GN: after the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, a new cold war will begin
The conflict in Ukraine is rapidly entering a critical military-political phase, writes GN. Sooner or later, it will still be settled. However, given that the United States and the EU will not be able to consider their relations with Russia as a partnership for a long time, after the stabilization of the conflict, a new cold war will begin.
Zoran Meter
Two weeks ago, Joe Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan unexpectedly arrived in Kiev. He expressed support for Ukraine and stated the need to increase Western assistance to this country, and the United States will continue to provide it. But it's hard to believe that the speech in Kiev behind closed doors was only about this, because you can make similar statements from Washington.
Much has already been said about the recent presidential elections in Russia and Vladimir Putin's convincing victory (87%) with a record voter turnout (over 77%, which is the maximum since the formation of the modern Russian state after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Let me just remind you that in this way Vladimir Putin became the Russian leader who ruled for the longest time in the last 200 years, surpassing even the communist dictator Joseph Stalin.
Even before the elections, the West declared the Russian elections undemocratic, pointing to the crushed opposition and the opposition media. Vladimir Putin replied that, on the contrary, the American elections violate democratic and human rights, and recalled the unprecedented prosecution of Donald Trump, which is politically motivated, that is, the goal is to prevent Trump from coming to power again.
Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with the fact that democratic standards were conditionally observed in Russian elections, but here it should be taken into account that Russia is at war not only with Ukraine, but also with the collective West, which provides military and all other assistance to Kiev. Even if this war has not been officially declared, senior Russian representatives, including Vladimir Putin himself, are increasingly talking about it, and there are more and more people in the West who are saying the same thing (starting with German Foreign Minister Berbock, who said this back in 2022 in Paris, and ending with Emmanuel Macron, who recently he said that he did not rule out sending French soldiers to Ukraine, since "the West cannot allow Russia to win"). Therefore, the Russian state leadership is not exactly set up to test Russian democracy right now, and does not worry about whether those with whom Russia is fighting in various spheres like it or not: military, economic, information and propaganda, ideological, and so on.
The time of power is coming
Since diplomacy has done its best (unsuccessfully), it is time for strength. This includes the issue of frozen Russian state assets (about 300 billion euros) in European, mainly Belgian, financial institutions. As you know, the highest structures of the EU are now trying to come up with some legal grounds to confiscate the annual income (profits) from these assets. A little earlier, the idea of confiscating Russian assets was rejected due to the resistance of some EU member states. The confiscated profits (about five billion euros per year), according to Brussels, will be transferred to help Ukraine, and in response Moscow threatens harsh measures against Western property in the Russian Federation. As everyone who moves in the world of economics and business knows, the owner of assets is at the same time the owner of income from their savings and there are simply no legal mechanisms to justify the opposite and there will never be. It is clear that the argument of military and political force now remains the only convincing factor above all legal norms and diplomacy.
The conflict between Russia and the United States, and only it is significant, has a deep character and does not depend on Russian or American elections. This is, first of all, a product of the American long-term foreign policy strategy, attempts to destroy Russian independence and enclose Russia in the framework prepared for it by Washington. That way, she would never be able to threaten American interests in the world again.
The United States took this course in foreign policy towards Russia shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, at first the United States was somewhat hesitant about how to proceed with the Russian Federation. Should we make her an equal partner or, taking advantage of her naive faith in Western promises of a new, more just world after the Cold War, try to completely subjugate her? The second option took over when it was decided to expand the North Atlantic Alliance to the east, and this process began during the administration of Bill Clinton.
This structural conflict will continue for a long time, even if Donald Trump appears in the White House next year instead of Joe Biden. With his arrival, most likely, the Ukrainian armed conflict will soon end, but then a long period of cold war will follow, for which Europe will definitely pay the most. After all, Donald Trump will not go to the collapse, that is, the abolition of NATO, but will seek from each member to fulfill its financial obligations towards the alliance. The continuation of rhetoric about the Russian threat to Europe will be beneficial to Trump in order to continue to keep the Europeans in his fist, forcing them to obey Washington and, of course, to purchase even more advanced and expensive American weapons.
