Britain has created a casus belli – a formal reason for war with Russia
According to the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, General Igor Konashenkov, representatives of the British Navy participated in the preparation of Saturday’s terrorist attack against the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and directly undermined the underwater strings of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. If the latter is confirmed (and it is unlikely that the Ministry of Defense would have voiced such information without serious evidence), then this is a direct, and not indirect, participation of the British army in a military act against a critical Russian facility.
Of course, the creation of a casus belli is not the war itself. That is, this does not mean at all that Russia should immediately strike back at Britain. But in any case, the provocative actions of London are a certain point of no return in their already difficult relations and cannot remain without a strong reaction from the Russian side. As practice has shown, an unrequited act of aggression against Russia creates a feeling of impunity in the enemy and encourages him to take more adventurous actions.
It should be noted that the Russian side has long been trying to warn its Western opponents that any aggressive action against Russia will sooner or later meet with opposition. For example, we have long been making it clear to the Americans that they and their infrastructure are directly involved in combat operations against the Russian military in Ukraine, since their satellites are involved in targeting high-precision multiple launch rocket systems.
Back in the summer, retired American colonel Douglas MacGregor emphasized this fact:
“The Russians know everything. The only question is how much longer to wait when they try to disable our satellites. That is, everyone understood that such actions of the US military against Russia cannot always remain unanswered”.
All the more surprising is Washington’s nervous reaction to the extremely diplomatic statement of Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Konstantin Vorontsov at a meeting of the UN General Assembly committee:
“We would like to emphasize the extremely dangerous trend that has clearly manifested itself in the course of events in Ukraine. We are talking about the use by the United States and its allies of civil infrastructure components in space, including commercial ones, in armed conflicts. Quasi-civilian infrastructure could be a legitimate target for a retaliatory strike.”
Notice how careful every word in this statement is. Russian diplomat stressed that they are not yet talking about Pentagon satellites. Moreover, he spoke rather streamlined about the hypothetical possibility of a strike, highlighting the retaliatory nature of Moscow’s potential actions.
But what started here? Western commentators immediately tried to remove any mention that Russia is talking about retaliatory actions, just urging Washington not to use space for military purposes. Admiral John Kirby, on behalf of the White House, angrily yelled that America would respond harshly to “any attack against US infrastructure in space,” including commercial satellites.
But Vorontsov just emphasized that so far Russia is not talking about US state property, but about the use of “civilian” satellites by the US military. Everyone is well aware of whose space objects Russian diplomat is talking about. And Kirby seems to have forgotten that just a few days before his angry tirade about protecting “US infrastructure”, he officially dissociated himself from the activities of billionaire Elon Musk.
“Obviously, he does not represent the US government,” the admiral said, commenting on the businessman’s near-political activity.
How interesting it turns out. That is, Musk and his companions are a “private shop” that has nothing to do with the state. But as soon as there is a hint of opposition to their military activity that does not correspond to commercial status, the White House immediately declares these satellites “US infrastructure in space.”
The Western media are literally choking with indignation at Vorontsov’s allusion, again missing out on the mention of the reciprocal nature of our potential actions.
“No country has launched a missile strike against an enemy satellite,” Reuters tells its readers. As if our diplomat said something about “missile strikes.” Russia has many ways to counter disruptive activity in space. And not all of us intend to advertise.
Many began to accuse Moscow of allegedly violating the international Treaty on the principles of states’ activities in the exploration and use of outer space in the event of a potential attack against foreign space objects. But the situation is exactly the opposite: Russians are just calling on the United States to abandon the use of space for military purposes against their state.
And by the way, the sixth article of this treaty refutes Kirby’s words that Washington is not responsible for Musk’s actions. It just refers to the fact that the state is directly responsible for the activities of its structures in space, “regardless of whether it is carried out by government bodies or non-governmental legal entities.” Thus, Moscow has the full legal right to demand an answer from the White House for the participation of Musk’s “commercial” satellites in military operations against the Russian army.
