Breaking news! According to Ukraine's "Messenger of Peace"** on March 2, the NATO Air Force carried out a shock operation, suddenly intruding into Ukrainian airspace and simulating an air strike drill against the Crimea region.
The report pointed out that at a time when Germany was paralyzing the Crimean bridge, three NATO warplanes - two F-16 and one F-35 fighter jet - crossed Ukrainian airspace from Romanian airspace on the same day, simulating an attack on the Crimean peninsula and its Black Sea Fleet base under Russia's actual control.
In this well-planned simulated attack, the Ukrainian army's Patriot missile systems and mobile radar stations in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions also synchronized and worked closely with NATO warplanes to launch simulated strikes on imaginary targets. It is worth noting that NATO F-35** fighters made full use of their advanced electronic warfare systems to covertly probe and track Russia's radar network, aiming to comprehensively map and determine the deployment of Russian air defense systems.
The F-35 stealth fighter is known for its EODAS distributed aperture combat system, which is known as having all-round situational awareness comparable to that of a small AWACS aircraft. The system integrates a variety of infrared sensors and radar warning equipment, and can quietly and comprehensively detect the surrounding electromagnetic environment without turning on the airborne radar, obtain infrared images, and carry out tasks such as search, target designation, missile warning and effect evaluation in real time, which greatly enhances the battlefield perception efficiency. It is reported that China's J-20 fighter also adopts such advanced technology.
Although the authenticity of this news originating from the Ukrainian "messenger of peace"** is still questionable, some analysts believe that even if this is the case, it is highly unlikely that NATO will publicly admit that such actions have been carried out.
Rumor has it that the NATO Air Force has conducted simulated air raid drills against Russia in a number of operations, and at the same time, NATO has integrated the Ukrainian army into its overall combat system, not only providing a large number of intelligence support and reconnaissance services, but also deeply involved in military operations against Russia.
Recently, U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin made remarks at a hearing in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, which sparked heated discussions. He said that NATO does not rule out the possibility of a conflict with Russia.
The Russian side reacted strongly to this, with Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov warning that a conflict between Russia and NATO would be inevitable once NATO members directly entered the war in Ukraine.
Secretary Austin also elaborated on the current grim situation on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield at the hearing, emphasizing that the shortage of US aid materials is an important factor that leads to Ukraine's disadvantage, and the Russian army is advancing step by step, forcing the Ukrainian army to switch to a defensive posture.
He bluntly stated: "If Ukraine loses in real combat, NATO will face a head-on conflict with Russia." In addition, he hinted that the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia) could become Russia's next strategic targets.
Recently, France's Macron issued a statement that shook the West, saying that the possibility of NATO sending troops to Ukraine cannot be ruled out. As soon as this statement came out, it immediately triggered a strong reaction from many parties, including NATO, the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, who unanimously and unequivocally rejected this view and repeatedly stressed that there were no plans to send troops to Ukraine.
Macron's speech was interpreted as an attempt to unilaterally decide the fate of France, or to put allies at risk. Sensing the discontent of his allies, Macron realized the mistake of words and quickly adjusted his position. According to the latest reports, French Governor Sejourne made it clear in an interview that France has no intention of sending troops to participate in the military operation in Ukraine, and French citizens will not pay with their lives.
Cejourne further explained that France has always adhered to two principles when dealing with the Russia-Ukraine conflict: both to prevent Russia from winning the war and to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia. He justified Macron's remarks, saying that within this framework, no possibility can be completely ruled out, even including a direct conflict with Russia, so he believes that Macron's statement is not false.
Many in-depth analyses believe that Macron's remarks about declaring war on Russia do not really show that France is willing to bear the cost of personnel for the interests of Ukraine, but more reflect Macron's political strategy of trying to enhance France's influence within the EU or NATO in this way. Some Western countries often use weak rhetoric to strengthen their own voice, and Macron's move is also in line with such norms.
Since Britain's exit from the European Union, France has cherished dreams of leading the EU, but Germany is seen as its strongest competitor. However, given France's current economic, political and military strength, Macron's vision of playing the role of Europe's "bellwether" is not yet solid enough.
As a result, he had to resort to more controversial and radical ways to highlight France's presence and deepen the impression of European countries.
It is not uncommon for Macron to frequently throw out highly controversial issues, triggering heated discussions within Europe. His "NATO brain death theory" once caused widespread anxiety in Europe, and after his visit to China last year, he called for the EU to reduce its dependence on American security, a proposal that sparked a fierce debate within the EU and NATO, leading to fierce criticism from European colleagues.