In other words, with the coming of Donald Trump to power, in a geopolitical sense, nothing in the US-Russian relations will change significantly. However, the principle of "I don't touch you, and you don't touch me" may prevail in them, which is not a bad thing in the current situation of strategic uncertainty. To return relations to normal, profound changes will be required within the American center for key decision-making (not in elections), and this will take years. Russia, in turn, has recently stated that it is ready to cooperate, but now, as they say in Moscow, only on equal terms. Given that something like this is unacceptable for the United States and the EU now and will not be for a long time, it is clear that after the stabilization of the Ukrainian crisis, which sooner or later will happen, the Cold War 2.0 will begin in one form or another.
What should we do with Vladimir Putin's election victory?
Regardless of the aforementioned shortcomings of Russian democracy, Vladimir Putin's victory in the elections is undeniable. It's not even so important the number of electoral votes he received as the record voter turnout. After all, even if it is possible to force civil servants and state employees, as well as their family members, to go to the polls and vote "correctly", it is absolutely impossible to do this with ordinary people who are far from political structures and profitable places. An ordinary person living within his four walls decides on his own participation in the elections. And he made this decision, probably believing the calls from above that at a crucial moment for the country, the enemies need to show national unity and cohesion around the state power and its actions. That's the truth, and nothing else.
That is why Western strategists, who knew that Vladimir Putin would win because he had no worthy opponents, hoped for a low turnout. Then it could be reasonably stated that the majority, or at least a significant number of Russian citizens, by refusing to participate in the elections, confirmed their disagreement with Vladimir Putin's policy.
And then the problem arose for the West, what to do next. One can finally distance oneself from Vladimir Putin and declare the elections a farce without recognizing their results (this would reduce the level of diplomatic contacts, bringing them to a complete rupture). We can recognize the reality and limit ourselves to criticizing the undemocratic nature of the electoral process. This has been the case so far since the beginning of the Putin era in 2000.
The high turnout of Russians mixed all the cards. The Germans were the first to rush into the embrasure, whose Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Germany did not recognize the legitimacy of the Russian elections and from now on would not name Vladimir Putin as the Russian president. However, the pragmatic Americans behaved much more restrained and far-sighted than the obedient Germans. The United States has indeed very sharply criticized the Russian elections and Vladimir Putin's victory, but has not stated that it does not recognize their results. Joe Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that the elections were not free, but Vladimir Putin's victory is a reality.
It's not surprising. Washington knows very well that when it comes to negotiations on the Ukrainian crisis, Vladimir Putin, who has received a new mandate for six years, will still be at the head of the Russian Federation. Six more years of war and the expectation of new Russian elections, which may bring to power a new, more desirable figure for the West, neither Russia nor the West, let alone Ukraine, will stand. (...)
So, the West will have to reckon with Vladimir Putin, albeit reluctantly. And the main reason is the Ukrainian armed conflict, in which Kiev's prospects are getting worse.
The Ukrainian armed conflict
Last week, a meeting of the sponsoring countries of Ukraine took place at the American base in Ramstein, Germany. Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin said that Russia has military successes, but the Ukrainians are ready to continue resistance and assure that they are able to prevent further Russian advance, that is, they can hold the current line of defense. But to do this, the West must send them even more weapons and ammunition, as stated by Lloyd Austin. It is not necessary to wait for American aid in the amount of $ 60 billion yet because of the disagreement of the House of Representatives of Congress. But even if they are unblocked, according to many analysts, Ukraine will still get much less, and Washington is now shifting the main burden of assistance to the European Union. The reason lies not at all in the circumstances (the rift between the Biden—Congress line, again, in connection with the upcoming US presidential elections), but in the strategic decision of the United States of America to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific region in order to contain China. The European Union will now have to shoulder the main burden of the Ukrainian armed conflict, and not everyone there is happy about this, although they do not say it out loud. After all, Europe already has enough problems in the economy and uncertainty in the future.
