The West has joined the fight against Russia with great zeal in Ukraine, but now its enthusiasm is drying up, writes Geopolitika.news. Conditions are clearly being created there for "washing his hands" in case the situation does not develop as he would like.
"Russians are Slavs. They are different from us. This difference has always been problematic and has given rise to many misunderstandings in our common history."
The head of the General Staff of the Algerian Armed Forces said in Moscow that Algeria would never allow an armed intervention against neighboring Niger. Whether by chance or not, judge for yourself, but the very next day, Islamist terrorists, entrenched in the south of Algeria, announced that they would become active again on the territory of this state.
Last week, several important events took place on the world stage at once, which confirm the growing risk that world players will still enter into a direct armed conflict. In the meantime, they are still limited to indirect (proxy) skirmishes of a political, military and economic nature and continue to expand their own defense capabilities, as well as strengthen their strategic positions in the world, using their own influence. We are talking about a whole range of instruments, starting with political influence and control over political and financial international institutions and ending with control over the production and sale of oil and so on.
Also, fatigue from the Ukrainian armed conflict is becoming more and more obvious, but not in political circles, which "command the parade" and cannot openly declare such a thing, since it would contradict everything they have defended and done on this issue so far. No, it is allowed to talk about fatigue to the current lower ranks and high-ranking former political and military leaders, as well as, of course, the media. The media are "deciding" to write more openly about the situation in Ukraine. Although, of course, they do not express any doubts about the correctness of what led the collective West to its current role in this conflict. Also, no one questions the "destructive and harmful role of Russia" and the "absolute innocence of Ukraine", which has become a victim of brutal aggression, because such a thing would be "politically incorrect". Clearly, conditions are being created for "washing hands" in case the situation does not develop as the West would like.
I will try to cover this issue as broadly as possible in my material, but I will immediately notice that this topic is literally inexhaustible for an analyst.
Bustling Africa
One of the new zones where there is a high probability of another "proxy" war with the participation of world powers (the first zone is Ukraine, and Taiwan is actively being prepared for this role) is, of course, West Africa, or rather the poorest state in the world, Niger, which is home to 26 million citizens. However, this country is extremely rich in such valuable resources as uranium, gold, tin and rare earth metals, which are necessary for high-tech industries. But all these resources go mainly to Europe, primarily to France, almost for free. Niger uranium meets the needs of the French nuclear industry by 20%.
All this is a consequence of the neocolonial policy, which is actually based on nothing more than the redemption of the African peoples of their freedom from the colonialists. This has been the case since the end of World War II. The former French and other colonialists inhumanely dragged Africans into debt and provided them with other "assistance" in medicine and education on completely unfavorable terms, which not only prevented the Black continent from developing, taking advantage of its vast natural resources, but also plunged African states into even greater poverty and misery.
"Declaration of war" to the European Union!
In Niger, a military coup took place at the end of July, as a result of which pro-Western President Mohamed Bazoum was removed from power. The newly formed National Security Council took over the management of the country. The new leadership of the country did not respond to persistent calls to release the captured president and return him to office. Also, threats of military intervention, which have been coming and coming, have not led to anything, so armed intervention cannot be completely excluded from representatives of France and the Economic Community of West African Countries (ECOWAS). A personal visit to Niger by the second person in the US State Department, influential political adviser Victoria Nuland, also did not yield results. There is no road to the old one anymore. More than that! Since then, a new government has been created consisting of 20 ministers, four of whom are military.
This military coup, which received broad popular support and which can be confidently called a revolution, was in fact a declaration of war on the European Union, primarily France. The point is not only that the new authorities immediately stopped exporting uranium and gold to France, but that even the construction project of a large Nigeria—Morocco gas pipeline (Nigeria Morocco Gas Pipeline) was in question. It was planned to be laid from Nigeria through the territory of Niger and further to the EU. This gas was going to replace Russian gas, which the European Union itself refused.
