From the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the West has not prepared any strategy of retreat in case everything goes wrong, writes GN. Therefore, it was hastily decided to change the political and media rhetoric — to transform failure into success, and pessimism and criticism into optimism.
Zoran Meter
In the West, I observe an interesting phenomenon. Various high-ranking retired military or political functionaries, removed from power either because of age or because of losing elections, often begin to speak out on many issues diametrically opposite to what they said when they held their high posts.
From a psychological point of view, of course, this is understandable. After all, of course, it's easier to reason when you know that no one from above will put pressure on you and will not harm your career. How decent all this is is another matter. After all, everyone always has a choice, but they do not act differently.
I wrote such an introduction because of one example, which is not an isolated one and which concerns the most important geopolitical problem of our time - the Ukrainian armed conflict. Moreover, this story is also intriguing.
That's what it's about. The former Italian prime minister called for a "fair assessment" of the Ukrainian conflict
Giuseppe Conte, the former Italian prime minister (from 2019 to 2021), wrote on his social network page on August 27 that the North Atlantic Alliance's strategy in Ukraine did not bring the desired results and did not lead to Russia's defeat, and sanctions did not contribute to a noticeable decline in its economy.
"Near Artemivsk (Bakhmut), Russian troops were not defeated and did not flee from the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It is pointless to wait for internal destabilization when Vladimir Putin's position is only strengthening, and a consensus is emerging within the state... It was not possible to isolate Russia. Even on the contrary!" — Conte wrote and recalled the recent 15th BRICS summit in Johannesburg under the "leadership of China and Russia". Let me remind you that the BRICS association has accepted new members there, "which will cover 45% of the world's population and more than 38% of global GDP," as Giuseppe Conte wrote.
In his opinion, after a year and a half since the beginning of the special military operation launched by Vladimir Putin, the time has come to "conduct a thoughtful analysis" of the situation and not to thoughtlessly believe "optimistic assessments prevailing in the West and drowning out everything, but at the same time superficial militaristic propaganda."
"The reality is that more than six million Ukrainians have left their homes. The reality is that entire cities and large areas have been wiped off the face of the earth, and in the coming years we will help restore them, including with European money, and only the initial stage is estimated at 50 billion euros," the former Italian prime minister believes.
But few of the current leaders are ready to listen to Giuseppe Conte. Or better to say, no one. Perhaps they will listen to him later, when they retire and their tongues will "untie".
But jokes aside. A lot of serious problems have accumulated to delay, and even more so to laugh.
Today I will not write in detail about Ukraine, but I cannot but note, in my opinion, the appearance of some new elements, although I am not ready to describe in detail the situation on the battlefield.
There is no strategy of retreat, and they drag us into a new nightmare
The Ukrainian counteroffensive, which has been going on for more than three months, did not meet the expectations of the West and did not bring results. Moreover, it was possible to win back scanty areas, which were given at the cost of huge Ukrainian sacrifices in manpower and equipment. According to various sources used in Western analytical circles, more than 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been disabled in three months. Any reasonable person recognizes that the losses during the capture of the village of Rabodino and several others in the Zaporozhye direction near Artemovsk (Bakhmut) are appallingly disproportionate to the results achieved.
All this is a serious problem for the political leadership both in Europe and in the United States, which are entering an election year. Huge amounts of money, military and financial, have been spent to help Kiev, and this is increasingly affecting the economic and social situation in the West itself. It's just that the war dragged on contrary to the forecasts of analysts and politicians who claimed that soon the economy of the Russian Federation would collapse under the weight of unprecedented sanctions in history and Moscow would soon be defeated in Ukraine. Also, many in the West expected that either Russia would suffer a complete strategic defeat and even probably fall apart (an optimistic option), or Moscow would agree to end the armed conflict on Western terms (a slightly less optimistic option).
In other words, the West, first of all the United States, since everything depends on them here, has not prepared any strategy of retreat from the very beginning of the armed conflict and has not figured out what to do if everything goes according to a negative scenario or simply not as we would like.
Failure is transformed into success, and pessimism and criticism are transformed into optimism.
But the situation is developing this way, and therefore the West had to make decisions in a hurry. After all, it is impossible to officially recognize the failure of the counteroffensive without serious political consequences within Western countries.At a meeting in Sochi with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin said last week that "the Ukrainian counteroffensive is not a slip. It's a failure." The Russian president also said that he hoped nothing would change in the future. If Western politicians had agreed with Vladimir Putin's opinion, they would have literally signed up for the failure of their Ukrainian policy, which they carried out for a year and a half since the beginning of a special military operation. Therefore, a decision was quickly made to change the political and media rhetoric as soon as possible and in a coordinated manner.