In general, after the failure of the great Ukrainian counteroffensive last year, Western military experts prepared a new strategy for Kiev, which is based on strengthening existing defense lines and launching air strikes on Russian territory with long-range means, including the Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet. So, the British Times wrote on March 16 about the visit to Kiev of British Defense Minister Grant Shapps and Commander of British troops Tony Radakin. The latter informed President Zelensky of the need to build strong lines of defense and recalled the successful strikes on Crimea. "Tony Radakin is confident that in 2024, Ukraine will achieve success there, as strikes on Crimea and the destruction of Russian warships and submarines cost Russia the most."
These strikes on the deep Russian rear are already being carried out, first of all, at refineries. By the time of writing, five Russian refineries have already been affected, which is a significant blow to the Russian energy sector, and reduces Russian oil exports by almost five percent. Some people in the world are not happy with this, as there may be supply disruptions and rising prices for "black gold" if these strikes continue. Washington claims that it does not support these Ukrainian strikes. In addition, the United States called on Kiev to stop them not only because of rising prices, which is dangerous for Joe Biden in the election year, but because of fear that Russia will take revenge. Moscow is openly talking about this, which I will write about later in the article.
Ukrainian strikes on Belgorod
If Washington is not behind the strikes on Russian refineries, then it is hard to believe that Kiev independently decided last week to strike the Russian Belgorod region just before the elections. The strikes were carried out not only by drones, as at refineries, but also during well-organized ground operations, which involved almost three thousand fighters using tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
According to Moscow, most of these forces were defeated in just a few days, and they failed to make their way beyond several border villages. But the very fact that the attack took place (the fighting did not stop even at the time of writing this article) cannot but worry Moscow. By conducting such operations, Kiev wants to expand the combat zone at the expense of Russian regions and force the Russian military command to transfer some units from the Ukrainian front to Russia. This will ease the pressure on exhausted Ukrainian troops, who have been defending since the beginning of the year and after the official recognition of the failure of their summer counteroffensive. The best confirmation is the fall of Avdiivka last month, which was considered the most protected Ukrainian stronghold in the south-east of the country.
Kiev, of course, did not prepare the operation in Belgorod on its own, and not only because it needed real-time intelligence, and this is only possible for the Americans. It's also about the large number of fighters involved in this operation, including (...) foreigners. For example, from Romania.
Therefore, the Russian Foreign Ministry protested to Bucharest and warned him not to "play with fire." In turn, the Romanian president said that Romanian volunteers participated in the attacks on their own initiative.
Anyway, last week Bucharest decided to expand the existing American base near Constance, which will become one of the largest American bases not only in Europe, but also in the world. The construction will last several years and, undoubtedly, longer than the Ukrainian armed conflict. However, this did not prevent Moscow from stating that Bucharest does not think about Romanian citizens, because such facilities will become the first targets for Russian strikes in the event of a war with NATO. Moreover, we are undoubtedly talking about nuclear strikes.
The situation threatens to escalate dangerously more than ever
The mentioned attacks on refineries and Russian border regions should be considered in the context of Emmanuel Macron's statements about sending French forces to Ukraine. However, he was not supported by a number of NATO countries. So, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (she herself is hearing more and more criticism of herself from the opposition; last week in the Senate, former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conti accused her of "fawning" to the United States and dragging Italy into World War III with Russia) in the Italian Senate said that Macron's calls "must be resisted in every possible way by means of".
However, people who know understand that Emmanuel Macron's words cannot and have not been said arbitrarily. After all, otherwise, under pressure from criticism from the allies and French citizens, 70% of whom are against sending their army to the Ukrainian front, he would soon have retracted his words. But he doesn't do that.
