The US cannot start a major war in Ukraine

Click here to access article by Nikolai Starikov (translated by Val from Osa) from The Vineyard of the Saker.

This article is not easy to read because, first of all, it was written in Russian for a Russian audience; second, it occasionally presents translation problems even though it is one of the better translations of Russian articles that I've seen on this website. (For example: "The existence of the DNR and LNR as Anti-anti-Russia is the key to inability of the West to start a war between Ukraine and Russia." I think "DNR and LNR" refer to sections of Novorussia. Thus, the sentence is better translated as follows: "The existence of the Novorussia as Anti-anti-Russia is the key to inability of the West....") 


In spite of these difficulties, I think the author offers some very important insights on the chess-like game being played out in Ukraine by the directors of the Empire (and other strife-ridden areas of the world) and the clever counter-moves by Russian leaders.

Starikov first sets the stage for this game being played in Ukraine as follows:

The United States and the West are facing of the strongest crises in its history. The strength and depth of the problem are compounded by the fact that ... the West has won. It incorporated practically all of Europe, crushed, to varying degrees, the whole world with a few exceptions.

Therein lies the problem – all its life the West lived by robbery. Now those who can be robbed are fewer and fewer, and those with whom it is necessary to share the "stolen goods", that is the standard of living that rests on unrestricted dollar emissions, are more and more. Hence the huge national debt. In the United States it is 18 trillion dollars, but such debts, and even worse ratios of the national debt to GDP, exist in all so-called developed countries.

What solution the US and its closest allies are looking for in this situation? It is now evident to everyone. The solution is war. Chaos. But this chaos and this war must lead to a "controlled collapse".

As a result the US must eliminate two threats to its power - China and Russia. Ideally, make them clash with each other. To do this the US need to change regime in one of these countries. Obviously, the Americans think that the regime change in Russia is an easier task.

Then Starikov argues that a grand strategy (neo-imperialism?) has been applied in Ukraine in order to establish a government hostile to Ukraine, draw Russia into aggressive military actions in response, create (hopefully only) a regional war between Russia and Ukraine with the Empire backing Ukraine. This creates tension within Russia, and with other subversive measures such as economic sanctions and collapsing the price of oil could lead to the destabilization of Russia. Then, on to China for the next application.

As explained by Starikov, I see three sub-elements to this strategy that the Empire's uses to destabilize a country to further its interests (which differ from one target to another): 1) create chaos which largely destroys the economy of country, 2) create two main adversaries (divide and conquer), and 3) provide substantial financial support for one side (this provides income for desperate people as mercenary soldiers). 

But like any good chess player, Russian leaders are not playing into the Empire's game, and Sarikov argues that the Empire is losing in its effort to destabilize Russia.