| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Three paths for the West in Ukraine: bluff, capitulation or deception |
| 2023-10-07 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Gevorg Mirzayan [REGNUM] Something went wrong in Ukraine. This thesis is now being actively discussed not only in European and American political kitchens, but also in the mainstream media. Analysts analyze the reasons for failures, count the number (as well as quality) of mistakes in Western military-political planning and try to figure out how to proceed. And here they have three options. The first is the path of escalation. Dramatically increase the volume of assistance to Ukraine, transfer qualitatively new weapons to Kiev, or even provide it with a NATO nuclear umbrella. Or demonstrate the readiness of this escalation in order to convince Moscow of the readiness of the United States and the EU to fight until victory or to the bitter end. The downside of this option is that for it to succeed, Moscow must believe in the West’s ability and willingness to engage in escalation—and there is no such trust. “US President Joe Biden a year ago threatened Russia with all sorts of consequences if it suddenly used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. In this regard, even then, American experts calculated what could happen if Russia and the United States reached the point of exchanging nuclear strikes. Some mathematicians have concluded that in a worst-case scenario, about 5 billion people on Earth would die. Nobody needs such a scenari,” explains international political scientist and expert at the Russian International Affairs Council Elena Suponina to IA Regnum . “NATO is not ready for nuclear escalation. This issue was discussed and rejected by the majority of government circles in the USA and Great Britain,” agrees the head of the Eurasian Analytical Club Nikita Mendkovich. And we are talking here not only about the lack of political will to start (or demonstrate the beginning) of a nuclear conflict, but also about a banal unpreparedness for a conventional conflict. “The Americans are behind us in a number of areas. We have two types of hypersonic weapons, and the United States cannot even complete tests. We have air defense systems that are a generation ahead of their American counterparts. Well, our ground forces have grown exponentially during the conflict,” explains Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for Military-Political Studies, to IA Regnum. And this is not to mention the volume of military production, which in Russia has grown significantly, while the Americans cannot even cover the current Ukrainian needs for ammunition. “Now the Western military-industrial complex is working at the maximum of its capabilities, and they are unable to supply the required volumes of ammunition to Ukraine. And we will inevitably talk about reducing arms supplies to Ukraine. First of all, artillery and ammunition of main calibers,” says Nikita Mendkovich. Experts agree that Moscow can easily respond to escalation with escalation. Actually, he already answers - at the Valdai Forum, Vladimir Putin did not rule out withdrawing from the nuclear test ban treaty (which the Americans never ratified), and the State Duma has already stated that they will consider this issue. And then the West’s escalation option, instead of benefits, may bring it additional image problems. “Russia will move up the escalation ladder, strengthen its policy of containment towards the United States, and demonstrate its readiness and ability to wage a nuclear war, including against Western countries. In this situation, the likelihood of a retreat without escalation by the West will increase,” Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics, tells IA Regnum . And the retreat of the West, in turn, will inspire a more active policy by its enemies - primarily in the Middle East and Asia. GROOMING THE AFGHAN WAY The second option is to slowly crawl away. Reducing the volume of financing and armament of Ukraine with the subsequent “Afghan-style withdrawal” from there. It would seem that this is the best option, which is gaining more and more supporters. “Ukraine played poorly, the counteroffensive was not successful, and few people risk betting on its mythical victories. There has been a certain disappointment in the West, which is intensified by talk that Ukraine is not a model of democracy and is generally far from it. Cases of deep corruption, including those related to Western military supplies, shock inexperienced young Western politicians, who are now beginning to define some trends towards curtailing previous large-scale assistance to Ukraine. They capture the mood of the people, tired of the worsening economic situation,” explains Elena Suponina. The tail can pinch the dog. Kyiv threatens the West with a two-step move Apparently, Vladimir Putin had these politicians in mind when, at a meeting of the Valdai Club, he spoke about the increase in the number of his friends in Germany. But they grow not only and not so much in Germany. “The option of