by Walid Sharara*
Whoever doubts that the war in Ukraine is a global proxy war still, should review the positions issued by American and Western officials over the past few days. They no longer hesitate to reveal the actual objectives of the war they are waging against Russia. The revealing statement made by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, during his joint visit with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, to Kyiv, in which he declared that what was required was “to weaken Russia to the point where it cannot take steps like invading Ukraine,” he explained Washington’s true intentions toward Moscow. The security meeting, which was held at the Ramstein air base in Germany, which brought together 40 allies, to organize one of the largest arms flows towards Ukraine, during which Austin said that “the goal is not only to support the Ukrainian defenses, but to help this country in a victory against a larger invading force. We will continue to move heaven and earth so that we can achieve this.” This means that Washington is determined to proceed with a long-term confrontation with Moscow, to drain it and inflict a severe defeat on it, and to use the Ukrainians for this purpose.
Commenting on these statements, “The Economist” magazine chose for an article devoted to this topic, the following title: “America is now thinking about winning the war in Ukraine.” These positions were preceded by a serious discussion in Washington among the elites concerned with foreign policy about the necessity of defining the objectives of the ongoing confrontation with Moscow, and one of its prominent representatives, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article on the “Foreign Affairs” website, called on leaders to define victory in this conflict. Austin provided such definition.
| We will continue to move heaven and earth so that we can achieve this.
In fact, the United States thought that it could continue the strategy of quiet military deployment around Russia to encircle and suffocate it, and when the latter, Russia, carried out a preemptive operation to break this encirclement, by intervening militarily in Ukraine, the former increased the pace of its war against it. Any other analysis of the background to the current battle is only a promotion of the American narrative. It goes without saying that the Russian leadership, which took a decision to confront the “NATO” strategy, has prepared for the worst possibilities that may result from it, including those that assume a direct clash with this alliance, punctuated by resorting to unconventional weapons. The edge of the abyss is not as far as some imagine.
Full Disclosure of Intentions
The security meeting in Ramstein represents an important stage in the path of open Western involvement in the war with Russia, and its transformation into a world war. Prior to this meeting, a lot of information was available, mostly from Western sources, about the extent of Atlantic involvement in equipping the Ukrainians with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and training them on these weapons, since 2015, in the presence of American, British, and finally French special forces on the ground, to contribute to the confrontation Russian forces now. However, what was revealed at the aforementioned meeting sheds additional light on the extent of this involvement. Since the beginning of the war, the United States has provided arms and ammunition worth 5 billion euros, France with 100 million, and Germany with 120 million. The list of US weapons included 5,000 Javelin anti-armor missiles, 7,000 other types of anti-armor missiles, 1,400 Stinger missile systems, 121 Phoenix Ghost suicide bombers, hundreds of Switch Blade suicide drones, 72 heavy artillery with 144,000 shells, 7,000 assault rifles with 50 million ammunition, laser-guided missiles, Puma drones, undetectable radars, light armored vehicles, and anti-jamming communication systems. For its part, France has provided the Ukrainians with “Milan” missiles, and will provide them with “Caesar” cannons and various types of ammunition. As for Britain, it sent 4800 N-Lau anti-armor missiles and Javelin missiles, and announced its intention to provide an additional 6000 missiles and Star-Strike anti-aircraft missiles, 120 light armored vehicles, and anti-ship missile systems. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, promised to give Poland armored vehicles, which in turn would deliver T-72 tanks to Ukraine.
Germany will deliver to Ukraine Gibbard armored vehicles equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems. The meeting in Ramstein agreed to double the quantities of heavy weapons provided to Ukraine, which include more modern cannons, anti-aircraft, armor and armored vehicles.
The quantities and quality of weapons sent to Ukraine, the assessment presented by Western officials participating in the meeting about the course of the battles in Ukraine, and what they consider a Russian failure on the ground, enhances Kyiv and its allies’ chances of victory in the long term, all confirming that we are facing a war of attrition waged by “NATO” to turn Ukraine into a “strategic failure” for Russia, according to the expression used by Anthony Blinken, in his address to Congress, April 27.
Many Western analysts have come to admit that World War III has begun, but by proxy for now, and it is no longer impossible for it to develop into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.
There is no “soft” landing for empires
Empires do not take for granted that their ability to dominate and their hegemony recede easily. The history extending from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day is replete with examples of the wars of rivalry that they fought among themselves to maintain or expand their spheres of influence, as well as those that were waged against the peoples of the Global South to control their wealth and destinies.
Empires are established through war, and by wars they prosper, or if defeated in them, decline. The elites of the American empire believed that they could slow the rise of China and Russia at the same time, which led them to adopt an aggressive containment policy against them both. The leaderships of the two countries warned the United States of the dangers of such a policy. The Russian president was not satisfied with raising his voice against the projects of expanding “NATO” to the east, by including Ukraine and Georgia, in which he saw a continuation of the containment policy that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. He spoke on several occasions about the possibility of a nuclear war due to American and Western anti-Russian tendencies, as he did, for example, at the Valdai Forum in 2018, when he considered that if such a war begins, “Russia will be the victim, but the aggressors should know revenge is inevitable. A nuclear war will lead to a global catastrophe, but the Russians will go to heaven as martyrs, and the aggressors will perish without even being able to confess and ask for repentance.” This talk was not intended as exaggeration and intimidation, nor was what was recently issued by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, about the dangers of a nuclear war. Lavrov, one of the most important diplomats at the world level in at least the past two decades, touched upon such a possibility that should worry sane people among the Western ruling elites, because it reflects the real vision of the Russian leadership of the existential nature of the conflict raging on Ukrainian soil.
The growing involvement of the West in this conflict reinforced the latter’s convictions about what it holds, and Austin made it public when he set the goal of weakening Russia. For the Kremlin, this is an acknowledgment that the goal is to destroy Russia through a proxy war. The existence of such a conviction among the countries against which this type of war is waged is what motivated them in many ways to target the principal instead of the agent.
* Walid Sharara is a professor of International Relations, writer and political analyst.
