SAUL LOEB/AFP
This New York Times piece epitomizes the dangerous delusion underlying the brouhaha over the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office fiasco and the “West’s” Ukraine project in general:
Here are the highlights:
The gathering took on greater urgency after Mr. Zelensky’s heated Oval Office meeting with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance on Friday raised fears the U.S. would try to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into making a peace deal on whatever terms the Americans dictated…
Mr. Starmer told the BBC that he, Mr. Zelensky and President Emmanuel Macron of France had agreed they “would work on a plan for stopping the fighting and then discuss that plan with the U.S.” Any peace agreement “is going to need a U.S. backstop,” Mr. Starmer added, saying that British and U.S. teams were discussing the idea…
Mr. Zelensky “found every opportunity to try to ‘Ukraine-splain’ on every issue,” Mr. Rubio told on ABC News, “
Can you guess what’s missing here? Once Zelensky and the
Europeans craft a plan, they have to present it to the U.S.?
They're afraid the U.S. is going to dictate difficult terms of a
peace deal to Ukraine?
News flash: If anybody is going to dictate tough terms or a
peace deal to Ukraine, it will be Russia, not the U.S.—and certainly not
the Europe of Macron and Starmer. Russia is winning the war on the battlefield.
Russia has defeated the largest and best-equipped US/NATO army in Europe,
manned by Ukrainians. Russia has set forth its specific objectives and its conditions for a
ceasefire and negotiation (if Zelensky ever removes his self-imposed ban on
negotiating with Russia). Any plan that Starmer,
Macron, Zelensky, and/or Trump “present” to Russia that ignores the
Russian position will be dismissed by Lavrov and Putin. They hold the cards.
The Europeans (at least, Starmer and Macron) still presume
that they, the Euro American Masters of the Universe, having negotiated the definitive
“peace plan” among themselves, will then have Donald Trump, Grandmaster of the Universe,
“present” it to the Russians, who will accept it as the default position to
which they will have to accommodate themselves. They cannot imagine that the
Russians will look at a plan the president of the United States presents them and
tell him, politely, to shove it.
It is delusional, Euro-American, self-centered arrogance.
Starmer, Macron, and Zelensky are projecting their own lapdog relation to the
U.S. onto Russia. They just cannot believe the Russian bear is not intimidated
by their kennel. They cannot imagine a world in which they don’t set the terms.
Surprising and strange as it is to say, it seems
(don’t count any chickens yet) that Trump does understand that Russia is an powerful
independent actor, in a dominant position in this situation and worthy of
respect in general—the country that is going to make a peace deal, not
have one “presented” to it.
The central point of what’s been going on with Macron, Starmer, and Zelensky over the last week, which culminated in the Oval Office slamfest, was stated by Starmer: “Any peace agreement [the lapdogs concoct] is going to need a U.S. backstop.” Which is pipsqueak for: “The war is lost unless the U.S. joins it.”
The deal about Ukraine’s fictional “rare earths” (or “raw earths,” per Trump),
which was first proposed by Zelensky months ago and was supposed to be signed
on Friday, really had only one purpose: to bring the U.S. fully into
the war against Russia as a “backstop” to “peacekeepers” from some Anglo-French
led “coalition of the willing.” ” That is what any “security guarantee” means
and they all know it. That’s
effectively a“security guarantee” to Ukraine that will inevitably get the U.S. forces
into combat, and they all know it. Zelensky
has always known that he had to get direct U.S. military involvement in the
war. He is frantic about the possibility—now virtual certainty— that’s not going to happen,
not in the cards.
During their meeting in Kiev, Zelensky was shouting at Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent when he
insisted on removing any such guarantee from the rare-earth deal, and Trump
also firmly rejected any such security guarantee when Macron and Starmer came
to Washington in advance of Zelensky and tried to coax Trump into it. Zelensky
arrived in D.C. having reluctantly agreed to sign the “rare earth” deal without
any security guarantee, because Macron and Starmer persuaded him the deal would
at least bind Trump to him, and that they/ would work on Trump to get the guarantee
later.