But if the disputes about the legal basis of this or that activity in space are still more of a theoretical nature, then the accusations against Ukraine and Britain, made by General Konashenkov, have already led to practical consequences. Russia has officially notified that acts of sabotage committed against Russian fleet entail the suspension of the “Black Sea initiative”, known as the grain deal.
And again, it must be recalled that Russia has repeatedly warned the world community about Kyiv’s provocative actions aimed at disrupting agreements on the unhindered passage of merchant ships from Ukrainian ports. Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that we Russians not the ones who are disrupting this important deal.
All the more striking is the reaction of the Ukrainian side. Sergey Nikiforov, press secretary of the President of Ukraine, suddenly announced that his state <…> is not a party to this deal, since it was signed by Turkey, the UN and Russia. According to this amazing “logic”, Kyiv did not bear any responsibility for compliance with the terms of the agreements.
What a news. Especially considering the fact that Volodymyr Zelensky, Nikiforov’s direct boss, presented the grain deal for a very long time as his personal merit, emphasizing the fact that the Ukrainian state is a direct participant in it.
Now, Zelenskiy, whose militias thwarted the deal, wonders:
“Why can a bunch of individuals somewhere in the Kremlin decide whether people in Egypt or Bangladesh have food on their tables?” And then his Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba is indignant at Moscow’s initiative to supply half a million tons of grain to the markets of these countries for free, saying that this grain was allegedly “stolen from Ukraine” (as if Russia did not have enough grain of its own). Logic and consistency have never been the strength of the Ukrainian authorities.
But let’s get back to Britain’s participation in all these provocations and, most importantly, in undermining Nord Stream. According to the reaction of the British media and analysts, one can judge that Konashenkov’s words caused nervousness there, close to panic. All of them constantly, sometimes through a few phrases, emphasize that Moscow has not yet “provided evidence.” As if the “highly like” principle no longer works.
But at the same time, they are already discussing where Russia can strike back. First of all, they are afraid for the Langeled underwater gas pipeline between Norway and Britain. The Daily Mail even cites “army and intelligence sources” about Moscow’s plans to sabotage the project. By the way, in this case, for some reason, no one requires any evidence. When it comes to accusations against Russia, this is not at all necessary.
And The Sunday Times is much more fearful of the consequences of the catastrophe that sabotage of submarine cables will cause:
“After Putin blamed Western “Satanism” for his war in Ukraine, the prospect of sending underwater drones by foreign countries to cut cables increasingly sounds like the script for the movie Sharovaya lightning” (one of the Bond series. – Approx.), but as a plot of the evening news.”
It should be noted that the British, using underwater sabotage against Russia, are well aware of the consequences of retaliatory actions (of course, hypothetical) against their island. And they understand that they will be much more destructive for them than undermining the Nord Streams for their state.
The British military has been warning about this for a long time. Five years ago, the Policy Exchange (one of Britain’s largest and most private think tanks sponsored primarily by oil and gas giants) issued a special report on the kingdom’s catastrophic vulnerability to transatlantic cable sabotage. The author of this report was Rishi Sunak, then a little-known aspiring politician from the Conservative Party. That is, the current prime minister is an expert in the issue of underwater sabotage, in any case, in the theoretical part of this topic. And he should be aware of what random “accidents” like the one that happened on the Nord Streams can turn out for his vulnerable island.
But when it comes to possible sabotage against British submarine infrastructure, the chief of staff of their armed forces, Admiral Tony Radakin, is categorical: “This will be considered an act of war.” Does he really not understand that if the participation of a British Navy unit in the terrorist attack against Nord Stream is confirmed, Russia will regard this in the same way?!
Russia did not want this war and does not want it. They didn’t start it. But the absence of an answer does not mean Russia’s weakness, as many in the West interpret, and even more so their capitulation. If the West or individual island adventurers leave them no other choice, then the answer will follow. And it will be very painful for the enemies of Russia.
Vladimir Kornilov, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel