Ukraine war after the referendums: What is the US war goal?

Ukraine war after the referendums: What is the US war goal?

SCO conference with new member Iran and Erdogan also wants to join the SCO, upcoming 20th party congress of the CP China, with the rapid referendums and the partial mobilization, the Ukraine war is entering a new phase. At the same time, coup rumors on social media that Nikolai or Dimitri Petrashev or another siloviki would replace Putin, fake news that Xi had been toppled in a military coup, and mass protests in the new SCO member Iran, although the Iran negotiations are said to have entered their decisive phase . One gets the impression of a concerted and coordinated destabilization campaign.

Blinken stresses that the US has publicly and behind the scenes threatened consequences if weapons of mass destruction are used and a nuclear strike happened. That the West, like Erdogan, will not recognize the referendums, which probably means that the Ukrainians will be allowed to continue attacking the then annexed Donbass and now, even after partial mobilization, to bleed out the Russians. In the event of any peace negotiations that would result in a division of Ukraine, this would only make sense if the USA decided on a bilateral defense alliance with Ukraine and set up a military base as a tripwire and bulwark, insofar as the rest of Ukraine should not become a NATO member after all. But perhaps the US wants to keep the war in limbo longer to bleed the Russians out as inAfghanistan.

In our Global Review discussion, Merkel’s former military adviser, General Vad, commented:

“Dear Mr. Ostner, Thank you! Complete agreement. Nevertheless: the AFG comparison lags behind because we and RUS cannot simply “go home” as in AFG. Not RUS, because it would then lose its status as a world power, and not us, because we would lose all credibility. Another difference to AFG: with the referendums, the RUS perception of the Donbass becomes state territory of RUS. Future Western-backed UKR military operations will then be direct attacks on RUS. That is the real turning point of the war, not the – as often claimed – apparently successful counter-offensives of the UKR! As a result of the referendums, the military operations in the UKR have acquired a different political quality, including the increased possibility of using nuclear weapons. If we now carry on with our one-dimensional foreign policy, which amounts to nothing more than supplying arms to the UKR and omitting diplomatic initiatives, then we are steering towards an escalation that can no longer be politically controlled and possibly towards a limited nuclear war in Europe. From the point of view of Washington and Beijing, this may not be so serious. In any case, Europe and above all Germany would be the big losers in this geostrategic “big game”. Thank you for your input!”

The question is whether the US goal is to bleed Putin out and perhaps weaken Russia in this way or even bring about regime change, or whether the USA are prepared to get involved in peace negotiations. In the latter case, however, that would only be credible if, in the event of a division of Ukraine, the USA will set up a military base in the rest of Ukraine and enter into a defense treaty like with Japan and not like the non-binding Budapest Declaration or a Taiwan Relations Act with strategic ambiguity or as altenrative a NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine, so that a further expansion by Putin in Ukraine after a short recovery phase as a result of a peace treaty was fundamentally ruled out. Hard to say what the US wants. At the moment mainstream is that Putin’s referendum and the associated annexation is not a qualitative change, since Crimea is also Russian territory and the Ukrainians, despite all threats of nuclear war and escalation, are carrying out attacks on Crimea, so it’s all just a bluff. Still, General Vad could be right, should Ukrainians really try to conquer Crimea or Donbass, whether Putin would leave that unanswered. But the two questions that arise from this are: Is a reconquest at all conceivable from a military point of view and following on from that: Do the USA want to divide Ukraine and then credibly secure Ukraine, or delay the war for as long as possible in order to bleed Putin out and continue to force the formation of blocs ? And a third question: Were the possible US defense guarantees still valid if Trump or a related Republican were re-elected instead of Biden?

And vice versa: Would Putin be willing at all to accept a US military alliance with or NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine, to renounce his provocative declaration in his draft treaty before the Ukraine war of a NATO rollback to the pre-1997 borders, or would he continue to stick to the goal of his „peace speech“ in the Bundestag speech of a Eurasian alliance that pushes the USA out of Europe. Or would he just make a tactical retreat to hope for better times? Would such a peace treaty even be worth the ink after so much trust had been destroyed, or would it also be seen as appeasement, like the Hitler-Stalin pact, which also did not prevent Operation Barbarossa? Or does the US want Putin to distance himself from China as proof of his seriousness, and does he want that at all?

Another very interesting article in Foreign Policy.

