Many think Putin away war away, well these are ignoramuses!

 Again and again it is cheaply announced in regulars' table discussions that only Putin has to "go", then the lateral relations would stabilize again of their own accord and the war would be over. However, this is pure wishful thinking, which probably cannot be surpassed in terms of naivety and political ignorance. First of all, it must be assumed that Vladimir Putin is not an ultra-national hardliner, even if the Western media would have us believe it. Unlike many sections of the Muscovite clique in the Kremlin, he acts calculatingly and, to a large extent at least, follows logic. This applies to the invasion of Ukraine as well as to the associated goals, namely the establishment of a geostrategic security zone under Russian influence, combined with preventing further NATO expansion in Central Europe. One could have guessed at the geostrategic move of the war in Ukraine if one had listened to Putin's words at the 43rd Munich Security Conference in 2007. Perhaps this was done by the American side, and they accepted that war in the heart of Europe in their own interests.

For me, and I attach particular importance to this, it is by no means about justifying a war, no matter who initiates it. But every country has security interests - and at least since the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine and massive arms deliveries from the US side, it was clear that Moscow would have to react in some way - especially since Ukraine has done everything possible to tighten it up contribute to the conflict. After all, from 2014 onwards, the Ukrainian eastern territories were systematically under fire from both sides - in violation of Minsk II on both sides. The US covert intervention, which went down in the history books under the name "Euromaidan", was preceded by Yanukovych's rejection of the association agreement with the EU, which would also have gone hand in hand with the establishment of a common, EU- and thus NATO-centric security architecture. It is logical that Russia could not accept this under any circumstances. Additional provocations in the form of military maneuvers and constant flanking of the EU's external border by AWACS reconnaissance aircraft, as well as the stationing of an outdated anti-missile shield in north-eastern Poland, also deliberately contributed to the digging of diplomatic trenches. The establishment of a viable European security architecture, detached from the USA and characterized by cooperation with Russia, had failed since Munich at the latest, even though Putin had made repeated offers of cooperation in this regard. But back to the persona of Putin himself. Ever since his second term in office at the latest, he has been under pressure to the extent that the national military in particular felt threatened by US imperialism and offended as a great power. Many of them wished for an even tougher stance against the hated West, whose only interest in their eyes was and still is to stay on course with America. So if Putin were to disappear, one would first have to anticipate a dangerously unstable power vacuum from which a much more radical wing could, and probably would, emerge. Because in the Kremlin there are a large number of camps, quite a few of which are determined by an orthodox nationalist agenda. It is therefore very difficult to name a potential Putin successor. I still want to try. Lavrow could serve as an interim solution, who would score points because of his years of experience in the Russian people on the one hand, but also because of his good network. On the other hand, Medvedev has already proven himself in the presidency, but is even more dependent on a "leading hand", which would undoubtedly play into the hands of the military. But one might also have to consider more radical names such as that of the Chechen fighter Kadyrov, as well as the name Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is not only worth billions but is also the head of the powerful Wagner squad. Prigozhin stayed in the background for a while. Another candidate could be former Deputy Prime Minister and current Moscow Mayor Sergei Semyonovich Sobyanin. All in all, it remains reading in the coffee grounds. However, linking the condition of peace in Ukraine to the disappearance of Putin also neglects the fact that the interests of a war in Ukraine lie not only with Russia, but also with the United States. We must not forget that the US is killing two birds with one stone with a military standoff on Europe's eastern flank. So they take advantage of the resulting opportunity; expensive and dirty frackin ggas, on the other hand they benefit from stagflation (sensu Hans-Werner Sinn), i.e. the stagnating commodity chains coupled with high demand and a high rate of inflation. While the USA is benefiting from the Ukraine war with a substantial economic plus, Europe's attractiveness as a trading and living area is being permanently weakened, and not only the USA, but also Russia are shifting their geopolitical focus. Because for the Russians, China is becoming more and more attractive as a reliable trading partner, precisely because projects such as the "New Silk Road" promise additional profit potential. Nevertheless, the Russians have lost a reliable trading partner with Europe – probably for decades – but at the same time an important diplomatic partnership that bore fruit in the post-war years. So while Russia tries to compensate for its losses as much as possible, the USA can feel certain that they have given the Russians in Ukraine their second Afghanistan - although unfortunately Putin, and therein lies his cardinal error, got involved in this war in the first place. The real losers in this war are, of course, first and foremost its countless victims - on the Ukrainian side, but also on the Russian side. What we all need is not a double-moral policy of transatlantic vassals who don't give a damn about the interests of either the Ukrainians or the Europeans. Its morality is in fact double-dealing, as it measures the quality of warlike interventions around the world by various standards. And that's the drama: In all these years they haven't understood how to make policies in the interests of the people, they are driven by a pseudo-moral sense of mission instead of noble interests, industry spokesman for US imperialism. What must now be avoided at all costs is pushing Russia into a kind of national protectionism. France, for example, provides ways of how this can succeed despite an EU-legitimized sanctions policy, which by no means renounces the supply of Russian uranium for its nuclear power plants. We must never forget that Russia is an equally important trading partner for us and that its concerns and interests affect us in a direct way, since they are close to our hearts, both geographically and historically.