Tried and true: how the West reacts to Russian Federation's warning
While the UN, China and even some European countries are calling for de-escalation, the United States and some of its allies continue to say that their policy towards the Ukrainian crisis remains unchanged. At the same time, Russia has no plans to convene a special meeting at the UN, Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyansky told Izvestiya. According to him, there was no reaction from representatives of Western countries in the international organization after the Russian president's speech on November 21. The West's unwillingness to soberly assess the situation on the battlefield in the combat zone and ignoring the interests of the Russian Federation may lead to further escalation of the conflict. Against this background, there is hope that Washington will change its policy after January 20 - Donald Trump's inauguration is scheduled for that day. But given the previous experience, there are no guarantees here either.
Testing the "Nuttall" in combat conditions
The regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character, and it is connected with the use by the AFU of long-range Western-made missiles against the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin said on the evening of November 21. Two days earlier, six ATACMS operational-tactical missiles and the Storm Shadow and HIMARS systems struck military facilities on Russian territory - in the Bryansk and Kursk regions - in a combined attack on November 21. Moscow responded by launching an Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile (nuclear-free hypersonic equipped) at an industrial complex in Dnepropetrovsk.
Highly mobile artillery rocket system HIMARS
After this event, the world actually split into two camps. Part of the international community apparently realized the degree of escalation to which the parties to the conflict had approached. Thus, the UN called for urgent steps to reduce tensions, emphasizing that the situation was developing "in the wrong direction". The organization, however, is now limited in its ability to take any action on the Ukrainian track. The UN Security Council not only lacks unity among the permanent members, who have the right of veto, but the conflict, in fact, is unfolding between its participants - the United States, France and the United Kingdom, which support Kiev on the one hand and Russia on the other.
At the same time, there was no reaction from representatives of Western countries, who represent the interests of their governments at the UN, after Vladimir Putin's speech, Dmitry Polyansky, Russia's first deputy permanent representative to the UN, told Izvestia. He emphasized: in the near future, Moscow has no plans to raise the topic of escalation provoked by the West at UN Security Council meetings or in any other formats.
As for individual states, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban urged Western countries to take the Russian leader's message seriously. He said Moscow has one of the most powerful armies in the world. "A frightening escalation," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called Russia's use of the latest missile. The head of the German cabinet reemphasized against the background of what is happening that Kiev will not receive German long-range Taurus missiles. The reaction of Warsaw, which traditionally comes out with sharp anti-Russian slogans, is also interesting. This time, Prime Minister Donald Tusk spoke of the real risk of a "global conflict." Such words in the case of Poland or Germany should not be regarded as a serious change in the vector of foreign policy or a realization of the harmfulness of previous decisions on the part of the collective West. Rather, it is a realization that escalation may simply no longer be controllable. And the "Nutshell" is known to fly at 2.5-3 kilometers per second, so the approximate flight time of such a missile to the capital of Great Britain is 19 minutes, to Poland - 8, to Berlin - 11.
The leaders of Serbia and Belarus have warned that the world is on the brink of catastrophe. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fitzo, on the other hand, believes that Vladimir Zelensky is satisfied with the continuation of hostilities. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, for its part, urged the parties to restraint.
- For China, the worsening crisis in relations between Russia and the West is a strategic problem. In case of escalation, peace initiatives will lose their meaning, putting China in the position of having to make a choice. China cannot make such a choice because it is a choice between economics and strategic cooperation, like a choice between parents. Therefore, today we can assume that China will take a pause and watch the development of events," RIAC program manager Yulia Melnikova told Izvestia.
Now, in general, there is escalation primarily on the part of the United States and Great Britain, German political scientist Alexander Rahr told Izvestia. However, one should not forget about France, which is also making a serious contribution to the aggravation of the situation in Europe with its supplies. French Foreign Ministry spokesman Christophe Lemoine refused to name the number of long-range SCALP missiles that Paris has transferred to Kiev. However, on November 19, the media wrote that it was about 10 missiles out of the promised 40 units.
