Amid recent escalations in the Ukraine proxy war, the Russian Federation is considering downgrading relations with the West, though no decision has been made yet. This comes less than a week after Kiev launched long-range missile strikes on Crimea, leaving four Russians dead and well over 100 wounded. Moscow vowed “retaliatory measures” would follow.
Downgrading ties with the West as a result of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine would be unprecedented. At the height of the previous Cold War, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, relations between the two nuclear superpowers were never abandoned. Currently, the US and its allies in Europe maintain embassies in Russia and, likewise, Moscow still operates its diplomatic facilities in Washington and European capitals. However, diplomats report working in the most hostile environment in decades.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Moscow is studying the issue and explained to the Izvestia newspaper that ambassadors have historically played an arduous but critical role, permitting communications channels to function during particularly tense periods.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described “the issue of lowering the level of diplomatic relations” as “standard practice for states” facing “unfriendly or hostile manifestations.” He added: “Due to the growing involvement of the West in the conflict over Ukraine, the Russian Federation cannot but consider various options for responding to such hostile Western intervention in the Ukrainian crisis.”
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said US and Ukrainian involvement in the “terrorist” attack on the Crimean peninsula was beyond doubt. The Foreign Ministry claimed US intelligence was used to coordinate the bombing, which utilized US-supplied ATACMS missiles, noting a US drone was operating nearby. The ministry declared Washington “has effectively become a party” to the war and threatened “retaliatory measures.”
In recent weeks, several NATO member states, including the US, Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Poland, and Denmark, have given their Ukrainian proxy army the green light to launch Western-provided weapons into the Russian mainland as well as Crimea. Russia has strongly admonished London that if its weapons are used for attacks on Russia, Moscow will respond in kind with strikes against British military sites in Ukraine and “beyond.” Paris is also leading an effort to deploy NATO troops to Ukraine to train Kiev’s forces for its war with Russia.
Additionally, the EU just approved the transfer of more than a billion dollars’ worth of arms, purchased with interest profits gained from stolen Russian sovereign assets, and imposed scores of sanctions against Moscow.
Over the coming months, Copenhagen and Amsterdam have said they will arm Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets and clarified they may be used for strikes against Russian territory. Outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hailed the hawkish turn in war policy, insisting, without a hint of irony, that the Kremlin should not interpret this as escalatory. Moscow views the planned F-16 transfer as a strategic threat, as the jets can carry nuclear weapons. Kiev must store the warplanes on NATO territory, which Russia says can be legitimately targeted as well.
The North Atlantic alliance also has its sights set on China, which maintains a “no limits” partnership with Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently inked a defense pact with Pyongyang – which Washington has threatened with obliteration – and warned “NATO is already ‘moving’ there [to Asia] as if to a permanent place of residence. This, of course, creates a threat to all countries in the region, including the Russian Federation. We are obliged to respond to this and will do it.”
Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest podcast. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Liberty Weekly, Around the Empire, and Parallax Views. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.
The ‘dangerous game’ just became larger than life!…
The proxy war in Ukraine doesn't go as planned, and NATO is undertaking huge efforts to save the situation. Maximum what they can achieve (short of nuclear war) is making a peace deal with Russia where, at least, five administrative regions of former Ukraine are recognized as parts of Russian Federation.
NATO is not at war with Russia, so if NATO feels that things are falling apart all they need to do is to recommend Zelenskyy to ask for peace.
NATO does not need to recognize Russia's claims nor will NATO do so so the very minimum NATO will 'settle' for is that Ukraine is beaten and occupied – with continued probably increased western sanctions on Russia.
How would you if wo were in Putin's shoos make NATO do anything more?
NATO (U.S.) can't just walk away from Ukraine. It will mean a geopolitical defeat of American imperialism. They invested too much in their Ukrainian project.
Well your original comment suggests that they are losing, assuming this to be true, I merely question where we may go from there.
So how is your option in any way better for NATO than NATO (U.S.) just walk away from Ukraine.
Surely accepting the death of the rules based world order is much worse than 'allowing' the Ukrainians to make peace when they are tired of fighting!?
Of course they can walk away but it would be, as I said, a geopolitical defeat for American imperialism. As we can observe, U.S. leadership is undertaking a new great effort to change the situation. They are still hoping they can do it. At least, next four months, the confrontation between NATO and Russia will only escalate.
