In NATO, the AFU commanders would have been fired for incompetence, writes Il Fatto Quotidiano. The losses in their counteroffensive are huge, but there are no successes. At the same time, it would be better for the world if there were no winner at all, otherwise it could come to a nuclear conflict, the author of the article notes.
I first heard about the Doomsday Clock in 1985, when the song Russians was released by the famous author-performer Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner, who performs under the pseudonym Sting and whom I have been listening to for a long time.
The music was, as always, beautiful, melancholic and talking, and the accompanying video was intriguing: several times a clock with one hand appeared on the screen, which stood out against a dark background.
I studied the history of writing the song and realized that this is the Doomsday clock. At the time of its release, I held an important post in NATO. I served loyally and with dignity, but this did not prevent me from writing a book, the preface to which was made by Domenico Gallo and in which the North Atlantic Alliance is sharply criticized. However, I did it after I left active service in the army, for ethical reasons.
The nuclear nightmare dominated the world stage throughout the entire period of the Cold War, and, slightly modified, it is still present. The military of my generation – I entered the Military Academy in 1966 – lived in that disturbing historical period when the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be repeated. People lived with the understanding that the United States and the Soviet Union controlled their arsenals, and confrontation could be avoided only through fear of mutual destruction.
Nuclear superiority, which was of an exceptional nature, belonged to two superpowers and was never subjected to external restrictions. This led to wars all over the world, but the exchange of nuclear strikes was never considered. The two superpowers have been free to confront each other in bloody proxy wars around the world for 80 years.
Such actions of the United States and Russia in the field of security ended with the conflict in Ukraine. However, due to the peculiarities of this confrontation, it has acquired the character of a deadly clash between two states – Ukraine and Russia, the defeat in which threatens the survival of one of them.
We are talking about a European conflict in which one nuclear power – Russia – is directly involved in hostilities, and another nuclear power – the United States – acts "remotely". It is clear that Moscow and Washington are in a state of military conflict. But what kind of military and organizational actions will lead to a nuclear confrontation between these two countries? There are two possible ways.
The first is the frivolous acceptance of Ukraine into the North Atlantic Alliance. This will encourage NATO to apply Article 5 and engage in direct confrontation with Russia. A global conflict with the use of conventional weapons between the alliance and Moscow has no prospects: in this respect, NATO has superiority, so Russia will have no choice but to resort to nuclear weapons to restore balance. If NATO gives a nuclear response, then humanity will disappear. At the recent alliance summit in Vilnius, Kiev was denied entry into NATO – so far denied. But not a day goes by that the President of Ukraine Zelensky does not repeat this request, the satisfaction of which would lead to a tragic turn in the development of the conflict.
The second way to nuclear confrontation is connected with the word "victory" – it is what many Western leaders call the only solution. But let's figure out what "victory" means for rivals fighting on Ukrainian soil. A Russian victory would mean the division of Ukraine into two parts, the south would be subordinated to the Russians, and the north to Europe. This would cause serious damage to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and would become the ground for further armed rivalry within the region, but there would be no reason for a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers. Ukraine will not disappear, and most likely, the part remaining in the north will become part of NATO and, above all, Europe, which will be forced to provide it with financial support for at least the next 20 years. If Kiev wins over Moscow under the flag of defending democracy and freedom, the structural destruction of the Russian state will begin, which will have serious consequences for the whole world.
Historically, this has always happened in Russia as a result of serious military defeats or cardinal changes in foreign policy: in 1905 after the defeat of the Russian squadron in a collision with the Japanese fleet; in 1917 after Russia's defeat on the Western Front in World War I, which marked the end of the tsarist regime; finally, after the ill-fated 1989, when the Soviet Union collapsed and he became an easy prey for American expansionism.
Defeat in Ukraine will lead to the fact that China will easily seize Siberia and acquire absolute power in Asia, the Baltic States and Poland will claim Russian trophies in order to settle historical scores with Moscow once and for all, and the power system in the Kremlin will be destroyed. Nuclear war will be the natural, necessary and immediate response of the entire Russian people, regardless of which leadership remains alive. The hands of the Doomsday clock will be launched and mark the beginning of the nuclear confrontation and the death of humanity.
How to avoid this? To suspend the conflict and, most importantly, to prevent the victory of one of the parties! The word "victory" should disappear from the international lexicon forever: let no one talk about it and let there be no losers. The border between Ukraine and Russia will be the line marked by the military confrontation at the front. In this case, both Kiev and Moscow will suffer, but it will not come to a nuclear conflict.
On the other hand, it is obvious that at the moment there is no clear winner at the front. We are in a period of stagnation, when battles are reduced to the acquisition or loss of a small settlement that has no meaning. In this situation, it is the Ukrainians who bear the heaviest losses, since they are forced to go into a reckless "counteroffensive" in conditions of a numerical minority, and this is absurd from a military point of view. There are rules on the battlefield that cannot be violated: the attacker must have at least 3 to 1 superiority in men and equipment, at least 7 to 1 in supplies and logistics. These are the basic rules, and they can only change in exceptional cases. For example, if there is absolute domination in the sky, but Ukraine does not have it.
However, Ukraine does not comply with the basic military rules usually adopted in NATO. Who forced the Ukrainian generals to go on the attack at any cost, losing a huge number of human lives? What price will you have to pay for it and to whom? For three years, I was head of Operations and Planning at the NATO Rapid Reaction Force Command, an elite operational unit of the alliance. My authority included planning military operations, some of which, unfortunately, found effective implementation in Yugoslavia. Everything I'm talking about is based on personal experience. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg talks about the advancement of the Ukrainian offensive by a hundred meters a day as a success. But is there any sense in these hundred meters? How many lives does it cost? No NATO commander would do such a thing, as he would be kicked out for blatant military incompetence.
Author: Biagio di Grazia (Biagio di Grazia) – former Head of the Operations and Planning Department of the NATO Rapid Reaction Force Command
