NATO’s Proxy War On Russia Through Ukraine Appears To Be Winding Down
Considering all the disadvantageous dynamics that are rapidly converging nowadays, there’s little doubt that NATO’s proxy war on Russia is winding down, though that doesn’t automatically mean that the conflict will soon freeze.
The failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, Russia’s victory over NATO in the “race of logistics”, the West’s prioritization of aid to Israel amidst its war with Hamas, US congressional dysfunction, and the upcoming election season have combined to create a crisis for NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. These analyses from late August onward will bring everyone up to speed about what’s happening if they haven’t been closely following this New Cold War conflict in recent months:
And here’s a spree of reports from over the past few days showing how much everything has changed:
* 16 November: “End ‘magical thinking’ about defeating Russia – US experts”
* 16 November: “US Abrams tanks made no difference – Zelensky”
* 17 November: “Zelensky fears a new ‘Maidan’ – Bloomberg”
* 17 November: “Biden signs funding bill that excludes Ukraine”
* 18 November: “Bidens welcomed the Russians – deputy PM”
* 18 November: “Zelensky’s top aide criticizes slow delivery of Western arms”
* 19 November: “Ukraine must brace for loss of US support – ex-ambassador”
* 19 November: “Bloomberg outlines how Russia has shrugged off sanctions”
* 19 November: “Top Zelensky aide questions Ukraine’s ‘survival’”
* 20 November: “Time running short for US military aid to Ukraine – NBC”
* 20 November: “Zelensky demands ‘rapid changes’”
* 20 November: “Ukraine ‘utterly dependent’ on US aid – Treasury secretary”
* 21 November: “No ‘silver bullet’ for Ukraine – Washington”
* 21 November: “Ukraine in ‘big trouble’ – ABC News”
That spree of reports adds credence to the assessment that this proxy war appears to be winding down.
The top takeaways are that: 1) Western financial and military aid is indeed evaporating; 2) Ukraine is now freaking out and fearmongering about the future; 3) political rivalries in that country are intensifying; 4) the West is indeed pressuring Ukraine to enter into peace talks with Russia aimed at freezing the conflict; and 5) organic grassroots protests might break out across Ukraine sometime soon. This isn’t how everything was supposed to be, however, since Kiev promised an altogether different future.
It seems like so long ago, but just six months back the West was hyping everyone up about what to expect from Kiev’s then-upcoming counteroffensive, which was supposed to be a Clausewitzian masterstroke that would showcase the West’s military superiority. Instead of Russian being chased back into its pre-2014 borders, however, the New York Times admitted in late September that “Russia now controls nearly 200 square miles more territory in Ukraine compared with the start of the year.”
Quite clearly, that one country on its own was able to withstand the proxy war onslaught of the “more than 50 nations” that Biden recently boasted had joined the US in arming Ukraine. Even against those odds, it was ultimately Russia – and not Ukraine – that successfully launched its own counteroffensive by expanding the area under its control by 200 square miles. Western stockpiles have been depleted and what’s left is earmarked for Israel, however, so that metric might multiply by early next year.
If the front ends up collapsing in the opposite direction than the West expected would happen just half a year ago, then this New Cold War bloc might feel pressured to launch a conventional on-the-ground intervention to safeguard some of the gains that its people paid over $160 billion to secure. In that scenario, the risk of World War III breaking out by miscalculation would spike, which no responsible policymaker wants to have happen. After all, for as radical as the Western elite is, it’s not suicidal.
Russia is also aware of what’s at stake if it manages to achieve a breakthrough across the coming months should the front collapse as a result of Ukraine’s multidimensional troubles, which is why it appears to still be committed to President Putin’s strong signals from this summer about negotiating peace. So long as Zelensky refuses to comply with his Western patrons’ demands in this respect, however, the abovementioned scenario will remain credible and could materialize sooner than later.
Therein lies the significance of his growing rivalry with Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny. Ukraine’s top military official could either orchestrate a military coup with the West’s approval – irrespective of whether it follows the outbreak of organic grassroots protests – or be deposed by Zelensky with their approval as a reward for recommencing meaningful peace talks with Russia in some capacity. However it unfolds, Zaluzhny is expected to play a major role in the coming months, whether as a “hero” or “villain”.
Considering all the disadvantageous dynamics that are rapidly converging nowadays, there’s little doubt that NATO’s proxy war on Russia is winding down, though that doesn’t automatically mean that the conflict will soon freeze. It’ll likely continue even if only at a low scale as peace talks, including potentially secret ones, take place (unless the omnipotent threat of a black swan materializes). For all intents and purposes, however, this proxy war will probably be fought at a different tempo from now on.