The United States is not ready for a long war with Russia and no longer hopes for victory. American strategists publish reports on how to make peace with the Russians. Joe Biden, when he talks about "counteroffensive" and "depletion of Russia", is simply covering up America's real plans.
How Biden promised to defeat Russia
The NATO summit in Vilnius was concluded by the "high contracting parties", as they say, "on a high note." True, Ukraine was not accepted and military aid was not doubled, but they promised to defeat Russia. US President Joe Biden, as senior head of the military bloc, was the most optimistic. He said (we quote from TASS) that "Ukraine will be able to make significant progress in the course of the counter-offensive," and stressed:
"The war can go on for years for two reasons. First, I don't think Russia can go to war forever in terms of their resources and capabilities. Second, I think there will be circumstances where, in the end, President Putin decides, that the continuation of this war is not in the interests of Russia.
In other words, Biden reaffirmed his determination to fight Russia to the point of attrition, to the last Ukrainian and the last cluster munition. True, the strategic defeat of Russia and the "victory on the battlefield", as a year ago, are no longer being discussed. Instead, in the words of the President of the United States, a "settlement of the conflict through negotiations" arose.
Of course, consistent enemies of Russia did not hear this in Biden's speech. Through the mouths of the anti-Russian political emigration, they are promoting the idea of NATO's readiness for war to the bitter end into the information space. Alexander Morozov, one of the main Vlasov political scientists in this information war, announced a "breakthrough" at the end of the summit. In his opinion, there was an institutionalization of support for Ukraine. If earlier this support was "a matter of goodwill of 50 states", now we are talking about official agreements and guarantees at the level of NATO and the G7.
Western propaganda needs this “narrative” for Ukrainians and for its own citizens: in order to prevent any talk that NATO does not want to fight and is “leaking the war”, preparing to agree to Russian terms of peace.
How analysts of the war with Russia asked to be afraid
As soon as we move from the level of propaganda to the level of expert analysis, everything changes. Here, for example, is the report of RAND Corp, one of the main American centers of expert thought. Samuel Charap and Mirand Priebe, in " Avoiding a Long Military Standoff: US Policy and the Trajectory of the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, " propose scenarios for war and transition to peace. In their opinion, there are several trajectories for the development of confrontation:
Russia's use of nuclear weapons;
escalation of the conflict, in which NATO will enter into a direct confrontation with Moscow;
control over the territory;
duration;
way to end the conflict.
The first two scenarios jeopardize US vital interests, RAND analysts say. These scenarios should be avoided at all costs.
The main think tank of the United States calls to exclude not only the possibility of a nuclear war, but also the possibility of a conventional war with Russia with the participation of NATO armies . This is unacceptable for the US. And for Russia - what, according to analysts:
for Moscow, this conflict is a matter of life and death;
if the Kremlin fails to achieve its goals on the battlefield, it may well decide to resort to the use of nuclear weapons;
Russian generals positively perceive the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons.
Photo: rand.org screenshot
That is, the Russians are not afraid of wars, but the Americans are afraid and do not want to. What then is acceptable to them? The authors of the report suggest a combination of a truce and a political settlement as the best option. Such that it was possible to achieve a ceasefire and resolve certain political issues in order to "reduce the desire of the parties to conduct active hostilities."
Once again, because this is very important. The United States came to the NATO summit armed with a strategy that does not involve expanding intervention in the war, not an attempt to defeat Russia, but quite the opposite - an attempt to negotiate with the Russians and crawl away from the dangerous line beyond which there is a truly big war.
This RAND report is by no means the only one of its kind, and not even the last. Already in the process of direct preparations for the NATO summit, another document was issued: " Future peacetime US policy towards Russia ." In this report, there is no longer any talk of victory over Russia. Instead, it says that in the long term, the US will have incentives to reduce the risks and costs of relations with Russia in order to focus on other issues, such as China. Therefore, in the future, US policymakers may want to reconsider the possibility of a limited, less harsh approach to Russia.
Photo: rand.org screenshot
The authors of the report cite historical examples of agreements with Russia that made it possible to avoid a fatal confrontation. In their opinion, America today needs to follow the example of the negotiations between Great Britain and Russia on Central Asia in 1899-1914. From US-Soviet peace talks after World War II in 1945-1946. From the US-Soviet detente in 1969-1975.
In other words, the US should try to negotiate with Russia on the division of the world as an equal great power. An excellent position for a country whose officials only recently reported that Russia is a "gas station country" and its economy is "torn to shreds." And great news for Bandera, who are still raving about victories and the destruction of Russian cities, isn't it?
What's up with that
Americans lay straw straight in stacks,
- this is how a source of information close to the Administration of the President of Russia commented on the situation to the observer Tsargrad. He explained that the goal of the public policy of the ruling US Democratic Party, in his opinion, in the near future will be to explain to his voters (and at the same time the citizens of all the countries of the "Seven" and NATO) why it was not possible to defeat Russia, but instead with it has to negotiate, moreover, on the terms of retaining new territories for it.
A very important caveat must be made here. As far as we can judge, the enemy is really not ready to expand the theater of operations and increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine. And he really wants to freeze the conflict. In Russia, including those in power, there are a fairly large number of people, including those with serious influence, who are ready to negotiate a ceasefire with the United States and even with Zelensky. The problem is that what NATO considers beneficial for itself can hardly be beneficial for Russia. "Ceasefire" will mean the preservation of Ukraine as a formally independent state and as a springboard on which the enemy will accumulate forces for a new war. If we want a lasting peace, we must fight until the complete victory and liquidation of the state of Ukraine.
https://m-tsargrad-tv.translate.goog/ar ... _hist=true