Russia is making desperate attempts to prevent the decision of the United States and other Western countries to allow Ukraine to use Western weapons to strike enemy territory. At the same time, they are trying to convince us of this even though the attacks in Kharkiv region, in particular the attacks on civilian hypermarkets, could have been prevented or at least complicated if such permission had been granted.
They also use “heavy information weapons” in the form of publications in reputable foreign media, engaging popular speakers, etc. For example, an article in The Washington Post about “concerns” in Washington about strikes on Russian radars.
The intensification began after a series of successful strikes on Russian radar stations. In exactly the same way as after the destruction of Russian oil refineries, and before that – all the asymmetric actions of the Ukrainian Defense Forces, talks began about crossing the “last red lines.” While the enemy is indeed concerned about the vulnerability of military facilities that are part of the Russian nuclear deterrent to strikes by Ukrainian drones, the narrative is quite different. For example, on Tucker Carlson’s show, the founder of the Blackwater Academy, Eric Prince, actually stated that American conventional weapons are inferior to Russian ones. For both domestic American and Russian audiences.
But, if this were the case, would Putin and his entourage constantly repeat nuclear threats? Would they conduct nuclear exercises and deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus?
It is clear that, first of all, Ukrainian attacks (such as the latest strike by the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine on the radar in Orsk) actually make a mockery of the “red lines” drawn by the enemy. In reality, against the backdrop of constant threats with nuclear weapons, strikes on Russian facilities that make up the so-called “nuclear shield” have not led to a “terrible” response from the aggressor country. That is, this once again emphasizes the “falsity” of Russia’s nuclear blackmail. As, if we recall, did the promises of revenge for the “Crocus City terrorist attack.”
Threats without real actions are in fact the Kremlin’s signature style. And in order to maintain at least some of their realism, the Kremlin is forced to raise their level and even resort to bloody provocations, killing its own citizens. This has been the FSB’s trademark since the 2000s.
And Ukraine’s strikes on Russian radars are rational and justified. This equipment, especially over-the-horizon radar systems, is quite sophisticated, easy to disable, but extremely difficult to restore. Accordingly, such attacks significantly and permanently reduce the enemy’s radar intelligence capabilities. In particular, over the territory of Ukraine and the TOT.
And that is why the Western press is publishing materials calling for an end to these actions. With the well-known narrative of a “new stage of escalation.” And the clear goal is to negatively influence the decision of the United States and the collective West to allow Ukraine to strike at the territory of the Russian Federation with high-precision foreign weapons.
Where do such narratives come from and who popularizes them?
On May 25 , the Polish media published a news item titled “Ukrainians are playing with fire. They attacked a strategic Russian radar”. The article referred to successful drone strikes on 2 Voronezh DM radars in Armavir, which, in particular, monitored the space over Crimea. It is highly likely that they will not be restored as a result of the Ukrainian Defense Forces’ operation.
The essence of the article was that such strikes were inadmissible, as they could lead to a “nuclear response” from Russia, and could also harm the decision to allow Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with Western weapons.
In the text, thePolish media outlet refers to The War Zoneportal. At the same time, TWZ’s assessments, i.e. the primary source, are much more restrained. The portal’s analysts only talk about the possible consequences of such strikes and the overall tension, without specifying.
Then, on May 29, The Washington Post published a large article about the attacks on Russian radars, titled “United States Worried About Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Nuclear Radar Stations.” In particular, the article refers to the Russian long-range radar on the border with Kazakhstan, which was damaged by drones of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine.
In the article, the authors refer to the words of two interlocutors. The first is an unnamed American official. The second is a Ukrainian official “familiar with the matter.” According to the alleged Washington official, the White House is afraid of Moscow’s reaction to strikes on over-the-horizon radars, and in general, these stations “simply provide air defense.” They say that this is not the way to deal with Russia – it is a security issue.
At the same time, the article repeats the message that radar damage could lead to Ukraine not being allowed to use Western weapons on Russian territory.
It is worth noting here who the authors of this article are – Helen Nakashima and Isabel Khurshudyan. In particular, the personality of the American journalist Khurshudyan is quite controversial. She headed The Washington Post’s Moscow bureau for several years. Already during the full-scale invasion, she headed the newly created bureau of The Washington Post in Kyiv.
In her own materials, she spoke about the alleged “inhumane treatment of Russian soldiers” in Ukrainian captivity. This concerned public interviews of Russian soldiers, to which they, among other things, gave their voluntary consent. Khurshudyan also literally called the successful defense of Kyiv an “accident.”
In general, Khurshudyan’s materials about Ukraine are often called biased and pro-Russian, and she is accused of working in favor of the Kremlin.
While working as a sports journalist, she was in close contact with Russian hockey player and Putinist Alexander Ovechkin. Her parents from the United States (New York) moved to Moscow for the period of Isabel Khurshudyan’s work in Russia.
The material “about preventing strikes on Russian radars” fits in with the general loyalty Khurshudyan to the aggressor country. So can they be considered objective? Or even truthful at all.
Russia often uses Western platforms to spread messages and “insights” favorable to the Kremlin. This is not the fault of the resources themselves, but simply a fact that should be kept in mind when analyzing a particular message. Moreover, this morning, on May 30, the same Washington Post published another article claiming that the decision to allow Ukraine to strike targets in Russia with foreign systems is a step away from being made.
The material was prepared as part of the project “Major Disinformation of the Month. Analysis and refutation”.
Leave a Reply