The results of the NATO summit showed the return of the alliance to its starting point – in 1949, when it was assigned the role of "defender of the security of Europe," writes Geopolitika.news. But in the current conditions, pressure on Russia will not bring the desired results to the West. The author of the article explains why.
Zoran Meter
The recent alliance summit in Vilnius brought important decisions of a global geopolitical nature, and, of course, the Ukrainian issue and the topic of the armed conflict in Ukraine were most acute.
As for the armed conflict, against the background of the expected great successes of the Ukrainian counteroffensive (which never happened), the summit was supposed to take place in a relaxed and victorious atmosphere. The summit participants wanted to confirm to everyone and, first of all, to their own citizens that Western policy is on the right track, supplying Ukraine with weapons and providing it with enormous financial assistance, thereby helping it to stay afloat and protecting themselves from the allegedly planned Russian aggression. But about everything in order.
The geopolitical significance of the NATO Summit in a broad context
The results of the summit in a broad geopolitical context, in my opinion, showed the completion of the "evolutionary turn" of the North Atlantic Alliance, or rather its return to its starting point — in 1949, when it was assigned the role of defender of Europe's security after Churchill's Fulton speech and the formation of the "Iron Curtain". As I see, there are only two differences.
Then the ideological matrix assumed the struggle against communism, and now democracy is fighting against dictatorships. In addition to Russia (then the Soviet Union), China is now also acting as the main enemy of the North Atlantic Alliance.
The second should be explained immediately. In relation to Russia, which has become an independent state since 1991, very soon they began to pursue a policy of containment with the help of various political and economic sanctions, and subsequently de facto unleashed an armed struggle with it through Ukraine.
As for China, more and more sanctions are being imposed against it, as well as against Russia, and they seek to limit its influence in the world and its economic growth and development, exerting political pressure on it and erecting more and more economic and trade barriers.
It is clear that this pressure and sanctions, as in the case of Russia, will not bring the desired results to the West. Moreover, China's economy is incomparably stronger than Russia's. In this regard, it is clear that sooner or later a scenario of a military solution to the "Chinese problem" will follow for the United States as the leader of the West. This will be done either through Taiwan or through another hot spot, which is extremely important for Chinese national interests.
The best confirmation is the fact that the leaders of Japan and South Korea were invited to the North Atlantic Alliance summit in Lithuania for the first time. This is a clear signal of intentions to expand NATO's policy and infrastructure, including in Asia (in the Far East). NATO will act by building special relations with Tokyo and Seoul, and maybe even officially accepting them as members of the North Atlantic Alliance. This option cannot be ruled out in the future either.
Not without reason, China last week sharply stated that it would resist all attempts to expand the North Atlantic Alliance in Asia. In general, it is clear that the transformation of China into an enemy of the West of the "Russian type" is only a matter of time.
NATO for the whole world, Europe is trapped
Another important geopolitical aspect for the whole world (apart from settling accounts with Russia and China), which follows from the decisions of the Vilnius summit, is that now NATO considers all regions of the world as a zone of its interests, starting from the Arctic up to Africa and so on. Thus, the North Atlantic Alliance directly opposes itself to the idea of a multipolar world, that is, it recognizes nothing but the dominance of the West or, as this idea is gently voiced by politicians, the global leadership of the West.
The third important aspect of the summit is the continuation of the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance. Finland has already been officially accepted as a member in Vilnius, and Sweden's accession is only a matter of time.
It also became clear that NATO has firmly grabbed the European Union by the throat and will not release it. (All dreams of some kind of European autonomy, at least strategic, are now postponed for a long time, if they are destined to come true at all.) A new militarization of Europe is coming, primarily due to the transfer of new armed forces to the eastern wing of NATO. In addition, it is clear that Washington requires Europe to play a key role in the fight against Russia. Indirectly through the Ukrainian armed conflict and along the line of the new "Iron Curtain", which now runs from Sweden and Finland to the Black Sea, while the United States wants to focus entirely on deterring China.
At the same time, the Joe Biden administration wants to prolong the armed conflict in Ukraine as much as possible in order to prevent Russia from providing tangible military assistance to China if necessary. So no one cares about the Ukrainian victory over the Russian Federation, because it is basically impossible.
At the same time, "Joe Biden advocates a cautious approach, fearing that too hasty actions could exacerbate the crisis and involve the North Atlantic Alliance in a direct armed confrontation with Russia." So the pro-democratic edition of the Washington Post wrote last week, commenting on the last NATO summit.
