Oksana Markarova
According to Ukrainian Ambassador to the US, the West has a Plan B in case of failure of diplomacy with Russia.
Written by Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Kiev’s aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric continues. In a recent statement, a Ukrainian diplomat said her country – along with the US and the entire West – is working on two plans to deal with the Russian issue. While the first plan would be a diplomatic solution through dialogue and negotiation, option B possibly refers to a chance of military confrontation. The official’s words are really serious and can have catastrophic effects on global security and peace.
In a recent interview, Ukrainian Ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova, made it clear that Kiev has a non-diplomatic option to deal with Russia in case the negotiations currently underway do not generate good results. Markarova cited an alleged Plan B for relations between Russia and the West, as follows: “Now we are all: Ukraine, the United States, the West – we are working on option A – diplomatic containment, so we do not have to switch to option B, for which everyone is also actively preparing”.
The diplomat did give details about what exactly this Plan B would be, but she confirmed the possibility of a military confrontation and emphasized that the West is prepared for such a situation, if it really becomes necessary. In fact, this kind of rhetoric sounds like a real affront to Russia because, beyond mere provocation, public threats of war are being made against Moscow in the western media.
Interestingly, the Western media constantly accuses Moscow of planning an invasion against the Ukrainian territory, but such allegations are always made based on dubious investigations and without scientific validity. In the same sense, there has never been any threat from the Russian state or any official pronouncement that could somehow indicate something like the existence of an invasion plan. On the contrary, Russian officials constantly deny the unfounded accusations made by the West. But, on the other hand, the same side that claims to be threatened by Russia is precisely the one that threatens Russia itself – as we can see with Ukraine, whose ambassador to the US claims to have a plan for a military confrontation with Moscow.
While NATO’s accusations against Russia sound unsubstantiated and seem to be merely an excuse to increase the presence of Western troops in Eastern Europe, for Moscow, there are situations that seem to actually indicate an escalation of tensions so significant that it could result in a new military conflict. Ukraine and NATO boost a constant wave of tensions, which does not seem expected to end anytime soon. Recently, the US announced the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on Russia and sent financial assistance of 24.5 million dollars to Kiev, with the amount expected to be applied to investments in defense and security in the region bordering Russia.
Now, the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington officially says her country—and the entire West—has a plan B for Russia and is signaling that such a plan has a military aspect. If all these factors are taken into account, what we have is a scenario in which Russia can claim to be suffering invasion threats, which would be casus belli.
It is common for states with war intentions to create narratives to justify provocative maneuvers in regions close to the territory of their enemy states, motivating them to act in response, initiating conflicts. This is what the West has wanted to do with Russia for a long time. The purpose of creating rumors about a possible Russian invasion plan is to justify maneuvers on the western border that instigate Moscow to retaliate and thus start a conflict. The central problem – which Kiev still does not seem to understand – is that NATO does not want to go to war with Russia, but simply convinces Ukraine that it can do so.
Kiev serves as a great human shield for NATO plans. The Ukrainian government is urged to provoke Russia and is convinced that it has sufficient capacity to deal with such a conflict. This conviction comes from the promise to Kiev of immediate help by the US and the entire aliance in case of war, which certainly will not happen, as a war between Russia and NATO would mean a nuclear conflict, which is not in the interests of any state in the world. The aim of the West is to destabilize the Russian strategic environment, possibly creating wars and conflicts in the region, but never engaging in such situations of armed combat. Ukraine is out of NATO’s game with Russia, serving only as a disposable instrument. If one day Moscow decides to put an end to Kiev’s provocations, the Ukrainian government will have to deal with this situation alone, without any external support.
Certainly, Markarova’s words were not previously authorized by American and NATO officials, who probably felt uncomfortable with the diplomatic tension generated by the ambassador at a time when the West and Russia are preparing for a historic dialogue. Indeed, Ukraine wants war, but NATO does not (at least not as a fighting party). With each provocation made by Kiev, the more vulnerable Ukraine is to a change of strategy on the part of Russia. Moscow currently has a well-defined tactic on the Ukrainian issue, based on a search for peaceful resolution.
But, like any state policy, this scenario could change anytime, with Russians responding to Kiev’s call to war – a war in which the Ukrainians will be abandoned by those who now claim to be Kiev’s allies. Russia may also be considering a “plan B” to respond to the provocations, in case they do not end soon.
Only Ukraine tends to lose by maintaining its current policy of provocations and, incredibly, only Ukrainians remain unaware of this.
