Al Mayadeen: the conflict on Ukrainian territory is a struggle for the survival of the stateNext month will be the first anniversary of the Ukrainian conflict.
But it should be expected that it will end with the absolute defeat of one of the parties. Most likely, the conflict will continue until Moscow and Washington realize that they are on the verge of a direct clash, writes Al Mayadeen.
In a few weeks, the first anniversary of the armed conflict on Ukrainian territory will come, but there is no end in sight. It differs from the "proxy wars" during the "cold war" between the two poles of the international system, for example, the conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and therefore one should not expect that it will end in an absolute defeat of one of the parties. Such, for example, was the defeat of the United States in Vietnam in the mid-1970s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the late 1980s.
Most likely, the conflict will continue until Moscow and Washington realize that they are on the verge of a direct collision with the possibility of using nuclear weapons, and the continuation of the conflict will cost them much more than making a political decision. Until this moment arrives (the objective conditions for it have not yet matured), the consequences of the confrontation will continue to affect all international actors in different ways.
The positions of Russia and NATO are seriously different. Thus, the former did not dare to use armed force against Kiev until it was fully convinced that it faced an existential threat due to the alliance's insistent desire to continue expanding to the east by annexing Ukraine and using it to weaken a neighboring power. NATO planned to deprive Moscow of the opportunity to play any effective role abroad, whether at the regional or global level, which would serve as a first step towards the subsequent collapse of the state following the example of the Soviet Union. Since Russia still believes that the conflict on Ukrainian territory is a struggle for the survival of the state, and not the redistribution of its borders, it is likely that it will continue to conduct it just as decisively, even if it leads to a direct clash with the United States and its allies, including the use of nuclear weapons. Until now, the country has relied on its own forces and capabilities, namely military potential, geographical location and huge natural resources, and has not requested direct support from any of its actual and potential allies.
As for the Americans, from the very beginning they decided to enlist the help of their allies to provide all possible support to Ukraine, including military, and incite it to fight to complete victory. Thus, the United States not only supports a European country that is a candidate for NATO membership, but also tries to maintain a dominant position in the global system. They know for certain that Moscow's victory in this conflict will inevitably stop the expansion of NATO and force the alliance to retreat. This will mean the need to adopt collective governance of a new multipolar international order, which the Americans will resist at any cost.
At the same time, the United States has managed the Ukrainian crisis in such a way that it will become its main beneficiary if the conflict continues, even if it harms its European allies. Despite the huge assistance provided to Kiev, and to date it has amounted to about $ 45 billion, Washington is trying to return this money to the American economy through huge contracts concluded by its giant defense industry companies. He was in dire need of restoring his hegemony, and the Ukrainian crisis provided him with a unique opportunity to achieve this. Immediately after the start of the Ukrainian conflict, European countries hastened to obey the American course, discarding long-standing dreams of EU independence in the field of foreign policy and security.
European leaders, who believed, like French President Emmanuel Macron, that NATO was "dead," again gave leadership to the United States. The latter received huge geopolitical, economic, military and political benefits from the Ukrainian conflict, without sending a single American soldier and without firing a single shot. As has been repeatedly noted in the press, countries such as Germany, Finland, Canada, and Japan have recently signed contracts for the purchase of American weapons worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and almost all European states, with the exception, of course, Norway, were forced to buy oil and gas from the United States at prices several times higher than from Russia.
If we follow the course of the armed conflict, then both Moscow and Washington made a mistake in their calculations. Russia planned to quickly achieve victory and achieve its goals, but incorrectly calculated the amount of support that Western powers could provide to Ukraine at various levels, and also did not take into account the depth of patriotic feelings of the Ukrainian people, without which the Ukrainian army would not have been able to resist the enemy for so long. However, these mistakes do not mean that Moscow is facing an insoluble military or political dilemma: defeat in several battles does not mean defeat in the conflict.
As for the United States, they expected that the huge assistance provided by them and their allies to Ukraine, as well as the unprecedented economic sanctions imposed against Russia, would inevitably force it to capitulate and cease hostilities. Then they could not correctly assess the amount of resources and economic opportunities that Russia possesses, which allowed it to withstand sanctions and circumvent them, as well as the level of its military power.
In other words, a strategic assessment of the course of the conflict in Ukraine allows us to conclude that, contrary to the rhetoric of the Western media, the scales are now tipping in favor of Russia rather than the United States and its allies. This is due to a number of factors, the significance of which can be summarized as follows.
The first factor is the impact of economic sanctions on both sides of the conflict. It is obvious that Moscow has won this round, as evidenced by the fact that the position of the Russian currency (ruble) is currently stronger than before the conflict. This is an indicator of the level of stability of the country's economy at the current stage. Moreover, the sanctions had more negative consequences for Western economies, especially for the European Union.
The second factor is related to the course of military operations. The combat capability of the Russian army turned out to be lower than expected, and yet we must not forget that it is opposed by armed forces that receive maximum assistance from Western countries, including the United States. In addition, Russia has not used all of its military power, but still controls most of the annexed territories, despite the ferocity of the Ukrainian resistance. Therefore, we can hardly say that the country is on the verge of military defeat.
The third factor is the degree of cohesion of political and military alliances on both sides. The American-led coalition, consisting mainly of NATO member states and some other Western countries, seemed very united at the beginning of the conflict, but now the situation has changed: various contradictions have begun to appear, which tend to intensify under the pressure of the situation. We are talking about economic difficulties in the winter and a conflict of interests between the United States and a number of European countries.
On the other hand, despite the refusal of a number of players to join Western sanctions against Russia, it is hardly possible to say that they are close to joining the political or military alliance led by it. As the conflict continues, cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang, and perhaps New Delhi, is really developing and therefore may lead to the creation of some form of alliance between them, especially if another round of conflict is unleashed. In the latter case, its scale will increase, and new countries will be involved, although so far this is only one of the possible scenarios. This means that Russia has strategic alliances to rely on if something goes wrong. As for the United States, the alliance they lead - NATO - is in danger of collapse, especially if the military confrontation drags on, and European countries will not be able to find an alternative to Russian energy carriers.
