Ukraine crisis- the Russian and the Western narrative
At the moment there are two main narratives about the Ukraine crisis: On the one hand by Russia, Russia Today and Putin and Gazprom advisor Dr. Rahr, who claim that the concentration of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border should deter the Ukrainians from launching a winter offensive against the Donbass and NATO from moving its infrastructure further East and that the Ukrainians due to Turkish dorne deliveries hink of a easy victory in the Donbass like the Azerbaijanis in their drone war against Armenia. Therefore Selensky and his militrary staff cozld overestimate themselves as Ukraine is also bankrupt and tries to have a sort of desperate outlet in form of a offensive against the Donbass and drag the West into it, especially since the USA has now also promised stinger missiles and is encouraging the Ukrainians to initiate a disastrous action like Saakashvili back then in Georgia as the latter has just returned to Georgia from Ukraine to open another anti-Russian front. The other reading and the Western one is that Putin wants to exploit the weakness of Ukraine and the corona-related paralysis of Europe to test NATO coherence and to create facts in eastern Ukraine. In addition, the Jamestown Foundation in an analysis of the Ukrainian army and the US military reform program sees Ukraine in a completely disastrous state and classifies the Ukrainian military as a cucumber troop. The USA, NATO, EU and Germany now fear an invasion of Russia and have made it clear that in this case, economic and political sanctions, even if no military support in the sense of a NATO defense obligation for Ukraine, would be the answer. Nevertheless, the USA seems to be raise the military price if stinger missiles are to be offered now, as in Afghanistan, which can then also shoot down Russian fighter jets. Apparently they are considering dragging the Russians into a Ukrainian quagmire like in Afghanistan as a deterrent against an Russian invasion. And the Russians still know from their experience in Afghanistan what stinger missiles meant and that they were game changers. So while Russia first cheered about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and now feels free for its own expansions as well as China towards Tawian, the US is reminding the Russians of their own Afghanistan disaster by means of the stinger threat. Not only militarily, but also symbolically. The West is taking the current Russian troop deployment more seriously than the last false alarm in April, but conversely, after Turkish drone deliveries, one could unwillingly promote the Ukrainians into a kind of Saakaswillian attack against the Donbass by further Stinger deliveries. Putin has made it clear that Russia will not allow the establishment of NATO structures in Ukraine and has postulated it as a „red line“ if offensive missiles are stationed there. This does not seem to mean stinger missiles. Conversely, NATO declared that only 4,000 soldiers were stationed in Ukraine along with a few planes and that this could be ignored and not be taken as a pretext for a red line unless Putin had aggressive intentions. At the same time, the US Republicans are blocking the US defense budget if Biden does not impose sanctions on German companies that prevent Nordstream 2 from operating. There is now again a threat of conflict between Germany and the USA, because Russian natural gas is necessary to prevent a severe energy gap in the energy transition, as well as for the intended transformation of Germany and the EU into a hydrogen-based economic power. In addition, the new Federal Chancellor Scholz had announced the construction of dozens of gas-fired power plants, which will probably be fed primarily from Russian gas. It is also interesting that the foreign policy spokesman for the Greens Nouri Omnipour said that Germany should not support such US sanctions, which would exclude companies like BASF from the US market. If Nordstream 2 was a wrong decision, it would remain a German and not an American decision. Let’s see whether the rest of the Greens and the new Foreign Minister Baerbock see it that way and a transatlantic and intra-European dispute flares up about it, especially since the question is whether the energy supplies from Russia can still tie it to Europe and otherwise loose Russia all the way to Asia and China or if Northstream does not „feed the beast “ for new expansions and to its goal of a multipolar world order and a Eurasian axis with China, Iran and maybe Turkey against the West.Ultimately, the question remains whether a New Ostpolitik/New East Policy which defines Ukraine as a neutral state that does not belong to either Russia, the EU or NATO, might be a bridging state between the EU and the Eurasian Union would be an option, or whether both sides will continue to pursue their expansionist efforts and the situation is too far advanced and therefore away for any possible compromise, yes, Russia might even want to incorporate Eastern Ukraine for its Eurasian Union, especially since Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov believes that conflicts such as Ukraine, Syria or Libya can only be resolved when the USA and the West agreed and accepted a new international security and multipolar world order. That means: No New East Policy/ Neue Ostpolitik and solution of regional conflicts, no regional solutions, but only an international solution through a new world order in which Russia is accepted as a great power within the framework of a multipolar world where the regional conflicts are then resolved.In the globalization euphoria of the 90s and Fukuyama’s eschatological missionary salvation bible „The End of History“, both Russian and German sides thought about Russia’s membership in NATO, a security community from Vancouver to Vladivostok, and a Eurasiaan economic community from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Under the SPD / Green government then via a Eurasian economic community, the admission of Russia to the G7, which also happened as G8, and also via the admission of China, which was supposed to create a G9 and in return a UN reform was envisaged that should bring Germany, South Africa, India and Brazil to the permanent UN Security Council. In 2001 Putin’s speech in German in the German Bundestag. But it is likely that as a nuclear power of equal military strength, Russia, especially with a Eurasian alliance in NATO, would not have been in the interests of the USA. Also, if Russia had been a member of the EU, everything would have shifted geopolitically On this basis, a cooperation was completely unrealistic. But other options could have been considered. Conversely, Scholl Latour once said that the USA wanted to install a Trojan pro-American horse in the EU by accepting Eastern Europe and GB, as Rumsfeld did with his definition of Old and New Europe. Especially since Friedmann from the US think tank Stratfor and Putin advisor Rahr also believe that the US wanted to use the Eastern Europeans to create a strategic belt between Russia and Western Europe, Germany and France in order to prevent any Eurasian fraternization. Scholl Latour also said that a NATO with Russia would have been seen as a threat by the CCP. Conversely, it is interesting that the Democratic Party of China, which was banned together with the Falungong in 1998, propagated China’s NATO membership in its Century declaration. Brzeznski also proposed a Trans Eurasian Security System (TESS) and OSCEA, an OSCE with Asia, in his book Chessboard. And then Ivo Daalder with the idea of a Global NATO. Yes, there were huge plans and dreams and visions in the 90s and the 2000s , but they have now been thrown back into total nationalist backlash. Now China and Russia want to determine the world order in their favor.