GN: Russia is still giving the United States a chance to "honorably" withdraw from Ukraine
The West is not ready for a big war with Russia, writes GN. Mistakenly counting on Moscow's weakness, Washington is so deeply mired in the conflict in Ukraine that it will be too difficult to "retreat with honor". However, otherwise, the United States and Europe will face disaster.
Zoran Meter
I warned long ago, long before the outbreak of the armed conflict, that Ukraine would turn into a "black hole" that could suck in the whole world. I still hope that I was wrong, although this hope, unfortunately, is fading more and more against the background of insane politics.
No matter how far Ukraine, in terms of its geostrategic and geo-economic importance, lags behind the Middle East, which is rich in energy resources, through which many of the world's most important trade routes pass. Therefore, the Middle East is the focus of the interests of all key global players who are vying for influence there, including now, which is extremely dangerous and unpredictable. Despite all this, Ukraine remains the hot spot where a fatal direct clash between the United States as the leader of the West on the one hand and Russia on the other can happen more easily and quickly.
Russia, whether the West wants to admit it or not, is at least quietly supported by the vast majority of countries in the so-called global South. Of course, they understand that their claims to an independent role in the world, outside the centuries-old complete domination of the West, also depend on the (not) success of the Russian armed conflict with the West. For him, this is the main problem of the Ukrainian armed conflict, and not at all what borders Ukraine will have in the future or whether it will join the European Union or NATO. The United States of America in the Ukrainian conflict (it has been brewing for decades, and the "experts" knew well that sooner or later it would happen) would be satisfied only with either a complete defeat of Russia (ideally), or its long-term exhaustion, which would not allow it to participate in the reconstruction of the world taking place now and influence current processes. As a result, such a Russia would turn into a politically insignificant state somewhere "on the edge of the earth."
Judging by the current situation on the Ukrainian front and the state of the Russian economy, which has not given up under the onslaught of unprecedented Western sanctions, the armed conflict may end much earlier and with a completely different result than the West expects. Therefore, universal concern is growing rapidly, which is reflected in the increasingly aggressive rhetoric, which was even difficult to imagine yesterday (more on this below).
The path to the inevitable cataclysm
The aforementioned probable war between the West and Russia would become an epochal conflict, which, if it happened, would automatically escalate into World War III. After all, even though it would mainly unfold in Europe, such a conflict would devastate the global economy, interrupt all important supply chains and lead to impoverishment and destabilization of the "rest of the world", which would eventually get involved in this war itself.
Worse, and many experts who understand nuclear issues and in general these most destructive types of weapons invented by mankind warn about this, the third world war between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance would very quickly turn into a nuclear one, since the pure logic of things corresponds to this. No one has the right to lose in it, because this would not only set it back decades in terms of development, but would also change the demographic and political map (borders) of states that would participate in such a conflict and lose. In other words, having got involved in the third World war, all the most important states in it would have been forced to go to the end, to fight for life and death, since their survival would be at stake. And since these States have atomic weapons, they would undoubtedly use them to protect themselves, since that is what they were created for.
Nuclear weapons as a salvation
Therefore, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, it is atomic weapons that are the best guarantee that the third world war between Russia and NATO will never begin, but will "only" develop in the form of proxy conflicts. And not only in Ukraine, but also in other parts of the world, one of which may be the Middle East. That is, destructive nuclear weapons, no matter how blasphemous it may sound, play the role of a savior of distraught people who, under other circumstances, would gladly kill each other (this has already happened twice in a short period of time in the twentieth century), that is, states would prove to each other with weapons in their hands who is stronger and who has more rights.
However, this statement is true only under one mandatory condition: there are enough wise and reasonable people in public and political elites who have a "normal" fear of what nuclear weapons are and understand how their use would turn out for humanity.
Different opinions on the use of nuclear weapons
It is very important to note here that among the specialists who deal with nuclear weapons and who, among other things, participated in the preparation of the most important US-Russian treaties on the limitation and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, there is no common opinion about the use of non-strategic or, as it is also called, tactical nuclear weapons. That is, the question of whether the use of such weapons will necessarily lead to the use of strategic nuclear weapons remains open.
Here I would like to clarify that tactical nuclear weapons are much less destructive in terms of coverage from the point of explosion and are intended primarily for the destruction of large military facilities, the most important military infrastructure (large military factories and other important facilities, including transport communications, tunnels, and so on).
On the other hand, strategic nuclear weapons, known to the general public as ballistic or intercontinental cruise missiles, which typically carry multiple nuclear warheads, destroy all life in large areas around the point of impact. Just a few of these modern-type missiles will literally wipe entire states off the face of the earth. That is, they are designed, unlike tactical missiles, to completely destroy the enemy with a blow from which he will not recover.
