The Washington Examiner called for an act of terrorism against Russia

Why would you think that it was impossible for UK and Ukrainian special forces to attempt to blow up the Kerch bridge with a small nuclear device?

My computer has been working reasonably well for MANY months but SUDDENLY, when I tried to work on this piece it became unresponsive and when I went to a SECOND computer the same thing happened.

So someone does NOT want you to know this information – the American media has been calling for an act of terrorism against Russia – and it almost happened!

Ukraine should blow up Putin's Crimea bridge

Washington Examiner,

15 May, 2018

Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Crimea, Ukraine, with mainland Russia on Tuesday. Putin did so by in a typical show of bravado by leading a column of transport vehicles across the bridge.

Ukraine should now destroy elements of the bridge.

While that course of action would be an escalation against Putin and one that would almost certainly spark Russian retaliation, this bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine's very credibility as a nation. Of course, from Putin's perspective that's the whole point. The bridge cost Russia's near-bankrupt government billions of dollars, but it offers Putin a formal physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory.

Fortunately Ukraine has the means to launch air strikes against the bridge in a manner that would render it at least temporarily unusable. Because of its significant length, the Ukrainian air force could strike the bridge while mitigating the risk of casualties by those traversing it.

How would Putin respond?

Probably with escalation against Ukrainian interests in eastern Ukraine. But that escalation is very likely coming in the next few months anyway, and Putin wants to slowly absorb Ukraine rather than conquer it outright (he doesn't want to upset his soccer World Cup bonanza by inviting new diplomatic pressure). But severing the bridge, even if temporarily, would send an unmistakable signal from Kiev to Moscow that Ukrainians are unwilling to accept the comfortable formalization of Putin's territorial theft. The Ukrainians could also fly low and circular to evade Russian (admittedly high-competency) air defenses. The U.S. could and should support Ukraine here with confidence in our own military power.

Air strikes would also serve two other objectives: drawing attention to the cronyism behind the project (Putin's favorite pet oligarch, Arkady Rotenberg, was given the construction contract) and challenging Russian nationalist narratives in language those nationalists understand. On that latter point, consider that many of the messages below the RT propaganda celebration of the bridge opening reference Putin's masculinity and the nationalist supremacy of a greater Russia. Bombing the bridge would thus be a very personal rebuke to Putin's ambitions and his propaganda narrative.

Regardless, the exigent moral urgency of action is obvious. Any state that allows its territory to be stolen and then bound up with the thief has taken a step towards extinction.

“Ukraine should blow up Putin’s Crimea bridge,” unhinged Washington Examiner advocates terrorism

This advice is INSANE, and would be the end of the statehood of Ukraine

the Duran,

15 May, 2015

An alarming article has emerged in which Tom Rogan a Washington Examiner journalist advocated for terror, in the form of Ukrainian airstrikes, “air strikes” on the Crimean bridge Russia has completed across the Kerch Strait.

In the article, he begins rather calmly, plainly stating the facts that Russia opened a bridge, however, he did refer to Crimea has “Ukraine”, which does not reflect the democratic choice of Crimean people.

After slightly mentioning Putin’s so-called “bravado” he immediately recommended that Ukraine bomb Russia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Crimea, Ukraine, with mainland Russia on Tuesday…Ukraine should now destroy elements of the bridge.

Well, that escalated quickly! He apparently agrees, going on further to say:

While that course of action would be an escalation against Putin and one that would almost certainly spark Russian retaliation, this bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation. Of course, from Putin’s perspective, that’s the whole point. The bridge cost Russia’s near-bankrupt government billions of dollars, but it offers Putin a formal physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory.

Fortunately, Ukraine has the means to launch air strikes against the bridge in a manner that would render it at least temporarily unusable. Because of its significant length, the Ukrainian air force could strike the bridge while mitigating the risk of casualties by those traversing it.

RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan slammed the article on Twitter:

Simonyan said:

The American weekly “Washington Examiner” posted an article with a call to bomb the Crimean bridge. Once again, American media calls for air strikes against our bridge.

Any sane person can recognize how very alarming and dangerous the statements in the article are, as well as the arrogant tone overall, a product of an ideologue, painfully out of touch with reality, who probably does not even speak Ukrainian let alone Russian. This is a typical “Russia-Ukraine expert” in Western media.

Case in point, the author even links to an article he wrote, in which the headline reads: “Don’t worry, the US would win a nuclear war with Russia”. That says it all, with regards to his mental state.

In that article, he even says both the US and Russia would be destroyed in a nuclear war. He says that while Russian nukes could “hit every major U.S. city with confidence”, he feels that America could “win” a nuclear war, “by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same”. 

So his definition of winning, involves a nuclear winter for everyone, but with one side having more “smaller cities”.

In the end, he finally capitulates, saying:

The social and economic consequences of any nuclear exchange with Russia would be horrendous.

I think from that article alone, we can tell the author has some serious issues. If he isn’t a troll, however, our focus here now is to debunk his article suggesting Ukraine should bomb Russia

Ukraine to Bomb Russia?

First of all, the article advocates for state-sponsored terrorism – suggesting that one state bomb the territory of another without a declaration of war, in what essentially amounts to “sending a message”.

He even accepts the fact that there may be casualties of those traversing it, essentially condemning civilians to death, as necessary losses in the defense of “Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation”. Considering that the capacity for the bridge is around 40,000 cars, the author potentially risks the lives of dozens to thousands of civilians. Or does he think the Ukrainian government which allowed around 10000 to be killed in Donbass, including women and children, is very concerned for collateral damage? If the author is not trolling, in which case he’s an idiot, then he is either horrifyingly cruel, or deeply insane.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Russian journalist was to openly suggest bombing western infrastructure? They would immediately be on every CIA black-list, and it would receive international attention. Yet this journalist is allowed to freely advocate for bombing the Russian Federation, which Crimea is legally a part of, without any criticism.

