Serbian President Aleksander Vucic wonders "whether after a certain time -- maybe a month or two, even -- we will enter a great world conflict not seen since the Second World War."
He is also acutely aware of the Balkans potentially becoming a new frontline. Vladimir Putin says this is no longer a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is with the whole of NATO. Chew on that one for a while. If diplomacy cannot overcome war fever and cobble together a peace deal soon, then anything could happen. Anything.
We are witnessing the mobilization of 300,000 reservists and voting in referenda in Russian-controlled territories. Western leaders claim this as a sign of weakness, panic, and desperation. But is it? Uwe Parpart, a German military expert and Asia Times Editor, notes that in World War Two, the Germans won three times in Kharkov but the "Russians won the last one that counted."
The territorial debacle and hasty retreat from Kharkov by outnumbered Russian forces the last few weeks has made Moscow realize it cannot win a war on the cheap. The Special Military Operation (SMO) is over in all but name. But over a sixth of Ukraine remains under Russian control. They will soon be formally part of Russia following current referenda. Within weeks, regular soldiers from the Far East will man the frontlines to do battle against a resurgent, re-armed Ukrainian army.
Moscow now feels compelled to up the ante and conclude the war, one way or the other. On the cards, a NATO-style war which entails sustained, heavy bombing of civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, railway stations, etc ) across the country, followed by cataclysmic assaults westwards.
Debilitate your competitors
For all of this week Iran is commemorating a horrific conflict lasting from 1980 to 1988. A newly Islamic Republic of Iran was invaded by Iraq's rather dimwitted Saddam Hussein, then seen as a reliable (read pro-Western) dictator. Dubbed as a civilizational conflict between Arabs and Persians, this meant that the West would relish the utter defeat of anti-American forces of the new radical and theological Iranians. The second best option: a continual bleeding of both countries, weakening two of Israel's fiercest enemies.
When the undergunned Iranians unexpectedly pushed the Iraqis back towards the outskirts of Basra, the West supplied Saddam Hussein to the hilt. As the years went by, the Iranian offensive lost steam and they began to run out of spare parts.
Enter Colonel Oliver North and the Iran Contra scandal. Washington could not be seen to be supplying the Iranian regime, which had occupied the US embassy in Tehran (holding dozens of officials as prisoners) in 1980. So President Reagan's officials used third parties (rightwing Contra forces in Central America) as a clandestine conduit for transfer of military equipment to Iran. That war had to go on. Iran and Iraq had to be weakened.
So when Raytheon's missile representative in the Biden's administration blurted out that the point of the current war is "to weaken Russia" it should have come as no surprise. It makes perfect strategic sense on the part of Washington.
A view of destroyed churches in Bohorodychne village in Kramatorsk on September 13, 2022 AFPA new European civil war
As we speak, the gloves are off. This is seen as a rerun of past wars but with hypersonic missiles and advanced (Iranian and Turkish) drones. The post-Fukuyama world of a return (not end) of history is where we are at now. The core of Eurasia is talking in terms of a civilizational conflict. Russian tourists are being legally banned by countries near or on the frontline. Red lines are being continually crossed, as it were.
On several levels. Brexit was a civil war amongst a divided English elite, achieved at the cost of sabotaging its economy. The current German leadership is engaged in de-industrializing its economic base. Both inexplicable.
In a few years, we will look back and wonder why Europe did this to itself. Again. A century ago, it found itself bankrupt at the end of the First World War. It then did it all over again in World War Two. Those were part of a European Civil War from 1914 to 1945. Two superpowers (US and USSR) replaced the shattered European empires.
Twenty years ago, with the new Euro currency in play, the EU looked like it could become a dangerous competitor to the United States. Today, Washington planners must be back slapping each other in delight as they witness the self implosion of this union. In effect this is the third civil war in modern times (the second being the Cold War from 1946 to 1992).
Ukrainian artillerymen firing from a cannon along the front line at unknown location, in Ukraine on September 21, 2022 AFPWho might win?
What does winning mean anyway? Well, if the Russians were to win, then China would gain vast strategic depth and a military partner in the face of hostilities on the South China Sea. A weakened Nato facing a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), albeit under pressure on its edges. Having said that, Beijing would prefer a peace agreement "securing mutual security guarantees" and a resumption of trading ties with Europe.
If Russia retreats, China will feel very threatened by the forces that promote the politics of Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, it will still emerge as an economic superpower towering over Eurasia, just as the United States did in the early twentieth century. Russia's energy and agricultural resources are already heading east across the super-continent, whatever the outcome. China Inc is covered.
The United States has successfully halted the flow of Russian gas into the German economy. Berlin and Moscow, "frenemies" contemplating a fruitful economic alliance, are instead full-blown enemies.
The European project, already hobbled by Brexit, is now in peril, though all seem oblivious to this possibility.
Naturally, this is not the official message from West Eurasia (otherwise known as Europe). In public it proclaims eventual victory.
The United States quietly chuckles. It has seen Western Europe commit hari kari. For it, Christmas would come early if Putin really did falter in Ukraine. We shall see if that improbable event comes to pass.
As a bonus, if the war does drag on, imagine the joy of multinational weapons manufacturers. Let us reprise Arundhati Roy: "Once weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured to sell weapons."
Would you care to make a comment Mr Austin? As long as Ukraine does not collapse, the US sees immense benefits in the war continuing for years. It is a classic Machiavellian move. Or should we say textbook Mackinder?
Chinese commentators indicate they did not want this war in the first place and want it to end (but not at Russia's expense). They see their BRI routes towards Berlin and Paris regrettably blocked, perhaps permanently, Still, in Samarkand last week, China further strengthened its bonds with Russia.
Putin's new gamble, Iran's entry into the SCO and (NATO-member since 1952) Turkey's move to join them there: all this suggests the West knows the stakes and uncertainty has risen to nose bleed levels. Who knows where we will be when the ice melts next spring?
Keep an eye on this one: the severe economic and social damage to traumatized European households will lead to some very tense months as "General Winter" stalks the continent. It is too close to call regarding a popular backlash against their leaders and a call to end the war fever.
Farid Erkizia Bakht is a political analyst.
