An American strategic analysis attempted to outline the possible scenarios of the Russian-Ukrainian war. If the American empire and Europe were to focus all their existing resources on the war, they still see a chance that within a few years, as they say, Russia will be "destabilized". 

The analysis is not really in-depth, but it is suitable for reviewing all possible scenarios. The study accepts as an axiom that no matter who becomes the American president, there will definitely be some change in the course of the war starting next year, and also that since there is no actor for whom nuclear war is a real option, this version the analysis does not examine it.

Although the events of the last few years have convinced us that "anything can happen", and there is no such dark imagination that can project everything that happens in our world, it would be good to believe that this second axiom is indeed correct. The era of nuclear weapons, we have no idea how long this era will last, and especially how it will end, is definitely the most critical period of humanity's existence, which also has an unknown duration. For the first time, certain ruling groups got into the hands of a weapon that could destroy not only the rival, but even the entire humanity. From the first atomic bomb, roughly twenty years had to pass before the explanatory ideology was born. This is the famous acronym MAD (mutually assured destruction), i.e. the "theory" of mutual destructibility, the essence of which is the false and self-deceiving myth that the permanent fear of each other deters all actors.

During the last sixty years, successive generations have believed this, and now we must realize that there is and cannot be anything that can exclude the self-destruction of humanity.

Also, a "thing" exists because, to be more precise, it is none other than trust based on universal love, but since the "non-existent" lords of the world would cynically laugh at any effort towards this, so even though this "invisible" force has the visible puppets operated in the world tend to constantly refer to eternal human values ​​in an eye-rolling way, what is happening is the brutal destruction of all existing values.

But let's now turn to the conflict that generated the world war, named on the surface as the Russian-Ukrainian war, and its logically predictable scenarios.

According to the first scenario, the development of a comprehensive peace system will begin between the ruling actors that define the world, which will create lasting peace and prosperity in the region and at the same time in the whole of Europe.

There have already been examples of this, the Westphalian peace system, which in 1648 created lasting peace after the Thirty Years' War, the Holy Alliance, which after 1815, and the Yalta Treaty, which proved to be able to function even in the age of nuclear weapons for almost half a century. It is important to add that any peace system can be durable if it explores the structural dynamics of the given world power system and, based on this, is able to maintain a mutually beneficial system of cooperation, in which, to invoke this well-worn concept again, there is the minimum of trust without which all agreements fail. In the current state of the world, this belongs to the realm of miracles, and the analysis also predicts a very low probability for it.

The other scenario is a ceasefire, which as a "frozen conflict" can at least temporarily suspend the bloodiest phase of destruction.

Analysts see the probability of this as much higher, but they emphasize that if it does occur, it will be a very unstable formation, because the parties can step back into the bloody phase at almost any moment, amid constant provocations. What is really interesting in the analysis is that whoever becomes the president, according to their assumption, there is a chance that the American empire will "get out" of the conflict, which is already a "deficit" project for the empire. It is true that the chances of this withdrawal are seen to be greater in the event of Trump's election, but they do not rule it out in the case of a Democratic president either.

Equally interesting is the analysis of the fact that

how Europe reacts to the "exit" of the American empire, whether it continues "alone" and "for free" a war favorable to the world power goals of the American empire, but suicidal for Europe or not.

Analysts see it more likely that yes, it will continue, and then another critical inflection point will follow. (It is worth noting that, according to the strategists, if Europe, following America, withdraws from the Ukrainian "struggle for freedom", then Ukraine will be destroyed, divided, and disappear in the whirlwinds of history.) can Europe pump such a mass of resources to the "eastern front" that it can use to run the war and itself. According to the authors of the analysis, the chances of this are exceedingly small, Europe would fall spectacularly into this business within a short time, Ukraine would collapse anyway, and Europe would also descend into war and civil war chaos.

But if the American empire and Europe were to focus all their existing resources on the war, there is still a chance that within a few years, as they say, Russia will be "destabilized".

They also cynically note that the war was "doomed to success" from the point of view of the American empire, because Russia walked into the trap built for it by starting the war, but it turned out to be more viable than expected. Ukraine's attack on Russian territories of great symbolic importance indicates that even the darkest scenarios are open today.

Source: Magyar Hírlap

Cover image: Pixabay