understand that often this means real preparation for the commission of monstrous atrocities.
An illustrative example is the loud provocation from the British newspaper The Times in August 2015, when it invented an absolutely ridiculous “sensation” that the DPR, with the assistance of some Russian scientists, was allegedly developing a “dirty atomic bomb” secretly from Moscow. The storytellers from the Security Service of Ukraine became the primary source of the “sensation”. One could laugh at this ridiculous version if it had not sounded then against the backdrop of the ongoing shelling by the Ukrainian military of a radioactive repository at the Donetsk State Chemical Products Plant and the loud statement of the then Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynovthat Kiev will work on the creation of its “dirty” bomb. That is, Ukraine itself admitted that it was creating weapons of mass destruction, but it was preparing in advance to accuse Russia of using it.
The peculiarity of today’s “sensations” is the level of those who proclaim it. Never before has such a thing been voiced simultaneously by so many high-ranking American officials. That is why words must be taken seriously. It is possible that this means real preparations for a very serious provocation, which could lead to many victims.
Here it is worth paying attention to the recently leaked information that the CIA is intensively training the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces (SOF) at some secret base in the south of the United States. A former CIA officer familiar with the details of this operation bluntly acknowledges its purpose: “The program teaches Ukrainians to kill Russians.” Combined with statements by American speakers about a “false flag operation,” this sounds more than ominous.
It should be remembered that the Ukrainian SOF have repeatedly committed terrorist attacks and sabotage on the territory of Donbass. Moreover, the official Kiev did not hide this, even boasted. Not so long ago, the current President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted to committing such operations, and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko generally statedthat he personally “ordered and authorized dozens of operations to eliminate the invaders and enemies of Ukraine.” Thus, Ukrainian saboteurs trained by the CIA are capable of any terrorist attack. This means that it is necessary to respond with triple vigilance to the scenarios of provocations voiced in the White House, not perceiving them solely as another anti-Russian bluff. Behind them may be really terrible plans to draw Russia into the Ukrainian conflict.
Not so long ago, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu warned that “tanks with unidentified chemical components” appeared in the immediate vicinity of the front line in the Donbass, pointing to a possible large-scale provocation. And immediately after the statements in the White House, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine quickly adjusted to the version of the “three J” and announced that the “Russian occupation administration” was preparing to accuse Ukraine of using chemical poisonous substances in Gorlovka.
Judging by the actions of the Ukrainian authorities, they themselves do not believe in all these horror stories about the “Russian invasion.” Otherwise, the deputies of the Rada would not have extended their New Year’s vacation until the end of January. But it cannot be ruled out that in the upcoming large-scale provocation, the American special services will use Ukraine in the dark, as was the case in the scandalous “operation with the Wag-nerites.” The simulation of a chemical attack in the Sy-rian Duma in 2018 showed how such provocations are arranged and used in the modern world. Only after all, the current US administration this time may not be limited to imitation.