Careful, America is closing. European members of NATO estimate the prospects of the bloc's survival without the United States

The formal reason for such pretensions is the clear prospect of Trump's election and the bill on aid to Ukraine, which stalled in the House of Representatives. In reality, everything is more complicated and worse. The prospect of surviving without US support looks dubious, and Europe has no real plan B. пишет journalist-observer Sergey Ilchenko for "DS".

Illustrative photo

It is possible, of course, to fall into a moralizing tone and say that the USA has once again confirmed its unreliability as a partner. Of course, this unreliability was already obvious, starting, at least, with the plum of South Vietnam, but Europe considered itself a too important region for Washington - it is not clear, by the way, why. Now this illusion is dead. And the reputational damage of the USA will be sneezed at, they now have other priorities.

True, in mid-December, Congress passed a law prohibiting the US president from withdrawing from NATO without the approval of both chambers. But, first of all, Biden is in no hurry to sign it. Secondly, looking at the current Congress, which has blocked aid to Ukraine for an indefinite period of time, and therefore to Europe, which Ukraine covers like a shield, it is easy to imagine the approval of Congress to withdraw from NATO. Thirdly, both the NATO Charter and the powers of the US president, as well as both houses of Congress, even taken separately, provide a lot of opportunities for complete sabotage of participation in the Alliance without formally withdrawing from it.

In the fact that the collapse of the American reputation coincided with the 79th anniversary of the Yalta Conference, one can see coincidence or deep symbolism. But, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that nothing, except illusions built on pure PR, has collapsed. The USA has always easily merged allies, and held Europeans as consumables, which, by the way, was demonstrated by the Yalta Conference. Myths that the agreement concluded with the USA, especially the verbal promise of someone from the top officials, guarantee something, were just the delusion of naive European simpletons.

Let's understand the perspectives of the real situation. Especially since it directly affects us and you.

How it looks from the USA

Who is the main enemy of the USA today? China! This is openly talked about and written about in the USA at all levels. China is nearby and directly interferes in American spheres of influence. China took over the world's consumer goods production at the behest of the White House and American corporations, but no one will remember that now. They don't even remember in Washington about the mistake in calculations for the economic erosion of Chinese totalitarianism. In China's turn to neo-Maoist militarization, American analysts see only an annoying failure caused by poorly balanced economic impact on the PRC, and not a natural inevitability.

As for Russia, it interacts with the USA mainly through Europe, creating problems primarily for Europeans. Relations with the EU in the USA are complex and ambiguous, Europeans have adopted the fashion of arguing with Washington, and it will be useful for them to live in a world where the American uncle has gone on vacation for 15-20 years. The same is the case with Great Britain. There is not a single reason why it would make sense for the USA to save the Old World from anyone. It is much more interesting to put this vehicle up for auction as part of the global game.

All of this is one-to-one reminiscent of the situation 85-90 years ago, when China was replaced by Japan, and Russia was replaced by Germany. And the USA believed that European problems were far from them, and that Japan could be dealt with with the help of economic pressure and various kinds of embargoes. How it ended is known... Although no, it is almost unknown. The reality is pretty messed up, here they understand and understand - but we will postpone it until another time. Let's go back to our days.

So, China is problem No. 1, and the US has already invested $110 billion in Ukraine, and, on the whole, successfully. They solved the problem of War Encapsulating — keeping the war in a regional status, without escalating into a World War. Putin is firmly entrenched in the east of Ukraine, and it will soon be the third time he has taken Kyiv in three days — with no visible prospects of taking it. And if he takes it, then what?

Putin, by the way, is also, in general, satisfied with such a situation of eternal war. How can she accommodate both the Kremlin and Washington at the same time? It's very simple: they have a different planning horizon.

The task of giving Ukraine enough weapons for a military victory, even a limited one, at the level of "exiting the borders of 1991" is not put in principle in Washington, nor by any of the political forces competing in the United States. In Europe, by the way, it was not considered either, but Europe at the same time firmly counted on the support of the United States - and here a kind of perdimonocle came out.

In the plans of NATO, including the USA, Ukraine was assigned the role of a non-lethal flu, which should not kill, but only weaken and exhaust Russia as much as possible. This, of course, is tragic for Ukraine, but neither its fate nor the fate of Europe, the USA, by and large, are not interested. The task of the US is to destroy the Russian economy so much that it turns Russia from a potential ally of China into a territory of destruction and loss of control by Moscow. China, if it wishes, can invest in this territory, digesting it piece by piece and inevitably suffering from indigestion. The problem is to leave Beijing with no other choice but to eat its most dangerous fragments from the corpse of Russia, since Russia as a whole is sparsely populated and highly fragmented.