Zelensky had that deal in the bag, but he could not stop
himself from relitigating it in front of the press for forty minutes,
culminating in the blow-up when he challenged Vance on the impossibility of
diplomacy with Putin. Now, he’s huddling with Macron, Starmer, and selected (By
whom? On what criteria?) European leaders, trying to revive the “backstop” idea
again. They can’t take “No!” for an answer, and Macron and Starmer are heading
toward the same treatment Zelensky got from the big dog tired of his bitches
yipping at his heels.
All of this demonstrates exactly what NATO is, exactly what
the Ukraine project has been, and exactly what the situation in the
Ukraine-Russia conflict is.
NATO is a front for U.S. imperialism It is a creature of the U.S.
and nothing without the U.S. The other counties in NATO are politically
subservient to and militarily dependent on the U.S. The major NATO countries
begging for a U.S. “backstop” makes that clear.
The Ukraine project has been a U.S./NATO—i.e.,
U.S.—project for regime change in Russia.
With the maidan coup, the ensuing civil war, and the
building up of US/NATO army, Ukraine became a totally compliant and dependent
pawn, used to weaken Russia. Since the Donbass republics’ declarations of
independence and the Russian military intervention on their behalf, the U.S./NATO
have been in a war with Russia, albeit in a limited way—“limited” to
arming, funding, directing, and doing everything except explicitly putting
contingents of uniformed fighters on the ground and in the air.
The U.S. thought it could use that war to quickly bring
regime change in Russia without too much fighting, via “sanction from hell,”
which, they assumed, Russia was too economically weak to endure. The
oligarchs will overthrow Putin!
When that failed, the U.S./NATO thought a further massive
buildup of the Ukrainian military would do the trick. They provided various
wonder weapons and organized daring offensives that would kill so many Russians
that the people will revolt, and the oligarchs and generals will overthrow
Putin.
The purpose of the Ukraine project for the U.S. has always
been to strategically defeat Russia by getting rid of Putin—as they got rid of
Gaddafi and Saddam and Yanukovich—and turning Russia back into a subalternized
Western-worshipping Yeltsin-esque failed state, ultimately to be dismembered.
Ukraine was never anything but a tool for that. When, in
April 2022, Zelensky was about to sign a deal and opt out of this project, the
U.S. sent its British sheepdog to bring him to heel. BoJo told him that
US/NATO/Europe would abandon him if he signed, but would supply him with
everything he needed to win if he stayed in the war.
It has all failed. It has failed militarily, economically,
and politically.
It’s Europe’s economy that has been devastated. It’s
European militaries that have disarmed themselves. It’s European and American
politics that are in turmoil. It’s Ukraine and Zelensky that have no hope to
avoid defeat and some kind of serious regime change. Russia is more
economically and militarily powerful than ever. Putin is more firmly in
command.
The war in Ukraine is lost, and crucially for the U.S., its fundamental
objective—regime change in Russia—has failed, conclusively. There is no
hope of making that happen. So, no more need for Zelensky’s (or Ukraine’s)
services.
As I’ve been saying
since the start of the SMO: “the only negotiations are over terms of
surrender. Of one side or the other. After a decisive military defeat”—and
it’s not Russia that’s defeated. The result of this war will be the
capitulation of Kiev.
The Europeans just cannot believe this. Zelenskyy, who may
have thought the US/NATO was in this for his or Ukraine’s sake, just cannot
accept it. The fact that they're begging
for an indispensable U.S. “backstop”
means that they do know it, even if they can't admit publicly—or to themselves—that
they do. The only thing they think might reverse this is the U.S. going
from limited to full-scale war with Russia.
Except that Donald Trump does seem to have accepted the
reality. Indeed, he seems to be entirely uninterested in the project of regime
change in Russia, and willing to deal with Russia as a respected international actor.
The whole project that was conceived, financed, supplied, and directed by the U.S.
through its NATO and Ukrainian proxies cannot continue unless the United States
is willing to go to full-on war with Russia, and the current United States
president is—as the last one said he was—opposed to doing any such thing. If
that's the case, Zelensky, et. al., yapping at his heels will not get them
anything but a kick to the curb.
