By Pino Arlacchi, originally published on www.marx21.it.
Western euphoria over the failed Wagner mercenary mutiny is fading, and the rebellion is proving to be an internal showdown within the Russian military establishment, which has neither weakened nor strengthened Putin. The situation on the battlefield also remained unchanged. Ukraine has failed to capitalize on the effects of the Wagner chief’s hubris, and the goal of breaking through Russian defenses and reaching the Sea of Azov from the southeast, cutting off the land route to Crimea, appears increasingly distant.
Therefore, the basic terms of the conflict return to the center of attention, with a question that imposes itself: why in the war in Ukraine the last thing that matters is the fate of that country and its inhabitants? The military confrontation could have ended a few weeks after its beginning, because in March last year Putin and Zelensky had almost agreed on the withdrawal of Russian troops in exchange for a commitment to permanent neutrality of Ukraine to be included in its constitution. The peace proposal – drawn up and signed by the head of the Kiev delegation – was torn up by Boris Johnson, who arrived in Turkey to inform Zelensky that the Euro-American bloc did not want any peace, and that it would continue hostilities against Russia. The attempts at negotiation undertaken by the former Israeli prime minister met a similar end
Bennett and the Turkish government. Why such an extreme and cynical position towards the population of a country crushed by the clash between great powers?
The Russian army has become much larger. More than 300,000 men have been mobilized and all observers acknowledge that Russian war tactics have greatly improved. Moscow’s air and defense superiority is overwhelming: it will certainly not be a few dozen Euro-American F-16s that will turn the tide of the conflict. Nobody talks about a Ukrainian victory anymore. Zelensky’s attempts to force the hand of
The United States dragging them into sending troops to the ground are clearly rejected by a Biden already in the electoral campaign, inclined to a frozen conflict like in Korea. A ceasefire that avoids losing face with a peace negotiation and keeps the clash with Russia alive indefinitely, in the face of a dismembered and devastated Ukraine. Indifference to the fate of Ukraine arises from the fact that the last stake here has nothing to do with that unfortunate country. And it has nothing to do with Russia either. She was elected devil of the day because she impersonates the Enemy
Perfect. An otherness tested by the Cold War to delay the decline of the American empire. The US elite is well aware that its time is up and the world has become multipolar. The hour of decline has arrived, Washington is now trying to delay its terminal phase using the means at its disposal. And by making his subjects and allies pay as far as possible. Starting with the Europeans, dragged into a self-defeating battle against Russia which should soon turn, according to Washington’s intentions, against the most coveted trophy, China, now a global power.
Returning to the war in Ukraine, it is evident that it transcends battlefield positions. What is at stake in Ukraine is that of the timing and methods of the United States’ exit from the control room of the planet. When the head of the CIA declares that the United States can no longer claim to sit at the head of the world table, it means that counter strategies are already in place. The majority of American politicians accept the reality of things and are divided into two camps. To the first belong those who believe they can indefinitely hinder the fall by involving Europeans in a tussle with China, Russia and the rest of the world on the basis of the division between liberal democracies and autocracies. I’m talking about the so-called internationalist liberals – well represented by Biden – ready to use the coercive tools of American supremacy (dollar, sanctions and armed forces) in every part of the Earth. Then there are the neo-isolationists a la Trump, who attribute the US decline to foreign expansionism, to relentless wars and the indebtedness they generate. They believe that America should take care of itself, protect its basic interests and rebuild its infrastructure and production system while also stopping paying for the security of allies who have become richer than it. We are not talking about pacifists. These people are not against armed intervention abroad in principle. If it’s a question of making a good coup at the expense of a country that holds strategic resources – such as Venezuela – or damaging the interests of a rival power such as China with the use of force, why not? What matters is not wasting money on adventures with no immediate return and focus on the most fearsome threats. Which in the eyes of Trump and his followers do not come from Putin’s Russia, but from a competing power in full ascent. If this vision is able to prevail in next year’s presidential elections, the crucial question will become whether or not the final decline of the empire will cost us more Ukraine. Which in the eyes of Trump and his followers do not come from Putin’s Russia, but from a competing power in full ascent. If this vision is able to prevail in next year’s presidential elections, the crucial question will become whether or not the final decline of the empire will cost us more Ukraine. Which in the eyes of Trump and his followers do not come from Putin’s Russia, but from a competing power in full ascent. If this vision is able to prevail in next year’s presidential elections, the crucial question will become whether or not the final decline of the empire will cost us more Ukraine.
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.