And then there was this interview Boris Johnson gave to CNN, in which he gave his version of how we entered this war with Russia. It led to a rebuke from the Germans, where he informed us that Germany had been unwilling to embrace the need for war, because it would hurt their economy. And if there was going to be a war, Germany wanted Ukraine to cut a deal with Russia real quick. But Boris managed to convince the Germans to stay away from urging the Ukrainians to come to terms with Russia, and to join Britain and the US in setting up devastating economic sanctions, which were sure to deliver ‘Regime Change’ in Moscow in a matter of weeks, months at the most. Confirming what I’ve said all along, because in my mind it was obvious.
In addition Johnson said that the French had been ‘in denial’ up to the very last moment, with Macron doing his utmost to avoid war, as we’ve seen when Macron went into ’Shuttle-Diplomacy’ mode. This ‘Johnson-version’ describing the path to war was marked as a blatant lie by Alexander Mercouris, who does a wonderful job on his YouTube channel, offering cautious analysis of the war, and its context. His criticism, reflected by the German rebuke, maintains that Germany never had any reservations. He is correct if he limits himself to the official position since the outbreak of the war, and/or the cheers that emerged from the ‘Greens’ in the coalition, who welcomed war as a great help to their ‘Climate Agenda’, and effort to deindustrialize Germany. Although their enthusiasm waned since, and is gradually growing into a panic, because it drags on way too long. But my feeling is that Scholz and the Social Democrat wing were aware of the risks of this NATO-strategy.
At the heart of the argument we now see, by Johnson’s own admission, the Brits and the Americans eying ‘Regime Change’ in Russia through a provoked war in Ukraine, which their military and political strategists from various ‘Think Tanks’ estimated would happen real quick after war broke out. And the Germans, the Italians, and the French, opposed to war. And skeptical of the chances of success of this British/American plan. But they eventually went along for the sake of ‘Unity’ within NATO, which was fake, and is even more illusionary today. But by blowing up Northstream, the Brits and Americans cut Germany off from suggesting a retreat. That part is not in the interview, but it is too bloody obvious.
Another angle Mercouris promotes, is that Russia was aiming for a short-lived military operation as well, like NATO, but with a different outcome, obviously. This is reflected on these pages as I concur, but I differ from Alexander’s take on what happened in Russia when this quick result did not materialize, eventually, although it nearly did. Boris intervening on behalf of NATO (or so he must have said), convinced Zelensky to scrap this deal in the making, and increase Ukrainian war efforts, since ‘Regime Change’ in Russia was just around the corner. NATO would support Ukraine up the hilt, and soon Russia would be out of ammo, and facing ‘set-backs’ which would be delivered by NATO, even though they could not claim NATO was behind it, so Ukraine would have to come out and take the credits. But just a little while longer, and Ukraine would be delivered to NATO and the EU as this heroic nation which wrecked Russia. This British estimate was based on the assumption that Russia would run out of ammo soon. Which, in turn, was based on the initial assumption Russia would take the bait, and conquer all of Ukraine with a ’Shock-and-Awe’-war, declare victory like Bush did in Iraq, only to be bogged down in a huge mess with plenty of highly trained ’Stay Behind’ military. A type of war which did not require huge amounts of weapons and ammunition. That the Russians didn’t take the bait, and withdrew from their positions close to Kiev, was explained as a failure, while I, and others who watched this conflict closely, insisted it had been Russia’s plan, revealed by Putin himself as he stated Russia’s goals, and insisted it was a ‘Special Military Operation’, and not a war against Ukraine.
Alexander says that the Russians still had to convince themselves to switch to a ‘War of Attrition’, while I claim they ‘came prepared’. This overwhelming fire-power, and intelligent use of ‘escalatory dominance’, with no lack of ammo, while ‘going slow’, grinding down the Ukrainian military, would not have been an option if they would not have had the capacity, and planning, to feed the army tons of ammo and unlimited numbers of precision missiles and drones. A ‘War of Attrition’ was not what they were after, nor did they want to hurt the Ukrainian civilian population, or even the economy of Ukraine, but everything was in place to make that happen if Zelensky would be dumb enough to listen to the likes of Boris Johnson and Joe Biden. Which begs the question if there ever was a chance for Germany and France to save face, and save Europe? I suppose they had no independent estimates which contradicted the estimates of Russia’s military capacity, alerting them to the possibility that the Russians were not bragging when they said they didn’t begin anything in earnest yet after the first couple of months.
Which brings me to the prospects for Ukraine and Europe, and Russia, since Johnson and Biden brought us here. The very fact that Johnson agreed to this interview, spilling the beans of his manipulation, tells me he still thinks NATO will be able to pull it off. To manage ‘Regime Change’ in Russia before the entire western world collapses, or Ukraine signals they’ve had enough. I assume that Johnson and Biden, backed by NATO ‘Think Tanks’, explain these Russian attacks on the electrical grid and infrastructure as some sort of ‘Revenge Operation’, or attempt to pressure Zelensky through making life miserable for the people. And I’m not saying that the Russians exclude that possibility from their planning, ready to take advantage from unrest in Ukraine to achieve a negotiated settlement, but the other, and likely more important reason for this massive operation striking civilian infrastructure is of a military nature, where it will derail the logistic abilities of the combined NATO/Ukrainian forces, and communications, in preparation for a Russian winter offensive. An offensive which has the potential of returning the westbank of the Dnieper and all of Cherson to Russia, while securing the Zaporizhzhia power plant, if this offensive adds Zaporizhzhia itself to the territory taken by the Russians, allowing them to return from the North. This is speculation, to be sure, and all kinds of observers not aligned with NATO offer their own possible scenarios for a dramatic sequel after Russia has regrouped and troops added through this recent mobilization are fully incorporated. At the same time, Russia is seen building truly massive fortifications along lines they seem to be interested in to preserve as the future border between Russia, including the areas recently added, and what will be left of Ukraine.
NATO, under the spell of the Brits and Americans, failed the Ukrainian population, the Russian population, and Europe, and embarrassed themselves. Something has got to give, or there will be Hell to pay. Honest mistakes are often tragic, especially in times of war. But pushing countries and its people over the edge because you can’t bring yourself to admitting that everything you did, assumed and estimated, was wrong, is beyond criminal neglect. Boris saying that one couldn’t negotiate with someone like Putin flys in the face of reality, where it was NATO and Ukraine who refused to fulfill their obligations as laid down in the ‘Minsk-Accord’, and honor their word not to expand NATO to begin with, while not even responding to serious proposals delivered by Russia to the NATO-countries at the end of last year to come to some sort of security agreement for all of Europe.