If Zelensky wanted to make a pointed argument, he could say:
“How dare you complain about me coming to beg for help from you again. I was
ready to sign a deal with the Russians three years and half-a-million
casualties ago and it was the U.S. government, via its British agent, who warned
me not to and assured me that if I didn't it would give me everything I
needed to win! You're reneging on your government’s promise and stranding me in
an impossible position that you put me in. And you call me ‘ungrateful!’!”
Europeans, too, could say: “You—the United States
government—insisted we hobble our economies with sanctions and exploded
pipelines, and that we disarm ourselves by sending all our military equipment
to Ukraine, in order to continue the war. And now you’re walking away from this
project you had us commit to, and leaving us with the damage it inflicted on us!”
But they can't say that, because they know what the response
is, they've already heard in their heads, and they don’t want the embarrassment
of hearing it said out loud: “First. that was Biden’s United States government;
this is mine. Second, even he said under no circumstances will the U.S. go to
war with Russia. Were you counting on talking him into that? Third, you chose
to follow the orders of the United States government and be its lapdog, and you
still are. So, however unfair you think it is, it's my decision. I'm not going
to full-on war with Russia, which is what you want me to do. I'm going to
withdraw entirely from the limited war we are now in and from the whole project
of isolating and regime-changing Russia. Stop nipping at my heels and deal with
it.”
Trump has already essentially said that to Zelensky, and If
they keep nipping, the Europeans will hear it out loud, too. It’s a tough
lesson that Kissinger gave: “it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to
be America's friend is fatal”
This isn’t about whether Trump is bullying or hypocritical,
or whether Zelensky is shabbily dressed and ungrateful. It’s about one thing: Will
the United States go to war with Russia to prevent Ukraine from losing this
conflict? Anyone who thinks the U.S. should, has the responsibility to make
that case to the people and bring it to a vote of the Congress for a
declaration of war. That’s not a decision to be made or Emmanuel Macron, Keir
Starmer. or Donald Trump. inserting a clause in a “rare earth” deal, or
by Zelensky hectoring American leaders at a press conference. Any antiwar
“progressive” or leftist who railed against previous undeclared regime-change
wars should understand that. Is there any one of them who thinks the American
people really want that?
As I said, it seems Trump, for whatever reason, is
going to be adamant about avoiding that. He seems to be deciding that the
United States is no longer a party to the conflict that the U.S. started,
promoted and has been a limited co-belligerent in for three years. Is that
unfair? To whom? To the parties the U.S. fooled into going along with it? Is it
more fair, or better in any way, to take the next step to full-scale war being
demanded by the fools in the deadly fools’ game the U.S. created? Because that is
exactly what Zelensky stans and “security guarantee” proponents of the left,
right, and center are advocating.
The Trump team has talked with Russia about things related
to re-establishing normal diplomatic relations, but has not publicly proposed
any specific terms with Russia about how to end the Ukraine conflict. Trump
seems to be recognizing that, if he’s leaving the conflict, best leave that to
the parties directly involved—Russia and Ukraine (Europe, note, counts for
nothing)—to figure out. He seems to be suggesting that he’ll take one shot for
some kind of ceasefire deal, but if either party rejects it, he’s out and it’s
on them to “fight it out.” He seems ready, in other words—and this would be a
politically astute move—to just walk away from the whole Ukraine project and
blame it on Biden. All is fair.
I hope he does, and I’ll credit him for it if so—even as
I’ll denounce him for a myriad of outrages, including being the obsequious
genocidal cuck of the genocidal Zionist project to which he so gratefully gives
all or America’s cards. But it’s a lot of “seems” from me. I cannot entirely
trust that Trump will accept what he will be told is, and will be, an
indisputable capitulation to Russia and a death blow to NATO.
Trump has the Ukraine project and NATO hanging by a thread
and he’s twirling the scissors. But it
ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
_________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be lightly moderated, with disfavor for personal attacks and stunning irrelevancies, and deference to the trenchant and amusing.