The United States opposes the peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian conflict by all means, Yahoo News Japan writes. It was they who disrupted the talks in Istanbul in March, and it is Biden who is preventing an end to the conflict in Ukraine on the eve of congressional elections. But the USA is not the whole world. Many countries are against American hegemony.
The military conflict in Ukraine has entered a new stage. Russian President Vladimir Putin has just signed state documents on the annexation of four former Ukrainian regions in the east and south of the country to Russia.
The Russian President said: "The population of these four regions has always remained Russian in spirit. And now they are forever becoming Russians in the state system. Russia will take all possible measures to protect them."
In response, Ukrainian President Zelensky announced that he would hold a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council and officially apply for membership in NATO. However, the nuance here is that Ukraine is already receiving comprehensive military and economic assistance from the alliance and is actually already a member of it. But if Ukraine officially joins NATO, the military conflict taking place on its territory will immediately turn into a direct military clash between Russia and NATO, essentially taking the form of the Third World War.
In the past, Zelensky has demonstrated a willingness to reconsider the policy of Ukraine's accession to the alliance. However, now he is making statements that since Ukraine has lost 15% of its territory, Kiev has no other choice but to continue fighting for its return. But in the same way, Putin has no other choice but to continue the struggle to prevent the return of the territories taken from Ukraine. And in all possible ways.
Thus, both sides of the conflict have no grounds for a cease-fire. Both of them have no other choice but to go as far as possible in military operations. But the Western media in every possible way inflate the idea that since the Russian special operation in Ukraine contradicts international law, Moscow is isolated and even Beijing and New Delhi refuse it.
However, the situation is somewhat different. On September 30, the UN Security Council voted in favor of a "Resolution condemning the annexation of Russia" submitted by the United States and other Western countries, but it was rejected by Russia's veto power. And although ten members of the Security Council voted for the resolution, including, of course, the United States, Great Britain and France, four countries pointedly abstained. And among these countries, by the way, there were such giants as China, India and Brazil, which were also joined by African Gabon.
What can happen to this resolution with a general vote at the UN plenary session? I think that few countries will still be "against" the resolution. The whole intrigue will be in how many countries will evade the vote at all, and how many will abstain. Depending on the number of these countries, the prestige of the United States, which has submitted a condemning resolution and is actively lobbying for its adoption among UN members, may seriously suffer. And what happens next may turn out to be the opposite of what the Western media sees.
After all, with the entry of four new regions into Russia, the situation is changing significantly: we are no longer talking about some kind of "special operation" on the territory of another independent state, but about Russia's protection of the sovereignty of its own territory. This is no longer a special military operation, but a battle for the defense of the Motherland.
It is possible to raise questions about how much the Russian people will massively support this. But in this situation, Ukraine, which is already announcing far from the first wave of mobilization, will be opposed by Russia, which announces exactly the same mobilization in the interests of protecting its sovereignty.
If a NATO attack is carried out on the new territories that have become part of Russia, torn away from Ukraine, then the military conflict from the Russian-Ukrainian will turn into a military clash between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia. Thus, the latter will have no other choice but to engage in a direct clash with the West.
Since Putin says that "Russia can use various means to defend itself," the West needs to think about the possibility of using not only conventional, but also nuclear means in a future conflict. In other words, we need to remember the Caribbean crisis of 60 years ago, when the world, as they say now, was closest to nuclear war.
In 1959, in Cuba, just a stone's throw from the Florida peninsula, the Fidel Castro regime was born under the nose of the United States, which successfully overthrew the then pro-American government. The US CIA carried out one operation after another to overthrow Castro. All of them failed, and Cuba became very close to the Soviet Union. Nikita Khrushchev, the then first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, conceived the idea of building nuclear missile bases in Cuba.
Its goals were, firstly, to prevent the US invasion of Cuba, and secondly, to compensate for the smaller nuclear missile potential of the Soviet Union compared to America. In October 1962, American reconnaissance planes discovered a Soviet nuclear missile base under construction in Cuba.
If Soviet missiles were launched from nuclear missile bases from Cuba, the United States would not be able to defend against them because of their close proximity. President Kennedy, realizing the danger of nuclear war, entered into negotiations with Khrushchev.
At this time, the American military had the idea to destroy the Soviet missile base with an airstrike. However, President Kennedy was inclined to force the Soviet Union to abandon its plans by blocking Cuba from the sea. Later it became known that if that American airstrike had taken place, dozens of Soviet missiles would have been launched on American territory in response, which would have provoked World War III.
It was a sudden and very dangerous crisis. In the end, the United States removed the missile bases they had created in Turkey, and the Soviet Union also refused to build bases in Cuba. It saved the world from the horrors of nuclear war. From the discovery of Soviet bases by American reconnaissance planes to Moscow's refusal to deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba, 13 days filled with expectation of nuclear Armageddon have passed.