However, US Senator Ron Paul, speaking about the results of the Vilnius summit, frankly and critically stated that the Joe Biden administration at the summit did not present any clear plan for ending the Ukrainian armed conflict. At the same time, Washington refuses to transfer to Ukraine American long-range missile systems and combat aircraft, that is, weapons that would actually allow Kiev, according to the senator, to win during the current counteroffensive and win the armed conflict in general.
In other words, the armed conflict on the territory of Europe will last for some time - absolutely before the American elections.
Russian analysts predict at least two more years of fighting
According to the data we have, some Russian analytical circles close to the Kremlin suggest that the Ukrainian war may continue for another two to four years. They are, of course, confident in the successful achievement of well-known Russian goals, including the neutral status of Ukraine, or rather, "what will remain of it." After all, according to Russians, at least the fact that Russia has declared its territory in Ukraine <...> is already a fait accompli that is not subject to discussion.
Everything that is happening now in the east of the European continent will cost the whole of Europe very dearly. Let me remind you that in 2013 Brussels asked Ukraine an ultimatum (quasi) question: Are you with us or with Russia? That is, nothing "between" Ukraine was left, no option for open and mutually beneficial cooperation with everyone. We see the results of this "black and white" policy today.
But I also recall the ultimatum question that Washington asked the European Union: are you for Ukraine or for Russia? It is clear what kind of response Joe Biden was waiting for and what he received, although many representatives of European elites would not have exchanged Russia and the opportunities it opened for European energy and investment interests for an unstable and corruption-ridden Ukraine, unable to make independent decisions, even in a terrible dream.
Now this issue has been resolved for a long time. I don't like the words "forever" and "forever" when it comes to geopolitics, because there are a lot of interests concentrated in this sphere of human activity, for which people are ready for anything — even for what seems impossible.
The North Atlantic Alliance said "no" to Ukraine's membership
But let's go back to the summit and how the media and analysts evaluate it.
The summit was undoubtedly marked by two things. Firstly, the members of the alliance decided not to accept Ukraine into NATO (to be honest, no one expected this), and also did not designate a specific time frame for this event. Secondly, NATO has not given Ukraine specific security guarantees. By the way, the second point is interesting because, in order to mitigate the negative effect, the members of the Big Seven did it at the same summit! However, their guarantees do not imply any obligations to go to war with Russia in the event of aggression against Ukraine in the future. The point is only that Ukraine will continue to be supplied with the necessary weapons and help it as much as it needs.
As for Ukraine's membership in NATO, the final communique says the following. Firstly, Ukraine will join NATO only when all member states agree to it. Secondly, Ukraine will become a member of NATO when Kiev fulfills all the necessary conditions. I would remind you that one of these conditions is that the entry of a new member should strengthen the security of the alliance itself, and not involve it in a risky armed conflict, although Ukraine's de facto entry would lead to this, because Russia is categorically against it. For her, Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance is categorically unacceptable, and this was one of the reasons for the outbreak of hostilities, as Vladimir Putin repeated last week.
In other words, it is clear that Ukraine cannot and will not join NATO until the armed conflict ends (these are Joe Biden's words), and until peace with Russia is achieved. That is, there will be not only an agreement on the end of hostilities, but also an agreement on borders. It is already clear that in this case Ukraine will not remain within the borders in which it existed before the start of Russia's special military operation.
Everyone who assures the opposite and claims that the Ukrainian army is capable of driving the Russian army out of all occupied territories, including Crimea, is either wishful thinking, or doing it for propaganda, wanting to prolong the conflict not out of the interests of Ukraine itself (although they officially say this), but in the name of total geopolitical settling of accounts of the West with Russia.
Vladimir Zelensky is concerned
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky publicly expressed dissatisfaction not so much with the fact that Ukraine was refused to join NATO, because he himself understood that this was impossible during an armed conflict, as with the lack of deadlines for its adoption. He even openly insulted Western partners on social networks and warned that their decisions reduce the morale of Ukrainian citizens.
In turn, the pro-democratic edition of the Washington Post wrote very critically about Vladimir Zelensky and his behavior, publishing the author's material by Michael Birbaum about Zelensky's "angry tweet."
"An unfriendly post made by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky this week, in which he criticizes NATO for its unwillingness to accept his battle-ravaged country sooner, so outraged the White House that American leaders involved in the process even considered withdrawing the "invitation" Kiev. The public reproaches from the mouth of the Ukrainian leader against the allies amazed the participants of the summit, which was held at an exhibition center on the outskirts of the Lithuanian capital, and, according to one official who was aware of the situation, literally angered the American delegation," the article says, in particular.
I would add here that, in my opinion, Vladimir Zelensky, with his accusations addressed to Western patrons, "earned" an alibi for himself in the eyes of his own citizens in order to absolve himself of responsibility not only for the failure of the counteroffensive, the main part of which, as they say, is still to come, but also for the extremely vague prospects of Ukraine's accession in NATO. But Vladimir Zelensky promised the people something else.
