"Red Lines" - further deep into Russia. Why did the United States dare to pass Ukraine missiles to Ukraine

The provision of Farbid Missiles to Ukraine Blogger Petro Oleshchuk considers the excellent example of the destruction of "red lines" that Russia draws for a cautious event. But Ukraine simply erases these lines, so, President V. Zelensky reported that according to the conversation with President J. Biden, there was a decision to supply ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Another "red line" is overcome.

I think this has a direct connection with the demonstration of the flexibility of these "red lines", which Ukraine has recently been quite effective. Destruction of the TU-22M3 strategic bomber, lesions of the "enabled" type in Mordovia, which could "look" towards Europe at huge distances-2000 kilometers or even more, and fix aircraft and rockets. Destruction of the Security Service of several SBS-U RLS in Bryansk and Belgorod regions.

And this is not to mention numerous refineries, factories, ships and other strategic objects. Including metallurgy companies. How did the Russian authorities react to it? In the case of TU-22-they simply officially "fascinated" the strategic bomber in "heavy bombers". And I don't irony. It was really a statement that only a "difficult" "strategic" bomber fell. So the "red lines" are not broken. Feeling? If the "red lines" of the Russians are broken - they just push them.

But how long Ukrainians had to prove it! Actually, the very logic of "red lines" is not meaningless. The West does not want to enter the Great War with the Russian Federation, and they can actually be understood here. Therefore, they draw "red lines" to mark this unwillingness as a fact. Like, we do not want to attack you, we do not want to fight you, and therefore act within such limits without demonstrating aggressive intentions. And it can also be understood.

But what cannot be understood is that in the drawing of these lines they rely solely on the Russian vision. What is the point that it is impossible to knock down NATO aircraft Russian missiles over the territory of Ukraine? Will it automatically mean entering the war with Russia? Who said it? Russians? What is so sacred in Russian rockets? There are not even pilots there.

Why did Iran missiles not resulted in NATO's war with Iran? What can not be beaten everywhere in the territory of the Russian Federation, which does not limit itself in anything? When rockets from them will fly to Europe, they will also think, can they be knocked down, is it not possible? And if intercontinental ballistic missiles fly across the ocean? There are many questions and there are less answers.

But after Ukraine attacked not just the territory of the Russian Federation, but strategic objects that are directly related to the nuclear security of the Russians, the Western reasoning about "red lines" looks absurd. What is the point of limiting the nomenclature and use of Western weapons if Ukraine has already crossed all the "red lines" by its weapon? Why not move these lines further? There is nothing difficult, difficult. You just announce - now the Red Line goes on. All.

Especially if the line itself has already blurred and has lost its clarity and specificity. What is the "risks" of US missiles for several hundred kilometers if Ukraine develops drones for 3,000 kilometers? Therefore, "correction of red lines" is only the matter of the Ukrainians themselves. We like it or don't like it. It is easier for someone to spend them as close as possible to themselves and further from the Russians, and our goals are the exact opposite.