Yes but as I point out I took that as a given – if as you say they are losing then I propose that this is the less bad option for them.
Can you field any argument that they should compound such a defeat by recognizing the Russian position and lifting sanctions?
On the immediate future we agree.
It was in the last Putin's peace proposition. Putin even said that he is ready to stop the military activity immediately if Kiev regime starts to remove his troops from the territories recognized by Russia as Russian. Of course, Kiev can't do it without American permission. American leadership is still hoping the situation can be changed to their favor. Besides, it looks, many in U.S. leadership don't mind to have this war as long as possible, doesn't matter what the outcome could be.
But AFAIK he also demanded the lifting of sanctions.
They like the Afghans before them can just stop fighting the US would be able too do nothing.
Agreed.
Agreed
None of this IMO points to it even being remotely likely that this will end with a NATO recognition of Russian claims to territory let alone lifting any sanctions.
That's why the situation is going to deteriorate further until American empire collapse or we have a nuclear war. Or else, maybe, different people with different agenda start to appear in U.S. leadership.
It is not just Ukraine. There is Palestinian crisis, and above all China which is developing much faster than U.S., so the gap between Chinese industry and American one is growing.
Is that you agreeing that this is very unlikely to end with NATO recognizing the Russian territorial claims, even if they fail to keep Ukraine motivated to fight?
The US may leave NATO, it is very unlikely that NATO would end its stance vis-a-vis Russia even should this happen.
I.e. European sanctions stay on.
While the US is interested in preventing the Chinese from invading Taiwan they are not going to end sanctions on Russia for doing what is essentially the same only with an even less acceptable excuse.
I do agree that it is extremely unlikely that American leadership's stance vis-a-vis Russia will change. It also does mean that Russia/China union is a new geopolitical reality which is not going to be change in foreseeable future. Meanwhile the rest of the world is moving closer to BRICS. BRICS is getting progressively stronger, and the collective west with U.S. on top of it is getting progressively weaker. So, in the end, will will have BRICS dominating the world and the geopolitical agenda, or a big nuclear war. I don't see any other scenarios.
Agreed.
Not seeing the evidence for this – Chinese companies are still very much trying to avoid being seen to violate sanctions as are Indian ones.
The BRICS countries have no way to replace the huge trade with the west so deeply dependent on trade with the west and not least the US for protection of trade routes.
But we do agree that the west is getting 'weaker' in the sense that most western countries have almost as bad demographics as the Russians and the Chinese.
I'm not seeing the BRICS getting as Rich as to replace the western trade.
Somehow I'm still at a loss as to why You think the Russians (or the Chinese) would prefer nuclear suicide over a failure to displace the west.
As pointed out the west does not have the man power to invade nor occupy even Iran let alone Russia or China even if they could beat them.
The only nation pushing toward a nuclear war is the US, and it does that by progressively escalating the conflict in Ukraine. Mikhailovich accurately points out that the US empire is in a struggle to maintain unipolar domination of the world, a position it has held since the fall of the USSR. Defeat for the US in Ukraine will signal that the empire can no longer maintain its dominance, which will lead toward general collapse of the empire. This is a very high-stakes poker game; the US is betting the house, the farm, and all the livestock.
And it is for that reason that the US may be willing to commit thermonuclear suicide.
Is it your claim that the Russians have no alternative i.e. no agency in this, but automatically have to go nuclear if they cannot have the sanctions lifted???
I hope you noticed that I actually agreed with the notion that the West is in decline!?
It'll signal the end of the current world order and usher us into a time where wars of territorial expansion (in a multipolar world) is the new norm.
That does not mean that it is the end of the US nor the rise of Russia.
How do you see the US betting that much on Ukraine – as far as I can see they are betting less than they did on Iraq or Afghanistan.
What is your basis for claiming that Ukraine suffering a defeat will be much worse for the US?
Yes not seeing that at all – they have repeatedly stated that they would not use nukes even if the Russians do.
In order to maintain “unipolar domination of the world,” the US would have first had to achieve such “unipolar domination.”
It never even came close.
While both the US and Russian empires had been in decline for some time prior to 1991, the sudden SHARPER decline of the Russian empire didn’t reverse the decline of the US empire. In fact, it probably sped that decline up insofar as the US empire decided to waste its energy on failed wars of conquest in the Middle East and Central Asia. While it still hasn’t caught up with the Russian empire in decline, it’s getting pretty close.
