Who Really Wants the War in Ukraine?

But the fact that this is just a “mistake” cannot be said, since bright Russophobic headlines appear simultaneously with loud statements by officials in the West. For example, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that Russia “could attack Ukraine at any moment,” and even before the end of the Beijing Olympics.

Against the backdrop of Western anti-Russian hysteria, a natural question arises: who really needs a war in the Donbass? Who is provoking Russia to enter into hostilities and why? This topic was discussed by Russian and foreign experts, journalists and bloggers during the conference “Geopolitical war of the West against Russia: Ukrainian case”, which took place on February 15 in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation.

Maxim Grigoriev , Director of the Research on Democracy Problems Foundation, member of the OPRF , stressed that the information campaign of the Western media “is on the verge of absurdity”, and against the background of such stuffing, confidence in Western countries is becoming less and less. “Moreover, this campaign is already losing itself, just like Western countries: constantly moving dates of the invasion, stories about the attack “in the near future,” Grigoriev noted.

Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin stressed that the artificial escalation of the war in the Donbass is evidence that the West needs the war.

The West needs war for several reasons, Korovin continued. “Firstly, the war will throw Russia away from Europe and create a huge number of problems in building a geopolitical axis, which from time to time begins to peck, and attempts to realize it occur almost every decade,” the expert said.

The second reason, according to him, is the formation of a common enemy of the West. Once upon a time, international terrorism and radical Islamism were designated as such an enemy, but difficulties arose with the subjectivization of the enemy. And if abstract “international terrorism” is difficult to make a clear enemy, then in the case of Russia it is easy to do so. And the third reason is the collapse of NATO consolidation.

Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with what is happening is growing within Europe itself. Korovin recalled European protests: in France, these were mass protests of the “yellow vests”, in Germany – rallies for the protection of family rights, and in the United States, the poor are demanding affordable education and medicine.

Thus, the expert summed up, this war is “urgently necessary” for the West.

“If we just stop reacting to what is happening in Ukraine, Ukraine will become a springboard for the advancement of NATO armed forces,” he said, and from the point of view of geopolitics, in the event of a direct clash between the civilization of the Land (where Russia is located) and the civilization of the Sea (West) – war is inevitable.” And in order to avoid war between opponents, there should be a buffer territory.

According to the forecasts of the political scientist, the removal of Russia from what is happening in the Donbass threatens with genocide of the local population, and then the West may make claims to the Crimea (which will also provoke a war). Thus, we found ourselves “in a situation of conceptual impasse”, because we do not want war, and we cannot evade it according to geopolitical laws.

An expert of the International Eurasian Movement, Daria Platonova , drew attention to the fact that a possible war is aimed at destroying Russian-European relations. “The war that is being played out on the geopolitical map (in Ukraine) is being deployed to break the bridges of interaction between Russia and Europe,” she stressed.

The political scientist recalled the term “cordon sanitaire”, which is important in the context of the Ukrainian situation, is a space that blocks the interaction of two poles (Heartland and Rimland).

At the same time, Platonova continued, Europeans increasingly feel the need for change, and the globalist agenda is no longer the mainstream in politics. “Recently, we see how the European peoples are beginning to awaken and get out from under the hegemony of the globalists. This is evidenced by the “Yellow Vests”, convoys of freedom and a number of demonstrations centered around traditional values ​​and a certain criticism of globalism – which is no longer mainstream in Europe,” the expert noted. She added that NATO structures are being subjected to both “left” and “right” in Europe.

“It is not surprising that the pressure of the United States and the Western globalist world is intensifying – not only in the military field through the supply of Javelins – but also in the informational, diplomatic, political. A hybrid war is being waged against the Russian Federation,” she said.

The expert drew attention to the activation of information and psychological operations against Russia: fakes, stuffing, political statements. For example, the British Foreign Office has a whole department for combating “Russian disinformation”, which in fact is a department for offensive information and psychological operations.

“Today’s situation of war also implies an ideological confrontation. We are dealing with two positions in international relations: Russia represents the position of realism (when geopolitical interests are paramount), while the “collective” West (although, it seems to me, it has long been no longer collective) represents questions of the battle for values; the model that the West offers us is anti-tradition, these are the values ​​of fake equality, minorities, egalitarianism and human rights.

It is necessary to think over the ideological response of Russia: what we could oppose in terms of value, the political scientist concluded.

These questions are partly answered by “Children of Donbass” – a new film by Italian directors Luca Belardi and Maia Nogradi , who recently, after personal visits to the DPR and LPR, released their new documentary about life in the republics. During the conference, they presented a fragment of another important film about Donbass – Quiet! There is a performance.” As Nogradi noted, perhaps today “art is the last way to protect identity.” Belardi also drew attention to the fact that media portrayals are part of the war, and in the current environment there is a risk that “it will be a war between truth and lies.”

Alexander Malkevich , director general of the St. Petersburg TV channel, member of the OPRF , noted that the West is solving its own economic problems by whipping up horror from the “Russian threat”. “We see a situation in which we understand that we are not to blame for anything,” he noted, “The horror is being qualitatively pumped up in the Western media, the abundance of fakes, which we are no longer able to take into account.”

