Can America still provide protection to its vassals in Western and Eastern Europe?
The title of this hogwash tells you what’s coming.
Paul Robinson, History professor at the University of Ottawa, recently wrote an editorial for the RT media network (Russia Today) stating that “a war between Russia and Ukraine is only possible if Ukraine attacks first”.
“The true peril is not a Russian invasion in Eastern Ukraine, but the mistaken interpretation of the signals of support received from America, which could be considered as an urge to assault the rebels in the Donbass”, professor Robinson writes.
It seems that America’s signs of support have already been misinterpreted. After president Biden’s statement concerning “unyielding support”, the presidential administration in Kyiv found it appropriate to declare war on Russia.
How else can one describe the signing of Decree 117/2021, of March 24, 2021, by president Zelensky, which presents “Strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration of territories temporarily occupied of the Crimea Autonomous Republic and the City of Sevastopol”? The Government in Kyiv needs to establish the plan of action for he implementation of the strategy, which also includes the country joining NATO.
Russia’s military exercises immediately expanded in scale and the sending of troops and weapons to the border with Ukraine was sped up. However, the number of participating soldiers is still far from the one recorded on the Vostok-2018 maneuvers in the Far East, about 300,000, which were joined by military units from China and Mongolia.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg chose to ignore the “detail” represented by presidential decree 117/2021. “The considerable accumulation of Russia’s armed forces is unjustified, unexplained and very worrying,” said Stoltenberg at a joint press conference with Dmitro Kuleba, Ukraine Foreign Minister.
In a conversation with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, President Putin stressed that “if the Ukrainians launch a military offensive in Donbass or Crimea, we will destroy Ukraine.”
All the “noises” that the two “allies” in the West are making are worth nothing and don’t convince anyone, especially Russians, and Angela Merkel can not imperatively ask Vladimir Putin for anything. If the sending of a powerful message to Moscow is desired, why they do not stop imports of gas and oil from Russia, which should represent a fatal blows for “a gas station that is pretending to be a country,” as John McCain once called it?
Was the message sent by Putin fully understood? It is too early for a verdict, although a series of conciliatory statements appeared from Kiev officials, and the two American ships that were supposed to enter the Black Sea remained in the Mediterranean.
When the first news on the massage of Russian troops at the Ukraine border, American analyst Martin Armstrong stressed that “Biden’s administration pushed Ukraine to declare that they will recover Crimea, so as to trigger a conflict that justifies the closure of the gas pipeline to Germany.”
Against the backdrop of increasing tensions around Ukraine, Asian publications, such as Nikkei Asia or Asia Times, published editorials in which a crucial issue was addressed: many Pacific countries and Eastern Europe are anxiously waiting to see whether America will protect its vassals.
Everything else outside an unconditional affirmative answer will lead to a massive loss of the US’s influence in the two regions.
Andrei Raevsky, former military analyst for UN in Geneva, writes on his blog, The Saker, that “the West has already decided that Russia is the aggressor,” but “no NATO country will send troops against Russia”.
In his opinion, an attack on Russia’s forces will trigger a counterstrike not only against the military units directly involved but also on the command and decision centers, and the opinion is supported by the February 2021 statements of President Vladimir Putin, made during the annual discourse the state of the nation.
“Now, the greatest danger is that Western politicians will misinterpret not just Putin, but misinterpret all of Russia,” Raevsky writes.
An idea of the size of Russia’s counter-attack is offered by the military analyst Andrei Martyanov on his blog and in the book “The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs,” of the autumn of 2019.
“In the abstract scenario of a NATO conventional war against Russia, the American Navy will not be able to get its aircraft carriers within less than 2,000 kilometers of Russia’s shores,” Martyanov writes in the book and he stresses “Western elites have great difficulties in understanding the missile age”.
For that reason, these so-called elites think they are safe in Washington, London or Brussels in the event of a conventional conflict.
“Nothing could be further from the truth”, the Russian military analyst warns, and personal safety greatly behind the frontlines is only a myth.
The warnings even come from the parliamentary institution Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In a report of February 2021, “National Cruise Missile Defense: Issues and Alternatives”, it is stated that defending American territory against LACM – Land-Attack Cruise Missiles is extremely costly and has a low efficiency.
“Decision centers will be attacked and annihilated if they decide to trigger a global conflict,” Martyanov also writes, and President Putin issued a similar warning.
More recently, Martyanov wrote on his blog that “America never fought a war with command and control centers under sustained attacks.”
Warnings even come from the Budget Office Congression (CBO) parliamentary institution. In a February 2021 report, “National Cruise Missile Defense: Issues and Alternatives”, it is said that the American territory defense in front of cruise missiles (LACM, Land-Attack Cruise Missiles) is particularly costly and has a low efficiency.
In the opinion of the authors of the report, the best defense against LACMs is their elimination at the source, i.e. detecting the LACM-carrying submarines or planes.
Starting from the maps presented in the CBO report, Andrei Martyanov demonstrates that it is almost impossible to determine the probability density of the location, as the Russian naval forces are already equipped with the new variant of the Kalibr 3M14M rocket, which has a range of action of about 4,500 kilometers. The map presented in the CBO report only includes distances of up to 2,000 kilometers.
Moreover, Martyanov points out that supersonic and hypersonic missile attacks can come from submarines or planes that do not have to leave the Russian maritime or air space.
In order to assess what “weight” the statements of the American President have with Kremlin officials, especially President Putin, a recent interview for Swiss Welt Woche with Mike McCormick, a former stenographer in the White House for 15 years, of which 6 years for Vice-President Biden, is extremely telling.
“World leaders have shown a very little respect for Biden,” said the author of the book “Joe Biden Unauthorized: And The 2020 Crackup of the Democratic Party”, but his diplomatic disasters have rarely been discussed in the press, because “Biden knew how to play the game”.
McCormick’s first external trip as Biden’s stenographer was to Moscow in 2011, when “Putin humiliated Biden publicly”, as the US Vice-President wanted to make a special impression on his public at home regarding “his expertise in foreign policy”.
While Biden was trying to show off his knowledge of Russia’s history, the television cameras were turned off, and President Putin asked the journalists to leave the room.
“Putin’s premeditated tactics left Joe Biden speechless and deeply humiliated in a critical meeting,” and “American Vice-President looked like an exhausted fish on the bottom of a boat in the dimly lit room”.
“He doesn’t understand how world leaders see him”, Mike McCormick further said, in whose opinion Biden does not have the necessary qualities to be president.
Just as unlikely is the understanding of the fact that the relations with the Russian Federation need to be rebuilt on a completely different foundation.
“We will never reach an agreement with them because we will not agree to collapse. We will never reach an agreement with them because we will not agree to surrender our nuclear weapons. We will never reach an agreement with them because we will not agree to forget our national interests and forget our history”, said Margarita Simonian editor-in-chief of the RT media network said in a televised show.
Such opinions seem to be widespread among the Russian population.
Under these circumstances, beyond empty statements about unwavering support or announcements of equally empty sanctions, what can America do to keep its relevance and offer its vassals at least a minimum sense of safety?
Maybe adopt another way, in line with the recent recommendation of Henry Kissinger on accepting the transition to a multipolar world?