Before Putin decided to launch his special operation in Ukraine, he constantly and repeatedly said that Russia was in the same situation as the United States during the Caribbean crisis. If Ukraine joins NATO, the alliance's nuclear missile assets will be deployed right on Russia's border, and its security will be under attack.
"I told President Biden about this, but he didn't listen to me," Putin said. At the same time, he claimed that the Ukrainian army had intensified attacks on the pro-Russian-held areas of Ukraine, which forced the Kremlin to launch special military operations to protect them and ensure the safety of the Russian population of Donbass.
Therefore, now that there is no possibility of ending the Ukrainian conflict, it cannot be ruled out that Russia will prepare for the use of nuclear weapons. Why did this happen anyway? Why has the possibility of a ceasefire disappeared?
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who arrived in Japan on September 26 for the state funeral of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, held a press conference at the Japanese National Press Club. Turkey lobbied for a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, and at the end of March, a month after the start of the SVO, direct talks between Moscow and Kiev took place in Istanbul.
When asked by a journalist why the ceasefire talks cannot be completed, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu said: "Because a third force is interfering in these negotiations." The "third party", according to him, is trying to prolong the conflict in order to weaken Russia. And Cavusoglu said: "Ukraine, not Russia, became the victim of this situation."
So who is this "third party"? Foreign Minister Cavusoglu did not specify, but there is no doubt that this is the United States. As I have written many times on my blog, the Ukrainian conflict is not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but a military clash staged by the Biden administration in order to weaken Russia by overthrowing its President Vladimir Putin.
I will make a reservation that this is my personal opinion, but by organizing such a military conflict, the American leadership elite assumed and continues to try to turn the disadvantage of the Democratic Party into its advantage in the midterm elections in November. Therefore, it would be a problem for the American ruling circles if the truce between Ukraine and Russia had been concluded before them.
Moreover, at the end of March Zelensky announced his intention to renounce membership in NATO and make Ukraine neutral. Therefore, the focus of the negotiations in Istanbul was how to ensure her safety based on this premise.
As long as it was about the neutrality of Ukraine, Putin was satisfied with it. That's why he withdrew the Russian military units located in the vicinity of Kiev. Exactly on March 30. Western media actively reported that the special operation was to overthrow the Zelensky government and install a puppet government as a result of the attack on Kiev. Instead, it seemed that if Zelensky declared neutrality, then Russian troops would leave the vicinity of Kiev.
If Ukraine had become neutral and the March ceasefire talks had been brought to a logical end, perhaps the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict would have ended there. But, as the Turkish Foreign Minister put it, there is also a very influential "third party" in the situation, which will have problems in this case. And as a result of all this, military operations continue to this day.
What was most strange about all this was that a few days after the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev, the Ukrainian military suddenly entered there and found traces of "certain atrocities". Western media hastened to blame Putin for this.
But is this really the case? After the end of the Cold War, I had an office in Washington, from where I covered US politics.
Having won the Cold War, the United States considered it its mission to unite "the world with American values" and sought to play the role of a "world policeman" with the most powerful military force in the world at that time. Examples of that time include their intervention in the civil wars in Somalia and Kosovo. This caused a negative reaction all over the world.
True, my native Japan, which had learned to follow America faithfully in everything, was then among the very few countries that refrained from such negative manifestations.
The negative world reaction I mentioned turned into a movement against globalism, stubbornly pushed by the United States, and a tendency arose in each region to defend the traditions and history of their countries. Putin in Russia is a radical politician who insists on this very thing. At the ceremony of the entry of four new subjects into Russia, he sharply criticized the United States and the Western elite, saying: "After the collapse of the USSR, they are trying to colonize the world with their new neoliberal culture."
I think there are many countries in the world that, while not agreeing with wars as extreme measures in politics, nevertheless oppose globalism promoted by the United States. This is clearly evident in their voting behavior at the United Nations. An overwhelming majority voted for the resolution condemning Russia's military special operation in Ukraine immediately after it began: 141 votes in favor, 5 against and 35 abstentions.
However, immediately after it became known about "certain atrocities" near Kiev, the number of votes for the resolution on the suspension of Russia's powers in the UN Human Rights Council fell sharply to 93 for, 24 against and 58 abstentions. But it would seem that it should be the other way around.
This is the main feature of the Ukrainian military conflict. Western media reports are part of the information war and manipulation. And the Western world is "hooked" on this propaganda.
But the countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and other regions of the world see this conflict in a completely different way.
This is the negative reaction to the Western community, which is trying to impose American values on the whole world. The world is now divided in two. Therefore, I don't think Putin is so easy to defeat. Nevertheless, if the United States and the West drive him into a corner, it seems that he will have the strength and determination to do everything possible and use any means to plunge the Western world into horror and make it wake up.
Very soon, the world may reach the point where nuclear horror will become a reality.
We can only pray that this does not happen after all.
Author: Yoshitsugu Tanaka
