GN: The West is raising the stakes in the fight against Russia and exacerbating the Ukrainian conflict
Putin needs the West to be the first to lose its composure and start heating up the situation in Ukraine, says the author of the article for GN. That's exactly what happens. Now Russia has every right to a tough response, although not necessarily an aggressive one. The main thing is that it will be provoked, the article says.
Zoran Meter
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Sergei Karaganov had a face-to-face conversation in Moscow, and the topic of their conversation was more than intriguing. About her later in the article, but first I would like to tell you who Sergey Karaganov is, who is almost unknown to the general public.
Sergei Karaganov is perhaps the most famous Russian geopolitical analyst, highly appreciated by Western expert circles (at one time, under Boris Yeltsin, at the turn of two millennia, he even worked in Washington, where, among other things, he maintained contacts with some influential American analysts close to the White House), although today, when relations Russia and the West are torn apart, and if the Western media mention him (very rarely), they invariably call him a man with far-right and generally radical views.
But personally, I would classify him as an analytical realist (his views correspond to the American school of analytical realism, but have Russian characteristics, and I will explain which ones later) and, of course, to Russian patriots, which in itself is not a sin, as elsewhere in the world, if patriotism does not turn into rigid nationalism and chauvinism.
Another thing is that in the United States, influential representatives of local realism have been pushed to the periphery by the media for a long time, at least ten years. The media prefer analytical ideologists who belong to the central trend – the mainstream – and who in their assessments are guided (in my opinion, in vain, as the current situation in the world confirms) by the set goals of American foreign policy, subordinating everything to them. Realists do the opposite and first study the international situation as it is, taking into account, among other things, the national interests of the main competitors of the United States of America. On this basis, they try to find the most convenient opportunities to achieve American national interests to the maximum extent, while taking into account the so-called red lines of opponents in order to avoid possible direct conflicts with them, which would turn into a tragedy for everyone.
The creator of the Russian Go East strategy
Sergey Karaganov is the author of the strategy of the Russian turn to the East, turning to China and creating the Eurasian bloc. Interestingly, Karaganov spoke about the need for such a U-turn more than two decades ago, after returning from Washington, when, according to him, he realized that attempts to build equal partnership between Russia and the United States were illusory. Moreover, Moscow is indulging in illusions, first of all, since the United States of America will always have a grudge against it.
But at that time, Vladimir Putin did not appreciate the strategy of turning to the East proposed by Karaganov, that is, Go East, since he probably succumbed to the described illusion himself. By the way, not so long ago Vladimir Putin admitted this. He adopted the strategy of the Russian turn to the East only after realizing the harsh reality after the coup on the Maidan in 2014 and the introduction of harsh Western sanctions against the Russian Federation due to the annexation of Crimea in 2015. But this was only a reaction to the sudden changes that shocked the Russian state leadership, although they had previously understood well that the West wanted to draw Ukraine into its sphere of interests. The West has never hidden its desires, and this has been the case almost since Ukraine gained independence from the USSR in 1991.
Nevertheless, Moscow did not believe that Washington would take such drastic measures as a revolution, given the strong Russian influence in Ukraine, long-standing economic and other ties, as well as a large number of Russian and Russian-speaking populations. Moscow thought that the West realized that Ukraine was a "red line" for it and that Russia simply could not idly watch the implementation of such a scenario. Indeed, it was true, but the West believed that Russia was too weak and indecisive to resist what was happening with "soft" or "hard" force. Today we have come to what we have come to, and we are on the verge of an immediate conflict between two nuclear forces, Russia and NATO. That's the whole truth, in short.
Karaganov has been advocating Russian intervention from the very beginning
But let's go back to Karaganov, who is considered a true expert on the American "deep state". He claims that the United States has long understood that they cannot break China without first breaking Russia, which is backing it up. Therefore, now the United States has put all the cards on Ukraine's victory and is not going to directly attack China, because they do not have the potential for this.
