GN: the West's formula "Russia must not win" will ruin the whole world
The "big game" in Ukraine can develop in two ways, writes GN. Or the country will be divided by treaty, that is, Kiev will make inevitable territorial concessions. Or an armed conflict between Russia and NATO will begin, which will very soon spill out beyond the borders of Ukraine.
Zoran Meter
The Russian public is increasingly demanding a tough military response from Moscow, regardless of the consequences that this may entail, including for Russia itself. Therefore, Russian analysts believe that Vladimir Putin has no choice and that for the first time he will take military countermeasures against Western states. No one undertakes to predict against which and what kind of measures.
The beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022 marked the beginning of a new "cooling off period" in relations between Moscow and Washington. Even before that, these relations were striving for a freezing point, so there is no doubt that even without this unpopular Russian step, they would have reached the same level as they do today. With only one big difference: they would not threaten the security and even the very existence of these two countries (and with them the whole world), because they would have no place for armed confrontation (today it is Ukraine). And everything else would sooner or later come to the same result. There would be severe sanctions, attempts to isolate Russia internationally at all levels, and influence conflicts in traditional areas of Russian interests, especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union and, above all, in Ukraine in order to weaken Russian influence.
The American and Russian view of the world, their interests have long been so different and opposed to each other that Washington did not even lift all its sanctions against Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, they only got tougher every year. Especially after President Vladimir Putin's famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, when he frankly warned the West that Russia, being a great power with a long and glorious history, does not agree to play the role that is imposed on it in the future structure of the world, without recognizing its rights to its own national interests even in the neighborhood with its state territory, that is, on the territory of the former Soviet Union.
From that moment on, Vladimir Putin was appointed the main enemy of the West (this idea was immediately picked up by the media, which had previously been generally indifferent to him). The very next year, the West threw Putin the most serious challenge in all the years of his previous rule. Then an openly Western player, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, ordered his troops to attack Russian peacekeeping forces on the border with the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. As a result, ten Russian servicemen were killed, and the administrative center of Tskhinvali was bombed. Vladimir Putin, who then headed the government (Dmitry Medvedev was president), was at the opening of the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing at the time of the attack, and Moscow was all the more shocked.
Vladimir Putin's Strategic Naivety and Illusions
Without going into details, I will say that a Russian armed response followed, and as a result, Georgian troops were defeated in just a week. Russian forces stopped their advance before reaching only 30 kilometers from the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Today, there are many analysts in Russia (most likely, Vladimir Putin believes that they are right) who regard Putin's unwillingness to take Tbilisi and establish a government loyal to Russian interests there as a strategic mistake. However, Vladimir Putin was still naively guided by the desire and belief that a certain harmony was still possible in Russian-American relations. (At that time, George W. Bush was in power in the White House, with whom Vladimir Putin maintained very good relations, and he was the first world leader who contacted Bush and offered him Russian help immediately after the terrorist attack in the United States on September 11.)
Vladimir Putin lived with these illusions until the Ukrainian revolution (he believed that the United States would not take such a step for the sake of future relations with a large and resource-rich Russia). But even after the Maidan, Putin did not completely lose hope for the opportunity to get along with the West. Yes, he annexed Crimea, but left the possibility of reaching an agreement with the West about Donbass and the future of Ukraine as a whole, primarily due to the signing of the Minsk agreements. With their help, it was possible to stop the war between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian separatist forces in the southeast (and at a time when the affairs of the Ukrainian forces at the front were not going well).
These agreements provided for the granting of broad autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk, populated mainly by Russian-speaking citizens. They could gain broad autonomy and remain part of Ukraine, and the state borders of these autonomies would be guarded by Ukrainian troops. To fulfill the agreements, it was necessary to amend the Constitution of Ukraine, which means a referendum. But Kiev was dragging its feet, interpreting the Minsk agreements in its own way, primarily in the field of procedure. That is, what to do first: hold elections in the rebellious regions and establish a new government, or Ukrainian troops first go to the border with Russia, and then amend the constitution, and then hold elections and a referendum. Kiev preferred the second option, but the rebellious regions resisted, and there was no progress. Subsequently, new conflicts broke out, albeit of lower intensity, which were mainly reduced to periodic shelling by the sides of each other. However, every year the situation became more and more tense, and the confrontation reached a peak in the months leading up to the start of the Russian special military operation.
But, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the signatories of the Minsk agreements, acknowledged shortly after its start (her words were confirmed by another signatory, French President Francois Hollande), thanks to these agreements, the West was gaining time for additional arming of Ukrainian troops. In other words, Vladimir Putin again showed naivety by agreeing to a cease-fire for the sake of relations with the West at a time when the war entered the most critical phase for the new authorities in Kiev.