Oh I so very much agree, which is why I did not make such a claim – and did not agree with that point, but only pointed out that the US is moving away from any kind of dominance it has had.
Again very true.
If I have understood the definition of such wars correctly:
My question would be which nations did the US acquire or even try to acquire? Regime change sure but not conquest as I understand the definition.
As I already indicated I concur with the notion that the US is in the process of decline, it is slow but unquestionable there.
“My question would be which nations did the US acquire or even try to acquire? Regime change sure but not conquest as I understand the definition.”
See the “to subjugate” part of the definition. The US conquered Iraq and Afghanistan and installed puppet regimes there. But those puppet regimes failed and were replaced (completely in Afghanistan — the US still seems to have SOME influence in Iraq).
OK no problem with the subjugate bit – that most certainly is true.
Full spectrum dominance over the planet was proclaimed by U.S. leadership as main geopolitical goal. It happened about quarter of century ago but even before that, U.S. did everything to inflict maximum damage to Russia because Russia was believed to be the main obstacle to this goal. All following years to the present day U.S. leadership was struggling to achieve it. Ukrainian project was an important part of the plan. A lot of money was invested there. They were sure it is achievable. That's why they are so frustrated now. Their rhetoric at the beginning of this century was absolutely arrogant, as if they were already the masters of the world.
Oh, no! Moscow is going to downgrade relations with the West! What will the West do now?!?
Hahaha.
Downgrading ties with the West as a result of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine would be unprecedented. At the height of the previous Cold War, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, relations between the two nuclear superpowers were never abandoned.
But not to worry, "Rational Thinker" isn't concerned.
Nope. I’m not.
"why you think Russians (or Chinese) would prefer nuclear suicide over a failure to displace The West" –
Where did I said that Russia or China prefer nuclear suicide? Neither Russia, nor China is escalating the confrontation with U.S. It is U.S. who was pushing all those years it's military infrastructure to Russian and Chinese borders, not other way around.
This was what I got from your replay where you said:
You put up two possible outcomes:
1) BRICS dominating the world and the geopolitical agenda…
Or failing that:
2) a big nuclear war
This as I read it implied that if they could not achieve domination then…
I do not see any reason why the west or the US would opt for nuclear war just because they were not dominating world events.
As I've pointed out the west has to realize that given their demographic situation they simply no longer have the ability to project power like they used to.
The big war may happen not because BRICS is struggling to achieve the geopolitical domination but because U.S. elite can't reconcile itself to the fact that BRICS is getting more powerful than G7 or any other organization dominated by U.S. oligarchy.
BRICS is not dominated by one country or one group of people. BRICS = multipolar world. BRICS is open organization and countries are queuing to join it.
There is a difference between NATO where is one boss and BRICS where there are no boss at all. NATO (U.S. empire) means dictate of one group of people. BRICS means no dictate at all.
The economic and financial center of the world is shifting from the organizations dominated by U.S. to BRICS. That's why BRICS is going to be the dominating organization. That is a natural process.
This would as I see it only happen if you can argue why the elite would see suicide as preferable to having to move.
Elon Musk is a BRICS borne elite and had no problems shifting to the US when that was 'needed' the elite often have this option – so I find the notion that they would commit suicide rather than move with their money/influence weak.
BRICS is dominated by China – currently – it may be India in the not too distant future – everyone else are minnows compared to China.
No the US cannot boss the other members around in NATO.
No China is already dictating to its neighbors as is indeed Russia to Ukraine – this is not me painting them out as evil, but countries will always try to use their power to better their own position.
And yes the US does that too just not through NATO – at least not before Trump.
Up to a point: The economics is shifting to the countries with the youngest and most productive populations.
That is for a short while still China but within 10 years no more so – so that means India.
It is indeed a natural process however as pointed out there is not in this decade the ability in the BRICS countries to replace the west as customers for all their products – they are not affluent enough.
Nor do they have any financial markets as free, trustworthy and deep as to be able to soak up the capital as those of the US and Europe.
So while India and other countries with healthy population pyramids are indeed naturally going to take over the role as leader – it will take in excess of a decade before the US is out of it's role.