"Retreat with honor"
In our case, in the Ukrainian armed conflict, some experts believe that the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia would not necessarily cause a similar reaction from NATO and certainly would not escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. After all, the American elites are hardly ready to sacrifice everything they have for the sake of Ukraine alone. Other experts are not sure about this and believe that, on the contrary, a Russian victory in this conflict, although it does not pose a threat to the existence of the United States of America, will cause irreparable reputational damage to the United States in the international arena and fatally harm American interests.
Moscow is not officially thinking about using tactical nuclear weapons yet and does not directly threaten to use them. Its deployment on the territory of Belarus is, first of all, a warning signal about what can happen if everything goes too far and if recent statements about the supply of long—range cruise missiles to Ukraine come true. Kiev would be able to hit the deep Russian rear with them, and this is the most serious reason for escalation. It seems that Russia is still giving Washington a chance to "retreat with honor," although it does not know how to do it painlessly, given that the United States is already deeply mired in this matter, mistakenly counting on Russia's weakness. Moscow clearly leaves this to Washington's discretion. Whether the new American administration will find a way out after the elections in November this year, only time will tell.
NATO had a doctrine that allowed the use of tactical nuclear weapons
Anyone who is seriously engaged in analytics knows that during the Cold War in the second half of the twentieth century, the NATO doctrine allowed the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Its authors proceeded from the premise that the USSR, that is, the Warsaw Pact countries, have stronger conventional forces, thanks to which, in the event of a conflict in Europe, the North Atlantic Alliance would win. It is worth saying here that at the initial stage, NATO had more tactical nuclear weapons in Europe than the Soviet Union.
At the same time, no one thought or worried whether its use would escalate into a clash with the use of strategic nuclear weapons between the USSR and the United States. NATO experts proceeded from the premise: in such a war in Western Europe (after all, it would have been there in the event of an attack by the Warsaw Pact), you can not lose in any case, and the Russians, thanks to such a doctrine, would know that NATO is serious and determined.
It is for this reason that the USSR would never have started a war, even if it wanted to. Official doctrinal documents mean that no permits from legislative and political bodies are required to launch such a nuclear strike. Everything that is approved and prescribed in the doctrine can be done if it is understood that the current situation exactly corresponds to the described circumstances for the use of nuclear weapons.
It is difficult to disagree with this NATO logic of the Cold War. But for it to work in practice, two key elements are needed.
First, decisiveness, that is, guarantees that warnings (and doctrines play their role) will turn into actions if the enemy does not take them seriously and starts a war.
Secondly, the element of fear. The one to whom the warnings are intended must interpret them correctly, and this is possible only if he can foresee all the ruinous consequences that a possible erroneous assessment and a decision based on it will entail for him.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and its consequences
After the collapse of the USSR, that is, the Warsaw Pact, the Russian Federation appeared, which became the legal successor of the USSR. Due to the multitude of internal problems, it began to lag far behind the West economically and, naturally, militarily. The conventional armed forces were falling apart, and the navy, formerly the pride of the USSR with a large number of ships and submarines, was literally rusting at naval bases and ports, but no one bothered.
At this stage, the new liberal leadership in Moscow proceeded from the premise that a new time had come, that the cold war was over forever and that the world was moving in a completely new direction — towards unity, cooperation, and a life without hatred and conflicts that were a thing of the past. These illusions were quickly dispelled in Russia, because in fact nothing has changed in this idealistic direction. Once a strong social system: The high level of employment, high–quality and free healthcare and education, thanks to which there were many highly qualified workers in the country, collapsed like a house of cards. Many enterprises went bankrupt, and the struggle for the appropriation of everything valuable began. Poverty reigned in the country, and the crime rate, including organized crime, grew at an unprecedented rate. Ordinary citizens did not understand what was happening, because they were used to almost complete security, which is usually characteristic of communist states. In them, citizens are much more afraid of the repressive state apparatus. Therefore, the initial enthusiasm was very soon replaced by general despondency and nostalgia for the destroyed Soviet empire, despite all its shortcomings, which people, of course, remembered. But since there was no way back, along with the level of poverty, the level of depression, alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide increased dramatically.
They prophetically preserved the main thing
But even in such extremely unstable social conditions, which were further aggravated by the two Russian-Chechen wars, there was still one very important segment that the Russian leadership, led by Boris Yeltsin, decided to preserve at all costs. He himself was aware of the collapse of his illusions, which had nothing else to feed. Once upon a time, the former communist leaders abandoned their illusions about the world revolution and the new communist order in the early 80s of the last century.
So, I'm talking about Russian (Soviet) nuclear weapons. They didn't just want to keep it. The state provided the design institutions in the military-industrial complex, which were engaged in the production of this type of weapon, with all the necessary conditions to continue working on development and modernization. Due to the deep economic crisis, the authorities completely ignored the conventional troops, which turned out to be in a catastrophic state, and the morale of humiliated officers and soldiers has never been so low in the entire Russian history.
