By DOUGLAS MACGREGOR*
Russia has not collapsed internally or capitulated to the West's collective demands for regime change.
Until it decided to confront Moscow with an existential military threat in Ukraine, Washington limited the use of its military might to conflicts the United States could not lose: wars with weak opponents in the developing world, from Saigon to Baghdad, which they did not represent, for themselves, an existential threat to American forces or their territory. This time, with a proxy war with Russia, it's different.
Contrary to the Beltway's initial hopes and expectations, Russia has not collapsed internally or capitulated to the West's collective demands for regime change. Washington underestimated Russia's social cohesion, its latent military potential and its relative immunity from Western economic sanctions.
As a result, Washington's proxy war against Russia is failing. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was extraordinarily candid about the situation in Ukraine when he told allies in Germany at Ramstein Air Force Base on Jan. ”, admitting: “That is not a long time”.
Alexei Arestovich, recently dismissed adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky and “spinmeister” (“regime marketer”) informal, was more direct. He has expressed his own doubts that Ukraine can win the conflict against Russia and now questions whether the country will even survive the war. Ukrainian losses – at least 150.000 killed, including 35.000 missing in action and presumed dead – have profoundly weakened Ukrainian forces, resulting in a fragile defensive military posture that is likely to break under the crushing weight of onslaught by Russian forces in the coming weeks.
Ukraine's material losses are equally severe. This includes thousands of tanks and armored infantry fighting vehicles, artillery systems, air defense platforms and weapons of all calibers. These totals include the equivalent of seven years of Javelin missile production. In a scenario where Russian artillery systems can fire, per day, almost 60.000 rounds of all types – rockets, missiles, drones suicide bombers and conventional ammunition – Ukrainian forces are hard-pressed to respond to these Russian salvos with 6.000 rounds daily. New platforms and ammunition packages for Ukraine can enrich the US military-industrial complex and US politicians, but they cannot change this scenario.
Predictably, Washington's frustration with the West's collective failure to stem the tide of Ukraine's defeat is growing. In fact, frustration is rapidly giving way to despair.
Michael Rubin, former employee of George Bush (father) and avid supporter of eternal conflicts of the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, expressed his exasperation in a recent article, in which he states that, “if the world allows Russia to continue as a unitary state and if Putinism is allowed to outlive Putin, then Ukraine must be subsidized in its nuclear deterrence capacity, regardless of whether it joins NATO or not. ”. At first glance, the suggestion is extremely rash. However, such a statement accurately reflects the degree of anxiety that gripped Washington circles over the inevitable defeat of Ukraine.
NATO members have never been resolutely united behind Washington's crusade to fatally weaken Russia. The Hungarian and Croatian governments are now simply recognizing either the opposition from the European public war with Russia in general, or lack of support for Washington's desire to postpone Ukraine's predictable defeat.
While sympathetic to the Ukrainian people, the German government did not support an all-out war with Russia on Ukraine's behalf. Now, the Germans are also uneasy about the catastrophic conditions of its armed forces. Retired German Air Force Brigadier Harald Kujat, former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, severely criticized the German government for allowing Washington to lead its country into conflict with Russia, noting that several decades of German political leaders had actively disarmed Germany and thus deprived Berlin of authority or credibility in Europe. Although actively repressed by the German government and media, his comments are having considerable repercussions among the German electorate.
The blunt fact is that, in its efforts to secure victory in its proxy war with Russia, Washington ignores historical reality. From the 1972th century, Ukraine was a region dominated by some larger and more powerful national power, be it Lithuanian, Polish, Swedish, Austrian or Russian. In the aftermath of World War I, aborted Polish projects for an independent Ukrainian state were designed to weaken Bolshevik Russia [Davies, Norman. XNUMX. White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920 and The Miracle on the Vistula. St. Martin Press]. Today, Russia is not communist, nor does Moscow seek the destruction of the Polish state as Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and others argued in the 1920s. So where does Washington want to go with its proxy war against Russia? Let's see.
On Sunday, December 7, 1941, US Ambassador Averell Harriman was with Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, having dinner at the Premier's home, when the BBC broadcast the news that the Japanese had attacked the US naval base. at Pearl Harbour. Averell Harriman was visibly shocked. He just repeated the words: “the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor” [Isaacson, Walter & Thomas, Evan. 1986. The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made. Simon & Schuster]. But Averell Harriman need not have been surprised. Franklin Roosevelt's administration did virtually everything in its power to incite Tokyo to attack American forces in the Pacific, with a series of hostile political decisions, which culminated in Washington's oil embargo during the summer of 1941.
In World War II, Washington was lucky with the timing and with allies. This time is different. Washington and its NATO allies are advocating an all-out war against Russia, the devastation and dissolution of the Russian Federation, as well as the destruction of millions of lives in Russia and Ukraine.
Washington indulges in histrionics. Washington does not think. And he is also openly hostile to empiricism and truth. Neither the United States nor its allies are prepared to wage all-out war with Russia, regionally or globally. However, if war breaks out between Russia and the United States, no one should be as surprised as Ambassador Averell Harriman.
*Douglas MacGregor He is a US retired colonel. He was a military adviser to former President Donald Trump.
Translation: Ricardo Cavalcanti-Schiel.
Originally published on the portal The american conservative.
The A Terra é Redonda website exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
Click here and find how
