The crisis in Ukraine has finally escalated to a level that most peace-loving people do not want to see. As a result of the withdrawal of the os-suite osceaust (OSCE) Observer Mission in Eastern Ukraine, the only reliable source of "third-party" sources, detailed reports on the front lines of the conflict were in a state of turmoil and difficult to distinguish between true and false, and many of the "war reports" that were widely disseminated at the first time were quickly falsified. However, there are two "general directions" in which there are facts that are beyond doubt: first, armed conflict has broken out in full swing in Ukraine; second, NATO countries will carry out ukraine's "death and no salvation" to the end.
It has long been said that seeing death is not saved, of course, it is still seeing death and not saving
When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced "military operations" against Ukraine from the night of February 23 to the early morning of February 24, US President Joe Biden, who had twice predicted that "Russia will attack Ukraine", issued a public statement for the first time, saying that "we stand with the brave Ukrainian people" and threatening to impose "destructive sanctions" on Russia together with allies, making Russia and Putin "outcasts on the international stage". And canceled all the established plans to meet with Putin - but this in no way includes sending troops to the rescue of Ukraine, on the contrary, Biden said in a speech on the 24th, "Our troops will never be sent to Europe to fight in Ukraine."
At the same time, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement saying that "NATO has improved the readiness of its forces to respond to all emergencies" and that it intends to convene a summit of NATO alliance leaders on February 25, while on the other hand making an equally unequivocal statement that NATO "will not take any direct military action in support of Ukraine" – yes, "will not take any".
This is actually not a new NATO position and reaction: as early as the outbreak of the Crimean crisis in 2014, NATO very bluntly and publicly stated that it would not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) into NATO; after the Crimean crisis and the subsequent Donbass crisis, NATO immediately expressed its condemnation of Russia's actions, but also immediately and without hesitation to reject Ukraine's call for help; this round of Ukraine crisis escalation began in the second half of last year, despite Russia's aggressiveness, Ukraine's repeated calls for help. However, in addition to providing some limited small military equipment, NATO continues to unmistakably express its consistent position of "not sending a single soldier and a pawn to Ukraine" -- instead of "not sending a single soldier and a pawn", some NATO countries such as the United States and Britain have even simply withdrawn a small number of military personnel who were originally scheduled to carry out military training and other tasks in Ukraine to a safe zone, or even simply withdrawn from Ukraine.
When the crisis finally broke out and Ukraine was in danger, in the face of Russia's comprehensive and direct military pressure that was no longer concealed, the Ukrainian government no longer even appealed in vain to NATO for reinforcements, POLITICO magazine quoted a witnessed list of help shared by Ukraine and NATO, which messily put forward various material requirements from tourniquets, body armor, military blankets to military helmets, light machine guns, light weapons and ammunition, portable anti-tank missiles, and combat armored vehicles. In the words of Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov on February 24, "Ukraine is in desperate need of the greatest practical assistance in the form of defensive and offensive weapons, logistics, communications, personal protective equipment, etc.", without mentioning a single request for reinforcements – not that reinforcements are not "urgently needed", but because they now know that NATO, which has long said that it will not be saved, will still insist on seeing death and not saving to the end.
Seeing death and not saving must "win" Breaking the ring to save may "lose"
Why is NATO insisting on saving Ukraine?
In the game between NATO and Russia, Ukraine is just a "robbery material", and "NATO's eastward expansion" is the real game theme. For Russia and Putin, what they really want is to halt the post-Cold War NATO expansion on its eastern front (and for Russia the "western front" in total, 14 since 1997, namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria), and to force the latter to undertake in the form of a contractual commitment to withdraw all NATO military presence from these countries. At the same time, nato does not promise not to absorb new members without Russia's approval, as long as NATO does not promise "no right to absorb Ukraine", and at the same time reversely increases the military presence of 14 member states in Eastern Europe in the face of Russian pressure, it is enough to create "we are winners" in front of domestic voters and opposition parties, allies and the international community (because "did not accept Russian blackmail", or even "tit-for-tat"), and in their calculations, the greater the Ukrainian crisis, the more direct and explicit the Threat of Russia, these Eastern European "frontline countries" The more the fear will be, the nato that was originally reluctant to accept it will become willing to accept its military presence in its homeland, and the deployment that the West originally needs to spend a lot of money to achieve, and now the "front-line countries" may even be upside down, so that NATO, which seems to be "a little instigated", is actually lost in the east fence, and the mulberry corner can not only be argued "won" in lip service, but also from a utilitarian point of view.
