By Alexander G. Markovsky | July 11, 2024
Image: Volodymyr Zelensky at a NATO summit. YouTube screen grab.
NATO’s war against Russia is progressing through three distinct phases: euphoria, apprehension, and despair.
Phase I. Euphoria
The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, caused a sense of euphoria in Washington and at NATO headquarters. The tactic of escalating Moscow’s anxiety about Ukraine’s impending NATO membership had proven successful. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a European Parliament joint committee meeting: “So he (Putin) went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders….”
Stoltenberg inadvertently unveiled the truth. The conflict did not begin because Putin sought to resurrect the Soviet Union or out of fear of Ukrainian democracy. Stoltenberg and the leadership of NATO were fully aware that Russia would eventually be compelled to act according to its security imperatives and invade Ukraine to alleviate the NATO threat at its borders.
The cunning aspect of this plan was a deception. NATO never had any intention of granting membership to Ukraine. Therefore, even the most fervent supporters of NATO cannot deny that it was NATO’s deliberate provocation that ignited the war.
Image: Volodymyr Zelensky at a NATO summit. YouTube screen grab.
The next steps appeared pretty straightforward.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, informed lawmakers during closed-door briefings before the invasion on February 2 and 3, 2022, that an anticipated full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine might lead to Kyiv’s capture in just 72 hours.
The strategy entailed deliberately allowing Ukraine to collapse, which would prompt the West to impose devastating economic sanctions. The objectives were the destruction of the Russian economy, the resignation of Putin, and, ultimately, the elimination of Russia as a European power
After Russia’s unsuccessful attempt to capture Kiev, there was a surge of wild optimism within NATO circles. There was a prevailing notion that Russia’s military strength was not as formidable as previously believed. Thus, NATO saw an opportunity not only to destroy the Russian economy but also to defeat Russia militarily.
The US and its NATO allies decided to set aside any pretenses and fully engage in the conflict, providing Ukraine with modern weaponry, intelligence, training, financing, and all necessary resources to bolster NATO’s chances of prevailing, all while upholding a facade of plausible deniability. Ukraine was supposed to bear the brunt of battle and pay the cost in blood and destruction.
The plan held considerable plausibility, and the data supported it. In 2022, NATO’s defense budget exceeded Russia’s by 13-fold (NATO’s one trillion dollars versus Russia’s $75 billion). The combined GDP of all 31 members amounted to a staggering $46 trillion. In comparison, Russia’s GDP was a mere two trillion dollars. The population of NATO countries was 1.2 billion, while Russia had 145 million. Judging by the numbers, Russia appeared to be an easy target.
Phase II. Apprehension
Despite the numbers, the multibillion-dollar investment, the massive supply of modern weaponry, the hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, and the massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, none of the NATO objectives have been achieved two and a half years later. Putin’s grip on power remains unshaken, and the sanctions have failed to significantly affect the Russian economy. Moreover, Russia is successfully building a formidable military-industrial complex, engineering and producing weapons that often surpass Western designs in capability and innovation.
This sobering reality forced NATO to reshape the conflict and develop a new strategy. The new approach revolved around a protracted war of attrition aimed at debilitating Russia both economically and militarily.
It is becoming exceedingly evident that America and its Western allies became a hostage of sanctions and found themselves trapped between the continuation of war and economic and military realities. From this untenable situation, they could see no exit and continued doing the same things, expecting different results. The European Union has now enforced its 14th set of sanctions, prompting one to question what this latest round can achieve that the previous 13 could not. Meanwhile, NATO is in the process of organizing the provision of F-16s and other advanced weaponry to Ukraine.
Phase III. Despair
The conflict has now escalated to its most critical stage when desperate people do desperate things. As the tables turned in favor of Russia, NATO is running out of options. The situation led to a series of reckless and incendiary remarks from Western officials and NATO leaders advocating for a significant escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine’s borders by launching attacks on Russia territory using long-range missiles supplied by NATO countries.
The US and its NATO partners are delusional and fail to realize that they are facing an unwinnable situation. It is the immutable fact that a nuclear-armed state cannot be defeated. If Ukraine loses, it will be perceived as NATO’s defeat. Conversely, if Russia falters, it will inevitably result in a nuclear war. Two and half years ago, NATO leaders provoked the Russian invasion, leading to a tragic outcome. Now, as to validate their lack of sanity, they are frantically escalating the conflict, which may lead to a catastrophe. Clearly, regardless of how we analyze the situation, it is becoming increasingly dire for the US and its allies militarily and geopolitically.
During the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on December 5, 1994, Russia’s president, Boris Yeltsin, vehemently accused Clinton of “trying to split [the] continent again through NATO’s eastward expansion.” President Biden has taken it a step further; he is, by inciting conflict with Russia, on a mission to split the world.
The conflict has facilitated the creation of a formidable anti-Western coalition currently consisting of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Other countries will likely join it in the future as the war continues. And it will, as NATO has been better at starting wars than at knowing how to finish them. If the coalition evolves into an alliance, it will surpass NATO in terms of human and natural resources, economic power, and military capabilities. Ultimately, it might be America’s most critical geopolitical blunder ever, as this rival may weaken America’s dominance and diminish its influence.
In his essay “Perpetual Peace,” philosopher Immanuel Kant argued three centuries ago that humanity’s path to universal peace would be through human insight or catastrophic conflict.