Germany, represented by Scholz, who recently had a telephone conversation with Putin, has recently been making relatively moderate statements when compared to the words of British and U.S. politicians.
SCALP long-range missile
- And the rest of us are just looking at what's going to happen: what America and England are willing to do. Many are also watching to see what Biden's reaction will be to the ballistic missile strike on Dnipropetrovsk. Everyone is also waiting for Trump, what he will propose," Alexander Rahr added.
Will the US stop the escalation process
Most American non-mainstream media and independent journalists, including Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald, call the actions of Washington and the West in general a complete recklessness. The fact is that Joe Biden's administration set the course for escalation weeks before the change in power. First they authorized the use of their long-range missiles, and then they gave the go-ahead for further deliveries of anti-personnel mines banned by the 1997 UN Ottawa Convention. In addition, on November 21, the U.S. Ministry of Finance once again expanded anti-Russian sanctions, under which more than 110 individuals and entities, including one of the largest banks in Russia, Gazprombank, were placed.
However, everything points to the fact that the American side has not made and probably will not make any conclusions after Vladimir Putin's warning. Pentagon Speaker Sabrina Singh has already stated that Washington remains focused on arming Kiev. Similar words followed from the White House: Biden's press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed the US commitment to the current political course, which means supporting Ukraine.
It is worth noting that the US, alas, is not alone. On November 22, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky visited Kiev to discuss more effective coordination of international aid. The UK also promised to continue supporting Ukraine.
Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky in Kiev
Some European and American officials (their names are not specified) even suggested that Kiev return nuclear weapons, which Ukraine gave up after the collapse of the USSR. Such dangerous initiatives are reported by the world's leading media. But such a decision is extremely unlikely even under the current US administration.
- They will not go for it. This automatically means a scenario of a world nuclear war. It would be one thing if there were crazy people sitting there, but there are realists and pragmatists," Konstantin Blokhin, a leading researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said in a conversation with Izvestia.
The way the conflict will develop further depends largely on the United States. Washington is Ukraine's main donor, and European countries are hardly capable of assuming full responsibility for supporting Kiev economically and militarily in the long term. Therefore, the international public's attention is now focused on Trump, who in his election campaign promised to stop the conflict in 24 hours. At the same time, we should not forget that the spokeswoman for Trump's election headquarters and most likely the future White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt said that Trump aims to restore peace in the world, but through force. What that will mean in practice remains to be seen.
If we look at Donald Trump's past term (2017-2021), it is difficult to predict his actions towards the Russian Federation. Even before the SWO, a record number of sanctions against Moscow were imposed under him. At the same time, decisions were made to send arms to the AFU. But at the same time, a short period of warming Russian-American relations is also associated with Trump. In particular, after the meeting of the two leaders in Helsinki in 2018, he expressed hope for building constructive interaction between the countries. In addition, before this year's election, Trump periodically spoke of his respect for Vladimir Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump meet in Helsinki
- Nevertheless, I don't think the current spiral of escalation will stop under Trump. It would be one thing if he were the sole decision-maker, but here his power will be limited by Congress, albeit a Republican one. The people he lobbies into his new administration will have to be coordinated with congress. The same goes for policy decisions. A quick de-escalation is unlikely to happen. One can even look at those he has already nominated for certain positions, such as Russophobe Marco Rubio, who is running for Secretary of State. One might say that Anthony Blinken is "just resting" in comparison. Rubio is the bigger hawk. It will definitely not be easy with Trump," Konstantin Blokhin believes.
One way or another, even if Trump does not go for normalization of relations with Russia, there is still a chance to refuse escalation around Ukraine. After all, if he fails to stabilize the situation and influence U.S. allies on the Ukrainian track, it will mean that he has failed in one of his campaign promises. It is clear that the billionaire has nothing much to lose politically, as he cannot go for a third term, according to the American Constitution. On the other hand, Trump hardly wants to give Democrats and his detractors in general an extra reason to criticize him.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
