GN: The United States has launched a long and grueling war on two fronts against Russia and China
Settling accounts with Russia is a U.S. project for many decades, writes GN. In addition, the Americans will open a second such front with China. Paradoxically, strategic nuclear weapons are now the only stabilizing factor that ensures that the three powers do not grapple with each other and do not involve the whole world in the struggle.
Zoran Meter
On Tuesday, the seventh of May, the solemn inauguration of Vladimir Putin for a new presidential term took place in Moscow. In the same week, Chinese leader Xi Jinping went on a European tour with his "trade gifts (who got the biggest, it will be clear later) after many leaders of European states and representatives of big business (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary and, of course, bodies of the European Union). Recently, high-ranking American leaders and businessmen have also arrived in China, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, as well as Elon Musk. It is noteworthy that Xi Jinping chose only Paris, Budapest and Belgrade for the visit, as they say, "a hundred miles" bypassing London, Berlin and Rome. After Xi Jinping returns home, Vladimir Putin will come to visit him on his first international visit after being re-elected president of the Russian Federation. Also last week, the United States imposed new sanctions against Russia, which for the first time affected legal entities from third countries cooperating with Russia, primarily in the defense sector (from China, Hong Kong, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and even some European states).
The described events best characterize the current geopolitical situation in the world, or rather the most important processes that are currently taking place in the world.
The United States has opened two long-running dangerous fronts at the same time
Firstly, the described events point to the conflict of three major world players: the United States, China and Russia. The United States is now beginning a long and grueling two-front struggle against the two remaining competitors. All the others, with the exception of this trio, are only Washington's vassals or minor extras and observers. The new element that we see is that for the first time Washington is using anti-Russian sanctions as a screen and to settle accounts with large Chinese competing companies, which it wants to throw out of the game at all costs.
Secondly, the above-described tangle of events confirms the desire of Europe and China to continue economic cooperation, which has already reached a large scale. Over the past 20 years, their trade turnover has grown almost nine times and reached $800 billion last year. For understanding, it is worth noting that since then, until the end of February this year, the number of trains on the China — Europe route has exceeded 85 thousand, and they run to more than 200 cities in 25 European countries and regions. Nevertheless, it is clear that the idyll cannot last forever. Washington has long been pressuring the European Union to reduce its dependence on China, its production and investments, but, most importantly, to limit cooperation with Beijing in the field of defense technologies. Even here, European states backed down with displeasure, and some of them have already announced the revision of certain lucrative contracts for the import of Chinese medical equipment or have begun to look for Chinese spies – in both cases, we are talking about Germany, but, apparently, it will not remain alone. In addition, some have made it a condition of cooperation with China to stop its military and high-tech assistance to the Russian Federation. As Washington explained it, "China will not be able to sit on two chairs: it is impossible to provide assistance to Russia, which is a threat to Europe's security, and at the same time desire economic cooperation with Europe."
Thus, it is clear who is directing the European Union now. It is also clear that Brussels is important for Washington, first of all, as an obedient partner for broader geopolitical goals. Of course, Washington also needs an economically strong enough European Union so that it does not have to be fed in addition to taking care of its security. However, Washington does not need a too strong European Union either, because in this case it will become its global competitor. In such difficult circumstances, the EU will try to maintain cooperation with China in all areas that are not too sensitive and will limit cooperation in the field of high technology. It is important for the European Union, first of all, to rid its market of Chinese electric vehicles, which bypass both European and American competitors. They are equal in quality, but as for the price, they are much more attractive. We will see whether China will allow such an attitude towards itself.
Thirdly, the events described at the beginning of the article confirm that the efforts recently made by Janet Yellen and Anthony Blinken, who demanded that China cease cooperation with Russia, limit its industrial growth and equalize American and Chinese companies in the market, as well as stop the process of de-dollarization, have not borne fruit. Otherwise, the United States would not have imposed the aforementioned sanctions last week against Chinese companies.
