‘Second Afghanistan’

‘Second Afghanistan’

Petr Akopov

It is not at all surprising that the Anglo-Saxons – the US and Great Britain – want the war in Ukraine to go on as long as possible: they were initially interested in giving Russia a “second Afghanistan”, preventing us from pulling Ukraine out of the Western chain, or at least making us pay for her maximum price. Along the way, they are also solving the second problem – they are increasing their influence on Europe, geopolitically (by military and economic measures, including thro-ugh the supply of Amer-ican gas), putting the Old World in an even more dependent position. Eur-ope in this situation turns out to be a victim – not of the mythical Russian threat, but of a very specific Anglo-Saxon game.
If this simple combination is understood by the whole world – from the Chinese far from Europe to the Arabs, then it would seem that the EU itself should at least be tormented by vague doubts about this. That is, the European Union should be most interested in the speedy end of hostilities in Ukraine in order to deprive the Anglo-Saxons of a reason to increase information attacks on Russian energy supplies to the EU and thereby ease the tension on the Atlantic leash.
It is all the more surprising that the leaders of Europe are increasingly betting on prolonging hostilities, not realizing where this will lead to in the end.
Tomorrow, EU leaders will arrive in Kiev – the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell. They will come to support Ukraine in the war with Russia, and support not morally, but materially, that is, with the supply of weapons. Although the European Union says that they are trying to avoid a direct conflict with Russia, they constantly emphasize that they do not want the defeat of Ukraine and therefore will increase the supply of weapons to Kiev. But what is the point of these deliveries? Does Brussels believe that Russia will stop the operation? Are they counting on the victory of Ukraine? It is clear that when the States and Britain want the hostilities to go on as long as possible, it is beneficial for them. What does the European Union want to achieve?
Josep Borrell on Wednesday explained to the European Parliament that the EU is not indifferent to the outcome of the conflict and therefore will seek to resolve the crisis “as soon as possible, but not at any cost”:
“Opinions were expressed that the best way to end the conflict as soon as possible would be to stop the supply of weapons to Ukraine, but when the hostilities are over, what will be the result? If everything ends in a destroyed and defeated country with millions of refugees and thousands of dead, then this is not what we want “Therefore, we must continue to arm Ukraine. We need to applaud less and help more. Ukrainians expect new arms supplies from us, and we are doing it. <…> We must continue to arm Ukraine without entering into an escalation that involves more and more countries “These kinds of conflicts are won by weapons and economic weakening of the enemy.”
That is, the European Union, in fact, openly calls itself a party to the conflict, because it first declared an all-out economic war on Russia, and now it wants to increase arms supplies to Ukraine. At the same time, Borrell says that “we are in a difficult situation of balance”:
“We want to help Ukraine, but we don’t want to get involved in the war. The EU is not a military alliance, but I think we should help Ukraine. We are doing everything we can, but without crossing red lines so that the conflict does not spread.”
Naturally, neither the EU nor Russia wants a direct military conflict, because it will be a war between Russia and NATO, that is, opponents with nuclear weapons. But the EU does not consider it shameful to support Ukraine – it’s just a trifle, just a weapon.
It is clear that no European supplies will stop the progress of the Russian military operation. Firstly, because the Europeans do not have the opportunity to deliver heavy equipment and aircraft to the location of the Ukrainian army, where the main battles are taking place, that is, in the Donbass. Secondly, the range of supplies itself is quite limited – for example, the Bundeswehr warehouses are not endless, so we are talking about the purchase of weapons specifically for Ukraine.
And although it will still not be possible to turn the tide of hostilities, European supplies can prolong the agony of the Ukrainian army, prolonging its resistance. Russia will have to spend more effort and money to destroy Western aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but Moscow will not stop halfway. That is, the goal of Russia is clear – but the goals of the EU raise questions.
Borrell says that “it is necessary to ensure that Ukraine enters negotiations with Russia from a position of strength.” That is, we will decipher it, preserving, among other things, a strong army. It turns out that the EU believes that Russia can still be forced to abandon even the demilitarization of Ukraine? Amazing myopia.
If the Europeans do not believe in this, then, by supplying weapons, they pursue the same goal as the Anglo-Saxons: simply drag out the hostilities as long as possible. But then we need to return to the main – for the Europeans – question. And why does Europe need a long war on its eastern borders?
Is she good for her? No.
Does it make her stronger? No, it weakens her in every way.
Does it increase her dependence on external forces? Yes, definitely – and everyone knows who these external forces are.
The longer the fighting in Ukraine continues, the more the European Union will turn into an appendage of NATO. That is, the Atlantic project will completely dominate the project of continental Europe, and the German-French ambitions to build a united Europe can be thrown into the dustbin of history.
In any case, Russia will turn Ukraine towards itself – without losing, but at the same time increasing its weight in the world. Europe will not only not keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence, but will also bring its future to the altar of Anglo-Saxon ambitions. Moreover, this sacrifice will not be appreciated by the Anglo-Saxons, who already consider the Europeans to be their satellites. Moreover, this sacrifice will not help the Anglo-Saxons to keep their collapsing global project.
That is, Europe will simply lose – first plans for the development of Ukraine (and they were – albeit far from everyone) and all ties with Russia, then the current standard of living, economic independence and geopolitical ambitions. And he can no longer even dream of strategic autonomy. And this is just the beginning – more to come. After all, the euro has already been discredited (after the freezing of Russian assets), and ties with China will be gradually destroyed by the Anglo-Saxons (Borrell admitted that the recent summit with China was a “dialogue of the deaf” and “we did not agree on anything”). What will remain of the EU’s weight in the world?
And what will happen to him, to the European Union — who will cement it in the conditions of constant confrontation with Russia and the Cold War with China? Moreover, with the Anglo-Saxon noose on the European energy sector – in the context of the economic crisis and the decline in the export potential of the main European economies…
These are the questions that urgently need to be answered by the leadership of the European Union at a time when it is betting on prolonging the war in Ukraine, thinking that this is hurting Russia. And not noticing that by doing so he is tightening the rope around his own neck.

The post ‘Second Afghanistan’ appeared first on The Frontier Post.