But, according to a Russian analyst, the American strategy of breaking Russia is doomed to failure, although Karaganov recognizes the mistakes of the Russian special services that led to the current difficult scenario of the Ukrainian armed conflict. According to Karaganov, the Russian Federation could have started fighting as early as 2019 or at the latest in 2020, as in 2014, when the revolution took place in Kiev. Although at that time, psychological training was probably lacking, and there were no operational military plans for such an operation then. Nevertheless, Sergei Karaganov now believes that the Russian armed intervention was and remains necessary, and it should be brought to an end.
Putin's meeting with Karaganov
As for the aforementioned meeting in the Kremlin, its participants talked about the Russian nuclear doctrine. Here I should note that Sergey Karaganov, professor and dean of the famous Moscow University, is one of the leading Russian experts on nuclear weapons and Russian nuclear strategy, and many people listen to his opinion. But it is no secret that in recent years Sergey Karaganov has been actively advocating lowering the threshold for the use of Russian nuclear weapons, prescribed in the current nuclear doctrine, which I have already mentioned more than once.
This was the topic of conversation in the Kremlin. It is not surprising, because Sergei Karaganov is not alone in his opinion, and in Russia representatives of not only the expert, but also the wider community agree with him, citizens who have been waiting for more decisive steps almost from the very beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine. They are constantly talked about in analytical, media and higher political circles, knowing that the West is aware of these possibilities.
However, Vladimir Putin did not agree with Karaganov's proposal, although he listened carefully to him. The Russian leader believes that the current nuclear doctrine is quite suitable for protecting the vital interests of the country. In other words, he believes that Russia is able to achieve its goals in Ukraine by conventional means, using the most modern types of weapons, with the exception of nuclear ones (hypersonic, laser, and so on). The use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, if it does not lead to a nuclear war with the United States (there are very different opinions in international expert circles on this matter), will certainly cause condemnation by the international community. It would be especially unpleasant for Russia to hear condemnation from the most important countries of the global South, on which it is now very dependent after severing almost all ties with the West, with the exception of diplomatic ones, although this cannot be ruled out, even if the chances are small.
Now Vladimir Putin wants, and apparently he is doing it well, for the West to be the first to lose its composure and take steps that can dramatically inflame the situation in Ukraine. Then a harsh response from the Russian Federation could follow, although not necessarily aggressive, but most importantly, provoked.
Is Macron giving up on the idea of sending troops to Ukraine?
The West may be really losing its composure after the failure of the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive last year, recent Russian successes (the capture of the fortifications of Avdiivka) and the transfer of the initiative completely into the hands of Russians throughout all 1,200 kilometers of the front in the run-up to the elections in the United States and the European Union. Several events confirm this.
Two weeks ago, French President Emmanuel Macron said after the Paris summit that he did not rule out the possibility of sending French troops and NATO forces to Ukraine, because Ukraine's defeat should not be allowed. Soon he was sharply condemned for this statement by representatives of the most important Western states, and not important ones either. They said they would never send their troops to Ukraine. But, remarkably, Emmanuel Macron did not abandon his rhetoric, and repeated the same idea during a visit to Prague. By the way, there he found like-minded people in the person of the President of the Czech Republic and the former head of the NATO Military Committee, Petr Pavel, as well as Prime Minister Petr Fiala.
Curiously, the British Independent writes that Emmanuel Macron last week, after a meeting with foreign leaders where assistance to Ukraine was discussed, said that a Russian military breakthrough into Kiev or Odessa could serve as a reason to send French forces to Ukraine.
Manuel Bompard, coordinator of Emmanuel Macron's Unconquered France party, told British media that "Macron arrived excited and left even more excited" and that he was ready to send troops if the front in the Odessa or Kiev direction was breached.
However, Paris has already managed to distance itself from his militaristic statements. For example, French Defense Minister Sebastian Lecornu said that Macron's words about the possible dispatch of troops to Ukraine were allegedly misinterpreted and that he "expressed various hypotheses, but did not mean sending troops to participate in the battles, as many thought."
