IN THE END IT’S JUST A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE
Having ascertained that no one is going to fight for Kiev, with the goodwill of its supporters all agitated by the wisdom of the convenient “Let’s arm ourselves and game!”, my question is: how much longer will this useless support for a Ukraine that not even if it won would rise first from 50… 60 years from the abyss into which we have thrown it-and into which, because of the economic crisis, we Westerners will also all end up, and with us NATO itself?
Zelensky should understand that his affair is not the epic of the Wild West and that the ‘ours,’ the fateful ‘ours’ of the Western film of yesteryear will never come because in front is Moscow’s army and not poor Sitting Bull.
It is not a matter of anti-Americanism or Western and Christian values but rather of simple logic: if you cannot win the war better to try to contain the damage and negotiate: the real problem, however, is that it is only the U.S. that is deciding here and it is discounting the price of having for President Biden: the wrong person, in the wrong place at the worst time for all of us.
On August 13, 2023, just 2 days ago, the U.S. newspaper The Hill published a short article by Brad Dress titled “Russia launches its offensive with all eyes on Ukraine’s southern push,” with which its author drew readers’ attention to a war event of considerable interest not so much because of its scale but, rather, because of what it represents from a media perspective.
The article, at the opening, verbatim reads:
“With the world’s attention on Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the south, Russia has quietly launched a new offensive in the eastern Luhansk region, which analysts say aims to undermine the Ukrainian operation.
While the operation is much smaller in size and scope than Moscow’s winter offensive, Russia is making progress and appears to be narrowing in on the town of Kupyansk, where Ukraine ordered an evacuation this week.
The Russian advance could pressure Ukraine in the midst of its own major offensive and divide its attention. Any success could also paint a politically advantageous contrast with Ukraine’s slow counteroffensive in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region.
Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doubted that Russia could advance. But if it does, he said it would be a blow to Ukraine at a dangerous time.
“This is something worth keeping an eye on. If the Russians make progress here, then this is really a big deal,” Cancian said. “It would be devastating to the Ukrainian counteroffensive narrative if the Russians were able to capture Luhansk, which I don’t think they can do.
“But if they are able to do it at a time when the Ukrainian counteroffensive has been stuck in the defensive zone, that would be a very powerful failure and I think very disheartening for Western supporters,” he added.”
In line with what I highlighted in the opening of this post, what is striking is the tenor of the comments of the experts who, more than a year and a half after the beginning of the conflict, still continue to speak of the war in Ukraine as a mere regional conflict with implications, those, yes, geostrategic even if only from the point of view of the stimulus factors to work well to curb the aims of the ‘bad guys’ against the ‘good guys,’ as if we were watching a western movie celebrating the epic of the Wild West.
This war, I think it’s about time we realized, is already in itself an open conflict between the entire West, a risky and admittedly decidedly bad West, prostrated as it is economically and socially just by looking at the already abundantly edulcorated growth statistics, statistics that see only China winning and in decidedly good shape that Russian Federation which for more than a year and a half has been systematically given up for dead at every turn within the fateful “few days,” which, few though they may be, are apparently struggling to pass.
Perhaps it would be worth taking note that Russia has in fact launched an attack on NATO as such to crack its hold in order to implode it thanks to some defection among U.S. allies, a defection stemmed in time -and in the short term- with the attack on Nord Stream, as far as Germany is concerned, and the placing in abundant pause of French leadership in Europe, a pause achieved by undermining its position of strength in Africa, but not a harbinger (as in the case of Germany) of indefinite hold. The limited but significant military action put in place by Russia these days has as its goal the underscoring of the fact that this is and will remain a long war, and that propaganda messages about a total and short-term final victory is a pious illusion devoid of all foundation.
The article cited above also contains the classic words of hope for a bright future, as is customary by now, but at the same time it cannot avoid considering how all this has taken Westerners somewhat by surprise.
I think it would be appropriate to think about peace talks to contain the damage, rather than continuing to boast of a victory that if it will not come to Moscow much less will it come to Kiev and thus to the whole West because wars are not won with the classic “let’s arm ourselves and leave,” especially when the “let’s leave” cannot be given course on pain of the defection en bloc of all, bar none, of Kiev’s allies: which this, as even Biden must have realized, would leave the United States in far more trouble than it already is.
Add to this the beginning of oil trading between the United Arab Emirates and India in Rupees, well! I would say that someone in Washington and Brussels should start ringing the bell indicative of the end of the recreation of reason.
