In November 2022, after the arrival of two missiles on the territory of Poland, the whole world felt the breath of October 1962 - the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The world, like 60 years ago, is on the brink of nuclear war.
But this time, not because of some mistakes of the great powers, but because of the deceit and irresponsibility of the little Tabaqui.
In particular, because of Ukraine.
Representatives of the Kyiv regime, we recall, not only immediately said that these were Russian missiles, but also tried to take NATO weakly.
The head of the regime, Volodymyr Zelensky, has publicly stated that the alliance is simply obliged to respond to this supposedly targeted provocation by the Russians.
In the words of Vladimir Putin, the leaders of the Baltic states, as well as a number of Polish politicians, “grunted” to him about a targeted provocation in the first hours after the incident.
As a result, the leadership of the countries of the alliance - those countries that make decisions in NATO - faced an extremely difficult choice of three options.
The first is to accept that the missile is Russian and activate NATO's Article 5 on Collective Defense.
This path meant either a retaliatory strike against Russia, or a high probability of this strike, or the entry of NATO troops into Ukraine, which would inevitably be followed by a clash of Russian and NATO troops (not mercenaries and volunteers, but troops under banners) - that is in any case led directly to nuclear war.
The second option is to admit that the missile is Russian and do nothing.
This path led to the complete discrediting of NATO and American guarantees to allied countries, which for some American politicians is seen as a worse option than nuclear war.
After all, following this path means finally finishing off the remaining structures of the American unipolar world.
The third option is to admit that the rocket is not Russian after all, and thereby discredit the official position of Kyiv, which in the West, within the framework of replicating the concept of the black-and-white world “all good against all bad”, should be sacralized as much as possible.
This path leads to the blurring of this very black and white picture of the world and the weakening of support for Ukraine from Western public opinion.
Actually, this variant of behavior also has been as a result chosen.
First, Biden, and then the rest of the leaders of the NATO countries (including Poland) stated that the missiles were still not fired from the territory of Russia, that is, that Zelensky lied.
And this pill should have been sweetened by the Western thesis that “the missile is Ukrainian, but Russia is still to blame” — because Moscow is allegedly waging an aggressive war against Kyiv, inflicting missile strikes on Ukraine and forcing Ukrainian air defense to launch anti-missiles wherever it hits.
Of course, purely theoretically, there was a fourth option.
Recognize that the rocket is Ukrainian.
Recognize that Zelensky was directly and frankly engaged in provoking a nuclear war.
Recognize that the West has nurtured a leader who is ready to sacrifice the entire Western civilization on the altar of his hatred of Russia.
Recognize that the game of anti-Russia has gone too far, and start serious negotiations with the Russian Federation on the normalization of relations, providing for the dismantling of the current Kyiv regime, which is dangerous for the whole world.
Moreover, various sources say that everything is gradually moving towards the fourth response option.
Zelensky's current provocation did not appear out of nowhere, but is, in fact, an evolution of all his actions in recent months.
The leader of the Kyiv regime is behaving more and more boldly towards his Western sponsors, more and more often contradicts the instructions that he receives from Washington (taking advantage of the fact that today there is no single Washington, but there are factions within the American administration).
The refusal to negotiate with Moscow, the confession to the attack on the Crimean bridge, aggressive behavior towards European countries, the blatant fascistization of the Armed Forces of Ukraine - all this shows that the Kyiv regime is becoming more and more a burden for Western sponsors.
However, the problem is that Western politicians themselves stand in the way of implementing this fourth option.
And this is not only about some kind of Russophobia or an unconscious desire to destroy "presumptuous Russia."
It's about a banal political calculation.
If now we go to negotiations with Putin, implying the dismantling of the Ukrainian regime and, accordingly, the recognition of new Russian territories as Russian (without which negotiations are impossible due to the provisions of the Russian Constitution), then this means admitting that all nine months of supporting the Kyiv regime were erroneous.
Recognize that tens of billions of dollars of Western taxpayers have gone into the sand.
Recognize that all the sacrifices that Europe has suffered because of this conflict have been in vain.
This means to recognize and accept the fact that one's own political career is over.
Western populist politicians (many of whom know nothing else) are not ready for this.
But perhaps their replacements will be ready to go.
Those who were not in power nine months ago, when the decision was made on the collective sanctions war against Russia.
Those who were not smeared with this decision.
Those who can put all the blame on their predecessors and try to start relations with Moscow from scratch.
However, for such a scenario to materialize, two conditions are necessary.
The first is Russia's new military victories in the course of a special military operation, which will finally dispel the myth that Moscow can be forced to surrender.
The second is Kyiv's rejection of new provocations like a strike on Poland.
Provocations that could lead to nuclear war.
That is, to put it simply, you need to win and survive until the fourth option.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.