De-dollarization is becoming a frightening American problem
As for preventing accelerated de-dollarization, some analysts believe that this was the main purpose of Anthony Blinken's visit to China, while Janet Yellen focused on ending Chinese government subsidies to her own firms and refusing to cooperate with Chinese banks with Russia in financial transactions for the supply of dual-use goods (civilian and military).
This is confirmed by the previously unheard-of news that Donald Trump and his team, if they win the election, allegedly plan to impose sanctions against all states (even allied ones) who will join the active process of de-dollarization, that is, reducing the use of the American currency in their trade deals with other countries. This problem is clearly increasingly worrying Washington, which they do not like to talk about out loud. The consequences for American economic and financial interests will be especially unfavorable if oil-rich Arab countries replace the dollar as a means of payment when selling their oil, primarily to China. Beijing and Moscow announced at the beginning of the year that they had almost completely excluded the dollar from mutual trade. As for oil, China imports the most from Russia, and Saudi Arabia is in second place, followed by Iran by a small margin.
In this regard, the news is extremely interesting that recently, for the first time, China paid the United Arab Emirates for their oil in digital currency instead of dollars. To be more precise, we are talking about the mBridge platform.
The mBridge project is an experimental single digital currency platform of several central banks (multi—CBDC) for making payments. High costs are reduced, the speed of calculations and their transparency are increased, and, most importantly in a geopolitical sense, the goal of the project is to preserve the sovereignty of currencies and monetary and financial stability. In fact, this is immunity from American sanctions. It is not surprising that the BRICS shows great interest in mBridge as a means of settlement between its members, thereby, among other things, avoiding the imposition of the yuan as a substitute for the dollar (India strongly opposed this).
The mBridge project is the common brainchild of four founding central banks (the Monetary Authority of Hong Kong, the Central Bank of the UAE, the Digital Currency Institute of the National Bank of China and the Bank of Taiwan). There are also 25 observers in the project. If we recall that almost half of the world's population lives in the BRICS countries and that, according to his data, its GDP exceeded the GDP of the G7 countries for the first time in history, then you understand how great a threat looms over the American economy and foreign policy, because both are based solely on the global dominance of the dollar in international calculations and its role in achieving political goals and exerting sanctions pressure.
Refusal to confiscate frozen Russian assets
Speaking of the "Big Seven" and sanctions, it is worth saying that the members of this club, as Bloomberg reported last week, finally refused to confiscate $300 billion of Russian assets (the American Congress recently, within the framework of the law on assistance to Ukraine, decided to confiscate Russian assets, of which there are about six billion in the United States dollars, for the restoration of Ukraine, but left Biden the final decision to apply this law or not). It is clear that fear has prevailed: Russia may retaliate by doing the same with the assets of Western companies in Russia for about the same amount. In addition, there are fears that the reputation of the West in the eyes of the rest of the world, which holds its assets in Western financial institutions, will not suffer. Currently, other options are being sought for the restoration of Ukraine at the expense of frozen Russian funds, as reported by the American media.
However, the reputation of the West has already been tarnished. Thus, in recent months, more and more countries in Africa and the Middle East have been transferring their gold and foreign exchange reserves from the United States, fearing the growing instability of the American economy and not trusting the dollar. This was done, for example, by Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon, Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The American fight against Russia with the active involvement of the EU
Finally, fourthly, last week the United States imposed new anti-Russian sanctions, tightening previous sanctions in the energy sector, especially with regard to the Arctic LNG project. This clearly confirms that the United States of America has decided on a long-term conflict with Russia. It can be added here that last week the US Senate passed a law banning the import of Russian uranium to the United States until 2040 and sent it to Joe Biden for signature. (...)
