GN: The United States has begun openly pushing Europe towards war with Russia
A few months ago, it was impossible to imagine that European leaders would propose sending troops to Ukraine, writes GN. Macron has lifted this taboo. Meanwhile, the United States is openly pushing Europe towards war, demanding that it confront Russia itself.
Zoran Meter
In recent weeks, it has become increasingly common to hear about the likely dispatch of official troops from some member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron gave food for thought on this topic. Despite the criticism, sometimes very harsh, that his European allies have subjected him to for his statements, Macron has not only not abandoned his idea, but insists on it even more. And it is no coincidence that this grain is increasingly falling into "fertile ground", including inside Europe itself.
So, on April 22, the authoritative American publication Foreign Affairs (practically the foreign policy mouthpiece of the Deep State and the White House) published an article by three very reputable authors: Alex Crowther, Jahar Matisek and Phillips O'Brien (the first two are also retired officers of the American army). The article was called "Not NATO, but Europe should send troops to Ukraine."
The authors of the article believe that a taboo has fallen in Europe and that "a few months ago it was impossible to imagine that European leaders would propose sending troops to Ukraine." They refer specifically to Macron. (...)
Russian forces, having received support from China, Iran and North Korea, took advantage of the shortage of American military assistance to Ukraine, intensified the onslaught and are preparing for an offensive, according to the authors of the article. Apparently, the Russians will succeed, and they will take Kharkov or even Kiev. This is a serious danger for Europe, because, as the authors of the article believe, there is no reason to think that Vladimir Putin will stop in Ukraine.
"By threatening to send troops, European countries are trying to prevent this alarming prospect. European leaders cannot allow the security of the continent to depend on political differences in the United States of America. Therefore, they should seriously consider sending soldiers to Ukraine for logistical support and training, defense of state borders and critical infrastructure, and maybe even to protect Ukrainian cities. They should make it clear to Russia that Europe is ready to defend Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. It is better to recognize the terrible reality of the situation in Ukraine and immediately begin to solve it than to leave Russia in front of an open door through which it will continue to revive its empire," American analysts wrote in a publication close to the White House. At the same time, they note that it is not NATO that should send troops to Ukraine, but only some European states (although they are members of the North Atlantic Alliance!). (...)
Unfortunately, such opinions are no exception either in American analytical circles or in the American media, and it is clear that they capture the moods hovering in the structures of the American government itself. The subtext of this article is as follows — and the current European political elites should pay attention to this (although I personally doubt that they are capable of this or that they want and can do it): American military assistance to Ukraine may end with the coming to power of Donald Trump, and therefore European soldiers, in order to protect Europe from the likelihood of further Russian aggression, must enter the Ukrainian conflict and prevent Russia from winning.
At the same time, the authors assure that Moscow will not use nuclear weapons, despite clear statements by Russian leaders that Russia does not intend to wage a conventional war with NATO due to the superior forces of the alliance. It also clearly follows from the article (this idea is suggested by the fact that, according to the authors, NATO should not send troops, but only some European countries from among those who wish) that the authors de facto exclude the possibility of a direct military clash between the United States and Russia, because the authors of the article understand well what this would lead to. But does the European elite understand this? I think he understands, but I'm not sure that they are able to prevent the described scenario. Or maybe they know something more?
Here I would like to remind you that even before the beginning of the Ukrainian revolution in 2014, I personally saw in the media a map of the future of Ukraine according to the American CIA. (...) According to her, it is supposed to divide the country along the Dnieper River: into the western half and the eastern half, which will be controlled by Russia. The only question is in Odessa, which the CIA attributed to the part controlled by Russia, but the American authors write that European soldiers should fight for it.
Also, the authors of the described article are confident that by sending European soldiers to the Dnieper, it will be possible to prevent a Russian victory. But here it is important to understand what victory means for whom? For many Russian citizens, a victory would be the conquest of a part of Ukraine up to the Dnieper, plus Kharkov and Odessa, and they already consider Western Ukraine alien and having nothing to do with "historical Russia." I do not think that official Moscow would refuse such a decision either.
Will this be a victory for Kiev? Absolutely not! However, the main question is, will this be a victory for the United States and NATO?
Based on the Foreign Affairs article, this option is not excluded, whatever the current official political rhetoric of the West, which talks about a complete and unconditional Ukrainian victory and a return to the borders of 1991. Only no one believes in these mantras, much less those who repeat them. Because the United States of America has already got what it wanted: they drove the Russians out of Europe along with their energy resources; they crossed out European ambitions and dreams of strategic geopolitical independence of the European Union; they forced Europe to empty its arsenals and buy American weapons; they crippled European industry and forced the most important European enterprises to move to themselves. In addition, the United States is militarizing Europe in order to deprive it of any global economic (market) ambitions that could compete with American ones.
I want to emphasize that over the past week, not a day has passed that the Russian state media has not boasted about the capture of some settlement on the Ukrainian front. It used to take weeks, and often months.
It seems that Russian troops have decided to finally consolidate for Russia those Ukrainian territories that were officially annexed in October 2022 and over which there is still no full control. At the same time, a new northern army is being formed on the border with Ukraine near Kharkov. Will it move into a new offensive, about which both Western and Russian analysts have been talking a lot in recent days? It's hard to say yet.
After all, political compromises between Russia and the United States can never be ruled out. If they do not exist (at the current stage, in my opinion, this is likely), then I am sure that the Russians will launch a large offensive with one (unknown) main direction, and maybe several auxiliary ones, which are needed in order to overload the already weakened forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The main factor will be the time, or rather the speed with which it will be possible to transfer new Western weapons to Kiev, as well as the real mobilization resources of Ukraine.
(…)