The Bright Miracle of Humanity's Survival in the Nuclear Age
Can the world fall into a big war? The question is asked by the authors of an article in the leading American journal Foreign Affairs, which is read by politicians and experts in the field of international politics. For the elites of the "golden billion" countries, this prestigious platform serves as a kind of "political beacon" in the foggy waters of American politics in its most expensive directions.
Some authors are known as connoisseurs of Russia, which is especially "expensive" for the American taxpayer over the past seven decades. Others claim to know China, a major U.S. competitor. Everyone tends to be convinced that they definitely know what America needs. High-ranking practitioners also write for the publication. For example, Viktoriya Nuland before she was appointed to lead the Russian direction in the US State Department. The Moscow Post correspondent understood the situation.
There are no simple answers, questions remain
Actually, the authors of this latest article in the most recent issue of the July 19 edition analyze the consequences of the events on the Maidan, in which Nuland took the most lively part with a conditional "basket of cookies" and promising Ukraine a "jar of jam" in the near future. The coup was committed, the future has come, the "jam" was replaced by supplies of HIMARS MLRS and other types of weapons!
Here are two authors, Liana Fix and Michael Kimmedge, interested: "What happens if the conflict in Ukraine gets out of control and how to prepare for an unintentional escalation." The question is not idle, it worries many in Russia. This aroused interest in how American specialists respond to it. This couple, in the recent past associated with the Marshall Fund in the United States, closely monitors the progress of the special military operation of the armed forces of Russia, DPR and LPR.
Recall that the question whether the United States and Russia can fall into a big war was asked in the July issue of Foreign Affairs. And in early June, the same authors, on the pages of the same publication, asked, "What if Ukraine wins?" In April, they were interested: "What if the war in Ukraine does not end?" Well, it is clear that in March they prepared even two materials, also with questions. The first, at the very beginning of the SVO - "What will happen if Russia is defeated?" The second was published towards the end of March. The article was headlined "If Moscow decides to make a deal."
There are no simple answers, "Fix and Kimmedge conclude in the most recent work. But questions remain, I would like to add to this. Questions, as you can see, are asked by the authors themselves. One of them concerns the escalation of the conflict between Russia and the West, while on the territory of Ukraine, but already without an independent LPR and a half-liberated territory of an independent DPR, as well as without Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Next in line is the Kharkov region.
The newly formed Nikolaev-Odessa brigade and the allied troops of Russia and the LPR will soon begin to liberate Odessa and Nikolaev. This, according to the publication URA.RU, said a representative of the brigade. "In the near future, together with the allied forces, we will begin to liberate the city of Nikolaev and the hero city of Odessa," the Reedus fighter quotes. The representative of the brigade noted that mainly citizens of Ukraine from different regions are fighting in the formation.
What does this say and that American strategists are not able to understand, or are not ready to accept? The society of the de facto former Ukrainian state has long been split. A significant part of it, not only the people of Donbass, do not want to live under the rule of the Nazi junta. Ready for this to take up arms, go into battle. But, unlike American mercenaries in Donbass, they want to live on their land, where their ancestors are buried and where, due to the actions of the Kyiv authorities, very fresh graves of their relatives and fellow countrymen appeared.
How can things get out of hand?
But for US President Joe Biden, there is one Ukraine and it should all be under the rule of Kyiv. What the authors are sure of is that: "Biden wants Ukraine to win on its own terms and on its territory. He certainly does not want the conflict to turn into a regional confrontation, and even wrote an article about it in the New York Times to convey his intentions to Moscow. "
There are no simple answers, they state, but argue that "Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden do not want a full-scale conflict," that "invisible rules work, which proves unwillingness... get involved in a larger war. " No one argues with the first part of this statement, there are problems with the second.
Rather, there is no certainty that Washington is ready to "live in a new way," accepting the realities of multipolarity, is able to give free rein to its European satellites to think with their heads, and to the inhabitants of Ukraine to leave the right to decide how to live. Obviously, these wishes do not fit into Washington's current priorities.
Then it remains at least to agree that, according to the authors, "by its manner of warfare," Russia somehow demonstrates that Moscow and Washington do not intend to cross the "red lines," that "both sides agreed on a set of rules - unspoken, but quite effective." Maybe this is so, but it is difficult to say this about Washington's visible "manners."
Perhaps the authors know what they are writing about. The only problem is that they state: "The negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv broke down, and, despite all efforts to reduce the escalation, since February 24, there have been no diplomatic contacts between the United States and Russia." Not a word about the attitude towards negotiations, for example, in Istanbul.
So it turns out that they do not meet the ends. And specifically, it was US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who avoided meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov when such an opportunity presented itself in Indonesia. The conditional Atlantic solidarity for Blinken was more important than contacts, comparable in importance to those that Washington and Moscow had during the Cuban crisis. This, firstly.
Is Starlink a "red line"?
