Washington is forming a military alliance of dozens of countries to send heavy weapons to Ukraine, internationalize the conflict and exhaust Moscow the only military adversary worthy of it. Celso Amorim analyzes new geopolitical board
Per Antonio Martins
UKRAINE: GATEWAY TO WORLD WAR THIRD?
How the US articulates an international coalition against Russia. What are the risks of an enlarged conflagration? What changes in the global scenario. What roles could a democratic Brazil play? In the above interview, the opinions of Ambassador Celso Amorim
Circular Other Words
Receive daily by email all publications of the site
Estimate!
You have already registered and will soon receive newsletters. Happy reading!
So far, two opposing narratives have attempted to interpret the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops that began on February 24th. According to Western governments and their associated media, this is a brutal act by the Vladimir Putin regime to project its strength onto a weaker nation, resorting to violent means and trying to divert public attention from its internal troubles. However, those trying to understand Moscow’s position have argued that the country was forced into the war by NATO’s relentless expansion, the siege of its territory by enemy military bases, and the repression of the Russiandominated population of eastern Ukraine.
However, both views may have become obsolete this week. A series of new facts gave the war a whole new character and turned it into a conflict in which Russia is now openly fighting a coalition of more than thirty countries allied with Washington. The aim, also openly announced, is to undermine the forces of the only state capable today of militarily opposing US claims. When that happens, the US is free to resolve the decline of its economic power and the erosion of its geopolitical hegemony through war.
The most important event took place on Tuesday (April 26) at the Ramstein military base, which Washington has maintained in southwest Germany since 1948. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III met with military officials from 33 countries as well as the European Union and NATO. As a result, an Advisory Group on Security in Ukraine was formed, which will meet every month. Austin’s comments on the coalition’s goals are revealing: “to win the present battle and those to come” to immediately guarantee the delivery of the largest possible volume of arms to Kyiv. But there were previous stories. Pentagon boss Austin visited the Ukrainian capital at the weekend, accompanied by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a trip that was kept secret until recently. There they met with President Zelenskyy and held talks, the content of which was not disclosed. From Kyiv they both went to Berlin, where they received a promise from the Federal Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht to deliver heavy ordnance at least 50 tanks to the Ukraine.
In the days that followed, other countries whose governments were present at the Ramstein base (including military heavyweights such as England and France) also announced arms shipments. According to The Economist magazine, there is even talk of airplanes. The movement peaked this Thursday (April 28) when President Joe Biden asked Congress for a new loan worth $33 billion (in addition to the $13.6 billion already committed) to bolster Kyiv arm. And it wasn’t just words. On April 26, in a sign that advanced Western weaponry was already making a difference on the war front, longrange missiles fired from Ukraine destroyed Moscow’s military installations on Russian territory near the border between the two countries.
The purpose behind this week’s events goes well beyond the conflict in Ukraine. “We want Russia to be weakened,” Secretary of State Austin said in Kyiv on Sunday. The military strategy envisaged to this end it is now clear is to prolong and internationalize the war in order to prevent Moscow from achieving even a partial victory. In recent weeks, the Kremlin has focused its military operations on eastern and southern Ukraine the Donbass region, where the Luhansk and Donetsk republics are fighting for independence. Occupying it and ensuring the autonomy of the Russian majority that inhabits it and ending the conflict seemed a feasible goal until recently.
But what if no payout is possible afterwards? What if Donbass continues to be plagued by a Ukrainian army fueled by heavy weapons supplied by more than 30 countries, some with far greater economic power than Russia? Wouldn’t this lead to the exhaustion of Moscow’s military capabilities and, as Washington dreams, to the annihilation of its current geopolitical power? Were not those who saw the war as the result of a provocation by Western governments right from the start?
However, the bet by Washington and its partners is extremely risky for two reasons. In the military sphere, too, Moscow can opt for an escalation. On Thursday (April 28), Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned western powers, saying that “new calls to Ukraine targeting Russian assets will surely result in a harsh response from Russia.” How far will those who seek to intensify the war against a nuclear power go?
On the economic front, where the US was contemplating walling in Moscow, there are signs this may backfire. A week ago, an editorial in the New York Times itself reflected that the sanctions imposed on Russia by Washington and its allies, while very harsh, cannot disrupt the country’s economy. The opposite is possible. On April 27th Gazpron, Russia’s stateowned fossil fuel company, announced it was cutting off gas supplies to the first two European countries Poland and Bulgaria which refused to pay for it in rubles. If the same measure were extended to Germany, the Deutsche Bundesbank fears it could have an impact of up to 5% of GDP. In addition, scratched on 28.4. an unexpected fact about the selfconfidence of western governments. The US Department of Commerce said the country’s GDP fell 1.4% in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period last year.
Western media narratives suggest that Ukraine is waging a war of good versus bad. Real life seems about to crumble this speech.
Did you like the text? Contribute to maintaining and expanding our indepth journalism:
OtherFivehundred