Since French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement on February 26 about "sending troops (to support Ukraine)" for nearly two months, NATO member states have expressed different positions, and people from all walks of life have interpreted them differently. Relations between France and Russia have become more tense and the situation on the battlefield has become more severe, and the United States has tried to provoke Europe and Russia to fight each other, hoping that the call for an armistice and peace will rise again. The war in Ukraine, which has lasted for more than two years, is at a crossroads.
It has a bearing on the prospects of the war in Ukraine and even the trend of the world, and cannot but arouse serious concern in the international community.
First, the words are amazing, but the clouds and mountains are foggy.
It is not clear whether the so-called "sending of troops" will be an imminent announcement of the dispatch of troops (i.e., a "declaration of war"), or whether it will not be officially announced but will actually go all out to the war (i.e., "war without a declaration of war"), or whether it will continue the current "open secret" method but intervene more (including the provision of more advanced weapons and equipment, more direct intelligence guidance and command, large-scale training at home and abroad, and the more organized dispatch of "advisers" and "mercenaries").
Will the "troop sending" action be formally decided by NATO, or will the member states decide on their own, or will it only refer to France itself? At that time, Macron revealed in his speech, saying that there was "no consensus" among the more than 20 countries participating in the meeting.
Macron's exact words were "not ruled out...... Troops...... possibility". Is this an imminent decision that is sufficiently prepared for implementation, or is it just a deliberate and selective consideration? On March 14, Macron told French television that "France regards Russia as an adversary, not an enemy," and is not in a "state of war." The next day, at the Berlin summit of France, Germany and Poland, he said, "Maybe at some point in the future, France will have to take some kind of action against Russia." ”
Second, it is confusing and has different interpretations.
To borrow the phrase on the Internet, some "melon-eating masses" praised the "European Marge", thinking that it was a strange trick, and it seems that France has the tendency to "provoke the head", which has increased its voice and influence for a while, making the White House disgraced!
Those who carefully observe the war in Ukraine pointed out that on the eve of the war in Ukraine in 2022, on February 7, Macron went to Moscow to try to mediate. After the outbreak of the conflict on February 24, on June 4 he called for "Russia must not be humiliated" in order to "seek an exit through diplomatic means." They also speculate about how Macron "turned from a moderate to a hawk" and whether he angered Russia because France had recently "lost power" in Africa!
Those who know more about the war in Ukraine and the relationship between the United States and Russia and Europe are deeply concerned. In the past two months, Russia and Ukraine have significantly increased the urgency of the decisive battle, the battlefield has become more tragic, the casualties and losses on both sides have become more heavy, and the relations between Europe and Russia have deteriorated. Only the White House breathed a sigh of relief and celebrated.
Third, "the United States and Europe follow suit" is not true strategic autonomy.
Today, I am afraid that everyone in the world has understood that the war in Ukraine was planned and instigated by the United States, and it is a proxy war to maintain its world hegemony, defeat Russia, and weaken and further manipulate Europe. However, contrary to expectations, the Biden administration is caught in the "four-sided" struggle of Ukraine's inadequacy, the spillover of war in Gaza, the dilemma of the Asia-Pacific layout, and the pressure of the re-election campaign. At this time, some people stepped forward to take over the mess, and the American war plague god, who was accustomed to "making trouble and failing again and again", would not be happy to be in it, anyway, the "kite string" was in his own hands.
It cannot be ruled out that Macron does have the idea of using this to promote Europe's strategic autonomy, but perhaps it is just a French romance. Of course, Europe's strategic autonomy is to realize Europe's management of major European affairs, and Europe must have full voice, dominance, and even decision-making power. However, judging from various facts from the post-World War II period to the present, the true meaning or essential meaning of Europe's strategic autonomy should be to get rid of the United States' control and use of Europe (including the European Union), and all decisions and actions must be based on conforming to and safeguarding its own core interests. To borrow the allusion of the mainland's "Xiao Gui Cao Sui", if the Ukrainian war is fought according to the version set by the United States, wouldn't it be "the United States and Europe follow".
Fourth, "the United States and Europe follow suit" will inevitably become an "agent".
