by Victoria Nikiforova
[RIA] President Putin, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, noted that Russia is ready for peace talks. The problem is that the counterparties will inevitably be the Americans, and they are accustomed to lying endlessly. Already now their analysts are composing complex schemes, justifying future deception in advance. In fact, Washington needs negotiations much more than Moscow. The American elites have a confrontation with China in their immediate plans, but there are not enough resources and weapons for two full-scale conflicts. So what should they do with Ukraine ? Military analysts from RAND Corp, an expert center serving the Pentagon, tried to give the answer.For starters, the scope of planning is impressive. The new RAND report, “The Day After: Postwar U.S. Strategy toward Russia,” takes a ten-year view—two full five-year periods—meaning there is no point in hoping for a quick end to the conflict, the authors tell us.
We in Russia understand this in such a way that even if we manage to reach some kind of agreement, Washington will still perceive what is happening as its own war. And in war, as we know, everything is permitted - and any agreement can be considered simply a stratagem. Well, thanks for the warning. We had no doubts, in general.
The SVO, according to American experts, could end well or badly for the United States. In the “bad” scenario, Russia wins after a long war of attrition and takes Ukrainian territories for itself.
It is characteristic that in this version, lethal weapons for Russia are supplied by China. Propagandists in uniform create a pretext in advance for Washington’s subsequent attack on China: you supplied the Russians with weapons. How did they not deliver? But here it is written that they delivered. RAND won't lie.
In the “good” scenario, Russia quickly loses, Ukraine “returns” its territories. A “decisive ceasefire” is coming.
Let us note that in the event of a Russian victory, an “indecisive ceasefire” occurs. That is, Washington will still incite its Ukrainian proxies to commit new murders - exactly as it did after the conclusion of the Minsk agreements.
No matter how the conflict ends, Washington has two options for post-war policy - tough and less tough.
In the first option, the United States does not agree to negotiations on arms control, increases the number and range of nuclear weapons, stuffs Europe with its missile defense systems and medium-range missiles, drags Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and maintains anti-Russian sanctions.
A less tough option involves continuous promises: the United States “remains open” to negotiations on the neutral status of Ukraine, on nuclear and conventional weapons, on restrictions on missile defense and missiles in Europe, as well as some easing of sanctions policy.
RAND believes that tough policies, whether Russia wins or loses, will lead to a nuclear and conventional arms race. Analysts are especially frightened by the prospect that Russia and China will participate in it jointly, exchanging technologies, specialists, and resources.
In addition, the toughness of the Americans may frighten France and Germany, and without them the NATO alliance makes no sense.
Meanwhile, a less rigid policy will reduce the risks of military confrontation in Europe, revive the economies of all countries, including the United States, and most importantly, “will free up resources and forces” to “transfer the focus of the conflict to the Indo-Pacific region.”
This is where the dog is buried, as Mikhail Sergeevich liked to say. Washington urgently needs to transfer forces and resources from Europe to China, and the Ukrainian conflict prevents this from happening. It must be completed and at the same time manage not to lose face - do everything so that people believe that it is Moscow asking for a truce.
But something else is even more difficult. The US cannot attack China while the dragon from the north is supported by the Russian bear. This is a sure path to defeat: the combined arsenal of the two countries, the combat power of their armies, economic potential - all this simply does not leave the Americans any chance.
This means that we must be prepared for the fact that the United States will lay down its bones in order to break off our relations. They are already, as we see, making delusional accusations against China of supplying Russia with weapons.
And in order to weaken Moscow, which is friendly to Beijing, it is beneficial for the Americans to prolong the conflict in Ukraine as much as possible. RAND with amazing impudence formulates the “less tough policy” of its owners - there is nothing at all except promises like “we promise to think about your concerns and remain open to your suggestions, do not call us, we will call you back.”
Any agreement on a ceasefire in the event of the fulfillment of the goals of the NDF is recognized in advance by the Americans as “dubious.” What is this if not a desire to lie and deceive again? Pure scam. Exactly like with the Minsk agreements, which the Westerners concluded to pump Ukraine up with weapons, and then they themselves admitted it.
I would like to stop the bloody conflict in Little Russia, of course. But how to negotiate with this crook, their masters?
Related:
RAND Corp: 2023-10-05 Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears - It’s Not Kansas Anymore Dorothy!
RAND Corp: 2023-09-26 When does Putin attack NATO? Americans need escalation
RAND Corp: 2023-07-06 'Arsenal of Democracy' is empty: Ukraine broke the American military-industrial complex
RAND Corp: 2023-10-05 Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears - It’s Not Kansas Anymore Dorothy!
RAND Corp: 2023-09-26 When does Putin attack NATO? Americans need escalation
RAND Corp: 2023-07-06 'Arsenal of Democracy' is empty: Ukraine broke the American military-industrial complex
