Washington has decided to ramp up the push for war against Russia utilizing Ukraine as a proxy– and utilizing a twisted story about Russian hostility and intrusion.
American Secretary of State Antony Blinken is shuttling throughout Europe this week pledging that Washington “desperately wants peace not war” with Russia. This touchy-feely belief comes in the middle of reports of additional American and British weapons products heading to the NATO-backed Kiev program.
Ukraine has already been enormously weaponized by the United States because the CIA-backed coup d’état in Kiev in 2014 brought to power a Neo-Nazi regime obsessed with annoying Russia. The Biden administration has actually enhanced inventories for anti-tank missiles and other deadly weaponry with prepare for additional increases. Now it emerges that extra supplies are on the method from both the U.S. and Britain. Britain is to send out anti-tank weapons to Ukraine along with “military consultants”.
Moscow today condemned the increased circulation of weapons to Ukraine, stating it is recklessly stoking currently fraught stress. The new supply of anti-armor missiles from the U.S. and Britain– reported only days after top-level talks on regional security between Russian and NATO officials were performed recently– would appear to be one more proof that the Western powers are privately pushing for war with Russia regardless of rhetoric appealing for a diplomatic option.
The craze for warmongering appears to have taken control of any reasoned discussion or commitment to diplomacy and worldwide law. Washington and its European allies are whipping up the hysteria of alleged Russian invasion plans for Ukraine. Blinken flew to Kiev on Wednesday claiming that Russia was all set to get into Ukraine “imminently”. The American foreign minister then flew to Berlin to consult with German, British and French counterparts to discuss ratcheting up additional economic pain on Russia over its declared “hostility”. The German government announced this week it was prepared to halt the Nord Stream 2 gas task “if Russia got into Ukraine”.
The New York City Times reported claims that Russia was closing down its embassy staff in Kiev and speculated that the relocation was a portent of Moscow’s anticipation of war. Russia dismissed the report as groundless and said its consular personnel was working as regular in Ukraine. The Ukrainian foreign ministry also appeared to prove Russia’s claims.
Russia has actually consistently rejected accusations of an invasion strategy. It states that troop movements within its borders are its internal service that needs no description. Even the New York Times which has actually been pressing the invasion story admitted today that American intelligence claims of Russian troop accumulation on the border with Ukraine have actually not materialized.
Moscow says that the military build-up is in fact by the Ukrainian armed forces supported by U.S., British, Canadian and other NATO military consultants. Russia preserves that the accusations of a Russian invasion are a cover for the NATO-backed Kiev program to introduce an offensive against the ethnic Russian population of Southeast Ukraine, who have actually been combating a civil war with Kiev forces since 2014 when the CIA fomented a coup d’état.
Blinken is because of meet with Russia’s leading diplomat Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Friday. The Kremlin has said that it anticipates a legal, written reaction from the United States concerning the security propositions that Moscow provided recently to American and NATO authorities. Those proposals consisted of a commitment from the U.S. and NATO to desist from more eastward growth and for withdrawal of existing offensive weapons from Eastern Europe.
American and European NATO allies have already verbally dismissed Russia’s security propositions as “non-starters”. They specified that Russia does not have a veto on NATO implementations. This is a high-handed and provocative rebuff to Russia’s concerns over the threatening encroachment of offensive military forces on its borders.
The United States and its partners appear to be intentionally kicking Russia’s existential concerns into the long grass. Not reciprocating immediately to the security guarantees that Moscow clearly defined last week reveals that the U.S.-led NATO bloc is menacingly playing for time to use down Russia’s willpower.
Antony Blinken has actually made lame reasons for not reacting to Russia’s strategic security propositions by saying that the United States needs to first speak with other NATO allies and partners. Washington is making out that it is constrained by a commitment to look for consensus and consultation. Moscow is being told that it will have to put its security issues on hold while the U.S. consults its European counterparts. Who knows when that nebulous process will end?
Curiously, there was no such need for “consultation” by Washington when it chose to significantly pull out of Afghanistan in 2015. After twenty years of grinding, futile war, the Biden administration did not trouble to notify other NATO members about the abrupt military withdrawal. Certainly, European appeals for a slower withdrawal were specifically disregarded by Washington which had decided unilaterally to shut down operations in Afghanistan.
The idea that the United States indulges agreement and consultation amongst NATO members is a ridiculous deception. Washington, as the assumed hegemonic power, chooses alone when and when not to go to war, and its NATO subordinates fall under line like the great little flunkeys that they are.
The militarization in Ukraine is being led by the United States, along with its trusty British bulldog. The conclusion is that Washington has actually decided to increase the push for war against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy– and using a twisted story about Russian aggression and intrusion. The rebuffing of a historical security detente with Moscow is being disguised by the facade of Washington appearing to be chivalrous and considerate to purportedly find an agreement with allies.
The views of private contributors do not always represent those of the Strategic Culture Structure.