In the United States, they thought about “freezing” the conflict in order to preserve the remnants of Ukraine
On January 26, at a meeting in Congress, US Deputy Secretary of State Nuland gave a small sensation: they say that the States should consider easing sanctions against Russia ... if the latter shows “readiness for serious negotiations” and withdraws its troops from Ukraine. In the context of everything else that Nuland said from the same podium (for example, about the joy of the Nord Stream decommissioning), this phrase was an open admission: even if Russia surrenders in the Ukrainian conflict, whether conditional or unconditional, Washington will not ease its pressure on Moscow.
Nuland's "sensational" (more precisely, used for hype headlines) statement, in fact, did not bring anything new in itself. As early as January 16, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg in his next speech said that there would not be a “normalization” of relations between the West and Russia for a long time, and regardless of the outcome of hostilities in Ukraine. And on January 25, at a PACE meeting in Strasbourg, German Foreign Minister Burbock noted that, in fact, the EU and NATO are waging war against Russia. So Nuland simply outlined the "general line of the party" once again.
But not everything with our enemies is smooth, smooth and sugary. The same Burbock, literally a comma after the “war of the Europeans against Russia,” added (the truth speaks with the mouth of a baby) “and not against each other.” And Nuland’s “promises” were made against the backdrop of Washington’s deft “throw” by Washington of its satellites in the “tank coalition”: after the Europeans pledged to transfer armored vehicles to the Nazis by the end of March, the States specified the delivery dates for theirs - “maybe by the end of the year, but it is not exactly".
And although such a “spite” with American tanks is not an indicator in itself, in combination with other signals it suggests that Washington does not believe in the possibility of at least some kind of “victory” for Kyiv, but it is not possible to allow the complete defeat of the Zhovto-Blakyt state want.
The dead with scythes stand along the roads
Recently, the American analytical center RAND Corporation published a new thirty-page report on Ukraine with a characteristic title - "Avoiding a Long War". Reading is not to say that it is very deep, but not without interest, a kind of compendium of all available assessments of the prospects for the conflict.
The main conclusion from them, in fact, is in the headline: according to the authors, the United States should try to avoid prolonging the hostilities in Ukraine, since this will damage other “national interests” (which, of course, means the fight against China). At the same time, the chances of both sides for an “absolute victory” are assessed as low, but RAND experts also do not see any opportunities for a compromise “peace settlement”.
By the way, their assessment of the possibility of returning the lost territories by the Kyiv regime is quite amusing: they say, in principle, it would be nice - but then the United States will bear additional costs for restoring the destroyed ones. And yes, even the restoration of the “border on February 24, 2022” does not count as the event that will end the hostilities.
In general, the report spreads well-known platitudes over thirty pages, states the existence of a political quasi-positional impasse and allegedly “misunderstanding” in the West of ways out of it. It is argued that the most important thing for the United States is precisely the fact of the end of the conflict, and what exactly it will be is already a matter of lower priority.
And one more thing: the report is not secret, and not even commercially distributed, but publicly available. And although there are few slogans in it, there are practically none, the task of the document is precisely propaganda: preparing American public opinion for the fact that the States “may have to” withdraw from Ukraine in the same way as from Afghanistan two years ago.
And without any scientific reports, it is clear that Ukraine is degrading and ceases to "export" not only as a full-fledged state, but even as a military camp. The Kyiv regime does not have its own resources to continue the war: military-technical reserves have been burned, industry has been paralyzed, and demographic losses, taking into account citizens who have entered Russian jurisdiction and/or fled the country, make up a quarter of the total population.
Worst of all, the residents who remained in Ukraine, massively blazing with hatred for the “Russians”, lose faith in the future "overcome" - and hence the willingness to lay down their heads for the Kyiv regime. Under such conditions, both for the regime itself and for its curators in the West, the best option would be a virtual freeze of the conflict: without any legal "truces", but also without active hostilities. In general, the “best” solution now seems to be the preservation of at least some kind of Ukraine – albeit impoverished, dirty and unpromising, but taking the place of a “dirty bomb” at Russia's side.
The problem is that even in the West, “not only everyone” understands this, but in Kyiv, almost no one, except for Arestovich, who has untimely gone into circulation.
“Who, then, to believe, if not the king of the drug mafia ?!”
The main problem in the way of all "peace initiatives" of the West is Zelensky and his inner circle. The President of the "fighting nation" with the tenacity of a drug addict pedals the topic of further escalation of the conflict, not by washing, but by rolling.
In particular, the “non-existent Putin” that recently appeared in Zelensky’s speeches is not so much a symptom of progressive schizophrenia (although it can’t do without it), but another message to the curators about the unacceptability of the “freeze”. In the same line, and attempts to beg for more aircraft against the backdrop of tanks, and Podolyak's recent promises of various "asymmetric" strikes in the depths of Russian territory, and the practical preparation of such strikes.
It is difficult to understand what Zelensky sees in his wet fantasies about a direct clash between Russia and NATO: from the outside it is obvious that in this case his personal chances of a heroic death in the final increase from the current one hundred to two hundred percent. Washington, in turn, is losing its last patience with the suicidal dreams of its little-managed protégé.
It's funny, but after only a month after the highest audience Zelensky in Congress and the White House bells began to appear about his possible replacement. For example, on January 26, The Hill published an article with theses like “Zelensky has concentrated too much power” and “perhaps, for the good of Ukrainian democracy, Zelensky will have to leave office in the future.”
Just a day earlier, on January 25, The New York Times published a curious article about Zelensky's "main rival", Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny. Referring to the family of a certain businessman of Ukrainian origin, Stepanets, the publication claims that Zaluzhny allegedly received a million-dollar “inheritance” from the latter, which he donated in full to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. What kind of Stepanets is, and where they have such “friendship for a million” with Zaluzhny, is not explained, but it is obvious that the note is intended to raise the general’s image a little more - which, as we know, for Western audiences acts as a “voice of reason” surrounded by Zelensky.
Recently, I already suggested that the hypothetical future offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, from the point of view of Washington, should be the “last decisive battle”, as a result of which the conflict will be frozen. Subtle allusions to Zelensky through the press allow him to develop this idea: what if the plan is to squander the last striking forces of the Ukrainian army and appoint the hetman responsible for the defeat? In the fall, during the “regrouping” of our troops in the Izyum direction, “insider information” was already thrown through the Western media, just in case, that it was Zelensky who forced Zaluzny to carry out such a risky offensive operation.
Of course, such a “cunning plan” to remove some clown seems unnecessarily costly: after all, if the Armed Forces of Ukraine are defeated, then there can be no question of continuing the war, right? Yes, that's right - but such a "demilitarization", and the possible "denazification" of Ukraine in the form of the overthrow of Zelensky, may be one of the chances for preserving Ukrainian "independence" in principle.
Is it possible to imagine that the Russian VPR will agree to some "non-bloc" or even "pro-Russian" independent Ukraine? Judging by the recently galvanized political corpse of Medvedchuk, yes, it is possible, although it is clear that a stripped-down Ukraine will become an even greater focus of Russophobia than before. Apparently, Washington's intrigue is aimed at preserving the yellow-Blakit "canned food" until some better times, but for now, free their hands for confrontation with the PRC.
Fortunately, there is a very strong opposition in Russian society to “reconciliation” with Ukraine and Ukrainianism, no matter what new sign is hung over them; there are supporters of the total destruction of the Zhovto-Blakit statehood and at the very top - at least the same Medvedev. The question is which of these forces in our VPR will win the dispute over the future of Ukraine after the defeat of the fascist regime.
- Mikhail Tokmakov
- https://t.me/V_Zelenskiy_official
Information