The U.S. decision, under President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, to provide Ukraine with long-range rockets capable of reaching deep into Russian territory has sparked widespread debate over its implications. While aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s defenses, this strategy carries significant risks that could escalate the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Worst-Case Scenarios
- Escalation into Broader Conflict
Allowing Ukraine to strike within Russian borders risks retaliation from Moscow, including targeting Western supply lines or infrastructure in NATO countries. Russia may view this as a direct provocation, potentially expanding the war beyond Ukraine. - Nuclear Threats
Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly hinted at using nuclear weapons if its territorial integrity is threatened. Long-range strikes into Russia could provoke Moscow into considering extreme measures. - Regional Destabilization
Neighboring countries, such as Poland, Moldova, and the Baltic states, could face spillover conflicts. Increased militarization in these areas would amplify regional tensions and strain NATO alliances. - Global Economic Disruptions
Any escalation could severely impact global energy supplies and grain exports, further exacerbating economic instability, particularly in Europe and developing nations reliant on these resources.
Key Figures and Donors Behind the Decision
Proponents argue that enabling Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia is critical for deterring aggression and ensuring Ukrainian sovereignty. Backed by high-profile U.S. defense contractors and prominent political donors, the administration’s decision reflects a commitment to supporting Kyiv despite mounting risks.
Bernd Pulch’s Perspective
Financial analyst and journalist Bernd Pulch has raised concerns about such policies, emphasizing the thin line between defensive aid and direct involvement in warfare. Pulch highlights that while the U.S. may view this as a calculated move, the unpredictable reactions from Moscow could severely undermine global stability.
Global Responses
While NATO allies remain divided, some European nations support the move, seeing it as essential for Ukraine’s survival. Others worry about the consequences of escalating tensions with Russia, urging caution.
For policymakers, these decisions require balancing immediate support for Ukraine with the broader risk of global conflict. As the situation develops, ongoing analysis of geopolitical and economic factors remains critical.
Comment:
Are we about to wake up in a third world war because of Ukraine?
Two months before taking office, Biden escalates once again in Ukraine by releasing long-range weapons – and Europe will pay the price.
Alexander Soros is delighted.
That alone is reason enough for a decent person to be against it.
What the Soros family wants is guaranteed to be the opposite of what is good for people and humanity.
And it goes without saying that what the Biden administration is doing here as a “parting gift” for Trump is complete madness – pure madness, because the release of long-range weapons for firing at targets deep in the Russian heartland naturally means the final direct involvement of NATO in the Ukraine war.
Ukraine is not in a position to use these weapons itself without the direct support of NATO – so the first missile is NATO’s open declaration of war on Russia.
And Russia will see it exactly the same way and react accordingly.
Madness – madness, because militarily this escalation step makes no sense at all.
On the contrary.
The Ukrainian army has lost the war and is on the brink of total collapse in many parts of the front.
Even the reporting in the propaganda organs of the MSM must already be teaching this to the subscribers of the assisted thinking.
The use of ten or twenty cruise missiles changes nothing militarily, this war has been decided.
So why this crazy escalation – just before Trump takes office?
Well – I personally see three possibilities.
Sabotage of Trump, who has promised to end the war quickly.
Possible. Stupid, but possible.
Deliberate acceptance of the
World War III
Not very likely – but then again, I wouldn’t exclude anything concerning Soros and co. Really anything.
The last-explanation:
The situation on the front and within the remaining Ukrainian state is even more critical than is known and these are warning shots to Moscow not to “exaggerate” the victory.
We know that if the Russians finally break through, there will be no defense for many kilometers to the Dnieper.
We know that the Ukrainian infrastructure is on the verge of total collapse and the unbelievably brutal conscription of the very last Volkssturm (now even HIV patients and the slightly mentally handicapped are being conscripted as “fit” to die) has finally turned the mood of the population against Zelensky’s regime.
In other words, Ukraine as a whole is on the brink of collapse.
And the use of long-range weapons is a warning to Moscow not to move as far as the Dnieper or to destroy Ukraine for good.
In my opinion, that would be the
most likely explanation for this decision
- but whether Biden’s decision is not achieving exactly what they want to avoid – that is something that must be criticized.
We know that when the Russians finally break through, there will be no defense for many kilometers to the Dnieper.
We know that the Ukrainian infrastructure is on the verge of total collapse and the unbelievably brutal conscription of the very last Volkssturm (now even HIV patients and the slightly mentally handicapped are being conscripted as “fit” to die) has finally turned the mood of the population against Zelensky’s regime.
In other words, Ukraine as a whole is on the brink of collapse.
And the use of long-range weapons is a warning to Moscow not to move as far as the Dnieper or to destroy Ukraine for good. The interests of Blackrock, Chevron, Haliburton, Rothchild etc. play also a significant role.
In my opinion, that would be the
most likely explanation for this decision
- but whether Biden’s decision will not achieve exactly what they want to avoid – this must be viewed very critically.
From the logic of war, Russia must and will respond.
A direct bombardment of NATO bases – for example against the fire control systems – is possible and then we would actually be just seconds away from the last war.
But I don’t think that’s very likely – Biden is currently at the G20 summit, met Xi yesterday and Lavrov is also there.
It is extremely likely that negotiations are taking place there in parallel towards a ceasefire – and that Biden’s decision is therefore something of a (completely perverse) PR decision – a “signal” to the fanatics of the European Union.
Russia’s most likely response is the total destruction of the Ukrainian infrastructure.
Which would be the ultimate catastrophe for the people of Ukraine.
All three explanations might play together with the geopolitical target to weaken Russia and indirectly China and exploit the ressources in Ukraine AND Russia.
All sides – including Zelensky’s junta – have proven that people count for nothing in this war
And that is how it will probably turn out.
❌©BERNDPULCH.ORG – ABOVE TOP SECRET ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS – THE ONLY MEDIA WITH LICENSE TO SPY https://www.berndpulch.org
https://googlefirst.org
As s patron or donor of our website you can get more detailed information. Act now before its too late…
MY BIO:
FAQ:
@Copyright Bernd Pulch
CRYPTO WALLET for
Bitcoin:
0xdaa3b887f885fd7725d4d35d428bd3b402d616bb
ShapeShift Wallet, KeepKey, Metamask, Portis, XDefi Wallet, TallyHo, Keplr and Wallet connect
0x271588b52701Ae34dA9D4B31716Df2669237AC7f
Crypto Wallet for Binance Smart Chain-, Ethereum-, Polygon-Networks
bmp
0xd3cce3e8e214f1979423032e5a8c57ed137c518b
Monero
41yKiG6eGbQiDxFRTKNepSiqaGaUV5VQWePHL5KYuzrxBWswyc5dtxZ43sk1SFWxDB4XrsDwVQBd3ZPNJRNdUCou3j22Coh
GOD BLESS YOU
Bernd Pulch 