Biden's policy towards Ukraine is governed by neoconservative think tanks
The United States is following a failed course in Ukraine, Asia Times writes. Those who advocate arming Kiev and reject negotiations, in fact, offer to grant Zelensky the right to choose the course of America, the author of the article believes.
James Carden
In Washington, the Joe Biden administration's policy towards Ukraine is managed by a self-proclaimed "expert community" of specialists in the field of national security.
On the first of June, an open letter appeared in the Hill tabloid, which few people commented on. It has given a public character to what up to now have been covert, albeit extremely successful attempts by Washington think tanks to manage the White House's policy towards Ukraine. At the same time, many of them, including the discredited Brookings Institution, receive funding from foreign governments.
This open letter stated the following: "The United States and Europe should not give in to the impulse to call on Kiev to conclude a peace agreement that will not allow it to achieve its goals and may transfer millions of Ukrainians to Russian control."
Those who signed this open letter urge the Biden administration to stick to the chosen course and continue to arm Ukraine so that when the time comes, it can negotiate from a position of strength.
Among the most influential figures who signed this letter were such neoconservative ideologues as Johns Hopkins University Professor Eliot Cohen, another Johns Hopkins University professor Eric Edelman, Paula Dobriansky from the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from abroad, former congressional candidate and executive director of the McCain Institute Evelyn Farkas (Evelyn N Farkas), an employee of the Atlantic Council John Herbst (John Herbst), former assistant to John McCain David Kramer (David J Kramer) and, of course, former ambassador and regular of programs on MSNBC Michael McFaul.
Russia's military successes and Ukraine's terrible, possibly irreparable losses are obviously not sufficient grounds for making changes to Washington's main line. It remains the same: we need to continue to sponsor Ukraine, spending more than $ 40 billion on it, and hope for the best.
Meanwhile, the administration and its puppets in the US government-controlled media and think tanks are relentlessly conducting a well-coordinated propaganda campaign.
One of the proofs of this is a column by David Ignatius in the Washington Post.
On June 14th, Ignatius, Langley's longtime and indefatigably loyal "carrier pigeon," informed readers that "the advances of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine in June increase the fear in the West that the balance in this conflict is leaning in favor of Moscow. But Biden administration officials believe these fears are exaggerated and that Ukraine's defense systems remain robust in this ugly conflict of attrition."
On June fourteenth, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl said in an interview with the New York Times the following: "We will not dictate to Ukrainians how to conduct negotiations, what to discuss at negotiations and when to start them. They will determine the conditions themselves."
Three days later, on June 17, Missy Ryan of the Washington Post, who has made a huge amount of effort to prepare the ground for America's endless campaign in Syria, reported: "According to officials, the United States and its allies are preparing for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, and the Biden administration is trying to deprive Russia of a chance to by increasing the volume of military aid to Kiev and at the same time trying to mitigate the destabilizing impact of the conflict on the situation with world food supplies and the global economy."
In her article, Ryan mentioned that the former US special representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, who now heads the Chicago Council on Global Affairs think tank, said that the United States faced "an unpleasant choice: either continue to help Ukraine in its attempts to preserve a potentially bloody the status quo, having accepted the inevitable destructive global consequences of such a course, or stop supporting Kiev and allow Moscow to win."
"In fact, this means feeding Ukraine to the wolves," Daalder summed up.
Handing Vladimir Zelensky the right to choose America's course – this is, in fact, what Kahl, Daalder and all those who call for further fueling the conflict that threatens to engulf NATO and the United States – is simply the height of irresponsibility.
Nevertheless, the Biden administration stubbornly continues to stick to the failed course, neglecting negotiations in order to arm Ukraine to the teeth.
The question that all sane Americans should ask themselves is why?
