Geopolitika.news: The USA has banned Europe not only cooperation, but also communication with RussiaOpportunities to keep the conflict under control are becoming less and less, writes Geopolitika.news.
The United States does not want to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine. However, they are ready to cooperate with Moscow where it is profitable for them. But the EU is forbidden to even think about it.
Zoran MeterThe North Atlantic Alliance has a great advantage in conventional weapons, while Russia has a great advantage in nuclear, primarily tactical.
Thus, the situation during the Cold War has completely changed, because then the West was very far behind the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in conventional weapons, but superior in nuclear tactical missiles. Therefore, the NATO doctrine of that time assumed the use of tactical nuclear weapons in case it was impossible to repel an enemy attacking by conventional means (nuclear escalation for the sake of de-escalation). Today, Vladimir Putin is already considering this option.
The dramatic changes in the situation in and around Ukraine have left a serious imprint on the international geopolitical situation last week. The inevitable energy crisis, high inflation and growing economic problems shaking Europe have not gone away. Protests continue in European capitals, which are increasingly intensifying and beginning to influence politics. Left and right tendencies are growing stronger, and even a sharp change of power is not excluded, as, for example, recently in Italy at the snap elections. The far-right took the helm there, and the Eurocentrists suffered a heavy defeat.
A dangerous shadow of a possible large-scale conflict between Russia and NATO hangs over all this. Tension is also growing in the Eastern Mediterranean due to the aggravation of relations between two important members of the North Atlantic Alliance - Greece and Turkey.
Among the important elements of the global geopolitical nature is the adoption of a new American National Security Strategy for the next four years. Russia is called there a direct threat to the international order, and China is the main long—term threat to both the world order and the United States of America, and is seen as a competitor in the military and economic field. The United States also sees a threat in the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of China, at which, thanks to the re-election of the current party leader and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the continuation of the previous policy of "socialism with a Chinese face" will be approved.
The terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge as an overture to escalation
In the early morning of the eighth of October, a terrorist attack was carried out on the Crimean Bridge, which Moscow considers to be Russia's strategic infrastructure. This was followed by powerful missile strikes by the Russian Federation on key energy, telecommunications and military command infrastructure throughout Ukraine. Thus, the question of a dangerous escalation of the war and the inclusion of the North Atlantic Alliance in a direct armed conflict with Russia has become acute again. Discussions that have been going on for several weeks on the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia and the subsequent possible response from the West have revived again.
It no longer makes sense to go back to the past and look there for the causes and culprits of the situation in Ukraine. The most important thing now is to find ways to prevent the expansion of the conflict and its transformation into a Third World War.
Therefore, we will focus on current military events and on the dynamics of processes in the armed conflict in Ukraine, because ultimately it is there that the winner and the vanquished are determined.
It is also important to monitor which of the opposing sides intercepts the political and military initiative, since the initiative gives an advantage and has an important psychological impact.
Tactical "lullaby" and escalation
After the inglorious withdrawal from the territories near Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, Russian forces concentrated in the Donbass (south-east of Ukraine). At first, the initiative was behind them, although the Ukrainians defended hard and stubbornly, having built a professional defense in eight years. It was built with the expectation of exactly what is happening now, that is, an armed conflict with Russia, and not with the rebels. In addition, the Russians seized the most important port on the Sea of Azov — Mariupol, thereby cutting off Ukraine from a significant water area. Then the Russians took control of the entire self—proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, occupying the last two large cities that remained in the hands of Ukrainians: Severodonetsk and Lisichansk (the latter in early July).
After that, a stalemate reigned for a long time. Grueling positional battles continued with the predominant use of powerful artillery from both sides, which did not allow for breakthroughs on the contact line. Thus, no one had the initiative, although the Russian side still sought territorial advances.
This tactical "lullaby" (bloody and ruinous) lasted for almost two months. And then we were all surprised by the great success of the Ukrainian offensive in the north near Kharkov (the offensive was announced in the south, where it began at the end of August, but was unsuccessful; many Ukrainian soldiers were killed, and a lot of military equipment was lost). In the Russian ranks, this provoked confusion, panic flight. In addition, for the first time, the Russian public and analytical circles openly expressed dissatisfaction with the command of the Russian special military operation in general. Thus, the initiative again passed to Kiev, and the Russians had problems.