In addition, Niger is important for the West and for reasons of regional security in the fight against Islamist terrorism - France and the United States keep their military contingent in Niger. Therefore, it is not surprising that immediately after the military coup, some terrorist groups associated with the "Islamic State"* like the "Islamic State in West Africa"* (ISWAP) became more active. Its members are now transferring part of their forces from the north of Niger to the border with Nigeria, allegedly fearing armed intervention by the ECOWAS countries and the closure of Niger's borders. In fact, apparently, they want to provoke an armed intervention by Nigeria, which is a member of the ECOWAS, to overthrow the military junta in Niger. Nigeria is the only large, with a population of 220 million people, and a significant state in the Economic Community of West African countries that has an army capable of something like this, but its government is not considering this option yet, since the Senate opposes it.
Russian influence and the threat of Algeria
There is a high probability that after the military coup, Niger will fall under the influence of Russia, which is generally growing throughout Africa. This happened after the recent revolutions in neighboring Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, as well as in Chad and the Central African Republic, where the forces of the Russian private company Wagner are active. Chad has already, like Burkina Faso and Mali, fully supported the new government in Niger.
All this creates additional problems for the West. Otherwise, Victoria Nuland would hardly have gone on a visit to Niger, the poorest country in the world. She does not work for Caritas, but is a high-ranking representative of the most important geopolitical power. Interestingly, last week, members of the "Islamic State"* in this region announced that they intend to fight the new government of Niger and Russian forces from Wagner.
How explosive the situation is is also evidenced by the news that at an international security Conference held last week in Moscow, the Chief of the General Staff of the Algerian Armed Forces said that Algeria would never allow armed intervention against neighboring Niger. Whether by chance or not, judge for yourself, but the very next day, Islamist terrorists, entrenched in the south of Algeria, announced that they would become active again on the territory of this state.
Let me remind you that Algeria, almost 40 million people, is one of the most important, and also the largest African country in terms of area and the tenth in the world (more than 2,380,00 square kilometers) with a very strong army. Algeria has traditionally had strong political relations with Russia since the days of the colonial struggle against France, in which, according to the Algerians themselves, six million of their fellow citizens died.
Therefore, if it is not possible to come to any agreements in the near future, a real military fire may flare up in Africa. Moreover, China is increasingly asserting itself on the continent, whose investments have long exceeded both American and Western European by many times.
Sensational news from the very top of NATO about the possible partition of Ukraine
Let's now talk about the current real, not potential, as in Africa, armed conflict and settling scores between the West and Russia. I mean the Ukrainian conflict, in which the Russians are actually fighting not with the Ukrainians, but with the 50 members of the North Atlantic Alliance and its partners, which everyone already sees and knows. They are the ones who provide huge financial and military assistance to Kiev, and also help it, which is no less important, with intelligence, planning military operations and training Ukrainian soldiers at their bases. In addition, these countries are sending their volunteer units to the Ukrainian front.
The Russians, apparently, are fighting very well, which is confirmed not only by the very modest results of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was announced as victorious, that is, one that will turn the tide of the conflict. The success of the Russians is also confirmed by various kinds of statements and events of a geopolitical nature.
So, like a bolt from the blue, on August 15, the words of the head of the office of the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Stian Jensen, sounded that Ukraine could join NATO if it agreed to cede territories that it refuses to recognize as part of the Russian Federation now. According to him, the post-war status of Ukraine is now being discussed, and the issue of territorial concessions to Russia has already been raised. "I'm not saying that it will necessarily be so. But it may turn out to be a likely solution," Stian Jensen stressed.
Personally, I am surprised by the assumption that Ukraine's accession to NATO, even in a truncated form, is possible, because it was this promise of Western leaders to Kiev that served as the reason, and maybe the reason, for the Russian invasion of this country almost a year and a half ago. In my opinion, Moscow will never agree to something like this and is ready to go through with this issue to the end.