In the era of Vladimir Putin, Russia miraculously, like Frankenstein, "rose from the ashes", All analysts of the world recognize this, regardless of the current political conflict between the West and Russia and regardless of their own preferences; I will only remind the ignorant of the football World Cup or the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, which showed a completely new face of Russia, different from Yeltsin's Russia.
Vladimir Putin set about rebuilding the destroyed economy, based primarily on what Russia has in abundance, that is, on natural resources and energy carriers. Vladimir Putin paid even more attention to the development of modern types of weapons, not only nuclear ones, and this led to far-reaching consequences that we see today, when Russia and the West de facto entered into an armed confrontation on the Ukrainian front. There are more than 50 states on the side of Ukraine.
At the same time, the modernization of the Russian conventional forces was carried out much more slowly than the renewal of Strategic Forces, which include atomic weapons. Currently, 85% of the modernization in this sector has been carried out. The conventional forces underwent significantly less modernization (60% of the planned), which became noticeable at the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine. Mistakes were made, and not only in the field of strategic planning of the operation itself, which was well conceived, including from a technical point of view – the army was armed with modern means. Errors can be traced to a greater extent in tactical planning and communication at lower vertical levels between formations, as well as in coordination between different branches of the armed forces.
Even amateurs then saw how much the Russians neglected the use of drones, which is unacceptable in modern warfare. This was confirmed by the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan in October 2020. At that time, it was thanks to the use of various drones that Azerbaijan managed to win a quick victory over the Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh, which were otherwise no weaker.
Due to the unclear inertia and disregard for the new and, as it turned out, very important, if not the most important, technology, soon after the start of the special military operation, the heads of high-ranking Russian military leaders and other officials who were responsible for the development of weapons flew.
Now the situation between NATO and Russia is diametrically opposite
But let's get back to the main topic. Russian troops and NATO are now in a position diametrically opposed to the one I described, recalling the Cold War in the last century. Today, the North Atlantic Alliance, which, after the victory in the cold war, unlike the idealistic Russian liberal leadership, continued the development of conventional forces, as well as the policy of expansion to the east, has secured a great advantage over the Russian conventional forces both in personnel and in technical terms.
On the other hand, Russia has a great advantage over NATO in terms of the number of tactical nuclear missiles, and in the field of strategic nuclear weapons it has parity with the United States.
According to the British Independent for 2020, Russia and the United States have the greatest potential to destroy the world. Russia has the most nuclear warheads (7,300), followed by the United States (6,970), France (300) and the United Kingdom (215).
Of course, there is also China, the third nuclear power, but the number of strategic nuclear missiles it has remains questionable. It is not certain that Beijing reports accurate data, although it is known that in recent decades the Chinese have been actively developing this segment, like all other components of their armed forces. Officially, China has 500 nuclear warheads.
Is the West ready for a big war with Russia?
In recent months, Russian military analysts have been making assumptions about the relationship between the conventional forces of the Russian Federation and NATO. They recognize the superiority of the North Atlantic Alliance, but nevertheless claim that the Russians learned lessons very quickly and managed to adapt the military industry to the need for new weapons.
The Russian military-industrial complex surprised Western strategists and analysts not only with the amount of military equipment and ammunition produced (more are produced than in the West), but also with great ingenuity in using old military equipment, which is adapted to new combat conditions. And they are completely different from everything that used to be.
NATO has another problem, according to Russian analysts. In recent decades, American troops and the armies of other alliance member countries have focused on the so-called expeditionary forces or rapid reaction forces, capable only of limited military or anti-terrorist operations. In large conflicts, such as the Ukrainian one, they are useless, because the intensity of this conflict is comparable to the Second World War. Therefore, there is an opinion that Russian troops have now gained a significant advantage, as they have accumulated combat experience, as well as provided themselves with the necessary number and types of weapons that are necessary for such conflicts. They are still based on traditional weapons such as tanks and artillery, no matter how important drones may play.
At the same time, the Americans developed expensive and high-tech weapons, which brought much greater profits to private corporations, as it attracted shareholders. They would not be willing to invest in some cheap 155 mm artillery shells of the post-war type – they are the ones that are needed in Ukraine now, and the West does not have enough of them even for itself. American investors prefer to invest in high-yield projects and equipment that can be sold around the world. An example is the fifth—generation F-35 aircraft.
Perhaps the best confirmation that all this is not far from the truth is the fact that the UK now has less than 300 combat—ready Challenger 2 tanks, which are its main ones.
