The West’s most recent theory regarding the war in Europe is that “Neither side can achieve their ultimate war objectives: Russia cannot take over all of Ukraine, and Ukraine cannot fully drive Russian forces out of their territory."
They want to call it a “tie.” The latest meetings and developments, one after the other, signal the search for at least a ceasefire.
The latest example is the outcome of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to Schroder, Russia is ready for a solution. Türkiye’s efforts are obvious. The grain agreement paved the way, but “unless Washington says ‘yes,’ nothing will work.”
Schroder has state experience. This is how he expresses that the U.S. is the one that does not want peace.
He also says, “How can anyone seriously think that a Russian state leader will risk losing Crimea?” This is the German version of the above theory that “Ukraine cannot fully drive Russian forces out of their territory.” Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said something similar, along the lines of, “forget that area.” It clicked later, but former U.S. Secretary of State John Kissinger also slipped from his mouth the suggestion, “Let Ukraine give some land so the matter can be closed.” He still makes speeches implying, “I took my word back, but the world continues to turn.”
You can sell the “tie” idea, but Ukraine is still losing land. If there is a winner, then there must be a loser. Is the loser Ukraine? That is the case on the map. But is it the same politically? Is it the same in the eyes of the world?
Yes, Russia gains land, but what about the map they are joining? The number of lots on the title deed? From the end of the Caspian in the East, all the way to the center of Europe, including the Black Sea, all highways and waterways are reduced to a single item. Ankara is long aware of this; it is just trying to work out “how it will benefit us.”
Anyhow, there is no “tie” at the moment. The U.S. and Europe both know, that the issue at hand is how the price of the new geopolitics will be paid.
THESE WARS NOT ENOUGH FOR AMERICA
It seems like the “America is back” claim is over. Not only the destination of return, but its own home is also quite chaotic. Internal politics, the economy, heated social layers, approaching elections, they are all fluctuating.
Therefore, it seems impossible for the U.S. to drag Taiwan into war. It has neither the motivation nor capacity. It is uncertain what a defeat in Taiwan – after Afghanistan and Ukraine – will accelerate.
I start with rough readings to draw attention to the opposite risk. Nobody thinks it is likely, but if Joe Biden wins the November elections, we need to keep in mind the likelihood that the (re)new(ed) administration may break out a war. Not a minor one either – at least something average.
There is a prophecy that the U.S. is at the beginning stage of a crisis, the development stage will be between 2025-2027, and that the “old America” will resurrect in the following 5-6-year period.
How it will happen is a different story. Still, even some Turkish experts – though they don’t completely understand this scenario – developed a mindset along the lines of, “This is America, they are not to be messed with, everyone’s capacity is obvious,” paying attention to the power of American infrastructure.
This means, if the U.S. refreshes itself, based on the principle of what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger if that superb infrastructure takes action, nobody can stand in its way.
There is no other suggested/known solution for the U.S. to overcome the crisis. The gigantic wheels of infrastructure/production will continue to turn.
But what will it produce? It needs to produce high-volume products and sell them quickly! In fact, the price of those goods needs to equate to billions of dollars.
Weapons of course. There is no other product that will meet these conditions/needs. The same experts are also always pointing to wars in their claims. Especially massive ones! This is the U.S.’s main infrastructure capacity. Otherwise, the roads in its capital are even collapsing.
Thus, the U.S. is seeking war. This is its life code. But the war they are carrying out via undertakers is not enough. Ukraine for example, allowed the U.S. to sell weapons to more than one country. Taiwan seems to be similar.
But this is not enough for the U.S.
Iran’s highest security authority, Ali Shamkhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, visited Armenia and Azerbaijan on July 16-17.
Shamkhani and his committee held a two-hour private meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and the country’s officials.
The Iranian media announced this visit with headlines such as, “A big step in Tehran-Baku relations,” and “Important messages will be given to regional and international observers regarding the immunity of Tehran-Baki relations.”
“Though Iran-Azerbaijan relations during the latest Nagorno-Karabakh war led to misinterpretations due to malignant individuals and instigations of the media based on them, joint efforts eliminated the obstacles preventing the reinstatement of relations and the development of cooperation.”
This was followed by a statement from Baku “on a different subject” last Thursday: “Azerbaijan’s U.K. Embassy was attacked on Aug. 4 by a radical religious group. The radicals who raided the building hung up religious flags on the embassy balcony, and chanted slogans.”
U.K. media announced that the attacks were assumed by an extremist Shiite organization. This organization was established by Kuwaiti Shiite clergymen living in London.
The U.K. is a country that requires attention in terms of the said region. The degree of security vulnerability that allows the embassy to be raided, all the way to its balcony, is a different matter. But the connection between these two events? It will be in my next column.