Gradually, in small stages, there is an escalation
Photo: REUTERS
Russian political scientist Americanist Kirill Benediktov, on the air on Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda, commented on the possible supply of US long-range systems to Ukraine that could hit Russian territory.
– The Western press writes that the White House is considering the possibility of supplying Ukraine with missiles with a range of up to 150 kilometers. But they constantly said that we would not allow an escalation, that we would not transfer such ammunition with such a range, and here you are … Will they accept it or not?
– They will, because it is a continuation of the “frog in milk” strategy. Well, you know how to boil a frog, right? The frog should be cooked gradually. Do not immediately throw it into boiling water, but gradually increase the degree. The same strategy is also called “salami” in the West, because the problem is solved by cutting it into small, thin pieces. Gradually, in small stages, there is an escalation. It goes so slowly that it provokes nothing more than routine declarations about crossing red lines, which are generally not followed by any real response from our country. Strictly speaking, this is the entire calculation. If they had immediately put some long-range shells capable of hitting targets on Russian territory, naturally, this would have caused much more outrage. So when fighter delivery starts in a month or two, this will also fall under this strategy.
– We like to say that now Biden will leave, Trump will come, and in general it will be easier for Russia to negotiate with the Republicans than with Biden… Should we wait for Trump? And will we have something to talk about with him?
– I, as a big fan of Trump, hope that we can still wait for Trump in 2024, although it is clear that all forces will be thrown against him. It’s understandable why he didn’t work out in 2016, because no one took him seriously. If we now look back, then there and with Ukraine we somehow more or less danced, and in general everything was somehow calmer. Regarding the negotiability of the Republicans, there are two points. First, Republicans generally see China as the biggest threat to America’s national security. Therefore, all these forecasts by US generals that there will be a break with China in 2025 are forecasts made on the basis that a Republican president will arrive in 2024.
And the second. Since the early 1990s, our elite have very well established ties to the democratic establishment. Therefore, as it were, the influence of the democratic administration on this conditional fifth column has always been stronger. The Republicans simply did not have such channels, they were not built, so you can talk to the Republicans more or less “on garlic.”
– And what does the United States really want in Ukraine? Do you want all this to drag on, so that the “frog” warms up endlessly? Only to have Russia dragged up and stuck there while the US deals with China?
– There are two aspects. First. Of course, the presence of such a Ukraine, even with a minuscule letter, probably, in the soft belly of Russia is such a poisoned knife or dagger that it will constantly stick into our side and constantly poison us with poison; this, of course, is great for America. But there is also a second. If the scenario of the maximum weakening of Russia works, who will benefit from it? The United States will not win, China will win. Why does the US need to make China so strong? In short, the main objective of the United States is to maintain its hegemony during a historically predictable period. I don’t know, it’s 100 years, relatively speaking, yes. This means that in order to maintain its hegemony it is necessary to drown out the rivals. Now there are three opponents, but in general, it is actually two. This is China, this is Russia, and this is the European Union. In general, one could say, they have already worked out the European Union.
