Geopolitika.news: in case of defeat in Ukraine, the West will still present it as a victory Even if the West is defeated in Ukraine, it will still call itself the winner, writes Geopolitika.news.
The United States and Europe will declare that Russia has completely exhausted its forces and no longer poses a threat to them, since it has been isolated. These arguments will allow the West to "back off" without losing face.
Zoran MeterZbigniew Brzezinski, a well-known American geostrategist of Polish origin, once compared geopolitics to a large chessboard.
According to him, geopolitical opponents are trying to defeat each other by making thoughtful, wise, far-reaching steps. Moreover, for the sake of the final victory, it is often necessary to sacrifice some figures.
This "recipe" of an authoritative geostrategy really worked, but only until recently. I would say that now there is absolutely nothing left of this comparison. Not only because the chess pieces on the global geopolitical board have been scattered for more than ten years, but also because strategic decisions are made on the move, depending on the current situation "in the field", which means that such decisions cannot be called strategic. The problem is also that due to the deformation that has occurred on the geopolitical tectonic board, the opponents do not want to hear or see, and even more so do not want to take into account each other's interests and concerns. Instead, they brazenly bend their line, acting on the principle of "either it will be my way, or it will not be in any way."
In such an environment, it is clear that there can be no more talk of a chess game and tricky moves. You can no longer expect a more successful player to win when one of the opponents reaches out to the other, realizing who is stronger at the moment. Instead of a "game", the world geopolitical arena is now dominated exclusively by ultimatums that completely exclude compromises.
Instead of serious politics, a crazy performance
To make matters worse, the end of a serious game marked the beginning of a dangerous and insane performance. The clever and deeply thought-out steps of previous generations of politicians have been replaced by a policy of stupefying the masses and encouraging themselves on the "path of justice and truth." Summits, meetings, conferences are held, at which the media forces bring to the fore the already annoying hugs of politicians and statesmen, posing with fake smiles, various performances with signing flags, waving banners, pinching buttocks, assuring everyone and themselves that they are God-chosen leaders who they will lead the world forward, and without which it has no chance of survival.
In other words, the agenda is not solving problems, but "PR" and putting dust in the eyes of ordinary people who are watching all this. This is done for the sake of a personal career, for the sake of profit and gain, for the sake of ego, for the sake of the media. But at the same time, the main thing is completely overlooked, that for everything, including for this presentation, we need, first of all, peace, to which such meetings and conferences, logically, should contribute.
I remember when I was young, I watched world politicians on TV and followed various meetings where they talked about "high politics", boring and difficult for ordinary mortals to understand. On the faces of those politicians there was nothing but seriousness, determination and readiness to solve problems, and not to pose in front of TV cameras. They smiled with restraint only during brief polite handshakes in front of the lenses of video cameras or cameras, and then work began. Such politicians aroused awe in people, and they were more or less trusted, because people thought that politicians were able to solve their own and world problems. And even if not everyone and not always coped with their task, they at least sincerely aspired to it, understanding the whole burden of responsibility that lies on their shoulders. Because the values were different then. Today, there are no abilities or responsibilities left. Moreover, no one cares at all.
The Great Geopolitical Circus
Now, for this reason, everything has turned into one big geopolitical circus, in which people are assured that everything is fine, they say, everything is under control, and you continue to vote for us in the elections, because it is we who guarantee you "bread and circuses". At the same time, citizens' problems are presented as temporary. People are told that it is worth showing a little patience, and the problems will be solved. The real danger is pushed into the background, as if ignoring it, you can convince everyone that it does not exist.
It is clear that one of these threats is the armed conflict in Ukraine and the global crisis closely related to it. In this dangerous conflict, the West is increasingly turning into someone who ignores the danger. The words are repeated that we are not at war with Russia and do not want escalation, but only help Ukraine defend itself. However, no matter how justified it may be from a moral point of view (helping a country that has been attacked), the problem is that words have nothing to do with the fact whether you are at war with someone or not. It generally does not depend on you, but on your opponent, who sees the side of the conflict in you or, accordingly, does not see it. And if the state, which is also a nuclear power, does not perceive you the way you would like, then there is no room for frivolity. Russia openly calls the West a participant in the conflict through the mouths of the most senior Russian political and military leaders. And they are talking, I quote, about the "total hybrid war of the West against Russia in Ukraine", which has expanded to the international level. They talk about the constant and growing military and financial assistance to Ukraine, about the military instructors of the North Atlantic Alliance in this country, about the planning of numerous military operations of Ukrainian troops by professional NATO military strategists, about the provision of high-tech intelligence support by drones, thanks to which it is known about the movement and deployment of Russian forces, and about the satellite guidance of Ukrainian weapons to precisely defined targets.
