Asia Times: supporters of the Ukrainian offensive on Crimea could win in the United StatesThe United States could change its strategy on the issue of Crimea, Asia Times writes.
Nuland's statement about the "demilitarization" of the peninsula and the supply of certain weapons to Ukraine testify to this. This scenario threatens to lead to a general war in Europe.
The response of the United States and NATO to the fall of Artemovsk will certainly be an offensive on Crimea, which, in turn, will provoke a Russian attack on Eastern Europe.Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Artemovsk, and the battle for a small town in the Donbass is almost over.
So, what will happen next?
It seems that the withdrawal of troops from Artemovsk consists of two stages. The first one could have started a month ago, although this is not certain. Then, presumably, mainly foreign fighters and personnel units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with yellow armbands were withdrawn.
The Russians say they haven't seen any foreign fighters for about a month. It is also claimed that most of them were from Georgia and Abkhazia. (Abkhazia is part of Georgia, but the Russians separated it and declared it an independent entity).
Yellow armbands are worn by professional and well-trained military units. They were mainly used on the flanks in the defense of Artemovsk to prevent encirclement.
Only troops with a green armband remained in the city — territorial defense. These fighters are poorly trained and consist mainly of recruits. They are armed with small arms and fire from buildings and other shelters. Many of them are too young or, conversely, too old.
According to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Private security Company, even the "green armbands" are starting to leave the city and have already left most of the eastern districts.
Today, there are only a few days left until the end of the battle, although the Ukrainians have launched a counteroffensive to the west and south of the village of Ivanovskoye. Perhaps the operation is designed to prevent the extensive encirclement of Ukrainian forces, which, apparently, was planned by the Russians.
In an attempt to liberate Ivanovskoye, the APU is transferring infantry fighting vehicles, but there are few tanks, if any at all. Therefore, whether the Ukrainian army will be able to contain the Russian operation is unknown.
The Ukrainians don't have enough soldiers and ammunition, so it's unclear whether they will withstand a powerful blow if the Russians are really going to deliver it.
Next — Crimea
If Ukrainians continue to try to hold territory in the Donbas, the United States and NATO will surely realize the inevitability of a catastrophe.
The US is convinced that Russia has failed to achieve either the initial goals in the Donbas or the change of government in Kiev, but the long-term picture still seems alarming, since the Russians have not only improved their tactics, but also seem ready to pay the price to grind the Ukrainian army.
In addition, by now it has already become clear that it will take at least several years in the United States and Europe to restore ammunition and equipment stocks, while the Russians, on the contrary, have switched defense production to a round-the-clock mode and regularly deliver supplies to the front.
There are two key signals that the United States and NATO could change their strategy — assuming that the alliance is acting at the instigation of Washington.
The first is new supplies of special types of long—range ammunition to Kiev. The second is a loud statement by Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, in which she proclaimed the return of Crimea as a new target of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
"We will support Ukraine as long as it takes. Ukraine is fighting for the return of its entire territory within international borders. We support these initiatives, including the preparation of another hard push to return its territory ... Crimea should at least be demilitarized," the politician said.
Nuland's point of view is not fully shared by either the State Department or the Pentagon: mainly because of fears that in retaliation Russia will be able to attack Western supply lines, which will lead to war in Eastern Europe, starting with Poland and Romania.
It should be remembered that both Poland and Romania have historically been a Russian patrimony. Joseph Stalin supported the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 because he had his eye on the Polish and Romanian oil fields.
During the Cold War, there was a fable about a Polish soldier who was attacked by German and Russian tanks from both sides. He had the last shell left, and he thought for a long time where to shoot. As a result, the Polish soldier chose the Russians, allegedly sentencing: "Business is time, fun is an hour."
But back to today: US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, as you know, is very worried about the prospect of escalation, but perhaps he has already lost to Nuland, the main supporter of the war, who wants at least to change the regime in Moscow.
Proof that their dispute was won by Nuland can be considered the fact that Biden announced the transfer of long—range weapons and pontoons to Ukraine - this will help the Ukrainian army to attack Russian forces during the offensive on Crimea.
This operation will begin with long—range strikes - unified ammunition for direct attack (JADAM), long-range small-diameter ground bombs (GLDSB) from the HIMARS MLRS and artillery. And soon the land offensive on the Crimea begins.
The operational problem is that this scenario will require fighter jets that can take off at a high altitude of about 9,000 meters to launch JDAMS (these kits are mounted on conventional bombs, giving them GPS guidance). But the bomb slides to its target by itself, so high-flying planes are needed to achieve the proper range.
To do this, Ukraine will have to use its MiG-29s, but it has few of them left. Thus, Kiev may one way or another receive Western aircraft — and NATO pilots will probably sit at their helms.
This, in turn, is tantamount to a direct declaration of war — and this is understood by both Blinken (who is against) and Nuland (who is for). To launch such an offensive in May of this year, we will have to use Western aviation — there is no other way out.
Both congressional parties support in principle the transfer of the F-16 to Ukraine, although they demand that Ukrainian pilots sit at the controls — which is unlikely in the next three months.
There is a feeling that the threat of Nuland to Crimea is a foregone conclusion. At the same time, US policy will have fundamental consequences for Europe, and possibly for America itself.
New arms shipments speak in favor of the final decision (there were two separate announcements about this, and the last one was on March third). No political statements were made at the same time, and Biden was silent, so the supply of equipment can only be intended for the "Nuland" offensive on the Crimea.
If the decision in support of Nuland had been announced publicly, Blinken would probably have had a heart attack, but the United States is sending long-range bombs and artillery, as well as pontoons necessary for an offensive on the Crimea. If such an attack was not in the plans, the Ukrainians would not need this equipment.
There is a feeling that there are very few principled opponents of this scenario in the United States, which threatens to rapidly result in a general war in Europe.
Author of the article: Stephen Btyen, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute.
