The fact that any army moves its troops around, ensures its routine drills make an impression, or builds up to a certain point is important. However, none of this is as frightening as statements and actions in the “extraordinary/anomaly” category.
For example, the U.K. appointed a new chief of General Staff this month, and Gen. Sir Patrick Sanders’ first command to his army was, “We must get ready to fight on European land once again.”
Germany’s chief of General Staff made an announcement the following day saying, “Us NATO countries must be prepared to use nuclear weapons.”
It’s concerning, isn’t it?
Another is the Indian government’s announcement on June 14 of its “Agnipath” plan for the recruitment of troops, which it describes as the “great defense reform.” This led tens of thousands of people in a series of states to revolt.
There is also Russia’s air raid last Thursday targeting the groups taking shelter in the U.S. garrison in Al-Tanf, which is on the southwestern Syrian border.
Henry Kissinger had said not long ago that the Ukraine crisis is inclined to turn into a total war against Russia, and advised that this needed to be stopped within two months.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, on the other hand, stated that this war could go on for years.
He said, “We must not give up on supporting Ukraine. We must continue regardless of the cost. We must provide developed weapons to ensure Ukraine takes back its land.”
The Ukraine War’s chief sponsor U.K.’s position is no different: “We must provide weapons, ammunition, and training to Ukraine faster than Russia. We must develop its capacity. All this requires years of determined effort.”
Unfortunately, all of these statements are against the majority of the world’s prayers hoping for the current war to end and for peace to prevail. Supporting the fallacy that Ukraine can defeat Russia, as a matter of fact, pumping this illusion even more by saying, “at all costs,” signifies – further – NATO involvement in the war. Surely, they are all encouraged by Washington’s suggestions.
Eventually, it all depends on the aftermath of the NATO Leaders Summit, which will take place at the end of the month, and gives an idea about the nature of the decisions that will be reached.
This is the atmosphere in NATO and the West. But the ground is different. Russia is going slow, but it is always advancing, and preparing to put on the table a strategic whole by accumulating “tactical achievements.”
The likely defeat in Donbas is a dead-end for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, because not much is left after that, and there are very few obstacles for the Russian forces “going down.” This outcome will tarnish NATO’s prestige as well. The U.S. didn’t have much left anyway. We will see the price in the November mid-term elections.
Meanwhile, the elections that will take place in winter in some European countries may coincide with a time when the “heating/fuel” problem peaks. This will lead “hands to shake” when the people are voting at the ballot box.
The Wall Street Journal stated, “Elections in Europe’s leading economies will be held towards next winter when the lack of Russian gas will be strongly felt in European homes and businesses. The election test for Germany, which is dependent on Russian gas, will start with the local elections in October. One other important Russian gas importer, Italy, will be holding general elections mid-next year.”
The U.S. and U.K. continue to spread fear for similar reasons among its allies ahead of the summit.
This “fear,” which leads to the question, “where next after Ukraine?” may even be effective. But more due to a fear of the U.S. rather than a fear of Russia.
Ukraine’s plan to fight until it recovers all the land it lost, will make this country a “slave to its allies,” leading it to live in military and economic shackles for decades. Of course, whatever is left of Ukraine.
The second breaking point will happen in the EU. Naturally. It’s the West’s most sensitive chain. It’s old and is quick to get “tired.”
Newspapers in every country of the continent continue to write that the traditional EU alliances have been shaken. The well-known Spanish El Pais wrote, “The operation left almost irreparable damage on the strongest coalitions with the EU. Separation and disintegration erupted between Hungary-Poland-Slovakia-Czech Republic (“Visegrad Group,” N.E.) and Germany-France-Poland (“Weimar Triangle,” N.E.)”.
This is very true. Poland's Deputy Prime Minister says, “I say this in grief, but Germany is an unusually destructive element in terms of Europe. They don’t consider us equal to themselves. They are not crazy like Hitler, but they are using other methods.”
This discourse corresponds to the timing of the announcement that the west of Ukraine will be left to Poland, and Belarus’ declaration that “If this happens, I will intervene.”
The last example is the U.K. prime minister’s visit to Ukraine a day after the German, French, and Italian leaders’ Kyiv visit. Everyone knows that Boris Johnson was there a day after the Istanbul Negotiations as well and that he broke the agreement! This is no different: To dissuade from Paris-Berlin-Rome’s suggestions to “make peace with the Russians.” He likely succeeded too.
Are European leaders able to see that all these are parts of the U.S. plan?
This is what “America is back” meant. Can the Euro-American line be consolidated without any harm to the unions within the EU?
The current picture shows that as NATO allies prepare for a standing ovation for the new strategic document to be revealed, the moment of political fiasco for the West is near. Surely they will not make it obvious; they will drive to the front the Ukrainian people and Kyiv’s puppets, but once it reaches Odesa, they will need to make a decision.