Escalation in Ukraine.. For these reasons, the United Nations was absent, Germany was afraid, Britain was interested, and America was excited

The United States remains at the head of the countries that are most hawkish with Russia on Ukraine, and the most enthusiastic about supporting Kiev and spending on its armament, in the midst of the current escalation. But the situation is different from other countries such as Germany and Britain, and before them the United Nations.

Kiev – At a time when countries and the media are buzzing with talk about the dangers of Russia’s military buildup around Ukraine, and the possibility of it being a prelude to an “invasion,” or even the spark of a third world war, the United Nations General Assembly is completely absent from the scene. Calls for restraint, or for emergency meetings of the Security Council.

What is more remarkable in this context is that no Ukrainian, Russian or Western criticism was directed at the United Nations, as if the matter did not concern it, or its size did not amount to entering the circle of its interests. Although, in the past, she has repeatedly discussed the crises of Ukraine, related to Russia’s occupation of the Crimea, the war in the Donbas region, and others.

It’s an adult’s affair

The explanation for this is due, according to analysts, to the fact that the current crisis in Ukraine has gone beyond its regional scope and turned into a conflict open to all possibilities, primarily between major countries.

“As dangerous for Ukraine, the Russian military buildup carries important messages to the West, specifically to the United States at the head of NATO, and it has become like a process of flexing muscles or breaking bones between the two parties,” said journalist Mohamed Zawi.

He adds, “The major countries discuss through the United Nations world issues, but when it comes to the major countries themselves, there is no need – as we see – for the world and the United Nations to participate as an organization, and the “big game” does not need the opinions of others about its rules.”

He cites this opinion by saying, “America did not need permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and so did Russia in Syria.”

Adult offer and acceptance of Kiev

It seems that Kiev is well aware of this reality, as it sees – with anticipation – how Russia is moving with the United States, NATO and the European Union, and they are setting an agenda for discussions on the Ukrainian crisis at the beginning of next year, from which Kiev itself is absent.

Washington reassures its Ukrainian counterpart that “no decision that harms its interests will be adopted without its consent.”

On the other hand, Kiev reminds its “Western partners”, as it describes them, of this matter, and considers, in the words of its Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, that responding to Russia’s demands for “security guarantees” will be “the greatest humiliation of the United States and NATO since its founding.”

We are talking here about the demands to stop the Atlantic expansion to the east, and to withdraw from the countries of Central Europe, according to Koleba.

french german caution

In conjunction with the “international absence” and the Ukrainian anticipation, the German and French positions appeared cautious and careful about the current escalation, apparently limited to traditional expressions of political support for Kiev, and the threat of harsh sanctions against Moscow in the event of an “invasion”.

The strangeness of the positions is based on the fact that both Germany and France are concerned, before many, in the Ukrainian crisis, and are involved together in the framework of the “Normandy Quartet” for a settlement in the Donbass region, which also includes Ukraine and Russia.

“For years, the German-French position has tended to calm down and normalize relations with Russia, especially due to the two countries’ being affected by sanctions and counter-sanctions, and Berlin’s interest in launching the Nord Stream 2 project to transport Russian gas directly to its lands through the Baltic Sea,” says political analyst Oleksi Belashko. .

And he adds to Al-Jazeera Net, “Germany is one of the staunch opponents of arming Ukraine in the face of Russia, and it seems that its preoccupation with assuming a new adviser, the “Nord Stream 2” crisis, and France’s preoccupation with the upcoming presidential elections, pushes both countries to wish the current crisis would end with minimal losses, and without more tension with Moscow. “.

British geopolitical interest

On the other hand, the current crisis showed Britain’s unprecedented interest in the Ukrainian file, to the extent that it prompted officials to express their country’s readiness to “send soldiers” to Ukraine, especially at the beginning of the current escalation around it.

In an article in the Russian newspaper “Vzgliad”, director of the Ukrainian Policy Institute Ruslan Bortnik explains this interest by saying, “After leaving the European Union, London decided to participate strongly in pressing issues on the global agenda, such as Ukraine and others.”

Bortnick believes that “the United Kingdom is seeking to achieve geopolitical goals, by depriving Russia of control of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.”

The expert believes that “the influence in Ukraine allows the British to take the place of other European countries and, to some extent, even the United States.”

American enthusiasm motivated by interests

The United States remains at the head of the countries that are most strict with Russia regarding Ukraine, and the most enthusiastic about supporting Kiev and spending on its armament, in the midst of the current escalation.

In addition to the reasons related to the positions of “support for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right to self-determination”; Washington has interests in the region, identified by Oleksiy Haran, director of the Center for Democratic Initiatives, in a previous interview with Al Jazeera Net, as follows:

  • Russia’s reluctance and limit the growth of its regional and international influence at the expense of American and Western influence in general.
  • Rebuilding bridges of trust between the United States and European Union countries, especially after the term of former President Donald Trump.
  • Reassure the neighboring countries of Ukraine, members of the European Union and NATO, which consider that they may be a later target of “Russia’s aggression” after Ukraine.
  • Obstructing the “Nord Stream 2” project to transport gas, which Washington and Ukraine see as a major geopolitical danger to Europe, enables Russia to control energy and energy prices, and limits the size of the United States’ opportunities in the European gas market.
  • Preoccupying Moscow with a conflict that bothers it, and perhaps exhausts it, to discourage it from entering into any strategic alliance with Beijing, “Washington’s main enemy” at the present time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.