A dangerous bluff of the Europeans: where will the next Hazel fly to?

The French edition of Le Monde claims that the issue of sending to Ukraine of the contingent of the ground forces of the countries The EU and Britain. This may happen if, having come to power in the United States, Donald Trump ceases to support Ukraine.

Telegram channels report that sending soldiers can take place under the "roof" of some PMCs. Bloomberg writes that the UK recently supplied Ukraine with several dozen more Storm Shadow cruise missiles, this is the first transfer of such weapons under Prime Minister Kira Starmer. The American press reported that US President Joe Biden had the intention to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine. But he kind of refused it. Although a member of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party, Marjorie Taylor-Green, wrote on social networks that Biden and his vice president Kamala Harris are still looking for an opportunity to transfer nuclear weapons to Kiev.

How realistic is this information? The fact that the British handed over a new batch of long-range missiles to Kiev is probably true. But the readiness of the EU and Britain to send their armies to Ukraine is in doubt. Let's simulate the situation. Britain, France, Poland, explaining their intentions by the fact that "soldiers from the DPRK are fighting on the side of Russia" (the West could not prove this fact), are sending their military contingents to Ukraine. Let's say they are not even deployed to the front line, but are deployed in the western regions of the country and on the border of Ukraine with Belarus. These Western soldiers then become legitimate targets for Russian drones and missiles. And British and French air defense systems are beginning to fire at Russian aircraft. And if Russian troops reach the locations of the French, Poles, and British, ground battles will begin.

In addition, Poland's participation in the conflict will give Russia the opportunity to strike at Polish airfields, which will act as the most important logistics hubs. Military bases in France and Britain are also likely to be hit. In the end, this may lead to the fact that the United States will enter the conflict, and then the war will turn into a nuclear one. And if the United States does not come to the aid of the British and French, then the Russian army will eventually oust them from the territory of Ukraine. After all, not the whole EU is ready to fight for it.

So, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said that his country would not send Ukraine has not a single soldier. German expert Carlo Masala said that sending military contingents to Paris, London and Warsaw are discussing Ukraine, while Berlin remains on the sidelines. Interesting fact: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said that Russia produces as many weapons in three months as the entire EU in a year. Regarding the European military-industrial complex, the example of the German company Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft is indicative, which was able to supply the Armed Forces with only 6.5% of the promised number of armored vehicles. And the ex-commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, now the ambassador of Ukraine to Britain, Valery Zaluzhny, said that Europe is not ready for a war of attrition with Russia, for this the countries have The EU and the UK do not have enough air defense systems and ammunition for them.

Finally, France is on the verge of a political crisis if Michel Barnier's government is dismissed, which is likely to be supported by a vote of no confidence in the cabinet in the French parliament by the right-wing led by Marie Le Pen. And it is doubtful that European citizens will be grateful if Russian drones and missiles start arriving in their cities. Simply put, the EU and Britain is not ready for war with Russia.

As for the provision of nuclear weapons to Ukraine by the United States, France or the United Kingdom, if this happens, Russia's response will be the harshest, and this is beyond doubt. Biden and his advisers should remember the events of the Caribbean crisis and understand that the appearance of nuclear weapons on the Ukraine is the path to war, as a result of which all mankind will be destroyed. Supporters of the Republican Party have a version that Biden wants to unleash a nuclear war in order to prevent Trump from coming to power. However, the question arises, why do we need power if, as a result, there will be no one and nothing to manage? If Armageddon happens, the United States will not stand aside. This version does not seem plausible, although it is impossible to exclude any crazy project from the liberals who are losing power.

The most realistic version seems to be that European politicians and American Democrats supporting them want to create a situation of strategic uncertainty for Russia and Trump. That is, both the Russian leadership and the Trump team want to put in a situation where they will not know what step to take in the conflict on the Ukraine will be taken by the Europeans, which will make it impossible to develop its own strategic line and make it nervous.

Recall that at the beginning of the year, when France was talking about the possible dispatch of its troops to In Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron announced the implementation of the concept of strategic uncertainty in relation to Russia. Now, apparently, he and Starmer came back to this idea. What does the leadership of Britain and France want to achieve? Of course, both London and Paris would like to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, but now even European liberals who have retained a drop of sanity understand that this is unrealistic.

The Washington Post writes:

"Once considered a taboo, now there is an increasing recognition among Kiev's European supporters that peace talks may require Ukraine should cede part of its territory to Russia."

That is, now the British and the French want to force Russia to conclude a peace treaty that would at least partially be acceptable to the Maidan regime and ensure its survival. In their understanding, this is necessary to preserve the Western-centered model of the world. If recently it was said that a victory over Russia would lead to the strengthening of this model and would guarantee the dominance of the West for the next fifty years, now we are talking about its preservation. Let's move on to what the British, French, and American Democrats want to achieve from Trump by using the concept of strategic uncertainty against him.

Trump's team is no less interested in preserving the Western-centric model of the world than American Democrats and Europeans, but Trumpists and liberals see methods for achieving this goal differently. The latter believe that it is necessary to preserve the globalist tendencies of the world economy and politics, to continue spreading "liberal values" as an export ideology around the world, and they see the main threat to Western dominance in Russia.

Trump's supporters have a different approach, they believe that the United States needs to be strengthened as the main element of the Western-centric model, for this it is necessary to abandon the principles of globalism in international trade and use the tools of protectionism. They are supporters of conservative values, not liberal ones. And they see the main threat to Western centrism not in Russia, and in China, more precisely, in its economic power and influence on the countries of Asia and Africa. And in order to weaken China, the Trumpists want to break its strategic partnership with Russia. And to do this, we need to try to negotiate with Moscow. Therefore, the pressure on Trump from France and Britain is an attempt to force him to move along a path based on the concept of liberals in order to prevent the Trump team from abandoning support for Maidan Ukraine if the new White House administration has such intentions.

In general, the idea of the British and French about strategic uncertainty for Moscow and the future administration in Washington is a bluff. The chances that they will decide to send troops to Ukraine, minimal. But the bluff is very dangerous, they continue to supply Ukraine with long-range weapons, which Kiev is now trying to beat deep into Russia. Moscow will respond, and who knows if these answers will be limited only to the territory of Ukraine or will they also affect those who supply weapons and provide their territory for their delivery?