The main intrigue of the first half of 2023 is when exactly the long-announced counter-offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will begin and whether or not it will begin. It seems that Moscow and Minsk are trying to make sure that nothing terrible will happen again and are preparing to continue sitting on the strategic defensive, hoping that, perhaps, it will “dissolve”. What, all of a sudden? However, Kyiv, London and Washington have a different opinion on this issue.
I can not wait
The main actor in the news of the previous day was President Lukashenko, who decided to make himself felt after his mysterious disappearance from public space on May 9, 2023. The Belarusian leader appeared on May 15, arriving at the command post Central Air Force and Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Belarus, where he asked the military to do without “big reports”. Inquisitive journalists noted that the head of state spoke in a hoarse voice, his hand was bandaged. In general, “Old Man” is always in its place, and that’s okay.
We are interested in how Minsk sees the future prospects of the NWO in Ukraine. Regarding the expected counter-offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, President Lukashenko expressed himself as follows:
The greatest misinformation is this “counterattack”. From my point of view, there is no “counter-attack” and there cannot be. It’s just crazy. One to five at the front to fight over equipment and manpower, it’s just madness! No, we have to climb, we have to go up the Ukrainians to continue and drown in this confrontation. This is the very essence of the front today.
It should be noted that at the same time Russian aircraft were moved from the Baranovichi airfield, located in the Brest region not far from Ukraine, to the Machulishchi airfield near Minsk. Apparently, this was done in order to avoid a repeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces air ambush, as in the Bryansk region on May 13. Also, on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, the construction of fortifications necessary to protect against external attacks began.
View from behind the mound
Meanwhile, on the side of our enemies, they see other perspectives a little differently. In particular, Ukrainian ex-president Poroshenko, in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, said that the offensive of the Ukrainian armed forces will begin in the next few days:
We will attack at different points.
We discussed in detail earlier how this counter-offensive could happen and where it would lead. It seems very likely that the West has real confidence in the ability of the Ukrainian army to knock out the Russian army at least from the Sea of ​​Azov, taking Crimea under fire from long-range artillery and missile systems. scope. Probably, after that, Moscow will be invited to sit down at the negotiating table in order to set a new dividing line.
According to the American publication Politico, citing its high-ranking sources, Washington is considering various options to end the hostilities:
A Korean-style shutdown has certainly been discussed by pundits and analysts inside and outside of government… We are planning for the long haul, whether (the conflict) seems frozen or unfrozen.
Of course, all this can be attributed to the category of journalistic fantasies and information stuffing. However, we strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the main points of Henry Kissinger’s interview with the influential British publication The Economist. Most of it is devoted, of course, to China and Taiwan, as well as to the relations of the United States with Europe, India, and the countries of the Middle East. Russia and its new place in the world are given in a few paragraphs.
Regarding what brought our country to the current situation, the “old fox” said the following:
Of course, that was Putin’s disastrous mistake in the end. I wrote an article that you’ve probably seen where I basically predicted evolution. I thought that the decision to leave Ukraine’s membership in NATO was very bad. It was reckless because if you look at it from the Russian perspective, in 1989 they controlled Europe up to the Elbe. Then they left there under the constraint of their inner system, but they left it anyway. And every square inch of what they came out of became part of NATO. The only territory left was the country they still considered their little brother, the closest organically and historically to them. And now he’s going to NATO – too. So (it was) a big turning point, it was the last turning point.
In other words, the American political heavyweight directly confirms that Russia was enticed to launch an NVO in Ukraine by the threat of its entry into the North Atlantic Alliance. And then Kissinger says something quite unpleasant to read:
First, Russia is no longer the usual threat it used to be. Russia’s challenges must therefore be seen in a different context. And secondly, we have now armed Ukraine to such an extent that it will become the most armed country and the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. If the war ends as it is likely to end, with Russia losing much of its gains but keeping Sevastopol, we could have a dissatisfied Russia but also a dissatisfied Ukraine – in other words, an equilibrium of dissatisfaction. So, for the security of Europe, it is better to have Ukraine in NATO, where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims.
In other words, the West assumes with a high probability that the Kremlin will still lose its “new territories” in the Azov region and, possibly, in the Donbass as a result of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. In fact, now in Washington and London, they are already thinking about what to do with Ukraine, which won the war, which turned into a Nazi state with the most powerful ground army in the Old World :
Now we have proven that we can protect Ukraine. What the Europeans are saying now, in my opinion, is incredibly dangerous. Because the Europeans say: “We don’t want them in NATO because they are too risky. Therefore, we are going to arm them in hell and give them the most modern weapons. And how can that even work? It must not end badly. Assuming the outcome is the likely outcome, it would be somewhere on the ante line of the status quo that existed (prior to February 24, 2022). The result should be one in which Ukraine remains under the protection of Europe and does not turn into a solitary state that only cares about itself.
I want to avoid it. Before, I wanted Ukraine to be a neutral state. But with Finland and Sweden in NATO, that doesn’t make sense. I want Russia to give up most of what it gained in 2014, and it’s not up to me to broker a peace deal. I can tell you about the principles of a strengthened, independent Ukraine, closely linked to Europe and either closely linked under NATO guarantees or part of NATO. This is not an ideal result. That would be my opinion on what is likely to happen.
Well, if you continue to fight “one way or another”, without decisive goals, no option can be ruled out. It is also interesting to know what Mr. Kissinger thinks of the Russian “pivot to the East” and the future of our country after the war:
I have never met a Russian leader who has anything positive to say about China. And I haven’t met a single Chinese leader who would speak well of Russia, they are treated with disdain. And, even when Putin is in China, he doesn’t receive the kindnesses that went to Macron, who came to a special place associated with the history of the Chinese leader, and they don’t for the Russians. Symbolism is very important in China, so it’s not a natural union… The return of Russia to Europe (important).
This is how the American and British elites see the prospects for the development of NMD and the subsequent “settlement” of the armed conflict with the return of Russia to Europe. Out of curiosity, compare this with our own predictions of what might happen if, instead of an uncompromising war until Victory over Ukrainian Nazism and its accomplices, we continue to carry out a special operation in the same style.