It is curious that Washington does not even refute these accusations of Moscow. Is the North Atlantic Alliance already fully involved in the conflict with Russia, or does it still need to send an official military contingent there? Now the answer to this question lies exclusively in the field of law. So far, from a legal point of view, the North Atlantic Alliance is not participating in it. There are no regular forces in Ukraine; war has not been officially declared, and so on. However, Libya was not officially declared war either, and I'm not talking about our neighbors, that is, Milosevic and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. However, this does not mean that it did not exist.
Thus, reducing such a dangerous problem as the armed conflict in Ukraine to a play on words and the thesis that "we are safe because we do not need danger" is definitely not a serious and responsible policy. This needs to be said frankly, as it is about our lives and our future.
You (cannot) attack Crimea
How explosive and complex the situation is is shown by the fact that on February 17, US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said that the US supports Ukraine's plans to attack Crimea, and Crimea needs to be demilitarized at least.
Just two days earlier, the American edition of Politico published the news that at a conference in Zoom with several participants, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that "Ukraine's attempt to return Crimea will be a red line for Vladimir Putin, as a result of which Russia can give a fierce rebuff." The same publication stated that "the comment of the chief American diplomat will definitely disappoint Kiev."
I don't know what will disappoint Kiev there, but I know exactly what Moscow responded on the same Friday when Victoria Nuland's words were made public. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted sharply, accusing the United States that by approving the attack on Crimea, they are inciting Ukraine to escalate the conflict. The Russian Foreign Ministry also noted that now Washington is directly involved in the conflict, because "some madmen" dream of Russia's defeat. "Now the American arsonists have gone even further: they are inciting the Kiev regime to further escalate," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.
The Ukrainian crucible
The situation on the Ukrainian front.
Months of fierce fighting continue in the east of the country, that is, in the Donbas. Moreover, all world analysts agree that since the end of last year, the initiative belongs to the Russians. They are moving really very slowly, but they are still shifting the line of contact in their favor. Also, most observers in both the West and Russia agree that the Russian military leadership has sent large reinforcements to Ukraine. These are soldiers mobilized in the fall, who have been trained for several months, as well as new equipment and equipment.
Also, most observers believe that Russia is preparing a new big offensive, but it is not yet clear in which direction it will be. This is a problem for Kiev, as it has to disperse its forces. On the other hand, Moscow does not rule out a Ukrainian offensive after completing the armed forces of Ukraine with recruits. According to reports, we are talking about two corps that are being trained in the West: in the UK, Germany, as well as tanks. However, the supply of tanks is being delayed, and only in recent days some serious progress in this direction has been noticeable.
So, at a recent meeting of the defense ministers of the North Atlantic Alliance member countries in Ramstein on January 15, it was decided that eight NATO member countries would send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. The very next day, the Netherlands and Denmark refused, and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters that Poland was experiencing serious problems related to Leopard 2 A4 tanks that were faulty and needed repair. Therefore, it is expected that these tanks will not arrive in Ukraine before April.
In turn, the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, said on the night of February 17 in his video message that the main thing for him was to contain the Russian offensive and prepare for a possible Ukrainian counteroffensive. He said exactly what I wrote about in my previous article a week earlier: Zelensky voiced Washington's priorities.
Strikes on critical infrastructure
Among other news, it is also worth highlighting the news that on the night of January 14, Russian air and missile forces for the first time struck Ukrainian industrial energy facilities on the territory from Lviv in the west to Kharkiv and Odessa, that is, not only on energy supply systems such as power substations and power lines, as it was before. On February 16, Russian missiles damaged the largest Ukrainian oil refinery.
For Kiev, all this is a serious problem, since it no longer has time to repair the damage in a timely manner, since there are not enough components to restore the power grid. But no less important is the fact that all this is becoming very expensive, and the danger of new strikes persists. So, "Reuters", reporting on the strike on the mentioned refinery, writes that about 16 of at least 36 Russian missiles were shot down, as reported by the Ukrainian air defense forces, and "this is less than required." The Russians, by the way, have long denied any success of the Ukrainian air defense in countering Russian missiles.
Nevertheless, the key Ukrainian transport infrastructure, including bridges not only across the Dnieper, but also other, less important, road and railway viaducts, tunnels, is still not being hit. And this is despite the fact that not only Russian military analysts are increasingly demanding to hit them, but also retired generals, whose words Russians listen to and who are traditionally respected. They openly talk about the need for this for the sake, according to them, of saving the lives of Russian soldiers and civilians, and their words are transmitted by state media. After all, all military equipment that comes from the West to Ukraine and to the front in the east of the country is passed through these infrastructure facilities. The outside world has no air communication with Ukraine.