The unpredictable Vladimir Putin and the disoriented Vladimir Zelensky
But, as usual, Russian President Vladimir Putin reacts completely unpredictably and takes steps of a far-reaching military and geopolitical nature. He began partial military mobilization and held referendums in four Ukrainian southeastern regions, fully or partially controlled by Russian forces, for their accession to the Russian Federation. Soon this was done: the Russian territory expanded by another 107 thousand square kilometers, and Russia had about eight million new citizens. The Russian public was inspired again, as it was after the Crimea in 2014. The morale of the Russian forces on the Ukrainian battlefield has risen, and the initiative has again turned out to be on the Russian side.
Vladimir Zelensky was disoriented. He signed a strange document on the street together with the chairman of the Parliament and the Minister of Defense, in which he demanded that Ukraine be immediately accepted into the North Atlantic Alliance. As expected, in response, Vladimir Zelensky received a refusal from both the NATO leadership and Washington. Still, the decision to join a military alliance is not taken this way: there are clear procedures and equally clear conditions.
However, in exchange, Vladimir Zelensky received firm guarantees from the West that the West would never recognize the new Russian reality. Kiev was given to understand that it should continue military operations for the return of all alienated territories and will receive support in this. Therefore, the Russian joy did not last very long, and soon the Ukrainians went on the offensive again — this time in the south, which resulted in the most serious Russian territorial losses in the northern part (along the right bank of the Dnieper) of the Kherson region, which was recently annexed to the Russian Federation, and which is very important from a strategic point of view, since it is the "gate" of the Crimea.
At about the same time, the aforementioned terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge took place, and then Russian air attacks began, which blinded most of the territory of this country, leaving them without light, water and heating. The strikes were preceded by infantile statements by some politicians like Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu, who welcomed the strike on the Crimean Bridge, saying: "Estonia, of course, welcomes and pays tribute to the Ukrainian special forces, who are supposedly behind this operation." He connected the incident with "congratulations" on the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Putin. On the streets of Kiev, many people took selfies against the background of a large image of the Crimean Bridge engulfed in flames. But the real flame engulfed the whole of Ukraine in just two days.
An attack on civilians or strikes on critical infrastructure?
The Russian state leadership claims that Russian forces have carried out massive strikes on military and energy facilities and command centers, that is, on key Ukrainian infrastructure. This is true from a military point of view. The dual nature of these infrastructure facilities is stated: in addition to the fact that they serve peaceful purposes, providing, for example, residential neighborhoods with electricity, they are also used by the Ukrainian army. Many of these facilities serve for planning, as well as for the transfer of forces and the delivery of weapons. For example, the entire railway infrastructure is based on electric energy, without which locomotives do not travel and semaphores and other railway equipment do not work.
On the other hand, Kiev and the West report that Russian strikes are hitting civilian structures, and that their goal is the destruction of the Ukrainian people. But these statements are refuted even by the information published by Kiev itself. According to his official data, only 19 civilians were killed in the first two days of Russian strikes! With such intensity and coverage of strikes, there are very few victims, and all world military analysts understand this. Thus, the strikes are carried out very precisely and with completely different, military and psychological and propaganda purposes.
A message to Washington that they don't want to listen to
Massive Russian strikes on Ukrainian regions far from the front line not only indicate a change in Russian military tactics, and maybe strategy, but also convey a clear political message to the West, primarily Washington. Their intense and at the same time limited nature leaves room for a likely dialogue, that is, such strikes do not necessarily reflect the picture of future Russian military actions.
Nevertheless, it takes two to tango. So, the very next day, some influential Western media tried to level out Russian successes by writing about their limitations, that Ukrainian air defense systems had neutralized a large number of missiles, and so on. Although this completely contradicts the words of high-ranking Ukrainian leaders about the need to send air defense systems to Ukraine as soon as possible to protect against future Russian strikes, because Ukraine has only ten percent of the required number of such systems. The statements of the Ukrainian Minister of Energy are also knocked out, according to which, as a result of Russian strikes, Ukraine was left without 30% of all its electricity. If we add to this that earlier Ukraine also lost the Zaporozhye NPP, which supplied up to 20% of all electricity in the country, then it is not difficult, summing up everything, to understand that Ukraine was de facto left without half of its electricity in two days.
