The initiator of the information campaign, which was supposed to convince everyone, and above all the Europeans, that Russia was about to attack Ukraine, was the United States. This was admitted on the eve of the Financial Times. Citing her sources, she wrote that the US decision to share its intelligence with the Europeans helped convince some skeptical countries, including Germany, that “the Kremlin may soon send its troops to Ukraine.”
According to the newspaper, the key US argument is intelligence data on the concentration of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine.
The expression “US intelligence data” has long become a meme for unbiased people, along with “Colin Powell’s test tube.” It was the US intelligence, for example, that claimed that after the evacuation of NATO forces from Afghanistan, the government of this country would be able to retain power. What happened in Kabul was actually seen by the whole world.
Those who refer to “US intelligence data” are not at all interested in the logic of what is happening or the arguments of the enemy. For example, this: Russia does not need an armed conflict with a neighbor, is not beneficial and even harmful. Why would Russia get into “Bandera’s Afghanistan”, with a population hostile to our country, including convinced Nazis, into a country with a dilapidated economy, with the lowest living standards in Europe? With such a burden, Russia will never be able to implement plans for the socio-economic and technological development of its own country and raising the living standards of the population. Not everything is going smoothly with us. In the event of war, impoverishment and numerous casualties are inevitable.
All these iron counterarguments in information warfare are not taken into account by the enemy. Russia is about to attack, and that’s it!
Yes, Russia has strengthened its armed forces in the western direction in recent years. For example, she recreated a tank army in the Western Military District. And the Russian leadership does not hide this, as well as the reasons for such an increase: NATO has increased its grouping near the Russian borders, conducts several times more military exercises, and conducts many more reconnaissance flights of its aircraft.
On the territory of Ukraine, according to our Foreign Ministry, there are already more than ten NATO military facilities, thousands of NATO troops are stationed on a rotational basis. That is, the military development of this territory by the alliance is underway.
US intelligence, by the way, does not say anything about the fact that Ukraine has concentrated more than half of its armed forces – a 120,000-strong group – near the line of demarcation with the LPNR. This is reported, for example, by the well-known military expert Alexei Leonkov.
At the same time, he notes, in manpower, the units of the Ukrainian armed forces deployed in the first line of the offensive are three times superior to the LDNR people’s militia corps, and five times in certain sectors of the front.
Why Russia needs to keep combat-ready forces near Donbass is also no secret. As the Kremlin has repeatedly stated: Russia will not give offense to the Donbass, and if Kiev tries to solve the LPNR problems by military means, then Ukraine may lose its statehood.
That is why the troops of the Southern Military District include several combined-arms armies, an army corps, an air force and an air defense army. The Western Military District includes a tank army and several combined arms. By the way, according to the payroll, the combined-arms army in peacetime has up to 100 thousand servicemen, and in wartime it can be increased to 300 thousand people.
We have to keep all these forces to ensure our defense capability. We are not asking (although we could, probably) why the United States maintains more than 1000 military bases around the world or why the United States has the largest army in the world, almost three times our size.
So why did the US launch a disinformation campaign, accusing Russia of an imminent attack on Independence? Mark Bernardini, a political observer and member of the Expert Council of the All-Russian organization Strong Russia, told MK, “this is just speculation by the Ukrainian regime, the United States, the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union, and in this sequence.”
Assessing the likelihood of a “Russian invasion”, the expert said:
– I think there is only one option, in the presence of which Russian troops will really enter the territory of Ukraine: if Kiev invades the people’s republics of Donbass, that is, in the territory where many residents have Russian citizenship.
– What is the likelihood of such a scenario?
– I think it is directly proportional to the likelihood of the Ukrainian army invading the LPNR. That is why, it is unlikely, although it cannot be ruled out, and you need to be on the lookout.
– How will NATO behave in the worst-case scenario?
– I think it will limit itself to the next loud statements, threats and sanctions. After all, anyway, war can be extremely traditional, while in the United States there are plenty of hawks who can push the nuclear button. On the other hand, Russia has little choice, and the Americans also know this, this is again a deterrent.
If we turn to recent history, Georgia in 2008 should have taught something: they entered, quickly reached Tbilisi, gave a hat (from a military point of view, it was just that, and only so), threatened, “don’t you dare yourself like that lead “, and … left. I still think that it was justified, proportionate and competent.