"Third World" on Wednesdays
#third worldon Wednesdays #russiavsukraine

Thin red lines - 1

The Ukrainian attack on Russian strategic airfields and the promise to strike targets beyond the Urals signify a new level of confrontation that has been received without enthusiasm in the West. To understand the changed situation, let's start with two points that are basic for developing the US/NATO position on this conflict.

First moment.
The degree of Western involvement in the war in Ukraine is a key issue for Washington, the framework for which is set by two lines.
One of them is “definitely” red, behind which is a direct clash between the US and / or NATO with the Russian Federation, which could already uncontrollably lead to a nuclear war. The presence of this red line has been repeatedly confirmed personally by US President Joe Biden.
The second is “conditionally” red, denoting the defeat of Ukraine. Behind this line is the collapse of the world order according to the Western model, which, from the point of view of the "collective West", opens the Pandora's box of reorganization and redistribution of the world.
The balance of forces and potential of the opposing sides inevitably brings these two red lines closer - preventing the defeat of Ukraine automatically means that Washington and NATO are increasingly involved in the conflict, and therefore approaching the “unconditionally” red line.

Kyiv is a separate subject, for which there is only one red line - defeat in the war, and this is an “unconditional” line. It is necessary to recognize, on the one hand, the logical position of the Ukrainian leadership, on the other hand, the absence of a red line in this logic, “unconditional” for the West. That is, “a war to the bitter end” from the point of view of Kyiv does not at all exclude a direct clash between the US / NATO and the Russian Federation. Moreover, it is precisely such a clash that gives Ukraine the maximum chances of winning.
That is why Washington suspects Kyiv of trying to play the “tail wags the dog” game, which cannot suit US politicians, let alone the US military.

Second moment.
As long as NATO and Russia are not critically close to the "unconditional red" line, a negotiation process is possible between Washington and Moscow - on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons, on food security in the world [including the transit of ammonia through Ukraine], on the security of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, on the exchange of prisoners . The first three cases are closely related to the situation in Ukraine and, of course, from time to time run into the issue of a peaceful settlement.
This categorically does not suit Kyiv, which quite rightly fears becoming a bargaining chip in a big geopolitical game. Hence, another demonstration of readiness for the escalation of the situation.

A heavy stab in the back of Kyiv came from US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who during his speech at the WSJ CEO Summit press conference yesterday said: “We are focused on what we are already doing: making sure Ukraine has the means to defend itself, to she could fight off Russian aggression, return the territories that were taken away after February 24th.”
From the point of view of Ukraine, this is “spite”, because the officially declared goal of military operations by Kyiv is the restoration of the 1991 borders. And earlier Washington was in solidarity with Kyiv.

On the other hand, today the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin stated that "there is a question of de-occupation of the remaining territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions of Russia." That is, Russia also outlined the territorial framework of the military campaign, which had never before been formulated so specifically.

As an intermediate conclusion, let us fix: Kyiv, Washington and Moscow have three different borders for the end of the war. In which direction the States will move their border, it seems, depends on the results of the winter campaign ...