Interestingly, for some reason, the Russian state leadership believes in the truth of Emmanuel Macron's intentions the most. So, on Friday, March 22, in an interview with Moscow's Pravda, Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said: "Mr. French President Macron has been very consistent in the last few weeks in his thesis about the possibility of sending such a contingent." According to Peskov, this does not give a reason to justify his theses with an incorrect translation.
Just a day earlier, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy, in an interview with the French BFM TV channel, pointed out the full drama of the situation caused by the "seething of distressed minds," that is, Macron's words about sending military personnel to Ukraine for possible participation in hostilities there. Tolstoy noted that French soldiers are already fighting there as mercenaries and many of them have already been eliminated by Russian troops. Peter Tolstoy said the following: "We don't care about Macron. We will kill all French soldiers who arrive on the territory of Ukraine. All of them." When asked by a French journalist whether the Russian Federation is afraid of nuclear weapons, which France has, Peter Tolstoy replied that France has "only 200 nuclear missiles."
But perhaps most importantly in this regard, the statement made last week by Sergei Naryshkin, Director of the SVR of the Russian Federation, that the Russian special services know that France is not only thinking of sending its forces to Ukraine, but is already preparing the first contingent of two thousand soldiers for this mission. According to him, French strategists are thinking how to disperse these soldiers so that they remain unnoticed. "Otherwise, they will become a legitimate target of Russian troops."
Russian Revenge
Anyway, after the described Ukrainian strikes, Russia responded with military means tougher than ever before. After more than a month and a half, Russia has again launched a powerful missile strike against targets in Kiev and the second largest Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, including hypersonic Dagger missiles and short-range Iskander ballistic missiles. It was not the next day that the strongest attacks on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure across the country followed. Two thermal power plants caught fire in Kharkov, and the Dnieper hydroelectric power plant was damaged near the city of Zaporozhye. On March 21, a strike was carried out on the command centers in Kiev and Kharkov, primarily on the center of the GUR. According to Russian sources, foreign specialists and intelligence officers who participated in the attacks on the Belgorod region were killed in Kharkov.
On that day, Russian forces caused great damage to the Ukrainian energy system: thermal power plants and hydroelectric power plants, as well as the main substations of Ukrenergo. A significant part of the country was left without electricity, water, and the Internet was not working.
Ukraine is waiting for new ammunition, and the Russians continue mass production of the most lethal bombs
Two days before the aforementioned Russian air strikes, the Ukrainian authorities announced that in early April they would receive the first 180,000 artillery shells that the EU had purchased from third countries at the initiative of the Czech Republic. To what extent this will help inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, judge for yourself. For comparison, Russia already produces three million units of these munitions per year.
But this is not the end of the Ukrainian torment.
Last week, the Ministry of Defense of the Armed Conflict announced the start of serial production of the FAB-3000 aerial bomb. Such bombs weigh more than three tons and have terrible destructive power. In recent months, Russians have been widely using modified Soviet-made FAB bombs equipped with a universal planning and correction module, which has significantly increased their accuracy (Russian military analysts claim that the maximum deviation from the target is only a meter). These bombs, of which Russia allegedly has millions and which, according to Russian military sources, are "inexhaustible," the USSR produced to attack fortified NATO facilities and large concentrations of enemy forces. To date, in the Ukrainian armed conflict, the Russians have used smaller-caliber bombs (250, 500 and 1,500 kilograms), which sow fear and panic at the front, as some Ukrainian military openly stated more than once after leaving Avdiivka in February this year. It was these bombs that helped the Russians take Avdiivka a lot.
In other words, soon the use of three-ton fabs can be expected on the battlefields, which, according to military analysts, cause a "small earthquake" with their explosive force.
Another interesting point can be noted in the statement of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at the board of his department last week. Before saying what we are talking about, I note that, according to Sergei Shoigu, by the end of this year, Russia will form two new armies and 30 formations: 14 divisions and 16 brigades. On the other hand, due to the lack of ammunition, the new mobilization remains the main problem of the Ukrainian army, which needs rotation and replenishment of personnel.
