![[Img #74664]](https://thelatestnews.world/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/James-Watson-The-controversial-genius-behind-the-double-helix-150x150.jpg)
Going into a war without wanting to upset anyone. That seems to be the challenge to which the West has wanted to expose itself since on February 24 Russian troops crossed the border with Ukraine. On the one hand, the commitment to the attacked state is unquestionable, be it in the form of costly economic sanctions or through the massive shipment of weapons. On the other hand, there is a constant attempt not to dislike Putin excessively, not to corner him, not to try to defeat him, understanding, as Putin himself and his propagandists repeat, that a nuclear power cannot be defeated. As if the Vietnam or Afghanistan wars had never existed.
It is what in the United States is called “the theory of incremental growth in aid”. In other words, gradually increase said aid, without big jumps, following a constant scale. First, basic defense weapons; later, more sophisticated; then tanks… and later, who knows. The objective of this whole strategy is, it must be insisted, that Putin does not feel provoked, that he does not find reasons to “escalate” the conflict or that this escalation remains within the limits of conventional warfare. In other words, that he not declare World War III and follow through on his continuing threats of nuclear conflict.
This strategy has been accepted by practically all the experts and, from a purely human perspective, it is logical that this is the case: nobody wants an atomic holocaust. Fear is free and the Russian discourse is based on inciting that fearwith notable success. Now, it must be admitted that there is something contradictory about it: if you are sending arms, if you are training soldiers, if you are financing the Ukrainian military efforts… you should aim for something more than eternal tables, mainly because the cost of those tables it is paid in human lives, however much they are alien.
[El presentador estrella de Rusia, Vladímir Solovyov, pide “quemar Madrid” por enviar Leopard a Ucrania]
Against the “dripping” of weapons
In that sense, michael mcfaul, former US ambassador to Moscow from 2012 to 2014, has decided to break the consensus with an incendiary article in Foreign Affairs magazine. McFaul criticizes this trickle down of weapons because, in his opinion, it only serves to slow down the war, something that suits Russia wonderfully. In addition, you have to take into account the time that passes from when military aid is announced until that aid really gives you an advantage on the battlefield.
Let’s take the example of ABRAMS tanks. President Biden announced his delivery last week, but when can they be ready? What’s more, when can they be sent to Ukraine, with the corresponding maintenance and repair components? Even after all this process is completed, when will the Ukrainian military have the necessary training to get the most out of them? The most optimistic calculations speak of six months. The most pessimistic extend the wait until 2024.
A Ukrainian man, in his destroyed house in Kostiantynivka
These lags allow Russia to adjust its strategy and prepare for what lies ahead. For example, in recent days, the bombardments have multiplied and the presence of new infantry contingents on the border with Ukraine has once again been rumored. It is not enough to appeal to the cliché of “it is a protest reaction against the shipment of new weapons”, but it will be necessary to ask to what extent what Russia is doing is not, in reality, get ahead to that shipment. They know when those weapons will arrive, they know when they will be ready, they know what margin they have… and when that margin is over, they will be given a new one to prepare the next batch.
While, those who hold the ground are the Ukrainians. Those who defend Bakhmut, those who hold the line in Donetsk and Lugansk, those who see their houses demolished by missiles in kyiv or Lviv or Dnipro or Kharkiv are Ukrainians. Supporting the Ukraine and in turn prolonging a war that is going to cause them more and more deaths, more and more poverty just for fear that Putin will get angry seems to McFaul a moral aberration and a tactical error: no matter how angry he gets, no matter how propaganda rhetoric reaches paroxysm, the truth is that Putin has no margin. According to McFaul, there is no escalation possible.
[Un contrato de 240.000 rublos y un plus por muerto: así recluta más personal el Grupo Wagner]
rule out armageddon
The former ambassador completely rules out a nuclear apocalypse. He also sees no advantage in using tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil – he intuits, probably rightly, that if such an advantage existed, Putin would have used them by now – nor does he believe that Russia is showing any restraint in its attacks on civilians. If it does not bombard more and with more cruelty, it is simply because it is dosing its ammunition in the conviction that this is going to take a long time.
Ever since it became clear that the invasion of Ukraine was going to turn into a war, Russia has bet on prolonging it as long as possible. Putin believes that sooner or later he will be able to break the Ukrainian will as he broke the Syrian or Georgian. He is also convinced that the West will get tired, either out of fear or out of economic calculation, of continuing to support a war in which no one is advancing. He also has the trump card in the United States. This same Monday, on his social network, Trump insisted that values Putin more than US intelligencea comment that he already made shortly after becoming president.
Russian President Vladimir Putin with General Valery Gerasimov in Moscow.
Reuters
The confessed admiration for Putin from a certain sector of the Republican Party –and this goes beyond the caricatures that can be made with Tucker Carlson and other media figures- along with a certain distrust of Zelensky –after all, the threats to the Ukrainian president and the subsequent blackmail attempt were what led to the first and failed impeachment against Trump in the fall of 2019 – make the Kremlin look optimistic about a possible GOP victory in the 2024 presidential election. They are convinced that a Trump or even Ron DeSantis it would not take long to put an end to the shipment of arms and would turn to a peace agreement favorable to Russian interests.
In this context, what solution does McFaul propose? Take advantage of the anniversary of the aggression and announce on February 24, 2023 a massive shipment of weapons of the highest technology that will allow the Ukrainian army to make the transition from the Soviet model to the Atlantic model once and for all. Increase the sanctions, classify Russia as a country that sponsors terrorism with the consequences that this has for all the companies that depend on the State… and launch, without hesitation, for victory. A victory that, let us remember, is nothing more than a return to order. Nobody wants to end Russia or threaten its territorial integrity. Simply, it is necessary for it to return to its borders of 2014. And that, apologizing, is not going to be possible in the short or medium term.
