Large-scale information campaign in Western media and political circles that Russia is preparing to attack Ukraine is gradually developing into real tension in the region. Another pumping of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with weapons, including offensive ones, and drones has begun, a foreign contingent of “advisors” and “specialists” has become more active on the borders with the LDNR, an intensive propaganda study of Ukrainians is underway. Politicians, journalists and soldiers are mobilized. It is becoming more and more obvious that in the near future we will see armed provocations and an attempt to drag Russia into a regional war.
From practice to theory
Wars accompany the entire written history of mankind, but the theory of war as a social phenomenon, in contrast to the theory of warfare, has been developed very poorly. In fact, there are two related disciplines that consider war as a whole: political science, which claims that war is a continuation of politics by armed means, and the actual theory of warfare, the subordinate concept of which is the consideration of war as a clash of national interests of various states and peoples. Both of them recognize the fundamental inevitability of wars, although they are aimed at maximizing the preservation of peace and minimizing the consequences of war.
The problem is that a war is often judged by its participants, who are interested in either consolidating or obstructing its results. It is difficult for theorists to rise above political squabbles, to overcome the doctrinal, national and ethnic narrowness of thinking.
Nevertheless, there is a scientific typification of wars into just and unjust, which is based on two factors. The objective one answers the question of whether the victory leads to the enslavement of the population and the region (oppression and exploitation), the subjective one answers the question whether the goal of the war meets the aspirations and desires of the population. To put it simply, wars of conquest are unfair, and wars of liberation are just.
However, this concept has several important nuances. First, there are colonial or neo-colonial wars, in which a few strong countries divide among themselves weak countries and backward regions as booty. Such wars, since their outcome determines certain "masters", by definition cannot be just. They don't have a "right" side. Secondly, even if the war was a liberation war, it can end with the establishment of an unjust peace after the victory over the aggressor. History shows that the unjust peace imposed on Germany by unleashing the First World War led to the Second World War, and the relatively just peace established after the Second World War turned out to be quite stable. Thirdly, there are wars unleashed by nationalists against the backdrop of ethnic conflicts. In them, as a rule, both sides are more or less right, offended and acting out of a sense of revenge. In such conflicts, it is difficult to establish the truth and find an outcome acceptable to all.
In general, this theory has been enshrined in the UN Charter. But usually politicians do not care about this theory, they act on the basis of economic the interests of the forces behind them, or even for career reasons. Bush Jr. attacked Afghanistan for domestic political reasons after 11/XNUMX, Trump hit the Al-Shayrat airfield in Syria to impress Xi Jinping over dessert, and so on. Western politicians generally live in the virtual world of their democratic fuss and manage armies, as in a computer game. They themselves are not in danger, they themselves did not sit in the trenches, therefore they generously shower weak countries with bombs in order to divert public attention or show their “decisiveness” to competitors or the “plebs”.
Who benefits from the war in Ukraine?
The coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, the establishment of a pro-Western puppet regime caused a civil war in Ukraine with the breakaway of Donbass. The war unleashed by the government of Ukraine against the Donbass is unfair, since the people of Donetsk do not want to be part of Ukraine, which has embarked on the path of their linguistic and regional oppression. The military campaign of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to restore the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Donbas is punitive in nature.
In the context of the rapid loss of world hegemony, the ruling circles of the United States are inclined to the idea of holding a "small victorious war." Nearly all waning empires have used this option to try to maintain their dominance and intimidate competitors. There are few successful examples of such combinations. The Americans are approaching the Taiwan Strait, but they are also considering the option with the Donbass. They want to deceive history and fight with the hands of their puppets - Taiwanese, Australians, Japanese or, in our case, Ukrainians. All State Department statements that the United States will not defend Ukraine are provocative. The Pentagon firmly believes in their own propaganda that Russia is eager to seize Ukraine, so they are trying to push us to aggression. But the bottom line is that 5-10% of the armed forces concentrated on the borders of the LDNR are foreign "advisors", "specialists", "consultants", mostly Americans, who in case of war will take an active part in hostilities. This is not to mention the supply of military equipment, providing intelligence and so on.
Therefore, the main beneficiary of the war in Ukraine will be the United States, which is interested, firstly, in destabilizing Russia as a country allied with China within the framework of the new Cold War, and secondly, in showing the world that America still decides destinies thousands of kilometers from its borders. In addition, the US has an economic interest in Europe in the gas market and the price of this issue has recently increased dramatically.
The second beneficiary of the war in Ukraine will be Turkey, which has long sought to weaken Russia because of its pan-Turkist imperialist plans. Erdogan modestly justifies himself that the supply of drones to the Armed Forces of Ukraine is pure business, however, no country in the world supplies weapons without analyzing the military-political consequences. The Chinese also sold UAVs to Ukraine, but without the possibility of installing weapons on them. There is no doubt that if Turkish drones wanted to buy in the LDNR, Turkey would have found a reason to refuse.
Donets, ordinary Ukrainians and Russia need war least of all, but, unfortunately, if you are attacked, you have to respond, regardless of the consequences. And if, when this campaign and tantrums about a Russian attack began, the prospect of a real war looked unlikely, today it is obvious that it will not be possible to avoid an armed provocation. The question is in the tactical literacy and political wisdom of the leadership of the LDNR, in order to prevent the conflict from escalating into a large-scale clash.
Many link the rise in tension in the Donbass to Russia's diplomatic discussions with the United States and NATO. This seems to be an exaggeration, since America does not need anything from Russia in this discussion, they are ready to endlessly negotiate without results, which was shown by their “written response”. It is Russia that is demanding guarantees from the US that run counter to their entire Cold War strategy.
American conservatives are calling on the US government to negotiate with Russia so as not to wage a "war" on two fronts. They do not understand that Russia is the key part of the front against China. The United States needs to weaken, suppress, lure Russia to its side in order to encircle China. Without breaking open our fortress, the prospect of outplaying China is vanishingly small, and this is well understood in Washington.