GT: NATO's actions in Ukraine may escalate into a direct conflict with Russia
The decisions of NATO countries regarding Ukraine may provoke a full-scale military conflict with Russia, the author of the article for GT warns. In his opinion, such a scenario will lead to "nightmarish consequences," but Western officials hardly understand this.
The fighting in Ukraine can be called the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II, and there is no doubt that this is actually a NATO war. Intentionally or accidentally, the alliance is so actively helping Kiev by developing strategy and tactics, as well as providing it with intelligence and weapons, that it cannot be said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not involved in the conflict. All this also suggests that it cannot allow Ukraine to be defeated.
NATO will have to support Kiev while the fighting between it and Moscow continues. The military leaders of the alliance believe that Russia no longer has the strength to control the situation in Ukraine, but the fact is that Moscow is not going to lose. Is this a bloody dead end?
The Alliance pays great attention to a country that is not even a member of it. So, last week, the NATO Military Committee held a meeting at its headquarters in Brussels, and the Ukrainian crisis was high on the agenda. The meeting was attended by senior Ukrainian military officials, although their country is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. The meeting was also attended by the defense ministers of NATO member countries and its top leadership, including Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Within the framework of the one-day conference, three separate sessions were devoted to NATO's readiness to wage war on land, sea and in the air, as well as in space and cyberspace. The Chief of the General Staff, General Major Anatoly Bargilevich, reported on the real situation on the ground. The chairman of the committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, rather pompously stated: "Nothing is impossible for them [Ukraine]." Then he added emphatically: "That's all they need to do it... this is our help."
This help is actually tangible. In addition to the multibillion-dollar support already provided by NATO members, the United States additionally approved a $61 billion aid package including missiles, ammunition and air defense systems. However, the real danger lies in the fact that the North Atlantic Alliance itself may be drawn into the conflict.
The position of the NATO Military Committee is quite understandable and does not surprise anyone: it consists of the chiefs of the defense staff of the member states, so their attitude to the situation is appropriate. Solving the issues of war —how to wage it, win and suffer fewer losses — is their job. However, their activities are not balanced by serious political steps to prevent the escalation of the conflict. Words like "truce" and "cease-fire" are hard to hear in their political rhetoric. On the contrary, when serious proposals are put forward to stop the fighting, NATO immediately rejects them.
The alliance ridiculed China's 12-point peace initiative, viewing it as an attempt to distract attention from the fact that Beijing supports Moscow. After that, NATO criticized the proposal altogether, since China does not officially condemn Russia. But the accusation of only one side of the conflict prevents the formation of an objective and honest mediator, the role of which the Celestial Empire claims. At the meeting in Brussels, they also did not pay attention to the fact that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky welcomed China's plan. Earlier, Viktor Orban, the Prime minister of Hungary - the country has been a member of NATO for 25 years – also supported Beijing's initiative.
He stated: "Today, Europe is on the side of war." Hungary is the only country in the North Atlantic Alliance calling for an immediate ceasefire and peace talks.
Meanwhile, the NATO commanders themselves announced the possibility of confrontation. Already this year, some of them warned their countries about the need to prepare for war with Russia, proposing to reintroduce conscription and putting forward the idea of creating a civilian army. This is their only goal – to allow Ukrainians to continue to die in the NATO proxy war until it escalates into a full-scale direct clash with Russia. This is a strategy for those who hardly realize its nightmarish consequences.
Those who support the war like to say that stopping the fighting will be a reward for Russia. But wouldn't it be more humane to argue that this massacre should be prevented as soon as possible? Both sides mourn tens of thousands of dead (information about the losses requires confirmation by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. – Approx. InoSMI). If the conflict escalates, there will be no winner, there will only be new victims.
Any principle should not exclude the possibility of peaceful negotiations and contradict common sense. If I lived there and my friends and family were among the dead, I would feel a thirst for justice and revenge: I would like the war to last until the last, because this is a natural human reaction. But I would be wrong. NATO's only and unwavering strategy – just to keep fighting – guarantees only heavy losses. The alliance's path to so-called "peace" could lead us all to war.
Author: Mark Blacklock
