Ukraine as Iphigenia on the altar of the new geopolitical settlement strategy

The following assessments emerge from the analysis of the development of the Ukrainian crisis to date:

1. The real stake for both sides is hidden behind its Iphigenization Of Ukraine.

And this is:

1. The demarcation of its areas of influence and security Russia as well as the resurgence of Russia as a third pole (USA-CHINA-RUSSIA) in the now older US monopoly world that prevailed for almost three decades.
2. The US resumption of its dominant role in Euro-Atlantic developments, which had been significantly weakened under Trump
3. Russia’s unequivocal commitment not to side with China in the coming Indo-Pacific crises.

In short, the dominant poles of the international system are redefined and their spheres of influence are delimited.

2. The EU has inevitably been involved in this first major crisis, having initially been carried away by Germany’s egocentric policy. Germany was the first to turn its back on China (in conflict with US policy) and urge the pro-German side of Ukraine to move away from embracing Russia (for its own reasons of increasing its sphere of influence and security). In this policy, it took advantage of the US desire to include more and more countries from the Russian periphery in NATO and to strengthen NATO ties with those countries that remain outside it in the Black Sea and the Transcaucasia.
3. This crisis highlights Europe ‘s major problems:

1. Which is not only its defensive completion, but above all the ability of a common political decision. In other words, the countries should decide together quickly and coherently, recognizing, co-shaping and supporting the common European interest.
2. The EU will inevitably be transformed after this crisis, both in terms of redefining at least its short-term goals, in terms of cooperation with other regional countries, new accessions, its relationship with NATO and decision-making.
3. The veto in the EU will be questioned about where and how it will apply.
4. The need for demarcation of European borders has been seen and is a golden opportunity for us to support and claim it.

4. NATO proves once again:

1. That it is completely manipulated by the USA.
2. That the countries of the European Union do not have a common political position within it, even in its crucial decisions.
3. That many European countries (mainly the Baltic and the former USSR) are taking advantage of the European common policy weakness (mentioned above) to strengthen their relations with the US within the Alliance, drafting unequivocally at will.
4. That the US sees NATO as a tool of its foreign policy (as they clearly state) and as a tool of manipulating Europe.
5. That the Secretary-General / NATO expresses its views, possibly under direct US control, but without the approval of all member states.
6. That there are European countries that have been dissatisfied (and are currently holding a wait-and-see attitude) with NATO manipulation and the arbitrary behavior of the Secretary-General / NATO.
7. That there will be countries that will veto in the event that NATO is called upon to decide to engage in war with Russia

3. After all this, the current crisis forces NATO to redefine itself, since with the current crisis it will soon review its strategy, increasing the degree of threat and rivalry with Russia on its agenda and consequently its defense structure and allocation of resources.

4. Thus, when the Ukrainian crisis is over (without this meaning that a significant degree of tension will not be maintained, which can be re-ignited by the actors), the US is essentially under the pretext of the new NATO strategy that will emerge, attempt the following:

1. Reduce the tendency of the EU to defend its autonomy and increase NATO’s role as Supervisor in Europe.
2. They oblige the EU and the EU countries to maintain rivalry with Russia, preventing a strategic EU-Russia relationship, which would create a tendency for EU autonomy (political, defense, energy, economic), and a source of serious questioning of American power in all the levels.
3. NATO’s veto on all issues will be challenged, US will try to make selective / sliding changes with ambiguous interpretations to overcome reactions, and to promote the logic of willing participation in decisions that would not be supported by all member countries.
4. The US is trying to curb the EU at the same time so that it can not independently play its own global role as a fourth pole. He is trying to become an actor and follower of the USA with a vehicle of the Alliance (a kind of bandwagoning). That’s why Macron’s peace initiatives were essentially undermined by the US (although they had agreed to them) in order to weakly weaken Macron, as a leader in support of EU autonomy, but also of any country’s desire to strengthen an independent European voice.

5. And when all this gets into the emerging puzzle, the goal of both the US and Russia will be:

1. To have demarcated the relations and zones of influence between them.
2. The United States should have committed Europe under its Commander-in-Chief (NATO), to strengthen NATO defense structures by increasing Europe’s participation in resource availability. Also increase the US / NATO presence in EU areas of the former Eastern bloc.

Our country and Turkey each have a special role in the new American strategy. Greece has accepted him.

Turkey is ambushing, trying not to damage its relationship with Russia and increase US exchanges for it.

3. To limit the EU’s tendency towards autonomous policy and force it to align with US geopolitical aspirations (countries’ ambition for EU defense autonomy is weakening).
4. To prevent the EU and its countries from establishing closer relations with Russia,
5. Then the US can turn its attention to the Indochina region, having on its side valuable European alliances, mainly France, Spain and Great Britain, and agreeing with Germany.

And certainly on February 16 there will be NO Russian invasion of Ukraine, as it is widely argued.