As early as 75 years ago (1949), the United States, which dominated after World War II, set up a "proxy" to manipulate Europe against the Soviet Union, that is, NATO. Now, after more than two years of war in Ukraine, the United States has activated NATO, which Macron declared "brain dead" in November 2019. Many of the measures taken by the United States to support Ukraine have been coordinated through NATO. NATO is the "general agent". Even if France wants to "provoke the head", it will be a "second-level agent" at best, as reported by AFP on April 11 that the French Navy's Admiral Maltail announced that the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was under the command of NATO (Naval Strike and Support Force) for the first time and carried out a 15-day mission in the Mediterranean Sea (from April 26 to May 10). The general did not forget to add a comforting word: "France can take back command at any time!" As for Ukraine, which Macron called the "scene of the conflict," it can only be a "grassroots agent," that is, the most unlucky pawn. NATO's globalization coupled with a small coterie of the United States as a second-level agent could become a new model for proxy warfare for the United States.
5. Pandora's box must not be opened.
In the face of the posture of the United States, Russia announced that it has regarded the "special military operation" against Ukraine as a "war" related to the survival of the country. On the battlefield, the Russian army launched an unprecedented and fierce ground or air strike on the entire territory of Ukraine (including Kyiv, Odessa and Kharkiv) with more advanced weapons. The Russian army also resolutely annihilated the so-called "mercenaries" such as Britain, the United States and Poland and the advanced weapons and equipment they transported into Ukraine. The Ukrainian side, which was trapped in a passive retreat, fought desperately. It not only used missiles and drones to attack the border areas with Russia, but also penetrated thousands of miles into the Russian border to hit Russian energy and other infrastructure and even military bases. Russia also condemned Ukraine for planning the terrorist massacre of a concert hall in the Moscow region on March 22 and the three attacks on the Zaborozhzhia nuclear power plant on April 7. In the face of the rapid depletion of ammunition and soldiers, and the $60 billion allocated promised by the United States has been blocked by the vicious fighting between the two parties in the United States, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has recently changed his tone and said that he supports the so-called "sending troops".
When the "sending troops" was announced, US Secretary of Defense Austin was quite tight-tongued and only responded with a "no" word. On April 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken confessed: "U.S. soldiers will not (officially) appear on the battlefield in Ukraine, not even one, because a direct conflict with Russia is not in the interests of the United States." Subsequently, he threw out an insidious "sugar-coated shell": "Ukraine will become a member of NATO!" to interpret it as: Europe will have the obligation to fight Russia for Ukraine, and Ukraine should fight to the "last Ukrainian" with the "pie" of joining the treaty, and the United States will not be dragged into the water if it reaps the benefits!
The next day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the "general agent," declared at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers: "NATO is ready to fight a 10-year war with Russia." He also announced the establishment of a 100 billion euro "aid fund" for five years. However, German Foreign Minister Baerbock immediately pointed out that "there is no point in playing the numbers game"!
Recently, there has been a statement that the war in Ukraine has changed from a "protracted war" and a "war of attrition" to a "long-term war" and a "grinding war", that is, it will never give up until Russia is killed. Policymakers in the West and the United States may be carried away by the idea that this is the best way to go. In fact, if the war escalates out of control, it is to open Pandora's box. President Putin has long said: "Russia is gone, what else do you want the world to do!"
Sixth, Europe urgently needs to get out of strategic confusion.
The key to whether Europe (including the European Union) consciously or unconsciously accepting the US manipulation and use and even stabbing in the back lies in being confused by the "Russia threat theory" concocted by Washington. It seems that tracing back to the source, Europe (including the EU) first needs to clarify at least nine important cognitions, get out of strategic confusion, and achieve true strategic autonomy, so that the war in Ukraine can have the dawn and Europe have the hope of unity, self-reliance, prosperity and rejuvenation.
(1) NATO is by no means a defensive organization. From 1946, when U.S. Chargé d'Affaires Kennan in the Soviet Union issued the theory of "peaceful evolution," to the founding of NATO in 1949, the United States had both soft and hard hands to promote hegemony. The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 in response to NATO. It can be seen that NATO was not defensive from the beginning.