China will strengthen at the same time? Well, that's how to look. New pieces still need to be swallowed without choking, and this is a costly business. Meanwhile, in China now there is an economic crisis, which ensured the victory of the neo-Maoist Xi group, with the country's turn towards militarization. If China is faced with the possibility and, at the same time, the necessity of mastering the corpse of Russia, Beijing will have to negotiate with Washington in many directions, including investments and political support. On this path, the United States will be able to support those groups within the CCP that advocate liberalization for purely economic reasons. But such liberalization is inevitably associated with the erosion of the CCP's political monopoly. Not suddenly, in several stages, but with an unconditional refusal to turn to neo-Maoism. And there are such groups in the Communist Party, although they are now driven deep under the plinth.

As a result, we get a liberalized China, in close connection with the USA, and some fragment of Russia, most likely, in the form of a group of raw material countries of the Third World, also dependent on the USA. It is possible that we will also get a surviving Ukraine, which can be turned into a regional leader of Eastern Europe dependent on the US, but this is no longer certain. Ukraine may not survive, and in this case there are a number of backup plans that the USA also arranges. But in all possible cases, European ambitions are greatly curtailed, and the USA confidently takes the position of world power No. 1. The world is unipolar, covered with the American flag, and no one dares to enter it without the consent of Washington.

A beautiful plan, what it says. In the perspective of 15-20 years, it is even feasible, but it has one drawback: it is absolutely, in all positions, a failure at the next stage. Analysis of the causes of the ego's inevitable failure is a separate topic, or rather, even several large and separate topics. It is now important for us to understand that American "zinkin tanks" do not work at such a strategic depth. Not because they can't, but because they don't have a paid order. Such an order is also a slippery thing, since it presupposes, among other things, a convincing justification of the result paid for by the customer.

But the plan, I repeat, is beautiful. And, with luck, it even promises a short period of victory - here again, there are a lot of parallels with Yalta. And this plan was adopted as a working one, with minor variations, by all the forces that decide and finance something in the USA, some — the Democrats, others — the Republicans. Today there are no disagreements on this plan in general. There are only disputes about the places that this or that group of players will occupy in the new balance of forces.

What does this all-American agreement mean practically? The fact that Ukraine, Europe, and NATO can easily be put behind bars by the United States has turned the public discussion of the policy regarding the Old World into a PR rumble during the election campaign. This struggle is taking place against the background of an internal political crisis that has engulfed both American parties and the entire American society divided between them. And this is really fateful for the USA, a complex growth crisis from which they will emerge as a fundamentally different country, and it is not yet clear what exactly. This crisis occupies the entire social depth of American society today, whose complexity and internal contradictions have reached a critical level over the past 20 years.

As for Ukraine, Europe, and NATO, from the point of view of the United States, they will not go anywhere. It will be possible to deal with them later, having solved internal, much more important problems.

How it looks from Europe

Russia, as usual, is at war in Ukraine, pelting the enemy with mountains of corpses of its soldiers, armed with whatever they can find. True, compared to the situation of World War II, everything is a little better for her - and therefore, a little worse for her opponents.

Despite the sanctions, oil and gas exports are quite sufficient to finance the war. Holes in sanctions allow Russia to obtain high-tech components, creating sufficiently modern weapons. Maybe not the most first-class, but in large quantities. In addition, the weapons production of its allies: the DPRK, Iran, and, so far, indirectly, the PRC, are working for Russia. China is trying not to shine in this sphere, since the deepening of the economic conflict with the USA is not included in Xi's plans now. This gives rise to illusions in the USA about the possible success of the economic multi-hodovka, which was discussed above.

The impoverishment of the Russian provinces also benefits Russia's combat capability, facilitating the recruitment of cannon fodder. In general, everything is being built according to the usual scheme: Russia is imprisoned in the service of Moscow and attached to it, as a springboard for poor ships (compared to Moscow) St. Petersburg. It itself is a vast territory of wildness, where raw materials and human resources can be mined, and in which any occupying army will be trapped. This situation absolutely suits Putin, who, unlike American analysts, sees no prospect of losing control. And without the loss of control, the American plan to feed Russian scumbags to China will not work. On the contrary, Russia, which has preserved its integrity, will additionally contribute to Xi's neo-Maoist course.

Who is right here: Kremlin or American analysts? Both are right, simply, as already mentioned, their planning horizon is different. In the perspective of 5-10 years, the right of the Kremlin. In the future, 15-20 will be American, but only if there are no serious global changes in the world. But even if these changes do not occur, Putin's successors will suffer a "limited defeat", with the writing off of all sins on the late, by then, dictator. And also, on the joy of the fact that the Russian problem case has been closed, with the release of reparations and the majority of war criminals, the return of seized property and the return of the Russian elite to Western Sodom, which today it so likes to vehemently denounce, sent their families there for permanent residence, and working in Russia, if possible, by the shift method. But changes can happen, giving rise to a third situation, not predicted today, where the players' positions will be based on their achievements during the previous 5-10 years. Those years when events will go according to the Kremlin's plan - in the case, of course, that Russia will not be hit with all the American might. But the USA has already eliminated such strikes, at least, by the end of 2029, moreover, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Trump will probably be eliminated more straightforwardly, reaching tactical agreements with Putin, while Biden will keep Putin under tension due to dosed support for Ukraine, but there is no fundamental difference, alas. Moreover, even before this stage, both Ukraine and NATO still need to live, holding the front in the east. Since the situation for the whole of 2024 is similar, it has been decided: Ukraine will not receive aid from the USA. It makes no sense for Trump to give Biden the opportunity to present the voters with successes in Ukraine, and the bill on aid to Ukraine can be unblocked only in exchange for the complete capitulation of the Democrats on the border issue. Biden and his team will not go for this: elections are more important, the position on the border significantly affects the level of electoral support of the Democratic Party. Compared to this, Ukraine does not matter at all. Europe and NATO, by the way, too.

