© TASS

Journalists of America’s authoritative Foreign Policy magazine have exposed a curious conflict between the Pentagon and the US Congress. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley is dissatisfied with active approval of military assistance to Ukraine, which may entail a shortage of weapons the Pentagon needs to carry out its so-called OPLAN. One of its instances is dedicated to a full-scale war of NATO (for which read the American army) against Russia.

The document assumes an across-the-globe military aggression, and outlines specific standards for the storage of weapons and equipment, but the warehouses are running dry over supplies to Kiev. The Congress sees no reason in stocking up ahead of a potential war with Russia, as Ukraine does the same thing now. The tacit conflict between the Pentagon and the Congress is taking place amid NATO countries’ general lack of weapons and ammunition.

Given the Ukrainian armed forces’ overall underperformance, Mark Milley apparently comprehends that Kiev is failing to cope with Washington-set tasks, which makes major injections senseless. For this very reason, the plan for a US war against our country that has long been Mark Milley’s traditional trump card in his quest for a raised defense spending, is taking shape as a real "big war" with Russia. And this is another pair of shoes.

Yes, there has been no explicit clashes between General Milley and the congressmen, but behind the scenes there is a truly violent one, with part of it spilling out, as revealed by FP. On backstage, the issue of a major confrontation with our country is being actively worked out. It features lots of money – the newly adopted US defense budget amounts to a record $858 billion, most of which is meant to "deter Russia". This implies a war of annihilation against our country. As for Gen. Milley, one can hardly brand him a peacemaker or a Moscow advocate; he simply fears that the rapid-fire pace of arms supplies to Ukraine may blow off Pentagon’s entire war chest for OPLAN, particularly its Russia war-related clauses.

The details of General Milley's operations plan are intriguing, but the Pentagon never shares information of the kind with anyone. The above-mentioned Foreign Policy magazine touches upon one of the possible scenarios envisaging a NATO mission in the Suwalki Gap, a hundred-kilometer zone along the border between Poland and Lithuania that links Russia’s Kaliningrad region with fraternal Belarus. However, the 10-year-old OPLAN is obsolete and unlikely to prove useful to anyone, especially after the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. But even without any secret plans, the US strategy direction in its possible confrontation with Russia is obvious. By the way, specific military facilities in our territory the United States plans to target first have already hit the social media.

Without a shadow of doubt, all of this suggests that the fight against Russia will not be limited to Ukraine alone. Washington is diligently dragging Georgia and Moldova into the conflict, heating up tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and asserting itself in Central Asia. In a word, the United States wants to rally up all the post-Soviet countries into a future anti-Russian front. Let's bear in mind the Arctic, which Washington and Brussels also use to threaten Russia. As a result, one may expect attacks along our country’s entire border.

However, the US officials dissociate themselves from any war with Russia. Today, they do not seem ready to put the cards on the table and therefore make a song and dance about being at peace with our country. Still, the US military is known to have been unofficially fighting in Ukraine for quite a long time – they are just sold as volunteers. But the truth will out – after all, there has already been victims among the US "fortunes of war".

At the same time, an obvious thing is that Washington and its NATO allies are building up their military capability. The US defense industry launches a number of new productions, namely that of 155-mm artillery ammunition. By spring 2023, 20 thousand shells per month will be manufactured instead of the current 14 thousand, with 2025 to witness a total of 40 thousand. A far-reaching plan, as we can see.

Recall that the United States has recently presented its newest strategic bomber B-21 Raider to much fanfare. By 2027, at least 149 combat aircraft of the kind will be created, capable of delivering nuclear warheads across the planet. At the same time, the American economy is being mobilized and put on a war footing. So, shortly before adopting the defense budget, the US Senate granted the Pentagon wartime procurement authority.

Moreover, more US military formations and large-scale arms supplies are also entering Europe. The country contemplates sending Pentagon officials to Ukraine to help its soldiers master valuable imported equipment, and actually ensure that it is not stolen on an industrial scale. The US NATO allies are watchful themselves, filling up inventories with cutting-edge weapons, as they hate to lag behind their overseas patron.

A reasonable question arises here, as to why Moscow fails to see all of these Western preparations? Make no mistake, they are aware of this and do prepare a fitting rebuff. It is not a mere coincidence that President Vladimir Putin said the other day Russia could adopt the US preventive strike concept, stressing the availability of relevant weapons. "Since we are on the subject of a disarming strike, then maybe we should consider borrowing the ideas of our US partners on how to ensure our own security, shouldn't we?" Putin said, noting that a preemptive strike is the one to disable command posts.

According to him, the United States does not have hypersonic weapons capable of delivering such a strike yet, while Russia does. He also said our cruise missiles that are superior to their American comparables. Apparently, President Putin was referring to conventional precision weapons when dwelling upon about borrowing US ideas. "If a potential adversary thinks that it is possible to use the theory of a preventive strike, while we do not, this prompts us to give thought to the threats such defense doctrine ideas of other countries pose to us," the Russian leader summed up.