Some time ago, after Putin declared in a TV speech that it was necessary to "use all means" to safeguard Russia's territorial integrity, Western public opinion regarded this as a nuclear threat to NATO . Recently, after the Russian military's "Belgorod" nuclear submarine "disappeared" from the Western reconnaissance network, this tense atmosphere became more and more obvious.
Former US President Trump , said in his speech that if peace talks are not implemented as soon as possible and the Russian-Ukrainian war continues to escalate, it is likely to trigger World War III and everyone will finish playing together.
Trump's attitude is actually very representative of the people in the United States, and the fear that the war has escalated into a nuclear war. Now Russia's strategic killer has "disappeared" under NATO's nose, which at least shows that Russia is already planning the worst.
But unlike the public calls to promote peace talks, the official level of the United States and NATO are as tough as ever.
Whether it is Russia's retaliatory strike on Ukraine's infrastructure and retaliatory strikes, the United States and Western countries announced that they will continue to provide military assistance to Ukraine, or NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg recently stated that NATO should continue to hold routine nuclear deterrent exercises as planned, all of which show that NATO's current decision-makers are unwilling to make concessions to Russia.
Stoltenberg means that in the context of Russia's nuclear threat, if NATO cancels routine nuclear deterrent exercises, it is equivalent to conveying to Russia that NATO is "feared" and strives to avoid conflict, which will boost Russia's arrogance to threaten the West with nuclear weapon .
On the surface, this logic is not a problem. The game between big powers is often a competition of strategic will. But an important message that Stoltenberg ignored is that Russia, the nuclear power, is currently in a state of war; and NATO, at least on the surface, has not participated in the war.
It’s like A and B are always disagreeing with each other, and they usually threaten each other, but it doesn’t matter. They pay attention to one another and communicate with each other in a similar way. But now A has picked up the knife and fought with C. At this time, B still responds to A in a reciprocal way, which can easily trigger an overreaction.
To put it bluntly, Russia, which is in a state of war, is now more sensitive than the NATO countries. If NATO really doesn't want to escalate the situation, then it should stop adding fuel to the fire. When Russia and Ukraine were fighting, NATO took a knife around, saying that it was just a routine military exercise and would not be out of line. But how can the warring Russia feel at ease? "Unsense" like
is often a window for war escalation or overflow.
In addition, for nuclear war itself, in fact, only after NATO takes the initiative to give in after Russia issues a nuclear threat can Russia and the entire world feel safe. When nuclear weapons are safest, they make everyone realize that they should not be used at all.
If NATO also threatens Russia with nuclear deterrence in order to compete with Russia, then what Russia and other countries in the world feel is that nuclear weapons may not be that terrifying, and NATO will use them at any time. This wrong perception is a major harm to NATO itself and to global nuclear strategic security.
Of course, unlike the government level who is blindly tough, Europe and the United States have shown obvious calls to ease the situation and avoid war in the field of public opinion. Especially EU . Recently, with the intensification of energy crisis, EU governments have generally been under great public pressure. Against this background, some politicians and scholars have begun to stand up and publicly criticize the United States.
is not criticizing the United States for leading the EU to support Ukraine in opposition to Russia, but criticizing the United States for using the Russian-Ukrainian war to harvest the EU. The logic is also very simple. The United States said that the Western world should unite to help the Ukrainian democratic government and oppose Russia's "invasion". The slogan was proposed by the Americans themselves, but the United States did not bear the greater price for this war.
The military equipment that aided Ukraine actually actually made the American arms companies make money away. They even took advantage of the opportunity of the Russian-Ukrainian war to incite EU countries to aid Ukraine weapons. A large part of the weapons of these countries were also bought from the United States, so that the United States can sell its weapons to the European Union again.
On the contrary, the EU has borne a huge price for this. Not to mention, the expensive oil and natural gas prices are rapidly emptiing the finances of EU countries. As French President Macron said, the United States exports natural gas to the EU at a price of four times the price, which is obviously not the "price of friendship".
More and more Europeans are beginning to realize that if they continue, Russia will eventually gain territory from the four eastern Ukraine. The United States used this to disagree with the relations between Russia and Europe, and seized the energy market that originally belonged to Russia. Only the EU suffered heavy losses in the war.
Although it seems that the voices of the people calling on the EU to get rid of its dependence on the United States and easing relations with Russia cannot replace the official opinions of the United States and NATO, as this call expands, the EU gradually weakens its aid to Ukraine and eases its relations with Russia, which is almost a destiny.