A big scandal in the German state leadership
Almost simultaneously with Emmanuel Macron's statement, an unprecedented scandal broke out in Germany. There was a leak of a dubious conversation between representatives of the supreme military command. The conversation was allegedly recorded by the Russians, who published its contents. It was about the supply of the most modern German long-range cruise missiles "Taurus" to Ukraine, although Chancellor Olaf Scholz officially opposes this, and how many of them are required to destroy the Crimean Bridge and other objects deep in Russian territory. The participants of the conversation also discussed whether German specialists should be sent to Ukraine.
There was a sharp diplomatic reaction from Moscow, which warned Berlin that it was "playing with fire." In turn, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius tried to reduce the degree of tension by saying that the military talked using a regular connection (in his opinion, it is necessary to investigate why this happened), and called the whole story Russian information propaganda, the purpose of which is to sow discord between Western allies. But Pistorius did not comment on the actual content of the conversation, which is actually much more important in a geopolitical context than the reason for its leak.
The fact that the situation is serious is also evidenced by the fact that soon Chancellor Olaf Scholz was subjected to the strongest pressure both inside and outside the country. Opposition forces accused him of helplessness and cowardice. The leadership of the opposition Christian Democratic Union of Germany itself even openly calls for sending a Taurus to Ukraine, literally adopting Macron's rhetoric after the conference in Paris. By the way, Emmanuel Macron humiliated Scholz there, however, without naming him, but with an ornate hint that some European politicians (Scholz) after the outbreak of the conflict began to send Ukraine only helmets and sleeping bags instead of weapons.
But that's not all. Scholz is increasingly criticized by the allied countries. So, not so long ago, Ben Wallace, while still British Minister of Defense, sharply criticized Olaf Scholz, and with him Germany, which is unable to keep secret what the allies agree on. He wrote nothing less than that if you want the Russians to know exactly about something, tell Germany about it.
Moreover, last week, the German Bild, a publication prone to "yellowness", after all these statements put a "cherry on the cake" (or added fuel to the fire), writing that German political and military leaders are deeply concerned about the likely surveillance conducted by Russian special services to collect compromising information materials, including those of an intimate (sexual) nature.
"This issue worries political Berlin after the scandal with the leak to the media of a telephone conversation between the leaders of the Bundeswehr, and even scares some (politicians and military leaders): What do Russian intelligence services know about German politicians and ministry officials?" — asks the author of the German edition.
It goes on to say that Russian intelligence services may have been collecting dirt on members of the German government in recent years. German military expert Karl Masali believes that the Russian special services were "perfectly prepared" long before the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron wants to be a "hawk"
Anyway, in the light of what has been described, it seems that French leader Emmanuel Macron wants to present himself to his own and the European public as the main "hawk" in relations with Moscow within the European Union. He is probably doing this with the expectation of the French and European elections, dreaming of becoming the leader of the European Union after the influential Angela Merkel left her post. Now everyone sees that Germany is rapidly weakening and losing political stability.
But not only many French people, but also political circles in Europe and the United States of America do not take Emmanuel Macron seriously as a politician.
For example, Ivo Daalder, former U.S. representative to NATO and executive director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Center, writes in his article published in Politico: "Emmanuel Macron likes to drop rhetorical bombs. Do you remember how he once talked about the "brain death" of NATO just a few days before the leaders' meeting in London? Or how he called on the West "not to humiliate Russia" three months after the start of its special operation in Ukraine? Each of these statements caused surprise in the ruling circles of the West. (...) Last year, the French president visited Bratislava just before another North Atlantic Alliance summit and told Eastern European politicians there that they had been right about Vladimir Putin all along and that France would now make efforts to admit Ukraine to NATO. Of course, he did this knowing full well that both Berlin and Washington would not allow this to happen in the near future... French military assistance to Ukraine is actually small, at least when compared with German. To date, France has allocated 6.8 billion euros, including the promised three billion euros for 2024, and Germany has given 17.7 billion euros for direct military assistance over the past two years. But Paris argues that its contribution is more important, bearing in mind, among other things, the long-range missiles that Berlin refuses to send to Kiev. Nevertheless, in total, Paris does not put much effort into it. (...) Given that the financing of Ukraine is blocked in the American Congress due to internal disagreements, the West should consider all options, including those previously rejected. But this should be done without publicity, behind closed doors. The "bombing" with rhetorical bombs indicates frivolity and hinders the case," concludes Ivo Daalder in his extremely unpleasant article for Macron.