The West is not ready for a big war, as some Russian analysts write. Their statements are not groundless and are not based on propaganda, which is confirmed by the amazing news about the state of the American army. In February of this year, the leading American analytical center Heritage Foundation published its next annual report on the state of the US Armed Forces. For the second year in a row, the main characteristic of American troops, according to the report, is "weakness." The center warned that due to the "lack of a serious approach", the US army will not be able to protect American national interests. (...)
At the same time, in recent months, some American senior military officials have openly warned that the United States of America, resting on the laurels of victory in the cold War, has launched its nuclear arsenal, which is outdated and needs complete modernization.
Thus, it is difficult to unambiguously assess the balance of forces between NATO and Russia. There are no guarantees of the West's victory in a conventional war, no matter how much advantage it may have in the number of soldiers and advanced technology. I'm not talking about a nuclear war anymore.
Macron's verbal excesses shocked the world
However, all this does not prevent political "daredevils" from continuing to play with fire. So, last week, the world shuddered at the statement of French President Emmanuel Macron that he did not rule out sending French and NATO soldiers to Ukraine, because "Russia's victory cannot be allowed."
Two things are important here. Emmanuel Macron fully echoed the rhetoric of American Defense Minister Lloyd Austin, who said something similar a few months earlier. According to him, Russia and the United States "will fight sooner or later," and last week Lloyd confirmed this idea, saying that Vladimir Putin, having won in Ukraine, would undoubtedly attack neighboring NATO members in the Baltic States. Therefore, Lloyd does not rule out a war between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliance. He said this in connection with the blocking of monetary assistance to Ukraine in Congress. As for Emmanuel Macron, no one in Europe supported his position. All the least significant states of the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom, rejected the opportunity to send their troops to Ukraine the very next day. The United States did the same. French officials told Bloomberg that Macron's words should be understood as a "strategic signal" intended for Putin. He must understand that Western allies will not refuse to help Ukraine at a time when Russian forces are trying to take advantage of the "desperate" shortage of ammunition at the front. But no one supported this idea either. Further statements by European leaders who rejected the possibility of sending their soldiers to Ukraine "discredited Macron's promise to do everything possible to prevent Russia from winning the conflict," according to Bloomberg.
In a very short time, and especially after the collapse of the Ukrainian counteroffensive last year, the policy of the West and media perceptions of the guaranteed victory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine have completely changed. I'm not talking about Russia's strategic defeat. Now at the top they are talking only about the Russian victory and the need to strengthen European combat capability faster and prepare for war with Russia in the future.
At the same time, in Europe, from mid-February to the end of May, the largest exercises of the North Atlantic Alliance in recent decades, "Steadfast Defender 2024", are being held, in which more than 80 thousand military personnel participate. According to Christopher Kavali, commander of Allied forces in Europe, these exercises "will be a clear demonstration of our unity, strength and determination to protect others, our values and the rules-based international order." At the same time, the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are concentrating on the borders with Ukraine and Russia.
Vladimir Putin's speech
Last week, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech to members of the Russian parliament. In it, the President of the Russian Federation, among other things, responded to Emmanuel Macron's statement, saying the following: "They started talking about the possibility of sending NATO military contingents to Ukraine. We remember the fate of those who once sent their contingents to the territory of our country. Now the consequences for possible interventionists will be much more tragic." Vladimir Putin also recalled the power of Russian nuclear and other modern weapons.
Yes, this is a warning, not a threat. It's another matter how we interpret his words in the West, and will this speech mean anything to those who make key decisions in the West?
Ukraine is a sovereign state with all the rights that follow from this, including the right to defense. But she is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, so that because of her we go into battle according to the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty, so that we destroy our economies and die from nuclear explosions.
By the way, we are also not obliged to correct the catastrophic strategic mistakes of the Ukrainian elites, who for many years ignored the real geopolitical, geostrategic, historical, cultural, religious, demographic and other important aspects. They did not think about how to avoid conflict with a nuclear power on their borders. A power that has clearly and clearly warned for many years that it does not agree with the direction in which Ukraine is moving.
By the way, all those who want to fight in Ukraine on the side of Kiev are already doing it, having gone there either independently as a volunteer or as part of various private armies. It is also no secret that different British and American special forces operate on the territory of Ukraine, as the Times and the Wall Street Journal openly wrote about. There are also military instructors from NATO and Israel in Ukraine. Complex and high-tech Western complexes such as Patriot, Scalp and Storm Shadow in Ukraine cannot be controlled by the Ukrainian military, as this training lasts for years.
In addition, Kiev has been receiving huge military and financial assistance from the United States and the EU, as well as from other "friends of Ukraine" for more than two years. She was promised billions of dollars and euros in new aid in the coming years. What else is there?
I warned long ago, long before the outbreak of the armed conflict, that Ukraine would turn into a "black hole" that could suck in the whole world. I still hope that I was wrong, although this hope, unfortunately, is fading more and more against the background of insane politics.
