... adjacent to it. First of all, there was consolidation of the positions of the West – after Finland joined NATO and Sweden applied to join, all countries in the region, except Russia, became members of the two most influential Western associations – NATO and the EU.
Russia does not have such acute contradictions with Sweden and Finland as it does with Ukraine, but the positive potential of their non-aligned policy has now been exhausted. Therefore, the current confrontation between Russia and the West manifests itself ...
... parties. In response, Russia withdrew some of its military forces from the Ukrainian capital as a gesture of goodwill.
But the West again intervened, and the so-called “Bucha massacre” was presented as alleged evidence of “atrocities” of the Russian army.
Nato then prolonged the confrontation by supplying Kyiv with weapons. Nato members see this conflict as a good investment for their own security. What they mean is the lives of Ukrainian soldiers would be a small price to pay for weakening Russia.
At ...
... Russia to withdraw its troops, something Russia would never agree to. Therefore, although a ceasefire is the right direction to follow, it is very difficult to quickly find mutually acceptable conditions for a ceasefire in the current situation.
Could Russia and NATO then engage in some kind of interest exchange, with mutual commitments, such as that NATO would not deploy nuclear weapons close to Russia, or that NATO would not admit Ukraine to the organization, in exchange for assurances from Russia that it would ...
... of respect and goodwill that many other countries initially had for them.
In Ukraine, the geopolitically and geo-economically sound idea of a militarily neutral country enjoying the trade, investment, and logistical benefits of its position between Russia and the European Union was dismissed by Washington as “giving the Kremlin a veto right” over its neighbor’s security status. Instead, NATO’s unrestrained expansion was upheld as almost a sacred principle. This led to an outcome that many had predicted: Moscow’s pushback.
Rather than reaching for a compromise settlement via the Minsk accords, the West and its Ukrainian protégés ...
... institutions can be extended. The necessary additions have even much more devastating consequences for international security, as we are now seeing from the example of the acute military-political conflict in Europe. One might even suggest that this conflict—Russia and NATO clashing over Ukraine—was a product itself of post-Cold War institutional dynamics. If the US and Western Europe could act under the conditions of the restrictions that had been lifted through their participation in common international institutions,...
... European states, the curtailment of investment, and a serious slowdown in international trade.
Under these conditions, Russia really needs to develop ties with Asia, where only one state — Japan — occupies positions similar to the United States and its NATO allies. In 2022-2023, the scale of trade and economic relations between Russia and Asian countries has increased significantly, and Vladivostok has become one of the main “gates” of Russian goods to world markets.
Moreover, in the context of growing global turbulence, the Asian countries themselves are interested in actively ...
... thermonuclear. Thus, it may turn out that the only way to avoid such a situation is to have a nuclear episode as a preventive measure, but just a local one.
It is reasonable to ask here why an atomic attack on another nuclear-armed state or bloc [in this case NATO] would not quickly escalate into the same thermonuclear all-out war, i.e. an exchange of fire between Russia and the US? The whole system of relations in the nuclear sphere, as the theorists of deterrence point out, is based primarily on psychology, not on strategy and technology. And this game is designed to discourage the enemy from even thinking about ...
... Europe in ruins. What awaits us now in 2023? End games. Will Russia launch an offensive?
Once again, the European continent would be a theater of war and the European nations the biggest losers.
Armed to the teeth
This current Ukraine-Russia conflict, a NATO war against Russia, is, like all wars, bringing only misery and suffering. Even now there will be no winners, only losers. With one exception: the global arms industry. As it is with all wars, it is neither about democracy nor human rights, but about power and gaining ...
... two leading nuclear powers, and in the most sensitive geopolitical region of one of them. Until now, I considered such a dangerous development of the situation extremely unlikely, but today it is a reality fraught with a direct military clash between Russia and NATO. But the main thing is that the scenario you are asking about is not a matter of choice. The inability of the United States to achieve Russia’s defeat in Ukraine may create an incentive for one of the American allies to acquire nuclear weapons....
... Сountries: More Militarism and Confrontation Where Creativity, Security and Peace Were Eminently Possible
Since the Second World War, Finland maintained a status of non-aligned state in the region. Till recently it has remained a significant buffer between NATO and Russia. This status has drastically changed post Russia’s military action in Ukraine. Western media and its strong Russophobic discourses have become successful in making the people of Finland and its political elite actually believe that they are under ...
