How a big lie could lead to the biggest war — RT World News

The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – which serves (while being destroyed) as a proxy for the West – and Russia can be drawn in three broad lines.

First, it is clear that Russia now has the upper hand on the battlefield and can accelerate its recent advance to achieve a comprehensive military victory soon. The West is forced to acknowledge this fact: as Foreign affairs Put it in an article titled “Time is running out in Ukraine” Kyiv and its Western supporters “They are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances be halted, and then reversed?” Just ignore the little wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point here is to acknowledge that this is a difficult time for the West and Ukraine – but in a bad way.

Secondly, despite the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to demand negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which will not be easy for Kiev. (Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a recent interview, stressed that Moscow remains open mainly to talks, and not on the basis of… “Wise thinking” But instead, based on the facts “On the ground.”)

It is not surprising that the Kiev system is inflexible. Since abandoning an almost complete — and favorable — peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has staked everything on achieving an always improbable victory. For him personally, and his core team (at least), there is no way to escape – politically or financially – from the catastrophic defeat they have brought upon their country by leasing it as a pawn of the neoconservative strategy in Washington.

The Pope, although false sensation What he raised in Kiev and the West was right: the responsible Ukrainian leadership must negotiate. But this is not the leadership that Ukraine has. Not yet at least.

Third, the West's strategy has become more difficult to decipher, because the West, in essence, cannot figure out how to adapt to the failure of its initial plans to deal with this war. Russia was not isolated; Its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.

Last but not least, the popular legitimacy enjoyed by the Russian political system and its effective control have neither collapsed nor eroded. And as you acknowledge, again, even the State Department, “Putin is likely to win a fair election in 2024.“ This is more than can be said about, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Schulz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he simply annulled the election).

In other words, the West faces not only Ukraine's potential defeat, but also its own strategic failure. situation, while no direct Military defeat (as happened in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.

In fact, this looming Western failure represents a historical catastrophe in the making. Unlike in Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the chaos it has created in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical reactions will be violent and their costs will be very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weak.

It's something we finally have to be forced to accept, deceptively “unipolar” The '90s moment is long over. It would be much worse to unjustifiably enter a new multipolar order with a stunning and avoidable retreat from oneself. However, this is what the EU, NATO and the West have managed to create through their needless overextension in Ukraine. Arrogance abounded, and now the downfall was only a matter of time – and not much time until then.

Regarding the European Union and Europe in particular, French President Emmanuel Macron is half right about one thing. Russia's victory “It would reduce Europe's credibility to zero“. Except, of course, that a mind with greater Cartesian precision would have discovered that Moscow's victory would be merely the final stage in a longer process.

The deeper reasons why the EU, NATO and Europe are losing their global standing are threefold. First, its reckless decision to seek confrontation rather than the clearly possible compromise and cooperation with Russia (precisely why is it impossible to coexist with a neutral Ukraine again?). Second, the US strategy of systematically reducing the EU/NATO and Europe through a short-term strategy. A deliberate policy of late imperial customer cannibalism that takes the form of aggressive deindustrialization and “Europeanization” From the war in Ukraine. And third, the strange acquiescence of European agents to the above.

This is the background to the recent wave of confusing signals coming from Western elites, especially in the European Union and NATO: First, we have had a wave of Scare propaganda To accompany NATO's largest exercises since the end of the Cold War. the next Macron announced publicly He continued to reiterate that the deployment of Western ground forces in Ukraine – not secretly, but clearly, as is the case now – is a possible option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to do so “Cowards” By this he means they must be prepared to do his bidding and fight Russia, including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Not to mention that the latter is not an official member of NATO or the European Union, as well as being a very corrupt country and not a democracy.

In response, a difference has surfaced within the EU and NATO in Europe: the German government has been more vocal in opposing Macron. no Only Chancellor Schulz rushed in To distance himself. Obviously an angry Boris Pistorius – Berlin's hapless Defense Minister, who has recently been tripped up by his generals' massive negligence regarding… Taurus missiles – He complained that there was no need to “Talk about having boots on the ground or having more courage or having less courage.” And perhaps most surprisingly, PolandThe Czech Republic as well as NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg (i.e. the United States) were quick to do so state In fact, they are not ready to support Macron's initiative. Incidentally, French public opinion shows no enthusiasm for Napoleon's escalation either. A poll conducted by Le Figaro newspaper showed that 68% opposed openly sending ground forces to Ukraine.