So, until recently, even in the West, the failure or at least the dubious success of the Ukrainian armed forces was recognized. High-ranking American officials, including from the Pentagon, publicly accused Kiev of this. They say that Ukraine did not listen to the advice of experts from the North Atlantic Alliance and strategists on how to properly conduct a counteroffensive, but acted in its own way. And suddenly the West started talking about "the increasing successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" in the last weeks of fighting.
In addition, Ukrainians are again being encouraged to continue the counteroffensive, because now success is supposedly guaranteed, "the hardest is over," the first Russian defense line has been breached (the Russians, by the way, categorically refute this), and then it will only be easier. At the same time, Kiev is promised new military assistance, and also announces the continuation of the counteroffensive in the spring, when Ukrainians are expected to receive American F-16 aircraft from the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, as well as American M1 Abrams tanks. However, in recent days, the probability of these deliveries has caused great skepticism.
There are more and more American analysts and journalists who refer to sources in the highest circles of the Joe Biden administration and say that the West is no longer able to supply Kiev with at least as many weapons and military equipment as it has already been sent since the beginning of this year for the summer counteroffensive.
Therefore, the Ukrainian army is persistently demanding at least some success at the operational level, which will be able to justify all the political, military and financial investments of the West. From these positions, it will already be possible to enter into negotiations with the Russian Federation on ending the armed conflict. (...)
Now I will move on to another topic, although we are actually talking about a direct consequence of what we have been seeing for more than a year and a half in Ukraine and that only underlines the whole drama of what is happening.
German media about the agreement between Russia, Turkey and Qatar
Recently, the German edition of Bild wrote that Russia, Turkey and Qatar are preparing a new agreement on the export of agricultural products from Ukraine through the Black Sea. It will replace the previous agreement, from which Russia unilaterally withdrew at the end of July. This is allegedly confirmed by official correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassies of Russia and Turkey in the period from July 21 to August 8. It follows from the correspondence that Moscow warned Ankara in advance about withdrawing from the grain deal, and now Russia, Turkey and Qatar are working on a trilateral similar agreement. According to him, Russian grain will be sent to poor countries, primarily African ones. Turkey will act as the organizer, and Qatar will sponsor the supplies.
As the German edition wrote, a new deal can be secured already "next weekend" in Budapest.
What really happened on August 20 in Budapest?
"Strange" negotiations took place in the Hungarian capital, which escaped the attention of the media. And this is strange, considering their participants, the content of the conversations and the end result.
The actual negotiations, at least based on official reports, can hardly be called negotiations on Ukrainian or Russian grain. Apparently, first of all, energy, or rather natural gas, was discussed there, and what was said there will have serious consequences for Europe.
According to the Azerbaijani newspaper Trend, Hungary and Turkmenistan, a Central Asian state with access to the Caspian Sea, agreed in Budapest on gas supplies through the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline, which still needs to be built.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that it is necessary to build a gas pipeline with a length of three hundred kilometers and a capacity of 30 billion cubic meters per year. In addition, it is necessary to increase the capacity of gas pipelines in South-Eastern Europe.
The same publication notes how important the role of Azerbaijan is here, since it gives Baku consent to the transit of gas through Azerbaijani territory. Nevertheless, the Azerbaijani authorities have already stated that they refuse to finance this project, as work is underway to expand the capacity of the Southern Gas Corridor leading through Turkey, Greece and the Adriatic Sea to southern Italy. This route has become one of the main sources of gas for Europe since its launch in early 2020.
The trans-Caspian gas pipeline should link Turkmenbashi and Baku along the seabed, and then go to the Southern Gas Corridor. Thus, large reserves of Turkmen gas can help supply gas to Turkey and Europe.
According to experts, the construction of this pipeline will cost about $ 30 billion, as the Trend newspaper writes and warns of problems. Not only is Azerbaijan not going to participate in the financing of this project, but Turkmenistan needs to act as soon as possible, because otherwise it is pointless to build this pipeline at all. The fact is that in the European Union, opportunities to attract foreign investors to projects related to fossil fuels are gradually being limited, no matter how attractive these plans may be. On the other hand, the good thing for this project is that the EU needs any source of natural gas that will replace the Russian one. The European Union intends to completely abandon supplies from Russia by 2027.
