USA victory: tactic or strategic?

USA successful victory in present European war seems un-doubtful. They obtained three main objectives until now:

  • To disconnect Russian energy and raw material sources from EU ( a policy learned from UK Victorian times strategy to separate always Germany from Russia).
  • To sell to EU its own oil and LNG produced by fracking method, and five times more expensive than Russian products.
  • To frustrate Russian great power ambitions, already attacked by Obama policy, through Ukrainian people fighting with weapon sold by USA, obtaining success after ignominious escaping from Afghanistan.

All the operations has been conducted by the most secure geopolitical platform in the world, the geographical position of USA, having fishes at East and West, friendly neighbour at North and some minor problems with South neighbour, always a warehouse of low cost manpower to regulate inflation on labour market. Russian position is much more dangerous, having OTAN at West, China at East, ISLAM at South, and fishes only at North, and frozen. After Cuba crisis of 1962, with Kruschev’s prudent policy of eliminating nuclear rockets installation under American thread, USA account on rational Russian approach to nuclear retaliation doctrine. The risk is and will be in any case high, due not only to the weapon generous supplying, more than to SSSR during IIWW, but also to the presence of OTAN personnel in Ukraine in logistics, training and information gathering. On the battle field notwithstanding this engagement of OTAN, results are not so brilliant and a deep discussion opened in Atlantic coalition about possible further escalation, being war victory more and more far and sanctions results on Russian economy quite opposite of objectives.

From another point of view, thinking in more strategic terms, this apparently successful policy seems not so clever, because:

  • China, the major hegemony competitor, obtained energy sources at 40% discount, sources not available on its territory. The same for India, playing on two tables East and West.
  • Russia could have been a key member of an Europe real partner of USA in the world, supplying big infantry to OTAN organisation as discussed until Bush presidency and G7 Italian meeting of 2007.
  • Sanctions compacted Russian people politically around Zar Putin and economically have been easily avoided through import from Asian Central States and other BRICS countries.
  • BRICS organisation has been relaunched by a common hostility to USA policies in Middle East and now in Europe, reinforcing China pacific leadership reputation.
  • Also the further fractioning of Europe and weakness of EU are not in favour of USA leadership in the long term, contrarily to American traditional confrontation with German economy.

I think that there are so many important think-tank in American universities already approaching the reality of the situation and not only the appearance and craziness of social network ignoring history if not cancelling it about woke dictatorship. Geopolitic is a sad science like Economy and has its recurrent laws: of course you can oppose to them, finding new ways, but you must carefully calculate costs and risks. The USA empire decline, as for Roman one, it’s inevitable, but to accelerate it instead of retarding the process seems a bit stupid.