This is also true: before 2014, NATO did not have a normalized forward military presence in the new member states of the "Eastern Front", and immediately after the outbreak of the Crimea incident, NATO immediately realized the "landing" of airborne early warning bases in Estonia and Lithuania, the deployment of four semi-permanent "Enhanced Forward Presence" battle groups (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland), and the normalization of NATO multinational naval detachments in the Black Sea On February 16, the day of the U.S.-predicted but unfulfilled "War Day," NATO held an emergency meeting of defense ministers to discuss plans to increase the number of "enhanced forward presence" battle groups from four to eight (additional deployments in Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Hungary), after the United States had placed 8,500 military personnel in Europe on high alert, britain promised to double its troops in Estonia, and NATO Western countries agreed to increase the deployment of warships and aircraft to the East. On February 21, Putin issued a 57-minute "sensational speech", and the next day, the United States completed the "big deal" of selling as many as 250 M1A2 main battle tanks to Poland - you know that Britain, as an important member of NATO, is now equipped with only 3 regiments and 227 main battle tanks.
On the contrary, if we rush to send reinforcements directly to the "muddy waters" of Ukraine, it means that in the unfavorable battlefield environment of the "main war faction" Western countries such as the United States and Britain, but adjacent to Russia's "home field", we risk fighting a war with our unpredictable opponents and being unprepared, and once we are frustrated, we will be swept away, and even if we win for a while, we will inevitably directly shoulder the security responsibilities of Ukraine, a non-NATO member, which is too uneconomical and too easy to reap "failure" in any case.
The key to NATO's insistence on "the right to admit Ukraine or any new member" but in fact its intention to truly admit Ukraine as a member of it is its unwillingness to shoulder the obligation of "mutual defense of member states", which was never really used even during the Cold War, under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, "an armed attack against any one member state should be regarded as an armed attack against all member states." Once NATO "crosses the minefield" and assumes the "fifth article" obligation in Ukraine, it must not only always worry about Russia's force invading Ukraine, but also worry that Ukraine will rely on NATO's support and rashly launch armed actions such as "recovering Crimea". It is precisely because of this that NATO will "clearly say that it will not save death and will not save it when it really sees death" on the Ukraine issue.
Who wants to "die" NATO to save?
In fact, as soon as Putin announced the "military action" against Ukraine, NATO has launched a "hierarchical dialogue", Stoltenberg said in a statement that Ukraine is not saved, saying that "the peace on our continent has been broken" and calling on NATO armies to "be ready to defend the land of allies".
Biden's speech was the same: it clearly stated that "Ukraine will not be saved" and publicly said that more ground and air forces would be deployed to the "east wing" to "resolutely defend every inch of land of NATO members."
NATO's strategic goal is to consolidate and strengthen the achievements of its eastward expansion at the least cost and resistance, and to achieve a military tightening of the military pressure on Russia, so once the threat of war expands to Poland, the Baltic States and other "east wing" NATO member states, whether it is the United States and Britain that "shout and shout to kill" or Britain and France that are trying to act as peacemakers until the last moment, they will have to fulfill the obligation of "common defense" under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, otherwise, it will not only mean the complete bankruptcy of NATO, the system that benefits the greatest benefit of the Cold War. It also means that in the current domestic and international atmosphere, the leaders of major Western countries will face the most unbearable pressure on the "electoral society".
Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, a retired Senior British Officer, put it more bluntly on BBC Iv that "if Russia takes its first step on the territory of NATO member states, every NATO member will have to fight it" – who will "die" NATO to save it.
The latest news said that before the Conflict in Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, which joined NATO, have been invited to attend the NATO emergency summit that opened on February 25, which released a clear signal: NATO will be soft on the one hand and the other, on the one hand, it will see Ukraine to the death to the end, and on the other hand, it will not be soft on the relative economy and security in the East Wing to strengthen and expand.