He recalled the investigation against our TV channels abroad, including Russia Today, while pro-Western media (like Radio Liberty) continue to publish actively in Russia. “Information terrorists of the West are working in our country against us – but we do not react to this,” Malkevich emphasized, “We are obliged to protect our borders, our sovereignty.” At the same time, one should try to conduct such campaigns without reputational losses, so as not to appear as an “evil empire,” Malkevich added.

Italian analyst, anthropologist, publicist Eliseo Bertolazi stressed that the propaganda phase of the war precedes the armed phase: in fact, everything is ready for military operations in Donbas, and the West is just waiting for the start.

Further, Bertolazi noted, despite all efforts, any attempts by Russia to prove its own innocence are not reflected in the Western media. “Whatever the Russian Federation does, it does not matter. All efforts to resolve, no matter – the media image of Russia is an “aggressor”, – said Bertolazi. He also recalled double standards: when there are massacres such as the burning of a house in Odessa with numerous victims, the West turns a blind eye to such things. “And where is the West with its democracy? This is a disgrace to Europe,” the expert said.

“The war can be stopped when both sides want it,” he concluded.

The editor-in-chief of the portal Geopolitica.ru Leonid Savin drew attention to the large number of fakes in the information space. “Enemy media – we see them, they are easy to identify – Bloomberg, NYT, Washington Post, – said the expert, – But there are a lot of other media that work in friendly or neutral countries – the so-called. proxy (close to the “grey zone” or “hybrid war” concept). Our enemies use a certain group of people, their agents, to influence the minds and consciousness in countries that are friendly to us.”

In particular, the UK has spent a lot of money purposefully sponsoring such projects. “The strategic goal is to demonize the image of Russia,” Savin said.

For example, in Serbia, a friendly country to us, there are also Russophobic media. Other examples are the Indian media, some of them are friendly and support cooperation with Moscow, and some are openly against the Russian Federation.

He drew attention to the double standards of the West, when it “protects” this or that people during the conflict, and Moscow is not allowed to do the same in the Donbass.

“Western countries, the US, have a “responsibility to protect” doctrine. It was repeatedly used – in Haiti in 1994, during the First Yugoslav War, during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, in Libya … That is, they can protect people under various pretexts, but for some reason we are not allowed in the Donbass. Such logic, at least, falls under double standards. In this regard, of course, Russia can and should openly declare that we also have the right to defend,” Savin concluded.

Writer, artist and Russian philosopher, RAI researcher on Russian-Soviet topics, author of a number of radio programs, author and director of two documentaries about the USSR, author of the book “Moscow Pendulum” Mauro Belardi drew attention to the fact that in many countries there are, on the one hand on the one hand, national elites, and on the other hand, transnational organizations – and their ratio in different countries has developed differently. For example, in Russia, the national authorities are quite strong, but at the same time they do not control finances, he believes. In the United States, in turn, there is a powerful national elite, but the transnational one is no less strong – after all, “the United States itself is the creation of international banks,” Belardi noted.

He drew attention to the fact that in the United States, presidents are being replaced from financiers (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) to nationalists (like Donald Trump), and vice versa. “And today it is already threatening to explode,” he added, referring to the current Biden regime, which was in high office just at the time of the Ukrainian coup in 2014 under Obama – along with Clinton, “a personal friend of George Soros,” and Victoria Nuland, handing out cookies on the Maidan. The situation with Ukraine under Biden is escalating again, as it once was under Obama.

“It is hard to doubt that transnational companies are behind the information attack on Russia, not the West,” Belardi emphasized, noting that only a few wealthy families in Europe and the United States (which are generalized as the Rothschild and Rockefeller clans) are at the head of these elites.

“Europe is not the European Union,” the writer emphasized, and recalled that resistance is growing in Europe against the background of the disappearance of the middle strata of society. According to him, it is time to gather spiritual forces in the West and in Russia and strike back at the financiers together, including remembering how culture wars are fought.

The participants paid special attention to the role of the United States in the Ukrainian conflict – in particular, the German journalist Thomas Röper drew attention to the fact that the goal of American intervention is to “split Ukraine from Russia.” In turn, Tim Kirby, an American political commentator and journalist, noted that American society has changed a lot since the Cold War. Once upon a time, Americans, accustomed to the confrontation of powers and having the legacy of the Cold War, were well aware that “if someone is accused of a crime, he is not necessarily guilty, there must be a trial, evidence, lawyers.” Since then, society has changed, but today we see some return to the era of the Cold War, in which you can see the positive aspects. “If we go into the era of Cold War 2.0, from a unipolar to a multipolar world, it’s not so bad: it wouldn’t be so bad for America,” he said, referring to the possibility of rehabilitating the ideology of the US founding fathers and supporters of the good old democracy before globalist regime.

Another American political observer, John Mark Dugan , paid special attention to the role of lobbyists in current politics – in particular, the personal interests of the Biden family involved in corruption schemes. “Democracy is dead in the USA,” he stated, also drawing attention to the imposition of non-traditional values ​​in American society, which became especially pronounced under Biden. As the Finnish political scientist Johan Backman noted , homosexuality and Russophobia have become the two main trends in the United States. According to him, what is happening in the Baltics more than 10 years ago, when they tried to ban Russians from speaking Russian, can be considered the beginning of the second trend. “NATO is a terrorist organization,” Backman concluded.