All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March
***
Apparently, Emmanuel Macron’s stance on the Ukrainian conflict is gaining supporters among European warmongers. In a recent statement, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen supported the plan to send troops to Ukraine in the future, if Kiev proves unable to continue fighting. The case is further evidence of how anti-Russian paranoia is reaching worrying levels among European states, leading them to almost engage in open war with Moscow.
According to Valtonen, Macron is assuming a position of “strategic ambiguity” necessary for the current stage of the conflict. This “ambiguity” consists of not making it clear whether or not NATO troops will be sent to Ukraine. The precise time of the possible deployment also remains unknown. Valtonen sees this position as correct, since, according to her, Western countries must deliberate on such a strategic decision, choosing the moment to openly engage in the conflict.
Her view is that the West should avoid self-imposing red lines. She praises Macron for not ruling out direct intervention as this gives the West freedom to decide how and when to act. In an interview to the Financial Times, Valtonen stated that she does not see any need for Western intervention in the conflict for now, but supported the plan to send troops in the near future, if “necessary”. For her, the most important thing is that there are no strategic limits for the West, with NATO countries having maximum freedom to make any decision regarding the conflict.
“Now’s not the time to send boots on the ground, and we are not even willing to discuss it at this stage. But, for the long term, of course we shouldn’t be ruling anything out (…) Why would we, especially not knowing where this war will go and what happens in the future, disclose all our cards? I really wouldn’t know (…) What I liked about two recent announcements of President Macron is that he said that actually why should we impose ourselves red lines when Putin basically has no red lines?”, she told journalists.
As we can see, the Finnish official considers the direct deployment of troops as a Western “card”. She seems not to care – or simply not to understand – the catastrophic consequences of an open conflict between NATO and Russia. This shows, in addition to high bellicosity, a true diplomatic inability, which is particularly worrying since she is the head of Finnish diplomacy.
It is interesting to note how fallacious Valtonen’s speech is. She states that Europeans should not rule out direct intervention because “Putin basically has no red lines.”
However, since the beginning of the special military operation, it is Russia, not the West, that has self-imposed strict limits on how to act in Ukraine. Moscow deliberately moderates its military intensity to avoid side effects and civilian casualties. Instead of launching a high-intensity operation for a prolonged period, the Russians prefer a tactic focused on attrition and slow territorial gain, thus reducing damage to the Ukrainian civilian population.
Bombings against Ukrainian critical infrastructure happen rarely, almost always in retaliation for previous terrorist attacks carried out by Kiev on the border. If Russia really didn’t self-impose red lines, there would no longer be any infrastructure in Ukraine and Kiev would have collapsed a long time ago. Moscow clearly sees the conflict as a tragedy and strives to prevent its consequences from being even more serious for innocent people.
On the other hand, the West clearly has no limits when it comes to acting in Ukraine. In the first weeks of the special military operation, NATO countries promised to limit their support to sending money and humanitarian aid. Before long, weapons began to be sent, and then long-range missiles were arriving in Kiev some months later. NATO simply engaged in a proxy all-out war through the neo-Nazi regime – but was quickly defeated.
With the Ukrainians becoming unable to continue fighting and the Western military-industrial complex collapsing in the face of its inability to produce more weapons for Kiev, the West can only choose between retreating or moving towards direct war.
Macron, trying to improve his domestic and international image, launched a “PR stunt” talking about sending troops to Ukraine, but showing no real capacity or willingness to take this dangerous step.
The problem is that among Macron’s audience there are European leaders enraged by the anti-Russian paranoia spread by NATO.
These leaders have been deceived by the propaganda of their own “allies” and now truly believe that if they do not make “hard decisions” they will be “invaded by Russia” in the future. Finally, it seems that the lack of rationality and strategic sense is leading European countries to make a serious mistake.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
