NATO escalates Ukraine war against Russia; draws sharp response

By Carlos Fazio     

This article by Carlos Fazio, journalist and university teacher in Mexico City, was published in the Mexican daily La Jornada, to which he is a regular contributor, and then by Translation: John Catalinotto.  

Protest in Berlin, Germany, demands no weapons to Ukraine. February 2023.

The U.S. and NATO “proxy” war against Russia in Ukraine has entered a delicate phase for the collective West; war propaganda is one thing, and the reality on the front line another.

While NATO forces are conducting their biggest military drill since the end of the Cold War under the excuse of the Russian threat, massive attacks by Kremlin forces in various directions of the 1,240-mile front line have made the situation of the Ukrainian armed forces increasingly precarious, perhaps to the verge of collapse, according to the consensus opinion in the U.S. national security establishment.

Last weekend, the start of the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region broke through the Ukrainian army’s first line of defense with relative ease, scoring a number of tactically significant successes. The Pentagon and the CIA know that the arrival of more U.S. weaponry in Ukraine next month will not prevent the collapse, because the Ukrainian army’s problem is not a lack of weapons but its extremely high casualty rate.

The weapons delivery simply postpones the collapse, which perpetuates the lucrative profit-making spree of the investment funds behind the financing of the war, the war industry et al and the desired devastation of Ukraine, which is already owned by BlackRock [BlackRock and JPMorgan investment corporations are coordinating private capital for rebuilding Ukraine – WW.]

NATO’s strategic goal is to prolong the conflict as long as possible to prevent Russia from achieving a clear victory and to wear Russia down. In the face of Russian military superiority on the front line, NATO has opted for outright terrorism. 

NATO’s choice can be deduced from the statements of British Defense Minister Admiral Sir Tony Radakin to the April 25 Financial Times, that attacks against civilian targets deep inside Russia must be intensified. That is, he proposes asymmetric strikes against vital infrastructure and civilian areas in Russia to inflict as much damage as possible on the Russian civilian population so that they will repudiate President Vladimir Putin. An example is the destruction of a 10-story residential building in the Russian city of Belgorod on Sunday, May 12, resulting in 18 civilian deaths.

The delivery of ATACMS [Army Tactical Missile System] long-range missile systems to Kiev by the U.S. and the sending of NATO soldiers, instructors and military engineers to help Ukrainian troops fight against Russia seem to be a response to this, as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk once again acknowledged. According to the spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, the West is waging a hybrid war against the Kremlin.  

Western leaders threaten wider war

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron added to this threat by stating that Ukraine has the right to strike deep into Russia with British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that such a statement is a dangerous form of verbal escalation.

As part of the same series of threats, it is necessary to include the bellicose statements of the Democratic Party minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries — someone close to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — who in an interview with CBS 60 Minutes [May 5], stated that if Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia after the bipartisan military aid of $61 billion, the U.S. should intervene militarily to rescue [Ukrainian President] Volodymir Zelensky, against whom, by the way, the Russian Ministry of the Interior has just issued an arrest warrant.

In his unbridled eagerness for leadership and with his propagandistic notion of strategic ambiguity, French President Emmanuel Macron joined the synchronized swim, playing linguistically with the legitimacy of NATO sending troops to Ukraine. Macron described two extreme situations: the event of a breach of the lines of defense of the Zelensky regime that would allow Russia to penetrate deeply into the eastern territories — and eventually take control of the capital, Kiev — and that Ukraine requests [NATO troops].  

Conversely, it is NATO that wants to test its strategic capability to strike military, energy and manufacturing facilities deep inside the Russian Federation.

In response to Cameron’s and Macron’s provocative statements, on May 6 the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of Britain and France separately and handed them diplomatic notes. Immediately afterwards, the Kremlin announced exercises with non-strategic nuclear weapons, which can be used on the battlefield as a deterrent. 

Russia will dialogue – but only on an equal footing

A day later, at his inauguration for a fifth term, a serene and unflappable President Putin assured that Russia and only Russia will determine its own destiny. And he added that the Kremlin does not reject dialogue with the West on security and strategic stability, but will engage in it only on an equal footing.

Implicitly, Putin repeated that the war will end when Moscow says so and that the only thing to negotiate is Zelensky’s mode of surrender. And if NATO, which obeys the orders of the Pentagon and the White House, decides to get involved with troops directly in Ukraine, the response will be devastating. 

In the not at all cryptic language of the deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitri Medvedev, none of them (Jeffries, Macron and Cameron) will be able to hide, either in the Capitol or in the Elysée Palace or in 10 Downing Street.

In this context, NATO soldiers participating in the military drill with nuclear components “Steadfast Defender 2024,” stretching from the Baltic states to the Balkans, imitated an assault on Russian positions and declared themselves ready to fight against the “threat” from Moscow.

The political-military objective of NATO’s maneuvers is to weaken and fragment Russia at some point in the near future.  In view of the fact that Kiev is going to have to sign some peace agreement or continue the war and continue losing territory, NATO is preparing to try to defeat Russia. In passing, NATO seeks to justify the increase in military spending in the member countries and the policy of militarization of international relations. 

As announced by The Economist [May 9], the world economy is on the verge of collapse, anarchy will ensue and war becomes the means of recourse of the great powers; BlackRock and the military-industrial complexes of the U.S. and Europe rejoice.

Simple Share Buttons

Share this
Simple Share Buttons