Will Europe replace the Middle East as the US arena for future conflicts?

Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:

The harsh Western sanctions against Russia and its economic and financial institutions have continued since the Ukraine war’s first day (24^th February 2022). The 30-member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) continue to send lethal customised weapons to Ukraine to fight the Russian army. NATO’s goal consists in causing the most significant number of Russian losses and prolonging the war, allowing further demonisation of Russia and isolating it from the West, notwithstanding Europe’s need for Russian energy. Indeed, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)reiterated that the Russian energy export is irreplaceable in the coming years. However, altering Russia’s military plan and tactics provided the army with more modest goals, possibly presupposing that the war in Ukraine would not last long. Nevertheless, it seems that Joe Biden’s administration is determined to keep the fight going as long as possible and increase the provocation of Russia on the European continent.

Obviously, the war was not only military but also a media and propaganda war in which the West excelled, mastering its use against Russia. The Western press managed to incite most of the Western world against Moscow, which had become the “Great Satan” for most Europeans, who used limited vocabulary to express their limited knowledge of the background of the war in Ukraine. “Putin has gone mad”, “Ukraine has the right to choose its alliance”, or “a powerful country can’t attack another with weaker capabilities” are the words widely used to accuse Russia’s “wrongdoing” in Ukraine. There is little mention of how the US administration, aware of Russia’s reaction to any plans to provoke Russia and jeopardise its security, drove Moscow into a war in Ukraine, a conflict that President Vladimir Putin was aware of and decided to end militarily.

Consequently, what Russia or China said about the US’s role as an instigator has become irrelevant. Indeed, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman accused “the United States of defending its unilateralism. The expansion of NATO pushed Russia to the volcano’s crater and against the wall. China will not take a stand with or against any country”.

It was not surprising that Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his battle in Ukraine is “to end the American unilateralism that is ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian soldier.” Putin asserts that he is “determined to achieve his goals in Ukraine and end the war, whatever the cost, calmly and flexibly.” US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken confirmed what Russia and China claimed and said that “the Russian war is an attack on the international system,” a reference to the US unilateral world order, an attempt to dominate the world for the last 30 years.

President Putin showed military flexibility on the battlefield after dumbing down the military goals set in the first weeks of the war by his military command and the heavy losses resulting from the first weeks of battle. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “significant losses occurred in the ranks of the Russian army”.

The West, led by the United States, succeeded in winning against Russia in the first phase of the war by thwarting the basic scheme that the Kremlin leaders had wrongly thought up. The military leadership may have erroneously believed that the arrival of the Russian forces would be welcomed by the Ukrainians, who would consider the Russians as a force of peace. In contrast to this expectation, the Ukrainian army showed a will to fight and defend cities fiercely, relying on NATO training, expertise, and appropriate weapons provided by the US and many NATO countries to inflict the heaviest possible losses on the Russian army.

For these reasons, the Russian military command amended the military plan by withdrawing the army and its spearhead from most of the northern front, lifting the siege around several cities and avoiding the breakthrough to the capital Kyiv. Russian military troops spread in the north called back most parts of the army to withdraw through Byelorussia, replaced the exhausted men with fresh forces and reinforced the Donbas front and the south (Mariupol). These more modest and achievable goals limited Russia’s losses and could reasonably permit the complete control of Donbas, which is easily defendable in the future.

To read more …..

Proofread by: Maurice Brasher