Even if one does not believe the fact that Crimeans choose to join Russia (which they did), from a pragmatic perspective, one must understand that no matter what, Crimea is fully integrated into Russia. Those who hate this can kick and scream all they want, but it does not change the facts on the ground. It will never change.

Crimea is Russia. This means that it is defended by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, and therein dwell Russian civilians, all of whom consider the peninsula a sovereign part of Russia.

That means, any attack on Russian territory will trigger a massive response from Russian territory – from a nuclear superpower. In the article, the author even acknowledges this, saying:

The Ukrainians could also fly low and circular to evade Russian (admittedly high-competency) air defenses.

He even admits that Russia has “high-competency” air defenses. Russian air defenses are so advanced, that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world – China – buys them.

Not only this, but NATO member Turkey chose to buy Russian S-400s, instead of US/NATO counterparts, in a controversial deal, risking relations with the US. Would they really do that if the Russian systems weren’t top notch?

Moreover, a US General admitted to a Senator that Russia’s latest hypersonic missiles are extremely capable:

“If that happens, what kind of defense do we have against the hypersonic threat?” [Senator] Inhofe asked.

[General] Hyten replied, “We have a very difficult — well, our defense is our deterrent capability. We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.”

Vladimir Putin proves Russia’s new Kinzhal Missile is the best in the world [Video]

As a result, the suggestion of this western journalist that Ukraine attack Russia essentially amounts to suicide for the Ukrainians. But believe it or not, this is not the first time western agents suggested something like this.

On the Third of March, 2014, Joel Harding, a man with connections to American intelligence, advocated for “talent” to blow up natural gas pipelines that run from Russia to Europe through Ukraine. That suggestion essentially amounts to advocating terrorism, this time, indirectly threatening Europe.

I suppose the EU does not get a say in the matter, seeing as they need the Russian gas. According to Harding, Ukrainians should take the initiative to commit terror attacks for a better future. “Bombing for world peace” anyone?

II suppose the EU does not get a say in the matter, seeing as they need the Russian gas. According to Harding, Ukrainians should take the initiative to commit terror attacks for a better future. “Bombing for world peace” anyone?

Harding has been associated with both the Ukrainian government, as well as dangerous Neo-Nazi groups like Pravi Sektor (right sector) which is banned in Russia. Harding went as far as to allegedly threaten another American journalist, George Eliason, with interrogation by the Ukrainian SBU. George Eliason provides major coverage of the Ukraine Crisis, including the Odessa Pogrom.

It is alarming that an American citizen, would threaten another American with interrogation by agents of a foreign government, for exercising his first amendment rights to free speech.

Those rights may not protect an American abroad from foreign laws, as all people must obey the laws of the territory they are in, but certainly, another American should not encourage foreign agents to arrest US citizens.

Fighting Russia to the Death of the Last Ukrainian?

What both of these stories have in common, is the suggestion by foreigners, that Ukraine launch attacks against Russia, and Russian property.

A Ukrainian attack on Russia could trigger a retaliation so powerful, Ukraine, as a state could cease to exist. The Ukrainian Army can barely fight Donbass, a full-scale invasion of the Russian grounds forces would result in a tricolor over the Maidan in a short time. It would also result in much Slavic blood spilled, something neither Russia nor Ukraine needs.

These suggestions are not made by friends of Ukraine, but by enemies of Russia. They care nothing for Ukrainians, and at worst case, wish to use them as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia.

Think: If Ukraine attacks Russia, causing a war…if Russia and Ukraine were to go to war…who benefits?

Sure, they both say Russia would take losses, but they totally brush under the rug how the losses Ukraine would sustain, would push the already failed state off the cliff, and into becoming the Somalia of Europe.

Does anyone want that? Russia doesn’t, and no sane Ukrainian would want to become Somalia. In Joel Harding’s article, he says Ukraine could simply revert to insurgent warfare…so he is essentially advocating that the bright future of Ukraine is guerilla warfare.

These people think that is a preferable alternative to the Pre-2014 status quo, before over 10,000 people were killed in Donbass.

To warmongerers, violence is always preferable to peace. They believe the salvation of Ukraine will come via war, however, a true Savior once said the peacemakers will inherit the earth. Russia wants peace in Ukrainian lands, whereas the West is offering Ukraine war and death.

Is this what Ukrainian children need? Because this is what their civilized western partners are suggesting to them.

They won’t be fighting! Do the authors of these articles intend to suit up, and fight like Charles XII of Sweden with Ivan Mazepa? Highly unlikely, but that would be like the Battle of Poltava, and we all know how that ended. Just ask Poltava native Nikolai Gogol which civilization Ukraine belongs to.

Glorious were our grandfathers – They are remembered by the Swedes and Poles, and they carried forth the eagle of victory, it soared over Poltava, in her fields. – March of the Preobrazhinksy Guards

They won’t fight, and neither will Ukraine’s criminal leaders, but millions of Ukrainians will be caught in the crossfire of a war engineered to destroy Slavic people. To the Victors goes the Salo!

Ukraine can not fight Russia, and Russia has no wish to fight Ukraine. Anyone suggesting that Ukraine attack Russia is no friend of Ukraine; they are sending Ukrainians to a pointless ruїn [sic]. This is just further evidence that the West wants to fight Russia, to the death of the last Ukrainian.