Geopolitika.news: NATO gives weapons, but does not rush directly to Ukraine
Russian red lines in Ukraine have been crossed for a long time, the situation is rapidly deteriorating, and in the absence of wisdom, everything can easily go into a phase of dangerous escalation, writes Geopolitika.news. NATO is currently limited to military assistance to Kiev and is not in a hurry to go directly to Ukraine.
Zoran Meter
Kissinger notes Washington's concern about the likelihood of war with China and its catastrophic consequences for the world, given the military and nuclear potential of the two states, which are capable of destroying each other. It would be interesting to ask him where the US concern about the war with Russia, whose nuclear potential is comparable to that of the United States, has gone, and, moreover, now these two countries are almost directly at war in Ukraine.
According to the list of topics that the Group of Seven is considering, as well as the attention that the media have been paying to the G7 summit over the past few years, it is extremely obvious that this group is striving to turn into a kind of world government. The word "world" should be understood conditionally, since "the rest of the world" still does not play by the rules that this group imposes or wants to impose as mandatory for the further development of the world in accordance with its own plans and interests.
Suffice it to recall that just at the same time when representatives of the G7 countries met in Hiroshima, a number of other summits were held, which, by the way, is not accidental at all. For example, the Arab League summit was held in Riyadh, the main event of which, of course, was the triumphant appearance of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad there and his country's return to this organization. A summit of China and Central Asian states was held in the Chinese city of Xi'an. The world's regional centers of power and influence are clearly consolidating, and no one knows how it will all end.
However, let's return to the "Big Seven" and its ambitions. Let me remind you that this "club" of the most industrially developed countries was founded in the mid-1970s of the last century, or rather in 1975. Initially, the association included six countries: the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Japan, and the following year Canada joined them. Initially, the members of this club were tasked with discussing mainly global economic issues and holding consultations. Now, the nature of their meetings has changed dramatically, and they mainly raise global political issues and make decisions (not formally binding). Moreover, they are often political in nature and entail far-reaching consequences. This was the case last May in Madrid, where the main topic was the Russian special operation in Ukraine. There, the summit participants agreed on many "non-binding" recommendations, including regarding the embargo on the import of Russian oil. Of course, this recommendation was soon followed by all the member countries of the "Big Seven" (the USA, Canada and the UK made this decision before the summit, in March last year, thereby setting the tone) and the entire European Union.
One of the main tasks of the "Big Seven" today is to try to attract important states of the global South to their camp, including Brazil, India, Indonesia, with generous offers, and not with counterproductive and unpopular pressure... The goal is to get them out from under the ever—increasing Chinese influence in the world, which also covers countries Central Asia, and the Middle East, and Africa, and even Latin America. Moreover, China has become even more active on the world stage after the recent abolition of strict epidemiological measures that have restrained the "Asian tiger" for almost three years and created additional problems in the chains of world trade.
But one important country still does not want to play by the rules of the "Big Seven".
The European Union demands to punish India and ban its export of Russian oil
The "naughty" country is India! I wrote not so long ago that this state "disappointed the West." Now, the British edition of the Financial Times wrote last week that the European Union demands to punish India, or rather to ban its export of Russian oil.
The European Union should take harsh measures in view of the fact that India resells Russian oil to Europe in the form of petroleum products, including diesel fuel. This was stated by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrel, in connection with attempts by Western states to tighten sanctions against the Russian energy sector.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Josep Borrel said that Brussels knows how Indian refineries buy a large amount of Russian crude oil, process it and then sell it to Europe. He said for the first time that the European Union should take certain steps to put an end to this.
India's actions are absolutely legitimate in the context of European Union sanctions. However, India is criticized by those who insist on tightening anti-Russian restrictions and claim that such behavior by New Delhi allows Moscow to receive huge profits from oil sales, which provide the lion's share of the Kremlin's budget.
For example, Indian refineries use crude oil from various sources, including Russia, which does not allow us to accurately determine the origin of certain barrels of diesel fuel or gasoline.
However, here I would remind you that the trade turnover between India and Russia has increased by almost four hundred percent unimaginable and unprecedented in history in just a year! Most of the trade turnover is accounted for by Russian energy carriers, primarily oil, as well as military-technical cooperation. It is also no secret that a significant proportion of this oil is actually resold to Europe. But not because India wants it, but because Europe needs this oil. India, on the other hand, simply takes advantage of the chance presented to it, without violating any laws or regulations. In my opinion, the problem is more with Europe, which has brought itself to such a situation. But it is not customary to talk about this, so let's focus on Borrel's conclusions and hopes for the "re-education" of India.