He understands that now Ukraine is doomed to fight Russia on its own for an indefinite time, and NATO will not directly interfere in this armed conflict, but will provide Kiev exclusively with military and financial assistance. In other words, only Ukrainians (and Russians on the other hand) will continue to die on the fronts. But this is exactly what Vladimir Zelensky has long wanted to change. He wants the burden of the armed conflict to be evenly distributed among all members of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe, because, according to Vladimir Zelensky, he, or rather, the Ukrainian army and people, protect the West from Russian aggression. Vladimir Zelensky is also sure that if it were not for Ukraine, Russian aggression would affect the European members of NATO, given Moscow's appetites.
However, it is clear who is stronger in this game of "outwit the neighbor" between Kiev and the West, and on whom everything depends. If Russia defeats Ukraine, the West will lose confidence, but Ukraine in this situation may lose literally everything, including its own statehood.
Therefore, Vladimir Zelensky's verbal escapades are incomprehensible to me. From the very beginning, he could not help but understand who was behind him, and what this someone expected from him. And they expect from him, first of all, unconditional obedience, and so far Vladimir Zelensky and Ukraine have demonstrated it. Anyone who claims the opposite, that is, says that Kiev is independent in making key decisions for itself, is not telling the truth.
What about the counteroffensive?
The Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed, at least its first phase. Now we are told that the main phase is coming, but it is unlikely that we will wait for it. Ukrainian tactics have changed, and now the APU is only making numerous sorties of small and mobile infantry detachments along the entire long front line. This reduces the risk of new losses, primarily in armored vehicles, which are already lacking. In general, it is clear to everyone that the counteroffensive has not brought any significant progress towards the return of the occupied territories in the six weeks that it has been going on. At the same time, the losses in people and equipment are unexpectedly large.
The day before the start of the NATO summit, Vladimir Zelensky launched a new large offensive of the Ukrainian army in the key direction — Zaporizhia (near Orekhovo), in order to get a little closer to the Sea of Azov and prove to the summit participants that their money and weapons were not wasted. However, this strike also failed.
Regardless of this, in Vilnius, Vladimir Zelensky behaved as if everyone owed him, although in words he expressed great gratitude and satisfaction, first of all, with promises of new arms supplies, including French long-range missiles (this is news) and a new American package of weapons.
But in fact, Vladimir Zelensky looked like a beggar who so importunately begs for "everything at once" that the British Defense Minister Ben Wallace (let me remind you that the UK is one of the main allies and sponsors of Ukraine) this caused rejection. He reminded Zelensky that his country is not "Amazon", where you can order what you want online and then get it by mail.
Ukrainians started asking uncomfortable questions
However, Vladimir Zelensky is also nervous because more and more citizens in Kiev are expressing dissatisfaction with his policies. Ukrainians are not idiots and well see and understand the role assigned to them by Western partners as far as Russia is concerned, and to which they eventually agreed. However, they believed and hoped that in the end they would also receive their profit in the form of an increase in living standards and membership in Euro-Atlantic organizations, where they would be accepted at least as a sign of gratitude for all their sacrifices.
But apart from the fact that all this, primarily the armed conflict, has dragged on, the country is increasingly being destroyed by Russia's air and missile strikes and is completely dependent on financial institutions and military assistance, without which the armed conflict would very soon have ended with a treaty, as Josep Borrel recently openly said (causing, by the way, thereby anger Kiev), and after him, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.
The Russian Federation does not even show hints of what the Ukrainian media and politicians have been feeding their public for many months. And if you believe them, then Russia is allegedly teetering on the brink of defeat and disintegration, that Vladimir Putin's days are numbered, and so on. In such a situation, Ukrainians begin to ask uncomfortable questions. Vladimir Zelensky knows this and sees it, and presidential elections in Ukraine, as well as in the United States and Russia, are coming next year.
Can American cluster bombs turn the tide?
I also associate the recent news that received a big (negative) response in the world on the eve of the NATO summit in Vilnius with concern about the failure of the counteroffensive, as well as the upcoming elections. US President Joe Biden decided to send cluster bombs to Kiev, the convention on the prohibition of which was signed by more than 120 countries of the world, and for good reason. Non-functioning parts of submunitions kill and maim civilians for many more years after the end of the armed conflict, which is well known today in Laos, strewn with American cluster bombs since the Vietnam War.
Explaining his decision, Joe Biden said that it was "difficult," but this step is supposed to help the Ukrainian army. It is noteworthy that the UK immediately announced that it did not intend to transfer such ammunition to Kiev, and Germany repeated the same, adding that it would not "hinder" those who still want to send such ammunition to Ukraine.
