U.S./NATO Proxy War in Ukraine
Dangerous U.S./NATO Provocations Against Russia
Toronto, July 11, 2024
In the face of a deteriorating situation facing its proxy Ukraine, the U.S. and its NATO war alliance are becoming more blatant in directly attacking Russia, while still pretending to merely support Ukraine without directly intervening themselves. However their direct involvement is increasingly overt as they continue to try to rescue the situation so that it goes in their favour, not in favour of Russia.
On September 9, the Biden administration sent a
classified
report to Congress on its strategy in Ukraine. The report
was
submitted
months after a June deadline mandated in the U.S.$61
billion aid
bill
passed in late April.
European Union officials
stated at the time that "Biden appears to be on the verge
of
clearing
the way for Ukraine to use long-range missiles as long as
it
doesn't
use arms provided by the U.S.," CNN reported.
On September 13, U.S. President Biden met with the new UK's warmonger-in-chief Prime Minister Keir Starmer. One of Starmer's aims in the meeting was reportedly to press Biden to authorize use of British Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles deep into Russian territory. The Biden administration responded saying that such authorization is "in the works."
Despite the fact that Canada has no long-range missiles in Ukraine for which to provide authorization, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, ever the cardboard cutout, said to reporters on September 13 that he fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry against Russia. Trudeau, in utter denial of his direct responsibility and that of his government in the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine being waged "to the last Ukrainian," claimed that Russia is trying to "deeply destabilize" the international "rules-based order" and added: "That's why Canada and others are unequivocal that Ukraine must win this war against Russia."
On September 14, the European Parliament voted in favour of supporting Ukraine's ability to target Russian sites with NATO weapons.
Ukraine has been armed by the U.S. with numerous missile/long-range strike systems. These include the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) with a range of up to 300 kilometres; Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range munitions that convert unguided bombs into precision-guided munitions with an 80-kilometre range; the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) equipped to jam radar; and High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM), that are fired from the air and target ground-based radar stations, with a range of up to 300 kilometres. The U.S. is reportedly also considering sending the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) system to Ukraine. These cruise missiles are armed with a 450 kilogram armour-piercing warhead, and can be fired from distances of 370 to 925 kilometres away, depending on the variant.
On September 25, Biden unveiled over $8 billion in military aid for Ukraine, emphasizing that the support is aimed at helping it "win the war" with Russia. The aid includes the first delivery of the Joint Standoff Weapon, a precision-guided glide bomb with a range of up to 130 kilometres.
Ukraine's Stillborn "Victory Plan"
Biden made the announcement just ahead of receiving the U.S. puppet president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss the latter's much touted "Victory Plan." No details of that plan have been officially announced as yet, however the Wall Street Journal reported "senior U.S. and European officials knowledgeable of the broad outlines of the plan say it offers no clear path to a Ukraine victory, particularly as Russian forces make slow but steady gains on the battlefield."
A centrepiece of the plan, according to the Wall Street Journal, requires the U.S. to give Ukraine the green light to use the weapons as it sees fit. This is deliberately misleading because what Zelensky is proposing is that the U.S. take on the deployment, targeting and control of long range missiles to be fired from Ukraine at unspecified targets in Russia. Ukraine does not possess the expertise nor the technical capacity to do this on its own even if the U.S. gave "permission" for Ukraine to use these weapons "as it sees fit."
Dmitri Kovalevich, writing for Al Mayadeen, states that "One of the points of Zelensky's new 'victory plan' is for NATO to extend a formal invitation to Ukraine to join it." However, it is still the case that the U.S. and Germany at least do not support NATO membership for Ukraine. Kovalevich notes that "Outgoing NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg told a farewell event organized in his honour in Germany on September 19 that there will be no peace in Ukraine until and unless Kiev becomes a NATO member. But he added that NATO countries currently have no consensus on conditions and dates for such an invitation."
The same writer also points out that "In early September, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration, Olha Stefanyshyna, boldly declared that Ukraine should only join NATO on the condition that its 1991 borders be recognized and enshrined. Many other Ukrainian officials still voice this forlorn hope. This is highly provocative to Russian ears and also to the citizens of former Ukraine territories, notably Crimea and Donbass. There, the population has endured more than 10 years of military threats and economic sanctions and blockades by Ukraine following the violent, far-right coup in Kiev in February 2014.
"In particular, the citizens of the Donbass region (which Russia recognizes as the Russian republics of Lugansk and Donetsk) have endured more than 10 years of a cruel civil war waged by post-2014-coup Kiev with the backing of the NATO countries. [...]