On the other hand, Macron found some support. He is not completely isolated, which helps explain why he stands his ground: Zelensky plays no role in this regard. His bias is clear, and despite his usual delusions, he does not make decisions on the matter. Unfortunately, although the Baltic states are small militarily, they are in a position to exercise some influence within the European Union and NATO. It is true that they stood by the French president Estonia and Lithuania take the lead.

It remains impossible to be sure what we are looking at. To get rid of the most far-fetched hypothesis first: Is this an orchestrated hoax with a twist? Is it an elaborate Western attempt to play good cop and bad cop against Russia, with Macron issuing threats and others suggesting Moscow might find it less extreme, at a diplomatic price of course? barely. On the one hand, such a scheme would be so reckless that even the present-day West is unlikely to attempt it. No, the rift opening in Western unity is real.

As for Macron himself, his style is one of over-the-top cunning that is counterproductive. We can't know exactly what he's trying to do; He may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president is now a hard-line escalator bent on expanding the war into an open conflict between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler engaging in a trick to achieve three ends. Intimidate Moscow into refraining from strengthening its military superiority in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); Register my people “greatness” local points in France (which are already failing); And increasing its weight within the European Union/NATO and Europe by a percentage “merely” The situation, again, is new “Churchill” – which Macron himself was keen to point out in all his humility. (Some of his admirers, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill's live-action portrayals, have made that stark, if outdated, comparison.)

Although we cannot solve the mystery of the volatile Sphinx at the Elysee, or the murky dealings between European elites and NATO, we must say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is very dangerous. Russia will treat EU and NATO forces in Ukraine as targets – and it will matter to no one if these forces show up “NATO” Or under national flags “Just.” Russia also stressed that it considers its vital interests to have been affected in Ukraine, and that if its leadership sees a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning couldn't be clearer.

Second, this is the fundamental Western problem that has now – no doubt because Russia won the war – become acute: Western elites are divided between: “Pragmatists” And “Extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they are ashamed to fight World War III. However, these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-line escalators and control at least the high-stakes gamblers, face a crippling contradiction in their orientation. king Position and messages: Even now, they still share the same delusional narrative with extremists. Both groups continue to assert that Russia plans to attack every EU, NATO and European country once Ukraine is defeated, and therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is vital, literally (or in Macron's somewhat Sartrean terminology). “My existence“) to the west.

This story is ridiculous. The reality is in exactly the opposite direction: the most certain way to go to war with Russia is to openly send troops into Ukraine. The existential matter for the EU, NATO and Europe is to finally free itself from America “Leadership.” During the Cold War, it could be demonstrated that (then Western) Europe needed the United States. But after the Cold War, this is no longer the case. In response, Washington implemented a consistent, multi-departmental, bipartisan, if often blunt, strategy to avert what should have been inevitable: liberating Europe from American hegemony.

NATO's eastward expansion, which was programmed – and expected – to bring about full-scale conflict with Russia, and the current proxy war in Ukraine, which Washington has stubbornly provoked for decades, are part of this strategy – to quote a famous NATO saying. Atlantic “Keep Europe down.” The European elites played as if there would be no tomorrow, which for them there may not be.

We are now at a potential breaking point, a crisis with a long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in the EU, NATO and Europe really want to contain the extremists, who are manipulating an open war between Russia and NATO that would at least destroy Europe, they must now get rid of the extremists and, finally, abandon common ideological bent and narrative. Completely unrealistic about the existential threat from Moscow.

As long as pragmatists dare not challenge escalationists about how to fundamentally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: their policies are foolish, unnecessary, and extremely dangerous. However, it stems from what the West has led itself to believe. It's time to break the spell of self-hypnosis and face the facts.