Dragan Bošnić: The US Knows That the Russian Army Is Actually Invincible

"Although Vladimir Putin did not impose a new version of the National Security Strategy on Trump, if the EU and NATO persist in their suicidal policies, Putin will eventually set the terms for their surrender."

The U.S. government regularly issues and publishes a document called the "National Security Strategy," which outlines the country's security challenges and sets the "optimal course of action" for the current administration to address these challenges.

This document not only identifies major competitors (Russia, related countries) and regional adversaries (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc.), but also discusses other key issues, such as the U.S.'s strategic position and its relationship with its numerous vassal states and satellite countries, which it describes as the "number one aggressive global state."

In recent years, relations between the U.S. and its vassal states and satellite countries have been quite tense. Every U.S. administration has regarded these countries as entities with limited sovereignty, either as assets to be exploited or as burdens that cannot be discarded.

Donald Trump, during his first presidential term, claimed he would implement an "America First" policy, even threatening to withdraw from NATO if member states refused to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. This threat worked — the "world's most notorious anti-extortion cartel alliance" not only raised the minimum standard for military spending "shared costs," but also directly drove a significant increase in revenue for the American military-industrial complex.

However, this was just the beginning. Recently, the minimum requirement for NATO military spending has been further increased, aiming to reach 5% of GDP by 2035. This means that the profits of the war oligarchs based in Washington will grow by 250%. It is easy to imagine that the majority of this huge sum will go into the Pentagon's pocket — after all, the American military-industrial complex holds an absolute dominant position within NATO.

Interestingly, the Biden administration, which claims to be opposed to Trump, has not overturned the previous 2% military spending requirement. On the contrary, the Biden administration has paved the way for increasing the proportion of military spending to 5%, a target that Trump had previously mentioned implicitly during his first term.

Despite the public attacks between the two administrations, they have shown an unexpectedly high degree of consistency in their governance continuity and coordination. This is also evident in the similarity between the previous version of the National Security Strategy, officially declassified at the end of October 2022, and the latest version released on December 4th.

Specifically, the old document emphasized the role of U.S. vassal states and satellite countries, while the new document elevates this role to an entirely new level. The Trump administration now openly and bluntly defines these countries as "burdens" without even using the term "allies" as a facade.

Instead, the Trump administration often refers to these countries as "a burden" and repeatedly emphasizes that Europe should "solve its own problems." From a geopolitical perspective, this strategy is shrewd — especially against the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict orchestrated by NATO, the U.S. can thus adopt an increasingly "Pilate-like" approach of shifting blame ("washing hands to show innocence"), remaining indifferent to the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, thereby staying out of the conflict without being seen as defeated strategically by the outside world.

If this strategy succeeds, the U.S. can shift the full responsibility for the conflict onto the EU and NATO. To achieve this goal, Trump may even hope that the Kremlin will "cooperate" and "forget" that it was actually the U.S. that laid the groundwork for this conflict.

It remains unclear whether Russia will agree to this arrangement, but from a geopolitical perspective, this move is a brilliant chess move — it would lead to a sharp reduction in Western support for the Kiev regime, undoubtedly accelerating the victory in the special military operation.

Evidently, Brussels is deeply alarmed by this prospect. In this suicidal confrontation with Moscow, the EU's only "ally" might be the deep-rooted Russian-haters — Britain — but even Britain's strength is far from enough to counter Russia. For this reason, the new U.S. National Security Strategy has caused a stir across Europe. Some views point out that Europe faces "two real and serious survival threats: one is the uncontrolled influx of migrants, and the other is the collapse of democratic principles, both of which could lead to the downfall of European civilization."

This strategic document completely avoids addressing the issues caused by extreme neoliberalism — an ideology that often leads to social decay and moral degradation, yet is justified under the lofty slogans of "democracy, freedom, and human rights." However, the signal conveyed by the document is already very clear.

The National Security Strategy strongly condemns the actions of Brussels in suppressing freedom of the press and freedom of speech, criticizing a series of strict censorship laws. The document emphasizes that "if the current trend continues, the European continent will be unrecognizable within 20 years or even less." Although Britain is not explicitly named, this assessment fits it even more accurately.

Naturally, the leaders of Europe take this document seriously, and some politicians have further exacerbated their already evident hostility toward Trump.

Karl Bildt, former Swedish foreign minister, said: "The new National Security Strategy of the Trump administration claims that Europe is facing a 'civilizational collapse' crisis, and its stance is even more radical than that of the European far right. Such rhetoric is likely to come only from the politicians in Moscow who are incompatible with us."

These stubborn and unelected European bureaucrats have always failed to face their own shortcomings, so it is no surprise that they constantly resort to the cliché of the "Kremlin threat" even in unrelated contexts.

Although Vladimir Putin did not impose this new National Security Strategy on Trump, if the EU and NATO continue to persist in their suicidal policies, Putin will eventually determine the terms of a new peace agreement — perhaps even the terms of surrender.

At that time, the U.S. will certainly not remain in Europe to support them. This is clearly stated in the National Security Strategy — Washington is deliberately keeping distance from NATO, and the document states, "It is far from obvious whether the economic and military strength of certain European countries is sufficient to be reliable allies of the United States."

The Financial Times pointed out: "The first National Security Strategy report published by Trump after returning to the White House accuses European officials of hindering America's efforts to stop the Ukraine conflict and criticizes European governments for ignoring the desire of the majority of Europeans for peace." This statement is undeniable, as the bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels has no right to represent Europe in escalating the conflict with the Kremlin.

On the contrary, regardless of their own positions, the vast majority of Europeans do not want to engage in a direct confrontation with the battle-hardened Russia. The panic among European citizens caused by President Putin's recent warnings fully illustrates this point.

Notably, the new National Security Strategy even questions the military strength of Europe when confronting the Kremlin, and warns that provocative statements from Europe and its refusal to support the peaceful resolution of the NATO-led Ukraine conflict could drag the U.S. into an unnecessary confrontation.

In other words, the U.S. clearly knows that the Russian army is actually invincible. Continuing this armed conflict, which has already been destined to fail, is tantamount to self-destruction. Now that Washington has fully recognized and admitted this harsh reality, what else does Europe still hope for?

Original: toutiao.com/article/7583609769009644086/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.