Xinhua News Agency, Washington, January 31 (International Observation) Rendering the risk of Russia-Ukraine war, the United States has a double plan
Xinhua News Agency reporter Deng Xianlai
The United Nations Security Council met on January 31 at the request of the United States on the situation in Ukraine. Representatives of the United States and Russia confronted each other at the meeting: the United States continued to exaggerate the danger of Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine and threatened to impose new sanctions on Russia; the Russian side criticized the United States for hysterically fanning the flames through “megaphone diplomacy”.
Recently, the United States has been deliberately hyping up the risk of a war between Russia and Ukraine. Analysts pointed out that the Biden administration’s move has a dual purpose: on the one hand, in the context of its own poor performance in internal affairs, it uses diplomatic issues to divert the attention of the domestic public and build momentum for the mid-term elections in the second half of the year; on the other hand, to suppress Russia to win over and bind European allies in order to maintain US influence in Europe.
three-way action
Combing the recent words and deeds of the U.S. dialect, we can see that the Biden administration has mainly taken three actions on the Ukraine issue.
First, it vigorously exaggerated the imminent imminence of Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine. Including the release of relevant “intelligence” obtained by the United States and its allies, showing the so-called “evidence” that Russia continues to undermine the domestic stability of Ukraine, and authorizing the evacuation of the staff of the US embassy in Ukraine.
Second, continue to increase the threat of economic sanctions against Russia. The potential targets of US sanctions include several large banks and other important financial institutions in Russia, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, in order to cut off Russia’s ties with the Western financial system. In addition, the United States also plans to strengthen export controls on Russia, restricting its access to advanced technologies in the fields of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, defense and aerospace.
Third, strengthen military deployment within NATO, and at the same time assist Ukraine, but do not send troops directly to Ukraine to avoid direct military conflict with Russia. That includes ordering about 8,500 U.S. soldiers to be placed on “high alert” for timely deployment to NATO member states in Eastern Europe. At the same time, several batches of weapons were delivered to Ukraine, and they promised to provide Ukraine with more military and economic assistance.
These actions of the US government have aroused strong dissatisfaction with Russia. Russian Presidential Press Secretary Peskov said on January 31 that in recent months, the US media has released a lot of “unverified, distorted and provocative information” about the situation on the Ukrainian border, and people should keep a clear head. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia does not want war, but does not allow its own interests to be brutally attacked and ignored.
Ukraine is also opposed to Western fanning the flames. According to the TASS news agency, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed dissatisfaction with the West’s remarks that “war is inevitable” on January 28, arguing that this is not the case. He emphasized that the intensification of panic has made Ukraine pay a huge price.
double conspiracy
Analysts believe that the Biden administration has deliberately played up the risk of war, and clearly has a double plan.
On the domestic front, the Biden administration hopes the tactic will fend off attacks from Republicans, who are keen to slam Biden’s weak foreign policy performance ahead of the November midterm elections. The Spanish “Le Monde” published an article that Biden has always been inclined to intervene in the Russian-Ukrainian border issue when necessary, because for some American voters, whether they are willing to send troops to fight abroad is a condition for distinguishing whether a president is truly “strong”. Biden’s approval rating is at a low point right now, and his belligerent attitude toward Russia is likely to attract a lot of votes.
From a diplomatic perspective, the Biden administration hopes to use this tactic to further pressure Putin, aggravate Russia’s strategic dilemma, and at the same time win over and bind European allies, forcing it to take a tougher stance on Russia. The British “Financial Times” published an article saying that the US hastily withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan in August last year, which seriously damaged the “international image” of the US. The Biden administration hopes to use the Ukraine issue to show that the United States can still bring the West together.
However, the Biden administration’s effect on playing the Ukraine card is limited. At this stage, diplomacy is not the top topic in the U.S. election. In contrast, the American people pay more attention to topics that are more closely related to their personal lives, such as the economy and the epidemic. In addition, many European countries, especially Germany and other countries that are more dependent on Russia for energy, do not want the tension in Ukraine to escalate, nor are they unwilling to be bound by the US policy toward Russia.
As for the threat of U.S. economic sanctions against Russia, Edward Alden, a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations of the U.S. think tank, wrote in Foreign Policy a few days ago that Russia may counter Western sanctions by restricting natural gas exports. In this case, some European countries that were originally reliant on Russia’s energy supply will compete not only for other sources of natural gas, but also for alternative sources of oil, fertilizers, industrial metals and other key commodities, which may exacerbate the currency of the United States inflation and create greater risks to the fragile global economy.
an origin
In contrast to the constant fanning of the flames by the United States, the international community is actively mediating, hoping to reduce tensions in Ukraine through dialogue.
Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, called on all parties concerned to remain calm at a Security Council meeting on January 31 and refrain from doing anything to stimulate tensions and hype up the crisis. Zhang Jun said that relevant parties should insist on seeking to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiation. What is urgently needed is “quiet diplomacy”, not “microphone diplomacy”. Regrettably, the US did not accept such constructive suggestions. Zhang Jun said that China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent. To resolve the Ukraine issue, we must return to the original point of implementing the new Minsk agreement.
On January 26, the “Normandy Model” Quartet Talks were held in Paris, France. Representatives of the Quartet from France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine held consultations on issues such as easing the Ukrainian crisis. The Quartet said after the talks that all parties should abide by the ceasefire agreement unconditionally and accelerate the implementation of the new Minsk agreement.
Putin recently expressed his willingness to strengthen dialogue with the West. Zelensky also expressed his hope to strengthen diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis.
On January 31, Putin had another phone conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron to exchange views on issues such as Russia’s security and the situation in Ukraine. After the last phone call between the two sides on January 28, the New York Times quoted a French government official as saying that the French believed that the West’s dialogue with Russia was “not a gamble” but necessary. (Participating reporter: Zhu Ruiqing)