"As a result of the 2014 coup and its aftermath, the citizens of Crimea and Donbass have voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation. The final, definitive vote in Donbass took place soon after Russia began its military intervention in Ukraine in February 2022."
Zelensky's Failed Fundraising Tour of Europe
On October 10, Zelensky began a lightning 48-hour tour of Europe, with stops in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin, to seek more military and financial aid for Europe and to ply his "Victory Plan."
UK Prime Minister Starmer, after his meeting with Zelensky, said it was important to demonstrate the UK's "continued commitment" to Ukraine and that meeting with Zelensky was a chance to "go through the plan, to talk in more detail."
In his meeting with new NATO Secretary General and former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Zelensky again raised the issue of using long-range missiles against Russia far outside the combat zone. Rutte noted that "legally, that is possible because legally, Ukraine is allowed to use its weapons, if they can hit targets in Russia, if these targets present a threat to Ukraine." However, Rutte stressed that decisions on providing such weapons ultimately rest with individual allies. Both Rutte and the UK cautioned against overemphasizing the role of long-range missiles in the conflict.
In Germany, Zelensky was rebuffed by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. German newspaper Bild said that Zelensky's appeals "fell on deaf ears." According to the report, Zelensky's primary objectives during his meetings with Western leaders were obtaining Germany's 500-kilometre range Taurus cruise missiles and fast-tracking Ukraine's NATO accession process. It described the outcome of the discussions with Scholz as "pretty poor" and said that overall, Zelensky's trip was largely unsuccessful.
While Scholz did not definitively reject Zelensky's requests, the chancellor avoided committing to providing long-range missiles or pushing Ukraine's NATO membership forward, leaving Zelensky without clear assurances.
Russian Response
Already at the end of May, the U.S. and other NATO countries authorized use of their weapons to directly attack military targets inside Russia. Britain, during the Sunak Conservative government, had already given authorization for such use of its Storm Shadow cruise missiles months before. At that time, Russian officials pointed out that Ukraine has no independent ability to use such long-range missiles -- the targeting and guidance must be provided by the NATO country that provided them.
While all the talk about direct involvement of U.S./NATO countries in attacking Russian territory dominated the airwaves and news, in an interview with Russian television on September 12, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the issue is not one of "authorizing" or "prohibiting" Ukraine from striking Russian territory, as it is already doing so with drones and other means. However, when it comes to the use of Western-made long-range precision weapons to do so, it is an entirely different matter, he said
Putin reiterated that "the Ukrainian army is not capable of independently carrying out strikes using Western modern, long-range precision systems. It cannot do this. This is possible only with the use of intelligence from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This data is only available from satellites of the European Union or the United States, in other words, from NATO satellites. That's the first point.
"The second and very important, perhaps key point is that only NATO servicemen can make flight assignments to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
"So this is not about whether or not to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia using these weapons, but about deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict. If such a decision is taken, it will mean nothing short of direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries, in the war in Ukraine. This would constitute their direct participation, and this, of course, changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries, are at war with Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very nature of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us."
Failure of Ukraine's Attempt to Take Over the Donbass
On September 9, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said that Russian forces were increasing the pace of their offensive in Donbass, having captured almost 1,000 square kilometres over August and the first eight days of September. "Open-source data and battlefield reports indicate that Russian forces in Donbass advanced in August at their fastest rate in about two years," Reuters reported on September 10.
On September 20, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the Russian defence of Kursk, "Our military is doing its job. They will accomplish it. Control will be restored." He added, "The situation, of course, in those areas that are under the control of Ukrainian fighters -- well, of course, it is extreme. This situation will be corrected in a timely manner."
On October 2, Russia captured the town of Vuhledar when Ukrainian forces withdrew to avoid being encircled, Reuters reported. "Control of the town -- which Russians long regarded as one of Ukraine's toughest fortified positions to crack -- is considered important by both sides because of its position on elevated ground and because it sits at the intersection of the eastern and southern battlefield fronts giving it added significance when it comes to supplying both sides' forces," Reuters wrote.
As of October 3, even the NATO forces supporting Ukraine admitted the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk was "a tactical mistake" by Ukraine. Whatever territory in and around Kursk the Ukrainian forces continue to hold, it has not diverted significant Russian troops from other battle fronts. Russia has kept its focus on taking the entirety of the Donbass and continues to make headway.
Presently, Russia is said to control nearly 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
This article was published in
Volume 54 Number 43 - October 14, 2024
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2024/Articles/TS54439.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca