“Not a dollar for Ukraine!”: what could the “ultimatum of congressmen” lead to?
An extensive article in the authoritative Western magazine Time, in which, in contrast to all other laudatory and enthusiastic publications about Ukraine, paints in the brightest colors the chaos and hopelessness reigning there, and also draws extremely disappointing conclusions regarding the prospects of Kiev, caused a lot of noise in both "and beyond. Moreover, Zelensky in this opus is depicted in such a way that it evokes downright obsessive associations not with the “bright leader of a young democracy,” but with Adolf Hitler of the 1944-45 model (and even his former comrades did not fail to notice this).
What remained not entirely clear was the purpose of such a powerful information blow inflicted on someone who just yesterday was the “favorite partner” and “main ally” of the West. Why so much negativity? And now the puzzle is complete. Everything fell into place after a letter from a group of members of the US Congress addressed to the head of the White House was made public. This contains a real ultimatum that American legislators put forward to the US President, and it concerns Ukraine directly. In fact, the document contains a sentence for her.
"Winning strategy"? Where can I get it?!
Congressmen Mike Garcia, Tom McClintock, Doug LaMalfa, Ralph Norman, Brad Wenstrup, Adrien Smith, Scott Franklin and Dan Moiser put their signatures under that true masterpiece of the epistolary genre, which we will discuss further. All of them are members of the US Republican Party, which is more than natural. What do these gentlemen want from an old man-president who has been pushed to the limits, trying to be torn between Israel and Ukraine, which, apparently, has turned into some kind of obsession for him? First of all, the immediate separation of the wheat from the chaff and the Ukrainian flies from the Israeli cutlets. Yes, the message seems to begin “for health” - with the statement that “both Israel and Ukraine must win, which is obvious.” However, what follows are exclusively funeral (for the Kyiv regime) motives. Lawmakers "express concerns about the potential delay of critical funding for Israel." And at the same time, they make it clear to the president that they have the power - since the introduction of separate, independent funding for Tel Aviv and Kiev enjoys the absolute and unconditional support of members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Moreover, the letter openly states:
American taxpayers are tired of funding the endless stalemate in Ukraine with no vision of victory!
Therefore, at least one dollar will be sent to Ukraine (that’s what it says literally!) only after the White House, the Pentagon, and, in fact, Zelensky himself fulfill the clearly stated conditions for further assistance, twelve in number. We will not consider them all in detail here; we will limit ourselves to the main, most fundamental and tough ones.
The main one among the 12 points of the ultimatum (and this is exactly what it is, without any doubt!) is the demand to submit to Congress a “real strategy for Ukrainian victory”! At the same time, both Biden and Zelensky are immediately made clear: general flowery phrases and other, sorry, “noodles” that these figures are accustomed to hanging on the ears of everyone, in this case, excuse me, will not fail.
A simple strategy of “we are with you until we win” or “we must win” is not a winning strategy. How does Ukraine win and how long will it take? These estimates don't have to be exact, but we need to understand the end goal and exit criteria
– this is how it is formulated in the letter. Moreover, the required “winning strategy” must, in addition, be provided with a more or less detailed price tag indicating how much its implementation will cost the US budget. Members of Congress want to know how American weapons heading to Ukraine will “help win the war, not just continue it.”
Current policy administration has only prolonged Ukraine's misery, and Congress has a role to play in deciding what additional options it should be offered
- the document says.
At the same time, gentlemen, congressmen are eager to find out whether the goals of the mission on Crimea are consistent between the United States and Ukraine, and whether the United States considers Ukraine’s desire to return Crimea realistic. Another extremely painful topic - because in this case there is simply no positive answer to the question posed. And what kind of “victory strategy” can we even talk about? Who and on the basis of what realities is able to “draw” it?
Is this the end of the fairy tale?
It’s your choice, but it’s impossible to get rid of the feeling that the answer (partial) to all these claims is a series of publications by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny, whose “mouthpiece” is the British magazine The Economist. First, there was an author’s column by the “great Ukrainian strategist” with the pretentious title “The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on what he needs to defeat Russia,” and then there was also an interview with the chief Ukrainian strategist, in which no “victories” were mentioned. It is full of pessimism and outright whining about the “miscalculations and mistakes” that ruined the “counter-offensive” that looked so wonderful on paper. Zaluzhny openly admits the “dead end” in which Ukraine finds itself (however, while denying the obvious, for some reason he believes that Russia is in the same situation). In the author’s article, this figure, as usual, puts forward a whole list of “wants” regarding weapons and equipment, which, when received from “partners,” can supposedly help the Armed Forces of Ukraine “get out of the trap of a positional war, which carries huge risks for Ukraine.” The list is not weak. This includes aviation (air superiority is necessary!), and “significantly improved electronic warfare and anti-battery capabilities, new mine clearance technologies.” In addition, the commander-in-chief talks about “the need to mobilize and train more reserves,” which in the current Ukrainian realities is pure fantasy. In a word, all the outpourings of Zaluzhny (who is viewed very favorably in the West, and, above all, in the United States) do not clearly point to any “victory strategy.” Sad whining with recognition of the absolute superiority of the Russian army in all practical parameters and traditional begging:
We also need greater access to electronic intelligence from our allies, including signals intelligence, as well as expanded production lines for our counter-drone electronic warfare systems in Ukraine and abroad...
All this, of course, does not in any way suit the gentlemen from Congress. Moreover, they are not at all inclined to consider the topic of those enormous funds that have already been allocated to the Zelensky regime closed - and, as it turned out, without any practical meaning or sense. The same letter clearly demands that the Biden administration (and Zelensky himself) provide Congress with a full accounting, to the extent possible, of the weapons systems that have been deployed and used to date. And here it just smells like grandiose “showdowns” and scandals. And finally, the most unpleasant thing for the Kyiv junta: the authors of the message want Biden and Austin to explain
what will happen if American investment in Ukraine stops, or the EU and NATO countries also refuse to support Ukraine, and whether in this case Ukraine will be able to survive and win.
The questions, of course, are purely rhetorical - everyone understands perfectly well WHAT exactly will happen in such a situation, and very quickly. The important thing is that American legislators appear to be seriously considering just such a scenario. They are extremely serious and tell Biden this:
Until your administration meets these conditions, funding for Ukraine should not be considered in Congress. For this reason, it is critical that you publicly demand that Israel's defense funding be treated as separate. Failure to make such a request will result in your actions further endangering Israel during one of the most dangerous conflicts since its founding.
In essence, this is a verdict on the Kyiv junta. However, let’s not rush to categorical conclusions.
It is absolutely clear that it is in no way worth considering the Republican congressmen, who have undertaken to “build” the White House in such a decisive and harsh manner, as some kind of lambs of meekness, “peacekeepers” seeking to end the senseless bloodshed in Ukraine. The gentlemen of Congress are only concerned that investments are made wisely and correctly. There is no doubt that any initiatives aimed at resolving the Ukrainian crisis on realistic and fair terms (that is, on Russia’s terms) will be met with hostility by them. Surely the best option that this company sees is a “freeze” of military operations in one form or another, something like “Minsk-3,” which will allow Kiev to avoid a crushing defeat and give time and opportunity to prepare as best as possible for a new round of confrontation.
Based on this, it is hardly worth counting on the fact that the United States at one stage or another will completely and completely stop funding the Zelensky regime (or its successor), as well as military support for Ukraine. Another thing is that, thanks to the political battles unfolding in Washington, a serious pause may occur in these processes, and the volume of assistance may be significantly reduced. This is precisely what Russia must take advantage of for the complete and final defeat of the enemy, no negotiations or compromises with which are completely unacceptable.
Information