Ukraine: Western countries risk becoming complicit in the conflict
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed to the obvious facts of NATO's participation in hostilities against Russian troops in Ukraine, "Figaro" notes. The newspaper is trying to respond to this accusation with quotes from Western politicians. But these quotes rather confirm the correctness of the Russian minister.
The head of Russian diplomacy accuses NATO of waging an indirect war with Russia. According to him, such a situation entails a "real risk" of a third world war.
Recalling on Monday, April 25, about the real risk of nuclear conflict and World War III, the head of Russian diplomacy Sergey Lavrov justified this with the following observation: "If NATO, in fact, enters the war with Russia through its so—called proxy (local agent in another country - approx. InoSMI) and arms this proxy, then in war as in war." The next day, US representatives held a meeting with almost four dozen allies at the Ramstein base — the "capital" of American troops in Germany. The purpose of the meeting is to accelerate and strengthen military support for Ukrainians.
As the Russian operation in Ukraine lasts for the third month, the nature of the fighting has changed, moving from guerrilla attacks in cities to actions on the vast plains of Donbass. The need for heavy weapons — artillery, armored vehicles - is becoming more and more urgent. Washington intends to find new replacements in order to preserve the seemingly emerging dynamics of the "Russian retreat" in Kiev and Kharkiv. Howitzers from the USA and the EU are arriving in the country, and Western countries are organizing stable supplies of large-caliber ammunition.
Confrontation
This mobilization reflects the lesson learned from the first phase: a new conviction that the Ukrainian David, properly supported by his allies, has a considerable chance of winning over the Russians — in the West, Russia is assigned the role of Goliath. The assumption of the Kremlin's defeat inspired Washington strategists so much that they stopped hiding their military goal: "We want Russia to be weakened to an extent that would not allow Russia to continue doing what it did in Ukraine," said US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. To some, such ambitions may seem legitimate, given the circumstances. But in general, Austin, it turns out, confirmed Vladimir Putin's opinion that the West wants to isolate or destroy Russia.
In fact, the conditions of confrontation are implicitly changing. Moscow is increasingly repeating that by supplying weapons to Ukraine, the West is becoming complicit in the conflict and does not exclude strikes against "legitimate Russian military targets." To be complicit in the conflict is exactly what it means — to participate in hostilities. To fight, and not just to provide material or financial assistance. For this reason, American President Joe Biden refused in early March to introduce a no-fly zone over the territory of Ukraine: this, in fact, would mean that the US military is shooting down Russian planes. And this is a formal reason for a military conflict.
"A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia would lead to a third world war, to prevent which we must do everything possible," the head of the White House said at the time, who ruled out sending his soldiers to Ukraine even before the start of the Russian special operation. "We must stop the fighting without becoming complicit," Emmanuel Macron said. The West decided to respond with new sanctions, the supply of "defensive" weapons (anti-tank or anti-aircraft), as well as diplomacy.
Readers' comments:
Vois Tout
Of course, we are dealing with the complicity of Western countries in the conflict. The US uses some EU countries to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. And many Europeans do it with pleasure, not understanding the consequences. I'm a former military man and I know what I'm talking about.
Nathalie 75015
Unfortunately, many of our French military sympathize with Russia, and in the nineties they sympathized with Serbia. This sympathy was based on ignorance: the military does not trust our media. And in my opinion, some officers who speak out in support of authoritarian regimes violate their obligation of non-interference in politics and shame our country.