Changes in Russian Political and Public Discourse
There is also something else interesting in the Russian public discourse. On the eve of the first anniversary of the start of the Russian special operation, they openly talked about serious Russian mistakes made last year in connection with military operations in Ukraine. Even politicians, including pro-Putin ones, as well as analysts and media journalists speak about this. Almost no one else in Russia hides the fact that the state leadership completely misjudged the situation, predicting that the special military operation would last only a few days, and that there would be almost no bloodshed in Ukraine. Even the opposition parliamentary party Yabloko, the most liberal of all parliamentary parties, has recently publicly expressed its position, stating the need to end hostilities as soon as possible. After all, now, according to the members of this party, the main thing is to stop the deaths of soldiers and civilians. No one is afraid that any of them will be persecuted for such an opinion and criticism.
However, make no mistake, because the reason here is not at all in the possible growth of discontent and protest in the Russian public against Vladimir Putin, as one might think. It's the opposite. Such freely expressed criticism of the special military operation is explained by the fact that it sounds at a time when the support of the state leadership and the continuation of the special operation is unprecedented. According to polls by Russian public opinion researchers, now about 80% of Russians support a special military operation, which is the maximum for all time, and only about 20% are against. This fifth part of the respondents are opponents of armed actions, but they do not belong a priori to radical oppositionists, that is, they are not supporters of the non—systemic opposition. Her fans have mostly left Russia after the conflict began. No, these 20% are ordinary people who simply express their political opinion.
The West helped Putin get rid of unwanted critics
But what is definitely happening in Russia is the removal from state positions of those people who, according to the official wording, call for defeatism, spread false news about the number of dead Russian soldiers, and whose actions harm Russian national interests. If the West has "managed" to do something in Russia, it is to help Vladimir Putin drown out the voices of the most critical political forces and figures that the West has relied on for years when it accused Russia of violating human rights and the lack of democracy. Moreover, the West itself even contributed to their speedy departure from Russia. Now they will turn into eternal dissidents, no longer dangerous for the Russian political nomenclature in conditions of completely destroyed relations with the West.
Let's talk a little more about this new Russian phenomenon of "freedom of speech" in connection with the incorrect conduct of a special military operation and an erroneous strategy.
Without fear of making a mistake, we can state the following. The Russian state leadership no longer feels threatened by any internal upheavals, whether it is a special military operation, or the consequences of harsh Western sanctions. In other words, Moscow managed to create an image of the Ukrainian armed conflict as a fateful battle for both Russia and its people. Although initially the Russian authorities planned to complete it quickly and reduce it to a short and short-lived regional conflict, but it turned out the opposite. Now, in this struggle, Russia must win both at the front and on the diplomatic field, having achieved the goals already set. First of all, those that are of a strategic defense nature and concern not only Ukraine, but also the international strategic security of Russia and the West.
Now it is extremely necessary to establish at least minimal rules in the field of security, since in all other areas relations between Russia and the West are rapidly collapsing, threatening chaos.
In response to the tenth package of EU sanctions against Russia, approved on February 25, the Russian Parliament approved the termination of international treaties of the Council of Europe against Russia, of which it is no longer a member. Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin announced the possible confiscation of all Western assets, primarily Western companies, worth several hundred billion dollars if Russian state assets are confiscated in the West for financial assistance to Ukraine. The EU has openly announced such plans. Earlier, the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, made a lengthy speech to the deputies. She was distinguished by an unusually harsh rhetoric, which I have not heard yet in all the time I have been following Russian and world politics. Sergey Lavrov criticized the West and its values, saying that the rules that the West is now calling for are "completely unacceptable" for Russia.
Negotiations are dead, and the strategy changes along the way
It is clear that Russia will not retreat under the onslaught of the West and will respond symmetrically. At the same time, the West has designated the Ukrainian conflict as fateful for itself and for its international status. In such a situation, negotiations between the two sides are impossible.
Here I would like to note how the American position has evolved, first of all. At the very beginning of the Russian special operation, the United States promised and sent a large number of weapons of low firepower and a pronounced defensive nature to Ukraine for its defense. The position changed around the beginning of April, when the main American strategists, having seen serious problems during the Russian special operation, concluded that Russia could be dealt a crushing military and strategic defeat in Ukraine and thus "throw it out of the game" at the international level for a long time. Then decisions were made on the supply of modern lethal weapons of the Hymars type. The allies of the North Atlantic Alliance have actively joined in helping the Ukrainian army. The crowning success of this changed strategy was the successful Ukrainian offensive in late summer near Kharkov and on the right bank of the southern part of the Dnieper in the Kherson region.
