What did the West and NATO achieve with their policy against Russia?

In the conflict with Russia, the West has nothing to offer, it has exhausted all its ammunition, without even approaching its goal. Thus it is forced to return to the point from which it all began, namely to Russia’s demand for security guarantees for its territory. After two years of war no progress has been made on this core issue of the conflict. Western diplomats offered nothing on this issue and in no way gave the impression that Russia’s interests were taken seriously.

The Russians, however, are very clear and know what they are about and nothing will stop them from their goal. Security for their territory and the people of Russia is their simple demand, something the West simply cannot get past, no matter how it squirms. In NATO’s showcase policy, there is something else that does not go unnoticed: The weakness of its representatives. NATO has no plan to deal with the crisis. This is not surprising, because he has no idea what he wants to achieve.

For most people in the world, Russia’s demand is understandable. It has not gone unnoticed by the world public that Russia has not been the threat to the former Warsaw Pact states, as the West has repeatedly claimed since the official end of the Cold War in 1997, as it is not Russia that has expanded towards west, something that was shown by the events of the last years.

It was NATO itself that expanded ever closer to Russia’s borders, accepting more and more of Russia’s immediate neighbors into the Alliance. In doing so, it created the risk of direct confrontation with Russia itself. So the question remains of what NATO wants to achieve with this growing body of member states along the Russian border.

Does NATO want to risk the big war that some in the West are imagining? Or maybe it has realized from the current crisis and quite early on that it cannot compete with rivals like Russia and China. The latest developments show that the Ukrainians will have to face the Russians alone. The West is sending weapons, but not soldiers. The risk of an uncontrolled expansion of the conflict to the level of nuclear war between world powers would be too great.

But if one does not dare to wage a conventional war and wants to avoid nuclear war at all costs, what is the point of all the efforts to change the balance of power between Russia and NATO by admitting new states to the alliance? Even the admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO would not change the fact that a conventional war can end in nuclear ignition. Even the accession of Sweden and Finland to the Alliance does not lead to a different result. In the end, there is always nuclear war and the end of the world. For now, despite all the tensions and conflicts, Western leaders act as if they are aware of this fact.

However, while Russia can articulate its interests clearly and comprehensibly to most people, the same is not true of NATO. He cannot present what he wants. He only knows what he doesn’t want. Not back to the 1997 balance of power. No reduction in threat capabilities in central Europe from NATO. This means that everything must remain the same. Nothing should change, but this also means that old conditions are threatened by change. Change is just around the corner, a change that includes NATO itself.

For its part, Russia is not turning unilaterally against the West, as it is ready to limit its own military machine, to reduce military actions that could inadvertently cause an unwanted war. Russia does not demand more from the West than it is willing to limit to itself. And yet the West says nothing about everything Putin is proposing. Why does the West not want to make concessions?

He does not want to make concessions to Russia because it is a matter of principle, not understanding. After all the defeats of recent years in Afghanistan, the Arab world, Venezuela, Iran and the Sahel Zone, he wants to stand up to Russia and China. Every step back is perceived as a defeat, even if there is nothing to gain. It is not only about Ukraine (see also an earlier related article). It is about the struggle for survival of the Western system which must not be shown to be inferior, because this constitutes its authority.

Even if Russia is no longer socialist, in the eyes of the West it is not the democracy the West wants. This is certainly not the case for China, because it is ruled by a communist party which is also successful, contrary to all the theories of Western experts and opinion makers. It is a fact that the cry of “values” of the West and its hypocritical propaganda about human rights cannot hide.

For the West, much more is at stake than victory over Russia in what is effectively a limited conflict over Ukraine. The idea of ​​the West about the superiority of the Western model must not be proven through Ukraine to be a living lie. With each further increase in influence by so-called “authoritarian” states such as Russia and China, the foundations of this Western “supremacy” are chipped away, with the West knowing no other remedy for this than the familiar means of military and economic pressure.

With the favored tactic of conquering states and installing subservient governments, only temporary successes had been achieved in the past. In the end, the old conditions were restored, as was seen in Afghanistan. In the Islamic world, in Asia and Africa, Western missions of democratization left a scorched earth in their wake. It is evident that war for the conquest of territory is an outdated concept for securing influence. This can be seen from the history of the 20th century.

The West could not hold on to the conquered territories in the long term, even if it installed friendly-willing governments. But even where Western influence has long been widespread and supported by balanced or even dependent governments, the geopolitical influence of Russia and China has not stopped, but is galloping. Developments in the Sahel region make this clear. Why; Because the peoples of the world do not care about the “democracy” of the West, they want a decent life, prosperity and a peaceful future for their children.

In this regard, any form of society and any government that does not respond to these demands of the people will not last in the long run. This is shown by developments in the world, especially since the beginning of the 21st century, which were determined by the revival of Russia as a political and military world power and the rise of China as an economic leader.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *