Defeated NATO and Kiev Will Soon Say "A Frozen Conflict Anyone?" By Natasha Wright
(2023-05-15 at 17:55:05 )

Defeated NATO and Kiev Will Soon Say "A Frozen Conflict Anyone?" By Natasha Wright

Russia shall not be fooled twice.

"The current on his way out" NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg keeps rattling with his nuclear saber galore followed by his squeaky puberty boy voice, which is supposed to sound intimidating that he (they) will fast-track Ukraine to join NATO. At approximately the same time the leaders of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia are calling the part of the world they arrogantly regard as "the free" world (which is circa 25ish %) to not get derailed off their steadfast pathway to the complete destruction of Russia and the total victory of the Collective West.

But reality check snaps back at them: this very same world which masquerades around as the free and democratic now coyly admits that Russia is a colossal world power and a mighty empire worth their respect and one should treat it that way.

These odd requests seem to be trickling in from those circles in the United States which have brutally proven how influential they have been far too many times by pushing for each and every imperial war which Washington, Bundestag, Number 10 Collective have waged against so many for them "undemocratic" countries and alleged dictators on the other side of the political radar.

However, they now appear to be calling for peace (in 50 shades of John Lennons style (well, I shall say that again: you cannot fool me again). They are calling for peace not because they want peace. If they had wanted peace in the first place, they would not have caused it, nor would they have kept churning out weapons and shoveling it off into Ukraine but because they must surely know (which they cannot admit publicly though) that the continuation of this war will bring them a miserable defeat and not a triumphant victory they have been hoping for. This ongoing polemic inevitably leads to the Rand Corporation yet again.

While reading about Rand Corporation, I have an urge to add a resounding red-pencilled, negative not after each verb therein. Jokes aside, two months after the Rand Corporation (read: Pentagon) in their borderline defeat-admitting posturing suddenly recommended avoiding a long-lasting war because the price the USA and the EU will have to pay in the time to come will be increased manifold.

An offer of peace with strikingly similar reasoning has arrived from two more equally important institutions: the Council on Foreign Relations and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The chances are slim that these most possibly "as treacherous as a rattle snake" offers are not already "operated" by the Washington,D.C. powers that be. They most probably are. It is another issue what effect they may have.

President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, and his advisor, Charles Kupchan, have mentioned in Foreign Affairs duly or perhaps as an effort of coming up with lame excuses, what they were planning to suggest. Namely, they suggested (seems to me an obsequious) request that Ukraine be sent considerably more lethal weapons than before. But then they fell into an abysmal paradox by saying that in fact one should not expect Ukraine to win but in the best case scenario it will get stuck (let me use colourful language) in a gory gridlock Kiev appears to be facing with all the more limitations in manpower and foreign aid; the gridlock which will probably be haemorrhaging for decades from now in one form or another.

Two weeks ago or so, New York Times followed suit of their "mainstream media brothers in arms" in that it revealed that the United States officials have estimated the prospects were (are) bleak for the Ukrainian counter offensive resulting in a dramatic change. It would not gain any vital military advantage on behalf of Ukraine and without a decisive victory the NATO aid for Ukraine may dwindle into thin air so that the Kiev regime could find itself under enormous pressure to desperately go for serious peace negotiations and put an end to this gridlocked disaster. Alternatively they can freeze the conflict for the foreseeable future (my note to SCF readers: I am sure another pack war-hungry NATO jackals will rise from the dead in a decade or so in this way)

By the same token, Council on Foreign Relations estimates that the USA and Europe will in all likelihood have valid reasons to abandon their proclaimed policy of "support for Ukraine as long as Ukraine needs them" (my note to SCF readers: "till the last Ukrainian dies").

Admittedly, reality bites back that the continuation of their lavish support for Kiev is ridden with broader strategic risks which come with it. This gruelling war of attrition massively depletes the military might and capacities of the Collective West and dangerously dwindles their military supplies. The United States industry cannot keep up with the speed Ukraine is spending arsenals of ammunition and apart from that the exorbitant military expenditure incurred on them. I do not think they have heard Clare Dalys brave pleas eerily echoing in the EU Halls of Shame. I think they have looked into their empty NATO pockets.

All in all, the goals of Ukraine are slowly coming into conflict with other obviously insatiable but utterly unsustainable interests of the Collective West.

The general public in the West are becoming ever more indecisive about the foreign aid they have to send off (out of their taxpayers coffers) having seen the accumulated costs it has bulldozed back so far. This is a crucial but possibly sobering moment for the Kiev regime - CNN reports with a reminder that NATO is now uncharacteristically united and determined in its support of Ukraine (with hindsight Slava Ukraini slogan seems so blatantly bland at this moment the woke-obsessed Western elites cheerfully chanted only a year ago). A rather confusing hollow statement follows on their part: "Yet they cannot count on this level of support this time next year" (my note to SCF readers: whatever Stoltenbergs endless press releases seem to be saying).

Council on Foreign Relations admits that the partnership between Russia and China will continue to grow. Centre for Strategic and International Studies reckons that it cannot be in the interests of the USA to push Russia right into (pardon my picturesque language again) the Chinese loving arms and in doing so to militarily and financially face two Minotaurs united into one colossal power.

For all these reasons, the attitude of the Council on Foreign Relations is highly cynical, though not unexpected, that in this context not even Ukraine and its NATO acolytes can possibly rely on the homogeneous, though not untroubled unity of the West.

The peace in Ukraine cannot be hostage to the far-fetched war goals which are most probably unsustainable and not within easy military reach. This council thus mentions it is the time for Plan B. Funnily enough, New York Times comes up with the same sounding innuendos: a frozen conflict such as the one in between Cyprus and Turkey or North Korea and South Korea will suffice, according to them. At least for now. One cannot help but think this is nothing but admission of defeat with its possible double entendre that Russia simply cannot be defeated.

Moreover, in order to achieve the much-needed truce, Russian allies China and India are being spoonfed a (seems to me "forked tongue") offer of a partial lifting of sanctions and strategic dialogue with NATO about a broader European geo-strategic architecture. But if anyone in Washington, Pentagon, Bundestag, Brussels, London et al would care to notice, this was exactly what Russia had requested i.e. in winter 2021 before the onslaught of the special military operation in Ukraine. Yet, regrettably Russia was flatly dismissed with an arrogantly rude rejection.

All these said (NATO backed) institutions without much arrogance left on their political platter now seem to be suggesting to Washington,D.C. not to turn a deaf ear to reality that Russia is the biggest country in the world with a huge human potential and natural resources, an empire with a long (and if anybody in the West would dare admit) glorious history the sanctions against which should be lifted and unlike the end of the Cold War, they should treat Russia as a global power and integrate it with their European family to the best of their (NATO) potential.

Russia, they say, should not be viewed as inferior to the West, which should beg their slave-drivers for mercy. But Russia has already walked on NATO plank Hansel und Gretel style before and fell for these diabolical lies. Russia shall not be fooled twice!

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.