Illustrative Image
As expected, they hope Poland and the Baltics to act first.
Written by Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Western analysts are encouraging NATO’s direct participation in the conflict. On July 8, foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall published an article in The Guardian called “Defeat for Ukraine would be a global disaster. Nato must finally step in to stop Russia“. He argues that Ukraine’s entry into NATO should be accelerated, with a process similar to the one that guaranteed Finland’s accession. According to him, this is the proper way to avoid Kiev’s defeat and the failure of the “counteroffensive”, since the direct support of the alliance supposedly would make a Ukrainian victory possible.
“There’s a risk, if the current counteroffensive produces no breakthrough, weapons supplies run short, a new winter energy crisis strikes and western public support drops further, that Zelenskiy will be forced into negotiations – even into trading territory for peace. Secret, informal US-Russia talks are already under way. If Ukraine were already a Nato member, as promised 15 years ago, all this would not be happening”, he said.
The author believes in the possibility of accepting Ukraine even during the situation of the conflict. One of Tisdall’s arguments is that there are “historical precedents” for the Ukrainian case. Then, he reminds West Germany’s accession to NATO, which took place in the 1950s, still during the absence of German national unity.
“But there are precedents. West Germany gained NATO protection in 1955 even though, like Ukraine, it was in dispute over occupied sovereign territory – held by East Germany, a Soviet puppet. In similar fashion, Nato’s defensive umbrella could reasonably be extended to cover the roughly 85% of Ukrainian territory Kyiv currently controls”, he added.
Tisdall criticizes the posture of American and Western European leaders, who have been cautious, avoiding hasty decisions. The author does not see any validity in the existence of concerns about the possible impacts of Ukraine joining the bloc, stating that the actions of Western politicians are “rooted in American and west European fears that Putin, provoked, might attack the west”.
On the other hand, the analyst praises the posture of the NATO’s Eastern European countries. According to him, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia – the so called “Bucharest Nine” – have a “thankfully more robust” stance than Westerners. With this, Tisdall endorses the fanatical anti-Russian state ideology that currently prevails in that region.
In addition, Tisdall mentions in a positive way the opinion of former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen. In June, Rasmussen stated that, if the NATO summit in Vilnius does not manage to change the Ukrainian situation, the eastern countries will certainly start to take individual actions to support Ukraine with troops on the ground.
“If NATO cannot agree on a clear path forward for Ukraine, there is a clear possibility that some countries individually might take action. We know that Poland is very engaged in providing concrete assistance to Ukraine. And I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that Poland would engage even stronger in this context on a national basis and be followed by the Baltic states, maybe including the possibility of troops on the ground … I think the Poles would seriously consider going in and assemble a coalition of the willing if Ukraine doesn’t get anything in Vilnius”, Rasmussen said on the occasion.
Indeed, considering all these factors, what appears to be happening in this case is an attempt by the pro-war western media to pressure NATO’s decision makers to advance the direct intervention agenda during the summit in Vilnius. From a strategic point of view, the pressure is meaningless and does not seem to have any effect, as NATO obviously does not plan to sacrifice its regular forces in favor of a proxy state. However, Tisdall and other pro-war international “experts” have no military experience, being just fanatical defenders of the so-called [Western] “rules-based order”, supporting any military measure necessary to prevent relevant geopolitical changes.
There is a clear absence of a realistic perspective in Tisdall’s words, with several mistakes in his analysis. For example, he tries to show a similarity of cases between present-day Ukraine and Germany in the 1950s, which does not exist. Although divided, Germany at the time was not in a situation of open conflict, which invalidates his narrative.
However, it must be admitted that in fact the direct involvement of Poland and the Baltics seems to be close to reality, as warned by Rasmussen. While analysts like Tisdall approve this anti-Russian disposition of some Eastern European countries, in reality it only tends to do them harm. Some post-communist states went through a process of extreme anti-Russian collective indoctrination, resulting in phenomena such as the rehabilitation of Nazism and the real desire for war against Moscow.
The problem is that NATO does not seem interested in helping them in such a work. For the alliance, what matters is keeping aggression against Russia restricted to non-member countries, which is why the bloc arms Ukraine and incites violence in Georgia and Moldova to open new flanks. The involvement of Western regular troops would be negative, as a direct war against Russia does not seem to be winnable.
Polish and Baltic authorities, however, seem willing to take irrational and anti-strategic actions to defend the Kiev regime. They believe that if it escalates, NATO will defend them from Russian responses, but this does not seem so sure to happen, as the alliance wants to avoid involving its troops in direct war. It remains to be seen how the other NATO countries would react to seeing the alliance disrespecting the collective defense pact.
Indeed, supporting NATO’s direct intervention is supporting the start of WW3. And, in the same vein, by supporting Poland and the Baltics individually going to war with Russia, Western analysts are unwittingly defending the path that could lead to the end of the alliance. The most rational and logical alternative is simply for NATO to accept the defeat in Ukraine and agree to negotiate with the emerging powers a new geopolitical reality.