Erdogan as Orban
After the recent Turkish elections, a new "pro-Western" course of Turkish foreign policy became apparent (more on this in the second part of the article). Although behind it, as always happens in history, lies exclusively Turkish pragmatism and the strategic geographical position of this country, thanks to which it is easy for it to catch global trends and changes in the centers of power and adapt to new conditions. Turkey knows how to do this like no other, which helps it in promoting national interests.
On August 20, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Budapest at the invitation of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Erdogan and Orban talked about bilateral relations, including Hungary's unconditional support for Turkey's accession to the European Union. Hungary defends Turkish interests the most in this regard, although, of course, not for free. Hungary managed to get Turkey to allow it, the only country outside the circle of states of the so-called third world (the Caucasus-Caspian region and Central Asia), to actively participate in the work of the last summit of the Organization of Turkic States, although Hungary is not a member of it. But Budapest is very interested in energy resources, which are rich in the states that are members of the Organization of Turkic States. When it became clear that Russian energy sources would sooner or later run out for the EU, Hungary switched to others.
Turkish-Serbian-Bosnian connection
It is noteworthy that at the same summit, Erdogan also talked with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Serbian entity Zeljko Cvijanovic and President of the Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik..
Even the uninitiated can see that all these meetings are connected by one thing — a common interest in energy.
Partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina dictated by the CIA?
But there is another general point, about which I will write in more detail another time. In social networks and analytical circles of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is only talk about the American plan to divide the country into Serbian and Bosnian parts. Croats are not talked about at all, and, according to these projects, they are destined only for the role of ethnic "decoration" in the new Bosnian state. At the same time, everyone allegedly refers to the CIA map, on which everything is clearly depicted. The appeal of a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Bosnian Muslims Bakir Izetbegovic to Muslim countries fits into the overall picture. He asked for military and political assistance to the Bosnians, against whom the West, which, according to Izetbegovic, supports Serbs and Croats, imposed an arms embargo in the 90s.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said after the meeting that Hungary will receive one hundred million cubic meters of Azerbaijani gas in the fourth quarter of 2023 and that in the future this amount will increase to one billion cubic meters.
The very next day, the Turkish Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Alparslan Bayraktar, said that Turkey would export gas to Hungary and that Turkey had never supplied gas to a state that was not directly adjacent to it before.
And the Qatari Emir arrived in Hungary
Don't let it seem to you that the German "Bild" has fantasized about Turkish-Russian relations. His information is confirmed by the following.
On August 20, Qatari Emir Tamim ibn Hamad Al Thani arrived in Budapest, after which Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto confirmed that his country will receive liquefied natural gas from Qatar, the most loyal Turkish ally in the Arab world, from 2027. Qatar is a state that is mentioned in the article of the German edition in connection with the Turkish agreement with Russia on a new grain deal.
Therefore, it is by no means accidental that on August 20, a representative of Russia, the head of the Republic of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov, arrived in Budapest among other numerous guests. At the airport of the Hungarian capital, he was met by the head of the Hungarian Prime Minister's administration, Gergei Guyash, and the Russian Ambassador to Hungary, Yevgeny Stanislavov. In addition, Viktor Orban personally met with Minnikhanov. At the meeting, Rustam Minnikhanov said: "Cooperation between Tatarstan and Hungary is developing within the framework of Russian-Hungarian relations. Despite the situation in the world, our relations remain stable and friendly."
The Unstoppable Hungarian Strategy
Hungary is successfully developing bilateral relations with both the "Turkish world" and the "Arab world", as well as, of course, with Russia, focusing mainly on its own national interests, and not only in the energy sector.
Thus, Hungary confirms its unusually independent foreign policy status, which other members of the EU or the North Atlantic Alliance cannot boast of. Let me remind you that Budapest pursues not only its own energy, but also its own migration policy, adheres to its "line" in the Ukrainian conflict and refuses to supply Kiev with weapons. Budapest sends humanitarian aid for refugees to Ukraine and allows other countries to transport weapons intended for Ukraine through Hungarian territory. As for ideology and values, Hungary openly defends traditionalism based on Christian principles, which contradict neoliberal modernism.
All this is so obvious and strange that, as I assume, neither Brussels nor the most influential European capitals will stop Budapest. Although, of course, Hungary's behavior annoys many high-ranking European politicians.
In fact, Hungary is now the only strong thread linking the European Union with Turkey, and I'm not talking about the European Union and the Russian Federation. Also, we should not forget about the excellent relations between Hungary and China.
