Victoria Nuland, the US diplomatic undersecretary for political affairs, seems to be trying by all means to involve NATO militarily in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. On April 20, in connection with the request for extraction by the Azovstal defenders, Nuland speculated that the extraction was carried out by NATO forces. A very worrying statement for the unfolding of a war that promises to be long, bloody and costly. It is therefore necessary to specify some points. Who is Victoria Nuland? He holds the fourth most important position in the Biden administration US Department of State, the highest that a career diplomat and no politician should have. His statement is therefore not to be taken lightly and represents a message (to Russia, Ukraine and the Allies), which is logical to assume agreed with the White House.
It’s also useful, albeit succinctly, to recall some of Nuland’s past experiences, who, among other things, is the consort of the controversial political scientist ultra-interventionist Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution think tank.
She was the strong-willed US Permanent Representative to the north atlantic council, highest political body of the Atlantic Alliance when the USA insisted on it in 2008 (NATO summit in Bucharest).access of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, blocked at the time by Franco-German objections, precisely in relation to what such a decision would have entailed in terms of deteriorating relations with Russia.
In 2013 Nuland was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. In 2014 she was awarded one diplomatic post in Ukraine to bring about a US-friendly solution to the Ukraine crisis that began in 2013. In this capacity, she was known to have been illegally bugged during an interview with the US Ambassador in Kyiv, during which she said: “Fuck the EU” to express Washington’s intention not to take into account the concerns of European countries (Germany in primis) and the EU in the search for one solution on the Ukraine crisis.
Then a prominent figure in the US administration who has been involved with Ukraine for years, with top positions in Bush, Obama and biden (however, he held no office during the Trump era). In short, no one who could speak without weighing the consequences of what he says.
Actually the consequences. The message is clear: NATO cannot confine itself to managing arms shipments to Ukraine, but it must a bit more. That means the allies have to expose themselves more.
To the untrained ear, the sentence seems harmless. One might think that it’s all about saving the civilians detained in Mariupol: one humanitarian mission, finally. But in reality this is not the case.
Mariupol is surrounded by Russian forces. It would not be possible for a “hostile” force to open a corridor except fight against the Russians (and NATO has sided with Kyiv and is therefore considered “hostile” by Moscow). It would be a joint action difficult to carry out either in Ukraine or coming from the Black Sea, it would be a war operation against Russia, the only result of which would be that participation of the alliance as warlike party.
It is clear that such an intervention could be required of one third part that it could take care of the extraction and rescue of civilians, but a party considered neutral by Russia (e.g. Turkey) should be responsible for it. Moreover, Nuland is not asking Turkey or any neutral country about this conflict, but is asking NATO, knowing full well that Moscow could never accept it. The tone is obvious provocative the request.
From a technical-military point of view, however, a third party could, with Russian consent, organize a “non-combatant evacuation operation” (NEO), in military jargon an evacuation of non-combatants, but it is clear that the‘circle Fighters who should be detained under international humanitarian law could never accept that prisoners of war. Also among these fighters are some of the famous ones Azov battalionwith which, as is well known, the Russians still have unfinished business.
In short, an official statement by a senior official in the Biden administration, somewhat subtly urging NATO military intervention in the conflict. Intervention that, even if they wanted, NATO can’t plan and lead in the few hours or days available before the fall of Azovstal. Among other things, the statement was made on the day when the President of the European Council Karl Michael declared that the EU would stand by Ukraine until Russia’s defeat, adding new depth to the EU’s position on the conflict.
It is obvious that neither the US nor Russia nor Ukraine are currently interested in negotiations as all three believe (rightly or wrongly) that they can position themselves with greater force in the future than they have now. It is therefore understandable that all three do not seem to give a chance to negotiate for the time being. But that’s it interest of Europeans?