War in Ukraine - part 2/5
- titanja1504
- Jan 31, 2023
- 9 min read
Updated: Jun 16, 2023
WHAT IF…?
(De) (April/May 2022) In the course of my research and reflections, I have developed an urgent desire to ask questions that are currently taboo. I can live with being wrong and being forced to row back, but I don’t want to have scissors in my head that prevent me from making specific considerations.
I’ve pondered over Russian objectives and interests. Now I am taking the liberty of running through corresponding intentions on the Western side.
What if the USA and NATO wanted this war?
This question is frightening and disturbing, given the destruction in Ukraine and the suffering of Ukrainians. It also starkly contrasts the declarations of those with political responsibility in Europe and the USA, avoiding being drawn into the war.
It no longer seems absurd because the Europeans and the USA, and thus also NATO, have long been a party to the war. Through the massive financial support; the deliveries of heavy weapons even from Germany; training camps in Ramstein (Germany); the transmission of real-time data on the whereabouts of Russian units and officers by the USA to the Ukrainian army, and sanctions,
Neither Ukraine nor the USA nor NATO started this war, but that does not mean that it was not provoked.
There are unconfirmed isolated rumours in the media that plans existed for Ukraine to retake the separatist areas or the people’s republics in the Donbas and Crimea. Such allegations surface but are not being picked up by the major media. Perhaps because there is nothing to it, or this information would be counterproductive for a Western assessment of what is happening.
However, the fact that a joint NATO manoeuvre took place in Ukraine in September 2021 is undisputed.
The reasons can be derived from the dreaded threat posed by Russia, which, for its part, naturally felt threatened by the very fact of this joint NATO military exercise. This manoeuvre was definitely a provocation. However, nowhere in the media is a connection made with the attack by Russia a few months later. Most of the people I spoke to knew nothing about this manoeuvre.
My consideration, however, is that by looking at the development of arms expenditures before the war, one could conclude there was a desire for war or at least an expectation of war or attack.
So I consulted statistics to get an insight.
-Global defence spending increased significantly between 2020 and 2021
So, were they preparing for war?
-Nato has been rearming heavily since 2015.
-Ukraine was willing and able to more than double its military spending from 2016 to 2020
And yet it was probably not enough.
Ukraine’s arms demands were massive from the start and had nothing of a plea for support. It even asked to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and guarantee its compliance. The fact that this would have meant a confrontation between NATO and Russia and thus the entry of the NATO countries into the war gave the Ukrainian president no comprehensible reason to reject this request.
And again and again, Germany was put under moral pressure. It was argued that Germany had a historical responsibility towards Ukraine. The massacre of Babi Yar and the atrocities committed by the German Nazis in Ukraine during World War II were brought into play. Germany should, therefore, get more involved and supply tanks or anti-aircraft tanks and other heavy equipment.
Well, Ukraine got its way in the end.
The reasons for the armament are apparent. Russia occupied Crimea in 2014 and supported the aspirations of the separatist areas in the Donbas to join Russia. As a result, Nato and Ukraine expected a military confrontation with Russia.
How about Russia’s preparation for its war of aggression?
Russia is in 5th place among the 20 countries with the highest military spending in the world in 2021. However, Russia either saw no reason or did not have the financial means to increase arms spending. On the contrary.
Was Russia waiting with its war of aggression until Ukraine and the NATO states were optimally equipped? That would be a highly peculiar strategy!
But there is a qualitative aspect to consider!
Russia has a military advantage as it has had hypersonic missiles since 2019, which are controllable despite this speed, can be equipped with nuclear warheads and have a range of 2,000 kilometres. Especially since the Western powers have nothing like that, although they have long been working on such weapons systems. Moreover, the West has no defence systems at its disposal, so it is relatively helpless.
Did Russia possibly invade Ukraine as long as it still had this “miracle weapon” as the only party to the war? But then, where are the military successes?
Did the Russian president expect the Nato states to hold back because of this fearfully?
So far, the course of this war does not give the impression that a well-prepared warlord has deliberately descended on a neighbouring country to subjugate it.
Another incident makes me doubt that Russia voluntarily launched a war of aggression “on a whim”.
According to Express UK, on the Russian anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War, on 09 May, a former colonel of the Russian Air Defence Forces, Mikhail Khodaryonok, spoke on Russian television. He said that with its outdated weapons, Russia had no chance against Ukraine, which the West had highly armed.
Headline: Putin humiliated on state TV as Russian colonel admits military “cannot compete” with Kyiv Link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1607220/Vladimir-Putin-state-TV-Russia-military-colonel-Victory-Day-mobilisation-latest-news-vn/amp
The BBC also picked up on the Russian colonel’s criticism almost two weeks later. BBC’s Steve Rosenberg reports on the unusually harsh criticism on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61484222
No other media has acknowledged this news, which is a sensation in two respects:
Firstly, the military inferiority of the Russian army is an aspect that was never communicated in this way either by President Putin or the Western powers.
Secondly, how can it be that in a country where war must not be called a war but a special operation, a retired colonel is allowed to make such defeatist statements about his country’s military publicly?
Politicians and the media have reportedly noted the non-escalation in Putin’s 09 May speech with relief. However, with the colonel’s statement on Russian television, this could be almost a peace offer, or at least a signal of willingness to negotiate, even considering that the war in Ukraine continues unabated, as reported in the German media.
What conclusions could we draw from the fact that not every opportunity, however small, is being used to end the war through negotiations?
Either I overinterpret the signals, or Russia’s potential willingness to make peace does not fit into the concept.
