Prepare For Ukraine To Be Betrayed
It’s what America does to every ally, sooner or later — the New York Times editorial board is setting the stage for history to repeat yet again.
EDIT November 11, 2022: Slowly but surely, despite Ukraine’s battlefield triumphs, the Biden Administration is muscling Kyiv towards a ceasefire that will only give Putin a chance to prepare for another round.
What do the Kurds, Syrian rebels, Shia of southern Iraq, and South Vietnamese all have in common?
Being left in the lurch by the United States of America.
Fear of a nuclear exchange is driving the United States into a self-inflicted paradox. After proclaiming Vladimir Putin to be the evil thug he has certainly proven himself to be by assaulting Ukraine, even going so far as to openly compare him to Hitler, America’s leaders are still holding back full support for Kyiv.
They simply aren’t giving Ukraine the modern gear it needs to retake the territories Russia has seized — places where every indication the world has is that Moscow is acting with genocidal intent. Whole populations are being “filtered” and distributed across Russia. So many people have been slaughtered in Mariupol, where Russia constantly interfered with evacuation efforts, that a nuclear bomb may as well have struck the place.
Now the New York Times Editorial Board, perhaps the most imperialist and least trustworthy influence on the planet after Russian or Chinese state media, is telling Ukraine to prepare to give up territory in exchange for peace. This despite there being absolutely no guarantee Putin won’t just start up the war again in another year or two.
I have to give the Kyiv Independent credit — they published a reply that is almost perfect. I agree with close to all of it — something quite rare for me to see in journalism!
More or less, the New York Times — which very likely is acting as a mouthpiece for the Biden Administration — wants Ukraine to accept a bitter peace involving the surrender of places Russia took in 2014, like Crimea, to prevent any chance of the war going nuclear.
See, America’s delusional foreign policy circles have decided that Putin is vanquished because he lost an obsolete cruiser and a whole lot of tanks. They evaluate the conflict through a special kind of rose-colored glasses, always seeing America’s inevitable victory nearly at hand. No amount of evidence will dissuade them — they are as caught up in groupthink as Putin’s inner circle in Moscow.
So they’re happily congratulating themselves on having won an epic victory, while nervously wondering what old Putin does next. Because if he truly is on the ropes, clinging to power and ill, and if he is crazy as they constantly insist, then why would he refrain from taking the whole world down with him?
The search is now on for an exit from the conflict, a way to manage it so that America’s alleged victory is preserved and Russia remains permanently weakened, yet not so badly that it goes nuclear. The mentality of the kinds of people who become part of the D.C. Blob does not allow for critical self-reflection, so they can’t see that Russia is unlikely to act the way they insist it rationally should.
Putin has absolutely no reason to back away from the conflict now, and even though the initial offensive to encircle Donbas has failed thanks to Ukraine’s excellent defense, he’s not giving up.
Under the butcher of Aleppo, Russia is reverting to Syria-style scorched Earth tactics that are killing up to a hundred Ukrainian soldiers every day. Russia is acting like it always does when faced with military setbacks — dragoon anyone the regime can into the military then send them in waves backed by massive fire support.
More or less, what Stalin’s savaged legions did to Finland after the plucky Finns smashed his initial invasion during the Winter War. Instead of quitting, Soviet Russia simply kept up the pressure over the course of several months and fed soldiers to the guns until the Mannerheim line finally broke. Only Sweden came to help Finland then — part of those countries’ enduring bond, it seems.
The solution the New York Times floated is what I believed necessary back in February to prevent the war in the first place: Ukraine gives up Donbas and Crimea. At the time, this appeared necessary to prevent the loss of Ukraine’s best fighting forces and eliminate any excuse Putin had for launching a broader invasion. Thousands of lives were at stake, and had Ukraine tried this or even a full return to the Minsk protocols, the war might not have happened.
But that was then — now Ukraine has proven the military balance of power is far different than anyone thought. And given what Putin has proven willing to do to destroy the Zelensky regime — an objective I explicitly identified weeks before the war — it now seems likely this would only have delayed the big invasion to summer.
Of course, this would have been even easier to beat, especially if the cession of Donbas was followed by extensive military aid to preserve Ukraine’s armed neutrality. Yet there would still have been a war, made inevitable by NATO expanding eastward for twenty years while pretending this wasn’t aimed at containing Russia despite American pundits constantly suggesting NATO do exactly this.