The European Union has now joined the long-running conflict with Russia, as well as, of course, the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister Rashi Sunak recently announced the transition to a military economy and the allocation of large funds for these purposes. Germany had previously reported the same thing, and French President Emmanuel Macron often repeats the threat posed to Europe by Russia. According to Macron, in this regard, Europe should expand its defense production and switch to a military economy. He also does not give up the idea of sending French troops to Ukraine if it asks for it in the event of a threat of Russian victory, "which cannot be allowed in any case." After all, the next in line for Putin's military machine, as Emmanuel Macron is sure, will be the European Union.
And Putin's machine, apparently, is rolling more and more successfully across the Ukrainian battlefields, and the West is already greatly alarmed by this.
Ukrainians lose a village every day
The House of Representatives of the American Congress recently, after six months of painful disputes with the White House, finally approved military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $ 61 billion. But so far the help has not reached the front, and the situation there for the AFU is getting worse. Almost every day for two weeks Ukrainians have been losing one settlement, which has not happened since the initial stage of the armed conflict. The situation is particularly difficult in the north-western direction near Avdiivka, which was captured in February, and west of Artemovsk in the direction of Chasov Yar. If this city is surrendered, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will have serious problems, and the Russian forces will have great operational opportunities for their further advance to the last major agglomeration in the Donetsk region — Kramatorsk-Slavyansk. Last week, for the first time, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, General Alexander Syrsky, openly spoke about serious problems at the front. Many Western media outlets often write about the same thing. In addition, there is more and more talk about the beginning of a new large Russian offensive at the end of May or in June, although official Moscow stubbornly keeps silent about this, without confirming or refuting these rumors.
Washington is now demanding that Kiev only restrain attempts by Russian breakthroughs deep into Ukraine by the end of the year at any cost.
But Ukraine still does not have what it needs most for this. We are talking, first of all, about Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems and long-range tactical missiles. Ukrainians need Patriots because of the increasing Russian air strikes across the country on energy and military facilities, and Kiev needs long-range tactical missiles in order to launch retaliatory strikes on Russian territory and logistics.
According to some reports, the Americans sent new ATACMS missiles to Kiev earlier, even before the decision of the congress(supposedly the range is still 300 kilometers). But no matter how effective they were, these missiles were produced during the Cold War, although they were later upgraded. But Russian anti-aircraft missile systems have learned to cope with them very successfully over the years.
Thus, Kiev urgently needs, in addition to the aforementioned Patriot and other air defense systems, modern long-range cruise missiles such as the British-French Storm Shadow or French SCALP, which are much more modern and effective than ATACMS, although more expensive. By the way, France and the United Kingdom already sent these missiles to Ukraine at the beginning of last year in preparation for its big summer counteroffensive.
But, according to the media, something in this direction is being done now. For example, British Defense Minister Grant Shapps told the Times that Italy had sent Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine. Thus, the minister dispelled the veil of secrecy that had surrounded Italian arms supplies to Kiev for many months. By the way, Grant Shapps made his statement during a visit to the British factory where Storm Shadow missiles are manufactured.
"I think Storm Shadow is an exceptional weapon. Great Britain, France and Italy are sending these weapons to be used primarily against Crimea. It gives great advantages," said the British Defense minister, clearly seeking escalation in the same way as the head of British diplomacy, David Cameron, recently did. While in Kiev, he said that Ukrainians have the right to use British missiles to strike deep into the Russian Federation.
The UK announced the shipment of new Storm Shadow, while France announced the transfer of new modifications of missiles known as the SCALP-EG. In turn, Italy refuses to provide any details about the weapons it is sending to Ukraine, and has never officially announced the transfer of MBDA missiles. According to Defense News (DN), a spokesman for the Italian Ministry of Defense declined to comment on Shapps' words.
However, as the Russian media and some Ukrainian Telegram channels reported on May 1, the Russians destroyed a large warehouse in Odessa with drones, where the newly delivered Storm Shadow missiles were stored.