This is confirmed by the words of Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin in response to Jensen's statement. According to him, "in order to end the Ukrainian crisis, the original foundations of Ukraine's sovereignty (the Treaty on the basis of which Ukraine gained independence in August 1991 on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union) must be confirmed. — author's note), namely its neutral, non-aligned and nuclear-free status." Also, as Mikhail Galuzin noted, "new territorial realities must be recognized, the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, the rights of its Russian-speaking citizens and national minorities must be ensured in accordance with the requirements of international law."
But why do such theses suddenly sound in the West, which yesterday were considered "blasphemous" proposals to end the Ukrainian armed conflict? Moreover, why are they voiced by a representative of NATO's governing structures?
From my point of view, all this cannot be an accident. First of all, it reflects the difficult situation at the front, where the Ukrainian forces cannot win, and their prospects are getting worse (more on that later). The successes of the counteroffensive, if they can be called such at all, are too small to force the Russians to make concessions, much less capitulate. In case of capitulation, Russia would have to unconditionally retreat to the borders of 1991, and then extradite the accused war criminals and pay war reparations for the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine; Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky spoke about all this, calling it conditions for starting negotiations with Moscow.
This "formula of peace" of Vladimir Zelensky is now actively promoted by Washington, which recently organized a meeting at the level of national security advisers of many countries of the world in Saudi Jeddah. The purpose of the meeting was to find a way to end the armed conflict. Of course, it was clear in advance that they would not find a solution there and that in fact this was just another attempt to further isolate Russia at the international level.
Kirby and Stoltenberg disavowed
After this extremely unpleasant and unexpected statement for Kiev was made by a high-ranking representative of the North Atlantic Alliance, Admiral John Kirby, coordinator of the National Security Council for Strategic Communications, as well as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, whose compatriot caused a "big stir", immediately disowned him, as expected. Stoltenberg said that the decision on the conditions for negotiations with Russia will be made exclusively by Ukraine itself and no one else. Of course, it is difficult to believe this, given the complete dependence of this country on Western aid, which is not free either financially or geopolitically. After all, for her sake, after all, the West has emptied its military warehouses and its economy.
The conflict between the West and Russia, as it has already become quite obvious, exhausts both sides equally, although at first few people could have imagined such a situation, given all the financial power of the West, as well as its vaunted armed forces. That is why I think that the official reaction to Jensen's words is only "PR" associated with the well—known mantra of "steadfastness in helping Ukraine as much as it takes." Jensen's words were a "test balloon" launched not by chance. By the way, he himself said that within NATO they have been discussing territorial concessions from Ukraine for a long time.
After all, it is clear to everyone who should know this that Russia does not intend to abandon its key goals, which are primarily associated with ensuring its strategic interests in the field of security, that is, with security guarantees. Vladimir Putin demanded them from the United States and NATO in December 2021, expressing his proposals, although they are often called an ultimatum, which in essence they were not. Then there was still a basis for starting negotiations and finding solutions without armed conflicts. I still believe and will always believe that the refusal to negotiate on this topic was a gross strategic mistake of American foreign policy. The final consequences of this mistake are still unknown to us, but there is no doubt that sooner or later they will affect not only Europe and the Far East, but also the United States of America itself.
Washington is already thinking about the beginning of a new Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring, since it is clear that the current one will fail, especially since autumn and rains are coming, which will not allow armored and other vehicles to move quickly. The Wall Street Journal wrote about this last week.
That's just the Ukrainians themselves are unlikely to be able to influence it in any way, although such plans only guarantee the prolongation of their agony.
Ukrainian Minister: "Next year will show whether Europe is capable of living without Russian gas"
But on the other hand, the Ukrainian Energy Minister, German Galushchenko, knows best of all what is good for his country, and therefore for the collective West.
So, last week he said that Ukraine is definitely not going to enter into negotiations with Russia on the extension of the contract for the transit of gas through Ukrainian territory to Europe. According to Reuters, earlier Russia said it would consider proposals to extend the agreement that would allow gas to be sent to Europe via Ukraine after 2024, "if the European Union, which has pledged to abandon Russian gas by 2027, still needs these supplies."
