/Pogled.info/ Something went wrong in Ukraine. Today, this thesis is actively discussed not only in European and American political kitchens, but also in the mass media.
Analysts analyze the reasons for the failures, calculate the number (as well as the quality) of the errors in Western military-political planning and try to understand how to proceed. And here they have three options.
The bluff will not aboutworks
The first is the escalation path. To drastically increase the volume of aid to Ukraine, to transfer qualitatively new weapons to Kiev, or even to provide it with the nuclear umbrella of NATO. Or to demonstrate readiness for escalation to convince Moscow of the readiness of the US and the EU to fight until victory or the bitter end.
The downside to this option is that, in order to succeed, Moscow needs to trust the West’s ability and willingness to engage in escalation – and it doesn’t have that trust.
“A year ago, US President Joe Biden threatened Russia with all kinds of consequences if it suddenly used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. In this regard, even then, American experts calculated what could happen if Russia and the United States were to exchange nuclear strikes. Some mathematicians have come to the conclusion that in the worst case scenario, about 5 billion people on Earth will die. Nobody needs such a scenario,” explains political scientist Elena Suponina.
“NATO is not ready for nuclear escalation. This issue was discussed and rejected by the majority of power circles in the USA and Great Britain,” agrees Nikita Mendkovich, head of the Eurasian Analytical Club.
And here we are talking not only about the lack of political will to start (or demonstrate the start 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 US can’t even finish testing. We have air defense systems that are a generation ahead of the American ones. Well, our ground forces grew exponentially during the conflict,” explains Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for Military-Political Studies.
And this is not to mention the volume of military production, which in Russia has grown significantly, until the Americans cannot cover even Ukraine’s current ammunition needs. “Now the Western military-industrial complex is working at its maximum capacity and is unable to supply the necessary quantities of ammunition to Ukraine. And we will inevitably talk about reducing arms supplies to Ukraine. First of all, artillery and ammunition of major calibers,” says Nikita Mendkovich.
Experts agree that Moscow can easily respond to escalation with escalation. In fact, it 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 it will consider this issue.
And then the escalation option for the West, instead of benefits, may bring it additional image problems.
“Russia will move up the ladder of escalation, strengthen its policy of containment vis-à-vis the US and demonstrate its readiness and ability to wage nuclear war, including against Western countries.” In this situation, the probability of a retreat without escalation on the part of the West will increase,” says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher Institute of Higher Education. And the retreat of the West, in turn, will inspire its enemies to a more active policy – above all in the Middle East and Asia.
Withdrawal under afganistanskand
The second option is to slowly creep out by reducing the volume of financing and arming Ukraine with a subsequent “Afghan-style withdrawal” from there.
It seems that this is the best option that is gaining more and more supporters. “Ukraine played poorly, the counter-offensive was not successful, and few people risk betting on its mythical victories. There is some disillusionment in the West, fueled by talk that Ukraine is not a model democracy and is generally far from it.
Cases of deep corruption, including those related to Western military supplies, have shocked inexperienced young Western politicians, who are now beginning to identify some trends toward curbing previously large-scale aid to Ukraine. They capture the mood of the people, tired of the worsening economic situation”, explains Elena Suponina.
Apparently, Vladimir Putin had these politicians in mind when he spoke at a meeting of the Valdai club about increasing the number of his friends in Germany.
But they grow not only and not so much in Germany. “The option of a gradual reduction of aid to the ASU will obviously prevail in the US, where the effectiveness of spending on Ukraine is being discussed in the context of the election race. And these expenses, against the background of the failure of the counteroffensive, are considered ineffective,” says Nikita Mendkovic.
The problem with this option is that it extends over time first. “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 US understands this and the government there has changed. Meanwhile, they are coming up with ways to protect and support Ukraine: billion euro shells, joining the EU by 2030, etc. The European Union has not yet accepted the new reality and it will take time to do so,” explains Ivan Lizan, head of the SONAR-2050 analytical bureau.
And the West does not have much time – if Russia goes on the offensive, then the option for a smooth exit from the conflict will turn into a real escape. And even in the case of a smooth exit, it will again be perceived as an escape. Which will hit not only the authority of the United States, but also the reputations (and future career prospects) of those politicians who dragged the United States into this adventure
The way of deception
The third option is to try to lie to Russia again. Using carrots, sticks or other tools, to convince Moscow to sit down at the negotiating table with the regime in Kiev. “The freezing option was actively discussed at the beginning of this year in expert circles and in the press. It was about the so-called “Korean option” — freezing along the current line of contact,” says Nikita Mendkovic.
Apparently, the Biden administration, which is neither ready for escalation nor capitulation, is banking on this option. However, Moscow at all levels – including the highest – has repeatedly stated in recent days that it does not accept it.
First, for the reason contained in the Russian constitution. “This scenario does not suit Russia, not least because according to the constitution, the Russian Federation includes 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.
Second, because of understanding the meaning of the American game. “Russia sees in this option the desire of the West to rearm and equip the Ukrainian Armed Forces for the continuation of aggression. Moscow doesn’t believe a word about the peace initiatives,” explains Nikita Mendkovic.
Here it is enough to recall the words of the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the West sees the Minsk agreements not as a way to resolve the conflict, but as the same opportunity for the West to rearm and equip the Armed Forces to continue the aggression.
Third, because of the understanding of the implications of this decision for stability in Russia. “The Americans are trying to force us to stop and sit at the negotiating table not only to rearm Ukraine and end their own presidential campaign, but also to provoke an internal political crisis in Russia. None of us want to get a second Khasavyurt. We are not ready for this – and our political leadership is talking about it openly. It makes it clear to everyone that this will not happen,” says Andrei Klintsevich.
And finally, fourth, because freezing does not solve the problem. “As the president rightly said, this is not a territorial conflict. Russia will not settle for de facto control of new territories without solving political and security issues. And for that, 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 to Ukraine being in the gray zone and its demilitarization, or through the continuation of the special operation. Until Ukraine ceases to exist as a single integral political organism, a viable state unit that can be used in anti-Russian politics.
“And since the West will not agree to a political settlement with Russia, Moscow is left with the second option. To bring Ukraine to a state of complete disintegration and decay, when neither it 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 attack, so that it can then dictate its terms,” says Elena Suponina.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our new Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@aktualenpogled/videos
Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@user-xp6re1cq8h
and for our Telegram channel: https://t.me/pogled
Log in directly to the site https://www.pogled.info.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
Become a friend of Look.info on facebook and recommend to your friends
2023-10-08 17:55:24
#ways #West #Ukraine #bluff #capitulation #deception