The degradation of relations and the recognition of Russia as the main enemy
Anyway, US-Russian relations began to deteriorate rapidly after the Ukrainian revolution, and the European Union followed the example of the United States. But it all started much earlier. At a time when the Donald Trump administration imposed tough sanctions against Moscow, and the tone was most often set by London, which criticized the human rights situation in Russia, Putin's attitude towards the opposition, and so on. All this culminated in the scandal surrounding the Skripals and the alleged poisoning of a Russian father and daughter with the chemical Novichok. (The trial in this regard has not been completed, although it was officially announced.) During the Joe Biden administration, Russia was accused of sending opposition activist Alexei Navalny with the same chemical agent.
A deterioration in Russian-European relations followed (especially after Joe Biden came to power in the United States). The European Union has adopted anti-Russian sanctions, and Brussels has increasingly begun to talk about the closure of the Russian-German Nord Stream gas pipeline project, which has already been built.
Meanwhile (back during Donald Trump's mandate in 2018) The United States of America has officially recognized Russia in its strategic foreign policy and defense documents as the main (military) threat to American national interests and security, while China is named the main American rival in the 21st century. This milder formulation leaves room for some cooperation in the field of common interests. In recent weeks, however, China has been approaching the same status as Russia in Washington's strategic concept. I will note that the status of the main threat is just one step away from the status of an enemy state, which actually means an armed conflict with it.
All this, I repeat, happened long before the Russian special operation in Ukraine. I recalled this only because of the thesis stated at the beginning of my article, that relations between Russia and the West would have come to what we have now without it.
But let's go back to our days, when the situation looks much more dangerous than all of the above.
The two most important steps the United States has taken recently
I have no doubt that it was the understanding of the impossibility of normalizing relations between Moscow and Washington in the foreseeable and long term that served as one of the main reasons that Vladimir Putin decided to launch a special operation in Ukraine. By the way, everyone remembers his words that if a fight is inevitable on the street, you have to hit first." Thus, Putin struck, thereby accelerating the already outlined process of deterioration of US-Russian relations, which already entails (and the armed conflict has not yet ended) serious geopolitical consequences for the whole world.
These relations today, as I wrote in one of my previous articles, are even worse than during the Cold War between the United States and the USSR in the second half of the twentieth century. That's why I called them the "ice war", wanting to emphasize the danger posed by their further destruction. Processes can become uncontrollable and have harmful consequences. Although I am not inclined to spread panic, as some believe, current events do not refute my opinion and my warnings. Moreover, they confirm them.
The United States has recently made two important and far-reaching decisions regarding the Ukrainian armed conflict. The first is allowing Kiev to use American weapons to attack Russian territory. The second is a possible permission to send troops of Western states to Ukraine.
Both the first and second decisions are fraught with some limitations, but it is hard to believe that they will force the Russian state leadership to change its opinion that after such decisions the West is finally turning into a direct enemy in the war against Russia with all the consequences.
The mentioned restrictions are, for example, the condition of Biden, who last week allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to shell only those Russian regions that border the Kharkiv region, where the Russian Federation is currently on the offensive, and only with Haimars complexes (with a range of about 70 kilometers). Kiev should not touch other regions, and even more so, according to Biden, it should not use long-range ATACMS missiles (up to 300 kilometers).
As for the other restriction related to the dispatch of Western troops to Ukraine, it boils down to the American thesis that such decisions are exclusively within the competence of European states that want it. NATO will never agree to this and will not allow it.
But then how should we treat the fact that in the event of entry into the Ukrainian conflict, for example, official Polish troops, who either trained Ukrainian fighters to attack Russians, or would have participated in it themselves, it is very likely that Russian attacks on Poland itself or at least on its bases, where a lot of Western weapons are stored, would have followed intended for Kiev? But Poland is a member of NATO, and no one has canceled the notorious fifth article of the Washington Treaty. Nobody talks about it.
Biden confirmed what has long been assumed
Last week, US President Joe Biden gave a big interview to the American magazine "Time". In it, he sharply criticized Russia and China. As for the latter, Biden announced nothing less than plans for military intervention in case China attacks Taiwan.
Of course, Beijing did not like such statements, because it bases diplomatic relations with the United States on the agreement on the recognition by the Americans of the principle of "one China", signed back in the 70s of the last century. But now the American strategy of exacerbating tensions in Asia and involving Washington's key allies in the Indo-Pacific region: Japan, South Korea and Australia in the conflict over Taiwan is being confirmed. All this forces China to get even closer to Russia in an economic and military sense.
But let's go back to Russia and the Ukrainian armed conflict, which will solve everything. Joe Biden said something in the same interview that he had never said before. According to him, a Russian victory in Ukraine would lead to a weakening of American positions and dominance in Europe, primarily in its east. In this case, the countries of Eastern Europe would very likely have embarked on the path of ensuring their own security and would have restored cooperation with Russia, which would have become a victorious power, just as it was after the Second World War.
