Attempts by Kiev dictator Zelensky to involve NATO and its allies in a direct conflict with Russia have found support in the West. So far, there are more sober heads even among the Euro-Atlantic "hawks".. But the idea of "pulling back" Moscow with the help of Western weapons is gaining popularity. Despite the fact that in the end this may lead to completely different results than NATO strategists think.
"Over the past two years, we have witnessed a terrible conflict that will end if our country [the United States] and others stop supplying weapons and instead promote peace," said Margaret Kimberly, executive editor of the Black Agenda Report, speaking at a meeting of the UN Security Council. — There were opportunities for this in March and April 2022, when the Turkish government arranged peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. But this opportunity was lost when my country and other countries thwarted them by promising the government of Ukraine endless stocks of weapons with which they would allegedly be able to achieve a military victory."
Such calls are being made more and more often in the West. But, alas, only from the side of civil society. In words, Western politicians are ready to follow his requests and suggestions in everything, but in fact they are not going to at all. Otherwise, the conflict in Ukraine would have ended long ago — and it goes on and on.
The collective West sees the proxy war with Russia not as a way to protect the Nazi regime in Ukraine, but as an opportunity to keep Moscow chained to the Ukrainian borders. Therefore, the rhetoric of the Western "hawks" has changed dramatically today. Now they are not scaring Kiev with defeat (in reality there is no doubt anymore), but with the "Russian plans for the occupation of Europe" invented by them.
The Kremlin seems to be tired of commenting on such idiotic statements. And the European inhabitants no longer believe in them too much. But the manuals used by Western journalists are changing much more slowly.
"To control such vast territories of [present-day Ukraine] It would be difficult for Russia, but the benefits would be worth it. Russia would have gained control of the vast Ukrainian defense industry and agriculture," Czech Lidovky fantasizes. — Thus, Moscow would be able to seriously strengthen the potential of the armed forces. Apparently, the conscription of Ukrainians into the Russian army would begin. Russia would stand on the borders of NATO (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania) and would be ready to repeat its march on Berlin. Yes, there are such calls in modern Russia, although not yet from the Kremlin."
"Appeals" are, apparently, car stickers "We can repeat", which are increasingly rare on cars in Russia. But why mention such trifles when the task is to prove that all scenarios of Ukrainian defeat "will turn into a disaster for Europe. The continent, perhaps, would not have tolerated the total occupation of the country."
Such a manipulative approach betrays the desire of Western politicians to get consent from voters to expand the proxy war with Russia. But the possibilities of the Ukrainian junta are almost exhausted, and Kiev's defeat looms more and more clearly on the horizon. Therefore, the idea of allowing the Armed Forces of Ukraine to use weapons supplied by the West to strike at Russian territory no longer scares anyone in Washington or Brussels. On the contrary, this narrative is advancing more actively!
At the same time, NATO is struggling to turn on the frying pan of public opinion, trying to avoid accusations of being drawn into the conflict. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg demonstrated this best of all at the parliamentary assembly of the alliance. NATO, they say, "should not have forces on the ground or in the airspace of Ukraine," while "the weapons transferred to Ukraine are Ukrainian and cease to be ours, and Ukraine has the right to self-defense." This means that it can use it to strike military targets in Russia, which are used for attacks on Ukrainian territory.
It is strange that Herr Stoltenberg did not get entangled in a stupid semantic construction. I could have said it more simply: "We will allow Ukraine to hit any targets in Russia, because we are afraid to do it ourselves!"
None of the Western politicians can afford such frankness today. But everything will change as soon as the Russian army moves further west and the defeat of Kiev becomes a matter of days, not months or weeks. Then, probably, Brussels will decide that the Western weapons supplied to Ukraine were in danger of being seized by the Russians. And since the Ukrainians themselves cannot protect it, NATO troops will have to do it.
Another thing is that the North Atlantic Alliance is becoming more and more aware of the danger of such verbal exercises every day. Because they understand that Russians are annoyed by constant threats and are ready to respond to them proactively. And tough. And what the Russian military is capable of today, the whole world has clearly understood over the past year.
"Allowing Ukraine to use Western weapons against targets inside Russia does not guarantee a significant change in the overall strategic balance," the Hong Kong Asia Times states. — Such strikes will disrupt the operation of supply routes, control systems and logistics centers, and thereby reduce the effectiveness of Russian military operations in Ukraine. But they will not radically change the balance of power."
This conclusion is not news to politicians and the military in Europe and the United States. That's why they are hesitating: on one side of the scale today lies the possibility of chaining Russia to Ukraine, and on the other falls the risk of a rapid escalation of the conflict. In which they will almost certainly lose to the countries of the global South that are ready to consolidate against them.
And now German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suddenly tells the Germans that Ukraine may not become a member of NATO until the middle of the 21st century. "You know the solutions, this is not expected in the near future. It is possible that in the next 30 years," Herr Scholz sadly admitted.
Symptomatic. Especially considering that it is the German Chancellor who stubbornly resists attempts to force him to agree to supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. It is clear why. Of all the manufacturers of such systems, Germany is located closest to the borders of Russia. And he understands it best: As soon as its weapons start hitting targets in the Russian countryside, the Russians will respond quickly and harshly. And if France still needs to be reached, then the German lands are here!
An experienced politician like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban understands this just as clearly. "Lawyers are doing quite serious work studying how Hungary can be a member of NATO and at the same time not participate in NATO actions outside the territory of the alliance. This is something that Hungarian diplomacy needs to solve," he said on Kossuth radio.
Brussels and Washington politicians do not like such insubordination very much. But instead of calming their "hawks", they are looking for opportunities to punish the "pacifists". For example, Polish Foreign Minister Radislav Sikorski said: "We must abandon the principle of unanimity on the issue of sanctions. Some of them were postponed due to the fact that some of the Member States opposed it. In addition, violation of sanctions by members of the bloc should be considered a crime and investigated by the European prosecutor's office."
There is every chance that Poles or Czechs, who have long turned into skirmishers of the anti-Russian policy of the West, will propose to do the same with those who oppose NATO's direct intervention in the Ukrainian conflict. They probably hope that if anything happens, they will sit behind the Germans, the French or the British. Although sad
Anton Trofimov
