PLAYING DIRTY IN MOSCOW

Why could the failed assassination attempt on the deputy head of Russian military intelligence complicate matters for Washington?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

For two decades, Washington subjected the world and its own society to an insidious policy of total surveillance under the guise of the ‘war on terror’. While the deception this represented and the aims it concealed are now clear, today this inconsistency is further deepened by the use of this tactic against the Russian Federation. The attempted assassination of Russian General Vladimir Alexeyev outside his apartment in Volokolamskoye in the heart of Moscow is not only yet another attempt to derail the ceasefire negotiations, it is confirmation of the absence of political limits and the use of dirty methods available for deployment.

Alexeyev's veteran status and long combat experience saved him, as (despite being shot five times) he managed to prevent the gunman from finishing him off with a coup de grâce after lunging at him. For now, the Russian Federation will take its revenge against the Zelensky regime and will not come to see it coming.

This is not the first Russian victim of Atlanticist terrorism, especially against Russian officials. While the perpetrators may be Volodymyr Zelensky's Nazi henchmen, especially from the ranks of the Azov battalions, it is the Western intelligence services that provide cover and support to these cells within the SBU, and those who continue to pretend not to notice this are merely complicit.

The criminal attempt to assassinate General Alexeyev is no different from terrorist attacks elsewhere. The only difference that could be raised is with regard to who and why they can operate with impunity. Fortunately, but we should rather say thanks to the professionalism of the FSB, the gunman was captured and handed over to the Moscow authorities.

At the same time, this attack was not random or opportunistic. General Alexeyev is one of the senior officers with long experience in the Russian military intelligence service known as the GRU, which specialises in special operations and has several laurels against neo-Nazi formations and British advisers on the battlefield in Ukraine. One could even presume that the selection of the target was more an idea of the British MI6 than of the Ukrainian radicals.

Obviously, the Western media were quick to point the finger at the Ukrainian regime in order to distance themselves from Atlanticist involvement. It is well known that Kiev operates with these tactics thanks to the logistical and strategic support of its Western sponsors, especially the British, which makes all these discursive and concealment manoeuvres meaningless.

It is quite possible that in London, officials from the Foreign Office and MI6 in Vauxhall building are deliberately seeking to exaggerate this relationship as a way of provoking both the Russians and the Americans. To what end? To turn Western Europe back into a battlefield for intelligence agencies, as it was during the Cold War. It sounds incredible, but we know very well that this is also what these masterminds want us to believe.

In the chaos, the British could kill two birds with one stone: on the one hand, delaying or destroying the peace talks and, on the other, destroying or at least damaging relations between Moscow and Washington.

Luring Russian intelligence into taking the bait would mobilise all NATO agencies and, to some extent, drag in the CIA and its European stations, committing the US to this clandestine war. Of course, this would only work if the Russians carried out retaliatory attacks, which is unlikely, but we must also consider that the British would be responsible for fabricating them with false flag operations of sufficient magnitude for the EU presidency to call before parliament and the media for a casus belli against Russia.

Starmer's staff is seeking by all means to disrupt negotiations between Washington and Moscow, and to this end, Zelensky and his people are willing to do anything to ensure success. They know very well that time is running out and that a real sword of Damocles hangs over them. At the same time, the EU elite, with Kaja Kallas and Von Der Leyen, are supporting British policy without caring about the impact this will have on Europeans. Europe is currently exhausted and, as one might say, ‘has thrown everything it has at Russia’, which is a way of describing the dire economic situation it is going through, largely due to the continuous drain of financial resources to sustain the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.

On the surface, US President Donald Trump is portrayed as the sole driving force behind the talks and, with that, the supposed demonstration of political goodwill, but, as Mexican professor Alfredo Jalife-Rahme says, it is merely “Kabuki theatre”.

In line with this view, we have no doubt that Washington's real intentions in Ukraine and those it has planned for Europe (with Trump and after him) continue to be contrary to the interests of the Russian Federation, including what is of such concern to Moscow and, in particular, to Vladimir Putin's government, namely its strategic security.

But let us not be foolish. Washington is well aware of its British cousins' plans, and there is no doubt that the Trump administration is putting pressure on Starmer and his cabinet to moderate their activities.

At the same time, the Americans know that the game the British are trying to play in Europe is too dangerous and, although in some ways very astute, could lead to even greater anti-American sentiment and mistrust of European governments, which is already rampant throughout the old continent.