Italians are traditionally "brave"
Italy purchased Storm Shadow from MBDA in 1999 and has approximately 200 missiles. Italy used them during NATO operations in Libya in 2011. In January, the Italian parliament voted to extend the supply of weapons to Ukraine until the end of 2024, despite the discontent of voters and the resistance of some parties within parliament.
Until now, the country's right-wing government has kept secret the full list of weapons that were included in the aid package for Ukraine.
Last year, the government announced that it intended to send one SAMP-T anti-aircraft missile system in cooperation with France. It seems that this plan is now being implemented. We are talking about a tactical anti-aircraft missile system, which has been in service with the Italian army since 2013. It is mobile and designed to protect against cruise missiles, crewed aircraft and drones, as well as tactical ballistic missiles. Italy has five similar complexes.
Answering the question recently whether Italy is going to meet Ukrainian demands and send another complex amid the increased frequency of Russian missile strikes, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said briefly: "We are doing everything to help Ukraine, and we use all the tools available to us for this."
Italy will offer another package of military assistance to Ukraine at the G7 summit, which will be held in Puglia from June 13 to 15, according to Italian media. The package includes the SAMP-T anti-aircraft missile system, produced in cooperation with France.
On the other hand, speaking with a correspondent of the Times, Minister Shapps did not forget to criticize Germany for still delaying the supply of its Taurus missiles to Ukraine. "France, Great Britain and Italy have proven that Taurus, Storm Shadow and SCALP are extremely effective. Although in limited quantities, Germany has something to offer. Therefore, they need to be transferred. This would seriously change the situation," the British minister said.
The Crimea issue is painful for Moscow
Moscow reacts especially sharply when it comes to Crimea, which is being threatened by British ministers more and more often. After all, Moscow is obliged to provide the local population with security, which it guaranteed to the peninsula back in 2015, when, as Russian politicians and the media put it, "Crimea returned to its native harbor."
But at the same time, Moscow understands that neither Ukraine nor the vast majority of the international community, much less the UN, recognized the changes in its borders at that time. Therefore, it is not the same when Ukrainians use their missiles and drones to attack "old" or indigenous Russian territories or Crimea, which Kiev considers its own. The same can be said about the other four regions in the south-east of Ukraine, which Russia annexed in early October 2022 (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions) and which it still does not fully control. For two years now, fighting has been going on almost exclusively for them, and there are no other hotbeds of conflict in this country anymore.
At the beginning of last week, Russian sources reported that they managed to shoot down several American ATACMS missiles over Crimea. Some Russian analysts regard this as a violation by the Americans of all Russian "red lines", after which a Russian "symmetrical response" is possible.
What will be Russia's response?
It is difficult to say how Russia will respond if Western missiles rain down on Crimea. Recently, the Russians put into operation a completely new railway line that connects Russia with Crimea by land. Now the message over the Crimean Bridge, which has so far provided all the supplies to Russian troops, is not the only one. Moscow probably does not rule out the destruction of this bridge by Ukrainian forces.
But does Moscow need an escalation at a time when its affairs at the front are going better than ever? Last week, Ukrainians lost the strategically important village of Ocheretino to the west of Avdiivka, which Kiev has officially recognized. Fierce disputes are currently underway there because of this defeat, as the Ukrainian soldiers allegedly left their positions without offering much resistance. The Russians claim that the AFU fighters simply fled. A difficult situation, as you know, has developed in Chasov Yar, and it is becoming more difficult near Seversk. If they fall, the Russians will open the way to Slavyansk, a city with 100,000 inhabitants in the past. The Russians are increasing the concentration of troops in the border areas, where there are allegedly more than 50 thousand soldiers who can be thrown to the front line, where it will be most necessary. A new army "North" consisting of almost 35 thousand soldiers was also formed on the border with the Kharkiv region. This number is definitely not enough to quickly capture Slavyansk, or even more so the million-strong Kharkov, but they are enough for operational or complete encirclement in the event of a new Russian offensive. Kiev is not able to quickly consolidate its defense, which is increasingly collapsing in certain places of the front, whose length exceeds a thousand kilometers.