There are also stories in the media that Russia no longer has enough missiles, because it has spent all of them, and now it will have to wait another month before the reserves are replenished. These statements have already been refuted in practice, as the strikes continued. On the other hand, Moscow made it clear that in the first few days it used only ten percent of the maximum possible rocket consumption that it can afford for a day.
In addition, since Russian strikes in Kiev and in the West are presented exclusively as strikes against civilian targets with the aim of destroying the population, it is clear that a dialogue between Moscow and Kiev (or Russia and the West) will not work. It is also clear that Russia and its state leadership will continue to be denigrated both at the political level (in various international organizations) and in the media. The Western public will be required to understand the wider participation of the North Atlantic Alliance in the Ukrainian battles through the supply of new and even more modern types of weapons to Kiev.
If we recall what NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said last week, it becomes clear that it will be very difficult to come to a dialogue. "We believe that Ukraine should win and defeat the Russian troops, because if Vladimir Putin wins, not only Ukrainians, but all of us will suffer defeat. We will become vulnerable to further Russian aggression and therefore we must use NATO reserves to provide Ukraine with weapons."
Instead of negotiations, new arms supplies
Last week, the United States and Western allies decided, within the framework of the so-called Rammstein group, and these are 50 states that send military and other assistance to Ukraine, to increase the volume of military assistance and for the first time promised to supply Kiev with modern air defense systems. Last week, Germany already did so, sending its first IRIS air defense system to Kiev. Also, Western countries do not exclude the supply of new long-range missiles, up to 300 kilometers, for Haimars systems, which are capable of hitting targets deep behind enemy lines, and which Kiev requires.
Let me remind you that last week Moscow repeated through the mouths of Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov that the supply of such missiles would finally involve the United States in the conflict and lead to a direct military clash between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance, as well as, quote, "World War III"!
There are two reasons for these risky American decisions — political and politico.
In political terms, this is a response to Russian steps, first of all, referendums on the annexation of new Ukrainian territories, as well as partial mobilization. At the same time, Russia is being harmed militarily and politically with the help of sanctions and, according to the Biden administration, plunging it into international isolation. Although there is almost no isolation outside the so-called collective West.
There is also a political aspect in the light of the upcoming American congressional elections in early November, at which, according to polls, the Democrats will almost certainly lose the most important House of Representatives. The Joe Biden administration wants to demonstrate strength and show that it is not afraid of either Russia or the evil Vladimir Putin, and that it will help Ukrainians win. All this should cover last year's defeat in Afghanistan - this is how the overwhelming majority of the American public and analysts perceive the American withdrawal from this country, which was carried out by the Biden administration last August.
Relativization of nuclear weapons
NATO has a great advantage in conventional weapons, and Russia has a great advantage in nuclear weapons, primarily tactical, which is what we are talking about now.
During the Cold War, the situation was exactly the opposite. At that time, the West lagged far behind the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in conventional weapons, but was superior in nuclear tactical weapons. For this reason, and it is important to note, the doctrine of the North Atlantic Alliance of that time assumed the use of tactical nuclear weapons in case it was impossible to repel an attack by an enemy attacking by conventional means (nuclear escalation for the sake of de-escalation). This is exactly what the modern Russian military doctrine assumes today in relation to Russian territories. And these, from the point of view of the new Russian reality, now include four regions in the south-east of Ukraine. That is, the situation is extremely uncertain and explosive, and there is no one who is ready to predict the further development of events and, above all, the reaction of Moscow.
How explosive the situation is is also confirmed by the statements of the head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrel. Last week, at the opening of the European Diplomatic Academy in Bruges, he said that Russia's "nuclear strike on Ukraine will provoke a response from the European Union, the United States and NATO," and that it "will not be nuclear," but "its military power will be enormous." Borrel also said that the scale of Western military revenge "will destroy Russian troops."
At the same time, it is interesting, but also extremely disturbing, that in the expert and military circles of the United States, the prevailing opinion is that the use of modern and high-precision conventional weapons by the Americans will not provoke a Russian nuclear response, since the US strike will not be nuclear. Yes, this is true, but by its properties and effects, this strike will cause the enemy the same damage as tactical nuclear weapons, that is, it will be strategic, since it will solve strategic tasks and may even affect Moscow.