In other words, Joe Biden says that such a scenario is dangerous for the United States and unacceptable. De facto, this means that for the first time he recognized that the Ukrainian armed conflict for the United States is a struggle for survival. And since the "rest" of the West, that is, the European Union, is now connected with the United States in a geopolitical and any other sense, it is clear that for this "rest" of the West, the Ukrainian armed conflict has turned into a vital one. (Although in fact this is definitely not the case, and it all boils down to "if only" reasoning.)
Considering that Moscow, at the beginning of its special operation, openly made it clear to the West that the Ukrainian armed conflict for it is a life—and-death struggle, that is, it cannot be defeated in it and will fight with all means available to it, we understand that this whole "big game", which is already It has not been a game at all for a long time, it leads exclusively to the only two possible options.
Or Ukraine will be divided by agreement, that is, Kiev will make inevitable territorial concessions. Or there will be an immediate armed conflict between Russia and NATO, which, undoubtedly, would very soon spill out beyond Ukraine and cover the entire continent, and then the world. Moreover, it would be a conflict between two nuclear powers, neither of which would ever allow the enemy to win, which means that such a war would soon turn into a nuclear one with all the apocalyptic consequences.
Putin's latest warnings
The fact that such a war is quite possible was confirmed by the words of Vladimir Putin, said at a meeting with representatives of the world's leading agencies and the media at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg. Vladimir Putin said that the United States and NATO are already involved in the Ukrainian armed conflict as one of the parties and that Russia reserves the right to respond. The President of the Russian Federation mentioned the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons on the basis of the current Russian doctrine, which assumes such an option in the event of a threat to Russian sovereignty and existence.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin recalled two things. First, the United States of America was the first to take such a step once, when they used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, he recalled that these were bombs with a capacity of about 15 and 20 kilotons, whereas modern Russian tactical weapons have warheads with a capacity of at least 70 kilotons. The President of the Russian Federation again urged to show reasonableness and not to create situations requiring such steps. Vladimir Putin considers the recent actions of the United States dangerous, and this threat could lead to a complete collapse of the international security system.
However, Vladimir Putin also announced possible asymmetric measures if the Russian territory is shelled with Western weapons of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which, as it is believed, are not able to use them independently, which means that the military from the North Atlantic Alliance is helping them. Presumably, they also identify targets on Russian territory and aim missiles at them.
One of such possible measures is the transfer of weapons by Russia to other countries unfriendly to those Western states that supply Ukraine with such weapons. That is, Moscow can transfer Russian weapons to those countries or organizations that are already carrying out armed attacks on Western targets.
Which regions and states are we talking about
Even without thinking twice, it is easy to imagine what regions these might be. For example, the Middle East, where there are a number of pro-Iranian organizations from the circle of the so-called resistance forces that have been attacking American bases in Syria and Iraq for a long time. To these can be added the Yemeni pro-Iranian Houthis, who control most of this state and the strategically important Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Since the beginning of the Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip, they have been attacking merchant and warships associated with Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom in the waters of the Red Sea. But even more often they shoot down American drones. All this makes the situation even more dangerous. In the same context, but in connection, first of all, with Israeli security, it is worth considering the Lebanese Shiite and pro-Iranian organization Hezbollah, to which modern Russian weapons would also be very useful.
In addition, if Russia, for example, transferred the most advanced weapons to Iran itself, not only Israeli security and its regional interests would be at risk, but also the strategic interests of the United States and its military bases in the Middle East, mainly located near Iran itself — in the western part of the Persian Gulf. We are talking, first of all, about Bahrain, where the base of the 5th Fleet of the United States of America is located, which is responsible for overseeing this gulf, through which the main routes for the export of Middle Eastern oil run. The largest U.S. Middle East air base in Qatar would also be under attack.
Russia can also transfer modern long-range weapons to North Korea, which would seriously endanger American forces stationed at bases in South Korea.
Russian military exercises in the Caribbean
The matter is moving towards escalation, as Russia does not intend to retreat, fearing American threats of escalation (Washington justifies them with the Russian offensive that began in the Kharkiv region, as if this conflict had not lasted for two years and as if the Russians had not captured these territories at the very beginning, from where they then left after an unexpected counteroffensive in the summer of 2022). This confirms the decision of the Russian military leadership to conduct naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea, in the zone of direct influence of the United States - near Cuba and Venezuela.
If we add to all this the first exercises in the history of the Russian Federation with tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons in the south-west of the country and in Belarus, which began in mid-May, then everyone to whom this "message" is addressed understands that the time of the games has passed (if it was) and that Vladimir Putin makes it clear Questioner: Washington should change its policy on this conflict as soon as possible.