Regretfully, as long as we are led by untutored people who lack moral and strategic foresight and fail to grasp the perilous nature of the policies they promote, and as long as we have a military alliance that, after fulfilling its original purpose, seeks out new adversaries to justify its existence, peace by way of human insight appears increasingly remote.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that examines national security, energy, risk analysis, and other public policy issues. He is the author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alex.g.markovsky@gmail.com
Not “very different” to you
The opposite to you
Adam Dalgliesh
Your narrative lies
You belong to America and you continually parrot the lies of America and NATO
I say you can take this narrative and take it to your hell
And here is the clincher for you and old Biden s shit
You cannot say one word of real truth about Jews and Israel either
You are no Jew because you are a tool of America against Russia
Cannot be a Jew
Being a Jew means something else, very different to you
The record shows Russia did everything possible to avoid war with Ukraine
As much as Israel did with Hamas
@Adam
I agreed with you before you agreed with Laura in disagreeing with yourself.
@Adam
This does not strike me as an easily defensible position. In fact, the policy of MAD is based on the notion that since all nuclear armed nations have the means to end the world as we know it, they will each respect each other and use diplomatic means to avoid the sort of military misadventurism as has been ongoing in Ukraine by the US since before they overthrew the Ukrainian govt, and armed it with US weapons which are now being used to kill Russian citizens inside of Russia. So if MAD had any relevance at all, would it not bring the US to the negotiating table, if not before the war began then certainly afterwards. In fact, the only negotiations which have been taken were pursued in bad faith by the West, and this fact has been openly boasted by those Western leaders in the press, which would only further erode the belief that MAD will save the world.
In fact, any nation with the means to level the playing field as their nation faces ultimate defeat, will pursue that end against their enemies, and the only way that this might be avoided would be to avoid the open conflict between Russia and the West, a conflict which the West has refused to enter into any good faith negotiations for over a decade now.
The one feature of this conflict which will prevent Russia from using its nuclear program to prevent its ultimate defeat is that Russia is in no threat of being defeated, not at present in any event.
I agree with Laura, even though she criticized something I wrote. She is right and I was wrong.
As for Mr. Markovsky, in my opinion he is the Russian equivalent of Thomas Freidman. While Friedman acts as an unofficial spokesman for the Statee Department and the White House, stating U.S. policy in blunter language than government officials feel comfortable saying in public, Mr. Markovsky states Kremlin policies with the same kind of bluntness, while Russian officials usually speak more softly. Mr. Markovsky is the Kremlin’s unofficial spokesman in Israel, letting Israel know that Russia will not tolerate any Israeli support for Ukraine. The Russian embassy in Israel (is it in Tel Aviv or “West Jerusalem?”) almost certainly tells the Israelis the same thing, but probably in more “moderate” language than Markovsky.
Biden hasn’t incited conflict with Russia. “He” (meaning his handlers and probably OBama, the de facto head of government) have just reacted to Putin’s invasion of Eukraine and threats to invade other East European states, especially the ones that have been granted NATO membership, If that happened and the U.S. did not respond forcefully, it would lose face and “credibility.” None of its allies and client states would rely on the U.S. to protect them, and then the U.S. would in effect cease to be a great power-even with all its nukes and other weapons. A similar unwillingness to lose all credibility is why Britain reluctantly decide to declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland in 1939. Having done nothing to prevent nazi Germany from seizing Austria and the Czechia, and having then having declared a “guarantee” to Poland, they had no choice but to declare war or lose all credibility, and hence great power status.
I don’t see any rational grounds for thinking that “if Russia falters, there will be nuclear war.” Russia has been doing a lot of nuclear weapons sabre-rattling redcently. And in my opinion that is not to their credit, But they know that a nuclear war with the NATO countries would meaN THE destruction of Russia. And the NATO block countries know that a nuclear war with Russia would mean their destruction as well. The doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” which has more or less prevented an all-out nuclear war between the major powers since World WA II, in my opinion is still the doctrine that guides the policies of Russia and the NATO bloc..
Not the least bit legitimate. No NATO nation has ever invaded or threatened to invade Russia. This pretext for Russia’s imperialistic invasion of Ukraine is hogwash and pure projection on Russia’s part.
According to the charts showing the deployment of American forces and other nATO forces in Europe that I have read on what I consider reasonably accurate and not extremely biased sites, NATO forces, including U.S. forces in Europe, did not even have enough troops to withstand a Russian attack, or much the less to occupy Ukraine and attack Russia. The nearest U.S. forces to the Ukrainian and Byelorussian border was 17,000–definitely not enough to invade or occupy either country. While Russia’s concern about NAO’s eastward expansion was legitimate, the fact is that the NATO command had not developed any way to unite these forces in order to make a concerted attack on Russia or anyone else. Western reporters also claim that each of the east European nations that were admitted to NATO had to lobby tboth the NATO headquarters and each of the NATO heavy hitters (U.S., Britain, France, Germany) for many years before their applications for membership were approved. All claimed that they were afraid that Russia might attack them some day, and that was why they wanted NATO membership. Again according Western reporters concerning NATO, the military “experts” main west European and North American countries, eventually, but reluctantly, that these concerns were a valid reasons for the East Europeans to be granted NATO membership.
All of the information sources that I have come to rely on over the past several years contradict every point of Markovsky’s narrative. All Western media sources reported that the reaction in Washington government circles to Rassia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was panic and dismay, not “euphoria.” Government officials told the U.S. MSM that they were extremely upset about Russia’s action, which they knew as a real possibility but did not expect. While the MSM in the U.S. does sometimes lie, I think they usually accurately report what senior U.S. officials tell them is U.S. policy, as well as what U.S. officials say is their own feelings and emotional reactions to events. And I think U.S, officials are usually honest about their feelings, even if about nothing else.