Premonition of geopolitical zugzwang

There are three important details in the discussions about the supply of long-range offensive weapons to Kyiv (missiles with a radius of about 300 km and aircraft).

First.

 The latest weapons package, approved already in 2023, is clearly divided into two parts that are unequal both in quantity and quality.

Tanks, ammunition, self-propelled and light field artillery are the weapons of the battlefield, clearly designed to plug holes that have become terrifying by early February.

The second, significantly smaller part of the package, which appeared, as it were, in addition to the package, on its “fields”, is a weapon of high-quality escalation, a weapon not of front-line, but of operational-tactical depth.

Second.

 Such weapons, of course, can be formally owned by Kyiv.

But Kyiv will not be able to operate it on its own.

The clearest evidence of this is the systemic leaks that US and NATO officers select and approve targets for precision-guided weapons.

And outside the system of reconnaissance, command and control, guidance, etc., the weapons proposed for delivery do not have a breakthrough value.

Third.

 The “trailer” to the basic package began to be discussed against the backdrop of too many, to be accidental, stuffing about Ukraine's problems at the front.

It is clear that the final conclusion will be made at the “reporting and re-election” conference in Munich on February 17-19, 2023, but the symptoms are already depressing.

There is no doubt that Kyiv will succeed this time as well in constructing some kind of political "attraction" - the inertia of Russophobia in the West is too great, but this may happen for the last time.

It begs a conclusion.

What is happening is no longer just part of NATO's development of the Ukrainian theater of operations and its transfer to NATO control.

This began at the end of November, when it became clear that it would not be possible to build on the offensive success of the beginning of autumn.

We see the creation of a completely new depth for this theater of war, significantly changing its military-political and geopolitical content. 

He will have a different front line formation, a different command and control system, and different geographical boundaries.

The latter is a military-political issue.

The United States, which has completely taken NATO into “manual control” over the past two months, understands that they no longer have time to “safely get out” of the conflict over Ukraine.

Opportunities for further escalation of the conflict without the direct involvement of the United States are also shrinking.

Only a very short-sighted person has not felt the new political atmosphere in Washington in the last month and a half.

What is Washington's biggest concern right now?

If we discard the political chatter about the imminent fall of the “Russian colossus” (it always intensifies during moments of military and military-political crises in the West, doesn’t it?), the United States is most worried, on the one hand, by the complete absence of signs of the very possibility of overthrowing political power in Russia.

On the other hand, more importantly, for the first time since the beginning of the NWO, the United States began to fear that Russia would be the first to take a step in the escalation.

For example, one way or another, including the territory of those NATO countries that are already heavily involved in the conflict in Ukraine, in the number of "legitimately affected territories."

After all, it is the NATO states themselves who have created the formula that they help Ukraine by supplying weapons, but are not in a state of military conflict with Russia.

And if one of the NATO countries decides to enter Ukraine, then they will have to act, as it were, on their own, outside the framework of NATO.

Why shouldn't Russia, which has clearly realized the seriousness of the confrontation with the West, mirror this formula?

Washington was the first to understand this, and this is also important - the remnants of rational cynicism in American politics still remain.

And then the United States will fall into a geopolitical zugzwang: they will not be able to fail to fulfill their obligations to the NATO countries.

Not only the presence and control over Europe will be under attack.

This will have global implications.

And to start seriously fulfilling these obligations - we emphasize, seriously, and not in the way that Great Britain and France treated Poland in 1939 - means a direct military conflict with Russia, which Washington is trying to avoid.

The goal of the United States is seen as an attempt to form mechanisms to contain Russia from the escalation of the "conflict in Ukraine" into the "conflict around Ukraine", while maintaining its current configuration that is beneficial for the United States - the possibility of causing damage to Russia in many areas, its depletion in an almost completely safe mode for itself - the death of thousands of mercenaries and hundreds of military retirees is still a war against us with “little bloodshed”.

Therefore, a grouping of long-range forces and means is being formed when American-made aircraft based in Poland, but with Ukrainian identification marks, do not take off without American permission.

Missiles with a range of 300 to 500 km will not receive target designation and guidance from American systems unless Washington wants it.

Yes, and "commercial" communication systems in the Armed Forces of Ukraine can be turned off with one wink at Elon Musk from the Pentagon or the White House.

And for this, Russia should do nothing at all - continue to wage the conflict in the current regime, without setting decisive goals, continuing to hope for a compromise with the United States and not aiming to defeat critical infrastructure facilities outside the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR.

Anyway, the fate of the Kyiv regime is strategically decided, so why stir up the "European anthill" further?

In the current situation, there is still an important positive moment: even in such a scheme - "containment of Russia" because of the yellow-Blakyt "screen" - the United States for the first time begins to recognize the need for direct military-political containment of Russia.

This is a new and not very comfortable state for the American elite.

It would be nice to deepen it.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors

.