Here are a couple excerpts from a policy brief written by Richard N. Haass for the esteemed Brookings Institution in 1997.
First, towards the beginning:
“There are strong arguments for enlarging the alliance, above all securing the democratic and Western orientation of selected former Warsaw Pact states and hedging against political uncertainty in Russia.
But there are arguments at least as strong against enlargement. Expanding NATO could complicate its ability to achieve consensus, weaken the security of those countries not brought in, increase demands on defense budgets when they are already overstretched, and alienate Russia. In the process, Europe’s security could well diminish, not grow…
This debate is increasingly moot…
Second, at the end:
The fact is that NATO’s future will be determined in large part by Russia’s future conduct — something that Russians need to understand.”
NATO has for decades been focused on Russia. It was known that expansion might trigger a reaction in Russia.
Add NATO’s refusal to go the way of the Warsaw Pact after the end of the Cold War to Putin’s mad desire to be the next Stalin and you can see the real reasons why this horrible conflict was probably inevitable. Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan and Trump’s coup attempt the same year simply gave Putin the clearest signs he could ever want that America is weak and can be relied on to lose interest in its ally if the cost gets too high or uncertainty to great.
And as inflation bites, Americans are tiring of the focus on Ukraine. The betrayal has begun.
The Biden Administration is only using Ukraine, like Obama used the Kurds to beat ISIS. Any sensible person has to look at Biden’s enduring unpopularity, the inflexibility of political opinions in the US, and Trump’s continued popularity among a Republican Party determined to control the federal government at any cost, and see the need for Ukraine to have a backup plan.
I know this hurts to hear, but America doesn’t truly care about Ukraine. Many people in America do, sure — there are 333 million people… wait, thanks to Covid-19, make that 332 million. Anyway, the soul of America as a State on the world stage is best expressed not by the will of its people but by none other than Henry Kissinger, who also seeks accommodation with Russia.
It’s funny how the people who go around insisting they do everything for Democracy!(tm) turn around and disregard the will of the people of Ukraine, isn’t it? 80% are willing to continue the war despite it harming them the most directly.
At the same time, big, tough America is so daunted by the fear of taking any casualties or triggering a conflict with Russia, that America’s foreign policy elites constantly insist NATO would easily win, it won’t send long range rocket launchers to better equip Ukraine’s forces.
Never mind that these would let Ukraine stop Russian guns from pummeling cities into the dust and killing its soldiers — no, it isn’t happening because Biden fears this would be seen as more of an escalation than giving intelligence to Ukraine that helps it target Russian officers.
This cowardly chickenhawk is willing to spill Ukrainian blood indefinitely without giving its fighters the equipment they need to minimize their own casualties. Truth be told, this sudden talk of ceasefire is all a ruse — the real objective is to maintain the status quo to bleed Russia indefinitely.
Telling Ukraine it needs to accept territorial concessions for peace is a way of pressuring its leaders to stop asking for better gear. But this position is morally and ethically unsustainable, for those who care about such things.
America’s leaders are telling Ukrainians that their lives are less valuable then those of Americans. This despite the United States having as big of a nuclear arsenal and a far stronger military than Russia does.
You want the definition of cowardice, that runs pretty darn close. In truth the only hope of bringing Putin to the peace table is Ukraine demonstrating the capability to reverse his gains in at least Kherson province through superior military power.
Frankly, I doubt the war can end until Putin is gone. The only way that happens is if Russia’s military turns on him, which is only possible if its leaders know they can’t win but also can’t admit that to Tsar Vlad without losing their heads.
It would also help if a vision for post-Putin Russia could be developed that reforms the Russian government to be less centralized without stoking Russian fears this is a NATO ploy to dismember the country. A series of confederated Republics centered on major cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and half a dozen others is likely ideal and something military commanders might sign onto.
But before this is possible Russia’s military must know it stands to be not only defeated, but even driven back across its own border. And that can only happen if Ukraine gets all the modern gear it needs to win without having to lose tens of thousands more lives.
Either support Ukraine for real, or GTFO.
And let a real security organization truly committed to the defense of Europe against all threats rise.
Heck, depending on how bad things get in 2025, many Blue States might need their help to defend their own freedoms.