[continued from previous message]

In early March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signaled their intent to form a “coalition of the
willing,” a group of countries prepared to deploy troops and aircraft to Ukraine if American support wavers.

While no such deployment has been confirmed, the rhetoric underscores a commitment to Kyiv that goes beyond financial or material aid. “Paris and London have been the most consistent voices pushing for escalation,” noted Peter Clarkson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Their fingerprints on an operation like this wouldn’t be surprising, though proving it is another matter.”

Evidence supporting Zakharova’s claims remains scarce. Satellite imagery released by Russia’s Defense Ministry via Telegram showed damage to the Sudzha facility, but it offered no clear indication of how the strike was coordinated. Independent verification is challenging in a war zone where
access is restricted, and both sides have been accused of manipulating information to sway international opinion.

Ukrainian officials have not commented directly on the attack, though the country’s military has previously acknowledged targeting Russian energy infrastructure to disrupt Moscow’s war effort.

A statement from Ukraine’s General Staff earlier this year described such strikes as “legitimate acts of self-defense,” a position that contrasts sharply with Russia’s portrayal of them as terrorism.

The broader context of the Sudzha incident includes a tenuous ceasefire agreement on energy targets brokered between the U.S. and Russia earlier
this month. Following talks in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day
pause on attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, a deal hailed by President Volodymyr Zelensky as a diplomatic breakthrough.

The strike on Sudzha, occurring just weeks later, appears to violate that understanding, though it’s unclear whether Kyiv sanctioned the operation
or if it was carried out by rogue elements within the military. The U.S.
State Department declined to comment on the allegations against its
allies, stating only that it continues to monitor the situation closely.

Comparisons to past events offer some perspective. In November 2024, Ukraine’s first use of ATACMS inside Russia—targeting an ammunition depot in Bryansk—sparked a similar outcry from Moscow, which accused NATO of
direct participation.

That strike, authorized by Washington, led Russia to revise its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for potential nuclear retaliation. The
Sudzha attack, while less far-reaching in distance, carries symbolic
weight as an assault on civilian infrastructure, a red line Russia has repeatedly warned against crossing.

Unlike ATACMS, which are designed for deep strikes, HIMARS rockets are
more tactical, suggesting a focus on immediate battlefield gains rather
than strategic disruption.

As the dust settles on this latest incident, the international community
braces for what comes next. Russia’s Foreign Ministry has promised a “tangible response” to Western involvement, though the form it will take remains uncertain.

Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to rely on its allies for the tools to
defend itself, even as those tools draw them closer to direct
confrontation with Moscow.

The Sudzha strike, whether a calculated escalation or an opportunistic
hit, underscores the fragility of the current moment—a war where each side tests the limits of the other’s resolve, and where the line between
support and participation grows ever thinner. For now, the world watches, waiting for clarity amid the chaos.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/03/29/uk-france-implicated-in-ukrainian-strike-on-russian-gas-hub/

--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)