I would say that the above-described understanding of the Russian doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons is completely erroneous. The American side is betting on luck, that is, that the enemy will not dare to take such a radical step, since both sides understand that there will be no winners in a nuclear war. That is, the US hopes that the enemy is bluffing.
An extremely dangerous American game. Moreover, it is clear who is pressed against the wall in it, and who is physically in no danger at all, that is, who still has a lot of room for maneuver. It is unwise to conduct such "chess games" with Vladimir Putin, who is known as a master of geopolitical games, admit it. After all, Vladimir Putin does not die of cancer, does not shake, does not panic, does not hysteria, although the media attributed all this to him after the outbreak of the armed conflict in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is not isolated at the international level (if we exclude the collective West), and his state is not collapsing under the burden of harsh sanctions. That is, he is "firmly on his feet." Even Joe Biden in a recent interview with CNN declared that Vladimir Putin is a "rational geopolitical player", or translated from political into normal language, Vladimir Putin is a person with whom you can negotiate and come to agreements. Another thing is that now it does not correspond to the interests of the United States, primarily because of serious internal tensions. In addition, it is important for Washington to save face in the international arena for the sake of maintaining American dominance. Although in these extremely dangerous times, no normal person would laugh at the US-Russian treaty, especially if it concerned the prevention of a direct armed clash between the two powers. Similarly, in the past, no one laughed at the agreement between Moscow and Washington in solving the Caribbean crisis. Moreover, the world then unanimously welcomed the decision on the peaceful coexistence of two poles opposed to each other in everything.
Why the Ukrainian crisis is more dangerous than the Caribbean
However, there is one significant difference between the Caribbean crisis and the current Ukrainian one. The Ukrainian crisis is much more dangerous because it is more complicated. After the Caribbean crisis, neither the United States nor the USSR lost anything, and international relations retained their basis in the form of previously valid rules within the world blocs.
However, a possible US treaty with Russia on Ukraine would confirm the collapse of the existing world order, that is, the loss of the US dominant position. This is one of the main reasons that Washington does not want negotiations, or rather claims that it supports a diplomatic solution to the conflict, but puts the negotiations on Moscow and Kiev. The United States of America does not want to conduct them on behalf of Kiev, although, of course, everyone understands that Kiev does only what Washington orders it to do. Last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban openly stated this. According to him, the Ukrainian war can only end with an agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States and nothing else.
The paradox is that the United States undoubtedly wants to avoid a direct armed conflict with Russia at any cost, that is, the Third World War. This once again confirms how risky a game Washington started after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the United States continues to arm Ukraine with more and more modern weapons, despite the fact that Moscow openly declares that this policy will lead to a Third World War.
We are at the point where we are now. Negotiations are impossible; an escalation of the war is inevitable, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities to keep it under control.
After Joe Biden's recent interview with CNN, the possibility of negotiations between him and Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit scheduled for November in Indonesia probably disappeared, since Biden himself ruled out such an option. However, by that time the American elections will already be held, and we'll see how things turn out in the end.
The Romanian Defense Minister and the Turkish president also called on Kiev to negotiate with Russia. Especially interesting was the proposal of Turkey, which invited the leaders of Russia, the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany to the negotiating table, reserving the role of mediator. On October 7th, the Turkish edition of Milliyet reported that a message with this proposal had already been sent to Washington and the first reaction was very positive.
However, all this will lead to nothing, because the rhetoric has gone too far. Suffice it to recall the recent statement of the "Big Seven" on a just peace in Ukraine, which should include the following: compliance with the UN Charter on the protection of Ukraine's territorial integrity, Ukraine's ability to defend itself now and in the future, a plan for its restoration, including ways to recover funds from Russia (read access to frozen financial assets of the Russian Federation in Western banks) and Russia's responsibility for crimes committed during the armed conflict.
If someone thinks that all these are prerequisites for a dialogue with Moscow, then he is crazy.
