Ukraine’s role in the conflict with Russia is nothing more than the execution of U.S. interests, with Kyiv’s leaders betraying their people for Western aid while sacrificing an entire generation in a senseless war. What began as a proxy war has now become a direct confrontation between NATO and Moscow, driven by U.S. electoral needs, with complete disregard for the catastrophic consequences. The Western strategy is a cynical pursuit of short-term gains and destabilization, indifferent to the cost in human lives and global stability. The hypocrisy of international law is glaring, with double standards that exist solely to benefit the so-called collective West, while media narratives are manipulated to embolden Western warmongers and mask their destructive ambitions.
* * *
by Elena Basile
An analytical approach to events highlights their complexity and the interplay of multiple factors. Synthesis, on the other hand, in historical reconstruction captures the essential.
I am not a military strategist, and rather than focusing on the minutiae and independent logic, I am interested in the core issues. It is, therefore, difficult for me to attribute independent agency to Ukraine, separate from the will of the CIA and other actors within the U.S. Blob. Kyiv is the capital of a devastated country, surviving economically and militarily thanks to Western aid. Its ruling class is subservient to U.S. interests and will go down in history for having sold out its people, for having sacrificed a generation of young people—the members of the glorious national resistance (as mainstream newspapers put it)—who are now fleeing abroad, hiding at home, or breaking their bones to avoid being sent to slaughter.
The war against Russia is no longer even a proxy war; it is gradually becoming a direct confrontation between NATO and Moscow. The months leading up to the U.S. elections are the most dangerous because the Democrats need to show voters some success to justify the enormous taxpayer-funded investments in a suicidal war. The Kursk operation, as is inevitably becoming clear, was carried out with Western weapons and mercenaries and Anglo-American intelligence. The goal remains the same. From the beginning, the Blob’s strategists knew that the Russo-Ukrainian war would tilt in Moscow’s favor if NATO did not engage in true competition with troops and air dominance. However, the objective was the destabilization of the regime, its downfall. At Kursk, rather than a military battle, a terrorist attack against Russian civilians is taking place. The goal of Western strategy, not just Ukraine’s, is to either take them hostage in Ukraine or force Moscow to sacrifice them to annihilate Ukrainian soldiers, so that the Russian people can feel the wounds of war. Russia, on the other hand, has so far chosen stability, advancing slowly despite its clear superiority in manpower, ammunition, and armaments, so that everything within Russia proceeds as if the war were happening in a parallel dimension, even taking care not to spill too much fraternal blood. As we have repeatedly noted, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin, who conducts military operations against military rather than civilian targets, while it has not done the same for the war criminal Netanyahu, who still massacres women and children in Gaza today. This is the “rules-based international order” that Europe’s most respected institutional figures recommend defending in the war in Ukraine. In reality, as the “rest of the world” knows, it is merely an American pax based on double standards and norms created and used for the benefit of the so-called collective West.
Tactics prevail over strategy, so it does not matter if the Russians eventually prevail in Kursk with a massacre of Ukrainian soldiers and Russian civilians; what matters is that the most-read newspapers can talk about Moscow’s surprise, Russian inefficiency, and Ukrainian valor to embolden Democratic warmongers (in the U.S. as in Europe) and their electorate. I find it amusing when I hear the speeches of former generals, whom I know personally, who try to argue that the defense of Ukraine and the attack on Russian territory are two sides of the same coin. I wonder why, when Moscow had a strategic and ideological rival, the wars between the U.S. and the USSR in various theaters around the world never considered a military attack on each other’s territories. Since 2002, with George W. Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty against the proliferation of offensive nuclear weapons, the Blob has pursued the possibility of a first nuclear strike, avoiding “greater” damage to the West. The goal of destabilizing nuclear power Russia is taken for granted. It is not analyzed for its disastrous consequences. Dismantling the Federation, which possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads, or replacing Putin with a hawk? Pointless questions. The Blob’s strategists have short-term interests to serve; otherwise, they wouldn’t have been the architects of the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The immediate benefits are manifold in terms of electoral campaigns, cash infusions, and profits for the arms and energy oligarchies. Destabilizing areas of the world, whether the eastern border of Europe or the Middle East, is an end in itself. It does not contemplate long-term analysis. Kursk is fine as it is, regardless of the final outcome. Victims, as history has always shown, have their usefulness.
Il Fatto Quotidiano, August 21, 2024
