/ world today news/ The USA is not ready for a long war with Russia and no longer hopes for victory. US strategists publish reports on how to make peace with the Russians. Joe Biden, when he talks about a “counter-offensive” and “depleting Russia”, is simply covering up America’s real plans.
How Biden promised to defeat Russia
The NATO Summit in Vilnius ended on a “high note” by the “High Contracting Parties”, as they say. True, Ukraine was not accepted and military aid was not doubled, but they promised to defeat Russia. US President Joe Biden, as the top military bloc leader, was the most optimistic. He said (quoting TASS) that “Ukraine will be able to make significant progress in the course of the counteroffensive” and emphasized:
„War can last years for two reasons. First, I don’t think Russia can fight forever in terms of its resources and capabilities. Second, I think there will be circumstances in which eventually President Putin will decide that continuing this war is not in Russia’s interest.
In other words, Biden reaffirmed his determination to fight Russia to the point of exhaustion, to the last Ukrainian, and to the last cluster munition. True, the strategic defeat of Russia and the “victory on the battlefield”, as a year ago, are no longer discussed. Instead, in the words of the US president, it arose “negotiated settlement of the conflict”.
Of course, Russia’s consistent enemies didn’t hear that in Biden’s speech. Through the mouth of the anti-Russian political emigration, they push into the information space the idea of NATO’s readiness for war to the end.
Alexander Morozov, one of the main Vlasov political scientists in this information war, announced a “breakthrough” at the end of the meeting. According to him, there has been an institutionalization of support for Ukraine. If earlier this support was “a matter of goodwill of 50 countries’ now it’s about formal agreements and guarantees at the NATO and G-7 level.
Western propaganda needs this “narrative” for Ukrainians and for its own citizens: to prevent any talk that NATO does not want to go to war and is “dropping the war” by preparing to agree to Russian peace terms.
How analysts of the war with Russia advise to be afraid
Once we move from the level of propaganda to the level of expert analysis, everything changes. Here, for example, is the report by the RAND Corp, one of America’s main think tanks. Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe in Avoiding a Long Military Confrontation: US Policy and the Trajectory of the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict offer scenarios of war and transition to peace. According to them, there are several trajectories for the development of the confrontation:
-
the use of nuclear weapons by Russia;
-
escalation of the conflict, in which NATO will enter into a direct confrontation with Moscow;
-
control over the territory;
-
duration;
-
ways to end the conflict.
The first two scenarios threaten vital US interests, RAND analysts say. These scenarios should be avoided at all costs.
The main think tank of the United States calls for excluding not only the possibility of nuclear war, but also the possibility of a conventional war with Russia involving the armies of NATO. This is unacceptable to the US. And for Russia – here’s what, according to analysts:
-
for Moscow this conflict is a matter of life and death;
-
if the Kremlin fails to achieve its objectives on the battlefield, it may decide to resort to the use of nuclear weapons;
-
Russian generals welcome the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons.
That is, Russians are not afraid of wars, but Americans are afraid and do not want. What then is acceptable to them? The report’s authors suggest a combination of a ceasefire and a political settlement as the best option. Such that it is possible to achieve a ceasefire and to resolve certain political issues in order to “reduced the willingness of parties to engage in active hostilities.”
Once again, because this is very important. The United States came to the NATO summit armed with a strategy that does not involve expanding intervention in the war, is not an attempt to defeat Russia, but rather an attempt to negotiate with the Russians and crawl out of the dangerous line beyond which it really stands the great war.
This RAND report is by no means the only one of its kind, and it won’t even be the last. Already in the process of direct preparation for the NATO summit, another document was issued: “Future US Peacetime Policy Towards Russia”.
This report no longer speaks of victory over Russia. Instead, it says, in the long run, the US will have incentives to reduce the risks and costs of relations with Russia in order to focus on other issues, such as China. In the future, therefore, US policymakers may want to reconsider the possibility of a limited, less harsh approach to Russia.
The authors of the report cite historical examples of agreements with Russia that allowed a fatal confrontation to be avoided. According to them, America today should follow the example of the negotiations between Britain and Russia over Central Asia in 1899-1914. Or with the US-Soviet peace negotiations after World War II in 1945-1946, as well as the US-Soviet detente in 1969 – 1975
In other words, the US should try to negotiate with Russia about dividing the world as an equal great power. An excellent position for a country whose official representatives until recently reported that Russia was “the gas station country and that its economy is “torn to rags.” And great news for Bandera people who are still raving about victories and destruction of Russian cities, right?
What of it
The Americans spread the straw straight into piles,
– this is how a source of information close to the administration of the President of Russia commented on the situation to the Tsargrad observer. He explained that the goal of the public policy of the ruling Democratic Party of the USA, according to him, in the near future will be to explain to its voters (and at the same time to the citizens of all the countries of the “Seven” and NATO) why it was not possible to Russia was defeated, and instead it had to be negotiated with her, moreover, on the terms of keeping new territories for her.
A very important caveat must be made here. As far as we can tell, the enemy is really not ready to expand the theater of operations and increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine. And he really wants to freeze the conflict. In Russia, including those in power, there are quite a large number of people, including those with serious influence, who are ready to negotiate a cease-fire with the US and even with Zelensky.
The problem is that what NATO considers useful for itself is unlikely to be useful for Russia. A “ceasefire” will mean keeping Ukraine as a formally independent state and as a bridgehead on which the enemy will build up forces for a new war. If we want lasting peace, we must fight until complete victory and liquidation of the state of Ukraine.
Translation: ES
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
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!?
#Top #analysts #report #Biden #NATO #discusses #war #Russia