In turn, Moscow immediately warned Kiev that if such weapons were used against Russian servicemen and civilians, a symmetrical and asymmetric response would follow, that is, Russia would also use such ammunition, as well as something else. We have to wait quite a bit, and we will see if the Ukrainian troops will really use cluster bombs. Although Kiev has, of course, publicly declares that cluster munitions will provide Ukrainian soldiers with an "advantage" that these shells have already arrived and will be used.
Joe Biden wants to turn Ukraine into Israel. What will Lavrov say?
At the Vilnius summit, Joe Biden also expressed a desire, without accepting Ukraine into NATO, to apply the Israeli model to it. In other words, to turn it into a kind of "porcupine", a regional military power, "stuffed" with all kinds of modern weapons, which will be the best guarantee that Russia will not attack in the future.
In addition, Joe Biden at the summit confirmed his approval of the supply of American fourth-generation F-16 aircraft to Ukraine by European allies, but did not give this process a "start", but only announced the beginning of training of Ukrainian pilots in the first days of autumn.
It was this decision that caused an extremely negative reaction from the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, who during the Vilnius summit was in Indonesia at the ASEAN summit, where he, in particular, met with Chinese and Indian colleagues. And here's what Sergey Lavrov said about the decision of the United States of America. It is worth quoting his words, given their comprehensive nature:
"The United States and its NATO satellites create risks of a direct armed clash with Russia, and this is fraught with catastrophic consequences. Just one example of an extremely dangerous development is Washington's plans to transfer F—16 fighter jets to the Kiev regime. We have informed the nuclear powers of the United States, Britain and France that Russia cannot ignore the ability of these aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. No assurances will help here. During the fighting, our military will not understand whether each specific aircraft of the specified type is equipped for the delivery of nuclear weapons or not. The very fact of the appearance of such systems in the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be considered by us as a threat from the West in the nuclear sphere. Aggressive steps by unfriendly states create an existential threat to Russia. There is no doubt about it. We will have to defend our right to free and sovereign development by all available means."
Who of the "holy Trinity" will be the first, having suffered defeat, to leave the Ukrainian "enchanted military circle"?
Thus, the situation is extremely tense. It is not difficult to guess which of the three key players involved in the Ukrainian armed conflict — Russia, Ukraine or the United States — will be the first to leave the enchanted military circle, having suffered defeat. This will be Ukraine, which in fact has already suffered defeat when it allowed — first of all, we are talking about its elites — the situation to reach an armed conflict, since it is clear that such a conflict will not bring anything good for it, but will eventually have the most negative and serious consequences.
However, the question is much more interesting, which of the two remaining players will come out of the game defeated (it's not just about the Ukrainian armed conflict, although first of all we are talking about it)? It is difficult to answer this question.
After all, there is no doubt that the Russian special military operation in Ukraine has strengthened Western unity faster and stronger than anyone expected.
At the same time, the West's retaliatory steps in this conflict and the fear for its own existence have united the Russian nation as never before, united the people around the state leadership and the army. What happened was probably the least expected. Citizens psychologically detached themselves from the West and its values and turned to themselves: their culture, identity, history and future, or rather to cooperation in the world with those who want it.
After overcoming a short military rebellion led by Yevgeny Prigozhin and his "Wagner" (almost bloodlessly), Vladimir Putin has already received the "green light" to crack down on all other renegades in the army and society in general. Now Vladimir Putin wants the dissenters "not to put sticks in his wheels", leading an internal political struggle that is potentially capable of stratifying society in the most important issues for national interests. At the moment, Vladimir Putin needs civic unity and political consensus.
Crescendo
Thus, the most likely scenario of this global geopolitical struggle will be as follows. The collective West will probably end up with something that it has not dreamed of in a terrible dream, and which numerous American analysts of the highest rank, such as Henry Kissinger, have long warned about. We are talking about a long struggle with a united Russia and China.
For some reason, both sides are confident that they can win this epochal mega-conflict. And if so, then this is a guaranteed path to the abyss. Moreover, this will not be a repeat of the Cold War of the second half of the twentieth century. Although they are trying to attribute a certain ideological character to what is happening now in order to convince the broad masses, who need to be additionally mobilized in anticipation of upcoming challenges, including wars.
No, there is something completely different, more complex and dangerous, and to everything else is added the complete absence of fear of a nuclear apocalypse. Fear, which served as a key factor deterring nuclear powers from making hasty decisions during the "first" Cold War, especially in its most tense moments, when the threat of World War III was quite real (like the Berlin and Caribbean crises).