“Europe’s Energy Crisis Is Destroying the Multipolar World

The EU and Russia are losing their competitive edge. That leaves the United States and China to duke it out.”

By Jeff D. Colgan, an associate professor of political science at Brown University.

Thesis: As a result of the energy war and Ukraine war, the EU is eliminated as economic competitior for the USA and Russia as great powers in a multipolar world, since they weaken each other economically to such an extent that a new bipolarity in the USA-China conflict will now arise. Whether that might even have been a strategic goal of the USA and kill two birds with one stone is not even asked.

Now acts of sabotage on the Gazprom pipeline to the North Sea. It is emphasized that this was not made by a non-state actors, since such an operation requires a certain amount of knowledge and logistics. Two narratives: It was the US or Ukrainians or anti-Russian states, since Putin would not destroy his own pipeline and bloc formation should be forced. Second narrative: It was Putin because he wants Western populations to believe that he will never destroy his own pipeline would attack and could make a false flag, the cui bono lies with the USA, who want to drive the EU into American energy dependence (a video interview by Condolezza Rice then also appears on social media, saying exactly that), This is in line with the long list of assassinations, false flag ops of Russian hybrid warfare. In addition, it has an economic benefit: After the gas prices had fallen in the meantime and would continue to fall due to the opening of the Baltic Pipe between Norway and Poland to supply all of Eastern Europe and the problems with the Russian-Chinese pipeline, it would frighten the gas markets, which drives up energy prices again and benefits Putin and his war chest. The psychological effect is to continue to unsettle the Western population, to make their energy dependency clear through a demonstration of power, as well as to promote the demonstrations that are now beginning in the cold autumn and winter, in Germany by the AfD and the Left Party, who are demanding the lifting of sanctions and peace negotiations in Ukraine , and to stir up feelings of fear and weakness in Western populations and to further divide, polarize and weaken society. Above all, it should be shown that Putin also has other options beyond purely military attacks within the spectrum of a hybrid war, such as acts of sabotage or cyber attacks on critical infrastructures. In addition, he could also want to show that the northern flank of NATO would not be safe even if Sweden and Finland joined NATO. Conversely, this could also benefit the USA, which wants to push ahead with the formation of blocks in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Arctic. Whatever the case, whether the EU is now threatening the “severest conceivable consequences,” as EU Commission President van der Leyen said, and Russia is identified as the culprit, one wonders what sanctions are still possible , but  the consensus that NATO must better protect the pipelines and undersea Internet cables as well as critical infrastructure will emerge, which consequently amounts to a further militarization of NATO’s northern flank.

Russia expert and one of the former Putin advisors Dr. Alexander Rahr just wrote to Global Review that he had heard rumors that at the SCO meeting in Samarkand, China and India had called on Putin to end the war by the G20 summit in Bali, otherwise they would withdraw their support from him. Therefore, Putin has now held the referendums and is preparing for a defensive war in the Donbass in order to hold it. The question is whether the Chinese and Indians would also make this narrative public. Well, the Chinese are experts when it comes to face-saving narratives. Will it go so smoothly until the Xi Biden meeting? Especially since peace negotiations would only have to be conducted between the USA, Ukraine and Russia in this case, Germany and the Europeans playing no role there. Did it happen this way? Or is it desinformation and wishful thinking that appeals to the longing for peace? Is that perhaps an unintended effect of Putin’s nuclear weapons threats? Does Putin even want that? As reported by ntv, there are currently problems with the Russian-Chinese pipeline, the reasons are still unclear. Are the Chinese putting pressure on Putin, or is it just a technical and/or financial problem, or is the latter an excuse for the former? But with Dr. Rahr you have to be careful. During the Navalny attack he wanted to tell us that the British were behind it, with the sabotage of the North Sea pipeline he wanted to draw suspicion onto the Americans. He then reported that Putin might resign in favor of the son of ex-FSB chief Nikolai Petrashev Dimitri, who is an economist, CEO at Gazprom and an agrobank, or might have chosen him as his crown prince. Especially since Rahr also knows Dimitri from his former Gazprom post. Then it was said again that this was not acute. An ex-MI6er, on the other hand, tended to bet on the father as the successor, especially since the old silowiki is also President of the Security Council.

