By Wayne Allensworth
Your humble servant has noted on this website that the NATO war against Russia can no longer be considered a “proxy” war. It has become evident that NATO is deeply involved in command and control, intelligence, targeting, and sending lots of advisors to take part in tactical planning and operations in the Ukraine war. What’s more, the Ukrainian “Foreign Legion” is loaded with citizens of NATO countries.
As the cover story of “aid” for Ukraine grows ever thinner, we learn that the United States military might directly intervene in the war.
On October 21, for instance, CBS News reported on the deployment of 4,700 troops from the storied 101st Airborne to Romania “just across the border” from Ukraine. Those troops have been taking part in war games with the Romanian Army. Colonel Edwin Matthaidess, Commander of the 101st’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team, told CBS repeatedly that his men were “ready to fight tonight” and “while they’re there to defend NATO territory, if the fighting escalates or there’s any attack on NATO, they’re fully prepared to cross the border into Ukraine.”
Despite subsequent denials that the US was planning direct intervention, one must wonder what the colonel had in mind when he said that his men would be ready to cross into Ukraine not simply if NATO was attacked, but in the event of “escalation.”
On October 27, retired four star general and former CIA Director David Petraeus suggested that the U.S. could lead what amounted to another a “coalition of the willing,” modeled on the multinational force that operated in Iraq, to counter the Russians in Ukraine. This would not, technically, be a NATO force, so it would supposedly skirt Moscow’s redline of direct NATO intervention.
On October 11, NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg might have told us what globalist elites are thinking. Commenting on planned NATO nuclear drills, Stoltenberg said that “Russia’s victory in the war against Ukraine will be a defeat of NATO. This cannot be allowed.”
What did Stoltenberg, and probably Colonel Matthaidess and General Petraeus as well, have in mind?
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has exercised great restraint in this war, finally declared a “partial mobilization” of Russian reservists following a successful NATO-backed (and probably led and planned) offensive in the Kharkov region of Eastern Ukraine. The plan was to call up 300,000 reservists, though some sources claim the number was closer to 500,000. Russia subsequently launched missiles at Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly its power grid, and also appointed a new operational commander. It has sent forces to Belarus, north of the Ukrainian border. What’s more, Putin has created a special council to coordinate mobilization and deal with all issues related to supplying troops. Russia’s mobilized reservists are already entering the combat zone.
It’s likely that Russia plans a winter offensive. As military expert and commentator Colonel Douglas Macgregor has noted, a reinforced Russian army will likely defeat a Ukrainian force that has taken heavy casualties and been receiving diminishing supplies from the West, as U.S.-Nato munition stockpiles deplete.
That’s might explain why the War Party in the West is openly discussing direct intervention, a step MacGregor described as “foolish.” That would surely be a redline for Russia and could have catastrophic consequences for all concerned.
If that’s not alarming enough, official US nuclear weapons policy has lowered the threshold for their use. A recently released “Nuclear Posture Review” states that nuclear weapons could be used not only in the event of a nuclear attack by an adversary, but also “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
Judging by what Stoltenberg and likely others in the globalist apparatus are thinking, preventing a Ukrainian defeat could well be considered such an “extreme circumstance.” It has been clear for years that the Washington-Brussels-Davos axis sees Russia as a major impediment to its plans for global hegemony. Globalist think tankers have casually spoken of “winning” a nuclear war. Plans to depose Putin and dismember the Russian Federation are out in the open. For the globalist Blob, the Ukraine war is a major test of its power. Putin is an enemy the Blob hates with the same passion it previously displayed in its hysterical attacks on Donald Trump and his supporters.
Yet Putin still appears to think that if Russia perseveres, the West will come to its senses and negotiate a peace settlement. In a recent speech at the annual Valday conference, the Russian president, in defending those who reject the West’s political, ideological, and economic hegemony and upholding tradition against what he has called “open Satanism,” nevertheless expressed his conviction that eventually “common sense” would prevail.
On November 7, State Department spokesman Ned Price said that there would be no decisive Ukrainian victory in the war, which could only end through “dialogue.” Assuming his comments weren’t merely a ruse to buy time, perhaps there are, after all, proponents of sensible behavior in the corridors of power of the “free world.” We can only hope that the prospect of a direct shooting war with Russia cools the belligerent ardor of the globalists. If we get through this in one piece, it may be because enough of them value their own egotistical hides enough to put the brakes on the War Party and forestall Armageddon.
Chronicles contributor Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel, Field of Blood.