Losing bet
Erroneous estimates and expectations returned to the West like a boomerang, writes "Pechat". The economic blitzkrieg did not bring Russia to its knees. Popular unrest did not begin there, and Putin only became more popular. In the West, inflation is growing rapidly with unpredictable consequences.
Miroslav Stoyanovich
If everyone in and around the conflict in Ukraine, the West and Russia, were really dragging their feet, then the calculation of one of the parties clearly turned out to be erroneous. Who made a losing bet and counted on the wrong scenario? The West, and I will remind you that from the very beginning it waged a direct, though not formally declared war against Russia "to the last (unfortunate) Ukrainian." The West entered the conflict with a strategic idea and intention — to exhaust and "humiliate Russia", as well as to bring its economic blitzkrieg "to its knees". (To date, about six thousand different sanctions have been imposed against Moscow, each of which should be even more painful than the previous one). This was done so that Russia would never "even think of" going to any kind of aggression again.
Counting on such a scenario, which turned out to be erroneous, the West was waiting for an imminent "Russian defeat on the battlefield", an explosion of social discontent, a sharp drop in Putin's rating and an inevitable putsch against the "Kremlin tyrant". In case the coup did not happen, and its initiators and instigators were looked out for in the president's inner circle, a rumor was started about Putin's imminent departure not only from politics, but also from life. In political and media circles, referring to "reliable sources in the special services," they whispered about Putin's incurable illness. This continued until the first person in the CIA, William Burns, stopped these speculations, saying: "Putin is healthy, even too healthy."
Fear of the "Russian winter"
This statement frightened many in the West even more at a time when it became clear that the bet on the "defeat of aggressive Russia" turned out to be a losing one. The Russian economy, despite the harsh and ruinous sanctions, has not been shaken thanks to the incredibly increased budget revenues from the sale of energy carriers. The ruble has strengthened, and Putin, healthy as a bull, has become more popular than ever. Erroneous estimates and expectations returned to the West like a boomerang. Euphoria about helping Ukraine is subsiding. Political fatigue from the "Ukrainian theme" is becoming more and more obvious. Less and less often the media make it the main news. Inflation in Western countries is growing rapidly, turning into an ordeal for the ruling elite. Its consequences are unpredictable, and social explosions are possible in the future. The fear of the "Russian winter" and the acute shortage of energy carriers is already chilling to the bone, despite the sultry summer.
Political nightmares, which are, if not direct, then certainly indirect consequences of the Ukrainian conflict, have already swept the arrogant Boris Johnson and "super Mario", the influential and unsuccessful Italian prime minister, from the political arena. There is also cause for concern for the most powerful European duo: the French president and the German chancellor. The failure in the parliamentary elections greatly "clipped the wings" of Emmanuel Macron. Olaf Scholz's popularity is also noticeably falling, which with his predecessors, although, of course, in very different times, never happened at the very beginning of the mandate.
There is another fact that causes concern in the West and disappointment in Kiev and the over-hyped (at first it seemed an artificial, but successful media project) Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. The fact is that the continuous "pumping" of Ukraine with weapons did not lead to the expected turning point on the battlefield and the Ukrainian counteroffensive so expected by the Western media. In front of. More and more Ukrainian regions are coming under the control of Russian forces. Not only in the Donbas. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already categorically warned that if the West continues to pump Ukraine with weapons, the "geography of the conflict" will inevitably change. The modern Western weapons being sent threaten the security of the newly proclaimed republics in the east. These supplies will inevitably force Russian forces to act in response, and they will move much further than the territory of Donbass, and reach the west of Ukraine. The warning and threat of the head of Russian diplomacy caused outrage and a very different reaction in Western capitals. German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock, who, by the way, is "green" not only by party affiliation, called the warning of an experienced Russian colleague a "propaganda bluff." But Vladislav Zubak, a processor of international history at the School of Economics in London, warns, saying that "Lavrov's rhetorical statement to the West should be understood as follows: the longer the fighting drags on (because of the supply of weapons to Ukrainians), the more Russia will demand." And he will get it.