Dr. Rahr also wrote us: “Ukraine wants to join NATO quickly. It is admitted, but without the „Russian-occupied territories“. As I said, the question is what the US war goal is: Let Russia continue to bleed out and allow Ukrainians to attack the Russian-occupied areas despite nuclear threats, since Crimea is also Russia and the Ukrainians can attack it with impunity, even if they cannot reconquer it yet? Both Bernd Greiner and General Vad now warn of a nuclear war and compare the situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, not because of an immediate military threat to Russia from the Ukrainians and NATO, but because of their own perception of spheres of interest and a possible collapse of the state- so Bernd Greiner in his article:

“The logic of blackmail; From the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Ukraine War“

Ex-General Domroese Jr. said: „The problem/challenge is well described – if I understand it correctly, that means today: since Putin is not giving in, you have to offer a face-saving solution…“.

Ex-NATO General Klaus Naumann commented:

„I’m not as Merkelized as Vad, so I won’t repeat the banality that there must be negotiations. There will be, but the decision is made without our having a say in the Washington-Kyiv-Moscow triangle. I’m not that scared of tactical nucs either. They are not war decisive and do not elevate the war to the global level, that is the difference from 62. Should Putin use them, he has lost strategically and will, I assume, be a very noticeable conventional US response, coordinated with FR and UK and maybe even with China. “

In addition, there is also the question of whether Biden’s conventional counterthreats are also a real deterrent to Putin, and the US military seems to have a different point of view, which according to Newsweek thinks Biden’s reaction should be: „Talk more nuclear“.

“Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn’t”

By William M. Arkin On 09/29/22 at 5:00 AM EDT

Insofar as the USA does not want to push Putin to the limit and does not hope for a regime change that might cause even more radical forces, but hope for a dove faction in Russia, it should be clear that „Russian-occupied areas“ are „only“ the Donbass, not also southern Ukraine and Odessa, in order to cut off the rest of Ukraine from the sea and turn it into a landlocked state by the mercy of Russia, but that the USA put itself in the rest of Ukraine itself as a direct bulwark and nuclear trip wire by means of a defense treaty ala Japan and its own military bases or else NATO membership that prevents any further advances by Putin. However, according to ex-NATO General Naumann and Domroese jr., this is being negotiated between the triangle USA, Russia and Ukraine, the EU and Germany have nothing to say and are just onlookers. But perhaps with all the Kremlin astrology , it will be clearer when Xi and Biden meet at the G20 summit .

Now Donald Trump is also getting involved, probably in the hope of being re-elected in 2024 and outdoing newer rivals such as the governor of Florida Desantis (“Trump with brain“) and making many decisions in advance by means of the midterm elections:

„Wouldn’t have happened if I were president“: Trump warns of world war – and wants to negotiate with Putin“

So Trump’s claim is that the Ukraine war would not have happened because he had before made a „deal“ with Putin. He never reveals what the deal would have included. You should only trust him as a big dealmaker and everything will be fine. What would a Trump deal have been after declaring NATO “obsolete”, ditching Russian pipelines in favor of US gas pipelines, fending off NATO’s defense commitment to Putin to get him into a G11 at the expense of Europe and Germany for a one-sided focus on the final battle against China. What you have to give Trump to his credit is that he has not yet gotten involved in the war of choices of the globalists, like George Bush jrs. Iraq war or Libyan war and that he got along better with Kim Yongun, although he explained them as a „little fat rocket man on a suicide mission“, but came to a gentlemen’s agreement that the US ceased its military maneuvers against North Korea and the North Koreans forget about missile tests and atomic bomb tests, which is different again under Biden. But what would have been the Trump-Putin deal? The neutrality of Ukraine while at the same time questioning NATO and the hope of getting Putin into a G 11 against China and giving him Europe in return? Only the Donbass, Ukraine neutral and thus still a possible victim of further Russian expansions or a division of Ukraine with southern Ukraine and Odessa with a rest of Ukraine, where the USA places itself with military bases in the rest of Ukraine or supports a „obsolete“ NATO membership and prevents any further Russian expansion.?Does Trump want the latter? You don’t know, and Trump probably doesn’t either. His hatred of China is so great that he would let Putin somehow get him into a front against the real US threat, China, even at the sacrifice of Europe. And when it comes to China, apparently all US parties are agitators, since Pompeo and Bolton would like to see an independent Taiwan in the certainty that this would trigger a Sino-American war, Trump has also questioned the one-China principle, as does Biden now strategic ambiguity and encouraged the separatists of the DDP. But as I said, these major geopolitical issues are no longer decided in the EU.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.