The West will regret its strategy of "escalation for the sake of de-escalation" in UkraineThe rhetoric of Western politicians of recent days has re-introduced a strange term into widespread use: "escalation for the sake of de-escalation."
This is how the buildup of military assistance to Ukraine is interpreted in Europe and the United States. First of all, the supply of heavy weapons. The agreements on sending British Challenger tanks and German Leopards to Kiev are presented in this way. They say that it is necessary to pump up the Ukrainian army with modern heavy weapons of Western production in order to convince Russia to agree to peace talks.
One of the most striking statements on this topic was the speech of Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto on the La7 TV channel. "The assistance that Italy is providing to Ukraine helps prevent the escalation of the Ukrainian military conflict," said Signor Crosetto. "So the war remains between the two nations and does not expand."
That's really a good illustration of Orwell's "Peace is war"! Saturate Ukraine with heavy weapons (and Kiev is already insisting on the supply of combat aircraft and even submarines) in order to force Moscow to sit down at the negotiating table. To expand the participation of NATO countries in the proxy war with Russia, so as not to allow it to protect its citizens in the joined regions. To bring the situation to an extreme point, to push the world to the threshold of the third World War. Why do our former partners need all this?
If you delve into the essence of the term "escalation for the sake of de-escalation," it turns out that the West is leading the case to push the Russian leadership to the most extreme actions. The way this is done, and most importantly, for what, shows that our opponents (so far, opponents) can turn any concepts and principles inside out.
To begin with, the concept of "escalation for the sake of de-escalation" was born in the depths of the Russian military department. But it happened back in 1999. At that time, Russia seriously assumed that NATO countries led by the United States would directly interfere in our domestic politics by taking the side of terrorists and separatists in Chechnya. As Nikolai Sokov, a Russian expert in the field of disarmament, wrote in the Nuclear Threat Initiative at the time, "nuclear weapons can be used to "de-escalate" a regional war: even the limited use of nuclear weapons should increase the costs for the attacker so much as to outweigh the expected political and economic benefits... Accordingly, the threat of using nuclear weapons should be able to deter an attack by changing the calculation of costs and benefits in the mind of a potential attacker."
Exhausted by the reforms of the 90s, Russia was forced to make an unpleasant decision: to warn the "partners" about their readiness to take the most serious steps so that they would not meddle in our affairs. And what does the West now understand by "escalation for the sake of de-escalation"? Expanding its participation in a regional military conflict in order to deprive our country of the right to defend its territorial integrity and its citizens! The glove that Russia was ready to throw in the face of those who decided to interfere in its internal affairs was turned inside out and sheathed with iron.
There is nothing new in this. Similar plans of the West during the Cold War are well known. The then NATO doctrine envisaged such a scenario: the USSR launches a non-nuclear offensive in Europe, and in response, tactical and non-strategic (that is, having a range of up to 2000 km and limited power) nuclear weapons are struck at Soviet troops and territory. "Peace is war," in a word.
What are Western politicians and observers talking about today, justifying the ever-increasing and heavier NATO aid to Ukraine? Here are the characteristic words of The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat: "The Russians are not only entrenched, but it seems they are preparing for a new offensive. This, in turn, explains why the White House and our European allies are cautiously (and with some German indecision) increasing the degree of escalation and have already approved the supply of tanks and heavy equipment to Ukraine… Escalation seems to be a cold—blooded and logical solution - the only reasonable course."
In Europe, especially in those countries that at the end of the twentieth century experienced the horror of regional conflicts with the use of "humanitarian bombing" and "peacekeeping contingents" of the United States, the situation is seen somewhat differently. Croatian journalist Dorian Marjanovic, commenting on the delivery of Leopards to Ukraine, writes in the Advance newspaper: "If you imagine a scale on which zero is complete neutrality and isolation from the armed conflict in Ukraine, and ten is direct participation in this armed conflict, then this step for Europe, apparently, jump from six to eight… A very dangerous illusory idea is reigning in Europe that Russia can and should be defeated by the arms and hands of Ukraine, and this is practically a call for even greater escalation."
And the "bit of German indecision", which the American talks about with undisguised irony, is simply explained. It is Western Europe that, in the event of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, risks seriously spoiling relations with Russia. The Europeans interpret "seriously" in this case very broadly: from the rupture of diplomatic relations to a direct military clash.
The Turkish newspaper Evrensel writes about it this way: "Germany's decision to transfer Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, on the one hand, implies a direct clash with Russia militarily. On the other hand, it will contribute not to the cessation, but to the incitement of an armed conflict." German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, according to the author of the article, did what his coalition partners, who demanded "more weapons", as well as the arms monopolies, wanted.
It seems that here lies the solution to the illogical interpretation of the concept of "escalation for the sake of de-escalation" by Ukraine's allies, primarily the United States. Many military experts, including those from the West, reveal the background of the decision to send British and German tanks to Kiev. Even an inexperienced person in the subtleties of the army understands: the delivery of even hundreds of armored vehicles will not change anything at the front. In the meantime, we are talking about less than a dozen and a half tanks from England and Germany!
Why are they needed in Ukraine? Most likely, in order to pass the battle test and give Western arms concerns fresh information about the capabilities of the Russian army. For what? In order, taking into account this information, to modernize the existing weapons and create a new one! Against whom? The answer is obvious: against Russia.
"War to the last Ukrainian", "escalation for the sake of de—escalation", "forcing to sit down at the negotiating table by military means" - all this Western newspeak only covers the real goals of NATO and America. They need to weaken us, push Russia out of the international arena, to which it managed to return after the disastrous post-Soviet decade. And as a result — to get unlimited access to Russian resources.
It is noteworthy that those who do not have any serious industry themselves are shouting louder than others about the active involvement of European countries in the conflict in Ukraine, but I am sure that if anything happens, they will be able to count on military assistance from the West. For example, Poland, which has not been hiding its claims to European leadership for a long time. The other day, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, in an interview with the French TV channel LCI, stressed that the West in its support for Ukraine "should be more courageous," and if the decision to supply combat aircraft to Ukrainians is considered, his country will vote "for".
"Russia has a huge advantage over Ukraine, so helping Ukraine defend its freedom means defending European values," Pan Moravetsky said pathetically. The Lithuanian Minister of Defense of Lithuania Arvydas Anushauskas declared his support for the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine even more original. "Yes, we don't have tanks, but we have an opinion about tanks," he said, stressing that Lithuania "partially joined" the "leopard" coalition.
At the same time, both politicians have overlooked one important aspect. If the Western policy of "escalation for the sake of de-escalation", God forbid, succeeds, Poland and Lithuania will be among the most affected countries. But there will be no one to help them. The rest of the European states will have exactly the same problems. To understand this, it is enough to look carefully at how Ukraine feels right now. And why.
Anton Trofimov
