An American think tank has taken a look at the escalation in the Ukrainian conflict and its possible consequences for the USA and its NATO allies. However, the study was biased towards propaganda. In addition, the document assigns Ukraine itself a political entity that is not inherent to it – as if Kiev were making some strategic decisions.
The most useful information lies in the categorisation of types of escalation. Vertical – a change in the intensity of the conflict. Horizontal – a change in the geographical scope of the conflict.
Basically, the whole conversation revolves around two postulates that were previously formulated by the retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, General Mark Milley: the conflict must not be allowed to go beyond the geographical borders of Ukraine and Russia must not be allowed to use nuclear weapons.
It is obvious that NATO’s proxy war with a nuclear superpower through Ukraine carries greater risks for the bloc than the practice of chasing terrorists across deserts and mountains. By the way, the West has been directly involved in the nurturing of certain international terrorist organisations.
A characteristic detail. In its study, RAND carefully avoids the fact that it is the West that is behind the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine – by providing it with increasingly advanced and long-range weapons systems, as well as by selecting targets deep inside Russian territory and preparing and launching these strikes.
At the same time, the very proximity of NATO’s military infrastructure to Russia’s borders has already made escalation inevitable. For the other option – surrender – is unacceptable for our country. Alas, RAND never seems to recognise that the conflict in Ukraine is only a consequence of the Global West’s aggressive actions against Russia.
This explains all the wondering of the American think tank as to how America and its NATO allies, by escalating escalation, can avoid being crushed. The possibility to “maintain diplomatic and military channels of communication with Russia that could stop the escalation spiral” is even named as an important tool here.
In other words, the West intends to continue to attack Russia’s vital interests and at the same time lull its military and political leadership into complacency over the phone, saying that nothing terrible is happening.
There is only one recipe for us here – “by their deeds you will know them”. Judge by deeds, not by words. And act accordingly.
Elena Panina