(2) With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO will have no raison d'être. In 1991, the United States achieved the so-called "victory without a fight" against the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but the United States maintained and strengthened NATO. This fully shows that the United States intends to continue to manipulate and use Europe through NATO, continue to attack Russia, and ensure that Russia does not turn over.
(3) The United States has violated its commitment to NATO's eastward expansion. According to the relevant memorandum, in 1990 US Secretary of State Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: "If NATO can maintain its military presence in Germany, NATO will not expand eastward by an inch!" In fact, together with Finland and Sweden's accession to the treaty not long ago, NATO has expanded eastward six times, and its membership has expanded from 12 to 32.
(4) Russia was humiliated when it wanted to "integrate into the West". Russia once joined the G-7 to form the G8, but the United States did not let Russia go because there were no ideological obstacles, but instead made it a decoration and humiliated.
(5) The "return" of Crimea was caused by the United States orchestrating the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, especially the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime through the "Square Revolution" in February 2014. It was only in March that the Russian side supported and realized the "return" of Crimea.
(6) Thieves shouting to catch thieves is a consistent method of the United States. The United States instigated Ukraine to ask for accession and put artillery on Russia's doorstep, forcing Russia to take action. As a result, the United States, regardless of the causes and consequences and historical entanglements, immediately designated Russia as an "aggressor" and then instigated the "princes" to launch a crusade together. This kind of hegemonic and hypocritical trick of the United States is not uncommon in all parts of the world.
(7) At the beginning of the conflict, the United States prevented Ukraine from reaching a peace agreement in a timely manner, and it was the British Prime Minister Johnson, who was said to be a close ally of the United States.
(8) It is a fantasy that Russia wants to "attack NATO". On 28 March this year, Putin pointed out that NATO's military spending last year amounted to $811.6 billion, while Russia's was only $72 billion.
(9) The US "nuclear umbrella" is unreliable. Europe's inseparability with NATO is nothing more than a superstitious belief in NATO's so-called "collective defense" obligation in Article 5, that is, the so-called "nuclear umbrella" provided by the United States to Europe through NATO. In fact, the "collective defense" measures provided for in Article 5 contain only a vague sentence: the attacked party will "take such action as it deems necessary in coordination with other parties". Moreover, over the past 75 years, there have been few cases in which the United States has betrayed its allies, abandoned them if they are useless, or even stabbed them in the back?
However, the United States has always used this as a shackle to control its allies. As early as January 1963, President Kennedy assumed the posture of a benefactor, questioning why the United States had enough war reserves in Europe for 90 days, while Europe itself had only enough for three days! Not long ago, in his speech on his re-election campaign, Trump issued a sensational warning to NATO allies: "I am glad to see Russia bullying NATO member states whose defense spending does not meet the target (2% GDP)!"
Seventh, the opportunity must not be lost, and Europe should take the initiative to stop the war and promote peace.
At present, both sides of the war in Ukraine and all parties concerned are feeling great pressure and are calling for a truce and peace again. According to a TASS report on April 8, Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergio Tileli stressed the need for dialogue with Russia at a meeting of the ruling party. He said: "If we (NATO) had adopted a different policy towards Russia, the war in Ukraine could have been avoided. "Italy has never talked about a war with Russia. As early as early February, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban sharply criticized that certain EU policy decisions do not follow European interests, but US interests! He believes that this issue should be resolved in the European Parliament elections in June. Even the "general agent" NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reluctantly said in an interview with the BBC in early April that "Ukraine may have to compromise, and it is up to Ukraine to decide in the end." ”
On April 1, French Foreign Minister Céjourne visited China, and Premier Li Qiang praised France's tradition of independence and emphasized the importance of opposing bloc confrontation. On April 3, French Defense Minister Le Corny took the initiative to call Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu for a 100-minute long talk. This is the resumption of dialogue between France and Russia since October 23, 2022.
Back in 1966, when France drove NATO headquarters out of Paris and withdrew from its military command structure, President Charles de Gaulle had a thought-provoking remark: "Is the President of the United States really prepared to sacrifice New York for Paris?"