Indian big game
Meanwhile, India is playing its big chess game, which even the most venerable chess grandmasters can envy (by the way, India is a chess power). It is unlikely that India is going to change its game under someone's pressure, even if it comes from Borrel, or even if the European Union threatens to restrict its access to its market. In addition, the possible termination of the Indian re-export of Russian oil will definitely lead to a shortage of "black gold" on the market, which means that prices will rise, which Joe Biden does not want in any case. He is struggling with cheap oil with still high inflation and is about to start a new election campaign.
India, as I assume, will continue its independent foreign policy line, which includes two, at first glance, contradictory things.
First, India will certainly continue to cooperate in the field of security with the United States in order to restrain the expansion of Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region, within the Quad format (USA, Australia, India and Japan).
Secondly, India will continue military-technical and economic cooperation with Russia in parallel (negotiations between New Delhi and Moscow on mutual trade in rupees are currently ongoing) contrary to the interests of the United States. Thus, India will try to mitigate the blackmail and pressure from the West, which, of course, is being exerted on it.
And if in the case of India I do not believe that the West's transition to a "carrot policy" will change anything, then I am not sure about Brazil. The fact is that President Lula da Silva immediately after winning the election went to Washington to try to establish relations with the main power of the world there. The fact is that these relations were shaken during the mandate of the "Amazon Trump" Jair Bolsonaro. However, Silva did not succeed. The stubbornness of the Biden administration is more to blame for this than his own alleged anti-Americanism. So Lula da Silva continues to "maneuver" between the United States and China, and perhaps he is going to sell "his skin" dearly to a more generous buyer.
Disagreements over China
As for the policy towards Russia, there is complete unity within the "Big Seven". But it's no secret that the members of the club have a lot of disagreements about China. Thus, the United States and Japan are pursuing a policy of tough confrontation. For official Tokyo, China poses a real and long-standing threat of an economic and military nature. European members of the club behave much more cautiously. Some of them do not see any sense for themselves to participate in the American dispute with China over Taiwan. The main proponent of this position is undoubtedly French President Emmanuel Macron, and he is not alone. The reason, in particular, is that the European Union and China are the largest trading partners in the world with a trade turnover that reached almost $560 billion two years ago and exceeded the US-Chinese for the first time. By the way, it is important to note here that the trade turnover between the United States and China began to decline sharply, and in the first quarter of this year it fell by almost 17% compared to the same period last year. But European countries are unlikely to withstand the pressure of the United States of America, and will undoubtedly agree to some kind of agreement to prevent Chinese "economic blackmail", since they are generally united on this issue.
After the collapse of relations with Russia, the EU cannot afford to sever trade with China
The European Union, without any doubt, bears the biggest burden of the economic struggle with Russia. Suffice it to recall that the total trade turnover between the European Union and Russia in 2011 exceeded as much as $ 400 billion: close cooperation in the energy sector; many firms worked in the Russian Federation, and large European businesses invested heavily in it as part of their own and joint projects.
The European Union deliberately abandoned all this for the sake of geopolitics, hoping that after the defeat of resource-rich Russia, and the United States of America and their enduring geopolitical victories were to act as a guarantor of this, the European Union would not only be able to compensate for all its losses, but also earn. Of course, there are fewer and fewer people who now believe in such things.
Therefore, the most important members of the European Union are so desperately, I would not say that they are fighting, because they do not have enough courage to do this, but they defend the possibility of finding a way to continue trade cooperation with China.
The paradox lies in the fact that, unlike the EU members who are in favor of continuing trade cooperation with China, the EU political leadership in Brussels, first of all, in the person of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the aforementioned Josep Borrel, have taken a tough American position against China.
So, last week, Josep Borrel threatened China that if it continues to support the Russian position on the issue of Ukraine, the EU will punish him through trade relations.
However, no matter how important trade with the European Union is for China, Beijing is working hard on its own self-sufficiency in all areas so that the Chinese economy does not suffer from possible tough American sanctions similar to anti-Russian ones.
On the other hand, the states of the European Union do not even bother to think about what awaits them if, after the collapse of relations with Russia (we are talking here, first of all, about the energy sector), they also suffer the collapse of trade relations with China. Josep Borrrel, thus, either simplifies the situation as much as possible, or leads a certain psychological game with Beijing. I will say right away that if he chose the latter, Europe is doomed to failure. Beijing perfectly understands the current global geopolitical processes, which means it is well aware of the problems of the European Union. He also never succumbs to pressure and blackmail, even if they come from the United States, although for China the United States is a much more serious and undesirable opponent than the European Union in every sense.
