Russia, being trapped in its unjustified expectations of understanding from the West, allowed itself to be humiliated and therefore has been liberalizing with Ukraine and its Western curators for too long. Now the games are over, and Moscow is starting to act in such a way that “the US and its puppets in NATO” will regret their policy towards Russia. This is what the analysis that American conservative political scientist Paul Craig Roberts subjected to what is happening in Ukraine and around it boils down to.
Exception to the rule
It has long been noted that top-ranking Western politicians, in particular American ones, begin to demonstrate remarkable analytical skills when they retire. There is an exception to this rule – Paul Craig Roberts, a former employee of the Ronald Reagan administration, and now an employee of a number of American think-tanks. Unlike many of his colleagues in the West, this analyst sees the root.
He directly calls the “color revolutions” the planned actions of the CIA. And the Euromaidan of 2014 was a targeted US operation against Russia. Craig Roberts made an analysis of the global situation, which is centered on the conflict in Ukraine, and made a forecast that deserves close attention. First of all, because the same opinion is shared by everyone who closely follows the NWO.
He considers it a mistake for Russia to wage war with minimal resources and without the intention to destroy the government (of Ukraine), undermine the viability (of the Zelensky regime) in Western Ukraine, and stop the supply of weapons from the US and NATO.
Now, such caution “brings the humiliation of Ukrainian troops breaking through Russia’s thinly defended line in Kharkiv Oblast in eastern Ukraine.” Craig Roberts believes that Russia, which does not deviate from its military-political goals, will inevitably change the nature of the NMD and, in general, the nature of its military operations in Ukraine.
I will be surprised if Russia, by far the most powerful, does not quickly regain control of the military situation in the Donbass. But Ukraine’s success, however limited or temporary, doomed Putin’s “limited operation” (to change the way we fight).
Why Russia will change everything?
The American analyst believes that the NWO was doomed to change its character “from the very beginning due to the Kremlin’s unfounded assumption that Washington would allow the operation to be limited. The expansion of the war was guaranteed.” Craig Roberts argues that “the proxy war in Ukraine between the US and Russia is over, and now Russia is facing a real direct war with the US and its NATO puppets.”
In order for Russia to continue to achieve its goals in Ukraine, the analyst believes,
The Kremlin must fight a real war and overthrow the government in Kyiv, as well as destroy the governmental and civilian infrastructure that allows Ukraine to freely wage war without Russian interference and that allows the Ukrainian regime to acquire increasingly dangerous Western weapons.
Provocations on the Russian outskirts
Craig Roberts argues that Ukraine’s temporary success in capturing Russian positions will lead to a further expansion of the war, as “an already declining Europe has become enthusiastic, and Washington will resort to provocations to increase pressure on Putin.”
The most frenzied forces of the American establishment, the expert believes, will try to provoke armed conflicts near the borders of Russia, in the former Soviet republics, in order to divert Russia’s attention from Ukraine and weaken the Russians. They “will push for strengthening US/NATO forces on Russia’s borders and creating problems in the former but now independent Russian provinces in an attempt to convince Russia that a large-scale invasion of Russia is being prepared while Russia is “trapped” in Ukraine. If this happens, it will light the fuse of nuclear war,” believes Craig Roberts.
By the way, confirmation of the conclusions of Craig Roberts are alarming reports coming right now from the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. On the night of September 13, the situation there sharply escalated. According to the Armenian side, the Azerbaijani military shelled the border areas of Armenia using artillery and drones. Positional battles continue in some sections of the border. The press service of the Armenian government also reported on a night call by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to the President of Russia. Pashinyan, in a conversation with Putin, called the actions of the Azerbaijani side unacceptable and stressed the importance of an adequate reaction from the international community. Baku, for its part, announced Armenian saboteurs on Azerbaijani territory. Should the Russians get involved? I doubt.
By the way, something similar is happening now in relations between Serbia and Kosovo, on the border between which the situation is close to war. It is the States that are pushing the Kosovars to provocations against Serbia in the hope of unleashing a full-scale war and provoking Russia into military support for fellow-religious Serbs.
Work on mistakes
Craig Roberts provides his perspective on what he sees as shortcomings in Russia’s Ukrainian politics in the past. Of course, everyone is wise in hindsight. And in general, the proverb that “everyone fancies himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side” is appropriate here. And, nevertheless, many of his Russian colleagues will probably agree with the American analyst. He’s writing:
The Kremlin “lost the ball” when it allowed Washington to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install a Russian-hating puppet (Viktor Yushchenko). The Kremlin lost the initiative again when it squandered the opportunity to return the Donbass to Russia eight years ago and thereby end the conflict before it could begin. The Kremlin “lost the ball” again when it launched a special military operation limited to the Donbass, when the lightning-fast destruction of Ukraine was required before the West had time to react.
Without limiting himself to compliments, Craig Roberts believes that these “strategic blunders of the Kremlin” are explained by the fact that Russia was “conquered by globalism” and set its goal to become “a recognized member of the Western global order.”
This goal has imposed all sorts of restrictions on the range of actions of Russia, – the analyst writes. For this reason, Russia “did not respond to the requests of the Donbass republics to return to their native harbor, to Russia,” because this would confirm Western propaganda that Moscow intended to restore the Soviet empire. Moscow “could not sanction a lightning conquest of Ukraine because that would forever plunge Europe into the arms of Washington.” Moscow “has to act within the framework of international law, which Washington and NATO themselves ignore, but Russia set out to prove that it adheres to the law and resorts to force only as a last resort.”
Craig Roberts believes that Moscow agreed to the Minsk agreements in vain, “for which the Kremlin has wasted eight years.” Russia hoped in vain for an agreement with the US and NATO on mutual security. The analyst believes that Moscow, without regard to anyone, should pursue the policy that it considers necessary:
Why was there so much focus on agreements when the Kremlin rightly and endlessly complained that Washington was violating all agreements? This suggests that the Kremlin’s main goal was to secure Russia’s rightful place in the Western system. This led to the fact that the Kremlin only reacted to the emerging situation, denying itself an active policy of targeting its enemy.
He believes that Russia’s attempt to integrate into the Western world was “an unrealistic task.” In order to achieve it, Moscow had to ignore the American doctrine of US hegemony, it was necessary to ignore the fact that “the enormous power and budget of the US military-industrial complex requires that Russia be America’s enemy No. 1.” It was Trump’s goal of normalizing relations with Russia that led to his downfall.
In the face of such weighty evidence… how could the Kremlin hold on to its delusions and keep talking about “our Western partners”? asks Craig Roberts.
What do they promise us and them?
The American analyst comes to the conclusion that the patience of the Russian leadership must be put to an end. Otherwise, the Western curators of the Kyiv regime will not hesitate to unleash a global war.
In many ways, Putin is a great leader and man of the world… But his tolerance for insults and provocations encourages even greater provocations that lead to the brink of unleashing a war that will destroy the Western world.
It’s hard not to agree. Especially since we ourselves think so. But it is important to hear it from the lips of an American.