The key question that is increasingly being asked in the West is: can Ukraine, with all the military and financial assistance that is being sent to Kiev, turn the situation around? Recently, the media furiously quoted the words of Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who specializes in security issues. In his article published in Foreign Affairs, he writes: "Ukrainian and Western expectations about victory over Russia are increasingly looking like fantasies." According to him, the time has come for another turning point — for the search for a diplomatic compromise. But it is against this that Washington has so far resisted in every possible way. Probably, there is still a strategic idea that Russia will be able to exhaust. Therefore, no peaceful and diplomatic initiative has been received from the other side of the Atlantic, at least publicly, which could contribute not only to the end of hostilities, but also to the elimination of all problems between the West and Russia, which mainly contributed to the conflict.
Fear of Trump's Return
Although the West, at least that's what it looks like from the outside, acts in a monolithic manner, tightly squeezed in the arms of Washington, disagreements over "what's next" are becoming more obvious. Washington, London and Warsaw are radical and categorical. In their opinion, it is necessary to send weapons so that, no matter how long the war lasts, it is necessary to "defeat Russia". In Paris, Berlin and Rome, at least quietly, they tend to search for an early solution not only to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, but also to lift the sanctions imposed against Russia. After all, they return like a boomerang and inflame the political, economic and social situation, creating an explosion threat. Discussions on this topic are becoming more frequent. The notorious Francis Fukuyama joined one of these discussions. In an interview with a journalist of a German publication, the author of the "End of History" and an outspoken Russophobe (true, he warmly supported Alexei Navalny, which is why he is banned from entering Russia) hurries Ukraine and the West so that they use this summer for a powerful and successful counteroffensive. So they will "save unity and solidarity in the Western alliance." That is, Fukuyama is afraid of prolonging the fighting, although Washington is doing its best to promote this. According to Fukuyama, the armed conflict could last until the presidential elections in the United States, which would be a real disaster if Donald Trump returned to the White House. As a frightened Fukuyama put it, Trump's return "will solve all the problems for Russia." He clarified that Trump can fulfill his threat about the withdrawal of the United States from NATO, thereby destroying the alliance's unity so strong today (Trump's Republicans, by the way, have already spoken out against the adoption of Finland and Sweden), as well as a united front against Moscow. Therefore, in order to preserve the united West, it is extremely important that Ukraine regain control of the south of the country. This part with seaports is much more important than Donbass…
Russian President Vladimir Putin puts the conflict in Ukraine in the context of an existential struggle with the West, the outcome of which will determine the world order. He is not alone in this. The West is also watching with obvious concern the formation of the contours of this new coming world order. This is not only about increasing integration within the BRICS, but also about the growing attractiveness of this entity, which accounts for 40% of the world population (Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa), as an alternative to the Western system in the eyes of other countries in Asia, Africa and South America.
Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran for the summit of the three heads of state was also perceived with obvious concern in the West. The Iranian president hosted Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mark Almond, an Oxford professor and expert on Russia, saw this summit as a "frightening prospect." In his opinion, this summit is a demonstration of a new anti—Western and anti-democratic alliance that will cover the territory from the edge of Eastern Europe to the South China Sea with Mother Russia in the middle. A similar opinion is expressed in the New York Times. They believe that Putin's visit showed how the conflict in Ukraine unites two regional powers isolated from Europe and the United States, and changes geopolitical calculations and relations in the world.
Putin also met with Iranian spiritual leader Khamenei in Tehran. Khamenei's statement about the support of the Russian special operation in Ukraine caused special attention of the Western media and political circles. In his opinion, if Russia had not blocked the path of NATO, which sees no borders, and if it had not stopped it in Ukraine, then after some time the war would have started under the Crimean pretext. Therefore, as Khamenei warned, it is necessary to remain vigilant because of the "insidious actions of the West" and "strong, cunning" Americans. NATO without borders and restrictions? The idea of a global military alliance that would no longer be "tied to geography" (would not only be a transatlantic alliance), but would include countries with "similar cultural, civilizational and political values" has already been expressed. At the last "historic" NATO summit in Madrid, this idea acquired concrete features and became overgrown with intentions. Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were invited to that summit for the first time. But again, even if they didn't talk about it out loud, geography still played a role. So NATO sent an unequivocal message to China.
