In 2022, the military rivalry between the powers will be increasingly intense

The United States of America and Russia recently clashed over the issue of Ukraine.

A few weeks ago, the leaders of the two superpowers behind the Ukrainian situation called a meeting on the crisis. Although they both drew a clear line between them during the meeting, they did not make any political commitments, showing that the political chess game around Ukraine has only just begun.

In what was seen as a “frank and pragmatic” conversation by both sides, President Putin made it clear to President Biden that he was unhappy with the implementation of the Minsk-2 agreement from February 11, 2015 (which, in addition to establishing ceasefire conditions, also reaffirmed arrangements for the future autonomy of pro-Russian separatists), as NATO continues to expand is. President Biden, in turn, noted that if Russia dared to invade Ukraine, the United States of America and its allies would impose strong “economic sanctions and other measures” to counterattack, although no deployment of American troops in Ukraine has been considered.

Although they both played their cards right and agreed to continue negotiating in the future, the talks did not calm the situation on the Ukrainian border and, after both sides issued civil and military warnings mutual, the future development of the Ukrainian border border is still very uncertain.

Since November 2020, Russia has had thousands of troops stationed on the Ukrainian border. The size of the deployed combat forces made the neighboring state rather nervous.

The current crisis in Ukraine has worsened since the beginning of November 2021. Russia, however, has denied any speculation that it is about to invade Ukraine, stressing that the deployment of troops on the Russian-Russian border is purely for defensive purposes and that no finger should be pointed at such a deployment of forces on the very territory of Russia.

It is obvious that such a statement cannot convince Ukraine: after the 2014 crisis, any problem on the border between the two sides attracts attention and Ukraine still has sporadic conflicts with pro-Russian separatists. in the east of the country.

First, the fundamental reason why the US-Russian dispute over Ukraine is difficult to resolve is that there is no reasonable position or place in the US-led European security architecture that corresponds to the strength and status of Russia.

Over the past thirty-two years, the United States of America has forcibly shut out any reasonable proposal to establish broad and inclusive security in Europe and has built a post-Cold War European security framework that has crushed and expelled Russia, just like NATO did when it contained the Soviet Union in Europe in 1949-1990.

Moreover, Russia’s long-standing desire to integrate into the “European family” and even the “Western community” through cooperation with the United States of America – which, era of the helpless Yeltsin, did not consider it an equal partner, but as a semi-colony – was overshadowed by the resolute actions of NATO, which expanded eastward to further elevate its status as the only superpower, at least in Europe, after its recent failure in Afghanistan.

Maintaining a lasting peace after the great wars (including the Cold War) of the 20th century relied on treating the defeated side with tolerance and equality at the negotiating table. The facts have shown that this has not been taken into account by the policy of the United States of America and its Western flatterers and sycophants. To treat Russia as the loser of the Cold War is to severely and ruthlessly frustrate it, thereby depriving it of the most important building block of Europe’s post-century security order.

Unless Russia reacts with stronger means, it will always be in a position of defense and never of equality. Russia will accept no legitimacy for the persistence of a European security order that deprives it of vital security interests, wanting to turn it into a sort of protectorate surrounded by American-made nuclear bombs. The long Ukrainian crisis is the last barrier and the most crucial link in the confrontation between Russia, the United States of America and the West. It is a warning to European countries which, over the past decades, have been deprived of a foreign policy of their own, instead of simply obeying orders from the White House.

Secondly, the Ukrainian question is an important structural problem which affects the direction of European security construction and no one can afford to lose in this crisis.

While Europe can achieve unity, integrity and lasting peace, the main challenge is whether it can truly integrate Russia. Much depends on whether NATO’s eastward expansion will stop and whether Ukraine will be able to resolve these two key factors on its own and permanently. NATO, which has steadily expanded in history and in reality, is the deadliest threat to Russian security. NATO continues to weaken Russia and deprive it of its status as a European state, and mocks its status as a great power. Preventing NATO from continuing its eastward expansion is probably the most important security interest not only for Russia, but also for European countries without a foreign policy of their own, but with peoples and public opinions that do not want certainly not be dragged into a conventional war against the continent, in the name of a country which has as its safety belt an ocean between Europe and itself.

