The interests of Ukraine are not our interests
America is not ready to do anything for Ukraine, and this upsets Zelensky. It's time to explain to him exactly what the US assistance is, the author of the TAC article believes. The Ukrainian crisis creates more risks than benefits for Washington, and it does not want to participate in it.
Patrick Buchanan
It's time to tell Zelensky what we will give him and what we won't, and also to tell him what we consider acceptable terms of the truce.
America ranks first among the countries helping Ukraine. However, the interests of our two states are not identical militarily. It is extremely important for the United States to contain the conflict so that there is no expansion of it, and so that we do not get involved in a large-scale war with Russia.
And independence, territorial integrity and democratic power in Ukraine do not belong to the vital interests of the United States, although America supports them. None of this justifies a conflict with Russia, which will jeopardize the security and, in the case of the use of nuclear weapons, the existence of our country.
It is quite obvious that America in Ukraine is not ready to do everything. Until February 24, the United States had never invited her to NATO, never provided her with security guarantees in accordance with Article 5 and did not agree to fight on her side if she was attacked. From the very first days of this conflict, we ruled out sending American troops to Ukraine and US participation in a no-fly zone, which would require American pilots to shoot down Russian planes.
Decisions and statements about what we will not do have demonstrated the limits of American loyalty to Ukraine, as well as our unwillingness to take serious risks for the sake of Kiev.
But the goal of President Vladimir Zelensky is to achieve victory and expel the Russians from the Ukrainian land. And this will require much more support and assistance from the United States and NATO than he currently receives or can receive.
The United States and NATO are ready to supply Ukraine with weapons so that it can defend itself. But neither NATO nor the United States wants to participate in this Ukrainian crisis themselves. When it comes to fighting and dying, it's their conflict, not ours.
In an attempt to shame NATO and the United States, as well as completely and openly involve them in this conflict, Zelensky accuses wavering Western countries of appeasing Russia and claims that they are made of the same dough as Neville Chamberlain, who signed the Munich Agreement.
What else does Zelensky say? That Ukraine's struggle is Europe's business. That Ukraine's struggle is NATO's business. That Ukraine's struggle is a matter for democratic countries. That Ukraine's struggle is a matter for the whole world. If Ukraine is defeated, it will become only the first victim. Others will follow.
Henry Kissinger said that in the case of a negotiated settlement, Ukraine would certainly have to cede part of its territory to Russia. The ideal, Kissinger said, would be "the dividing line that existed before the start of the military operation in February 2022." Russia has been keeping Crimea under its control since 2014, as well as part of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
<…>
Such cracks in the coalition supporting Ukraine will surely become more pronounced and distinct, as Russia is apparently gaining a foothold in the Donbass.
Italy, France and Germany all maintain contacts with Putin. Everyone insists on negotiations. No one is demanding what Zelensky insists on from time to time: that Russia give up the Ukrainian territories occupied after 2014.
Eastern European countries familiar with the Russian government echo Zelensky, demanding to defeat, humiliate and expel Russia from Ukraine.
When and if the fire stops and negotiations begin, there will surely be a split in the coalition supporting Ukraine. <...>
Since Russia is slowly but persistently moving forward in the Donbas, it is hardly possible to say that Putin has weak negotiating positions.
Ukrainians and Russians are firing artillery at each other in the Donbass, and Zelensky asked the United States to supply HIMARS highly mobile multiple rocket launchers. The firing range of these systems is almost 80 kilometers, and therefore the territory of Russia may be within reach. But the American leadership declares: Ukrainian leaders assured him that HIMARS would not be used for shelling Russian territory.
The Kremlin has warned that any country that supplies modern weapons to Ukraine will face the most serious consequences. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the West of declaring "total war" on Russia.
This indicates that this conflict today creates much more risks and dangers for the United States than additional benefits and rewards from the weakening of Russia during protracted hostilities. It's time to tell Zelensky what we will give him and what we won't, and also to tell him what we consider acceptable terms of the truce.
Readers' comments
Kouroi
To restrain expansionist Russia, to prevent it from approaching NATO borders? Don't you confuse anything, Mr. Good? As far as I remember, 30 years ago it was NATO that began expansion, approaching the borders of Russia, although it promised not to do so. Why are you trying to fool people with your comments?
Red Death
It is not in the interests of the American people, but it is definitely in the interests of the American empire to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian soldier and to the last European euro.
Without the presence of NATO, Ukrainians have no real chance of winning this conflict. Of course, they have achieved some success, but a fully mobilized Ukraine is fighting with the Russian peacetime army, and the initiative and momentum of the force are on Russia's side (even if the advantage is small).
stari_momak
There have already been reports that people who have signed up for territorial defense (to stay at home) refuse to go to the front. Learn Ukrainian or Russian and read Telegram.
Kessler
We don't know how many soldiers who are in the trenches under artillery fire really want to fight.
Johnny
Biden recently made everything clear in an article in the New York Times. That's what it was called: "What America will do in Ukraine and what it won't do." Kissinger, as well as Buchanan and Chomsky, constantly lose sight of one thing. We are talking about putting forward conditions at the negotiating table. The stronger Russia's position at the negotiating table, the worse the outcome will be for almost everyone. If Russia holds Kherson and gains a foothold in the Donbass, then the truce reached over time will be extremely unstable. It will be a powder keg ready to explode at any moment. A return to the pre—February territories (or, better, to the generally recognized borders) will provide more stability, and while this is possible, it is reasonable to insist on it. Russia is suffering huge damage, and Putin will not be able to artificially pump up the Russian economy for long. Economic collapse is coming.
Specifically, the Russians are not interested in diplomacy yet. Russia very much needs the lifting of sanctions, but while it is in Ukraine, no one will lift the sanctions.