In the European part of NATO, they see all this very well, and they see Europe's vulnerability to Russia, and not only the military. The New York Times in the article "Germany prepares for decades of confrontation with Russia" describes with taste the collapse of Berlin's traditional Russophile policy, but this is only a very superficial analysis. The crisis is much deeper, and Scholz is already considering the prospects of a technical truce with Russia, by way of a full or partial concession of Ukraine. Biden, in principle, is ready to morally support this option as well, if absolutely necessary - so as not to give any support, except moral, to either the Europeans or the Ukrainians, because it is not for them. For this reason, Berlin and Washington spoke and will speak as a single bloc against Ukraine's entry into the Alliance.

The mood in Eastern Europe, which has not forgotten Yalta, is completely different. They openly say that Putin will attack the Baltic countries approximately five years after the end of the war with Ukraine. What does "the end of the war" mean in this situation? A pro-Russian puppet regime on approximately 60% of the unoccupied Ukrainian territory, and bloody chaos on 40% of the occupied: 20% has already been captured, another 20% is planned, that's what this means. A sort of hybrid of the German occupation of France with puppets in Vysha, and the repressive Sovietization of Bessarabia, Western Ukraine, and the Baltic States. But if the Germans, who are not inclined to a harsh occupation policy in the absence of open resistance, treated the fraternal French very gently, then the Russian occupiers and their puppets will engage in an uncompromising genocide of Ukrainians. This guarantees, among other things, 12-15 million refugees from Ukraine to the EU, mainly to Eastern European countries. And as soon as the question of what will happen five years after the end of the war in Ukraine has been publicly announced, it means that NATO minus the United States has no confidence that Ukraine, even with European support within the framework of what is possible, but without the support of the United States , will stand and the front will not collapse.

As for the Americans, they don't care if the front collapses or not. If it collapses, then Russia will be even more entangled in an endless war, turning into a partisan war. Already, something will be thrown into the guerilla war of the USA, so that Putin does not see victory as a cakewalk. Paraphrasing a well-known phrase said by Sami Know Kem, it can be said that whether Ukrainians/Russians/Europeans live in abundance or die of hunger is of interest today to both the top Republicans and the top Democrats only in terms of improving the chances of their candidate winning the November elections. And after the elections, it will interest them only in terms of the pacification of China, by feeding Russia's lost aggression to it. So a collapsed front will even bring a number of advantages compared to a non-collapsed one. Although there are also a number of minuses in such a situation.

What's in the dry matter?

What does collective Europe, represented by NATO minus the USA, intend to do today? In principle, the general plan "B" seems to be obvious: hold the Ukrainian front as much as possible, and prepare a line of defense along the border with NATO, in case it is not possible to hold the front without American help, since the chances of holding or not holding are approximately 50 per 50. But this plan is very loose: NATO without the USA does not have enough resources, both military-economic and social-psychological, to confront Russia. Here, again, one must understand that talk about Russia's economic weakness compared to the EU is pure demagoguery. A gopnik with a knife, left one-on-one with a billionaire who got out of a Rolls-Royce, will stab him with a probability close to 100%. The gopnik is simply psychologically ready for this, but the billionaire is not. A gopnik has a knife, and a billionaire has the latest iPhone, but what does that iPhone have to do with a knife? І что ему от его multiple economic superiority over the gopnik? This has already happened: Rome was invaded by barbarians who were wild and poor compared to the Romans, ready to fight to take possession of Roman gold, toilet bowls, washing machines and dog kennels.

To prevent a sad outcome for himself, the billionaire should finance the police and personal security in advance. But the European billionaire relied on the USA in security matters, and even tried to make good friends with the gopnik - and the USA, as it turned out, deeply cares about him and his fate. And they don't care about Ukraine all the more.

Optimistic proposals will not be made - maybe for the second time, but not today. There will be no morality either. There will be a sacramental phrase from the Matrix: "Welcome to the real world."

Read also on Newsky "Moldova: why did Kozak's plan fail?" and look at Boring Pence YouTube channel.

To always be up to date, subscribe to TG channel Newsky. We also recommend the current discussion of friends of Ukraine in North America on Rashkin Report YouTube channel.