They continue the circular argument of:
Russia is winning on all fronts.
And also:
Russia’s use nuclear weapons is imminent.
Christ! Which is it?!?
My guess would be both and neither – in keep with Kremlin propaganda 🙂
It can't be both? They aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe the idea that the West won't consider diplomacy means that the nukes are inevitable. That doesn't mean Russia isn't "winning" on all fronts presently. Ukraine certainly can't make that claim. And if it's a stalemate, it's a stalemate with Russia controlling Ukrainian land and not the other way around.
It can’t “be both”. They’re nuclear saber-rattling BECAUSE they’re not winning. (I know that’s hard for you to understand, Wars.)
The nuclear sable rattling is a reaction to perceived escalations, or threats of escalations, by the West and are directed at the West. It certainly isn't because their ass is against the wall militarily inside of Ukraine. They're on Ukraine land. They certainly aren't losing. I know that's hard for you to understand.
There’s no evidence BRICS will be anything more than a pipedream.
Yes, Putin said he’s willing to stop trying to take the territory he’s been unable to take if Ukraine will just give him the territory he’s been unable to take.
Similarly, I am willing to stop trying to hack into your bank account if you’ll just transfer all the money in it to me. C’mon, don’t you want “peace?”
Is it so difficult to understand Russian strategy? Russian army is keeping Ukrainians under permanent pressure and waiting until Kiev regime either collapse or is ready to accept Russian terms of the peace deal.
Russian army is advancing but the capture of the territory is not the main goal. Main goal is the destruction of Ukrainian army's capacity to resist.
Broken record. Seems to me your POV hinges on an interpretation of the Russian strategy and tactics which is at odds with their own announced plan, which is to continuously degrade the Ukrainian military. This is coupled with Putin's publicly stated position that minimizing Russian casualties is paramount. The combination, IMO, points to just the tactics I read about every day in the reports released via TASS.
That became their “announced plan” after the initial failure of the “Special Military Operation.” Its chief utility as an “announced plan” is to create an ongoing excuse for 28 months of continuing failure.
What failure you are talking about? The goals of Special Military Operation were:
1. Stop the ethnic cleansing campaign which Kiev regime, supported by NATO, started in February 2022.
2. Stop the creation of NATO military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory and dismantle what was already created.
3. Denazification of Ukraine.
Before launching the military operation, Russia recognized the independence of Donbass republics and signed a commitment to help them militarily. It made the ethnic cleansing of Donbass achievable only in case of military defeat of Russia. After the beginning of SMO, the exodus of civil population from Donbass to Russia stopped immediately.
The demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine could be achieved by negotiations or through the military destruction of Ukrainian army. In March 2022 negotiations started and were quite successful until Boris Johnson visited Kiev and convinced Zelensky to stop it. You may call it failure but it was not only failure of Russia to solve the problem peacefully. It was also failure of Kiev regime because the war is devastating for Ukraine. Also it was a failure of U.S. because the commitment to the war created great geopolitical problems for American elite. The peaceful solution can't be achieved unilaterally. NATO leaders were determined to defeat Russia militarily. It was impossible to convince them to change their plans. Hardly one can call it a Russian failure.
We simply disagree. I do not presume to know what their intention is beyond what they announce.
In my country, it's much easier: everything my government broadcasts these days is either a lie or bullshit.
Pretty much anything any government broadcasts these days is either a lie or bullshit.
And Russia’s government is no different in that respect.
As I said, we disagree on the facts on the ground. I agree with you that bullshit is in no danger of becoming extinct.
However, I have seen plain evidence of both the incompetence and habitual lying on the part of US leadership.
Russian officials by contrast, so far at least, appear to be more circumspect about pulling facts out of their asses, whereas, that's about all I see from Blinken, Austin, and company – and on a daily basis.
I’d say you’re mistaking phlegmatic demeanor for “being more circumspect.”
Phlegmatic gets rather stuck in
one’s throat TK! ;-}
Yes, the US plan was to make Ukraine into an Afghanistan-like tar pit for Russia; that is, to entrap Russia into an unwinnable conflict to drain Russia's resources and ultimately weaken it to the point where a color revolution could topple the government.
Instead the table has turned and Russia is winning a war of attrition with minimal casualties while draining Ukraine of all its human and industrial resources, and trapping the US into an expensive long-term commitment of money and armaments.
