[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
World News See other World News Articles Title: Putin's "War" To Re-Shape The American Zeitgeist The G7 and the subsequent Swiss Bürgenstock Conference can in retrospect be understood as preparation for a prolonged Ukraine war. The three centrepiece announcements emerging from the G7 the 10 year Ukraine security pact; the $50 billion Ukraine loan; and the seizing of interest on Russian frozen funds make the point. The war is about to escalate. These stances were intended as preparation of the western public ahead of events. And in case of any doubts, the blistering belligerency towards Russia emerging from the European election leaders was plain enough: They sought to convey a clear impression of Europe preparing for war. What then lies ahead? According to White House Spokesman John Kirby: Washingtons position on Kiev is absolutely clear: First, theyve got to win this war. They gotta win the war first. So, number one: Were doing everything we can to make sure they can do that. Then when the wars over
Washington will assist in building up Ukraines military industrial base. If that was not plain, the U.S. intent to prolong and take the war deep into Russia was underlined by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: Authorization for Ukrainian use of American weapons for cross-border attacks extends to anywhere [from which] Russian forces are coming across the border. He affirmed, too, that Ukraine can use F-16s to attack Russia and use U.S. supplied air defence systems to take down Russian planes even if in Russian airspace if theyre about to fire into Ukrainian airspace. Ukrainian pilots have the latitude to judge the intent of Russian fighter aircraft? Expect the parameters of this authorisation to widen quickly deeper to air bases from which Russian fighter bombers launch. Understanding that the war is about to transform radically and extremely dangerously President Putin (in his speech to the Foreign Ministry Board) detailed just how the world had arrived at this pivotal juncture one which could extend to nuclear exchanges. The gravity of the situation itself demanded the making of one last chance offer to the West, which Putin emphatically said was no temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor was it about freezing the conflict; but rather, his proposals were about the wars final completion. If, as before, Kiev and western capitals refuse it then at the end, thats their business, Putin said. Just to be clear, Putin almost certainly never expected the proposals to be received in the West other than by the scorn and derision with which they, in fact, were met. Nor would Putin trust for a moment the West not to renege on an agreement, were some arrangement to be reached on these lines. If so, why then did President Putin make such a proposal last weekend, if the West cannot be trusted and its reaction was so predictable? Well, maybe we need to search for the nesting inner Matryoshka doll, rather than fix on the outer casing: Putins final completion likely will not credibly be achieved through some itinerant peace broker. In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin dismisses devices such as ceasefires or freezes. He is seeking something permanent: An arrangement that has solid legs; one that has durability. Such a solution as Putin before has hinted requires a new world security architecture to come into being; and were that to happen, then a complete solution for Ukraine would flow as an implicit part to a new world order. That is to say, with the microcosm of a Ukraine solution flowing implicitly from the macrocosm agreement between the U.S. and the Heartland powers settling the borders to their respective security interests. This clearly is impossible now, with the U.S. in its psychological mindset stuck in the Cold War era of the 1970s and 1980s. The end to that war the seeming U.S. victory set the foundation to the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine which underscored American supremacy at all costs in a post-Soviet world, together with stamping out rivals, wherever they may emerge. In conjunction with this, the Wolfowitz Doctrine stipulated that the U.S. would
[inaugurate] a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic zone of peace. Russia, on the other hand, was dealt with differentlythe country fell off the radar. It became insignificant as a geopolitical competitor in the eyes of the West, as its gestures of peaceful offerings were rebuffed and guarantees given to it regarding NATOs expansion forfeited. Moscow could do nothing to prevent such an endeavour. The successor state of the mighty Soviet Union was not its equal, and thus not considered important enough to be involved in global decision-making. Yet, despite its reduced size and sphere of influence, Russia has persisted in being considered a key player in international affairs. Russia today is a preeminent global actor in both the economic and political spheres. Yet for the Ruling Strata in the U.S., equal status between Moscow and Washington is out of the question. The Cold War mentality still infuses the Beltway with the unwarranted confidence that the Ukraine conflict might somehow result in Russian collapse and dismemberment. Putin in his address, by contrast, looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system and of a new architecture emerging. The world will never be the same again, Putin said. Implicitly, he hints that such a radical shift would be the only way credibly to end the Ukraine war. An agreement emerging from the wider framework of consensus on the division of interests between the Rimland and the Heartland (in Mackinder-esque language) would reflect the security interests of each party and not be achieved at the expense of others security. And to be clear: If this analysis is correct, Russia may not be in such a hurry to conclude matters in Ukraine. The prospect of such a global negotiation between Russia-China and the U.S. is still far off. The point here is that the collective western psyche has not been transformed sufficiently. Treating Moscow with equal esteem remains out of the question for Washington. The new American narrative is no negotiations with Moscow now, but maybe it will become possible sometime early in the new year after the U.S. elections. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|