Secondly, about the "red lines." This is Elon Musk's Starlink system provides a communication line for the APU. This was announced on July 20 at a security forum in Aspen by the head of the space operations department, General John Raymond. Satellite communication provides the quality of target designation, GPS guidance, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Musk announced that Starlink is operating in Ukraine at the end of February. Satellites providing 5G communication are being tested by the United States amid hostilities involving shelling of Russian cities and death, destruction of infrastructure.
Can this be considered a sign that the situation is already somehow out of control?
The actual involvement of the commercial system in hostilities is definitely a sign that the state of affairs is not controlled by the US government. Unless we assume that the experience of private military companies (PMCs) is now extended to a new area where civilian communications are used in hostilities.
That's all out of the control of official helmsmen in Washington. What to do that would not go awry, and on a strategic scale? This is what worries the authors of the article. "What could jeopardize the unspoken rules that the United States and Russia [allegedly, as the authors believe] agreed on? The first option is pure chance. The second is a cycle of events that will "require" escalation. "
The answer is simple - stay within the "red lines" and do not dissolve the nasty, but irresponsible allies, especially the militants of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, if you can.
On a leash, in a strict collar
"The conflict can spiral out of control even if neither side makes a conscious decision about escalating or using nuclear weapons," the authors rightly noted. And they add: "accidental escalation, in fact, can be even worse than intentional." How to avoid this?
In addition to the main, official "warmongers," as they were once called in the Soviet press, Washington has new, especially relatable and unpredictable, badass allies. The collective "jackal of Tabaki," as Vladimir Putin once called them. Almost like the current Kyiv government, and all on the borders of Russia.
Lithuania even managed to "grow" into the historical Russian space. Grew up, blocked transit and shit at every opportunity, despite the agreements between Russia and the European Union. Vilnius does this proactively, at the behest of London, Brussels or Langley, it does not matter. But such behavior can unleash a conflict on the territory of NATO responsibility. Moscow's response may be harsh, tougher than China's response to Lithuania's recognition of Taiwan. Beijing then simply erased Lithuania as a point on the economic map of the world.
In second place, if we talk about the freshness of Russophobic "uncleanness" and provocations, is Poland. In terms of the number of verbal bowel movements in Europe, Warsaw is not equal. And on the Polish pathogenic impact on the policy of the European Union too. Current and promising arms supplies to Kyiv in Poland and with its participation stand apart.
What is new is that, according to the Polish Foreign Intelligence Agency (AW), the Ukrainian leadership expects the entry of airborne and assault brigades of the Polish army into the western regions of the country. This, as the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine expects, will free up combat-ready units and formations of the Ukrainian army for the eastern front.
The Polish leadership is working on various plans to divide Ukraine, said Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, on June 30. Warsaw plans to deploy its "peacekeeping contingent" in western Ukraine. In addition, it is possible to create a proxy state on the Eastern Crosses, controlled by Poland, which will be "protected" by the Polish armed forces.
Waiting for the defeat of Moscow
You won't wait, but where do such expectations come from? It can be assumed that Washington treats the SVO as "its war." Uses the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a gigantic and relatively affordable PMC. Supplies Kyiv with its weapons, provides reconnaissance and accuracy of strikes with the help of its satellites. Instructors, mercenaries and allies in the NATO bloc are all their own, too.
All of its own, including the main strategic task, is to at least weaken and isolate Russia, without including forces with US army insignia in the conflict. Liana Fix and Michael Kimmedge note that the "prohibited list" includes two points - "direct military clashes and the use of nuclear weapons." That's the difference!
The Ukrainian conflict is at risk of chance. According to the authors, "Moscow... does not target convoys with weapons going to Ukraine until they leave NATO territory, "which they assess positively. But there is no certainty about the immutability of this line.
Under the collective pressure of the West, it is not difficult to allow, as the authors do, an escalation of the conflict beyond conventional weapons. Washington, "anticipating Russian defeat" at levels ranging from the media to the White House to the Pentagon, is automatically turning itself and its most relatable NATO allies, including London and Warsaw, into priority targets. So far, conditional, but psychologically justified retaliation.
Therefore, complaints about "Russian propaganda," which "advocates an attack on Berlin and nuclear attacks on London" make no sense. It won't help! If you want to "wait for Putin's defeat," expect an answer. As the authors themselves say, "given the capabilities of Russia and the ambiguity of Moscow's nuclear doctrine."
And the collective West, above all the White House, will have to learn to live with it. The Cuban crisis lasted 13 days, the authors conclude. In their opinion, "channels for resolving conflict situations that served both sides in Syria well... will continue to work in Ukraine, "they hope.
And "optimistically" they add that "the crisis caused by the Ukrainian conflict will last for a very long time." It already lasts, and for a long time, many will say. And the wheat is ripe, and the corn crop requires it to be harvested. And the authors prepared five articles for the elite publication Foreign Affairs. These are, in particular, their words, taken from the article: "The bright miracle of the survival of mankind in the nuclear era." It's hard to disagree, especially when the United States of America is your main opponent.
Photo: RIA Novosti