What if there were reasons for the West or the USA to escalate this conflict?
Like all the highly armed Western states, US President Joe Biden predicted, increasingly urgent, that Russia would invade Ukraine. No one could comprehend this, considering all the facts available to the public.
I have already pondered Russia’s and President Putin’s possible objectives and motives. However, it would be very one-sided if I did not also consider the potential objectives and motives of the big and powerful adversary, the USA.
Close economic ties between Russia and Europeans, especially Germany, have always been a thorn in the side of the USA.
Nordstream 2 had been completed just before the Russian invasion, ready to be connected. The USA had torpedoed this project for years because it meant that Europe, above all Germany, would be closely linked to the enemy Russia, indeed downright dependent on it.
Germans and Europeans would not be able or willing to participate in a trade war or even in military proxy conflicts, in which Russia, in the opinion of the USA, would have to be sanctioned.
If the liberal, peaceful, economically strong, and politically influential Germany was weakened, the EU as a united force would also be weakened and could be much better influenced and manipulated.
Right at the beginning of this war, not only was the use of Nordstream 2 made impossible, but a strong Ukrainian support alliance also demanded the enforcement of a complete gas and oil embargo against Russia.
Such an embargo was a significant problem for Germany’s economy and the Germans with even more inflation, rising costs, supply shortages and provision difficulties as consequences.
This would possibly even lead to a destabilisation of the country in the medium term. Ukraine and Poland are at the forefront of those countries vehemently demanding this.
However, the Biden government held back and showed understanding. Just like in any detective story: good cop, bad cop!
The closing of Nordstream 2 also meant substantial financial losses for Ukraine, as they would lose transit fees in the billions. Despite Germany and the EU wanting to make compensation payments, this project would be a loss-making business for Ukraine.
Whichever way you look at it, for the Europeans, this war means weakening their economy, increasing debt, more arms spending and closer ties to the US. So a Europe that is economically weakened, loyal to the US, and separated from Russia would be good news for the US.
Annihilating Russia would also be a worthwhile goal.
Russia has been aligning itself for some time with the USA’s other adversary, China. If Russia were involved in a war with Nato, it would no longer be eligible as a partner for China because it would be completely useless.
The words that US President Joe Biden let slip during the closing speech of his trip to Poland on 26 March 2022 about President Putin, “For God’s sake, this man can’t stay in power!”, could be part of a programme.
However, regime change in Russia cannot be achieved with the help of propaganda alone, nor with the help of sanctions alone; it can only be achieved with violence from within (coup, revolution) or from outside (war).
Is the world mentally preparing for a world war?
Russia has now wronged the world with this war. Putin is evil par excellence. All war atrocities are portrayed as specifically Russian atrocities and attributed to Putin’s specific war criminality. The fact that such atrocities happen in every war and are carried out by all warring parties is irrelevant. So if Putin were to be stopped by force of arms, it would be a good deed, like the fight against Hitler’s fascist Germany in the Second World War.
I find the continuation of this train of thought extremely disturbing. Will we reach this point soon?
Should the US have an interest in escalating or expanding the war, then not only Ukraine and Russia would be destroyed, but probably large parts of Europe as well.
Would there be beneficiaries in such a scenario?
What if the arms industry sensed an opportunity?
Germany’s government, above all Chancellor Olaf Scholz, tried continuously and increasingly desperate to resist the general mood of war. No war participation! No delivery of heavy weapons! In the meantime, all that is more or less history.
The pressure was so gigantic that Chancellor Scholz had to agree to a weapons ring swap. Although Ukraine had accepted direct payments, they were considered far from sufficient.
This ring swap – sending old, originally Soviet weapons, for example, from Slovenia to Ukraine and delivering new modern weapons to these countries as compensation – directly benefits the arms manufacturers.
A classic scenario: destroy the old weapons stocks in the war and order new ones from the arms industry! A great deal! You almost can’t believe that this is happening.
In my youth, such scenarios were patterns. Real politics was considered more complex. That no longer seems to be true.
German politicians, media, and foreign opinion makers called the German government hesitant and a coward if it did not deliver the demanded “Marder” or “Leopard” directly to Ukraine.
On 28 April, almost all parties in the German Bundestag, except for “Die Linke” and the “AfD”, voted to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine.
Well done, arms lobby? The arms companies will have been pleased.
Since the end of the Second World War and the Cold War, Germany has never shown such readiness for war!
What if it is not democracy that is being defended in Ukraine?
In political speeches, it was and is always emphasised that it is democracy that has to be defended in Ukraine.
But is that really the case? Does Ukraine stand for democracy and Western values (whatever they are!)?
In 2021, Volodimir Selensky had all oppositional broadcasters and media closed down by decree.
The news about this can be found in German media, even in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which cannot exactly be accused of pro-Russian agitation.
I don’t remember Western media and politicians getting publicly outraged about this or even standing up for freedom of expression in Ukraine.
Now there is war in Ukraine, and there is only the voice of the government.
Even the Ukrainian former Minister of Education and MP for the liberal party “Voice” is surprised that there seems to be more or less only one opinion in Ukraine.
“We don’t criticise our president in international media,” she apparently told the Süddeutsche Zeitung in an interview on 09 August 2022.
The whole interview can be read at: www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/krieg-ukraine-fake-news-medien-1.5636261
Is this the kind of democracy Putin is looking so fearfully at that he has to go to war with the country to contain the democracy movement at home? (TA)
Links to articles - War in Ukraine
War in Ukraine - part 2/5
Comentários