Background
French president, Emmanuel Macron stated that the idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine remained an option (here), which when coupled with Germany’s Luftwaffe plotting to blow up the Crimean Bridge (here) reflects a policy Cul-de-sac that the EU and NATO face. Few options remain, the first being NATO officially intervening in Ukraine, which can result in prohibitive military costs. The second entails waiting for the EU to slide further into recession due to a lack of affordable Russian energy (here). The third option, which the West ignores, entails the EU and the US opening their minds to allow free economic cooperation and competition with Russia, China, and Iran among others. However, the West’s supremacist mind is set on robbing Russia (and others) and cannot fairly trade to gain the resources it needs, explaining its recent proposals to escalate. As Macron proposed sending NATO troops to Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz revealed that the UK and France had sent forces to Ukraine to launch missiles at Russia, meaning the West had chosen the first option of escalating, but has not reached any goal, hence the Cul-de-sac. Still, the EU faces recession due to a lack of cheap Russian gas (here), the access to which it and the US sabotaged, hoping to precipitate Russia’s collapse to create conditions where the West could receive these resources for free as described in this article from FP. The US faces stiff competition from China and thought that Russia would collapse so that Washington could use the heavily armed remnants of Russia to fight China. However, Russia still stands. Against this backdrop, the West has set itself down a slippery slope of blunders that have busted its superiority myths.
Short-lived Myths about Washington
On February, 27 the Pentagon boasted how it used Targeted ads to find and track Vladimir Putin (here), creating two myths around itself, the first being Panopticon (being able to see everyone without being seen) and the second being benevolent by planning no evil against its target. Both collapsed a week later, on 4th March 2024, when Russian media leaked a conversation of the German Luftwaffe (arguably NATO’s branch), plotting to bomb the Crimean Bridge, proving that Washington and its clients can be seen back, and that they are evil. The German Government’s confirmation that the leaked Luftwaffe’s conversation was authentic (here) shows that Russian spies can gain the information they need, and proves that the West is planning to harm Russian civilians. Russians could have more information. Noteworthy, the Luftwaffe’s meeting is arguably a section of NATO’s, meaning the Pentagon franchise in Berlin was caught planning an attack against civilian infrastructure. The leaked conversation also revealed how the UK and France (other sections of NATO) deliver and fire long-range cruise missiles at Russians. Similarly, Macron’s proposal to deploy NATO forces in Ukraine was corrected with a revelation that these forces were already there. This startling revelation occurred barely a week after the February 28th news that the CIA maintained 12 operations bases in east Ukraine for the past 8 years (here). These revelations show that key NATO members are engaged in a war against Russia through Ukraine without declaring it officially. None of these media revelations, including by the Luftwaffe, shows a justifiable reason for fighting Russia. Audiences can note that the irrational need to attack Russia appears as a natural inclination for Western regimes, which needs to be investigated.
Pursuing Failed Supremacist Policy
NATO’s and EU’s current moves, while risky, results from frustration after past failures. The saber-rattling reflects progressively diminishing choices that Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin have to achieve their vile goals. Their past attempts to collapse Russia through the Chechen wars, hijacking Georgia and Ukraine to fight Russia, many rounds of sanctions, and NATO’s covert operations in Ukraine, including arming Ukraine over the last two years have failed. These efforts are shaking the West more than Moscow. Some mainstream media outlets have admitted that anti-Russian sanctions will fail (here). Militarily, Russia continues to achieve success by liberating one city or village after another and systematical demilitarizing Ukraine, signifying the failure of its (Ukraine’s) backers. West’s lies have also failed, further limiting the EU and NATO’s options. Lies were used to stop Russia from intervening to stop Kiev’s atrocities against the Donbas, as Germany and France issued disingenuous guarantees to supervise Ukraine to implement Minsk I and later Minsk II agreements (here). Russia observed its part while NATO armed and urged Ukraine to defeat Donbas militarily as opposed to finding a political solution. Later, former France and German leaders, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel respectively, the supposed guarantors of the Minsk I and II agreements revealed that they purported to act as guarantors to buy time for arming Ukraine, but expected Russia to uphold its end (here). Due to the West’s duplicity, it has become clear that agreement with it should only bind the other party, while the US and the EU continue pursuing parochial goals. It even turned out that the CIA was conducting secret operations against Russia from eastern Ukraine, across the 8 years that Russia was expecting France and Germany to supervise Kyiv to implement Minks agreements (here). Currently, the EU and NATO understand that negotiations are unlikely despite Ukraine’s loss, while Russia’s political system and economy remain firm.
West’s Adverseness to Free Trade and Political Coexistence
Westerners’ goals of finding in Russia free gas and oil to loot or military means to fight against China looks unattainable. This reality is further driving desperation, even as Western Europe falls further into depression and deindustrialization (here). The remaining option looks even scarier, making Macron to raise his rhetoric. On March 5th, Macron urged Europeans to stop being cowardly and send troops to Ukraine, which follows an earlier call that Europeans outwardly declined. Before that, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Congress that US troops would have to fight in Ukraine if the latter lost (here). Voices from Macron and Austin show that the West’s remaining option is the hard one: NATO’s official intervention in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the West understands that intervention will attract prohibitive military costs, making Europeans outwardly reject it but secretly consider ways of implementing it while avoiding consequences. Both parties have never had to make hard decisions, since they previously attacked weak countries to steal immense resources for a small military investment and propaganda. Past examples are Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, through which the West also reaped political benefits of instilling fear in smaller and resource-rich countries that henceforth adopt a policy of always appeasing the West. However, Russia presents a different arithmetic in military and political costs that makes the West hesitate. US’s Austin and EU’s Macron’s apparent fixation on sending NATO into Ukraine is created out of binary thinking, as both view the other option of allowing Western European economies to sink further in recession without plundered Russian gas as unacceptable. Both ignore the third option, which entails freely cooperating and competing with Russia, China, and Iran. Failure to consider this fair option shows that the West cannot shake off its mindset of superiority.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.