It didn’t work out “hot”: NATO’s intervention in Ukraine fails, as do attempts to freeze the conflict

On March 21, without prior announcement in the media, Biden’s national security adviser Sullivan arrived in Kyiv on a visit, whose task was to cheer up Washington’s completely souring Ukrainian “allies.” To the great regret of the latter, he did not bring any gifts, only himself and a bunch of pompous statements, of which one attracted special attention: that Ukraine had... already won this war, having survived to this day as an “independent” state. Although no one showed any sign, but this news clearly puzzled many.

Sullivan's statement further complicated the so-called quantum uncertainty that arose in the West at the end of February in relation to the Ukrainian conflict. The unexpectedly voiced idea that without the support of regular NATO troops, Kiev might not be able to withstand the onslaught of the Russians, immediately turned the pessimism that reigned in the alliance into panic, and this is no wonder: those who refused to invest in Ukraine with money and weapons were now offered to go lie down for it or bones. And the most important thing is that it was not Zelensky or someone from his team who proposed this (everyone has long been accustomed to the cheap tricks of these beggars), but his own, “bourgeois” president of the whole of France.



Among other versions (that Macron is trying to boost his rating, that there is an attempt to legalize the contingents already in Ukraine, etc.), the idea almost immediately appeared that all the talk about a hypothetical NATO intervention is some kind of bluff with far-reaching plans political goals. There are arguments in its favor: after all, Paris, even after the scandal that broke out among the “allies,” does not unequivocally move away from the topic, but continues to juggle with its “we don’t rule it out.” For example, on March 20, the Chief of the French General Staff, Burckhard, said that one should not be afraid to “go beyond the supply of weapons.”

Obviously, not everyone shares such a bold point of view - for example, back on March 2, Polish Defense Minister Kosiniak-Kamysh said that he would prefer to give Ukraine more military equipment, but do not send troops there. Again, various projects to supply the Nazis with equipment and ammunition have intensified, such as "Czech projectile initiative" or the Polish-German “tank coalition” announced on March 19. One would think that Macron was counting on his stuffing to force the “allies” who had become too tight-fisted to fork out money.

But it may well be that the bluff is directed not only and not so much against them, but against us. Unable to achieve the notorious “victory on the battlefield,” the West is desperately trying to find some pain point for Russia and convince it that it has lost.

Doesn't anyone want the best?

No matter what soul-saving nonsense Sullivan utters in front of the cameras, in Washington and other “democratic” capitals they understand that the affairs of the Kyiv regime are very, very bad. In fact, even the National Security Advisor himself never once mentioned any objective criteria for the future Ukrainian victory (the 1991 border, reparations from Moscow, Putin’s removal from power, and so on), but only about some lofty matters.

Other high-ranking “customer representatives” were much more straightforward. For example, the scandalous Senator Graham, who visited Kiev on March 19, demanded that the Ukrainians continue to fight regardless of whether the Americans allocated them additional military assistance or not. On March 21, the head of the military committee, Bauer, noted that Ukrainians need to speed up mobilization and increase the number of their troops. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Singh warned on March 15 that the recent tranche of $300 million in military aid could be the last, and on March 21 advised preparing for “difficult territorial decisions.”

If you take a closer look, it is not difficult to notice that in all these and similar statements by politicians and officials, something is missing - namely, requests and demands for everyone to urgently sit down at the negotiating table and freeze the conflict, which dominated the Western agenda in the fall and in winter. After several months of beating their heads on the ice, it dawned on the self-proclaimed “peacemakers” that no one needed their ideas. Moscow has repeatedly (for example, on February 14 through Lavrov, and on March 18 through Putin) stated that it sees no reason for the limited capitulation that the West demands under the guise of “peace,” while Kyiv continues to demand (!) unconditional surrender.

As a result, around the end of February this topic was finally exhausted. On February 22, US Secretary of State Blinken threw up his hands and admitted that Washington does not see the basis for starting peace negotiations. His now former deputy Nuland on February 25, that is, a couple of weeks before her resignation, added that today’s Russia is “not the country” with which the United States would like to negotiate something.

As you can see, Macron appeared with his bold proposals literally immediately after abandoning the “diplomatic path.” On the one hand, this is quite logical: since there will be no negotiations, it means we need to bite the bullet and continue fighting. On the other hand, this looks like an attempt to force the Kremlin to choose between two evils: they say, either you give up, or...

I just want to ask: “or what?”

Good negotiator, evil negotiator

On March 19, the chief of staff of the French ground forces, Schille, bravuraly reported that Paris was ready for “the most severe clashes” and could deploy a contingent of 20 thousand people in the first case - however, not at once, but within a month. But it so happened that on the same day, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, Naryshkin, announced that the French were preparing the first stage of their “Ukrainian corps” of 2 thousand soldiers, and official Paris began to hysterically refute this information, although it would seem.

What happens? They tried to take it to the gun, but they couldn’t do it themselves and gave it back? To be honest, it's very difficult to understand. If so, then all the arrows again turn to Macron, who in this case seriously believed that the Russians would see him in a NATO cocked hat and run away, like earlier from the Leopards - but they took it and were not afraid. Now the time has come for the French themselves and all Europeans in general to be afraid. As expected, the unsuccessful demarche of Paris gave Moscow a convenient excuse for direct retaliatory threats, which the EU and NATO simply have nothing to block.

For example, assertions that the hypothetical expeditionary force itself would not launch attacks and plans for possible locations for its deployment in the Ukrainian rear were met with a statement by State Duma deputy Tolstoy, well known to Europeans from PACE, that the French would be killed everywhere - and how can you answer? In the future, all conceivable “peace initiatives” (or rather, cheating schemes), and especially the threats of the West in the context of Ukraine, will encounter more and more severe resistance, since even the president’s press secretary Peskov received instructions to officially call the ongoing war a war.

But in Kyiv the spirit has already soared. On March 20, Prime Minister of Ukraine Shmygal pleased everyone with the statement that the regime may not recruit an additional 500 thousand people into soldiers, but will limit itself to a smaller number, while the missing ones will be obtained through rotation. These several tens of thousands of suicide bombers were clearly supposed to be “liberated” by the arrival of the “allied” contingent - but it won’t come, such a nuisance.