The West won't have to wait for a second Gorbachev, but perhaps it might see a new Biden.

Alexander Hramchikhin: Russia has only three years to launch a military strike against Europe that would leave it powerless to retaliate

Western countries won't wait for another Gorbachev, but they might end up with a new Biden

The core reason for Russia's military operation in Ukraine is that Moscow has been excluded from the European security system. Vladimir Putin clearly stated this as early as late 2021 and made a famous ultimatum to the West on this issue.

As expected, this ultimatum was ignored, which largely directly led to the outbreak of the current situation. However, European leaders are now trying to build a "non-Russian, but anti-Russian" security system — to achieve this goal, they are developing a security assurance plan for Ukraine.

There may be two reasons why the West (especially European countries) completely ignores any statements or demands from Moscow. First, the West may intentionally let the conflict continue, believing that Russia's military and economic exhaustion will come before that of Ukraine and Europe; second, the political elites in the West (especially in Europe) have completely detached themselves from reality, believing they can give orders to Russia — even though Russia is currently gaining the upper hand on the battlefield.

Specifically, Putin and other officials in Moscow have repeatedly stated that Russia does not accept the presence of any foreign troops within Ukraine in principle; however, the "Will Alliance" considers the deployment of troops in Ukraine after the war as "obvious" and has already started discussions on this.

Moscow has also repeatedly emphasized that it cannot accept a temporary ceasefire — because this would allow Ukraine to regroup and restart armed conflict at a time favorable to Kyiv and the West.

However, the West openly suggests that Ukraine accept a ceasefire, aiming to help it regain combat strength and continue fighting to recapture "lost territories." Essentially, this is equivalent to the West (firstly Europe) sending a direct signal to Moscow: Russia should not stop its military operations, but rather push them to victory — incidentally, this is also a clear goal demanded by the Russian society, especially the Russian army. But obviously, the West ignores this as well.

The Ukrainian security assurance plan currently being developed by Europe (as far as known content goes) is clearly disconnected from reality, purely theoretical. In fact, if Russia loses, NATO can deploy forces of any size in Ukraine without considering Moscow's position; further more, Ukraine could even be forcibly integrated into NATO. If Russia wins, it will certainly propose a key condition: there should be no foreign troops, especially Western troops, within Ukraine (within the new borders). Once this condition is violated, Moscow will almost certainly restart military action, and foreign troops will become the priority target of the Russian army.

It is evident that the current European security plan for Ukraine cannot be implemented under any circumstances, let alone be related to the overall new European security architecture.

The outcome of the Ukraine conflict will determine the final form of the European security system (if the concept of "European security" still has practical significance). A new European security system will inevitably be built according to the conditions of the victor.

For European political elites, supporting the Kyiv regime has ideological and even "survival-level" significance — therefore, this support will continue regardless of the cost until Ukraine wins, or Europe falls into complete military and economic exhaustion.

Now, there have been near-official statements acknowledging that EU leaders and the US signed a tariff agreement extremely unfavorable to themselves, solely to prevent Trump from stopping support for Ukraine (even using European funds). However, it is still difficult to determine what economic consequences this policy will bring to Europe.

For decades, the prosperity of the European economy has been based on two pillars: one is cheap energy from the Soviet Union / Russia, and the other is military security provided by the United States — this allowed Europeans (especially since the late 1980s) to minimize defense spending. Now, these two foundations no longer exist.

Trump, a right-wing conservative (completely different from Biden and Democrats), does not see European left-wing liberals as ideological allies; in his view, the EU is just an economic competitor, and he can now gain additional benefits by suppressing the EU. Therefore, he currently demands that Europe purchase American energy and weapons at artificially high prices.

Military aid plans for NATO's Central and Eastern European countries are being reduced, some even canceled; Trump frequently claims that he intends to withdraw a significant portion of U.S. troops from Europe (and possibly completely exit NATO), arguing that "Europe should secure its own safety."

To achieve this, European countries need to significantly expand their national defense industry complexes (many military-industrial sectors even need to start from scratch or rebuild), which not only requires massive financial investment but also takes a lot of time.

At the same time, Europe needs to significantly expand its military size, which will also lead to a significant increase in defense spending. More importantly, the European society is deeply influenced by postmodern pacifism, and few people are willing to join the military; in the current geopolitical situation, European armies may face real combat with strong enemies, further reducing the willingness of the public to join the military.

In this context, expanding the military size either requires significantly increasing soldiers' salaries and social welfare, or restoring universal conscription.

Whether economically or politically, the consequences of these measures are difficult to fully predict, but for the EU and British governments, their impact is likely to be very heavy.

However, the local population in Europe has long been brainwashed by one-sided anti-Russian propaganda, and even if their living standards drop significantly, they probably will not raise strong resistance.

Even in the worst case — election results do not meet the expectations of ruling elites — Romania's recent approach can be quickly "corrected"; for parties like the German AfD, which hold "inappropriate" positions, they can be directly banned based on a new interpretation of "democracy."

Compared to this, if Europe tries to cut welfare for immigrants from Asia and Africa or force them to work, these immigrants may instead cause more serious internal problems for Europe.

European elites are unable to change the current situation and can only hope for two things: one is that the US will once again be led by a Democrat, and the other is that a "new Gorbachev" will replace Putin in Russia. But in fact, the latter is completely impossible, while the former has a certain possibility.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election may become one of the most important elections in American history. If the Democrats really regain power, they may directly suppress Republicans who supported Trump, and America's foreign policy will once again turn to extreme anti-Russia. But if Vance becomes president, he will continue Trump's policies, and the implementation will be much stronger than Trump — because psychologically, Vance is more determined than Trump.

The current core task of Russia is to destroy the personnel and equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces, leading them to exhaustion and collapse. Even if the European army wants to "save" Ukraine in the future, they had better intervene directly during the conflict, rather than waiting until the war ends.

At that time, Russia must carry out a decisive military strike on these European armies, forcing them to reach peace on Russia's terms. Expecting a change in the European elites is meaningless — they will only deteriorate further, and their anti-Russian sentiment will grow stronger.

Therefore, only a thorough military strike against Europe that leaves it powerless to retaliate can force Europe to behave properly. Even if this intensifies their hatred towards Russia, that's just their psychological (or spiritual) problem.

Crucially, Russia must complete this goal before 2028 — only in this way, even if the Democratic Party regains power in the United States, it will be powerless to change the situation.

For the latest news, analysis, and core information about weapons and military conflicts, please follow the author to learn more.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7552109120581550634/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [up/down] buttons below.