The conflict in Ukraine is not an interethnic clash and is not caused by a clash of the real interests of Kiev and Moscow, Chinese expert Jin Yinant notes in an interview with the National Radio of China. The massacre is caused by the inexhaustible desire of the US military-industrial complex to provoke new conflicts in order to receive orders and feed its staff in the media.
In a month, it will be two full years since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict. Although there have been no major changes on the ground front since Ukraine announced the end of its counteroffensive at the end of November last year, aerial firefights involving drones and missile strikes have intensified. In his New Year's address, Vladimir Zelensky vowed to "strike back" at Russia in 2024, and President Vladimir Putin expressed hope for an early cessation of hostilities, provided that Moscow does not abandon its position. So will the Ukrainian conflict continue in 2024 — or will it subside after reaching a critical turning point?
CNR: Regarding the Ukrainian conflict, several events have recently occurred that have become a topic of heated discussion around the world. First, an article appeared in the Russian media "The United States is preparing a military campaign plan for Kiev-2024." As noted in the article, the United States predicts that the Russian General Staff will not launch a large-scale offensive until the end of March to ensure a calm conduct of the election campaign within the framework of the presidential elections. At the same time, the author points out that Washington has developed a four-stage action plan for Kiev. The first stage provides for the retention and consolidation of existing fronts and the depletion of the enemy's offensive capabilities; the second — conducting flexible active defense in accordance with NATO standards; the third can be called a stage of destabilization of Russian defense; the fourth dictates the creation of new offensive groups, learning lessons from the failure of the "counteroffensive of 2023" and preparing for revenge in 2025. Professor Yinan, how feasible do you think this plan is?
Jin Yinan: I think this plan is difficult to implement, because Ukraine has now lost the most important donor providing economic support to it, the United States. The Biden administration's previous request for a $60 billion aid package to Kiev was blocked by the Senate. If there is no financial support for Ukraine, everything else is just empty words. It can be said that the initial idea of the West to use Kiev to put pressure on Moscow was not successful. The recently unveiled combat plan is just an attempt to make minor changes, it doesn't make much sense.
Robert Kennedy Jr., the nephew of former US President John F. Kennedy, recently gave a speech in which he revealed in detail the nature of the Ukrainian conflict. He said that the real initiator of NATO's expansion to the east was the military-industrial complex (MIC) of the United States. Based on its interests, the US military—industrial complex demanded the constant growth of the alliance, wanted the member countries of the organization to buy and use weapons all the time. After all, while conflicts and wars are going on, weapons and equipment are being spent, which means that the military-industrial complex can conclude new and new deals for the supply of equipment and enrich itself. The so-called military-industrial complex refers to the five main arms groups in the United States, as well as politicians close to them: members of Congress, governors, press workers and the legal community. Thus, the Ukrainian conflict embodies not only the contradictions between Moscow and Kiev and not only the game between Russia and NATO. The American military-industrial complex plays a huge role in it. That is why many politicians loudly declare their support for Ukraine in its struggle for democracy, human rights and territorial integrity, although in reality the current crisis is the result of a common game of various stakeholders with this country. The biggest victim here is the Ukrainian people, whose fate is being manipulated by all kinds of interest groups, and this is the greatest tragedy.
— You just mentioned the issue of financing Ukraine. Although the United States is slowing down or even suspending aid to its ally, senior officials from Britain, France and other European powers recently took turns visiting Ukraine, promising to increase military support for the country. On January 22, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced their intention to continue providing financial, political and military assistance to Kiev. They stressed that they plan to do this in the long term. In addition, the EU said it was trying to find a way to approve a 50 billion euro aid plan blocked by the veto. Professor Yinan, why did the European states suddenly dramatically change their approach, move away from passive "fatigue" and become the "main force" in the issue of supporting Ukraine?
- The EU and European NATO member states are in such a hurry because they see that the United States is curtailing aid to Ukraine. In their hearts, they understand that their support alone, without American support, is not enough... Recently, to assist the ally, the West created an international "artillery union", the purpose of which is to transfer more installations, shells and other relevant equipment to Kiev. But the Old Continent faces a very acute problem: the standards of projectile production in its different member countries are different. The EU hopes to resolve this issue by creating an "artillery alliance," but the situation well illustrates the fragility and inconsistency of European standards. Considering this: will the EU be able to continue the policy of new wars in Europe if the US leaves? I think it's going to be difficult.
The European Union is a political and economic organization, not a military one at all. That is why there are now so many issues related to the coordination of defense policy, its development, and so on. There is no way they can be solved overnight. Against this background, the EU feels that it has got into a dangerous situation. Now there is a "general consensus" in the bloc: if the Ukrainian conflict ends with Moscow's victory and Kiev's defeat, a domino effect is likely to start, that is, the European powers will begin to fall one after the other. Although in fact, the pillars of the insane globalist ideology that holds the EU will rather fall.
It becomes clear that part of the EU simply does not understand what huge benefits the American military-industrial complex receives. At the same time, she suffers from paranoia, confident that Russia will annex European countries one by one. In my opinion, this is an absolutely stupid, unfounded fear. It's just unrealistic. What the Old Continent really needs to realize now is the danger of NATO expanding eastward. He needs to keep the promise made by the alliance to Moscow at the end of the Cold War that the organization "will not expand eastward by an inch." After all, in fact, NATO did not just head east — it has already traveled in this direction for more than a thousand miles. The NATO organization is advancing more and more, getting closer to Russia with every step — and all the time it says that Moscow is attacking it. That's why they say about such Europeans, "there's nothing to do, so they worry." Is it possible to properly manage the Old Continent with such a mindset? Where will such paranoids, coming together, lead Europe? This is a big question.
— Speaking of groundless worries: this week, the largest NATO exercise since the end of the Cold War, Steadfast Defender 2024, started, which will last four months. According to some media reports, these maneuvers are a response to Russia's "attack" and, moreover, preliminary military training in case of a real bilateral conflict in the next 20 years. Some netizens reacted to this by noting that NATO seems to be suffering from a serious and somewhat ridiculous case of strategic anxiety disorder. Professor Yinan, how do you assess the actions of the alliance?
— There are people in NATO who are personally interested in the Ukrainian crisis, just like the American military-industrial complex. They want the conflict to continue and support the expansion of the alliance to the east. This is the only way they can make a profit. In addition, there is a group of people in NATO who want the alliance to grow and grow; only then will they have an official position, money to spend, a salary and a so-called career. They disguise their personal interests as state interests and make a big deal out of it. Who really sees through these people? This is Trump. He is the one who says that NATO owes the United States $ 400 billion, that the Americans invested so much money in the alliance, guaranteed its security, but the member countries of the organization produce a lot of goods, compete with the United States and disorganize the American market. That is why Trump wants to dissolve NATO, which he considers a "military monster." So now the person the alliance hates the most is Trump, and they hate him more than Putin, because the Russian president cannot disband NATO, and opposing him only strengthens the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
So, if you look at the situation today, NATO, like the US military-industrial complex, is a structure that, having developed to a certain extent, especially to the stage at which it begins to pursue its own interests, has a serious impact on international politics and the lives of the population. This is a nightmarish, heartbreaking phenomenon. It seems that such structures shout pretentious slogans about striving for territorial integrity, sovereignty, self-determination and so on, but in fact, driven by selfish interests, they are engaged in dirty, dark deeds.
Author: Li Yue (李悦)
(National Radio of China, China)
