A Ukraine Miscellany XVIII: A New Phase in the War?

It's clear that Kyiv is basically unable to mount the much vaunted spring offensive – at least not anything of significance within the spectrum of conventional artillery-infantry oriented combat expected by its Western sponsors. Spring is more or less over at this point and for months the NATO Establishment has debated its next set of moves. It was determined some time ago that a general escalation was in order. The question was not if but when and how. There will an offensive but it is likely to change the very character and scope of the war.

The introduction of US manufactured F-16's into the equation marks a sea change as it presents a direct challenge to Moscow's domination of the air. This will change the nature of the war and the timing is critical as air war means knocking out not just aircraft in the immediate zone but their points of origin and their logistics networks – parts, fuel, and weapons.

Ukraine has already upped the ante by its drone incursions into Russian territory, its alliance with Russian fascist insurgents, its now admitted policy of assassination and attempted assassination of Vladimir Putin – and in the background of all this are the statements coming out of the West that tacitly support not just assassination and regime change in Moscow, but the partition of the Russian Federation. And as of this writing it would seem we might need to add the destruction of dams and other infrastructure to the strategy – though it's unclear at this point just who is responsible for the sabotage at Kakhovka. Western media has an established track record of lying about this war and so all the initial reports must be met with scepticism.

The recent moves made by the G7 indicate that there are no plans to let this war end without a definitive Russian defeat. The push in some quarters to draw Ukraine into NATO is also a warning – it would immediately trigger Article 5 and the alliance would be in a state of official war with Moscow. Thankfully, there is considerable resistance to this madness – being pushed aggressively by Secretary-General Stoltenberg who is obviously a creature of the Pentagon.

The signs are there - the war is about to change. A conventional offensive has already been reckoned unsuitable.

While these incursions into Russian territory and airspace may look like feints or symbolic acts, they are also tests – you can be sure Western intelligence is gleaning information concerning Moscow's air defenses and the possibility of fomenting a large-scale uprising.

The US has moved its massive USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier and its strike group to Norway and these ships along with other NATO craft are engaged in so-called Freedom of Navigation (FON) exercises near the Russian frontier in the arctic.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2023/05/us-carrier-group-makes-ready-arctic-circle-mission

The offensive is coming and preparations are being made for a wider war. Ukraine is nearly spent and while Zelenskiy is willing to sacrifice tens of thousands more Ukrainians for this NATO-led proxy conflict, the day is coming when Ukraine will have no more fight left. And what then? The signs indicate that NATO is preparing to continue the fight and that means NATO troops (in some capacity) engaged with the Russian military. This may not mean a massive ground war but it will mean no going back. Europe is already militarizing and engaged in rapid preparation. As stated, the debates are not over whether to escalate but what weapons are to be used, and questions of where and who – because remember, the US is preparing for a larger war with China and while there's some time – at least in terms of planning, they know Beijing will be tracking American resources and factoring that into the timing of their moves as well. The US wants the weapons (and probably pilots and some troops) engaged on the Ukraine Front, but not to the extent that it leaves them weakened or unprepared for the East Asian War and the potentially scattered nature of its frontline.

While Western media has made much of Putin's stationing of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, as stated previously he's not doing anything the US doesn't already do – as it has nuclear weapons in various NATO countries, well within striking distance of Russia. Putin's move nevertheless is both reckless and dangerous as the conflict continues to escalate – though it's rarely mentioned that his move was also in response to the UK sending Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry to Ukraine.

Speaking of radioactive weaponry, the media also fails to mention the nuclear capacity of the USS Ford strike group and the fact that it will be operating near the Kola Peninsula and Murmansk – Russia's major centre for its Northern Fleet.

It's noteworthy that with the sabre-rattling directed at the Northern Fleet, and the designs to drive Russia out of Kaliningrad (seat of its Baltic Fleet) and the plan to take Crimea and expel the Russian Navy from the peninsula (seat of its Black Sea/Mediterranean Fleet) – the only major centre of Russian naval power that's so far unmolested and not facing threat is its Pacific Fleet based in Vladivostok.

Additionally, while the US navigates its financial and political hurdles, the public is left in the dark regarding the debt crisis, questions of inflation, and the true nature of the negotiations between the Biden White House and Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Ukraine looms over this entire episode but it is not spoken of. The war that is little understood by the American public and for many has become tiresome and a case of yesterday's news – is playing a significant role (along with bank bailouts) in fomenting this crisis – which for the architects of US power is no real crisis but an episode of theatre. In the end the manufactured debate and crisis is meant to open up more funds for the war machine at the expense of the public.

And that same public clearly does not understand that the situation is soon to intensify.

As a final footnote, the messaging at times is simply bizarre. Take for example the Zelenskiy statements regarding Bakhmut at the G7 meeting in Hiroshima in May– a rather bizarre location to have a meeting. Zelenskiy appealed to the threat of devastation and the horrific legacy of Hiroshima – but what's he saying? Is that a threat to Russia? Was it meant to condemn Russia and the devastation it has wrought? In whatever sense it is invoked, there is a tacit if not explicit condemnation of what the United States did at Hiroshima – but that's all more or less erased, it's not allowed to be spoken of. The truth is while the G7 condemns Russia for its brutality and war crimes, the site hosting their meeting – the meeting for the group that in many respects is one of the mechanisms US imperial power – is the location of one of the great war crimes in history, one perpetrated by the United States. Once again, history is stranger than fiction.