gradually reducing assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, apparently, will prevail in the United States, where, in the context of the election race, the effectiveness of spending on Ukraine is being discussed. And these expenses against the backdrop of the failure of the counteroffensive are considered ineffective,” says Nikita Mendkovich. The problem with this option is that, firstly, it is extended over time. “The EU is in the process of realizing Ukraine's inability to win. He will be able to negotiate in a year or a year and a half, when the United States realizes this and the government there changes. In the meantime, they are coming up with ways to protect and support Ukraine: shells worth a billion euros, joining the EU by 2030, and so on. The European Union has not yet accepted the new reality, and it will need time for this,” explains Ivan Lizan, head of the SONAR-2050 analytical bureau, to IA Regnum . And the West doesn’t have much time - if Russia goes on the offensive, then the option of a smooth exit from the conflict will turn into a real escape. And even in the case of a smooth exit, it will still be perceived as an escape. Which will hit not only the authority of the United States, but also the reputation (and future career prospects) of those politicians who dragged the United States into this adventure. THE PATH OF DECEPTION The third option is to try to deceive Russia again. Using carrots, sticks or other tools, persuade Moscow to sit down at the negotiating table with the Kyiv regime. “The freezing option was actively discussed at the beginning of this year in expert circles and in the press. We were talking about the so-called. “Korean option” - freezing along the current line of contact,” says Nikita Mendkovich. Apparently, the Biden administration, not ready for either escalation or surrender, is betting on this option. However, Moscow at all levels - including the highest - has stated several times in recent days that it does not accept him. Firstly, for the reason contained in the Russian Constitution. “This scenario is not suitable for Russia, at least because, according to the new Constitution, the Russian Federation included four new regions that Moscow does not fully control ,” explains Elena Suponina. Moscow cannot even de facto agree to the continued occupation of these territories by Ukrainian troops. Secondly, due to understanding the meaning of the American game. “Russia sees in this option the West’s desire to rearm and equip the Armed Forces of Ukraine to continue the aggression. Moscow doesn’t take our word for it in peace initiatives ,” explains Nikita Mendkovich. Here it is enough to recall the words of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the West viewed the Minsk agreements not as a way to resolve the conflict, but as the same opportunity for the West to rearm and staff the Armed Forces of Ukraine to continue aggression. Thirdly, due to the understanding of the consequences of this decision for stability within Russia. “The Americans are trying to force us to stop and sit down at the negotiating table not only in order to rearm Ukraine and complete their own presidential campaign, but also in order to provoke an internal political crisis in Russia. None of us wants to get a second Khasavyurt. We are not ready for this - and our political leadership speaks about this openly. He articulates to everyone that this will not happen,” says Andrei Klintsevich. Finally, fourthly, because freezing does not solve the problem. “As the president rightly said, this is not a territorial conflict. Russia will not be satisfied with de facto control over new territories without resolving political and security issues. And for this we need to put an end to the use of Ukraine by the West as a tool against Russia,” explains Dmitry Suslov. “And this can be done either through a political agreement, when we agree on Ukraine being in the gray zone and its demilitarization, or through the continuation of a special operation. Until such time as Ukraine ceases to exist as a single integral political organism, a viable state entity that can be used in anti-Russian politics.” “And since the West will not agree to a political agreement with Russia, Moscow is left with the second option. To make Ukraine reach a state of complete collapse and decomposition, when neither it itself nor even the West will be able to use it against Russia,” continues Dmitry Suslov. And this, in general, is the only option that Moscow now agrees to. “Russia does not need a freeze, but, sooner or later, a transition from defense to offense in order to then dictate its terms,” says Elena Suponina. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #3 The same three paths also apply to Russia. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2023-10-07 08:37 |
| #2 p.s. EUrope is getting tired of Ukrainian refugees? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-10-07 02:49 |
| #1 The path of deception Peace in Ukraine & wall on the border? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-10-07 02:39 |