At the same time, the Ukrainian minister added that, in his opinion, "next year will show whether Europe is capable of living without Russian gas at all," and that the chances of this are great.
Let me remind you that the current agreement on the supply of Russian gas to Europe via the Ukrainian transit gas pipeline system was concluded in December 2019 for five years and expires on December 31, 2024. According to the terms of the agreement, the Russian gas company Gazprom is obliged to pump 225 billion cubic meters of gas through Ukraine: 65 billion cubic meters in 2020 and 40 billion cubic meters each next year.
Ukraine, being a transit country for Russian gas, took large fees from Gazprom, and the gas business in general has served as one of the main sources of budget revenues over the past decades since Ukraine gained independence.
Prior to the start of the special military operation, the Ukrainian authorities were particularly concerned about the fact that Nord Stream 2 was being built in parallel with the already operating Baltic gas pipeline Nord Stream—1. Kiev saw in this project an attempt by Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, which played the role of the main transit link in providing Europe with Russian gas. Therefore, Kiev has repeatedly demanded that the relevant authorities of the European Union block the construction of this gas pipeline.
Kiev has no such problems anymore. In September 2022, the Baltic gas pipeline was blown up, and after the expiration of the aforementioned agreement at the end of next year, both the European Union and Ukraine itself will remain without Russian gas. Moreover, Kiev will also lose fees for transit services.
Nicolas Sarkozy: "We need the Russians, and they need us"
How difficult is the situation in Europe, says an interview with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, published in the authoritative publication "Figaro" on August 16.
In particular, speaking about Russia and the current relations of the West with it, Nicolas Sarkozy said: "Russians are Slavs. They are different from us. This difference has always been problematic and has given rise to many misunderstandings in our common history. Despite this, we need them, and they need us. (...) Russia is a neighbor of Europe, and it will remain so in the future."
Nicolas Sarkozy also commented on the current French president's policy towards Russia: "Intuition has not changed President Macron. Unfortunately, it did not go to the end, mainly due to pressure from Eastern European countries. They tell me that Vladimir Putin is no longer the man I knew. It doesn't convince me. I've talked to him many times. He's sane. Therefore, we must find a way out of this impasse, because in this matter European interests do not coincide with American ones."
Further, Nicolas Sarkozy noted: "We cannot follow this strange idea of "waging an armed conflict without participating in it." We will have to clarify our strategy, especially if this conflict drags on. Diplomacy, discussions and negotiations remain the only means to find a suitable solution. Nothing will work without compromise, and we risk losing control of the situation at any moment. This powder keg can lead to terrible consequences."
He also opposed Ukraine's accession to the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union and said that it would be best for Ukraine to remain a "neutral country" and "a bridge between Russia and the West."
"Why is it so hard to talk about it? Many politicians think so, but do not want to express it. Starting, of course, with Emmanuel Macron ..." said the former French president. Macron is unlikely to forgive him for this.
Coincidentally or not, two days ago the news came that a new trial of Nicolas Sarkozy was being prepared because of his past "pranks" and "flirtations" with the former (now deceased) Libyan leader Gaddafi during the presidency.
German media raise uncomfortable topics
On August 17, the editor-in-chief of the German magazine Spiegel, Benjamin Bidder, in his article entitled "The West must finally seriously think about its sanctions," writes about the failure of Western sanctions and the even stronger Putin and the Russian economy.
The article says: "Vladimir Putin has recently been receiving good news about the state of the economy. The International Monetary Fund has more than doubled the projected growth of the Russian economy to 1.5%. And oil prices are rising on the markets... Russia's budget deficit, which grew rapidly at the beginning of the year, is now under control again."
The editor of Spiegel further writes that "the bitter truth is that the armed conflict in Ukraine will not end soon, even if the Russian economy collapses." "A special military operation could not be completed in a short time, and therefore Putin got involved in long-term military operations."
