In the year since Russia launched its “special military operation” in Ukraine, the international arena has become more complex—and more dangerous.
Despite the combined might of the West, led by the formidable NATO alliance, Russia has managed to capture and hold broad swathes of territory.
Europe, meanwhile, has had to contend with a severe energy crisis, especially after last year’s destruction of strategic gas pipelines by mysterious forces.
As the West doubles down on its support for Kyiv, fears of widening conflict—and even nuclear war—have mounted, with no sign of a peaceful solution in sight.
Pipeline Sabotage: ‘No Red Lines’
As the conflict enters its second year, it remains unknown—to the general public at least—who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, which had brought badly needed Russian gas to northern Europe.Last September, the pipelines were breached in Swedish and Danish waters, leading to wide-ranging energy shortfalls and concomitant inflationary pressures.
The Swedish and Danish governments swiftly concluded that the breach was an act of sabotage. However, investigations were abruptly halted because of official concerns over “national security.”
Moscow, for its part, deemed the breach a “terrorist act,” claiming to have evidence of British complicity in the attack.
Ever since, the Western press has largely ignored the question of who stood behind the costliest act of sabotage in history.
“How can a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project, which had ensured Europe’s energy security, be destroyed—and European capitals say nothing about it?” was the question political analyst Stanislav Pritchin repeated to The Epoch Times.
Earlier in February, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh published a report on Substack suggesting U.S. responsibility for the incident.
Citing an anonymous source, Hersh claimed that the Biden administration had planned the attack before Russia invaded Ukraine one year ago.
When asked about the explosive claims, a U.S. National Security Council spokesman called Hersh’s report “completely false.”
While Moscow has since called for an investigation into the allegations, Western capitals have played down—or completely ignored—the issue.
Pritchin, a senior research fellow at Russia’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations, said that “only a handful of states” could have carried out the attack.
“The United States remains the most likely candidate,” he said. “Hersh’s article appears to support this theory.”
For Moscow, the demolition of the Nord Stream pipeline—and the tepid response by Western capitals—was a signal that “there aren’t any rules,” according to Pritchin.
“It means nothing is off the table,” he said. “There are no longer any red lines.”
Transnistria: ‘Dangerous Escalation’
The war’s first anniversary is also accompanied by mounting fears of widening conflict in Europe. This includes a potential “second front” in Moldova, which neighbors Ukraine to the southwest.On Feb. 23, Moscow claimed that Kyiv was planning an attack on Moldova’s eastern, Russian-administered Transnistria region.
The tiny region broke with Moldova in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, it has been administered by Russia and remains home to an estimated 1,000 Russian troops.
A slim enclave along Moldova’s easternmost flank, Transnistria shares a roughly 280-mile-long border with Ukraine.
Moscow claimed that Kyiv was planning a “false-flag” attack on Ukrainian territory—which they said Ukraine intends to use as a pretext to attack Russian troops in Transnistria.
The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement stressing its readiness to respond “to the impending provocation.”
Moldova’s pro-Western government denied the allegation, promising to “promptly inform” the public “in the event of threats to the country.”
Earlier in the month, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, who hopes to bring her country into the EU and NATO, accused Russia of planning to foment a coup with the aim of toppling her government.
Sandu didn’t provide any evidence for the claim, which was reportedly based on intelligence provided by Ukraine’s security services.
According to Pritchin, Transnistria has recently come to the fore because Kyiv and its Western allies “are looking for weak points.”
“Transnistria is geographically isolated from Russia,” he said. “And because of their relatively small number, Russian forces deployed in the region may be seen as an easy target.”
Pritchin believes that any attempt to open a “second front” in Moldova or Transnistria would pose a serious risk to European security.
“It would be an extremely dangerous escalation,” he said, “because Russia would have no choice but to respond.”
Nuke Talks: ‘No Hope for Negotiations’
Russia’s year-long war with Ukraine—and, by extension, the collective West—has also stoked fears of nuclear conflict.On Feb. 23, Moscow suspended participation in the New START nuclear treaty with the United States, which had sought to limit both countries’ nuclear arsenals.
U.S. officials denounced the move, while the Western press—in typical fashion—accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of engaging in “nuclear brinkmanship.”
One month earlier, Washington accused Moscow of violating the treaty’s terms by refusing to allow inspections of its nuclear weapons facilities.
Putin responded by noting that both the United States and NATO had described Russia’s defeat in Ukraine as a “strategic objective.”
“And they think we’ll let them inspect our nuclear-weapons facilities?” he asked, describing the Western demand as “absurd.”
Putin went on to assert that NATO allies were “actively helping” Kyiv target Russian airbases that host nuclear-capable long-range bombers.
According to Pritchin, Putin’s decision to suspend the nuclear treaty shows that Moscow has “lost any hope for engaging in meaningful talks with the West.”
In late 2021, Moscow tried to secure a pledge from the United States and NATO that Ukraine wouldn’t accede to the Western alliance. It also sought reassurances that NATO would refrain from conducting military activity on Ukrainian territory.
But according to Pritchin, the Russian proposals were “completely ignored by the Western political establishment.”
“Since then,” he said, “Moscow has felt there are no effective means of interacting, cooperating—or even holding dialogue—with the West.”
“This is especially the case with the United States,” he added, “which has unconditionally supported Kyiv with money, arms, and political backing.”
Moscow: The War Began in 2014
As Western observers mark the war’s first anniversary, it’s worth noting that, from Moscow’s perspective, the conflict with Kyiv began in 2014.That year saw the outbreak of Ukraine’s “Maidan Revolution,” a Washington-backed uprising that swept the country’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, from power.
Yanukovych was swiftly replaced by the Western-friendly Petro Poroshenko, who began the process of bringing Ukraine into the EU.
The abrupt transition of power, which Moscow viewed as a “coup,” led to a popular uprising in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.
The Russian-speaking Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Luhansk, shares historical and cultural links with Russia.
According to Russian and pro-Russian Ukrainian sources, Kyiv’s new pro-Western government responded to the uprising in eastern Ukraine by indiscriminately shelling the Donbas region.
With the ostensible aim of reaching a ceasefire between the warring sides, the Minsk protocol—brokered by France and Germany—was signed in late 2014.
Last December, however, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk protocol was merely intended to “give Kyiv time” to arm itself before an anticipated clash with Russia.
“For the Western political establishment, the Minsk talks were nothing more than an instrument to further their geopolitical objectives,” Pritchin said.
He went on to describe the West’s unbridled support for Kyiv as “a strategic mistake” that had served to throw Russia into the arms of China.
“Russia–China ties are now set to become increasingly important,” Pritchin concluded, “because there doesn’t appear to be any chance for constructive relations with the West.”
