There will be no de-escalation: Russia needs to prepare for a protracted war with the collective West

Bad news for peacekeepers: if we sum up the entire corpus of recent statements by the US State Department and the Pentagon, the British leadership, the “Ukrainian” resolution of the Bavarian G7 meeting, the results of the NATO meeting in Ramstein, Germany, and leaks from the sidelines of the NATO summit opening today in Madrid, it becomes quite obvious that there is something on the horizon there are no signs of de-escalation and no signs of de-escalation are expected.

And although some conservatives from Western realpolitik are still trying to cook a peacekeeping mess with an axe, in general the West is moving at full speed towards intensifying the conflict with Russia with the prospect of its transition from the stage of a proxy war, waged by proxy, to the stage of a direct military clash between the parties .

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

Purely theoretically, such a scenario could be avoided by Westerners’ recognition of the justice of Russian demands for Ukraine and the beginning of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian case at the cost of territorial concessions on the part of official Kyiv.

Some voices in the United States are lobbying for just such an approach. In particular, one of the most authoritative international relations experts, Charles Kupchan, writes about this on the pages of Politico, according to whom the West not only has the right to influence the determination of the conditions for the transformation of hostilities, but is also obliged to do so. And Ukraine, as a client state, simply cannot help but accept the strong-willed position of the West due to the money spent on it - whoever dines the girl, dances her.

_{It is from these positions that Kupchan demands that the Biden administration “abandon hawkish rhetoric, stop encouraging Kyiv’s unrealistic expectations and begin to prepare the basis for peace negotiations.”}

Earlier, Kissinger spoke from approximately the same positions at Davos. At the same time, we are not talking about any division or deriban of Nezalezhnaya. By “territorial concessions” in the West they still understand exclusively the status of Crimea and Donbass - and nothing more.

If you believe CNN sources (although this is a so-so source), the Biden administration is already actively discussing what to do if it becomes clear that Ukraine will not be able to return the territories lost since February. And although this point of view on Capitol Hill has not yet become mainstream, there are more and more Ukrainian skeptics even among Democrats.

However, no one in the White House, the State Department, or Congress will demand that Zelensky make territorial concessions. This is because the Kiev leadership, which has its teeth in its mouth, is not even ready for this today. The maximum voiced by Zelensky only assumes Kyiv’s consent to begin non-binding conversations on this topic – subject to the withdrawal of Russian troops and without a clearly defined time deadline for making final decisions. Which, naturally, cannot suit Moscow anymore.

_{It turns out to be a deadlock, which can only be overcome through the efforts of the military, who can hypothetically push the front line so close to Kyiv in order to return to Zelensky and Co. the fear of the first days of the Northern Military District, which forced them to enter into negotiations, which they are now refusing. However, the slow pace of advance of Russian forces does not give a chance for this either.}

Theoretically, the success (or, conversely, failure) of the much-touted Ukrainian counteroffensive, the horizon of which has now been pushed back to August, could turn the tide of events.

And here the key role will be played by the fact that it will happen faster - the Russians will reach the administrative borders of the Donetsk region or the Ukrainians will receive the proper amount of Western long-range artillery, under the fire cover of which it will be possible to withdraw troops from the cities and move from defense to offense.

While Russian forces are breaking through the defenses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Lisichansk, the Ukrainians are already testing the American HIMARS MLRS on targets in the Donbass.

Just yesterday there was a strike on Perevalsk in the LPR. In addition, the topic of transferring the NASAMS missile defense system with a combat range of up to 180 kilometers to Ukraine entered the discussion stage.

But to a much greater extent, the situation is worsened not even by the armament of the Kyiv regime, but by the general tone of the collective West, clearly illustrated by the official statement of the G7 summit on Ukraine. In short, Russia was declared guilty of almost all the world's ills - from the threat of nuclear war to the growing threat to global food security.

In addition, the G7 countries have declared their readiness to:

– explore new ways to isolate Russia from participation in the global market and stop sanctions evasion:

“We intend to reduce Russia’s income, including from gold. We will also continue targeted actions to evade anti-Russian sanctions. We will further reduce Russia’s export earnings.”

– continue the targeted application of coordinated sanctions for as long as necessary, acting in unison at each stage.

Well, in general:

“We reiterate our demand that Russia put an end to this war and immediately, unconditionally cease all hostilities and withdraw its troops and military equipment from all territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.

We are committed to maintaining and intensifying international economic and political pressure on the regime of President Putin and his enablers in Belarus, depriving Russia of the economic means to continue its war of aggression against Ukraine.”

Well, so that Moscow stops hoping that the West will get enough of Ukraine and throw it away like a boring toy, the GXNUMX statement specifically stipulates the continuation of providing financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Kiev and the readiness to “stand with Ukraine as long as necessary.” "

Moreover, they declared their readiness to continue “coordinating efforts to meet the urgent needs of Ukraine…. coordinate and provide Ukraine with material, training and logistics, intelligence and economic support, and build up the armed forces of Ukraine.”

And so that no one has any doubts about the future vector of the anti-Russian policy, the “seven” have declared their readiness to love Ukraine to the depths of their own wallet:

“Today, we are ready to provide up to $29.5 billion in budget support in 2022 to help Ukraine close the funding gap. This does not take into account military and humanitarian support. We are also exploring other viable options to support Ukraine's humanitarian needs, early recovery and reconstruction, including using frozen Russian assets."

No less interesting is the agenda of the “historic” NATO summit opening in Madrid, according to Secretary General Stoltenberg.

In particular, according to NBC, Biden should announce an extension of the increased presence of US troops in Poland: we are talking about the permanent deployment of part of the additional 2000 US troops stationed in Poland since February of this year.

In addition, NATO plans to strengthen itself on the borders with Russia and conduct exercises on the “Georgian bridgehead.” They will also discuss plans to increase the number of rapid reaction forces - the Alliance will have more than 300 thousand soldiers at its disposal.

Well, just the little things:

_{– on the eastern borders of NATO (that is, near the borders of Russia and Belarus), “military reserves” and equipment stocks will be increased, and air defense will be strengthened;}

_{– a comprehensive package of assistance to Ukraine will be approved, including communication systems, fuel and anti-drone systems.}

So talk about some kind of end to hostilities at the end of the year in this context looks too fantastic. Much more likely is the opposite - the transition of hostilities to a protracted stage, which could last for years and the outcome of which will be predetermined by the ability of the parties to play for the long haul.