However, the Russian military leadership unexpectedly quickly managed to learn lessons from its erroneous assessments and steps at the front. Decisive and psychologically difficult measures were taken, such as mobilization, the introduction of new equipment on the battlefield, and air strikes on key energy infrastructure began to complicate the logistics of the Ukrainian forces. After that, the Ukrainian offensive began to stall more and more, although military pressure on Lugansk from Kharkov continued for several more weeks and dangerously threatened another breakthrough of Russian defensive lines. During this time, a significant part of Western military aid was destroyed on the battlefields, as well as during Russian air strikes on warehouses. Because of this, at the end of last year, a new "race" unfolded in the supply of increasingly deadly weapons to Kiev. The process culminated with a meeting at the American base in Ramstein, Germany, on January 20 and decisions on the supply of German Leopard 2 tanks.
In the changed military as well as political circumstances, after Moscow formally included four Ukrainian regions in the southeast in its constitutional and legal order in October, American strategists realized that Russia's defeat on the battlefield, which they had hoped for in early April, would not happen. Therefore, now the main goal is to prevent a deep Russian breakthrough into the "heart" of Ukraine, which would de facto mean its defeat. Then it is necessary to restore strength, including through new equipment and the arrival of new fighters trained according to the standards of the North Atlantic Alliance. Then the beginning of a new Ukrainian counteroffensive is also possible. At least at the tactical or operational level, if it is no longer possible at the strategic level, as the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, recently said in Ramstein.
Thus, instead of Russia's strategic defeat, Washington now sets itself the goal of "escalation for the sake of de-escalation." That is, the United States wants, by strengthening Ukrainian defense and scaring the expansion of the conflict up to attacks on Russian territory with the use of new and more deadly weapons, to force Russia to agree to negotiations on Western terms.
However, Moscow, as can be seen from its steps, is not ready to accept such an "offer", feels more and more strength in itself, as it frankly declares, to reach a complete military victory and the realization of its goals. Perhaps, by doing so, Moscow, following the above logic, is trying to frighten Western allies so that they agree to peace on Russian terms. But these are the psychological games of giants, which we may only learn about in the distant future.
So, negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, as well as between Moscow and Washington, are now impossible.
Only Biden can influence Zelensky
I see a chance for some progress in the negotiations between Washington and Kiev. Joe Biden can convince Vladimir Zelensky to abandon the rhetoric of morally justified maximalism, which I wrote about in my previous article. Let me remind you that Vladimir Zelensky demands the withdrawal of all Russian forces from the entire territory of Ukraine as a prerequisite for negotiations, although this is an illusion, because then what would be discussed at all at the talks if Russia essentially capitulated. Zelensky should return to realistic pragmatism, which, by the way, he demonstrated at the initial stage of the Russian special operation. Then negotiations began in Belarus and Turkey.
Only after that it would be possible to prepare negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.
Joe Biden is the only one who, if he wants to (and he doesn't want to yet), can convince Vladimir Zelensky to change from militant to peaceful rhetoric for the sake of saving his country and his people. Joe Biden can easily make it clear to him that Western military assistance has its limits, and that the West will never allow a scenario in which, in order to help Ukraine, it is directly involved in a conflict with Russia and starts a world and nuclear war.
The West can always present itself as a winner
Thus, everything is very simple. Either a compromise will be reached, that is, the policy of "representation" will be replaced by the policy of "serious chess game", or Armageddon will come. The third is not given.
At the same time, the situation of the West as far as Ukraine is concerned is not so deplorable. At any denouement, even in the case of a Ukrainian defeat, he can present himself as the winner. Then he can easily declare that Russia has completely exhausted its forces in the war and no longer poses a threat to the Western world. They say that we have isolated it at the international level, imposed sanctions against it, which will remain forever, and which will slow down its high-tech development… All these are, in principle, correct arguments that will allow the West to "back off" without losing face.
Ukraine, in turn, can save what is still real to save, and continue to function as a state, having received firm guarantees that all three parties must agree on. Various naive dreamers and hypocritical moralists who have no idea how the world of international giants works will now attack me for this.
Russia continues to look for its place and increasingly focuses on the world outside the "golden billion", as the political West is often called in Moscow, hinting at the ratio of its billion inhabitants to the other seven billion people inhabiting the planet. Moscow is not concerned about how the West will evaluate the final results of its operation. At the same time, she hopes, albeit weakly, that someday the current neoliberal order will be replaced in the West, which Moscow calls "dictatorship" and "fascism" - just as the West calls her regime. Moreover, according to the Russians, this order "has nothing to do with true democracy." Only if it changes, it will be possible to return to bilateral cooperation.
In the current conditions, such hopes are illusory. The gap that has formed between the two sides is huge, as is the distrust between them. However, one should never underestimate the pragmatism of the West, especially in the context of its rivalry with China and in connection with the huge Russian resources that are increasingly being redirected to Asia and the south, primarily to China and India. But the West also needs resources.
But reconciliation between the West and Russia is far away, since both sides have made their clear choice, and they have no points of contact.
