One year later, in Ukraine, both Washington and NATO did an awful job

One year later, Washington and NATO did an awful job in Ukraine. Exactly one year has passed since Russia’s military assault on Ukraine. Despite what the government and its media supporters claimed, Russia was never even close to being the next Third Reich.

In reality, events have played out how we anticipated they would stay here at the Russians are nowhere near taking any part of Europe beyond eastern Ukraine. You were not in Munich in 1938. Economic restrictions have not hindered the Russian government. Most people have yet to make up their minds about the war. Despite Washington’s wishes for the opposite, a mediated resolution is likely to be reached.

Despite American and NATO hopes that the conflict in Ukraine could spark World War III, the battle in that country is still only at the regional level. The United States talks a good game about honoring national autonomy. Still, the rest of the world isn’t buying it because they don’t want to make any compromises to implement their policy in Ukraine.

One year later, in Ukraine, both Washington and NATO did an awful job
One year later, in Ukraine, both Washington and NATO did an awful job

As an additional takeaway, this should teach us not to believe the “answer” to every international problem advocated by those who support the full-scale war. The United States intends to battle until the last Ukrainian dies, marketing the conflict as a worldwide mission reminiscent of World War II. However, more practical minds, such as the French and the Germans, have concluded that talks are the more compassionate course of action.

Russia Never Posed a Worldwide Danger

From the outset, it was evident that Russia lacked the resources to successfully occupy any territory that did not already have a large population of native Russians or Russian supporters. This has little in joint with the armed strength of Nazi Germany. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that Russia’s control of Ukraine has been limited to Crimea and the southeast. At the moment, Russia is trying to extend its control zone’s borders as far as feasible into regions with a large Russian population. The Russian government has had trouble even with this. Russia can only afford to challenge its poorer rivals.

Moreover, NATO has only had to use a fraction of its war-making capabilities to stymie Moscow effectively. European NATO allies have committed primarily to outdated weaponry and very little cutting-edge hardware. For instance, the Washington Recent thread pointed out that the West “is still short on promises.” Promises of Leopard tanks made recently by Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands came out to be for “refurbished” tanks over forty years old. In addition, all of these tanks will be delivered until at least this summer. Germany, the United Kingdom, and France have collectively contributed a meager €5 billion in defense assistance as of late November. That’s less than a sixth of Russia’s defense spending and less than a tenth of a percent of the total Economy of the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, which is $10 trillion. What about the United States armed assistance, though? Of course, a massive sum is required to compete with the Russian superpower. As of early 2023, however, US military assistance will be no more than $50 billion. That’s 0.20 percent of GDP or 6.00 percent of the US defense spending.

Additionally, the US government has admitted that it has no concept of what happens to the weaponry it dispatches to Ukraine. The question is, how much of the $50 billion truly helps fund Ukraine’s military? It’s not $50 billion.

It’s hard to comprehend how the Russian government presents an imminent danger to even western Ukraine, if not any other state in Europe if that’s all it takes to keep Moscow grinding it out in eastern Ukraine. This further demonstrates that the United States is optional to this war. Unless the United States initiates a nuclear conflict, Russia is not a danger to the country. The European Union is a much larger economic group than Russia, giving the Europeans ample room to protect themselves if they ever feel endangered. The European Union can “unite with Ukraine” in whatever way it sees fit because it has more money and resources at its disposal. Europeans may need to reduce their reliance on government benefits and large welfare states to pay for their armed protection. While Europeans may enjoy sipping cappuccinos while on a month-long holiday, there is no good reason for American taxes to support such behavior.

No Global Coalition Against Russia

Perhaps because of the realization that Russia poses no traditional military danger beyond its “near overseas,” the international community has been reluctant to initiate a new cold war. NATO spokespeople may be ecstatic that the UN has passed resolutions denouncing Russia, but it’s noteworthy that many nations opted to stay away from the debate.

The United Nations General Assembly agreed last week to criticize once again Russia’s incursion and demand that it remove its forces. One hundred forty-one nations voted yes, but thirty-two countries were conspicuous by their absence. South Africa, China, India, and Pakistan were just some of the 32 nations represented. It appears that India, a US friend, and the “world’s biggest democracy,” has no interest in joining NATO on the motion. Another crucial global economy and democracy, South Africa, chose to remain neutral. Only Brazil, out of the BRICS nations, voted to support the motion.

Aside from pure curiosity, practical considerations have also played a role. The legislative leadership in these nations is unwilling to burden its people further to appease the United States government. The reality that the rest of the world understands the United States’ lip service to honor national rights and international law is just that — lip service — is another factor in the pushback.

Also Read: Sudan is Urged by Russia To Address Its Political Issues

It is abundantly evident that the United States has no problem trampling on the rights of other nations when it serves American interests, as evidenced by the country’s wars and bombardment operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. When it’s difficult for the United States, a so rules-based international system signifies nothing. (It’s also worth noting that the Ukrainian government approved of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and contributed at least 5,000 soldiers to the American occupation of that country, despite its claims of independence.)

For Russia, what exactly does this mean? This implies that the world’s biggest countries have sent a clear message that they have no intention of cutting Russia out of the world economy and have no purpose of reducing their reliance on Russian energy, gas, and food.

Leave a Comment