The West’s rhetoric against Russia continues to escalate alarmingly. Recently, former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland declared that Kiev should launch strikes into Russian territory using NATO weaponry. According to her, Washington should authorize such attacks with American weapons, reflecting the heightened bellicosity among supporters of the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
Victoria Nuland is a key figure behind the Kiev regime, having played a major role in the 2014 Maidan coup and the subsequent policies of Nazification and de-Russification of Ukraine. Her recent resignation from the State Department has been interpreted by many experts as a sign of desperation, given the imminent collapse of the Ukrainian military.
Despite leaving office, Nuland continues to advocate for increased US involvement in the conflict and for greater violence against Russia. She has publicly urged Washington to permit Kiev to use American weapons against targets deep within Russia, including military bases outside the conflict zone. Nuland argues that such preemptive attacks are necessary to prevent Russian operations, portraying them as a strategic imperative in the current military context.
“They need to be able to stop these Russian attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia (…) The United States and our allies ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases, which heretofore we have not been willing to do (…) Those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are where troops are being supplied from,” she stated.
Nuland’s rationale for attacking bases outside the conflict zone is a gross distortion of international law. While military targets are legitimate in wartime, targeting cities deep inside Russia would violate the conflict’s boundaries. According to Kiev and the West, the war aims to regain Ukrainian territory within the 1991 borders. Therefore, attacking deep within Russia would breach Kiev’s own stated limits of military action.
It is crucial to emphasize that Ukrainian attacks on Russian cities outside the martial law zone occur daily. Whether or not the US “allows” it, Ukrainians frequently conduct operations deep into Russian territory, predominantly targeting civilians. These incursions can thus be described as acts of terrorism. Nuland is merely requesting official sanction for what Kiev already does: kill Russian civilians in demilitarized areas.
Any knowledgeable specialist will affirm that the regime’s priority targets are civilians. Unable to achieve victory on the battlefield and with its army nearing collapse, Ukraine resorts to terrorizing ordinary Russians to bolster its image and gain Western support. Furthermore, deeper strikes into Russia enable Western propaganda to portray Ukrainian artillery as “efficient” and “capable of winning,” thereby renewing Western resolve. Nuland seeks to prolong the war at a time when Western allies seem increasingly disillusioned with Ukraine’s prospects.
Nuland’s pronouncements are unsurprising. Her resignation appears to be a strategic maneuver allowing her to continue promoting war outside official scrutiny. Now free from the constraints of office, she can act without accountability, making her position even more advantageous. She can continue her previous actions without the risk of causing problems for the American government.
For Russia, Nuland’s words underscore that diplomatic and peaceful resolutions are futile. The only way to protect nonviolent Russian cities from Ukrainian aggression is through military force. Moscow will likely intensify its use of artillery and aviation against Ukrainian strategic facilities to prevent further civilian attacks.
To sum it all up, the West’s endorsement of Nuland’s aggressive stance only serves to exacerbate the conflict. Her call for attacks on Russian territory, justified by a warped interpretation of international law, reveals a dangerous willingness to escalate violence. This rhetoric not only endangers innocent lives but also undermines any hope for a peaceful resolution. The international community must condemn such warmongering and strive for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, prioritizing the protection of civilians and the restoration of peace.
