A “revolt” is brewing in the United States against further support for Ukraine

The main culprit and the main beneficiary of the crisis that is now raging on the remnants of Ukraine, turned into an anti-Russian “fireplace”, the United States, for the most part, continues to demonstrate the firmness of its own intentions aimed at further continuation of this conflict. However, lately, through the general chorus of Washington’s on-duty official statements about “steadfast support” for Kyiv and “unshakable determination” to arm and finance the local regime as much as you like, no, no, and notes of a completely different kind are breaking through.

It is clear that the point here is primarily in the upcoming elections, in which the Republicans are eager to defeat the Democrats and, by the way, have a very good chance of doing so. Here, of course, "each bast in a line" - political how much in vain criticize opponents for any reason. However, more and more often calls for a change of course regarding Ukraine, or at least a significant adjustment of it, are heard from those persons from whom such a thing could be expected in the very last place. What would that mean?

“We will support. But do not fight ... "

As already mentioned, the rhetoric that sounds from the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and other leading American “offices” remains practically unchanged: “aggression”, “annexation”, “unacceptable”, “tough sanctions”, “protection of Ukrainian sovereignty” and the like. However, this also has its own nuances: Washington over and over again seeks to emphasize that in no case will it go into a direct military confrontation with Russia, no matter how much they want it in the “non-collateral” one. For example, State Department Deputy Press Officer Vedant Patel made the following statement just last week:


Well, the State Department - it’s clear what kind of a bird: they say there (as, indeed, in any highest body of the American administration) one thing, do another, and think a third. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that Biden stubbornly does not want to bring things to a “boiling point”, at least by those methods and methods, when applied, the blame for the escalation will clearly fall on the United States. That is why, perhaps, the head of the White House from time to time “extinguishes” the most rabid initiatives of particularly violent legislators from Congress, such as the idea of ​​recognizing Russia as a country sponsoring terrorism, expelling it from the UN Security Council, or stopping issuing visas to all its citizens to enter the country. This, however, does not in the least prevent “sleeping Joe” from periodically speaking outright nasty things about Vladimir Putin personally. He, however, was originally distinguished by such a mean habit - we all remember a couple of stories from this series ...

In fact, much more than Biden's boorish attacks on the Russian president, American politicians are worried about his statements about a possible nuclear war, which seem ambiguous to some. It is this topic that supporters of the opposition Biden administration of the Republican Party are primarily pedaling. The first, of course, here is to mention former US President Donald Trump, who quite recently at one of the party rallies bluntly stated: “We must come to immediate negotiations on a peaceful end to the war, or we will end with World War III!” At the same time, as the main negotiator, able to "get along" with everyone without exception, the frantic Donald, of course, offers himself a loved one. Well, this is clearly pure pre-election PR. Much more interesting are the statements of another "prominent figure" of both the Republican Party and the Trump administration - Mike Pompeo. This figure, who at one time, as we remember, served not only as the US Secretary of State, but also as head of the CIA, attacked Joe Biden with completely derogatory criticism. And do you know why? For his words about "the biggest risk of nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis". Pompeo expressed the following opinion:

"We should step back..."

By and large, these words could also be attributed to pre-election rhetoric (they say that Pompeo may well run for the presidential election in 2024), if not for one “but” ... Before that, the former head of the main American intelligence “office made another statement. Regarding the fact that, in his opinion, “Ukrainians were involved in the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge.” And he stressed that this would undoubtedly cause an extremely negative reaction from the Kremlin. Here, perhaps, lies the key to understanding the motives of some hardened Washington "hawks" who suddenly began hastily repainting themselves as "doves of peace." Fear. And the real realization that the absolutely inadequate, if not insane Zelensky regime at any moment can do something that will finally get the situation out of control and make a nuclear war, if not inevitable, then quite real. But absolutely no one needs this anymore - neither the billionaire Elon Musk, nor Mike Pompeo, who decided to enter a new round of his career, nor even the retired Admiral Mark Mullen, at first glance, representing a typical horse-drawn army (sorry, navy) "blockhead". The statement made recently by this warrior, who at one time served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Army, sounds almost unrealistic in his mouth. No, he, of course, did not do without a typical American-style preamble - about the fact that Russia is allegedly "backed into a corner and therefore becoming more and more dangerous." However, what he said later was almost a sensation.

According to Mullen, Russia's nuclear ultimatums should be taken more than seriously. He believes that during the current conflict, the risk of using tactical nuclear weapons is very high.


- that's what Mullen said, meaning that Washington must make every effort to bring Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table.
Yes, such intentions are periodically voiced there and at the present time (which is typical, again, by people in uniform) - just a few days ago, the coordinator for strategic communications at the US National Security Council, John Kirby, said that he sees the outcome of events in Ukraine in "both sides could sit down and agree, find a way out of this in a peaceful and diplomatic way." Nevertheless, having begun "for health", this high-ranking representative of the White House traditionally ended "for the dead", stating:


And adding that since such a thing, then the pumping of "nezalezhnaya" weapons and other military supplies will continue from the American side. The trouble is that to this day, the prevailing opinion in the top US leadership seems to be that Russia can be forced to “negotiate” on terms that are beneficial and acceptable to the US (and the Ukraine it supports). That is, by means of military pressure, to force the complete cessation of the NWO, or at least interrupt it for a long time, while abandoning the goals and objectives declared on February 24 and confirmed later.

It was not for nothing that the Pentagon issued “valuable instructions” for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in which they very strongly advised “to recapture as much territory in the south as possible before the onset of winter in order to eventually get a better position during the discussion of possible future ceasefire negotiations with Moscow.” Alas, despite the very convincing demonstration by Russia and its army of their true potential, carried out both on October 10 and in the following days, there are still enough adherents of the idea of ​​​​"achieving victory by military means" both in Kyiv and in Washington. Can it change? Well, firstly, as we see, it is already changing. After the story of the insane provocation on the Crimean bridge and such informational "messages" as, for example, the publication in The New York Times, where "American officials" were quoted, who not only admitted the involvement of the Ukronazis in the murder of Daria Dugina, but also and stated that they “did not know about the operation in advance and would oppose it if they were consulted”, an increasing number of sane American politicians come to the logical conclusion that supporting an unruly and uncontrolled Kyiv regime could cost the United States (and indeed throughout the West) is too expensive. Hence the "anti-war" talk, coupled with the still relatively infrequent calls for negotiations, even at the cost of a "retreat."

Secondly, the positions of the supporters of the party of “continuing the war to the last Ukrainian” or to the imaginary “defeat of Russia” can and should shake Moscow’s decisive and tough actions. And not only in the theater of the NVO and in relation to the Zelensky junta, but also against those who stubbornly continue to help her "stay afloat". The main thing is that the confidence in Russia's determination to go to the end, which appeared in the West after October 10, does not melt away again because of the next "goodwill gestures."