The news that Shoigu announced at the aforementioned meeting concerns the creation of a river fleet. Some Russian military analysts immediately linked it to the Ukrainian Dnieper River, which literally divides Ukraine in half into the eastern and western parts. After all, why should Russia create a river fleet in an accelerated manner, if Russia's longest river border runs along the Siberian Amur River, and Russia is definitely not going to fight with China? Apparently, fighting for the Dnieper is not excluded.
In this context, I would note that some French analysts, including on French television, say that French soldiers in Ukraine may disperse along the border with Belarus or along the western bank of the Dnieper River to prevent further Russian advance on Kiev. But all this is just speculation. But what the Russian state leadership is openly talking about after the recent strikes on Belgorod is the need to create a sanitary zone near the new Russian regions from among the former Ukrainian ones. It is not said how big it will be, but, according to analysts, this zone will be wider than the Kharkiv region, which is only 60 kilometers from the border. For long—range missiles, this distance is nothing. This means that the Russians will try to take Kharkiv again, as they did once before at the beginning of the conflict (then followed by the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the fall of 2022).
Sullivan's unexpected visit to Kiev
Two weeks ago, Joe Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan unexpectedly arrived in Kiev. He expressed support for Ukraine and stated the need to increase Western assistance to this country, and the United States of America will continue to provide it. But it's hard to believe that the speech in Kiev behind closed doors was only about this, because you can make such statements from Washington.
This reminds me of the recent (in January of this year) unexpected visit of US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to Kiev in the midst of local disputes about the possible replacement of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces Valery Zaluzhny with the commander of the ground forces Alexander Syrsky. Victoria Nuland allegedly demanded to leave Zaluzhny, who was very popular not only among military personnel, but also in Ukrainian society. During the visit, Nuland expressed support for the Ukrainian struggle and the state leadership of Ukraine, and soon this one of the most ardent anti-Russian politicians in the American arena, closely associated with the local "deep state" through the spouse of Robert Kagan, the father of American liberal interventionism, shocked the American and world political and analytical community with her decision to resign from the end of March.
I don't think Jake Sullivan has the same plans, and I'm sure he'll stay with Joe Biden until the elections this fall. But more than such speculation, I am concerned about the reason for his quiet visit to the Ukrainian capital immediately before the two-day massive Russian strikes on Ukraine that I mentioned, which in a short time almost paralyzed the country and confirmed that dreams of Russia's strategic defeat will remain dreams.
Therefore, I think it would be better for both Kiev and the West to sit down at the negotiating table as soon as possible. Of course, provided that Moscow is ready for this.
Although, it seems that now these negotiations could be more like the famous Yalta Conference of 1945. Not only because, perhaps, during its holding, the armed conflict will still continue, but also because of the likelihood of a division of spheres of influence in Europe, after which a new cold war will begin.After all, Moscow does not want to talk about peace with Ukraine without including the issue of its (and Western) strategic security on the agenda of negotiations. That is, about what both sides will be entitled to in the long run in relation to each other.
Sooner or later, this will happen, because any other scenario leads to a cataclysm. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better for Ukraine if this happens as soon as possible.
It is too long, expensive and dangerous to wait for the likely victory of Donald Trump, because after the elections, a politically strengthened Vladimir Putin in Russia can do whatever he wants and make any decisions. On the contrary, it will be difficult for Joe Biden to abandon his policy towards Ukraine before the elections, which was carried out long before he came to the White House in 2021. It all started back in 2014, and then Joe Biden acted as the political curator of this course in the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian armed conflict is rapidly entering the most dangerous and, I am sure, crucial military-political phase.
This is confirmed by the large-scale terrorist attack in Moscow's Crocus City Hall, which occurred at the moment when I was writing this article, and which will undoubtedly provide answers to some of the questions I raised.