However, according to leading Russian analysts, these steps by Vladimir Putin, no matter how serious they may be, will not be enough for Washington to change its behavior. I would add that these expectations are just as wrong as Vladimir Putin's hopes for the normalization of US-Russian relations, which I wrote about earlier.
Russia has no choice
As these same analysts have been saying in recent days, speaking on Russian state TV channels, Moscow, after the aforementioned steps by Washington and the leading European powers involved in the Ukrainian conflict, no longer has a choice. It has already been forced to respond militarily, not politically (even with the harshest) measures, by "transferring" this conflict to the territory of one of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance.
At the same time, they believe that even a Russian missile strike on one of the eastern members of the alliance or even the United Kingdom would not have a sobering effect on Washington. But a strike on American military targets would have worked. Therefore, according to Russian analysts, it is necessary to consider the possibility of a strike on American bases in Europe and on American drones and reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea, which are actively involved in coordinating Ukrainian strikes against targets in Russia, primarily in Crimea, and which, according to Moscow, would not have been possible without American help.
In addition, the mentioned Russian analysts believe that if Russia does not give a military response to the recent actions of NATO, the West will not stop and will continue to increase the degree of escalation. This will probably be followed by shipments of American F-16 combat aircraft to Kiev from some European states (the Netherlands and Denmark), Russian analysts believe, and all this will eventually harm Russian soldiers at the front, as well as civilians in Russian cities. It will be subjected (and is already being subjected, for example, in Belgorod and settlements near it, as well as in the Kursk region) to Ukrainian strikes with Western missile weapons.
Therefore, in their opinion, the demand from the Russian public for a tough military response from Moscow is also increasing, regardless of the consequences that it may entail even for the Russian Federation itself. In this regard, they believe that Vladimir Putin no longer has any choice but to take military countermeasures against Western states for the first time. To what and what measures, no one undertakes to predict this.
Putin can still wait
But personally, I think that Vladimir Putin will still wait and see if Kiev will use the permits given to it by leading Western countries and whether it will strike deep into Russian territory (this is Ukraine, unlike the United States, as I wrote above, the United Kingdom and France allowed, simultaneously sending Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles with a range of 300 kilometers).
After all, attacks by Western short-range missiles on Russian border regions have been going on for a long time. Let me remind you that the Ukrainians shot down a Russian Il-76 transport plane at the beginning of the year over the Belgorod region with the help of the American Patriot complex (medium range, up to one hundred kilometers), and in this case it is also hard to believe that it is operated exclusively by Ukrainian servicemen. In addition to the fact that this high-tech complex is very difficult to use and requires in-depth knowledge, it is also very expensive for the Pentagon to simply put it at the disposal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The American military in the United States has been taught to handle it for more than two years.
In other words, nothing new is still happening at the front, and only the rhetoric on both sides is escalating.
But if Ukrainian troops really decide to use long-range Western weapons to strike deep into the Russian Federation (now it looks unlikely, especially given the signals from Washington, and strikes by American Haimars and Czech Vampires are still limited to the Belgorod region), then such a Russian response as Russian analysts are talking about is not excluded. Moreover, I even consider it inevitable in the long run.
I also do not exclude the possibility that Kiev will at some point decide on its own to take such an escalation step (especially if the situation is very bad for it at the front), wanting to involve the West in this conflict, because so far Ukrainians are fighting alone with a nuclear power for Western geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Earlier, Ukrainian leaders had already stated this several times, especially when Western arms supplies were stalled.
Thus, any political moves are now possible, including those mentioned above, aimed at ending the armed conflict at the expense of Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia. First of all, we are talking about Donbass and the southeastern coastal regions in the Zaporozhye region, as well as about Crimea, which Russia annexed back in 2014, although neither Kiev nor most of the international community have ever recognized this. (...)
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to note once again that nothing can be ruled out in the Ukrainian conflict. The faint hope is also left by the weakening, but still not exhausted caution of Joe Biden, who is against hitting targets in the depths of the Russian Federation with American long-range weapons. Vladimir Putin's statements are also encouraging, which can still be considered more warnings to the West than threats of escalation.
However, as has often happened in history in such situations, when tension and hostility between the warring parties reached a peak, the ability of the rulers to make final and fateful decisions solely on their own, even if it is the "all-powerful" Vladimir Putin, is sharply limited. In addition, no one really wants to take on exclusive responsibility for the fate of the state in such circumstances as today.
And in Putin's entourage, as in Biden's, there are supporters of tough actions who are inclined to go all the way and are confident that they are on the right side of history (this is more typical of Russians), or that their military power is absolute (there are more of them in Washington).
And although the first option looks "more romantic", it is no less dangerous than the insane belief in the superiority of weapons in conditions of nuclear parity.