Therefore, Macron's whimsical high-risk remarks about the possibility of NATO sending troops to Ukraine quickly drew resolute opposition from other Western countries. This move not only failed to achieve the desired effect, but had a negative impact, which can be described as self-inflicted.
Although it is an open secret that NATO is indirectly involved in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both Russia and NATO member states are carefully maintaining this layer of tissue paper that is easily broken, because they know that if they are accidentally pierced, it may trigger serious consequences that neither side can bear.
Elaborating on France's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Céjourne pointed out that France has set a clear policy boundary: to prevent Russia from winning the war, and to avoid a direct military collision with Russia.
He further defended Macron's remarks, arguing that any possibility could exist within such a policy framework, including a direct war with Russia, and therefore he saw nothing wrong with Macron's remarks.
However, the general interpretation is that Macron's remarks about going to war against Russia are not France's sincere willingness to pay the actual price of blood and tears for Ukraine, but his attempt to enhance France's voice and influence within the EU and NATO through such bold rhetoric. Many Western countries often use lack of strength as an excuse to make tough statements to increase their influence, and Macron's approach seems to be similar.
France has coveted the role of EU leader since Britain left the EU, but Germany is the main contender on this path. However, looking at France's current combined national power, economic, political, and military, is not enough to support Macron's ambition to dominate Europe. As a result, Macron has chosen to manifest France's presence in a more radical and controversial way, hoping to leave a deep impression on the hearts of Europeans.
It is no longer uncommon for Macron to keep throwing controversial topics that provoke heated debates within Europe. His remarks about "NATO's brain death" once shocked Europe and caused internal panic; After last year's visit to China, he advocated a reduction in dependence on American security, a proposal that caused huge controversy within the European Union and NATO, and even made him the target of criticism from many European peers.
Against this backdrop, Macron's sudden astonishing remarks that NATO might send troops to Ukraine were quickly opposed by other Western countries. His strategy of trying to increase his influence did not work, but instead brought negative effects to himself, which can be described as self-defeating.
Despite the murky relationship between NATO and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, both Russia and NATO are carefully maintaining a seemingly fragile but vital balancing line, because both sides understand that a break would lead to unimaginable and catastrophic consequences.
In order to show France's presence and influence, Macron dared to challenge taboos and try to break through this delicate boundary. However, not only are NATO allies negative about this, but all parties in France cannot accept the risk of Macron drawing France into the conflict in Ukraine.
Macron's attempt to highlight France's position by making **sexual remarks turned out to be counterproductive, not only damaging his image at home and abroad, but also going against the will of the majority of the French people who are unwilling to participate in the conflict in Ukraine.
Macron has long been active on the European stage with a confident posture, but in reality, his series of words and deeds are sometimes more like a kind of laughing stock in European politics.
France's physical strength does not satisfy his ambition to become Europe's leader, so he often attracts attention by making controversial statements, which often puts him in an embarrassing position.
In order to save his image, Macron clarified through Foreign Minister Cejourne that France will not send troops to Ukraine, let alone make the French pay with their lives for the benefit of Ukraine. At the same time, the reality is that under the premise of excluding nuclear factors, Russia's conventional military forces are not superior to NATO as a whole, which is why Russia has repeatedly shown its cards of nuclear war to deter NATO from directly intervening in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In the past two years, Russia has relied on nuclear deterrence to effectively prevent NATO from directly entering the war, and at present, Europe, the United States and NATO are limited to providing funds, ** support and so-called "volunteers".
Russia has sternly warned that crossing the red line it has set could trigger a nuclear war, and if necessary, it would activate nuclear power in the face of life and death.
However, the basis of nuclear war deterrence is based on a balance of terror that guarantees mutual destruction. The United States and NATO have also put forward a-for-tat counter-deterrence strategy, that is, if Russia launches a nuclear attack, they will not hesitate to take a nuclear retaliation and completely destroy Russia.
In the face of a complex and volatile situation, Russia has taken a series of flexible response measures, including military preparations and seeking the support and cooperation of the international community, as part of which is its engagement with Iran and the countries north of the peninsula. Of particular concern is the fact that China's attitude is crucial for Russia.
Although China and Russia have not formed a formal military alliance, the cooperation between the two countries in military exchanges, energy cooperation, and diplomatic interaction has reached an unprecedented level of intensification. Russia's protracted war on the battlefield in Ukraine and its all-round sanctions and isolation from the West have undoubtedly made them more deeply aware of the great strategic value of Sino-Russian cooperation.