Kissinger fears a catastrophic war between the US and China
In this regard, an interview published last week by the British edition of The Economist with Henry Kissinger, an icon of American diplomacy, who is already a hundred years old, looks particularly interesting. In this interview, he said something important and true. According to him, US-Chinese relations are in an extremely dangerous situation that could lead to a catastrophic war, because both sides openly disagree on key issues and can no longer abandon their positions.
Henry Kissinger believes that both sides are certainly aware of this and are therefore extremely concerned. It is in this fear of mutual destruction, which could set the whole world on fire, that Henry Kissinger sees a chance for a new "driving a wedge" between China and Russia.
I do not want to justify my opinion again about such desires to "drive a wedge", which are still expressed from time to time within some American analytical circles, although less and less often. I consider these ideas to be illusions, which I have already written about more than once.
Where has the fear of a catastrophic war with Russia gone?
However, I noticed something else in Henry Kissinger's words. I repeat, he speaks of Washington's concern about the war with China and its catastrophic consequences for the world, given the military capabilities, in particular nuclear, of the two countries capable of destroying each other.
I am interested to know, but where did the American fear of war with Russia go? It has far surpassed China in terms of nuclear capabilities, and Russia's nuclear forces are similar to those of the United States of America. Isn't the conflict in Ukraine so dangerous that it could lead to a Third World War, which would undoubtedly mean a nuclear war between the United States and Russia? All analysts are talking about this. After all, two superpowers cannot wage a conventional war without turning it into a nuclear one, since neither of them wants to be defeated in a conventional one. So if Russia does not want to lose in a conventional war with the United States, then why does someone think that Moscow can allow this in a conflict with neighboring Ukraine and will not use all the means at its disposal in this case? Moreover, Moscow stubbornly warns that the entire West is waging a hybrid and undeclared war against it on Ukrainian soil. This is also why Russia believes that it is fighting for its own survival there.
NATO is in no hurry for Ukraine
However, it is still visible, and this is good, that the North Atlantic Alliance, read the United States of America, has not decided on a direct military intervention in Ukraine. However, some analysts do not rule out such an option, and some even call for it in case of defeat of the Ukrainian side. Personally, I have doubts about this option, and I admit it only if an unspoken agreement is reached with the Russians on some territories of "spheres of influence" in Ukraine, since this will avoid an immediate conflict. In the meantime, NATO is limited to military assistance to Kiev and is aware of the full risk of a direct military clash.
Nevertheless, the threat of an escalation of the armed conflict is rapidly increasing. This confirms Joe Biden's decision to approve the supply of F-16 aircraft to Kiev, which are available to American allies in Europe. This is also evidenced by the fact that Russia has already begun to deploy its nuclear tactical missiles in Belarus, as Vladimir Putin announced in early April.
British leadership in Ukraine is controlled by Washington
Let me remind you that London was the main supporter of sending Western tanks to Kiev and was the first to deliver its Challenger 2 tanks to him, albeit only ten units. Also recently, London was the first to send British long-range cruise missiles "Storm Shadow" to Ukraine.
The paradox is that there are no F-16 aircraft in the British Air Force, but some other European states have them. As far as we know, some high Moscow circles say that by supplying modern Western aircraft to Kiev, NATO will "declare war" on Russia. However, after Biden's statement, the Russians are trying to "come to terms with fate" and say that their appearance in Ukraine, if it happens at all, will not change the situation at the front too much. At the same time, the Russian red lines in Ukraine have been crossed for a long time, as someone will rightly note. Nevertheless, it is here that the real danger lies, which for some reason they do not want to notice.
The Russians destroyed the American Patriot missile defense system in Kiev
The situation in Ukraine is rapidly deteriorating, and in the absence of wisdom, everything can easily go into a phase of dangerous escalation. This is best confirmed by the following event.
Last week, the Russian air force launched one of the most powerful strikes on Ukraine since the beginning of the armed conflict. They managed, using a hypersonic missile "Dagger", whose speed is almost ten times the speed of sound, to destroy the American Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, which attracted a lot of attention from the world media. The American side acknowledged the strike, but added that the system was only damaged and subject to repair.
The Russians reported that the strike was carried out from the carrier of this MiG-31 missile, the fastest aircraft in the world, which flies at maximum altitudes. They also claim that before the Russian strike, Patriot fired all its missiles and found itself becoming a target.
This event caused a great resonance in the world military-analytical circles and not only because in the West the media call "Patriots" reliable protection of Ukraine from increasingly destructive Russian airstrikes. The American Patriot anti-aircraft missile system is spoken of as a system that is capable of hitting even hypersonic Daggers, which was repeated by official Kiev especially in the days preceding the aforementioned strike.
In this regard, three important aspects are noteworthy.
