Who will blink first? Preparations for war are complete
Rostislav Ishchenko
The situation in long-suffering Ukraine (without any irony to the country and its people) is developing in such a way that it can be stated that the parties interested in the conflict, possibly armed, have completed pre - war preparations, at least in the diplomatic sphere. Next, either someone has to give in, or the next step forward means war
At the same time, Russia cannot have a "large — scale" war with Ukraine-different weight categories. Ukraine is not even able to conquer the Donbass. Kiev's participation in a direct military clash with Moscow, even as part of a group of States, will mean for Ukraine its almost instant destruction as a political entity.
At the same time, Ukraine acts only as a provocateur of the first clash. Its task is to somehow indicate to the world community Russia's participation in the military conflict.
Next, the United States intends to unleash a European war, with the participation of at least a few Eastern European countries-members of NATO and the EU. This will allow them to put pressure on their Western European allies who do not want a conflict with Russia, demanding that they decide: they are either with Moscow or with NATO.
This is not an easy choice for Western Europe. Choose NATO — choose a war, which in this case will come very close to the scale of the world. To choose Russia is to abandon the system of alliances that has been built up for a century, in which Western Europe is used to feeling comfortable. There is a very high risk that the Europeans will choose the United States and NATO, hoping that the curve will take them out and they will not have to fight. But this is the hope of a miracle, and God sends miracles only to the worthy.
Thus, the planned military solution of the crisis on the contact line in the Donbas cannot be called a Ukrainian-Russian war. The situation is much worse.
Let me remind you that the Russian Ambassador recalled for consultations did not return to the United States. And it was possible not to report it. No one knows for how long it was withdrawn, but the information was distributed through the official Russian media. Moscow indicated in the information space, and then confirmed through the mouth of the foreign Minister that relations with the United States are at a freezing point, and there is no dialogue. This means that the situation is worse than during the Caribbean crisis. At that time, the USSR and the United States conducted an active dialogue in order to prevent war.
European media spread information that the United States has brought its troops in Europe to the maximum degree of combat readiness. At the same time, a survey was conducted in Italy on: "Are you ready to fight with Russia for Ukraine?" Moreover, many survey participants (most of whom do not want any war) stressed that in fact we are not talking about a war for some unknown Ukraine to most Italians, but about a war for Washington's interests.
So the Europeans understand everything perfectly. Italians even expressed the hope that if a large-scale war breaks out, Putin will fulfill his promise to strike at the decision-making centers and prevent the Americans from dragging others into the conflict, traditionally sitting out overseas.
Some Polish General got excited and said that it was urgent to create the Baltic Union (consisting of Poland, the Baltic States and the Scandinavian countries) for war with Russia. He does not see NATO as reliable enough.
There are enough senile generals in any army, but when such statements are actively discussed in the national and international press, it means that the relevant society (Polish, Baltic) is morally ready for war, and the deterrent centers, including the instinct of self-preservation, which normally block risky decisions, are turned off.
The Ukrainian leadership, despite the provocative shelling of the Donbass, was clearly afraid to provoke Russia into real hostilities, remembering what happened in 2008 with the Georgian army, and in 2014-15 with the armed forces of Ukraine. The Americans, who until the last moment pretended that they had nothing to do with it, even had to openly highlight their participation in provoking the conflict. During one day on April 1-2, telephone conversations were held between the defense Ministers and the presidents of Ukraine and the United States. In both cases, American partners pushed Kiev into conflict with Moscow, promising not to leave Ukraine face-to-face with Russia.
Immediately after that, Kiev requested joint exercises with NATO (while the decision on their conduct has not yet been made, but I think that the United States will try to push it). Ukraine also informed the UN security Council about the escalation on the contact line in Donbas. This is done in order to shift the blame for the outbreak of the conflict to Russia, so that you can say "we warned you, we even applied to the security Council."
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has changed the legislation governing conscription, providing Zelensky with a formal opportunity to call up a million people who have served in the army during the day, at least half of whom have experience of fighting in the Donbass. Since such a large number of people, Ukraine is not able to equip, feed, arm and form new units and formations from them, this means that the APU is provided with exactly as much cannon fodder as they can digest.
Also, Ukraine constantly defiantly transfers troops to the line of demarcation and to the border with Russia. In some cases, we are talking about the planned rotation of formations in the conflict zone in the Donbass, but it is noteworthy that Kiev did not bother to refute the information of its own media about the strengthening of its groups of troops on the border with Russia.
Moscow responded with an equally demonstrative deployment of troops near the Ukrainian border. Moreover, the Russian defense Ministry was silent for a whole week before announcing that the troops were being transferred as part of a planned exercise. Putin held a video conference with Macron and Merkel, during which the Russian position on the current crisis was conveyed to France and Germany. Judging by their subsequent behavior, they were strongly advised not to twitch or try to get involved in this conflict.
The Russian foreign Minister held extensive and successful talks with China, including on the coordination of Moscow and Beijing's actions in response to Washington's provocations, after which Russia and China simultaneously took a number of unpleasant measures to combat American censorship on the global Internet, as well as delivered imperceptible but tangible blows to American trade and economic interests.