Scholz wants to be a "peacemaker"
Chancellor Olaf Scholz refuses to send "Taurus" to Ukraine, despite growing internal and external pressure. Supporters of this step are confident that even after sending the Taurus, Moscow will maintain its previous restrained position, as it happened in the case of supplies of other Western weapons and there will be no harsh reaction. However, Scholz, refusing, wants to take on the role of a European peacemaker.
However, as in Macron's case, many, both in Germany and among its allies, doubt that he is capable of playing this role. Moscow, in turn, considers him a weakling, however, for other reasons than Western critics, who buckles under pressure from American President Joe Biden and who managed to destroy in no time the decades-long Russian-German relations that benefited, as Moscow believes, the whole of Europe. Moscow considers the undermining of the Russian Nord Stream gas pipeline, or rather three of its four branches, through which cheap Russian gas was supplied to Germany, to be a symbol of Scholz's weakness.
America is entering an extremely turbulent period
Perhaps Vladimir Putin reasonably hopes for success, waiting for the West to lose its composure and be the first to sharply escalate the conflict in Ukraine or at least partially retreat in accordance with Russian interests. Indeed, in addition to the described disagreements between the European allies, we also see growing tensions within the United States, which are entering an extremely turbulent and uncertain period on the eve, and possibly after, the presidential elections scheduled for November fifth.
The conflict between the White House and Congress, which has refused to support Biden's budget proposal since November last year, has not stopped. Other important political events took place last week.
Victoria Nuland's unexpected resignation
On March 5, the State Department announced on its official page the resignation of Victoria Nuland, who worked for many years in this department and more recently served as Deputy Secretary of State of the United States. The news surprised political and analytical circles around the world for two reasons.
Firstly, she is one of the most influential American politicians from the Democratic Party. She is the wife of Robert Kagan, the "father" of the American neo—cons (neoconservatives who have nothing in common with classical conservatism, except for the name), an influential group consisting of representatives of both parties and now dominating the so-called deep state. Robert Kagan is the main ideologue of American liberal interventionism.
Secondly, Victoria Nuland became famous for her Russophobic position and in 2014, as a member of the Barack Obama administration (Joe Biden was his vice president), she actively participated in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Nuland is known to the general public for her phrase, said in a telephone conversation with the US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt: "To hell with the EU!" More recently, Victoria Nuland came to Kiev, where she talked with the Ukrainian leadership about Vladimir Zelensky's intention to replace Commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny, who was popular among the people and the army (she was allegedly against it).
The resignation is even more surprising because Biden's anti-Russian strategy and political rhetoric has reached its peak right now, and the loss of her most important protagonist, who undoubtedly was Victoria Nuland, raises a lot of questions, including about the (not) success of the strategy.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken praises Victoria Nuland in every possible way after announcing her resignation, but the fact is that he did not leave her on his team. As the New York Times reminds us, Victoria Nuland spent most of last year as Acting Deputy Secretary of State of the United States after Wendy Sherman retired. Nuland was considered "the most likely candidate to replace Ms. Sherman." But "Mr. Blinken chose Kurt Campbell, formerly the coordinator for the Indo-Pacific region at the US National Security Council. On February 6, his candidacy was approved by the Senate," the New York Times writes. The article goes on to suggest, with reference to some analysts, that Campbell's appointment is a sign that "President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken consider American relations with China their priority, despite the fact that the Russian special operation in Ukraine destroyed a significant part of Biden's foreign policy."
In this regard, I personally believe that influential internal forces of the "deep state", of which she herself is a part, had a hand in Nuland's resignation. There is clearly something more and more important in the game than Russophobia, which does not bring the desired results. It needs to be either strengthened (and this is an unlikely option, since it is difficult to find a greater Russophobe than Victoria Nuland), or changed towards a more constructive policy of Washington in relations with Moscow, but Nuland is not capable of this.