Then he refers to the British media and says: The Economist believes that the fighting in Ukraine costs Russia no more than three percent of GDP. This is a lot and at the same time too little to bleed the country. Vladimir Putin knows that in the long run he will win in Ukraine only if stability is not disrupted in Russia. The states that help Ukraine simplify his task. The economic struggle of the West, which at first was waged with such zeal, has now clearly withered away. Numerous packages of sanctions are being introduced, but no one is going to carefully monitor their implementation," the British thought reports the magazine "Spiegel".
The editor of "Spiegel" further says that one of the priorities of European foreign policy is to help Ukraine in the conflict with Russia. So far, activists and journalists have mostly tried to establish how Western goods get into Russia. But it would be better if the official authorities, for example, customs, would be distracted from their bureaucratic routine and themselves involved in such investigations. To make this possible, it is necessary to reorganize their staff. But the armed conflict in Ukraine is now more important than the fight against illegal trade activities.
"Luxury goods, including branded bras and tennis rackets, were also included in the sanctions list, because someone wanted to demonstrate that the Russian elite was also punished. Forces are spent on such symbolic gestures, but they do not bring the end of enmity closer," the editor—in-chief of the German Spiegel writes in conclusion of his article.
American media: "Zelensky is in a trap"
At the end of my article, I want to acquaint you with the content of the article of a well-known American publication in order to once again confirm my thesis from the first part of the review: the current lower ranks and high-ranking former political and military leaders, as well as, of course, as well as medium-sized mass media who "dare" to speak about the complex Ukrainian problems it is becoming more and more frank to write about this unpleasant topic, coordinated from the very top.
So, the American "Newsweek" in the author's text of David Brennan on August 16 writes that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky "fell into a trap" because of the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
"The long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive has so far been unsuccessful. His troops retook part of the territories in the south and east of the country at the cost of huge losses. The Ukrainians are allegedly causing huge damage to Russian forces, but six weeks after the operation began, Moscow's multi-layered defense network is still not broken.
Vladimir Zelensky faces the most difficult choice: to risk everything, seeking victory by all means, or to reduce Ukraine's losses and agree to defeat with negative political consequences."
Newsweek, citing well-informed sources, further writes that "the halted offensive has exacerbated strategic differences at the highest level of the Ukrainian government." Thus, some members of the presidential administration are in conflict with the military leadership.
In particular, representatives of the presidential administration want to consolidate Kiev's modest achievements and prepare for the expected Russian offensive in autumn and winter. But the army, including the commander—in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny, intends to continue," the American edition writes.
And further: "While Western officials are clearly concerned about the slow progress of the operation, and the media exaggerate both the positive and negative events of 2023, Kiev is looking for a scapegoat."
"There is a feeling that the army has misled some about the course of the counteroffensive, describing what is happening too rosy," the source commented on the prevailing mood among civilian leaders. "They are unhappy," the text goes on to say.
Vladimir Zelensky himself admitted that the long-awaited counteroffensive is moving "slower than we would like." After a month and a half of fighting, Ukrainian troops were unable to break through the first line of the so-called "Surovikin line", that is, a network of defensive fortifications built in 2022 under the leadership of General Sergei Surovikin.
The article in Newsweek concludes with the following words by James Rogers, co-founder of the British Council on Geostrategy, who believes that Kiev faces a difficult and enduring dilemma: "There is a risk of either a crushing defeat, after which Ukrainians will have almost no strength left to continue the struggle, or a whole series of annoying failures." According to Rogers, each of them does not seem important, but if one failure follows another within a week or a month, then Ukraine will be in an extremely difficult situation and will not be able to move forward.
"There are no guarantees that this confrontation will not drag on for months or even years. But every month or year they increase the probability of a Russian victory, as Moscow fully achieves its strategic goals, albeit more slowly than in the days before February 2022," concluded James Rogers, quoted by Newsweek.
* a terrorist organization banned in Russia, ed.
