In Imperialism, Roger Annis, Russia, Ukraine

© RIA Novosti
Russian servicemen in the zone of the special military operation in Ukraine

The West is panicking. First, the German chancellor issued a panicky statement on April 19: “Together with our partners in the EU and NATO, we are completely united in the opinion that Russia must not win this war.” He repeated this thesis several times during the day.

By Vladimir Kornilov

Published in English on A Socialist in Canada, Apr 25, 2022

Click here to read the original article in Russian

Translated into English by a Socialist in Canada

Only a lazy observer fails to recognize that Russia will emerge victorious in its political/military conflict with Ukraine. And the West is panicking.

First, the German chancellor issued a panicky statement on April 19: “Together with our partners in the EU and NATO, we are completely united in the opinion that Russia must not win this war.” He repeated this thesis several times during the day.

He was followed by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who doesn’t hide the fact that he is one of the main inspirers of Ukraine ‘s adventurous actions. Speaking in Delhi on April 22, he squeezed out a terrible confession with a tragic expression on his face in response to a question about the possibility of a Russian victory: “The saddest thing is that this is a realistic possibility. Yes, of course. Putin has a huge army…We must be realistic.”

At the same time, Johnson mumbled something about “creating a land corridor in Mariupol”, without explaining where this corridor should lead. He clearly had heard something about the success of the Russian army in battling the neo-Nazi ‘Azov’ paramilitaries in the city. (A criminal investigation by Russia against ‘Azov’ is ongoing.) But as usual, Johnson did not look at a map. Humanitarian corridors in and around Mariupol have already been created and have been working for some time now.

Johnson’s words caused a real shock in Ukraine. They were not expected from the ‘best friend’ of Vladimir Zelensky. After all, Johnson was triumphantly received recently in Kiev and such a ‘betrayal’, as the Ukrainians put it, was not expected.


Officials in Kiev are still trying not to notice other seditious words of their London favorite, these ones concerning the “security guarantees for Ukraine” sought by Kiev. These cannot directly mirror the mutual obligations of the NATO countries on collective defense as provided for by the infamous Article 5 of the NATO pact. But this is exactly how Ukrainian propagandists painted the ‘guarantees’ which they proposed to enshrine in a peace agreement with Russia at talks in Istanbul [late March]. As you may recall, in Istanbul they presented their idea of creating a “pool of security guarantors” as a sort of ‘alternative NATO’, created specifically for the defense of Ukraine.

Representatives of Zelensky’s office–Mikhail Podolyak and Aleksey Arestovich–have spoken breathlessly about the fact that Ukraine will receives ‘guarantees’ much better, even, than NATO’s Article 5. The Ukrainian population, overcome with joy, was then told, “As a result of our negotiations, Ukraine will enter the European Union, will not host NATO offensive weapons (which weren’t here anyway), will receive guarantees better than Article 5, and will not be required to pay for all this. NATO will pay for the Ukraine’s participation, and for better guarantees, to boot.”

Now Boris Johnson’s appearance at a press conference in Delhi has completely dispelled all these wet dreams of Ukrainian officials. He reduced all the ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine to three points: supply of weapons, training the military, and provision of intelligence data. But this is what the West has been doing all along, without any agreements and ‘guarantees’. As you can see, the thinking of Kyiv’s main ally [in London] resembles nothing like the earlier fairy tales of Zelensky’s spokesperson Oleksiy Arestovich to the effect that the NATO countries would gather within three days following any “Russian aggression against Ukraine” and would undertake bombing of the “aggressor”.

But let us return to Johnson’s terrible assumptions about the possibility of a Russian victory. The Financial Times admitted on April 22, “His statement was the first admission by a major Western leader that Russia could triumphantly win the war. It marks a significant shift in his own rhetoric from what he was saying just a few weeks ago.”

A senior EU official, according to the FT, called Johnson’s statement “shameful” and predicted that it would provoke the wrath of Kyiv. In reality, the British Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, “Putin must lose, and he will lose.” Even more, many Western figures, politicians, analysts–Russophobes of all stripes–have repeatedly declared, ‘Russia has already lost.’

These statements were especially spurred on by the actions of the Russian army to de-escalate the situation in the Kiev and Chernigov directions, undertaken by Moscow as a gesture of goodwill just after the above-mentioned negotiations in Istanbul. Joyful reports about the “defeat of Russia” then followed, one after another.

