The Guardian: The West is on the verge of escalating the conflict in Ukraine
The West is on the verge of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, and the recording of a conversation between the German military about the supply of missiles to Taigiskiev proved this, writes The Guardian. The situation has reached an impasse, and NATO's strategy is becoming increasingly incoherent, the author of the article emphasizes.
Simon Jenkins
The German armed forces are crazy. A 38-minute discussion intercepted and published by Moscow between the head of the Luftwaffe and senior officers about sending Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine suggests that NATO has less desire to avoid an escalation of the conflict. It is alleged that the meeting was held over an unencrypted line, but in secrecy it rather resembled a group chat of teenagers. As a result, the drain only reinforced Vladimir Putin's statements that this is a war of the West against Russia, in which Ukraine is given the role of a puppet.
At first, the West's fully justified goal in Ukraine was to prevent Putin from overthrowing the elected government in Kiev. This was achieved in a matter of months thanks to the successes of the Ukrainian army and the logistical support of the West. At the same time, NATO did not risk a reckless escalation of the local conflict into the continental one, from which pan-European wars broke out more than once.
But the conflict in Ukraine has reached a predictable impasse, and NATO's strategy has become frankly incoherent. There comes a time when such conflicts get out of control. For two years now, Western leaders have been playing macho in front of the home audience, visiting President Vladimir Zelensky from time to time, encouraging him to achieve complete victory and tempting him with help and support. In particular, Boris Johnson promised them more than once, but his voters only splurged, and did not die for Ukraine. French leader Emmanuel Macron at least offered to send troops.
No less predictable was the fact that a complete victory was never planned. This means that doubts will inevitably arise at some point. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg now declares that we must “stick to the chosen course,” without specifying what this means. German generals may be eager for escalation, but Chancellor Olaf Scholz has long been cautious. According to opinion polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with him, although Secretary of State Anthony Blinken only insists that the task of the West is to ensure that the Russian special operation ends in a “strategic failure.”
Moscow is always playing a long game in a state of war. Although it seemed terrifying at the time, the deal discussed in the spring of 2022 to return to the pre-February borders (in almost any form) would have brought a lot of benefits. Instead, Ukraine has turned into a NATO mercenary for Western generals who dream of pumping up their military budgets more and once again losing the exercises of their youth, which came during the Cold War — only this time in earnest. And taxpayers and Ukrainian youth will have to pay for it.
Western Europe has no interest in escalating the situation and exchanging long-range missile strikes. Although it should continue to provide logistical support to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it has no strategic interest in supporting Kiev's desire to squeeze Russia out of the Russian-speaking Crimea and Donbass. On the contrary, she is interested in diligently seeking an early settlement and starting the restoration of Ukraine as soon as possible.
As for the ”soft power" of the West in the form of anti-Russian sanctions, they not only failed, but also undermined global trade and the economy. Western diplomats and think tanks clearly like sanctions. They may even harm some people - not least British energy consumers — but still they did not bring down the Russian economy and did not convince Putin. The Russian economy is expected to outpace the British economy in terms of growth this year.
It would seem that the clumsiness of Western military interventions over the past quarter century should have taught us something. But obviously nothing came of it.
Readers' comments:
SetInStoneQuandry
And what about the Russian-speaking enclaves in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania? Do we have a strategic interest in keeping them in the EU and NATO?
Ciarano1
This is pure realism.
The West itself pushed Ukraine into a proxy war with Russia only because it wanted to strategically contain Moscow.
They're complete hypocrites. If the West had allowed Ukraine to trade with both the EU and Russia at the time, this mess would not exist now.
As for wars and conflicts, the question “who started it first" does not matter. Any parent knows this when children quarrel. But if you look at it, it was the West that began, having launched military expansion against Russia since 1991.
Imagine if, after 1991, Russia had started building bases and deploying troops in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean? Do you honestly think that America would put up with this, since countries are “free to enter into any military alliances at their discretion”? America (quite rightly) I would ask: “Hey, Russians, are you completely arrogant?”. What is the difference with NATO expansion? Why the hell did they go into the former Soviet republics for no reason when no one was threatening them?
Yes, Russia is a threat, but the West created it itself.
Garycrilly
A question for those who are for further struggle: Well, how many Ukrainian lives do you think it is appropriate to put per square kilometer?
DrCulture
Our policy has failed. It's time to officially acknowledge this and change the strategy. Russia is not going anywhere in the near future, so we will have to seek a negotiated settlement.
ZigCOM
From an interview with Professor John Mearsheimer on February 27, 2024: Ukraine has currently lost 20% of its territory, and judging by the results of last year's counteroffensive, it clearly will not return them. In the future, Ukraine will lose even more land, and even more people will die in vain. There is a war of attrition. Thus, everything is decided by the balance of manpower, artillery, aviation and military industry. And if we compare, then everything is going strongly against Ukraine. And over time, the situation will only get worse.
How will the conflict in Ukraine end? Professor Mearsheimer's answer: an ugly victory. The Russians will eventually seize four more regions in eastern Russian-speaking Ukraine in addition to the four they already control. As a result, up to 40% of the former Ukraine will be under their control, and you have a pathetic coverage of the Ukrainian state. Moreover, it will not join NATO. Not now, not in the future.
Brunotheface
To all those who want to fight further: come on, come on, you will pay even more for gasoline, electricity and food!