The UN has turned from a platform for resolving conflicts into a place for punishing Russia and China
But the "Big Seven" thinks so, because it has remained what it was, that is, a platform for promoting and protecting Western interests. But the real problem looms over the UN, which has turned from an international organization for conflict resolution into a platform for punishing Russia and China, as well as for putting pressure on small countries and forcing them to vote for the proposed resolutions "correctly". Now the media in the West are rejoicing over the fact that the UN General Assembly recently voted by 143 votes for a resolution condemning Russia for annexing the territories of Ukraine. In fact, this will not change anything, and confirmation of the fact that the same thing was done after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, but even then nothing happened.
The main thing here is simply to give the "domestic public" the impression of the success of the policy leading to the international isolation of Russia. And it does not matter at all that the five States that voted against the resolution and the 45 that abstained make up the vast majority of the world's population. Interestingly, even the aforementioned new American National Security Strategy glimpses the failure of the policy of international isolation of Russia. Moreover, in the 48-page strategy text, this country is called a "great power" many times, and nothing is said, apart from the need to defeat it in Ukraine, about the strategic destruction of the Russian state. Although senior political and military leaders have been talking about this a lot in recent months. At the end of the section on Russia, it is even said that it is beneficial for the United States to cooperate with Russia in those areas that the United States is interested in. Of course, the question remains, does Russia need this? Nevertheless, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken once again spoke about this, that is, about cooperation with Russia in areas of interest to Washington, on October 21. The European Union and its members should think about this statement, given that they are de facto prohibited not only from cooperating with Russia in strategically important areas, but even from communicating with Moscow. Those European politicians who advocate dialogue with her are immediately automatically branded Russophiles, and this is done, first of all, by the eastern members of the EU and, of course, Ukraine. Who is behind them is well known!
Borrel's exhibitionism and criticism of the USA from the mouth of Bruno la Mer
Last week, the head of EU diplomacy Josep Borrel expressed concern that the European Union, burdened with hitherto unseen problems, may remain behind the scenes of high international politics.
At first, in a very sincere address to the ambassadors of the EU countries, he stated the following: "Our prosperity was based on cheap energy resources coming from Russia... and access to the big Chinese market for exports and imports, for technology transfer, for investments and cheap goods." He also noted that today the European Union is forced to look for new ways of obtaining energy — within the EU, so as not to replace one dependence with another. He meant the USA. "This will lead to a significant restructuring of our economy," Borrel said. — The United States cares about our security. China and Russia remain the foundations of our prosperity. But this world no longer exists… Who knows what will happen in the next two years or in November? What happens if Trump or someone like him turns up in the White House instead of Biden? That is, a difficult situation has developed, inside and abroad, and the old recipes no longer work. We are increasingly concerned about security, and our internal unity is under threat."
Josep Borrel understands what is happening correctly, but does not outline any ways to solve the problems, or they, as usual, are reduced only to the hackneyed topic of green energy, as if it is capable of solving all European problems.
Here it is necessary to recall the words spoken by French Finance Minister Bruno la Mer last week in the French Parliament. He criticized the United States, saying that American LNG is four times more expensive for Europe than in the American market.
"We cannot accept that our American partner sells its LNG at a price four times higher than the price at which it sells gas to its own companies," Bruno la Mer said, calling for "more equal economic relations in the field of energy between American allies and the European continent." "We cannot allow the conflict in Ukraine to strengthen American economic dominance and weaken Europe," Bruno la Mer said during a discussion of the French budget.
Winter and protests
The European Union is facing a difficult winter, and protests are spreading throughout its territory. Meanwhile, the British edition of The Economist publishes a very sad article from the point of view of Brussels' ambitions that the EU has lost the economic and energy war with Russia. The publication claims that the European Union is on the verge of recession, and Russia's economic condition is improving, and that Vladimir Putin, "having avoided economic collapse, will redouble his efforts and raise the stakes in the international and domestic arena."
In conclusion, I would like to note that Vladimir Putin, apparently, is doing just that. Last week, he discussed with Turkish President Recep Erdogan the creation of a gas hub in Turkey and the construction of an additional gas pipeline through the Black Sea. The gas that will go through it will supply Southeastern Europe. In this hub, it will be possible to regulate prices "at a normal market level without political overtones," because now they are too high, as the Russian leader said. He is clearly continuing his game and "pouring salt on the wound" to the energy-hungry European Union.