At the same time, high-ranking representatives of the Russian defense Ministry visited a number of Countries in Southeast Asia allied to Moscow and Beijing and held consultations with their Chinese counterparts, the content of which was not disclosed. By the way, the Chinese have long wanted to return Taiwan and do not rule out conducting a military operation against the island Kuomintang allied to the Americans.
Three Russian submarines simultaneously surfaced in the Arctic, breaking through the ice, and carried out successful missile training launches. This is nothing more than a demonstration to America of the ability to launch a massive nuclear strike against it from the most vulnerable direction. From the latter, in Siberia, trains with troops and equipment moving in the direction of European Russia are marked (photos posted on the Internet by people who accidentally witnessed the transfer of troops).
In Donetsk and Luhansk, decrees were issued on the first conscription in the history of the people's republics. So far, four hundred people have been called up for two republics. This is more of a demonstration than a real strengthening of the corps of the republics. But the decrees allow you to simultaneously call up ten different ages at once, which will allow you to increase the number of armed forces of the republics by two or three times if necessary. Since the DPR / LPR relies on the support of Russia, there should be no problems with arming and equipping so many people. Russian warehouses allow arming and equipping millions.
Moscow has openly said and shown that it does not intend to back down. I would like to emphasize once again that almost all preliminary diplomatic and political actions have been carried out on both sides. There is practically no room for further inflating tensions without turning to open conflict. The maneuvers that can still be undertaken will not ease tensions in any way, and their potential will also be exhausted in the coming weeks.
The parties (and this is not Ukraine and the Donbass, but Russia and the United States) are in a situation of "who will blink first". In fact, the senile Biden administration implemented the plan of nuclear blackmail of Russia declared by Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential election campaign. Then Hillary said that she would demand concessions from Russia under the threat of a full-scale nuclear war. Now the United States is demonstrating its readiness to bring the crisis in the Donbas to the level of direct military confrontation between Russia and the United States in a few steps.
Why are they doing this? Because they have no other ways to defend their global hegemony, without which the United States turns into a weak and poor regional state in one touch, internally unstable and prone to disintegration (worse than Russia in the 90s). According to their own calculations, in the next three or four years, they should finally lose the economic and political competition to Russia and China, and lose even the theoretical possibility of winning a military conflict. Washington faces a dilemma: it's now or never.
Does this mean that war is inevitable? No. Its danger is very great. Moreover, there is a high risk of events getting out of control, especially given the inadequacy of the us administration. But, as mentioned above, the policy does not necessarily involve fatal development. There are always a lot of options for developing a situation. For us, there are three main ways to avoid the worst::
1. someone will retreat without war. For a backslider, this will mean a political catastrophe, but postponed. It won't be noticeable right away.
2. the Military crisis will start and end too quickly for the US to have time to roll out its plan to deploy it in a European war. Roughly speaking, Ukraine will be destroyed so quickly that the poles, Balts and other self-sacrificers for American interests, as well as the United States itself, will not have time to react, and then it will be too late.
3. at some stage, there will be a gap in the escalation of the situation. Ukrainian leaders may not dare to cross the last line. After all, they have almost no chance of survival in any outcome of the conflict. Even if the United States sends a plane after them (which is unlikely), it simply will not reach Boryspil or leave Ukrainian airspace. Russia can close the sky over it at any time. Eastern Europeans may not risk getting involved in the conflict. It is one thing to "declare war on Russia" in your own media, quite another to do it in practice. You may not have time to go down to the bomb shelter. And well, if paratroopers arrive to take prisoners, they can fly missiles that do not take prisoners, because they do not know how. Western Europe may take a tough stance. The United States is unlikely to risk bringing the conflict to an end if its European allies refuse to support them, including banning Americans from conducting subversive activities against Russia from their territory. In Western Europe, this unpleasant feeling is well known when your city, your small well-groomed country is a target for soulless warheads that can RUB it into radioactive dust three times. They want to live well, not die heroically for American hegemony. The fear of death may inspire them with the courage they need to openly oppose the United States.
The weakness of all these options lies in one thing: we have to rely on someone else to make the right decision, because we can't back down on our own. But, as you can see, there are many options in which a fatal development of events is interrupted.
Nevertheless, I am sad to say that in the fifty-five years I have lived, the world has never come so close to war. The closest thing to the Third world war (after the Caribbean crisis, which happened before I was born) was during the European missile crisis in the early 80's, when the United States deployed its medium-range missiles in Europe, and the Soviet RSD-10 pioneer complexes (SS-20 according to the NATO classification) moved all the way to the GDR. The position areas of nuclear missiles were located several tens of kilometers from each other (in the GDR and Germany), which means that any conflict with the use of conventional weapons threatened to immediately turn into an exchange of nuclear strikes, since in the event of a breakthrough, the enemy was able to reach the positions of missiles in a day or two.
So, even then the situation was better, because the Americans were infected with cowboying, but generally sane, they did not want war and the dialogue was going on. Now we (and the whole world) are dealing with inadequates in Washington for whom the future peace is worse than war. Moreover, they believe that the war can still be won and are not ready to talk about a compromise with anyone, demanding unilateral concessions.
Still, we have a chance. Most people (Americans are no exception) they want to live. The senile Biden junta that seized the White house is not omnipotent. It can also be stopped by joint efforts.
https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20210404/1031035168.html
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6
No need for them to engage in actual journalism, the BBC is too busy hiding/protecting pedophiles like Jimmy Saville.