“while analysts like tisdall….”
he’s not an analyst. he’s a propagandist and russia hater who writes for a left wing rag, “the guardian”.
things have gotten to such a pass in the uk that only anti russian lies and slanted stories are permitted. should be interesting to see how the brits spin russian victories.
i look forward to the poles and bandera gangs killing each as a rerun of the slaughter of poles and bandera during the 1930’s and 1940’s.
that would be karma for both camps, lol.
not only that, but also the fact that russia could mobilize pro russia patriots in the baltics similar to the drp forces in ukraine. these volunteers are likely to outnumber the tiny military the baltics have, and are infinitely more motivated.
if russia just arms these patriots, the governments and army in the baltics will cease to exist within days. poland is another matter though.
the guardian is establishment masquerading as left wing.
open your eyes and you’ll see the establishment is the left wing. best example are black clad antifa rioters attacking their political enemies with impunity. if a remotely right wing group tried anything similar they’d be hunted down and made an example of by the establishment.
the guardian dropped all pretence at being “left wing” long ago. it is in fact the mouthpiece of the british liberal establishment; and as we all should know, liberalism is nothing more than the lipstick on the capitalist pig. hatred of russia among the english liberal class has a long pedigree, going back at least as far as the crimean war of 1854. it finds its chief expression in the kind of crude sneering racism we see in tisdall and his ilk.
the real question you ruskies should ask yourselves is why the bucharest nine are so adamant about never being under the russian iron heal again. history provides the answer. your current war of aggression confirms the truth of that answer.
in case you missed mr joetato head’s “our way or the highway” dictatorial speech, he is attempting through the typical us sanctions of nato countries to waive the nato charter to get ukraine in as a nato member to get his way. read up or shut up on current events and the way this administration is operating.
my reply focused on the treatment of the bucharest nine. the reason all of eastern europe is terrified of russia is that they have previously suffered occupation by the bear.
history taught this lesson and this war proves it.
russian aggression is a curse on all slavic people.
go to the gay pride parade, why are you wasting your time here?
erudite.
i am a contrary voice on this site because truth needs all perspectives.
my point is that those peoples who know through the bitter history of russian occupation never want to see it repeated.
well if they behave themselves they don’t have anything to worry about, problem is they seem incapable of acting civilised and go out of their way to make an enemy of russia and a bitch of the anglo american reich, just like finland, there has been no problem between russia and finland for 80 years since the end of ww2, now that stupid bitch in finland decides to join the anti russian gang nato.
putin had it all. two huge new pipelines pumping an indispensable good into europe. increasing integration with the european economy. a path to prosperity for the russian people. and what does he have now? a unified expanded nato committed to arming ukraine forever with more and more increasingly sophisticated weaponry. a split between russian nationalists and the kremlin. over 100,000 dead russian boys and men. twice that many permanently disabled.a nightmare.
that is why the zio-americans started that war against russia to put europe unther the zio boot from 1945. europ liberated itself from zio orders and became a concurent to the lasy fat yankees. the stupid zio obeying puppeds in europe deserf the bullet or the rope for what they do to the people.
all you say is caused by usa but you call putin instead. clown and natroll
kek, it is funny you should mention that. have you ever been to any of those countries? you’re not aware that the people who actually live there, are longing for the day they are liberated from nato occupation?
should i make a video for you where i interview random people on the street who confirm this statement? no? i guess you’re not really here for the truth tho are you, you’re just here to post low quality troll comments 😃😃😃
i have relatives in poland and have visited there. i found zero anti american sentiment. just the opposite.
blessing and curses are offered. it is your free will to choose. why russia chose curses may be endemic to the russian soul, but i think it comes from the russian need for a strong man, and your current strong man made a disastrous strategic miscalculation, choosing curses and throwing away blessings.
idk about poland, they’ve been subjected to american propaganda for a long time, but in the baltics they literally had to outlaw support for russia because the streets were full of z supporters 😃😃😃
to remedy that they had to introduce literal nazi tier legislation. the balts are just itching for russia to give them the go ahead to execute their traitorous politicians who serve foreign interests. it will be fun times ahead and we may yet see the liberation of these areas.
who gives a damn about what western analysts think. nato has a documented charter of articles and that nato document needs to be strictly adhered to no matter what the western analyst think. to do otherwise cancels the nato charter agreement.
lmao, nato does whatever is most convenient for them in that particular moment. rules exist only for the subjugated. it is a terrorist organization and will do as it pleases.
notice how all of these pipsqueak nations like britain hide behind the natos skirt talking tough?
if there was no nato, most of these nations leaders would shut the fuck up, too afraid to take on russia on their own.
exactly the reason for nato
and it has succeeded
no nato member has suffered a russian attack
several non-nato nations have
what kind of stupidity is that that you are talking about? are you insane?
icarus, paul (above) stated the truth. standing alone any given european member of nato would be vulnerable and intimidated into silent acquiescence by a russia, but as a bundle of sticks, it is unbreakable, and yes, i am fully aware of the allusion i make here.
i also support the direct confrontation. let the show start, nuke the na-zees