Still, the US wants to continue the war as long as possible. Also, the US had no plan for an alternative outcome and can only see escalation as an option.
"weaken it to the point where a color revolution could topple the government" – exactly. The ultimate goal of Ukrainian project is the regime change in Russia, installing there a pro-American puppet regime and take Russian natural resources under control of American corporations. Then U.S. could surround China, deprive it of easy access to natural resources, and eventually, defeat China and divide it in several smaller subordinated to American oligarchy countries (as they are planning to do with Russia), and then American oligarchy would be able to dominate the whole planet. Unfortunately for them, it is unachievable.
Unachieveable on SO many levels. Russians remember the '90s when Clinton's BFF Yeltsin was handing everything not nailed down to western banksters and his cronies. They remember pensioners being evicted to die in the snow and people in some areas starving to death. They're not going to let that happen again.
Yes, Russia is okay to fight on her own but there are also many friends who are ready to help. First of all China. Longer the war lasts, more countries are siding with Russia. Also more people in The West are denouncing their governments' policy.
2/3 of the world’s governments are ignoring the sanctions against Russia, which represent around 80% of the world’s population. Since Russia is locked out of the SWIFT exchange (and we stole the $300 billion in it) almost none of that commerce is happening in USD. This includes petroleum, which Russia sold more of the last two years than ever before. Now China has signed an accord with Saudi Arabia to buy petroleum in national currencies rather than petro-dollars, and is negotiating with Iran to do the same. The five founding members of BRICS has a larger share of the world’s trade now than the seven members of the G7, and they’re setting up their own currency exchange system. The world is changing faster than the fossils in DC can adapt.
Hahaha. OK, son.
https://www.newsweek.com/satellite-data-russia-tank-losses-ukraine-war-1918313
How does that disprove what he/she said?
“Instead the table has turned and Russia is winning a war of attrition with minimal casualties…”
This is how: Russia is losing because they’re not able to keep up the pace much longer. Their armor is depleted and they’ve been struggling since the Ukes started getting more Western gear and ammo.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-isw-maps-1919113
Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to win a war against Russia. It's that simple. Russia still controls land that Ukraine will not get back without direct involvement from the US/NATO.
Additionally NATO has drained its reserves of weapons and ammunition and in many cases have dipped into what is supposed to be on-hand munitions available for immediate response. It's doubtful that the alliance could field enough equipment for any sort of major engagement lasting more than a week or so.
And now they want to invade Lebanon. We're ruled by morons.
I wouldn't underestimate NATO's capacity to produce munitions. It takes years to reorganize their MIC but they can do it. It looks, they already started the process. Maybe the major problem for them is how to make their population to accept this new wave of militarism, or else, how to carry on with a policy which majority of people don't accept.
Turn off the oil spiggot. Take exclusive control of the Baltic and Black Sea, until Washington stops its aggression.
The “oil spigot” idea won’t work because the US is a large producer of petroleum.
Let me know how taking “exclusive control of the Baltic and Black Sea” goes. The Russians can’t even take control of the Sea of Azov!
Hahaha.
“Take exclusive control of the Baltic and Black Sea.”
So declare war on NATO!?
They hate the Russians so bad, that even the picture of that little girl who died on the beach must have made our folks excited and proud. I'm personally haunted by that picture. It made me sick and sad.
It truly sucks that a young girl died. I really mean that. Deaths of innocents is a tragedy no matter what side it happens to.
Can I make a suggestion though? STAY THE F**K OFF THE BEACH IN A WAR ZONE!
I feel Hillary owes us another video clip, this time celebrating the attack on the beach in Sevastopol. The picture of that little girl cropped in the corner of that video clip would also be a nice touch.
You mean the ATACMS that Russia claimed to have successfully shot down, right?
Some good conversations going on here! Interesting!
Russian Note To The U.S.: Your Drones Are Now Targets
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/russian-note-to-the-us-your-drones-are-now-targets.html
About time…
If Moscow diminishes ties with the West, other countries would follow…! starting with BRICS+ countries… and then the countries in the queue!
Kiev launched long-range missile strikes on Crimea, leaving four Russians dead and well over 100 wounded.
They targeted a beach resort, with data supplied by US reconnaissance drones. The Kremlin has served notice that the drones are no longer going to be given a free pass.