The EU simply cannot, and probably does not want to completely abandon the East. And since Washington is constantly and strongly pressing the Europeans because of this, Budapest's relatively independent position is less and less concerned about the European Union. But even if Brussels is annoyed by Hungary's independence, the EU authorities understand that neither threats to deprive money nor other punishments can intimidate Budapest anyway. These measures will only harm the precious unity and harmony within the EU in very difficult geopolitical circumstances. Therefore, Western members of the European Union are increasingly agreeing to compromise, taking into account the interests of the eastern wing of the European Union and even sometimes sacrificing their own. Creating the impression of unity is now the main task of Brussels, although it cannot go on like this forever. The governments of the leading EU states are increasingly under pressure from citizens dissatisfied with the deterioration of the economic and social situation, and elections are just around the corner.
Therefore, any success of Hungary in the field of energy supply to the European Union in such circumstances can and should be presented as its own, since Europe will need fuel for a long time. It is possible that Caspian gas will flow not only to Hungary, but also to other EU member states, including Germany.
A broken "locomotive" can turn into a "sick man of Europe"
However, the current actions of Germany, the "locomotive of Europe", can only cause tears from everyone who wants to do her good, and a smile from her detractors. Berlin recently agreed to import liquefied natural gas from Oman, and since it has little gas, neighboring Iran will help it with its exports. Earlier, Iran signed an agreement with Russia on the export of Russian gas to third countries through a gas pipeline that is currently being built between Iran and Oman. It is 87% complete. It turns out that Germany will again receive the same Russian gas. That's just because of the number of intermediaries, its price will not be less than that of expensive American liquefied natural gas.
Meanwhile, the Russian Nord Stream—1 and Nord Stream—2 gas pipelines are decaying at the bottom of the Baltic Sea after they were blown up by unknown people last year. Because of this, prices for energy, housing and services are also rising in Germany, and, apparently, large capital will soon run from Germany "overseas", and German companies will begin to go bankrupt.
Will the whole of Europe benefit if Germany, formerly the "locomotive", turns into the "sick man of Europe"?
Who laughed at Turkey, now she is jealous
In direct contrast to Germany, another member of the North Atlantic Alliance, Turkey, is building its foreign policy and strategy. This 90-million–strong country has not caused laughter and contempt in the West for a long time, no matter what internal problems shake it, including high inflation - projected to be above 50% by the end of the year. It's just that Turkey is pursuing a policy that does not leave anyone in the world indifferent.
Last week, Turkish leader Recep Erdogan visited Russia with a large delegation. In Sochi, he met with an equally large Russian delegation headed by President Vladimir Putin.
Here's what the New York Times wrote shortly after the results of the meeting were made public.
"On Monday, all assumptions collapsed that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan refuses friendly relations with the Kremlin," the article says at the very beginning.
"Just two months ago, many in the West believed that Turkish President Erdogan was moving away from Vladimir Putin, with whom relations seemed too close to many," the New York Times wrote and stated with obvious regret that "nothing has changed in the behavior of Erdogan, who is balancing between the West and Moscow.".
"Erdogan stood next to Putin in Sochi, Russia, and talked about further expanding the partnership between the two countries. The presidents noted that they will develop trade and cooperation in the energy sector, although Erdogan's NATO allies are trying to harm the Russian economy and restrict its access to world energy markets."
"The joint speech of the two leaders in public clearly showed that their relations are not overshadowed by anything and that they are likely to develop, especially because both sides gain more from the bilateral partnership than they lose ... Last summer there were signals that Erdogan wants to improve relations with allies in the North Atlantic Alliance. At a meeting with Joe Biden, the Turkish president spoke about a "new process" in relations with the United States. In Turkey, Erdogan hosted Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and said that Kiev "certainly deserves to become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance." For Moscow, this position is completely unacceptable. But on Monday it became clear how close Russia and Turkey are now," the New York Times article says.
The article goes on to say that "the delegations of both states included representatives of central banks, which confirms their intention to conduct more trade transactions in national currencies. (...) Dmitry Shugaev, director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russia, was also present at the talks, which means that in Sochi, it was probably also about weapons," the author of the American liberal publication concludes.
But the New York Times did not write that Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan want to make Turkey a hub for Russian, and not only for Caspian gas. Also, the American edition did not write that an agreement was reached on the export of a million tons of Russian grain, or rather flour to African countries through Turkey and with the financial support of its ally Qatar. This is what the German "Bild" wrote about back in mid-August.