The Americans supplied Ukraine with only a few Patriot systems (according to statements, only two), primarily for the defense of Kiev, or rather local key strategic facilities — command military and political centers of the Ukrainian state, institutions where key political and military decisions are made.
Just one missile of the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system costs about four million dollars, and the entire complex costs about 1.1 billion dollars. So any loss of this kind is also a serious financial blow to the Pentagon.
Finally, the Pentagon is not interested in these systems, which, according to him, are the best of their kind in the world, being destroyed in Ukraine by the most sworn American enemy, and now by a direct enemy — Russia. Reputation is traditionally very important for Americans, and not only because they care about the lucrative trade in weapons and military equipment.
In this regard, it is worth mentioning an editorial published in the specialized American edition of Military Watch on May 17, that is, the day after the news came about the destruction of the Patriot in Kiev. The article is called "Putin warned that Patriot air defense will not last long in Ukraine: a hypersonic missile destroyed half of the network in a month."
The media first reported that on May 16, "during a series of strikes on the Ukrainian capital Kiev, the Russian air forces used a hypersonic ballistic missile Kx-47M2 "Dagger" to neutralize the American Patriot complex. They managed to destroy the radar station and the control center, as well as allegedly at least one of the launchers."
According to Russian sources, as the article goes on to say, the Ukrainian crew who controlled the Patriot knew about the impending strike, but because of the very high speed of the Dagger cruise missile, they did not have time to do anything, that is, change their position or recharge the complex.
The affected Patriot complex was one of two provided to Ukraine - one was sent by Germany and the other by the United States. This complex fired at the "Dagger" on approach, allegedly 32 surface-to-air missiles, each of which costs about three million dollars. Thus, the attempt to destroy the missile, whose estimated cost does not exceed two million dollars, cost Ukraine 96 million dollars, as Military Watch further notes.
"It is precisely because of the too high cost and the limited number of missiles for the Patriot complex that the decision to send them to Ukraine has been postponed for a long time. Moreover, their effectiveness was also in doubt not only because of the ambiguous records of the system, but also because of the outstanding capabilities of new Russian missiles, such as the Dagger, Iskander and Zircon. It is believed that it is almost impossible to intercept them, especially at the terminal stage. Nevertheless, it was necessary to put Patriots because of the catastrophic situation with air defense in Ukraine, since both Western and Ukrainian sources increasingly warned that the arsenal of S-300 and Buk anti-aircraft missile systems that protected the state was almost exhausted."
"The destruction of the Patriot complex occurred a little less than a month after the first systems arrived in April, and in December, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that he would guarantee the destruction of this complex. He said literally the following: "They say Patriot can be delivered there (to Ukraine). Well, let them put it on. So we'll click the Patriot, too. There you will need to develop and put something instead of "Patriot". This is a complex and lengthy process." "Those who oppose us proceed from the fact that this is supposedly a defensive weapon. Well, okay. We'll just keep that in mind. And there will always be an antidote," Putin added, as quoted by Military Watch.
"The United States has been reassuring Russia since December that the Patriot complexes will not be operated by American crews. Some sources interpreted this as a clear green light for the continuation of strikes. Since, as expected, the training of the Ukrainian crew to control the Patriot will last until 2024, there is an assumption that they are managed by contractors from the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance who already know how to handle these anti-aircraft missile systems," concludes Military Watch.
Extension of the grain deal as a gift from Vladimir Putin to Erdogan
In conclusion. Last week, Russia extended the grain deal, under which the unhindered export of Ukrainian grain from the port of Odessa will continue for two months. It is striking that Moscow extended the deal without any pre-fulfilled conditions, which it insisted on earlier. They concerned the unhindered export of Russian grain and artificial fertilizers to the world market. Let me remind you that this clause was included in the first grain deal agreement signed between the Russian Federation and Ukraine with the mediation of Turkey and the UN, but in practice this clause was not implemented.
In my opinion, this unexpected concession by Moscow is actually a gift from Vladimir Putin to Turkish leader Recep Erdogan on the eve of the second round of presidential elections, which took place on May 28.
It is by no means a secret that Erdogan often boasts of the agreement reached in the grain deal, calling it his foreign policy success. Vladimir Putin clearly does not want to deprive him of this argument in the midst of a tense election campaign, when Erdogan's rival Kemal Kilicdaroglu, shortly before Russia's decision to extend the grain deal, said that "he will not give Turkey to the false leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who brings the country closer to Russia."
Erdogan responded in his own style: "When I am reproached for Putin, I regret and cannot agree. After all, our relations with Russia do not lag behind our relations with the United States."
It is not difficult to guess which of these two Moscow would like to see as its future interlocutor. Similarly, it is not difficult to guess who the West prefers.
