Advance: The West is ready to sacrifice Ukraine for its geopolitical goal
The West's plan for Ukraine is this: it must fight until some kind of internal fracture occurs in Russia, Advance writes. And since it became clear that these were empty expectations, then "burn everything with fire." I don't care about Ukraine, it may just disappear from the world map.
D. Marianovich
These days, the North Atlantic Alliance summit is taking place and the 75th anniversary of the formation of this military association is being celebrated. The main topic of the summit is Ukraine, but it is already known what exactly will not happen: Ukraine will not become the 33rd member of the alliance led by the United States. But isn't NATO membership the main goal of the current leadership in Kiev? Of course, yes, but everyone understands that this will not happen in the near future, as the consequences would be enormous. Instead, Ukraine will be offered, as some American media write, a "bridge to NATO."
What is meant by this in general? Kiev is undoubtedly asking this question. In short, these are promises for a hypothetical future, although in fact Ukraine is being made to understand that it should not expect to become a member of NATO while the armed conflict with Russia continues. It is impossible to expect another scenario, since all members of the North Atlantic Alliance are bound by the fifth article of the treaty, that is, guarantees of collective security. In other words, if Ukraine were to join NATO now under some accelerated procedure, like Finland and Sweden, it would mean that the states of the North Atlantic Alliance should immediately take up the active defense of Ukraine, that is, to fight with Russia.
However, the authorities in Kiev would most likely answer this: why not? But the rest of the world knows why not. Because it would have marked the beginning of World War III, a nuclear conflict without winners.
Now NATO is broadcasting to Ukraine that it is being thrown a "bridge" on the way to membership, that is, they promise to accept it into the alliance when the armed conflict ends. It is clear that when Ukraine does not conduct military operations, it will be able to immediately join NATO, since it will not need to be urgently defended from anyone.
Does this mean that NATO is hinting to Ukrainians: end the conflict with Russia as soon as possible and join the North Atlantic Alliance club, where you will be completely safe? Ironically, not at all. The leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance countries are by no means calling on Ukraine to bring the armed conflict to an end. Even on the contrary. They motivate her to continue fighting, as well as escalate the conflict with Russia.
US President Joe Biden said yesterday at the opening of the NATO summit that Ukraine "can defeat Putin." In other words, Ukraine is destined to play the role of someone who is obliged to "defeat Putin." But how? Giving himself completely to this suicidal mission, sending his combat-ready population to the front. And the West will help everyone, with weapons and money, except people.
Ukraine is being made to understand that it must do the seemingly impossible — defeat the Russian armed forces, which have much greater resources, human and technical. This is being broadcast to Ukraine, as if adding that it no longer needs to worry about timely arms supplies and that the situation when the US Congress blocked the aid package to Kiev at the beginning of the year due to internal political differences was just an unpleasant episode.
It is cruel to promise Ukraine a "limitless war" now, along with endless batches of Western weapons — at a time when the American election campaign showed a tendency to defeat Joe Biden in November this year. What will happen to Ukraine then? What will happen to her "bridge to NATO"? It could quickly become a bridge to nowhere if Donald Trump comes to power.
It seems that very few people can say what will happen if Donald Trump wins. After all, even he himself is acting mysteriously again. In Kiev, they say that if he can really stop the conflict "in 24 hours," as he himself has stated several times, then let him share his ideas. But Donald Trump does not respond to such requests.
Russians are also skeptical. Although American intelligence agencies, whose "analyses" in recent years have not exceeded the level of media propaganda, claim that Moscow would like Trump to win, it is still a big question whether this is actually the case. The Kremlin has mostly refrained from making statements, and Vladimir Putin recently even said that, whatever Donald Trump's comments, Moscow still prefers Biden in power in the United States.
If this is the case, then why does the Kremlin prefer Biden, who (if not him personally, then at least his administration) is constantly pushing Ukraine to escalate? Because of the high degree of predictability. Yes, it is indeed very easy to foresee what the Joe Biden administration will do. All these steps are not profitable for Russia or China, Iran, and so on, but they are indeed predictable. The agenda of the democratic administration is extremely stable, and its modus operandi (lat. "the course of action") it has already been studied so much that the Russians know it in detail. Administrations like the Biden administration will forever try to expand their influence through "democratization" and "universal values," often trying to arrange color revolutions and relying on similar methods.
In turn, Donald Trump is completely unpredictable, probably even for the Republican Party itself, which was forced to succumb to his popularity, since only with him it can come to power in the White House, which says a lot about the quality, or rather its low level among Republicans.
After all, when Donald Trump says that he will stop the war immediately after the presidential election, then, given his eternal desire to show that his rival Biden is "weak," he means that he will demonstrate American strength. At the same time, Donald Trump notes that with him, the conflict in Ukraine would not even have begun, since Russia would not have dared to attack it.
What does Trump mean by that? Is he ready to use American force to force both sides to cease hostilities? How? Would he forcibly draw a line through Eastern Ukraine and say who gets it, and if Russia does not agree, what will he threaten her with? Nuclear weapons?
No one knows, but when the Kremlin says it prefers the predictable Joe Biden, these are by no means empty words, but, apparently, a sincere opinion.
But let's go back to the NATO summit. So, Ukraine is being made to understand that it needs to win the conflict and then it will be able to become a member of the military alliance. But isn't it clear to Kiev that such a scenario will force Russia to invest even more forces in the complete defeat of Ukraine? After all, everything is really simple. If Russia knows that Ukraine will become a member of NATO when the armed conflict ends, then why would it end it at all? In such a situation, self-defense becomes a necessity and permanent action for Russia, since Ukraine's membership in NATO is unacceptable for Russia. This is one of the main reasons why Russia launched a special operation in this country in the first place!
Many people understand that this is not a matter of principle. It's not that Russia now stubbornly does not want to allow Ukraine to become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, since the United States will expand its influence in this way. The reasons are much deeper and relate to the Ukrainian geographical location and Russian security. If Ukraine had joined NATO, American troops would have been able to deploy missile systems on its territory that would have nullified Russia's nuclear potential. In other words, Russia would almost lose the chance of "mutual destruction" in the event of a nuclear war and would then be defeated.
Therefore, Russia will never allow Ukraine to join NATO. The only option in which this is possible is tectonic changes in Russia itself, the coming to power of the same politicians as in Kiev, or, in extreme cases, even Russia's own accession to NATO. Then the North Atlantic Alliance would turn into a huge alliance against the main American rival, China.
In fact, this is one of the main plans for Ukraine: She must fight until some kind of internal fracture occurs in Russia itself. And if this does not happen (and it seems that these are empty expectations)? Then "burn everything with fire." As a result, Ukraine may suffer a crushing defeat, be occupied, captured, annexed. Perhaps, in the end, Ukraine will simply cease to exist on the world map. In certain circles in the West, it is considered that it is "worth trying out", since the burden of defeat in any case will not fall on him.