“Putin has already lost this war,” former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul said happily on MSNBC. He even listed points to support his conclusion: “Russia didn’t take Kyiv, didn’t kill Zelensky, didn’t change the regime and didn’t take Kharkiv.” As though Russia had actually set a goal to kill Zelensky or had announced the imminent fall of Kyiv.

The West has presumed to come up with some ‘objectives’ for Russia’s special operation in Ukraine and is now rejoicing that these have not been achieved. It doesn’t matter that Moscow has repeatedly refuted the Western tales, clearly outlining its goals and objectives of the special operation in the Donbass and Ukraine. [See: Russia’s six conditions for peace in Ukraine, by Roger Annis, in A Socialist In Canada, March 11, 2022.]

Just a few weeks ago, New Eastern Europe, a magazine published in Poland, proclaimed: “Russia has definitely already lost the chance to win… It cannot win… Ukrainians have already realized this fact and now elites both in the East and in the West recognize it.” [See also this April 22 editorial from Germany’s Der Speigel magazine.]

Yet after all this, the voices of the idea of the ‘inevitable defeat of Russia’ have begun to recognize the possibility of a Russian victory.

It’s not just about Johnson who has let the cat out of the bag. Reuters cited unnamed Western official in a report on April 21 saying that Russia had the potential to win. One official said, “Command and control has become more effective… it’s clear that they’re being smarter about how they’re using UAVs and integrating those into their forces as they advance, and how they’re using artillery.” [See also this report in Business Insider, April 21.]

The Times headlined an April 21 article ‘A revived Russia can still win’. It, too, cited Western intelligence services, again unnamed, who explained that the Russian army has every opportunity to surround the Ukrainian units [in eastern Ukraine and Donbass] and “over time, grind them down”.

You understand, such confessions shock the Western public. It has been celebrating for weeks the “defeat of Russia”. Panicked letters from readers are appearing in European newspapers, so commentators in the Financial Timesare begging the British prime minister to keep quiet about the victory of Russia: One writes, “Johnson is simply outrageously not watching his tongue. His words will give strength to Putin’s troops and undermine the morale of Ukrainian defenders. Doesn’t he know that in wartime a talker is a godsend for the enemy?”

The Daily Telegraph quotes a letter from a reader from The Hague: “This conflict is about the survival of the West… If Ukraine is allowed to fall, then everything that the Western world stands for will also fall. And despots like Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko and Xi Jinping will rubbing their hands with glee… The moment has come for the West to fight or forever give up trying to carry the torch of freedom.”

Let us leave aside the pathos of carrying torches and ask ourselves the question: What has happened during Russia’s special operation that has led the West to change its jubilation over the ‘defeat of Russia’ into panic over Russia’s ability to win? What does the liberation of Mariupol from the neo-Nazi paramilitaries signify? After all, the Western public has been assured that the city is almost entirely under the control of the Ukrainians. Similarly, how to explain the confident advancement of the armies of Russia and the Donetsk and Lugansk republics?

Western media is happy to repeat Zelensky’s statements that Ukraine has allegedly “recaptured from the enemy” about 1,000 settlements. We recall the earlier assurances by Kyiv to its public–and the same assurances from the West–of the ‘frivolous’ claims of Russia’s successes. They say Russia did not succeed in occupying a large number of cities and villages. So where do the 1,000′ ‘liberated’ settlements now come from? When did Ukraine lose them if, prior to that, Russia had not managed to take anything?

It is obvious that Boris Johnson, officials of the European Union and, even more so, Western intelligence agencies did not draw their information from Arestovich’s reports of victory and not even from Ukraine’s Russophobia-obsessed propaganda media. As they are forced to publicly acknowledge the military capabilities of Russia, they understand that the successes of the Russian army are significant and the defeats of Ukraine on the battlefield looks more and more obvious.

This is assuredly not the end of the story. Following the stage of depression that these confessions will cause amongst the Western public will come the stage of acceptance of the inevitable. As a result, even the most notorious Russophobes will be forced to understand that Russia has only one path: to victory. There is no alternative outcome, whether the Johnsons and the Bidens want it or not.

If, after the end of the Cold War, the West had not disbanded its rather powerful institutions of Sovietology, where really knowledgeable specialists on Russia worked, then Russians would be much better understood there today. The West would know that our people in years of severe trials always live by the principle: ‘We fight for victory, and victory for all. We are ready to pay the price for that.”

If they looked and understood, they would stop joyfully celebrating ‘Russian defeats’ and start talking about ‘Russia’s ability to win’. A Russian victory is not only possible, it is inevitable.


EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.

Recent Posts
Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Translate »