Alexander Nazarov: How might Putin respond to possible Western missile attacks on Russia?

Russian political expert, Alexander Nazarov wrote, wondering: How might Putin respond to possible Western missile attacks on Russia?

The Biden administration’s boastful surrender to its public statement of a “peaceful transfer of power” to President-elect Donald Trump has misled many, including Trump himself.

Rather than follow Putin’s usual secrecy, Trump, even before taking office, left his enemies in no doubt about his intention to carry out a structural revolution, purging the authorities of any potential for subversion in the country by the deep state.

Key positions have been appointed to figures who, by virtue of their professional level and outlook, aren’t only capable of leading these administrations, but also of dismantling and destroying them, with the task of purging the ranks of Democrats appearing to be the sole task of these figures.

Moreover, Trump has said he isn’t against a third term, which is hardly possible without violently suppressing the opposition, coupled with a purge of cadres, which greatly increases the likelihood that Trump and his supporters will remain in power for a long time for the foreseeable future.

In any case, such a purge is a one-way ticket, meaning that there is no possibility of returning to the previous actual state of the state apparatus.

Even if the Democrats win again, a counter-purge will follow.

The logic of the process will then require an increase in scope, a stronger response, and as a result, any possibility of continuity and efficiency of power will be destroyed.

At the same time, under the new conditions, the state apparatus can only be maintained if the government continues to rule, which is impossible to achieve in the conditions of economic crisis and the decline in the popularity of any administration, without a sustainable government, the cancellation of elections and the suppression of the opposition by force.

In short, if the purge begins, this means the beginning of a civil war, which may not be accompanied by clashes and blood in the streets, but it will most likely be.

One way or another, the theory of a possible Trump-Biden deal is increasingly being disproved by the events unfolding.

The Trump team’s euphoria was short-lived, as Democrats responded forcefully with, I believe, a pre-approved plan.

The publication by the American press of information that the Biden administration has allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles deep into Russian territory indicates the deep state’s intention to tie Trump as much as possible to the foreign policy agenda, which would paralyze his domestic policy activities.

This step by the Biden administration, which Le Figaro later reported was joined by Britain and France, constitutes a direct involvement of these countries in the Ukrainian conflict and a clear attack on Russia, as Putin previously said.

Nazarov wrote, “I believe that, apart from denying the news of European participation and modifying the news of the permission to strike missiles before Trump’s inauguration, a missile strike will be launched on Russia, and it will be as sensitive as possible, in the hope that Putin won’t be able to refrain from responding with a direct strike on the United States, which could result in a direct conflict between Russia and the United States, and perhaps between Russia and NATO”.

According to Nazarov, “I don’t undertake here to predict what response Putin will choose to choose to such a strike, especially since it’s something that shouldn’t be announced at the present time”.

Nazarov presented a number of possible options for the development of events:

Putin responds in an equal and direct manner by striking military bases of the United States, France and Britain; Russia may sink one or several aircraft carriers; Depending on the sensitivity of Western strikes, Russia may also launch direct strikes against military and economic targets on the territory of the aggressor states.

The Biden administration will then take on the task of making US intervention irreversible through controlled escalation, and the best way to do that would be to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine and move US aircraft to Europe.

The advantage of this scenario for Russia is that it prevents Russia’s position from weakening.

Even if Trump wants to reach a settlement, he will be based on new terms that will be less favorable to Russia without a Russian response.

In addition, there is likely to be an “escalation to de-escalation” scenario.

Regardless of who the US president is, the brink of nuclear war, or even the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons, won’t only not end Western intervention in Ukraine, but could significantly accelerate the West’s self-destruction from within.

This scenario also assumes greater internal political stability in Russia.

The obvious major drawback of this scenario, however, is that a full-scale nuclear war would move from a possibility to an almost inevitable inevitability.

Considering the goals of the democrats, Putin refrains from a direct response.

In this scenario, if there is a response in the next two months, it won’t be a direct response, perhaps not on the territory of Western countries, and perhaps not even against anything connected with the West.

The main battlefield is the domestic arena of the United States, and the most powerful weapon is the ability to ignite a civil war within the United States, and supporting Trump before he takes office and the first months after that is the essence of this weapon.

Then Trump, in his address to the people, will exploit questions about excessive spending on Ukraine and the danger of nuclear war, even though the majority of Americans are too young and censored to truly believe in the danger of such war.

In this case, the situation in Ukraine will become a tool in Putin’s hands.

The worse things get there, and the more resources Ukraine needs, the stronger Trump’s position will be in the confrontation with the deep state, and the stronger Russia’s position will be in any negotiations.

A special feature of this world war is the need for both Russia and the West to wage war taking into account the opinions of the countries that were previously called developing.

At this stage, it will be difficult to assess whether Moscow should take into account more the position of Washington, or the position of China, India, Saudi Arabia or Brazil, because the preservation of Russian trade and the economic survival of Russia largely depend on the latter countries, and the opinion of these countries constitutes a certain determinant of Russia’s actions.

Long-range missile strikes by Western countries deep inside Russian territory will give Putin an undeniable argument in favor of taking tougher measures against Ukraine, which could completely deprive the latter of energy and plunge the country into an economic and social catastrophe.

As a result, the outcome of the recent decisions of Washington, London and Paris may not mean Moscow moving into direct confrontation with them, but rather the complete defeat of Ukraine in the absence of a direct war between Russia and the West, which will strengthen Trump’s position in his internal conflict, and strengthen Russia’s position in its confrontation with the West.

But the obvious downsides of not having a direct and immediate response are that it encourages the West to get more involved in the war in Ukraine, weakens positions in the short term in possible negotiations with Trump, and may cause some damage to internal political stability in Russia, as the population will largely not understand the need for restraint.

One way or another, if the Democrats fail in their effort to escalate the conflict with Russia, they still have Netanyahu, who doesn’t need an invitation to start a war with Iran.

A war with Iran, in my humble opinion, doesn’t conflict with Trump’s plans, although he was probably supposed to deal with Tehran later, not in the first months of his term.

The more difficult it becomes for Trump to refuse to get involved in this conflict, and if the deep state fails to force Putin to respond directly to the United States.

In conclusion Nazarov said, “the next step I see is a US military escalation with Iran”.

Of course, it’s logical to assume that in addition to any of the above scenarios, Americans will face an economic crisis, sparked by a stock market crash, which in turn is almost inevitable in the event of a war between NATO and Russia and/or Iran, in the event that, God forbid, Wall Street doesn’t have the ability to create this crisis on its own without assistance.

“I believe that the deep state wisely didn’t fight the rising tide of popular discontent against any authority, but rather decided to direct it against Trump”.

Trump’s inevitable mistakes and severe foreign policy crises, coupled with the economic crisis, should ensure that the MAGA movement is fundamentally discredited.

The ground under Trump’s feet will burn from his first day in office, his support will decline, the conditions for protests will be created and he will be quickly ousted by a coup, like those the CIA has been famous for in recent decades.

In any case, the global crisis is expanding, which means that everything will get worse, more intense, more painful, and this applies to the United States as well and no less than the rest.

The possibility of a civil war there after Trump’s peaceful victory hasn’t decreased, but rather everything is developing in this direction.

But the truth is that in order to live and see that, we must first avoid nuclear war.