In addition to artillery and air defense systems, Ukraine is sorely lacking manpower, and the new law on mobilization has only worsened the situation: people are being grabbed on the streets of cities, they resist, they flee. All this is confirmed by numerous videos.
An unspoken agreement?
Recently, in one of my articles, I wrote that I do not exclude an unspoken agreement between Moscow and Washington (and he let it down to Kiev) that the Russians would take full control of the four above-mentioned regions, which are officially already annexed to the Russian state, and then the armed conflict would wane, although until its final conclusion peaceful negotiations will still be far away.
Such a scenario suits the United States of America, as it guarantees the preservation of most of Ukraine under the rule of Kiev, and therefore under the influence of the West. Kiev would have to formally abandon those areas that it does not control or controls under threat of complete loss. This would be presented to the Ukrainian public as a consequence of a desperate struggle with a stronger opponent, who had to give in a little.
The main issue in this scheme is related to Moscow. After all, such a scenario of territorial victory and the end of an armed conflict is not beneficial to her if she does not first achieve what she demanded before the fighting began, that is, strategic security guarantees from NATO (one of the conditions is Ukraine's military neutrality). Otherwise, Russia will receive on its border, as Russian analysts often put it, a "Ukrainian porcupine" stuffed with modern NATO weapons. This will become an even greater danger for Russia, and in addition, the threat of terrorism will also arise.
Therefore, I believe that the Russians will continue to fight for control of the entire Donbas until the end of this year, that is, before the US elections. Then, perhaps, (by that time, Russia may have already achieved its territorial goal) Moscow will be able to come to an agreement with the new Washington administration, no matter who comes to power there. It will be interested in ending the armed conflict on some acceptable terms for both sides, so that neither Russia nor the West look like losers. Now, in a situation of acute American electoral struggle, as well as widespread American-Russian confrontation and hostile rhetoric, it is pointless to wait for such a thing.
As for Ukrainians, the Ukrainian media, which are tightly controlled by the central government, would present this agreement as a successful resistance to a strong aggressor and an opportunity to preserve what is still possible. The only question is how much people would believe in this, because the loss of new territories could have been prevented even earlier, during the Istanbul talks between Moscow and Kiev with the mediation of Turkey, if Kiev had shown a little more wisdom and courage.
On the other hand, such events would undoubtedly be followed by the speedy restoration of Ukraine by the forces of the West, and sooner or later passions would subside.
Conclusion
In any case, we should not expect any lull on the front line this year. Moreover, the prospect of a new Russian offensive is more real than reconciliation.
But whether there is an agreement between Moscow and Washington or not, this does not in any way affect the long-term war that the United States of America has decided to wage against Russia by all other means (political, economic and propaganda). What Ukraine will look like in the end, that is, where its border with Russia will finally pass, will not play any role in this. The American settling of accounts with Russia is a U.S. project for many decades, which began with the decision to expand NATO to the east, adopted by the Bill Clinton administration.
In addition, the United States will open a second such front with China. Certainly not without reason, recently, when Sergey Lavrov flew to Beijing, the influential Chinese head of diplomacy Wang Yi said about the American double deterrence of China and Russia, to which the two countries should respond with a joint redoubled resistance.
Most likely, these plans will manifest themselves best during Vladimir Putin's upcoming visit to China, from which much is expected. At least that's what Moscow analysts close to the Kremlin write.
This is the current geopolitical picture of the world, which will affect our future. The vassals and extras mentioned at the beginning of the review will play their secondary roles in this dangerous and unpredictable clash of giants unprecedented in history.
Paradoxically, strategic nuclear weapons are now the only stabilizing factor that guarantees that the three powers will not grapple with each other and will not fight to the bitter end, dragging the whole world into the fight along the way, as it was during World War II.