The currently conceivable solution to ensure lasting security in Europe is for Ukraine not to join NATO, but to maintain a permanent status of neutrality, like Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. This is a precondition for Ukraine to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty to the fullest extent possible, and it is also the only reasonable solution for settling the deep conflict between Russia and the United States of America.

To this end, Russia signed the aforementioned 2015 Minsk-2 agreement. However, looking at the evolution of NATO over the past decades, we can see that it has absolutely no chance of changing a well-established “open door” membership policy.

The United States of America and NATO will not accept the option of a neutral Ukraine, and the current level of political decision-making in the country is geared towards the other. For these reasons Ukraine now appears morally dismembered and bears a striking resemblance to the divided Berlin and the two Germanies before 1989. The division of Ukraine can be said to be a sign of the new split in Europe after the First Cold War, and the construction of so-called European security – or rather American hegemony – ends with the reality of a Second Cold War between NATO and Russia. It must be said that this is a tragedy, because the devastating consequences of a war will be paid for by the peoples of Europe, and certainly not by those from New England to California.

Third, the deceitful and misleading nature of US-Russian diplomacy and the myopia of the EU, without a foreign policy of its own regarding building its own security, are the main reasons for the current lack of mutual trust between the United States of America. America – which relies on the servility of the so-called EU – and Russia, terrified of nuclear encirclement on its borders.

The United States took advantage of the Soviet Union’s deep-seated problems and Russia’s zeal and policies for self-inflicted change in the 1990s—in effect, a turning point—at the expense of “verbal engagement” diplomacy. “.

In 1990, on behalf of the administration of President George HW Bush, US Secretary of State Baker made a verbal promise to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that “upon reunification, once Germany remained within NATO, the organization would not expand eastwards”. President Clinton’s administration rejected this promise on the grounds that it was his predecessor’s decision and that verbal promises were not valid, but in the meantime George H. W. Bush had incorporated the Baltic States into the NATO.

In the mid-1990s, President Clinton indirectly made a verbal commitment to the then Russian leader, the pusillanimous Yeltsin, to respect the red line prohibiting NATO from crossing the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Nevertheless, as already indicated above, the administration of President George HW Bush had already broken this promise by crossing their western borders. It goes without saying that in the eyes of Russia, “verbal engagement diplomacy” is rightly synonymous with the fraud and hypocrisy that the United States of America has a habit of implementing with Russia. . This is exactly why Russia is now insisting that the United States and NATO sign a treaty with it on Ukraine’s neutrality and banning the deployment of offensive weapons (i.e. say nuclear) in Ukraine.

Equally important is the fact that after the First Cold War, the United States of America, with its mentality of rushing to grab the fruits of victory, drew 14 small and medium-sized countries into the process of expansion, causing crises in the peripheral regions of Europe and artfully creating Russophobia in the countries of Central Europe, the Balkans and the East.

This utter disregard for the “concert of great powers” – a fundamental age-old principle for ensuring lasting security in Europe – and the practice of “being wise and foolish” have artificially led to a protracted confrontation between Russia and European countries, from the same way as between the United States of America and Russia. The age-old trend of emphasizing the global primacy of the United States of America by creating crises and inventing enemies for itself reaffirms the tragic reality of its own emergence as a danger to world peace.

All in all, the Ukrainian crisis is a key issue for the management of European security. The United States will not stop its eastward expansion. Russia, stuck in a corner, has no other way but to react with all its might and might. This heralds the Second Cold War in Europe, and lasting unrest and the possible partition of Ukraine will be its unchanging fate.

The worst-case scenario would be a conventional war on the continent between NATO troops and Russian forces, killing millions and millions and destroying cities. The war will be conventional because the United States will never use nuclear weapons – but not out of the goodness of its heart, but out of fear of a Russian response that would remove US territory from NBC security.

So much so that we will miss the good old days of Covid-19.

About Pamela Boon

Check Also

Israeli PM Bennett on whirlwind visit to UAE amid standoff with Iran

Placeholder while loading article actions TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett made …