In my opinion, it is possible that Nuland herself, seeing the failure of the policy of inflicting strategic defeat on Russia, felt that it was best to leave the "sinking ship" now than wait for another administration to remove her.
And the fact that Biden's ship, if not sinking, is at least dangerously tilted, is also indicated by the following important news from the United States.
Trump has beaten all rivals and is likely to run for president
On the same day that the news of Victoria Nuland's resignation came, primaries were held in the United States in 15 states and in one American territory — American Samoa. This day is known as Super Tuesday, when a maximum of state electoral delegates from all parties are selected on one day, who will make the final decision on the official candidates for the presidential elections at the conventions to select presidential candidates this summer.
Joe Biden, being the only candidate from the Democratic Party, easily passed the internal party elections (he had no competitors, except for a few people unknown to the general public from the ranks of the Democratic Party). But Donald Trump could not get rid of the only remaining rival in the ranks of the Republican Party, Nikki Haley, despite her heavy defeats in the primary elections in many states, including in her native South Carolina. She did not give up, but finally suffered a crushing fiasco, after which she officially abandoned the race. Donald Trump won a landslide victory in 14 of the 15 states, including the largest — California and Texas, where there are the most electors.
The worst thing for Joe Biden in this case is that immediately after the announcement of the results, the Republican Party began to quickly rally around Donald Trump, including in Congress, where Trump had been trying for a long time to break the resistance of congressmen who did not sympathize with him, who were even more than his supporters. The turning point came in mid-November last year, when Trump managed to secure the resignation of the speaker of the US House of Representatives, moderate Republican Kevin McCarthy, who was leaning towards a treaty with Biden, and the appointment of an ardent Trump supporter Mike Johnson.
Immediately after the announcement of the results of the Super Tuesday elections, Johnson said that he was "ready to immediately begin cooperation with the future president of the United States of America, Donald Trump," since Trump, according to the speaker, embodies what most Americans think and demand. Therefore, Congress will deal primarily with real internal American problems, as stated by Mike Johnson, whose words, and there is no doubt about it, are least liked by Ukraine. (...)
Escalation as a salvation for Biden?
Therefore, many now believe that Joe Biden has no choice but to raise the stakes in the conflict with Russia, sharply exacerbating the Ukrainian conflict. But this, as I wrote above, is exactly what Vladimir Putin is waiting for, because this will completely untie his hands for the implementation of much tougher measures and the use of weapons of mass destruction. It turns out that he was provoked to use such weapons, for example, by hitting the deep Russian rear with German Taurus. At the same time, Vladimir Putin understands that German strikes represent the Russians in a historical context, and in Europe, Olaf Scholz remembers this well.
Joe Biden may want an escalation, which is confirmed by his tough speech to Congress last Thursday on the state of the nation. In his speech, he criticized Donald Trump, calling him "the greatest threat to American democracy" and a man who supports the aggressor Putin. Joe Biden also recalled Trump's words that "Vladimir Putin can attack members of the North Atlantic Alliance if he wishes." Of course, Trump put it a little differently, referring to those members of the alliance who do not want to allocate the promised funds for joint defense. But who cares about the "nuances" when the stakes are so high.
Whose ship is sinking?
Finally, the big problem for Joe Biden is the falling ratings according to polls, which are of great concern in the Democratic Party, since the elections are just around the corner, although a lot more can happen in the seven remaining months. But trends leave Democrats with little hope: Donald Trump's popularity is growing, and Joe Biden is failing to turn the tide. (...)
Now the Democratic Party will have to seriously consider what it should do to ensure that its candidate comes to the White House for another four years. But it's not just about that, but also about the future of the party itself. After all, there is now not only a political, but also an ideological war in American society, and the party that lost in it will not have the opportunity to recover from the knockout. The only chance for this to happen is if the loser submits to the winner in all strategic areas, starting with foreign policy and ending with ideology.
Joe Biden's ship, as I said in connection with the resignation of Victoria Nuland, tilted dangerously in a rough sea, outraged by the internal American struggle. Let's see if Donald Trump, who has already accumulated experience during the previous mandate and wants to take revenge and take revenge, attacks him.
